Friday March 17 7:35 PM ET
"South Park" has declared war on Scientology. Matt Stone and Trey Parker, creators of the animated satire, are digging in against the celebrity-endorsed religion after a controversial episode mocking outspoken Scientologist Tom Cruise was yanked abruptly from the schedule Wednesday with an Internet report saying it was covert warfare by Cruise that led to its departure.
"So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun!" the "South Park" creators said in a statement Friday in Daily Variety. "Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies... You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail!"
The Internet blogger hollywoodinterrupted.com said Thursday that Cruise threatened to not promote "Mission: Impossible 3," a surefire summer blockbuster, if the offending episode ran. Comedy Central is owned by Viacom, as is Paramount, which is putting out the film.
But Cruise's representative, Arnold Robinson, told The Associated Press Friday that the mega-star made no such demands.
"Not true," Robinson said. "I can tell you that he never said that."
A call by The Associated Press to a Paramount representative was not returned Friday.
The episode in question, "Trapped in the Closet," which first aired last November, shows Scientology leaders hailing Stan, one of the show's four devilish fourth-graders, as a savior. A cartoon Cruise locks himself in a closet and won't come out. An animated John Travolta, another famous Scientologist, enters the closet to try to get him out.
The battle began in earnest earlier this week when Isaac Hayes, another celebrity Scientologist and longtime show member voicing the ladies' man Chef quit the show, saying he could no longer tolerate its religious "intolerance and bigotry."
Stone and Parker didn't buy that either.
On Monday, Stone told The Associated Press, "This is 100 percent having to do with his faith in Scientology...He has no problem and he's cashed plenty of checks with our show making fun of Christians."
A Comedy Central spokesman said Friday that the network pulled the controversial episode to make room for two shows featuring Hayes.
"In light of the events of earlier this week, we wanted to give Chef an appropriate tribute by airing two episodes he is most known for," the spokesman said.
2006/03/18
Governments should be afraid of there people
Going to see the movie tonight. Can't wait. I was a big fan of the graphic novel
2006/03/17
Afghanistan: The Other War
Christian Parenti
Our Humvee jolts and sways against another cold dirt track in Parwan Province, an hour north of Kabul. On the road thin shadows from barren winter orchards lie like dark lacework and flicker across the Humvee's hood and windshield.
A landscape of adobe-walled villages, empty fields, horse carts and dramatic sharp mountains slides by. Inside the armored Humvee we listen to music on a dusty iPod and two speakers that are jacked into the vehicle's nervous system. Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama" rolls up on the iPod. The lyrics, though older than most of the soldiers on this patrol, capture the squad's mix of homesickness and political cynicism: "Now Watergate does not bother me/Does your conscience bother you?" No one talks much about Afghanistan.
I am riding along with these two Humvees from the 164th Military Police Company to observe the American effort at keeping a lid on the Afghan caldron. I also want to compare US methods with those of the European troops who are taking over an ever larger part of the military mission here.
-continued-
Our Humvee jolts and sways against another cold dirt track in Parwan Province, an hour north of Kabul. On the road thin shadows from barren winter orchards lie like dark lacework and flicker across the Humvee's hood and windshield.
A landscape of adobe-walled villages, empty fields, horse carts and dramatic sharp mountains slides by. Inside the armored Humvee we listen to music on a dusty iPod and two speakers that are jacked into the vehicle's nervous system. Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama" rolls up on the iPod. The lyrics, though older than most of the soldiers on this patrol, capture the squad's mix of homesickness and political cynicism: "Now Watergate does not bother me/Does your conscience bother you?" No one talks much about Afghanistan.
I am riding along with these two Humvees from the 164th Military Police Company to observe the American effort at keeping a lid on the Afghan caldron. I also want to compare US methods with those of the European troops who are taking over an ever larger part of the military mission here.
-continued-
The Bolton Archipelago
Ian Williams
A complete American isolationist may congratulate the Bush Administration and United Nations Ambassador John Bolton on his grandstanding vote Wednesday against the establishment of the UN Human Rights Council. Nobody else would.
It was a clear case of prejudice masquerading as policy, with Bolton playing to his usual gallery of Know-Nothings on one side, while also relishing briefly being on the side of Human Rights NGOs and what he considers to be the liberal New York Times in criticizing the failings of the negotiated outcome.
But taken as a poll on the Bolton-Bush stand, 170 votes to 4 epitomizes America's waning global prestige.
The three states that the United States led into the "nay" camp were Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands, which are among the highest per capita recipients of US cash in the world, along with the Federated States of Micronesia, which even Bolton couldn't bully enough. The two Pacific micro-states depend on the US Congress for almost their entire budget. There is an additional irony: For decades the United States stalled on allowing the former Trustee territory of Palau independence until it dropped clauses in its constitution that barred the United States from bringing in nuclear weapons to defend it.
Nor could one be sure that Venezuela, Belarus and Iran, the states that abstained, were necessarily part of the Administration's dream team.
In fact, for all the many compromises, UN General Assembly President Jan Eliasson and Secretary General Kofi Annan have pulled together what could be an effective and workable Human Rights Council--despite the Bolton blusterings, which did much to aid the opponents.
For example, although Bolton later jumped on Annan's proposal for a two-thirds majority vote for future members--after it had disappeared in the course of negotiations--he was almost certainly quite pleased. The United States has lost elections to the old Human Rights Commission before--and that was before the Bush Administration added Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and "renditions" to the world's human rights vocabulary. Many diplomats at the UN feel that if the US delegation had actively and constructively participated in negotiations instead of posturing for domestic constituencies, the electoral requirement for a two-thirds majority would have been passed.
Similarly, Bolton was very reserved on the term limits for members, and showed initially that he would have preferred a permanent seat for the United States, even if it entailed one for China, hardly a paragon of human rights.
While Bolton is particularly tin-eared in how he listens to other countries, we should remember that it was the Clinton Administration that worked assiduously and steadily to attenuate the International Criminal Court, and then only signed the much-weakened instrument at the very end of his presidency. It was this attitude that cost the United States the seat in times past.
There are far more substantial grounds on which states of goodwill, in a secret ballot, may have scruples about voting for this US Administration to have a seat on the council, although many may support Washington in LBJ's eminently pragmatic argument that it is better to have opponents inside the tent urinating outward rather than vice versa.
The American diplomatic approach to human rights is, in its own way, every bit as partisan and partial as some of the notorious human rights offenders who have conspired to emasculate the Human Rights Commission over the years.
Indeed, the best weapon of the Axis of Offenders in the old commission has been the US attitude, which has, for example, condoned, trained and financed some of the worst human rights offenders of the era in Central America, while fulminating against Cuba's much less serious offenses. Disagreement with the United States should not necessarily put a country in the dock for human rights offenses--although neither should opposing the United States allow an exemption.
It did not help that one of the last reports of the Human Rights Commission was on Guantánamo, in which the experts roundly condemned the US breaches of international law. Even though the commission's conclusions were not that different from the US Supreme Court--that internees have legal rights and should have access to the Courts--the Bush Administration and its supporters attacked the report in terms that could have been borrowed from a riposte by Cuba, Uzbekistan or Syria.
The council has addressed the genuine concerns of many members by adopting the principle of "universality" in a constructive way instead of its usual blocking context at the UN. All members' human rights records will come under scrutiny. The Axis of Offenders' main purpose in getting on the former commission was to block consideration of their cases, so this removes much of the incentive for them to be on the Council.
Countries that are genuinely concerned about human rights need to eschew their usual regional voting pacts, but we can be sure that the NGOs will keep their feet to the fire. And as for the United States, it would be good if it voted on the basis the State Department's own annual Human Rights Report, which has managed to be critical even of allies.
Along with the "Responsibility to Protect" resolution adopted last year, the Human Rights Council is a step forward for the United Nations. But far from being rewarded by Congress, watch out for attacks on the world's temerity for disagreeing with Ambassador Bolton.
A complete American isolationist may congratulate the Bush Administration and United Nations Ambassador John Bolton on his grandstanding vote Wednesday against the establishment of the UN Human Rights Council. Nobody else would.
It was a clear case of prejudice masquerading as policy, with Bolton playing to his usual gallery of Know-Nothings on one side, while also relishing briefly being on the side of Human Rights NGOs and what he considers to be the liberal New York Times in criticizing the failings of the negotiated outcome.
But taken as a poll on the Bolton-Bush stand, 170 votes to 4 epitomizes America's waning global prestige.
The three states that the United States led into the "nay" camp were Israel, Palau and the Marshall Islands, which are among the highest per capita recipients of US cash in the world, along with the Federated States of Micronesia, which even Bolton couldn't bully enough. The two Pacific micro-states depend on the US Congress for almost their entire budget. There is an additional irony: For decades the United States stalled on allowing the former Trustee territory of Palau independence until it dropped clauses in its constitution that barred the United States from bringing in nuclear weapons to defend it.
Nor could one be sure that Venezuela, Belarus and Iran, the states that abstained, were necessarily part of the Administration's dream team.
In fact, for all the many compromises, UN General Assembly President Jan Eliasson and Secretary General Kofi Annan have pulled together what could be an effective and workable Human Rights Council--despite the Bolton blusterings, which did much to aid the opponents.
For example, although Bolton later jumped on Annan's proposal for a two-thirds majority vote for future members--after it had disappeared in the course of negotiations--he was almost certainly quite pleased. The United States has lost elections to the old Human Rights Commission before--and that was before the Bush Administration added Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib and "renditions" to the world's human rights vocabulary. Many diplomats at the UN feel that if the US delegation had actively and constructively participated in negotiations instead of posturing for domestic constituencies, the electoral requirement for a two-thirds majority would have been passed.
Similarly, Bolton was very reserved on the term limits for members, and showed initially that he would have preferred a permanent seat for the United States, even if it entailed one for China, hardly a paragon of human rights.
While Bolton is particularly tin-eared in how he listens to other countries, we should remember that it was the Clinton Administration that worked assiduously and steadily to attenuate the International Criminal Court, and then only signed the much-weakened instrument at the very end of his presidency. It was this attitude that cost the United States the seat in times past.
There are far more substantial grounds on which states of goodwill, in a secret ballot, may have scruples about voting for this US Administration to have a seat on the council, although many may support Washington in LBJ's eminently pragmatic argument that it is better to have opponents inside the tent urinating outward rather than vice versa.
The American diplomatic approach to human rights is, in its own way, every bit as partisan and partial as some of the notorious human rights offenders who have conspired to emasculate the Human Rights Commission over the years.
Indeed, the best weapon of the Axis of Offenders in the old commission has been the US attitude, which has, for example, condoned, trained and financed some of the worst human rights offenders of the era in Central America, while fulminating against Cuba's much less serious offenses. Disagreement with the United States should not necessarily put a country in the dock for human rights offenses--although neither should opposing the United States allow an exemption.
It did not help that one of the last reports of the Human Rights Commission was on Guantánamo, in which the experts roundly condemned the US breaches of international law. Even though the commission's conclusions were not that different from the US Supreme Court--that internees have legal rights and should have access to the Courts--the Bush Administration and its supporters attacked the report in terms that could have been borrowed from a riposte by Cuba, Uzbekistan or Syria.
The council has addressed the genuine concerns of many members by adopting the principle of "universality" in a constructive way instead of its usual blocking context at the UN. All members' human rights records will come under scrutiny. The Axis of Offenders' main purpose in getting on the former commission was to block consideration of their cases, so this removes much of the incentive for them to be on the Council.
Countries that are genuinely concerned about human rights need to eschew their usual regional voting pacts, but we can be sure that the NGOs will keep their feet to the fire. And as for the United States, it would be good if it voted on the basis the State Department's own annual Human Rights Report, which has managed to be critical even of allies.
Along with the "Responsibility to Protect" resolution adopted last year, the Human Rights Council is a step forward for the United Nations. But far from being rewarded by Congress, watch out for attacks on the world's temerity for disagreeing with Ambassador Bolton.
Still Looking for that Smoking Gun in Iraq
David Corn
Doesn't the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee read? In a Washington Post article by Walter Pincus in Friday's edition, Representative Peter Hoekstra, who has succeeded in pushing the Bush administration to start releasing some of the 2 million documents captured in Iraq, said,
Whether Saddam Hussein destroyed Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or hid or transferred them, the most important thing is that we discover the truth of what was happening in the country prior to the war.
Conservatives and war-backers have been howling for the release of all these documents because they believe--or hope--that they will contain a smoking-gun memo showing that Saddam had oodles of WMDs or was buddy-buddy with bin Laden. But so far, no soap. At least not from the first nine documents posted by the military. One actually shows that Iraqi intelligence in August 2002 was looking for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. This suggests Zarqawi was not given office space in Baghdad by Saddam, which is what some war supporters practically have claimed.
Back to Hoekstra. He's suggesting that that wily ol' Saddam destroyed his WMDs or sent them to Syria minutes before the US invaded. But if Hoekstra had bothered to read either the report from David Kay or the one from Charles Duelfer--the two pro-war fellows who headed the postwar search for WMDs--he would know that both concluded there were no significant amounts of WMDs in Iraq before the war and that Iraq's WMDs program were moribund. So there was nothing to hide or destroy. But let's wish Hoekstra well as he looks at each and every one of the two million documents for killer evidence to support the discredited prewar case for war.
Doesn't the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee read? In a Washington Post article by Walter Pincus in Friday's edition, Representative Peter Hoekstra, who has succeeded in pushing the Bush administration to start releasing some of the 2 million documents captured in Iraq, said,
Whether Saddam Hussein destroyed Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or hid or transferred them, the most important thing is that we discover the truth of what was happening in the country prior to the war.
Conservatives and war-backers have been howling for the release of all these documents because they believe--or hope--that they will contain a smoking-gun memo showing that Saddam had oodles of WMDs or was buddy-buddy with bin Laden. But so far, no soap. At least not from the first nine documents posted by the military. One actually shows that Iraqi intelligence in August 2002 was looking for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq. This suggests Zarqawi was not given office space in Baghdad by Saddam, which is what some war supporters practically have claimed.
Back to Hoekstra. He's suggesting that that wily ol' Saddam destroyed his WMDs or sent them to Syria minutes before the US invaded. But if Hoekstra had bothered to read either the report from David Kay or the one from Charles Duelfer--the two pro-war fellows who headed the postwar search for WMDs--he would know that both concluded there were no significant amounts of WMDs in Iraq before the war and that Iraq's WMDs program were moribund. So there was nothing to hide or destroy. But let's wish Hoekstra well as he looks at each and every one of the two million documents for killer evidence to support the discredited prewar case for war.
Pledging to Vote for Peace
John Nichols
How many Americans would pledge to cast their votes in November only for candidates who want to end the war in Iraq?
According to a poll conducted for the new group Vote for Peace, 46 percent of likely voters agree with the pledge the group will be promoting in advance of the November, 2006, congressional elections: "I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign."
One in every five voters surveyed expressed strong agreement, while 26 percent said they were at least somewhat in agreement with the statement.
Among Democrats, agreement with the pledge rises to 67 percent (33 percent strongly). Fifty-nine percent (25 percent strongly) of Independents agree, while and 26 percent (5.5 percent strongly) of Republicans are on board.
"This poll demonstrates that anti-war voters are significant enough in size to effect the outcome of elections -- if they become organized. Just like pro-gun groups have organized, pro-choice and pro-life groups have organized -- now the anti-war constituency has been identified and the peace movement is ready to organize them. This will ensure that the anti-war movement will no longer be one that can be ignored," argues Kevin Zeese, an organizer of the nonpartisan Voters for Peace initiative that launched Friday.
Starting with grants of $1 million for the 2006 election season, Voters for Peace run a national campaign that will encourage voters to pledge to cast their ballots for anti-war candidates as part of a broader effort to educate the electorate about how to make the war an issue this fall. The pledge, which was inspired by a Nation magazine editorial that committed the publication to endorse only candidates who seek a rapid end to the war, can be found at the new group's website: www.VotersForPeace.US.
Already endorsed by many of the country's largest and most active anti-war organizations, including United for Peace and Justice, Peace Action, Not In Our Name, Democracy Rising, Code Pink, AfterDowningStreet and Peace Majority, the Voters for Peace initiative will reach across partisan and ideological lines.
Zeese says the initiative will seek to organize two million voters in 2006 and five million by 2008. And makes a convincing case that such organization could have a profound impact on both elections by putting more focused pressure on both major political parties.
"Organized anti-war voters who pledge not to vote for pro-war candidates may force the Democrats in particular to develop a stronger position against the war. The Democrats may now realize that if they fail to represent the anti-war community voters will stay home or vote for alternative party and independent candidates," explains Zeese, the president of the national group Common Sense for Drug Policy who is seeking Maryland's open U.S. Senate seat as an "independent unity" candidate in November.
"Republicans are not free to ignore the anti-war constituency either," adds Zeese. "Not only do more that 25 percent of Republican voters oppose candidates who support the war, but the fastest growing group of voters -- independents -- overwhelmingly support the pledge. So, that all important swing voter can cause Republicans to lose elections - and could become a new source of support for Democrats -- or if both parties fail to support voters wishes then candidates running independent of the two parties may find a new foundation on which to build an independent political movement."
How many Americans would pledge to cast their votes in November only for candidates who want to end the war in Iraq?
According to a poll conducted for the new group Vote for Peace, 46 percent of likely voters agree with the pledge the group will be promoting in advance of the November, 2006, congressional elections: "I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign."
One in every five voters surveyed expressed strong agreement, while 26 percent said they were at least somewhat in agreement with the statement.
Among Democrats, agreement with the pledge rises to 67 percent (33 percent strongly). Fifty-nine percent (25 percent strongly) of Independents agree, while and 26 percent (5.5 percent strongly) of Republicans are on board.
"This poll demonstrates that anti-war voters are significant enough in size to effect the outcome of elections -- if they become organized. Just like pro-gun groups have organized, pro-choice and pro-life groups have organized -- now the anti-war constituency has been identified and the peace movement is ready to organize them. This will ensure that the anti-war movement will no longer be one that can be ignored," argues Kevin Zeese, an organizer of the nonpartisan Voters for Peace initiative that launched Friday.
Starting with grants of $1 million for the 2006 election season, Voters for Peace run a national campaign that will encourage voters to pledge to cast their ballots for anti-war candidates as part of a broader effort to educate the electorate about how to make the war an issue this fall. The pledge, which was inspired by a Nation magazine editorial that committed the publication to endorse only candidates who seek a rapid end to the war, can be found at the new group's website: www.VotersForPeace.US.
Already endorsed by many of the country's largest and most active anti-war organizations, including United for Peace and Justice, Peace Action, Not In Our Name, Democracy Rising, Code Pink, AfterDowningStreet and Peace Majority, the Voters for Peace initiative will reach across partisan and ideological lines.
Zeese says the initiative will seek to organize two million voters in 2006 and five million by 2008. And makes a convincing case that such organization could have a profound impact on both elections by putting more focused pressure on both major political parties.
"Organized anti-war voters who pledge not to vote for pro-war candidates may force the Democrats in particular to develop a stronger position against the war. The Democrats may now realize that if they fail to represent the anti-war community voters will stay home or vote for alternative party and independent candidates," explains Zeese, the president of the national group Common Sense for Drug Policy who is seeking Maryland's open U.S. Senate seat as an "independent unity" candidate in November.
"Republicans are not free to ignore the anti-war constituency either," adds Zeese. "Not only do more that 25 percent of Republican voters oppose candidates who support the war, but the fastest growing group of voters -- independents -- overwhelmingly support the pledge. So, that all important swing voter can cause Republicans to lose elections - and could become a new source of support for Democrats -- or if both parties fail to support voters wishes then candidates running independent of the two parties may find a new foundation on which to build an independent political movement."
Man's new penis built from cousin's skin
A Russian man who lost his beloved penis in the wake of a vicious attack by a dog has been given a new lease on life. His cousin donated his own flesh to construct a new organ.
Last December the man, whose name has been released, was set upon by his friend's German Shepherd. The gruesome damage was irreversible. Doctors had no choice, they had to amputate.
Normally in such a case, a skin graft would be taken from the patient to create a new organ. Tragically, this young man was quite thin.
His cousin however agreed to have a 4" x 6" flap harvested from his back for his emasculated relative.
Though this is the first operation of its kind in Russia, doctors are sure that in time the new penis will be fully functional.
This is just fucked up. "Hello cousin, what's up? Funny you should ask, about 6" of u is up right now", hey, what are you doing in there? Nothing, just playing with my cousin,,,,
Last December the man, whose name has been released, was set upon by his friend's German Shepherd. The gruesome damage was irreversible. Doctors had no choice, they had to amputate.
Normally in such a case, a skin graft would be taken from the patient to create a new organ. Tragically, this young man was quite thin.
His cousin however agreed to have a 4" x 6" flap harvested from his back for his emasculated relative.
Though this is the first operation of its kind in Russia, doctors are sure that in time the new penis will be fully functional.
This is just fucked up. "Hello cousin, what's up? Funny you should ask, about 6" of u is up right now", hey, what are you doing in there? Nothing, just playing with my cousin,,,,
Gays v. Arabs, winner takes Holland
Homosexuals and Muslims in the Netherlands have been at each others’ throats since the assassination of a gay anti-immigration politician in the Netherlands.
Dutch officials have now decided the two factions should settle it on the soccer field.
The tournament will "help ease these tensions so that people can openly talk about homosexuality," according to tournament organizer Suzanne Ijsselmuiden.
The ludicrous idea was hatched following a poll showing a large portion of the gay population suffered verbal and/or physical abuse by Moroccan and Turkish youths.
"Parts of the Muslim community still resist homosexuality and receive little education about it,” said Frits Vlek of the Police Research Academy, which commissioned the survey.
A soccer match is the worst possible choice for making peace in Europe. Normally-docile Europeans go absolutely insane after what they call a “football” game.
Pim Fortuyn, a tough anti-immigration politician, was shot dead on May 6, 2002.
Bizarrely, he was murdered by a lunatic non-Muslim Dutchman named Volkert van der Graaf – a “vegan activist.”
Before his death, Fortuyn was becoming as popular as he was controversial. Some saw the openly-gay politician as the next prime minister.
Dutch-Muslim tensions just got worse Wednesday with the introduction of a new video all new immigrants must watch before becoming Dutch citizens. What's got some upset is that it includes scenes of same-sex couples making out.
"The film is meant for people not yet in Holland to take note that this is normal here and not be shocked and awed by it once they arrive," said Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born member of the Dutch Parliament.
Nonetheless, people are upset.
"This isn't education, it's provocation," Abdou Menebhi, chairman of Emcemo, a Moroccan interest group in Amsterdam said. "The new law has one goal: to stop the flow of immigrants, especially by Muslims from countries like Morocco and Turkey.
Dutch officials have now decided the two factions should settle it on the soccer field.
The tournament will "help ease these tensions so that people can openly talk about homosexuality," according to tournament organizer Suzanne Ijsselmuiden.
The ludicrous idea was hatched following a poll showing a large portion of the gay population suffered verbal and/or physical abuse by Moroccan and Turkish youths.
"Parts of the Muslim community still resist homosexuality and receive little education about it,” said Frits Vlek of the Police Research Academy, which commissioned the survey.
A soccer match is the worst possible choice for making peace in Europe. Normally-docile Europeans go absolutely insane after what they call a “football” game.
Pim Fortuyn, a tough anti-immigration politician, was shot dead on May 6, 2002.
Bizarrely, he was murdered by a lunatic non-Muslim Dutchman named Volkert van der Graaf – a “vegan activist.”
Before his death, Fortuyn was becoming as popular as he was controversial. Some saw the openly-gay politician as the next prime minister.
Dutch-Muslim tensions just got worse Wednesday with the introduction of a new video all new immigrants must watch before becoming Dutch citizens. What's got some upset is that it includes scenes of same-sex couples making out.
"The film is meant for people not yet in Holland to take note that this is normal here and not be shocked and awed by it once they arrive," said Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born member of the Dutch Parliament.
Nonetheless, people are upset.
"This isn't education, it's provocation," Abdou Menebhi, chairman of Emcemo, a Moroccan interest group in Amsterdam said. "The new law has one goal: to stop the flow of immigrants, especially by Muslims from countries like Morocco and Turkey.
The 'Do what Mao says' game
He was the ultimate fighter in Mao's army, literally the poster boy of the Communist Party. Now a soldier, dead for over 40 years, has been resurrected yet again to help China's Communist Party battle it's latest enemy, video games.
Lei Feng was the model soldier in life. His only aspiration was to be "a revolutionary screw that never rusts." In the army he was known for doing whatever he could for his comrades: serving tea, darning socks, even rubbing their feet.
Now he's doing it all over again in "Learning from Comrade Lei Feng," a new video game developed to teach kids what it means to be happily suppressed.
"For beginners, sewing and mending socks is the only way to increase experience and upgrade," said Jiao Jian, a young pupil and online game fan from the southern city of Guangzhou.
As players advance, by helping on construction sites, talking to party leaders ... all sorts of mundane crap. The ultimate goal is a copy of the Chairman's collected works.
The hope is to steer kids away from the sex and violence so prevalent in today's video games.
Lei was born in Hunan on December 18 1940. The Japanese killed his father, his mother committed suicide to escape the advances of their landlord.
The orphaned Lei was soon adopted by the Party, who raised him as their own. As he grew he studied Mao's' teachings very closely and modeled his life on the man's lessons. He was frugal and selfless, forever putting the Party above himself.
After his tragic death at the age of 22, his likeness started appearing on posters all across the land, and his diary, filled with his own life lessons, became wildly popular.
Since his death March 5, has been known as "Learn from Lei Feng Day," when people all chip in to do good in the community, just like the legend himself.
The last time the Party trotted him out was after the Tiananmen Square uprising. You can imagine what a morale boost that was.
Majority wants Bush censured, 43% want impeachment
Cowardly Congress gets a message from disgusted voters
RAW STORYPublished: Thursday March 16, 2006
Print This Email This
A new poll finds that a plurality of Americans favor plans to censure President George W. Bush, while a surprising 42% favor moves to actually impeach the President.
A poll taken March 15, 2006 by American Research Group found that among all adults, 46% favor Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) plan to censure President George W. Bush, while just 44% are opposed. Approval of the plan grows slightly when the sample is narrowed to voters, up to 48% in favor of the Senate censuring the sitting president.
Even more shocking is that just 57% of Republicans are opposed to the move, with 14% still undecided and 29% actually in favor. Fully 70% of Democrats want to see Bush censured.
More surprising still: The poll found fully 43% of voters in favor of actually impeaching the President, with just 50% of voters opposed. While only 18% of Republicans surveyed wanted to see Bush impeached, 61% of Democrats and 47% of Independents reported they wanted to see the House move ahead with the Conyers (D-MI) resolution.
The poll, taken March 13-15, had a 3% margin of error.
RAW STORYPublished: Thursday March 16, 2006
Print This Email This
A new poll finds that a plurality of Americans favor plans to censure President George W. Bush, while a surprising 42% favor moves to actually impeach the President.
A poll taken March 15, 2006 by American Research Group found that among all adults, 46% favor Senator Russ Feingold's (D-WI) plan to censure President George W. Bush, while just 44% are opposed. Approval of the plan grows slightly when the sample is narrowed to voters, up to 48% in favor of the Senate censuring the sitting president.
Even more shocking is that just 57% of Republicans are opposed to the move, with 14% still undecided and 29% actually in favor. Fully 70% of Democrats want to see Bush censured.
More surprising still: The poll found fully 43% of voters in favor of actually impeaching the President, with just 50% of voters opposed. While only 18% of Republicans surveyed wanted to see Bush impeached, 61% of Democrats and 47% of Independents reported they wanted to see the House move ahead with the Conyers (D-MI) resolution.
The poll, taken March 13-15, had a 3% margin of error.
US airport screeners fail homemade bomb tests: NBC
Mar 16, 2006 — WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Security screeners at 21 U.S. airports failed to find bomb-making materials during recent government tests, NBC Nightly News reported on Thursday.
Federal agents carrying materials that could be used to make bombs escaped detection in airport screening during tests conducted between October and January, NBC said, citing government sources.
"In all 21 airports tested, no machine, no swab, no screener anywhere stopped the bomb materials from getting through. Even when investigators deliberately triggered extra screening of bags, no one stopped these materials," the report said.
NBC said, for security reasons, it would not name the airports nor the ingredients involved in the tests conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the watchdog arm of Congress.
Congress requested the investigation to determine the vulnerability of U.S. airlines to a suicide bomber using cheap and easy-to-obtain materials, NBC said.
The GAO finding is classified, the report said.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had no comment on the report but said in a statement that detecting explosive materials and IEDs (improvised explosive devices) at the checkpoint was the agency's top priority.
"TSA has already initiated enhanced detection technology training for security officers to identify possible explosive materials and IED components," the statement said.
Federal agents carrying materials that could be used to make bombs escaped detection in airport screening during tests conducted between October and January, NBC said, citing government sources.
"In all 21 airports tested, no machine, no swab, no screener anywhere stopped the bomb materials from getting through. Even when investigators deliberately triggered extra screening of bags, no one stopped these materials," the report said.
NBC said, for security reasons, it would not name the airports nor the ingredients involved in the tests conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the watchdog arm of Congress.
Congress requested the investigation to determine the vulnerability of U.S. airlines to a suicide bomber using cheap and easy-to-obtain materials, NBC said.
The GAO finding is classified, the report said.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) had no comment on the report but said in a statement that detecting explosive materials and IEDs (improvised explosive devices) at the checkpoint was the agency's top priority.
"TSA has already initiated enhanced detection technology training for security officers to identify possible explosive materials and IED components," the statement said.
Sexual assaults in the armed services are up 40% over the past year, the Pentagon says it's a good thing
By Leo Shane III, Stars and StripesEuropean edition, Friday, March 17, 2006
WASHINGTON —
Defense Department researchers saw a nearly 40 percent jump in sexual assault reports from 2004 to 2005, but said they expected that increase after a change in reporting rules last year and an increased emphasis on the issue forcewide.
In fact, officials with the Joint Task Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response said they’re pleased with the higher numbers, noting that they believe it shows more victims are seeking and getting help after sexual attacks.
“We know this is one of the most underreported crimes in the country … and in the military we know there were sexual assaults not being reported,” said Brig. Gen. K.C. McClain, commander of the task force. “We had members who were not getting care and support.
“But the fact that we had 435 victims who used the new restricted reporting is a good sign. Had we not had restricted reporting, we would not have known about those reports.”
Congress mandated the annual accounting of sexual assault data after a 2004 special investigation said Defense Department policies didn’t go far enough to address the problem of sexual assault in the military. Lawmakers requested that after hearing anecdotes of rapes and other attacks among troops in deployed to combat zones.
The new restricted reporting rules, which went into effect last June, allow victims of a sexual assault to seek counseling and support services without triggering a full military investigation.
Under the old rules, any victim who sought medical or emotional counseling was required to file a formal complaint, and their commanding officer was required to meet with them and discuss the case, McClain said.
“Now [the victims] are told the Defense Department would prefer the unrestricted reporting, but the decision is left to them,” she said. “It gives them back some measure of control.”
Of the 435 restricted reporting cases, 108 later changed their minds and opted for a full investigation. McClain called that figure encouraging, noting that she believes few of those investigations would have taken place if the victims had not had the option to receive counseling, collect their thoughts and go ahead with the process.
Of the 2,047 sexual assault investigations last year, 661 are still pending. In the completed cases, 42 percent of the alleged offenders received or will face some form of punitive action, ranging from letters of reprimand to courts-martial.
The report, delivered to Congress on Wednesday, does not break down assault reports by areas of operation. But McClain said in the CENTCOM theater only 169 sexual assaults were reported, a lower rate per person than other commands.
The new restricted reports made up 65 percent of the increase from 2004 to 2005. McClain said much of the remaining increase came from changes in Army accounting practices.
In the past, Army officials did not count reports which were dismissed after a preliminary investigation. McClain said this year they began including those numbers as well, which increased the total number of reports.
Victims of the sexual assaults were more likely to be attacked by a fellow servicemember than a civilian, according to the report. About 52 percent of the reported assaults were military on military attacks, and about 29 percent were servicemember on civilian attacks. About 4 percent were civilian attacks on military personnel.
WASHINGTON —
Defense Department researchers saw a nearly 40 percent jump in sexual assault reports from 2004 to 2005, but said they expected that increase after a change in reporting rules last year and an increased emphasis on the issue forcewide.
In fact, officials with the Joint Task Force Sexual Assault Prevention and Response said they’re pleased with the higher numbers, noting that they believe it shows more victims are seeking and getting help after sexual attacks.
“We know this is one of the most underreported crimes in the country … and in the military we know there were sexual assaults not being reported,” said Brig. Gen. K.C. McClain, commander of the task force. “We had members who were not getting care and support.
“But the fact that we had 435 victims who used the new restricted reporting is a good sign. Had we not had restricted reporting, we would not have known about those reports.”
Congress mandated the annual accounting of sexual assault data after a 2004 special investigation said Defense Department policies didn’t go far enough to address the problem of sexual assault in the military. Lawmakers requested that after hearing anecdotes of rapes and other attacks among troops in deployed to combat zones.
The new restricted reporting rules, which went into effect last June, allow victims of a sexual assault to seek counseling and support services without triggering a full military investigation.
Under the old rules, any victim who sought medical or emotional counseling was required to file a formal complaint, and their commanding officer was required to meet with them and discuss the case, McClain said.
“Now [the victims] are told the Defense Department would prefer the unrestricted reporting, but the decision is left to them,” she said. “It gives them back some measure of control.”
Of the 435 restricted reporting cases, 108 later changed their minds and opted for a full investigation. McClain called that figure encouraging, noting that she believes few of those investigations would have taken place if the victims had not had the option to receive counseling, collect their thoughts and go ahead with the process.
Of the 2,047 sexual assault investigations last year, 661 are still pending. In the completed cases, 42 percent of the alleged offenders received or will face some form of punitive action, ranging from letters of reprimand to courts-martial.
The report, delivered to Congress on Wednesday, does not break down assault reports by areas of operation. But McClain said in the CENTCOM theater only 169 sexual assaults were reported, a lower rate per person than other commands.
The new restricted reports made up 65 percent of the increase from 2004 to 2005. McClain said much of the remaining increase came from changes in Army accounting practices.
In the past, Army officials did not count reports which were dismissed after a preliminary investigation. McClain said this year they began including those numbers as well, which increased the total number of reports.
Victims of the sexual assaults were more likely to be attacked by a fellow servicemember than a civilian, according to the report. About 52 percent of the reported assaults were military on military attacks, and about 29 percent were servicemember on civilian attacks. About 4 percent were civilian attacks on military personnel.
'The million-year war for earth has just begun!'
Earlier this week America was saddened when a soul legend outed himself as a bigoted fool. Now it's become clear that he merely launched his cult's first strike on free speech.
When Isaac Hayes announced he was quitting "South Park," he offered on of the most insincere rationalizations ever.
"There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins," the 63-year-old Hayes said in a statement issued earlier Monday.
The show's creators, Matt Parker and Trey Stone, called Hayes out as a liar.
"He got a sudden case of religious sensitivity when it was (Scientology that was) featured on the show," Matt Stone said
But this was only the beginning of Scientology's war on South Park.
This past Wednesday night Comedy Central was to air the South Park episode "In the Closet," (watch) which makes sport of the L.A.-based cult of Scientology. At the last minute they switched to "Chef's Chocolate Salty Balls."
Again, Parker and Stone were quick to respond, via a statement to "Daily Variety."
"So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun! Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies. Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!"
When Isaac Hayes announced he was quitting "South Park," he offered on of the most insincere rationalizations ever.
"There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins," the 63-year-old Hayes said in a statement issued earlier Monday.
The show's creators, Matt Parker and Trey Stone, called Hayes out as a liar.
"He got a sudden case of religious sensitivity when it was (Scientology that was) featured on the show," Matt Stone said
But this was only the beginning of Scientology's war on South Park.
This past Wednesday night Comedy Central was to air the South Park episode "In the Closet," (watch) which makes sport of the L.A.-based cult of Scientology. At the last minute they switched to "Chef's Chocolate Salty Balls."
Again, Parker and Stone were quick to respond, via a statement to "Daily Variety."
"So, Scientology, you may have won THIS battle, but the million-year war for earth has just begun! Temporarily anozinizing our episode will NOT stop us from keeping Thetans forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies. Curses and drat! You have obstructed us for now, but your feeble bid to save humanity will fail! Hail Xenu!!!"
HELP!!!
Does anyone know how to, or if it even possable to change pics from bitmap, to jpeg? Or is there a way on blogger to upload bitmaps? I have had no luck what so ever I always get errors. Any help would be greatly apreciated.
Bush sends Bonesman to Australia
Australians are nervous about President George W. Bush's choice of a loyal Skull & Bones member as the new U.S. ambassador to that country.
Former assistant attorney-general Robert McCallum is the new American diplomat in Australia, after the Bush Administration let Canberra go an entire year without a U.S. ambassador.
McCallum, a tobacco-industry lawyer, has the deepest of connections to Bush. Both are members of the ultra-elitist Yale University secret society known as Skull & Bones.
Also known as The Order of Death, The Order, The Eulogian Club and Lodge 322, the group conducts its Yale business at a windowless stone building called The Tomb.
There are many Bonesmen in the Bush Administration. At least 11 have been identified.
Only 15 Yale seniors are "tapped" for Skull & Bones each year.
Bonesmen run American industry and are often put in the Secretary of Commerce position by presidents.
In 2004, the world hardly noticed that the two "competing" presidential candidates, Bush and John Kerry, were both members of the secret society that runs its own drug wars and gladly desecrates Native American history.
2006/03/14
Mystery of vanished "Buddha Boy" grips Nepal
Sun Mar 12, 2:34 AM ET
KATHMANDU (AFP) - The weekend disappearance of a Nepalese boy whom supporters hail as a reincarnation of the Buddha has sparked a nationwide search.
Supporters have showered 16-year old Ram Bahadur Bomjan with money and gifts for allegedly sitting in motionless meditation in the roots of a pipal tree without taking food or water, or using the toilet, since May 16 last year.
The youth, dubbed "Buddha Boy" by the media, left the site in southern Nepal because the thousands of devotees who flocked there had disturbed his meditation, media reported Sunday.
"He left as there was a lot of noise in the meditation area," his friend Prem Lama told the Kathmandu Post.
A search using plain-clothes police and civilians failed to find the boy, but he had been glimpsed in the jungle surrounding the meditation site at Bara district 250 kilometres (150 miles) south of Kathmandu, the Himalayan Times reported.
Inspector Kamal Acharya told AFP he was "90 percent sure" the boy disappeared voluntarily. "It does not seem likely that it was an abduction," said Acharya. a police inspector from Bara.
Police believed the youth had left the site with a close friend Sahila Tamang, who was also missing, Acharya said.
"The boy disappeared at around three in the morning Saturday while the people who guard the site were sleeping," Shankar Acharya, a journalist from Bara, told AFP.
The thousands of visitors who have flocked to see the boy were kept at least 15 metres (50 feet) away.
The boy's followers did not permit visitors to see him during the night, raising scepticism about claims that he had been surviving without food and water.
Ram's meditation spawned a mini-industry with the site jammed with food and souvenir vendors.
Rupees were stuffed in collection boxes around the site and a member of a committee looking after the site said foreign Buddhist groups had donated 40,000 dollars for its upkeep.
The boy had told supporters through a friend that he was not a reincarnation of Buddha but was an "austere sage."
Gautama Siddhartha, who later became known as Buddha or the Enlightened One, is believed to have been born in the same region near the border with India in around 500 BC.
maybe he became a catholic, when he heard how easy sainthood is now
KATHMANDU (AFP) - The weekend disappearance of a Nepalese boy whom supporters hail as a reincarnation of the Buddha has sparked a nationwide search.
Supporters have showered 16-year old Ram Bahadur Bomjan with money and gifts for allegedly sitting in motionless meditation in the roots of a pipal tree without taking food or water, or using the toilet, since May 16 last year.
The youth, dubbed "Buddha Boy" by the media, left the site in southern Nepal because the thousands of devotees who flocked there had disturbed his meditation, media reported Sunday.
"He left as there was a lot of noise in the meditation area," his friend Prem Lama told the Kathmandu Post.
A search using plain-clothes police and civilians failed to find the boy, but he had been glimpsed in the jungle surrounding the meditation site at Bara district 250 kilometres (150 miles) south of Kathmandu, the Himalayan Times reported.
Inspector Kamal Acharya told AFP he was "90 percent sure" the boy disappeared voluntarily. "It does not seem likely that it was an abduction," said Acharya. a police inspector from Bara.
Police believed the youth had left the site with a close friend Sahila Tamang, who was also missing, Acharya said.
"The boy disappeared at around three in the morning Saturday while the people who guard the site were sleeping," Shankar Acharya, a journalist from Bara, told AFP.
The thousands of visitors who have flocked to see the boy were kept at least 15 metres (50 feet) away.
The boy's followers did not permit visitors to see him during the night, raising scepticism about claims that he had been surviving without food and water.
Ram's meditation spawned a mini-industry with the site jammed with food and souvenir vendors.
Rupees were stuffed in collection boxes around the site and a member of a committee looking after the site said foreign Buddhist groups had donated 40,000 dollars for its upkeep.
The boy had told supporters through a friend that he was not a reincarnation of Buddha but was an "austere sage."
Gautama Siddhartha, who later became known as Buddha or the Enlightened One, is believed to have been born in the same region near the border with India in around 500 BC.
maybe he became a catholic, when he heard how easy sainthood is now
Chef quits over Scientology jabs
Beloved cartoon character "Chef" is leaving the television comedy "South Park" because it mocks religions.
But the show's creators say that's a bunch of nonsense, and that Chef is only leaving the show because "South Park" recently tore apart Scientology, the space-alien money cult that has ensnared several popular entertainers.
In real life, Chef is 63-year-old soul singer Issac Hayes, who was popular in the 1970s for his Oscar-winning blacksploitation theme song, "Shaft."
He’s also a dedicated Scientologist.
"Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honored," Hayes said today, according to the Associated Press. "As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."
But Hayes didn't seem to have a problem until the religion being destroyed by "South Park" was his own bizarre space-monster cult.
Matt Stone, who created the show with Trey Parker, says Hayes gladly went along with scripts that skewered all the popular religions practiced by billions of people, including Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, Mormonism, Buddhism and Islam.
Scientology has about 100,000 followers and another half-million ex-Scientologists, according to Adherents.com.
Stone says he "never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own."
In fact, the "South Park" creators told GQ magazine this year that they had delayed parodying Scientology despite the incredible comedic possibilities -- and they did it all for Hayes!
"To be honest, what kept us from [parodying Scientology] before was Isaac Hayes. We knew he is a Scientologist and he's an awesome guy. We were like, 'Let's just avoid that for now,'" Parker told GQ.
"Finally, we just had to tell Isaac, 'Dude, we totally love working with you and this is nothing personal, it's just we're 'South Park,' and if we don't do this, we're belittling everything else we've ripped on.'"
In a January interview with the Onion's AV Club, Hayes said vicious satire was "their thing" and that he just laughed at it.
Mass. guv to legalize Catholic gay-hating
The state of Massachusetts recently passed legislation requiring that adoption agencies allow homosexuals to adopt. The Boston Archdiocese decided that rather than comply with the law, they would end their long history of adoption services.
Now Governor Mitt Romney has asked his staff to draft new legislation that would exempt the Church from having to allow homosexuals to adopt.
At a breakfast with the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce the governor tried to explain his rationale for state-approved homophobia.
"(Catholics) have within their religion the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that children should not be sent into homes without a mother and a father, and that's their religious freedom to have that belief and we'd like them to be able to be true to their religion and at the same time provide a service to the commonwealth of placing special needs kids."
He justified the exemption by noting that there were still be several agencies bound by law to permit gay adoption.
The genius of Romney's solution is that it ignores the desires of both his own constituency as well as the Archdiocese.
In a recent poll of Massachusetts voters, 54 percent said they would likely opt for a governor who supports gay adoption. Among the state's Catholics, those polled came out 46 to 26 in favor of gay adoption.
Sorry, you have to live your entire child hood in a orfanage cause were small minded, maybe you will do better in your next life.
Now Governor Mitt Romney has asked his staff to draft new legislation that would exempt the Church from having to allow homosexuals to adopt.
At a breakfast with the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce the governor tried to explain his rationale for state-approved homophobia.
"(Catholics) have within their religion the belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that children should not be sent into homes without a mother and a father, and that's their religious freedom to have that belief and we'd like them to be able to be true to their religion and at the same time provide a service to the commonwealth of placing special needs kids."
He justified the exemption by noting that there were still be several agencies bound by law to permit gay adoption.
The genius of Romney's solution is that it ignores the desires of both his own constituency as well as the Archdiocese.
In a recent poll of Massachusetts voters, 54 percent said they would likely opt for a governor who supports gay adoption. Among the state's Catholics, those polled came out 46 to 26 in favor of gay adoption.
Sorry, you have to live your entire child hood in a orfanage cause were small minded, maybe you will do better in your next life.
New survey asks 'Why does your job suck?'
A new survey draws a grim picture of the American office place. It also highlights workers' greatest pet peeves.
Almost two out of every fiveAmericans, 38%, regularly skip their lunch break, opting instead to eat at their desk.
Nearly as many, 33% work overtime without additional compensation and 31% work on Sundays.
One of the most aggravating realities of the workplace is "that guy," the loud person in the office who voice booms above all other sounds.
Worse still is the public reprimand. Inexplicably, some managers still don't understand that people don't like getting chewed out in public.
But the greatest pet peeve, cited by 44% of the 2,318 employed adults surveyed, was the condescending tone.
Gee, really? People don't like being talked down to? Why, does it hurt your "feelings"? All that crying ain't gonna get that TPS report filled out...
I personally enjoy the public reprimand, and condescending tones. I thought that was a fringe benefit.
Almost two out of every fiveAmericans, 38%, regularly skip their lunch break, opting instead to eat at their desk.
Nearly as many, 33% work overtime without additional compensation and 31% work on Sundays.
One of the most aggravating realities of the workplace is "that guy," the loud person in the office who voice booms above all other sounds.
Worse still is the public reprimand. Inexplicably, some managers still don't understand that people don't like getting chewed out in public.
But the greatest pet peeve, cited by 44% of the 2,318 employed adults surveyed, was the condescending tone.
Gee, really? People don't like being talked down to? Why, does it hurt your "feelings"? All that crying ain't gonna get that TPS report filled out...
I personally enjoy the public reprimand, and condescending tones. I thought that was a fringe benefit.
Bush Gallup approval droops to 36 percent
Bush is less popular than his war, only 36% approve of the job he's doing, making him twice as popular as his VP, so he's got that going for him, which is nice
PRINCETON, N.J., March 14 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush's approval rating has fallen to a record low of 36 percent in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll published Tuesday.
The decline is showing mostly among independents, with a substantial decline also found among Republicans. Democrats show little change, the Princeton, N.J.-based polling company said.
A year ago, 46 percent of independents approved of Bush's performance, whereas the most recent poll shows 23 percent approval. Among Republicans, the decline was16 points, from 91 percent to 75 percent.
Among Democrats, Bush's approval was 13 percent.
The national telephone survey of 1,001 adults was done March 10-12, and the results have a 3-point margin of error.
Is beating the VP even a challenge? Whatch out, he may shoot you!!
PRINCETON, N.J., March 14 (UPI) -- U.S. President George Bush's approval rating has fallen to a record low of 36 percent in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll published Tuesday.
The decline is showing mostly among independents, with a substantial decline also found among Republicans. Democrats show little change, the Princeton, N.J.-based polling company said.
A year ago, 46 percent of independents approved of Bush's performance, whereas the most recent poll shows 23 percent approval. Among Republicans, the decline was16 points, from 91 percent to 75 percent.
Among Democrats, Bush's approval was 13 percent.
The national telephone survey of 1,001 adults was done March 10-12, and the results have a 3-point margin of error.
Is beating the VP even a challenge? Whatch out, he may shoot you!!
JP's miracle
Wow, the shit you have to do to get your sainthood!!! Like going your entire life with out touching yourself, or someone else isn't a miracle in it's self. If he would have been smart, he would have changed the definition of what a miracle is. Lowering the quota was a nice start, but changing miracle to being something a little more attainable would have been even better. Like going a whole day without asking someone to pull your finger, miracle!! Saint hood granted, next!!
Even before his death it was assumed by many that Pope John Paul II was on the fast track top sainthood. But little thought had been given to what exactly JP's requisite miracle was. Now a fellow Pole is leading the hunt to figure out what exactly JP did that was a "miracle."
According to Monsignor Slawomir Oder, there is a suspiciously unnamed nun who like the pope himself, suffered from Parkinson's disease.
Upon the Pope's death, her superior-general asked the other nuns in their community to pray for JP to heal their sister.
"Exactly two months after the death of the pope, from one minute to another, the nun didn't show the symptoms of the illness anymore," Oder told The Associated Press in Rome. She was "perfectly able to do her work without any symptom of what she had before."
According to the doctrine of the church, to achieve sainthood an investigation has to prove a miracle performed from beyond the grave.
The fact is, Pope John Paul took the most important step towards his own aggrandizement in 1983 when he streamlined the process for achieving sainthood.
His ascension has been given an additional boost by his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, who waived the five-year waiting period for JP's nomination for sainthood.
Even before his death it was assumed by many that Pope John Paul II was on the fast track top sainthood. But little thought had been given to what exactly JP's requisite miracle was. Now a fellow Pole is leading the hunt to figure out what exactly JP did that was a "miracle."
According to Monsignor Slawomir Oder, there is a suspiciously unnamed nun who like the pope himself, suffered from Parkinson's disease.
Upon the Pope's death, her superior-general asked the other nuns in their community to pray for JP to heal their sister.
"Exactly two months after the death of the pope, from one minute to another, the nun didn't show the symptoms of the illness anymore," Oder told The Associated Press in Rome. She was "perfectly able to do her work without any symptom of what she had before."
According to the doctrine of the church, to achieve sainthood an investigation has to prove a miracle performed from beyond the grave.
The fact is, Pope John Paul took the most important step towards his own aggrandizement in 1983 when he streamlined the process for achieving sainthood.
His ascension has been given an additional boost by his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, who waived the five-year waiting period for JP's nomination for sainthood.
Man fights for his right to flip the bird
Ok, this is fucking stupid!!! Free speech be damned, taking someone to court over something like this? Like the courts aren't backed up enough with crap that could be settled by mature adults.
A Pennsylvania man has filed a federal lawsuit defending his God-given right to flip the bird at roadside construction workers.
Thomas Burns was sitting in traffic last April when he got so frustrated by the delay that he gave a pack of DOT workers the finger.
The construction workers had, presumably, never been flipped the bird before -- because they were so frightened and offended by this incredibly common gesture that they called a policeman.
The police officer, Samuel Johns, pulled over Mr. Burns and cited him for disorderly conduct.
The ticket was supposed to arrive in the mail, but Burns said it never did. Instead, what arrived was a constable who showed up at his house to arrest him for failing to appear at a July hearing.
The hearing was rescheduled for October. When neither Johns nor Burns went to court that day, the charges were dropped.
That didn't stop Burns from filing a suit yesterday against Johns and the township where he was ticketed. Burns said his constitutional rights had been violated and he had been maliciously prosecuted.
The First Amendment affirms the right to free speech, while the Fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The little-know 28th Amendment gives all Americans the right to quote "Freebird" at will, with impunity.
A Pennsylvania man has filed a federal lawsuit defending his God-given right to flip the bird at roadside construction workers.
Thomas Burns was sitting in traffic last April when he got so frustrated by the delay that he gave a pack of DOT workers the finger.
The construction workers had, presumably, never been flipped the bird before -- because they were so frightened and offended by this incredibly common gesture that they called a policeman.
The police officer, Samuel Johns, pulled over Mr. Burns and cited him for disorderly conduct.
The ticket was supposed to arrive in the mail, but Burns said it never did. Instead, what arrived was a constable who showed up at his house to arrest him for failing to appear at a July hearing.
The hearing was rescheduled for October. When neither Johns nor Burns went to court that day, the charges were dropped.
That didn't stop Burns from filing a suit yesterday against Johns and the township where he was ticketed. Burns said his constitutional rights had been violated and he had been maliciously prosecuted.
The First Amendment affirms the right to free speech, while the Fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The little-know 28th Amendment gives all Americans the right to quote "Freebird" at will, with impunity.
Senators argue over proposed censure of Bush
By The Washington Post and Reuters
PREV of NEXT
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., calls for censure.
WASHINGTON — A Senate Democrat's move to censure President Bush for ordering domestic spying ignited heated debate among lawmakers Monday.
"When the president of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable," Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin said in a floor speech introducing his resolution. Bush, he said, "authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program."
Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., labeled the resolution a "political ploy" and called for an immediate vote, hoping to put Feingold's colleagues in a tough spot. But Democrats invoked Senate rules to postpone action, and it was unclear Monday night whether Feingold's measure would face a roll call.
Feingold is among the sharpest critics of Bush's decision to direct the National Security Agency, without obtaining court warrants, to monitor international phone calls and e-mails of Americans when one of the parties is considered a possible terrorist suspect. Many Democrats and some GOP lawmakers have said the move, disclosed in December, violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Democratic leaders reacted cautiously to Feingold's move. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., commended him "for bringing this to the attention of the American people. We need a full and complete debate on this NSA spying." Reid and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., told reporters they wanted to examine the resolution before endorsing or rejecting it.
Meanwhile, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday put Bush's approval rating at 36 percent, a new low for that poll but similar to his rating in other recent surveys.
The poll, taken Friday and Saturday, showed Bush's approval rating dropped from 38 percent in late February-early March, while his disapproval rating remained steady at 60 percent. The poll of 1,001 adults had a margin of error of three percentage points.
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
PREV of NEXT
Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., calls for censure.
WASHINGTON — A Senate Democrat's move to censure President Bush for ordering domestic spying ignited heated debate among lawmakers Monday.
"When the president of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable," Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin said in a floor speech introducing his resolution. Bush, he said, "authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program."
Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., labeled the resolution a "political ploy" and called for an immediate vote, hoping to put Feingold's colleagues in a tough spot. But Democrats invoked Senate rules to postpone action, and it was unclear Monday night whether Feingold's measure would face a roll call.
Feingold is among the sharpest critics of Bush's decision to direct the National Security Agency, without obtaining court warrants, to monitor international phone calls and e-mails of Americans when one of the parties is considered a possible terrorist suspect. Many Democrats and some GOP lawmakers have said the move, disclosed in December, violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Democratic leaders reacted cautiously to Feingold's move. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., commended him "for bringing this to the attention of the American people. We need a full and complete debate on this NSA spying." Reid and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., told reporters they wanted to examine the resolution before endorsing or rejecting it.
Meanwhile, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Monday put Bush's approval rating at 36 percent, a new low for that poll but similar to his rating in other recent surveys.
The poll, taken Friday and Saturday, showed Bush's approval rating dropped from 38 percent in late February-early March, while his disapproval rating remained steady at 60 percent. The poll of 1,001 adults had a margin of error of three percentage points.
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
2006/03/10
Free speech means allowing hate speech
This is another really good article written by a OSU Student. Damn, I may have to change my opinion about you beavers
by Elizabeth Meyer
As it turns out, freedom of speech in the West isn’t as free as we thought. David Irving, an Austrian historian, has been jailed for denying that the Holocaust took place, or, more accurately, saying that it really wasn’t all that bad. Perhaps I should be nervous that more and more, as the cartoon riots sweep the Middle East and as Irving is jailed, I’m finding myself on the same side of arguments as some other Barometer columnists and a historian denying the Holocaust. The two men argue very different things, neither of which I ever thought I would agree with.
But the thing about believing in freedom of speech is that you have to believe in freedom of speech. That means repugnant speech. That means speech that makes your blood boil. Speech against your own sacred cows. Austria’s jailing of Irving has proven many Muslim scholars correct — we have a double standard in the West. Freedom of speech means freedom to offend ... until you cross the line. For many, that line should be hate speech.
Only by allowing hate speech and other objectionable expressions can we truly create an atmosphere of equality. If we simply deny the rights of those that offend us, we lose the opportunity to combat the racism, sexism, heterosexism, or other hate that creates that speech.
The first problem faced by the attempt to regulate hate speech is defining it. Hate speech is not hate crimes, or other criminal conduct. The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that illegal conduct is illegal, even if it contains speech. Chief Justice Warren wrote that the Court did not “accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea.” Harassment, trespass, vandalism, and violent crime are all still illegal, regardless of whatever message the perpetrator may be trying to spread. Hate speech, in the context of this paper, is only the act of speech itself.
Narrowing the definition of hate speech to only include speech, however, does not narrow it very much. The American Heritage Dictionary states that hate speech is “Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.” Even with this seemingly straightforward definition, hate speech is anything but clear cut. For example, what is “bigoted” and what constitutes a “social or ethnic group” and what is “disparaging?” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in its position paper on campus speech codes, argues that many college campuses have taken the definition of disparaging to the extreme, defining it as any offensive speech to a group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
This is problematic because it is so broad. Sensitivities vary. What one woman considers a good-natured joke may be seen as sexual harassment —and thus hate speech — by another. While neither woman is necessarily incorrect in her assessment of the comment, the speaker cannot know how the women will take the joke and may face disciplinary action.
If we look specifically to campuses, we see where hate speech, when not well defined, can be used to silence students. Universities argue that the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection to all U.S. citizens, means that they must allow access to all. Hate speech on campus denies this equal protection, they argue, by creating a hostile environment toward some, thus denying them equal access. But when these two values come into conflict, the school ought to err on the side of free speech.
The purpose of any university is to educate. Public universities exist because our states have found it in their interest to educate the population. No college freshman can start school without hearing “these years will change you” at least once, and few college seniors can disagree. Universities aim to educate beyond the classroom. Evidence of this at Oregon State can be seen in the Educational Activities funding for student-run activities ranging from a debate team to cultural nights, the five resource and cultural centers and in events such as Convocations and Lectures. Members of the ACLU argue that by allowing hate speech on campus, universities create another opportunity for education: for the targeted students, the speaker and other students on campus.
Opponents of hate speech bans such as the ACLU state that rather than issue a blanket ban, allowing hate speech gives students who would see themselves as victims the chance to become activists and reformers.
This doesn’t mean that hate speech must go unnoticed by universities. The universities can respond by holding forums, condemning such speech (but still allowing it) and providing support to student groups attempting to educate the campus about such issues. An atmosphere where the university just ignores it can easily be closed to minorities and women. But by simply banning it, the university pushes the problem under the rug only to have it rear its ugly head later, once the bigots are finished with school.
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis argues, “the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.” Our society has decided that for a functioning democracy, we must be able to evaluate ideas on our own. Yet if a university shields its students from offensive speech, the targeted students will never learn to defend themselves and the offensive students will not have their views directly challenged.
Hate speech is still a problem, not just on college campuses, but around the country and, in fact, the world. Still, it is almost impossible to define, and banning it in some places and instances but not others creates unfairness and bias. It is a far better world in which we combat racism head on, proving the ideas behind it wrong, rather than simply running from it. Putting David Irving in prison won’t convince him or his followers that they’re wrong. If anything, it will make them more sure in their convictions. Allow him and all others to spew their hate, because I’m willing to bet that if we let them talk, most people will hear them for the idiots they are.
by Elizabeth Meyer
As it turns out, freedom of speech in the West isn’t as free as we thought. David Irving, an Austrian historian, has been jailed for denying that the Holocaust took place, or, more accurately, saying that it really wasn’t all that bad. Perhaps I should be nervous that more and more, as the cartoon riots sweep the Middle East and as Irving is jailed, I’m finding myself on the same side of arguments as some other Barometer columnists and a historian denying the Holocaust. The two men argue very different things, neither of which I ever thought I would agree with.
But the thing about believing in freedom of speech is that you have to believe in freedom of speech. That means repugnant speech. That means speech that makes your blood boil. Speech against your own sacred cows. Austria’s jailing of Irving has proven many Muslim scholars correct — we have a double standard in the West. Freedom of speech means freedom to offend ... until you cross the line. For many, that line should be hate speech.
Only by allowing hate speech and other objectionable expressions can we truly create an atmosphere of equality. If we simply deny the rights of those that offend us, we lose the opportunity to combat the racism, sexism, heterosexism, or other hate that creates that speech.
The first problem faced by the attempt to regulate hate speech is defining it. Hate speech is not hate crimes, or other criminal conduct. The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that illegal conduct is illegal, even if it contains speech. Chief Justice Warren wrote that the Court did not “accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled ‘speech’ whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea.” Harassment, trespass, vandalism, and violent crime are all still illegal, regardless of whatever message the perpetrator may be trying to spread. Hate speech, in the context of this paper, is only the act of speech itself.
Narrowing the definition of hate speech to only include speech, however, does not narrow it very much. The American Heritage Dictionary states that hate speech is “Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.” Even with this seemingly straightforward definition, hate speech is anything but clear cut. For example, what is “bigoted” and what constitutes a “social or ethnic group” and what is “disparaging?” The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in its position paper on campus speech codes, argues that many college campuses have taken the definition of disparaging to the extreme, defining it as any offensive speech to a group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
This is problematic because it is so broad. Sensitivities vary. What one woman considers a good-natured joke may be seen as sexual harassment —and thus hate speech — by another. While neither woman is necessarily incorrect in her assessment of the comment, the speaker cannot know how the women will take the joke and may face disciplinary action.
If we look specifically to campuses, we see where hate speech, when not well defined, can be used to silence students. Universities argue that the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection to all U.S. citizens, means that they must allow access to all. Hate speech on campus denies this equal protection, they argue, by creating a hostile environment toward some, thus denying them equal access. But when these two values come into conflict, the school ought to err on the side of free speech.
The purpose of any university is to educate. Public universities exist because our states have found it in their interest to educate the population. No college freshman can start school without hearing “these years will change you” at least once, and few college seniors can disagree. Universities aim to educate beyond the classroom. Evidence of this at Oregon State can be seen in the Educational Activities funding for student-run activities ranging from a debate team to cultural nights, the five resource and cultural centers and in events such as Convocations and Lectures. Members of the ACLU argue that by allowing hate speech on campus, universities create another opportunity for education: for the targeted students, the speaker and other students on campus.
Opponents of hate speech bans such as the ACLU state that rather than issue a blanket ban, allowing hate speech gives students who would see themselves as victims the chance to become activists and reformers.
This doesn’t mean that hate speech must go unnoticed by universities. The universities can respond by holding forums, condemning such speech (but still allowing it) and providing support to student groups attempting to educate the campus about such issues. An atmosphere where the university just ignores it can easily be closed to minorities and women. But by simply banning it, the university pushes the problem under the rug only to have it rear its ugly head later, once the bigots are finished with school.
Supreme Court Justice Brandeis argues, “the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.” Our society has decided that for a functioning democracy, we must be able to evaluate ideas on our own. Yet if a university shields its students from offensive speech, the targeted students will never learn to defend themselves and the offensive students will not have their views directly challenged.
Hate speech is still a problem, not just on college campuses, but around the country and, in fact, the world. Still, it is almost impossible to define, and banning it in some places and instances but not others creates unfairness and bias. It is a far better world in which we combat racism head on, proving the ideas behind it wrong, rather than simply running from it. Putting David Irving in prison won’t convince him or his followers that they’re wrong. If anything, it will make them more sure in their convictions. Allow him and all others to spew their hate, because I’m willing to bet that if we let them talk, most people will hear them for the idiots they are.
The Islamic double-standard
This was written by a student at Oregon State, I thought it was very well written. I'm guilty of making fun of christians, and well every other religion on the planet. If you can't laugh at your self, and your own beliefs, you have issues. You obviously have some doubts or insecurities about your beliefs.
by Nathanael Blake
“There is certainly freedom in America to deride Christ. This is done every day on Broadway, and every other day in Hollywood. Americans do not take up arms in protest.”
— William F. Buckley Jr.
With his usual insight, Buckley has located the dog that not only isn’t barking, but has apparently taken an eternal vow of silence. As Muslim mobs torch embassies and Muslim governments begin boycotts in response to European newspapers’ publication of cartoons mocking Mohammad, there has been little surprise at such savagery.
There have been plenty of platitudes about respect and dialogue, many mealy-mouthed statements about the value of a free press, and bountiful bromides about tolerance. What there hasn’t been is any serious inquiry into the special status Islam enjoys.
Let Christians so much as stage a peaceful protest against the latest “art” to blaspheme Christianity, and the liberal media chorus will issue a cacophony of condemnation. Not at the offending art, of course, or the tasteless artist, but at those bourgeoisie boobs who had the audacity to display disgust at the demeaning of their religion. Art, we are told, exists to break taboos and transgress standards.
And Christianity is considered ripe for ridicule, as it is thought Puritanical and hierarchical, repressive and patriarchal. Islam, of course, possesses such attributes in spades (Sura 4:38: but chide [women] for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear … and scourge them), but it’s awfully gauche to say so. Also, doing so isn’t nearly so safe as Christian-baiting; there’s no Moral Majority equivalent of Mohammad Bouyeri, the chap who butchered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh for making a film critical of Islam.
When Muslims worldwide go on violent rampages over a few caricatures published in a newspaper they would never have heard of otherwise, no one is surprised, and the storm of disapprobation that would arise if anyone else did such a thing is forestalled. Bluntly put, we expect Muslims to behave barbarously: Muslims die in protests over supposed insults to Islam, ho-hum.
Saudi Arabia has recalled its envoy to Denmark in response to the cartoon kerfuffle, blathering about how showing such disrespect for Islam is unacceptable. I would suggest to the Saudi government that if they want me to show their pedophile prophet (yes, Mohammad first had sex with his favorite wife when she was nine and he was in his fifties) any respect, they ought to make it legal to publicly practice my religion in their kingdom. Not executing Muslims who convert to other religions would also be good.
Notes Victor Davis Hanson, “Ever since that seminal death sentence handed down to Salman Rushdie by the Iranian theocracy, the Western world has incrementally and insidiously accepted these laws of asymmetry … the Muslim Middle East can insist on one standard of behavior for itself and quite another for others.” We are not, he acridly points out, “to remember that Hamas terrorists occupied and desecrated the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in a globally televised charade.” In that case, the Vatican declined to call another Crusade in response.
When I read passages in the Koran like Sura 8:40: “fight then against [the infidels] till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s,” I started doubting the “religion of peace” cant. Perhaps this “peace” is the peace of the grave.
Christianity grew on the blood of its martyrs; Islam grew on the blood of its enemies. The only combatant a modern Muslim martyr is sure of killing is himself; he prefers that the others be women and children.
Oh, I’m sorry; I forgot that those extremists don’t represent the majority of Muslims, who are kind and peaceable. I suppose that I’ll have to suppress the knowledge that the Palestinian majority just elected a terrorist group to govern them.
There are, to be sure, individual Muslims who are quite nice, and even a few Muslim countries that aren’t run by tyrannical kleptocrats or theocrats. But on average, Islamic nations are oppressive and poor.
The problem with Islam is that it is an immanentist religion. While Christianity teaches that the kingdom of God is not of this world, Islam holds that it is the duty of Muslims to bring the kingdom of God to this world. Islam allows no distinction between religious and governmental authority, and proclaims that good Muslims will always triumph over their infidel enemies. That’s hardly a metaphysical view that inclines toward tolerance and religious freedom.
If Muslims are incapable of separating the political from the spiritual, then both the right and the left are going to have to examine some of their favorite views. Conservatives need to take a hard look at whether the Muslim Middle East really can be remade in a free, democratic image. I used to think so, but now I’m skeptical.
Liberals, meanwhile, need to consider if their vision of multiculturalism is really possible, or whether it will succumb to what Leszek Kolakowski called “The self-poisoning of the open society.”
Finally, the “moderate” Muslims that are constantly touted need to demonstrate that they have the will and ability to lead their religion out of barbarism.
by Nathanael Blake
“There is certainly freedom in America to deride Christ. This is done every day on Broadway, and every other day in Hollywood. Americans do not take up arms in protest.”
— William F. Buckley Jr.
With his usual insight, Buckley has located the dog that not only isn’t barking, but has apparently taken an eternal vow of silence. As Muslim mobs torch embassies and Muslim governments begin boycotts in response to European newspapers’ publication of cartoons mocking Mohammad, there has been little surprise at such savagery.
There have been plenty of platitudes about respect and dialogue, many mealy-mouthed statements about the value of a free press, and bountiful bromides about tolerance. What there hasn’t been is any serious inquiry into the special status Islam enjoys.
Let Christians so much as stage a peaceful protest against the latest “art” to blaspheme Christianity, and the liberal media chorus will issue a cacophony of condemnation. Not at the offending art, of course, or the tasteless artist, but at those bourgeoisie boobs who had the audacity to display disgust at the demeaning of their religion. Art, we are told, exists to break taboos and transgress standards.
And Christianity is considered ripe for ridicule, as it is thought Puritanical and hierarchical, repressive and patriarchal. Islam, of course, possesses such attributes in spades (Sura 4:38: but chide [women] for whose refractoriness ye have cause to fear … and scourge them), but it’s awfully gauche to say so. Also, doing so isn’t nearly so safe as Christian-baiting; there’s no Moral Majority equivalent of Mohammad Bouyeri, the chap who butchered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh for making a film critical of Islam.
When Muslims worldwide go on violent rampages over a few caricatures published in a newspaper they would never have heard of otherwise, no one is surprised, and the storm of disapprobation that would arise if anyone else did such a thing is forestalled. Bluntly put, we expect Muslims to behave barbarously: Muslims die in protests over supposed insults to Islam, ho-hum.
Saudi Arabia has recalled its envoy to Denmark in response to the cartoon kerfuffle, blathering about how showing such disrespect for Islam is unacceptable. I would suggest to the Saudi government that if they want me to show their pedophile prophet (yes, Mohammad first had sex with his favorite wife when she was nine and he was in his fifties) any respect, they ought to make it legal to publicly practice my religion in their kingdom. Not executing Muslims who convert to other religions would also be good.
Notes Victor Davis Hanson, “Ever since that seminal death sentence handed down to Salman Rushdie by the Iranian theocracy, the Western world has incrementally and insidiously accepted these laws of asymmetry … the Muslim Middle East can insist on one standard of behavior for itself and quite another for others.” We are not, he acridly points out, “to remember that Hamas terrorists occupied and desecrated the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in a globally televised charade.” In that case, the Vatican declined to call another Crusade in response.
When I read passages in the Koran like Sura 8:40: “fight then against [the infidels] till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God’s,” I started doubting the “religion of peace” cant. Perhaps this “peace” is the peace of the grave.
Christianity grew on the blood of its martyrs; Islam grew on the blood of its enemies. The only combatant a modern Muslim martyr is sure of killing is himself; he prefers that the others be women and children.
Oh, I’m sorry; I forgot that those extremists don’t represent the majority of Muslims, who are kind and peaceable. I suppose that I’ll have to suppress the knowledge that the Palestinian majority just elected a terrorist group to govern them.
There are, to be sure, individual Muslims who are quite nice, and even a few Muslim countries that aren’t run by tyrannical kleptocrats or theocrats. But on average, Islamic nations are oppressive and poor.
The problem with Islam is that it is an immanentist religion. While Christianity teaches that the kingdom of God is not of this world, Islam holds that it is the duty of Muslims to bring the kingdom of God to this world. Islam allows no distinction between religious and governmental authority, and proclaims that good Muslims will always triumph over their infidel enemies. That’s hardly a metaphysical view that inclines toward tolerance and religious freedom.
If Muslims are incapable of separating the political from the spiritual, then both the right and the left are going to have to examine some of their favorite views. Conservatives need to take a hard look at whether the Muslim Middle East really can be remade in a free, democratic image. I used to think so, but now I’m skeptical.
Liberals, meanwhile, need to consider if their vision of multiculturalism is really possible, or whether it will succumb to what Leszek Kolakowski called “The self-poisoning of the open society.”
Finally, the “moderate” Muslims that are constantly touted need to demonstrate that they have the will and ability to lead their religion out of barbarism.
2006/03/08
Hamas Launches Web Site Encouraging Kids to Become ´Martyrs´
18:01 Mar 08, '06 / 8 Adar 5766By Ezra HaLevi
The Palestinian Authority's ruling Hamas terror group has launched a web site for children, preaching the moral desirability of being a suicide terrorist via cartoons and children's stories.
The Hamas-run Al-Fateh.net glorifies shahada, martyrdom, and presents the deaths of terrorists attacking Israelis as a time of celebration, according to a report by Palestinian Media Watch.Press "Play" to listen to an interview on Arutz-7's IsraelNationalRadio.com with PMW's Itamar Marcus.One of the stories on the site quotes a mother saying that when she heard her son had become a shahid, a martyr, she bought dates, candies and coffee to give out. An entire section of the site is called "Stories of the Shahids," and the most recently posted story honors Hamas terrorist Naseem Ja'abari, who murdered 16 people when he blew himself up on a bus in Be'er Sheva on August 31, 2004.The page is egalitarian in its encouragement of martyrdom, with a prominently featured drawing of a religiously garbed girl participating in violent attacks (pictured above) on both the homepage and on a second page. The drawing is accompanied by a poem glorifying Jihad, Islamic conquest, and Shahada.Hamas won the Palestinian Authority's parliamentary elections in January by a large majority, and has since been subject to requests and demands that it at least verbally recognize Israel. On the web site, though, according to PMW, "Israel is repeatedly referred to as 'thief' and 'invader,' and its defeat in battle is both desired and anticipated."Though the site shares its name with Yasser Arafat's rival terror group, Al-Fateh, the name means "The Conqueror" and is run by Hamas.The following are excerpts from PMW's translation of a poem on the site and excerpts from the "Stories of the Shahids" section:
-continued-
2006/03/05
28 US House Reps Want Bush Impeachment Probe
ONLY 28!!!!!!! WHAT IN THE FUCK IS GOING ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By Matthew Cardinale, Editor and National Correspondent, Atlanta Progressive News (March 04, 2006)
28 members of US Congress have now signed on to H Res 635, including US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the original co-sponsor, Atlanta Progressive News has learned. Meanwhile, US cities of Arcata, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco, each in California, have passed resolutions recommending Bush's impeachment.
US Rep Martin Sabo (D-MN) was the latest member of Congress to sign Conyers's resolution, which would create a Select Committee to investigate the grounds for impeaching President Bush. Phone calls to Sabo's press secretary Friday were not immediately returned. Sabo is the first member of US Congress to sign on to the bill since February 16, 2006.
Over 14% of US House Democrats now support the impeachment probe; over 6% of all US House Representatives now support the probe. In December 2005, there were 231 Republicans in the US House, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 1 vacancy, a clerk for the US House of Representatives told Atlanta Progressive News.
The best represented states on H. Res 635 are California (7), New York (6), Georgia (2), Massachusetts (2), Minnesota (2), and Wisconsin (2).
-Continued-
By Matthew Cardinale, Editor and National Correspondent, Atlanta Progressive News (March 04, 2006)
28 members of US Congress have now signed on to H Res 635, including US Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the original co-sponsor, Atlanta Progressive News has learned. Meanwhile, US cities of Arcata, Santa Cruz, and San Francisco, each in California, have passed resolutions recommending Bush's impeachment.
US Rep Martin Sabo (D-MN) was the latest member of Congress to sign Conyers's resolution, which would create a Select Committee to investigate the grounds for impeaching President Bush. Phone calls to Sabo's press secretary Friday were not immediately returned. Sabo is the first member of US Congress to sign on to the bill since February 16, 2006.
Over 14% of US House Democrats now support the impeachment probe; over 6% of all US House Representatives now support the probe. In December 2005, there were 231 Republicans in the US House, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 1 vacancy, a clerk for the US House of Representatives told Atlanta Progressive News.
The best represented states on H. Res 635 are California (7), New York (6), Georgia (2), Massachusetts (2), Minnesota (2), and Wisconsin (2).
-Continued-
Common Sense Budget Act
Transfers Wasteful Pentagon Spending to Health, Schools, and other priorities like Homeland Security and the Budget Deficit
“Let’s strengthen our nation with responsible spending that benefits all Americans,while keeping our nation’s defenses strong,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey
What: U.S. Representatives Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) and Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) are joined by a group of business and retired military leaders in introducing the “Common Sense Budget Act.”
The “Common Sense Budget Act” would transfer $60 billion from outdated and unused Cold War Era defense programs to priorities that benefit America’s long term security, like schools, healthcare and humanitarian foreign aid.The Act has xxxxxx co-sponsors.
-Continued-
Normal human being to Republican translation,,,Common Sense,,,the opposite of what you think should be done
“Let’s strengthen our nation with responsible spending that benefits all Americans,while keeping our nation’s defenses strong,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey
What: U.S. Representatives Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) and Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) are joined by a group of business and retired military leaders in introducing the “Common Sense Budget Act.”
The “Common Sense Budget Act” would transfer $60 billion from outdated and unused Cold War Era defense programs to priorities that benefit America’s long term security, like schools, healthcare and humanitarian foreign aid.The Act has xxxxxx co-sponsors.
-Continued-
Normal human being to Republican translation,,,Common Sense,,,the opposite of what you think should be done
Pakistanis Revile Bush Visit
Published on Saturday, March 4, 2006 by the Long Island, NY Newsdayby James Rupert
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan --
Pakistanis shut down their country with a nationwide strike and protests Friday as President George W. Bush flew here from India for talks with President Pervez Musharraf.
-can we all go on strike when he returns???? quick, while he's gone, someone turn off the lights, he will think were not home and maybe go to canada
Police officers arrest woman activist protesting against the visit of U.S. President George Bush, Saturday, March 4, 2006 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. (AP Photo/K.M.Chaudary)
After Air Force One landed at an air base in Rawalpindi Friday night -- with window shades down and running lights turned off -- Bush's entourage was whisked into a bubble of protection and official welcome.
The capital, Islamabad, and many other cities were eerily quiet throughout the day, although thousands of men marched in Peshawar, Multan and Karachi to condemn Bush and the United States, and Musharraf, for allying with them. The protests, plus Thursday's bombing in Karachi that killed an American consulate official, have overshadowed the White House's goal for the trip: to depict a friendly and broad U.S.-Pakistani relationship that reaches beyond simple joint defense in the "global war on terrorism."
Timing may be off
But if there is a good time for a presidential arrival to showcase such a broad friendship, it seems not to be seven weeks after U.S. forces fired missiles into a Pakistani village near the Afghan border. The attack, aimed at wiping out a top al-Qaida leader, instead killed at least 12 local residents, including women and children. Last month, when protests mushroomed against the publication in Europe of caricatures of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, anger at the missile strike helped militant Islamic politicians here convert the demonstrations into violent outbursts against the United States and Musharraf.
-Continued-
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan --
Pakistanis shut down their country with a nationwide strike and protests Friday as President George W. Bush flew here from India for talks with President Pervez Musharraf.
-can we all go on strike when he returns???? quick, while he's gone, someone turn off the lights, he will think were not home and maybe go to canada
Police officers arrest woman activist protesting against the visit of U.S. President George Bush, Saturday, March 4, 2006 in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. (AP Photo/K.M.Chaudary)
After Air Force One landed at an air base in Rawalpindi Friday night -- with window shades down and running lights turned off -- Bush's entourage was whisked into a bubble of protection and official welcome.
The capital, Islamabad, and many other cities were eerily quiet throughout the day, although thousands of men marched in Peshawar, Multan and Karachi to condemn Bush and the United States, and Musharraf, for allying with them. The protests, plus Thursday's bombing in Karachi that killed an American consulate official, have overshadowed the White House's goal for the trip: to depict a friendly and broad U.S.-Pakistani relationship that reaches beyond simple joint defense in the "global war on terrorism."
Timing may be off
But if there is a good time for a presidential arrival to showcase such a broad friendship, it seems not to be seven weeks after U.S. forces fired missiles into a Pakistani village near the Afghan border. The attack, aimed at wiping out a top al-Qaida leader, instead killed at least 12 local residents, including women and children. Last month, when protests mushroomed against the publication in Europe of caricatures of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, anger at the missile strike helped militant Islamic politicians here convert the demonstrations into violent outbursts against the United States and Musharraf.
-Continued-
CNN Finally Gets It: Bush's "So-Called War on Terror"
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
This morning, in a caption under a photo of President Bush and Pakistan President Musharraf, someone in the mainstream media understood the reality of George Bush's War on a Word. Here's a screen shot from CNN's home page:
CENTCOM Team Engages 'Bloggers'
By Capt. Steve Alvarez, USAAmerican Forces Press Service
MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla., March 2, 2006 –
The widespread use of Web logs, or "blogs," by online writers has proliferated information on topics as varied as the authors.
Blogs, in essence, are online journals or forums for their authors, known as "bloggers."
Public affairs officials here said thousands of blogs are created each day, and they estimate that more than 21 million blogs are posted on the World Wide Web today.
Blogs sometimes include information -- accurate and otherwise -- about the U.S. military's global war on terror. U.S. Central Command officials here took notice and created a team to engage these writers and their electronic information forums.
-kinda big brothery is it not? Anyone here read Orwell?
"The main interest is to drive their readers to our site," Army Reserve Maj. Richard J. McNorton said. McNorton is CENTCOM's chief of engagement operations.
-sudden desire to join military
Anyone who wants a virtual voice can create a blog and share information with the online world. The ease with which bloggers spread information is what public affairs officials at CENTCOM saw when they created the blog team.
scaryy, free speech,sharingg ideas, and opinions,,,NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
McNorton said the team contacts bloggers to inform the writers about any given topic that may have been posted on their site. This outreach effort enables the team to offer complete information to bloggers by inviting them to visit CENTCOM's Web site for news releases, data or imagery.
-You must use our facts, and our opinions, or be destroyed!!!!
The team engages bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information. They extend a friendly invitation to all bloggers to visit the command's Web site.
-change your blog, or bend over and take it like a bitch
Many bloggers appreciate the team's contact, blog team officials said, and most post CENTCOM's Web site as a link on their blog sites. This, McNorton said, has a "viral effect" that drives Internet news consumers to CENTCOM's Web site.
-please don't hurt us, we will do what ever you ask, just stop the torture,,,,oops I mean persuasive influencing to a correct mind set
"Now (online readers) have the opportunity to read positive stories. At least the public can go there and see the whole story. The public wants to hear these good stories," he said, adding that the news stories the military generates are "very factual."
-yes, because we only want you reading "good" stories, that we feel are right, and "factual". Maybe I am just crazy, but I alwaysprefere the truth, good or bad.
From his desk at CENTCOM headquarters here, Army Reserve Spc. Claude Flowers of the 304th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment from Kent, Wash., fights in the global war on terrorism daily in his own way. It is an effort, officials here said, that is making a big difference in the communications arena in the online world.
-come on, stop,,, please, I'm telling!!!!!
The team's motto is "Engage," and Flowers and others work with more than 250 bloggers to try to disseminate news about the good work being done by U.S. forces in the global war on terror. The effort, officials here said, has reached more than 17 million online readers.
-join the military, join the military, join the military,,,,,
"We were given the mission to do electronic media engagement," Flowers said. "The idea was put forth that so many people are getting their news from online sources that we would be remiss if we neglected that audience."
-media engagement??? kinda like militaryintelligencee?
Flowers is one of three people who read blogs and try to drive Internet readers to the CENTCOM Web site, where readers can learn more about operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
-my fucking taxes are paying for three fucks to read blogs all day?Signn me up!!!!!!!!
"We needed to do something to make people aware of the fact that we had this clearinghouse of photos and information," Flowers said. "We can get the whole story out there. We let them know we have a Web site."
-yeeessss, our story must be the one you hear,,,,(inject evil laugh here)
Flowers said the Web site is filled with informative facts, figures, imagery, data and information that readers can digest before a third party processes and presents the information for them through other media.
-good fortestifyingg at the UN for a invasion, or any book report needed at your young republican meetings
"Certainly anyone is welcome to use the material on the Web site," Flowers said. "So far, the reception has been tremendous."
-YES, I will use your info, just stop hitting me!!!
Team members said they have contacted a full spectrum of bloggers. In one instance, a blogger was writing about the opening of a water treatment plant in Iraq. The writer was presenting the information as a positive milestone for the U.S. military in Iraq, but the information was not complete.
He forgot that Bush used his god like powers to make the plant in 7 days, after being tortured, he quicklyupdatedd his blog
The team contacted the writer and offered information via the CENTCOM Web site, and more information was added to the blog to make the article more accurate.
-all hail bush!!!
In another blog contact, the team wrote a blogger who had written untrue information about U.S. military tactics. The blogger stated that the U.S. military routinely used children in Iraq and Afghanistan as human shields during their operations by using candy to entice and lure kids near them.
-and I thought that soldier just wanted a date when he offered me that candy,,damn!!!
The team posted a comment on the writer's blog stating that the U.S. military did not use human shield tactics and explained the full circumstances of the incident where Iraqi children died in 2004 when insurgents attacked U.S. forces in Baghdad.
-they were not human shields, they were examples to other kids not to take candy frominfidelss
Most blogs ordinarily have a feature that enables readers to contact the writer or allows readers to post comments. When the team "reaches out" to a blogger, the team members do not conceal their identity.
-we are big brother, mother fucker, do as we say!!!!!
They fully disclose that they are public affairs personnel and identify themselves accordingly. And, McNorton said, they are there to correct information, no more.
-I'm sorry, your personal opinion is wrong, and we are here to correct it,,,
"We don't go in there and get into a debate," he said.
-too much of a mental challenge???
And officials here are quick to point out that they are not policing Web sites. They are simply offering bloggers the opportunity to get raw information directly from the source.
-yes, our info is raw, and no one has changed it in our favor at all,,,,did I say that with a straight face? I totally was about to loose it, ok, ok let me try that again,,,,
Flowers said that many military personnel have also become bloggers during their deployments as a way to keep friends and family informed on their activities in the war.
-help us!!! Please!!! Bush is a fucking phyco!!!!!
Here too, the team members don't police content, but if they do discover an operational security violation, they contact the blogger's command to point out the security violation.
-disagree with us, and we will court martial your ass!!!
"(Operational security) for a Web site is no different than OPSEC for a letter," Flowers said. "You shouldn't publish anything you don't want everyone to read," he said, adding that the enemy uses open sources of information to wage war on coalition forces.
-to find out the next attack, or what the hipterroristt will be wearing this spring, check out abull hamids, happenen blog!!!
But, he said, "The power of military blogs is that they're a letter home from servicemen and women that the entire world can read," Flowers said.
All bloggers have their niche audience, Flowers said. Some are faith-based, others are military community members, and yet others are involved in mustering humanitarian aid for people in Iraq or Afghanistan. But while the reasons for their blogs differ, most bloggers consistently offer the same comment to Flowers and his team.
-comment #1-Fuck off big brother #2-Freedom of speech,,,ring any bells? #3-bloggers who can, do, bloggers who can't, work for centcom??
"Repeatedly we hear from people, 'I never would have heard this story in the mainstream media,'" Flowers said.
-yeah, I would have heard the truth, wellat leastt a attempt at truth, oh who the fuck am I kidding, same shit, different channel
"People really are interested in what soldiers are doing. Blogs are individual statements. They're the voice of individuals. They're a way of understanding this war on a very human level."
-our voice is the only voice, listen to us, join the military, follow blindly, OBEY!!!!!!
(EDITOR'S NOTE: The author wrote a daily blog for hometown online newspaper Orlando Sentinel as part of his official duties during hisyear longg deployment to Iraq in 2004-2005. CENTCOM officials said his blog, the first official U.S. military war blog published by a daily newspaper, helped in conceptualizing the blog team.)
-Thanks captain fuck nut, your my new hero!!!!!
MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla., March 2, 2006 –
The widespread use of Web logs, or "blogs," by online writers has proliferated information on topics as varied as the authors.
Blogs, in essence, are online journals or forums for their authors, known as "bloggers."
Public affairs officials here said thousands of blogs are created each day, and they estimate that more than 21 million blogs are posted on the World Wide Web today.
Blogs sometimes include information -- accurate and otherwise -- about the U.S. military's global war on terror. U.S. Central Command officials here took notice and created a team to engage these writers and their electronic information forums.
-kinda big brothery is it not? Anyone here read Orwell?
"The main interest is to drive their readers to our site," Army Reserve Maj. Richard J. McNorton said. McNorton is CENTCOM's chief of engagement operations.
-sudden desire to join military
Anyone who wants a virtual voice can create a blog and share information with the online world. The ease with which bloggers spread information is what public affairs officials at CENTCOM saw when they created the blog team.
scaryy, free speech,sharingg ideas, and opinions,,,NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
McNorton said the team contacts bloggers to inform the writers about any given topic that may have been posted on their site. This outreach effort enables the team to offer complete information to bloggers by inviting them to visit CENTCOM's Web site for news releases, data or imagery.
-You must use our facts, and our opinions, or be destroyed!!!!
The team engages bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information, as well as bloggers who are posting incomplete information. They extend a friendly invitation to all bloggers to visit the command's Web site.
-change your blog, or bend over and take it like a bitch
Many bloggers appreciate the team's contact, blog team officials said, and most post CENTCOM's Web site as a link on their blog sites. This, McNorton said, has a "viral effect" that drives Internet news consumers to CENTCOM's Web site.
-please don't hurt us, we will do what ever you ask, just stop the torture,,,,oops I mean persuasive influencing to a correct mind set
"Now (online readers) have the opportunity to read positive stories. At least the public can go there and see the whole story. The public wants to hear these good stories," he said, adding that the news stories the military generates are "very factual."
-yes, because we only want you reading "good" stories, that we feel are right, and "factual". Maybe I am just crazy, but I alwaysprefere the truth, good or bad.
From his desk at CENTCOM headquarters here, Army Reserve Spc. Claude Flowers of the 304th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment from Kent, Wash., fights in the global war on terrorism daily in his own way. It is an effort, officials here said, that is making a big difference in the communications arena in the online world.
-come on, stop,,, please, I'm telling!!!!!
The team's motto is "Engage," and Flowers and others work with more than 250 bloggers to try to disseminate news about the good work being done by U.S. forces in the global war on terror. The effort, officials here said, has reached more than 17 million online readers.
-join the military, join the military, join the military,,,,,
"We were given the mission to do electronic media engagement," Flowers said. "The idea was put forth that so many people are getting their news from online sources that we would be remiss if we neglected that audience."
-media engagement??? kinda like militaryintelligencee?
Flowers is one of three people who read blogs and try to drive Internet readers to the CENTCOM Web site, where readers can learn more about operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
-my fucking taxes are paying for three fucks to read blogs all day?Signn me up!!!!!!!!
"We needed to do something to make people aware of the fact that we had this clearinghouse of photos and information," Flowers said. "We can get the whole story out there. We let them know we have a Web site."
-yeeessss, our story must be the one you hear,,,,(inject evil laugh here)
Flowers said the Web site is filled with informative facts, figures, imagery, data and information that readers can digest before a third party processes and presents the information for them through other media.
-good fortestifyingg at the UN for a invasion, or any book report needed at your young republican meetings
"Certainly anyone is welcome to use the material on the Web site," Flowers said. "So far, the reception has been tremendous."
-YES, I will use your info, just stop hitting me!!!
Team members said they have contacted a full spectrum of bloggers. In one instance, a blogger was writing about the opening of a water treatment plant in Iraq. The writer was presenting the information as a positive milestone for the U.S. military in Iraq, but the information was not complete.
He forgot that Bush used his god like powers to make the plant in 7 days, after being tortured, he quicklyupdatedd his blog
The team contacted the writer and offered information via the CENTCOM Web site, and more information was added to the blog to make the article more accurate.
-all hail bush!!!
In another blog contact, the team wrote a blogger who had written untrue information about U.S. military tactics. The blogger stated that the U.S. military routinely used children in Iraq and Afghanistan as human shields during their operations by using candy to entice and lure kids near them.
-and I thought that soldier just wanted a date when he offered me that candy,,damn!!!
The team posted a comment on the writer's blog stating that the U.S. military did not use human shield tactics and explained the full circumstances of the incident where Iraqi children died in 2004 when insurgents attacked U.S. forces in Baghdad.
-they were not human shields, they were examples to other kids not to take candy frominfidelss
Most blogs ordinarily have a feature that enables readers to contact the writer or allows readers to post comments. When the team "reaches out" to a blogger, the team members do not conceal their identity.
-we are big brother, mother fucker, do as we say!!!!!
They fully disclose that they are public affairs personnel and identify themselves accordingly. And, McNorton said, they are there to correct information, no more.
-I'm sorry, your personal opinion is wrong, and we are here to correct it,,,
"We don't go in there and get into a debate," he said.
-too much of a mental challenge???
And officials here are quick to point out that they are not policing Web sites. They are simply offering bloggers the opportunity to get raw information directly from the source.
-yes, our info is raw, and no one has changed it in our favor at all,,,,did I say that with a straight face? I totally was about to loose it, ok, ok let me try that again,,,,
Flowers said that many military personnel have also become bloggers during their deployments as a way to keep friends and family informed on their activities in the war.
-help us!!! Please!!! Bush is a fucking phyco!!!!!
Here too, the team members don't police content, but if they do discover an operational security violation, they contact the blogger's command to point out the security violation.
-disagree with us, and we will court martial your ass!!!
"(Operational security) for a Web site is no different than OPSEC for a letter," Flowers said. "You shouldn't publish anything you don't want everyone to read," he said, adding that the enemy uses open sources of information to wage war on coalition forces.
-to find out the next attack, or what the hipterroristt will be wearing this spring, check out abull hamids, happenen blog!!!
But, he said, "The power of military blogs is that they're a letter home from servicemen and women that the entire world can read," Flowers said.
All bloggers have their niche audience, Flowers said. Some are faith-based, others are military community members, and yet others are involved in mustering humanitarian aid for people in Iraq or Afghanistan. But while the reasons for their blogs differ, most bloggers consistently offer the same comment to Flowers and his team.
-comment #1-Fuck off big brother #2-Freedom of speech,,,ring any bells? #3-bloggers who can, do, bloggers who can't, work for centcom??
"Repeatedly we hear from people, 'I never would have heard this story in the mainstream media,'" Flowers said.
-yeah, I would have heard the truth, wellat leastt a attempt at truth, oh who the fuck am I kidding, same shit, different channel
"People really are interested in what soldiers are doing. Blogs are individual statements. They're the voice of individuals. They're a way of understanding this war on a very human level."
-our voice is the only voice, listen to us, join the military, follow blindly, OBEY!!!!!!
(EDITOR'S NOTE: The author wrote a daily blog for hometown online newspaper Orlando Sentinel as part of his official duties during hisyear longg deployment to Iraq in 2004-2005. CENTCOM officials said his blog, the first official U.S. military war blog published by a daily newspaper, helped in conceptualizing the blog team.)
-Thanks captain fuck nut, your my new hero!!!!!
Hindu priests scrub Bush's juju off shrine
During President Bush's recent visit to India he attended a ceremony at a shrine dedicated to national hero Mohandas Gandhi. As soon as he left, the Hindu priests charged with caring for the holy site rushed in to clean it.
No doubt desperate not to offend the American president after he awarded them a nuclear gift bonanza, the priests are telling anyone who will listen that their concern is the sniffer-dogs that were used as security.
The priests found the U.S. presence so off-putting that they cleansed the area with water from the Ganges, a river teeming with human excrement.
Ghandi's great-grandson Tushar Gandhi has called the befouling a "national shame."
2006/03/04
Bush, Conservative Values and the Culture of Death
by SusanG
Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 12:21:56 PM PDT
People appreciate somebody who sets a tone, a tone that values life. -- George W. Bush, June 5, 2000
Fact: Estimated 100,000+ Iraqi civilian deaths.
Fact: 2,506 coalition military deaths as of 3/3/06
Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life.-- George W. Bush, Feb. 2, 2005
Fact: 16,742 American military wounded as of 3/3/06.
Fact: Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing by leaps and bounds, White House budget documents assume a cutback in 2008 and further cuts thereafter.
The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example.-- George W. Bush, June 26, 2003
Fact: At least 108 people have died in U.S. custody.
Fact: Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.
I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people.--George W. Bush, March 31, 2005
Fact: 1300+ dead in Katrina
Fact: 1,900+ still missing from Katrina as of 2/22/06.
Fact: Hurricane Katrina exposed the U.S. government's failure to learn the lessons of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as leaders from President Bush down disregarded ample warnings of the threat to New Orleans and did not execute emergency plans or share information that would have saved lives, according to a blistering report by House investigators.
I wake up every day thinking about how best to protect America. That's my job.-- George W. Bush, September 30, 2004
Fact: 14 mining deaths in two separate incidents in January 2006
Fact: In its drive to foster a more cooperative relationship with mining companies, the Bush administration has decreased major fines for safety violations since 2001, and in nearly half the cases, it has not collected the fines, according to a data analysis by The New York Times.
I think it's important to promote a culture of life. I think a hospitable society is a society where every being counts and every person matters.--George W. Bush, October 13, 2004
Fact: George W. Bush during his six years as governor of Texas presided over 152 executions, more than any other governor in the recent history of the United States.
I will lead our nation toward a culture that values life.-- George W. Bush, August 3, 2000
Fact: Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions.4 Today, abortion is one of the most commonly performed clinical procedures in the United States, and the current death rate from abortion at all stages of gestations is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. This is 11 times safer than childbirth and nearly twice as safe as a penicillin injection.2
Fact: President Bush told abortion opponents Monday that they are pursuing "a noble cause" and making a real difference in the campaign to recruit more Americans to stand on their side.
The question is which one of us can lead America to appreciate life.-- George W. Bush, February 15, 2000
Fact: Half of all cervical cancer deaths - approximately 2,300 per year - could be prevented by a newly developed HPV vaccine.
Fact: In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.
Fact: The jockeying reflects the growing influence social conservatives, who had long felt overlooked by Washington, have gained on a broad spectrum of policy issues under the Bush administration. In this case, a former member of the conservative group Focus on the Family serves on the federal panel that is playing a pivotal role in deciding how the vaccine is used.
In our time, respect for the right to life calls us to defend the sick and the dying, persons with disabilities and birth defects, and all who are weak and vulnerable.George W. Bush, January 23, 2006
Fact: Estimated 55,000 deaths and 160,000 heart attacks due to Vioxx, a pain reliever for those suffering from arthritis.
Fact: Dr. David J. Graham of the FDA's Office of Drug Safety told Senate investigators he faced resistance to his findings within the FDA and that instead of acting as a public watchdog, the Food and Drug Administration was busy challenging its own expert and calling his work scientific rumor.
Fact: Graham's testimony at the hearing became front-page news after he identified the FDA's handling of Vioxx as the worst public health disaster in its history, resulting in a probable 30,000-55,000 deaths. No official could credibly challenge his Vioxx findings, and he identified five other suspect drugs: Accutane, Bextra, Crestor, Meridia, and Serevent.
A week after the hearing, sympathetic insider colleagues and press contacts warned Graham that the FDA was finalizing plans to exile him from drug safety work within days.
CONCLUSION
The only consistent "pro-life" policy expounded by President George W. Bush and his conservative fellow travelers is toward future, theoretical lives that reside as embryos in individual women's wombs and have yet to draw a breath or prove viability.
Real lives? Being lived in the real world by breathing people with a proven track record of existence? You're not only on your own, you're unvalued, unprotected, unimportant and more at risk than ever before.
Life is only valued when it's hypothetical. Get used to it.
Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 12:21:56 PM PDT
People appreciate somebody who sets a tone, a tone that values life. -- George W. Bush, June 5, 2000
Fact: Estimated 100,000+ Iraqi civilian deaths.
Fact: 2,506 coalition military deaths as of 3/3/06
Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life.-- George W. Bush, Feb. 2, 2005
Fact: 16,742 American military wounded as of 3/3/06.
Fact: Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing by leaps and bounds, White House budget documents assume a cutback in 2008 and further cuts thereafter.
The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example.-- George W. Bush, June 26, 2003
Fact: At least 108 people have died in U.S. custody.
Fact: Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.
I believe the most solemn duty of the American president is to protect the American people.--George W. Bush, March 31, 2005
Fact: 1300+ dead in Katrina
Fact: 1,900+ still missing from Katrina as of 2/22/06.
Fact: Hurricane Katrina exposed the U.S. government's failure to learn the lessons of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as leaders from President Bush down disregarded ample warnings of the threat to New Orleans and did not execute emergency plans or share information that would have saved lives, according to a blistering report by House investigators.
I wake up every day thinking about how best to protect America. That's my job.-- George W. Bush, September 30, 2004
Fact: 14 mining deaths in two separate incidents in January 2006
Fact: In its drive to foster a more cooperative relationship with mining companies, the Bush administration has decreased major fines for safety violations since 2001, and in nearly half the cases, it has not collected the fines, according to a data analysis by The New York Times.
I think it's important to promote a culture of life. I think a hospitable society is a society where every being counts and every person matters.--George W. Bush, October 13, 2004
Fact: George W. Bush during his six years as governor of Texas presided over 152 executions, more than any other governor in the recent history of the United States.
I will lead our nation toward a culture that values life.-- George W. Bush, August 3, 2000
Fact: Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions.4 Today, abortion is one of the most commonly performed clinical procedures in the United States, and the current death rate from abortion at all stages of gestations is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures. This is 11 times safer than childbirth and nearly twice as safe as a penicillin injection.2
Fact: President Bush told abortion opponents Monday that they are pursuing "a noble cause" and making a real difference in the campaign to recruit more Americans to stand on their side.
The question is which one of us can lead America to appreciate life.-- George W. Bush, February 15, 2000
Fact: Half of all cervical cancer deaths - approximately 2,300 per year - could be prevented by a newly developed HPV vaccine.
Fact: In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV as they are against other viruses such as HIV.
"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex," Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even heard of the virus.
Fact: The jockeying reflects the growing influence social conservatives, who had long felt overlooked by Washington, have gained on a broad spectrum of policy issues under the Bush administration. In this case, a former member of the conservative group Focus on the Family serves on the federal panel that is playing a pivotal role in deciding how the vaccine is used.
In our time, respect for the right to life calls us to defend the sick and the dying, persons with disabilities and birth defects, and all who are weak and vulnerable.George W. Bush, January 23, 2006
Fact: Estimated 55,000 deaths and 160,000 heart attacks due to Vioxx, a pain reliever for those suffering from arthritis.
Fact: Dr. David J. Graham of the FDA's Office of Drug Safety told Senate investigators he faced resistance to his findings within the FDA and that instead of acting as a public watchdog, the Food and Drug Administration was busy challenging its own expert and calling his work scientific rumor.
Fact: Graham's testimony at the hearing became front-page news after he identified the FDA's handling of Vioxx as the worst public health disaster in its history, resulting in a probable 30,000-55,000 deaths. No official could credibly challenge his Vioxx findings, and he identified five other suspect drugs: Accutane, Bextra, Crestor, Meridia, and Serevent.
A week after the hearing, sympathetic insider colleagues and press contacts warned Graham that the FDA was finalizing plans to exile him from drug safety work within days.
CONCLUSION
The only consistent "pro-life" policy expounded by President George W. Bush and his conservative fellow travelers is toward future, theoretical lives that reside as embryos in individual women's wombs and have yet to draw a breath or prove viability.
Real lives? Being lived in the real world by breathing people with a proven track record of existence? You're not only on your own, you're unvalued, unprotected, unimportant and more at risk than ever before.
Life is only valued when it's hypothetical. Get used to it.
"Europe is shuffling into darkness. It is proving incapable of standing up to its enemies, and in an effort to accommodate the peripheral rights of a minority is failing to protect the most basic rights of its own people.
"The governments of Europe have been tricked into believing that criticism of a belief is the same thing as criticism of a race. And so it is becoming increasingly difficult and dangerous to criticise a growing and powerful ideology within our midst. It may soon, in addition, be made illegal." Hat tip Robert D
2006/03/02
terrorism!
Retired schoolteacher Walter Soehnge is furious over the latest idiot "Homeland Security" crackdown.
That's because Soehnge himself was targeted by the police-state thugs all because he paid off a credit card.
Soehnge, a Texan who retired to Rhode Island with his wife, says they noticed a MasterCard balance was creeping up. So they decided to pay it off, starting with a nice fat payment of $6,522.
When it didn't appear on their credit card statement, Soehnge started making phone calls ... and eventually found out that just trying to pay off a bill these days is enough to bring in the idiot feds.
"An alarm went off. A red flag went up. The Soehnges' behavior was found questionable," Providence Journal columnist Bob Kerr wrote this week.
"And all they did was pay down their debt. They didn't call a suspected terrorist on their cell phone. They didn't try to sneak a machine gun through customs. They just paid a hefty chunk of their credit card balance. And they learned how frighteningly wide the net of suspicion has been cast."
Soehnge says he's "madder than a panther with kerosene on his tail."
He's on a crusade to let people know "how easily someone in Homeland Security can get permission to spy."
2006/03/01
Jeff Pulver Blog Comments on Net Neutrality in the U.S. Senate
MELVILLE, New York, March 1 /PRNewswire/ -- In anticipation of Sen. Ron Wyden's (D. OR) introduction of Net Neutrality legislation in the U.S. Senate today, Jeff Pulver's blog entry of March 1st highlights what he sees as issues critical to keeping the nature and viability of the "open Internet." Entitled "Net Neutrality in the U.S. Senate," members of the media may view today's blog entry at: http://pulverblog.pulver.com/ .
"Sen. Wyden, who is no longer on the Senate Commerce Committee, but who gave a most impassioned plea for Net Neutrality at the Committee's Net Neutrality Hearing a few weeks back, is now poised to introduce a stand-alone bill for Net Neutrality. Given that all recent rumors indicate that any discussion of Net Neutrality will be stripped from the House discussion on Communications Policy reform, a stand-alone bill such as the one we believe Sen. Wyden is likely to introduce is essential to focus the debate on what is probably the single-most important concept to protect the nature and viability of the open Internet. We believe the House will likely only consider relief efforts (e.g., local franchising relief) for broadband-delivered video (e.g., IPTV)."
"What confuses me is that the underlying principle that should guide Congress as it determines whether to free the Bells of Title VI cable obligations, is why isn't the logic for unregulation of broadband-delivered video the same as the argument that we are trying to wage for broadband- delivered voice -- that is to say that IP-delivered voice OR video is just an application -- geographically boundless and best guaranteed through simple implementation of swift and certain Net Neutrality rules?"
"Why aren't the disruptive voice and the disruptive video application providers uniting on this issue? As we expand "VON" from "Voice on the Net" to "Voice and Video on the Net", I think it is time for all of us who are working to transform the nature of all forms of communications to come together and recognize our common interest in preserving the open Internet to allow users to maximize their Internet and communications experience. And perhaps, just perhaps, there is a way to bring the Bells into the debate as our allies."
About Jeff Pulver's Blog
Pulver publishes a blog that offers unique insight into the state of the IP Communications industry. This blog, which is updated daily (and sometimes more often than that) addresses all-things-VoIP, from the technical (i.e., service and product innovations, extensions of concept) to the political (Governmental concerns, hearings and rulings, any and all issues-based subject matter). The Jeff Pulver Blog can be easily accessed at http://pulverblog.pulver.com/ , and reader comments are welcome (and typically result in a speedy reply!).
About Jeff Pulver
Jeff Pulver is one of the true pioneers of the Internet telephony/VoIP industry with more than a decade of hands-on experience in IP Communications and innovation. He is the chairman of pulver.com, pulvermedia, the industry standard Voice on the Net (VON) conferences, and the publisher of The Pulver Report and VON magazine. Additionally, Mr. Pulver is the founder of a number of IP Communications companies. Mr. Pulver has testified before the FCC, the United States Congress, and numerous agencies that have a growing interest in IP Communications. Mr. Pulver is committed to the future of IP Communications and is featured often in the media as a true expert in his field.
"Sen. Wyden, who is no longer on the Senate Commerce Committee, but who gave a most impassioned plea for Net Neutrality at the Committee's Net Neutrality Hearing a few weeks back, is now poised to introduce a stand-alone bill for Net Neutrality. Given that all recent rumors indicate that any discussion of Net Neutrality will be stripped from the House discussion on Communications Policy reform, a stand-alone bill such as the one we believe Sen. Wyden is likely to introduce is essential to focus the debate on what is probably the single-most important concept to protect the nature and viability of the open Internet. We believe the House will likely only consider relief efforts (e.g., local franchising relief) for broadband-delivered video (e.g., IPTV)."
"What confuses me is that the underlying principle that should guide Congress as it determines whether to free the Bells of Title VI cable obligations, is why isn't the logic for unregulation of broadband-delivered video the same as the argument that we are trying to wage for broadband- delivered voice -- that is to say that IP-delivered voice OR video is just an application -- geographically boundless and best guaranteed through simple implementation of swift and certain Net Neutrality rules?"
"Why aren't the disruptive voice and the disruptive video application providers uniting on this issue? As we expand "VON" from "Voice on the Net" to "Voice and Video on the Net", I think it is time for all of us who are working to transform the nature of all forms of communications to come together and recognize our common interest in preserving the open Internet to allow users to maximize their Internet and communications experience. And perhaps, just perhaps, there is a way to bring the Bells into the debate as our allies."
About Jeff Pulver's Blog
Pulver publishes a blog that offers unique insight into the state of the IP Communications industry. This blog, which is updated daily (and sometimes more often than that) addresses all-things-VoIP, from the technical (i.e., service and product innovations, extensions of concept) to the political (Governmental concerns, hearings and rulings, any and all issues-based subject matter). The Jeff Pulver Blog can be easily accessed at http://pulverblog.pulver.com/ , and reader comments are welcome (and typically result in a speedy reply!).
About Jeff Pulver
Jeff Pulver is one of the true pioneers of the Internet telephony/VoIP industry with more than a decade of hands-on experience in IP Communications and innovation. He is the chairman of pulver.com, pulvermedia, the industry standard Voice on the Net (VON) conferences, and the publisher of The Pulver Report and VON magazine. Additionally, Mr. Pulver is the founder of a number of IP Communications companies. Mr. Pulver has testified before the FCC, the United States Congress, and numerous agencies that have a growing interest in IP Communications. Mr. Pulver is committed to the future of IP Communications and is featured often in the media as a true expert in his field.
Bush in India: Just Not Welcome
Arundhati Roy
On his triumphalist tour of India and Pakistan, where he hopes to wave imperiously at people he considers potential subjects, President Bush has an itinerary that's getting curiouser and curiouser.
For Bush's March 2 pit stop in New Delhi, the Indian government tried very hard to have him address our parliament. A not inconsequential number of MPs threatened to heckle him, so Plan One was hastily shelved. Plan Two was to have Bush address the masses from the ramparts of the magnificent Red Fort, where the Indian prime minister traditionally delivers his Independence Day address. But the Red Fort, surrounded as it is by the predominantly Muslim population of Old Delhi, was considered a security nightmare. So now we're into Plan Three: President George Bush speaks from Purana Qila, the Old Fort.
Ironic, isn't it, that the only safe public space for a man who has recently been so enthusiastic about India's modernity should be a crumbling medieval fort?
-continued-
Where Are the Good Americans?
By JEREMY BRECHER & BRENDAN SMITH
03/01/06 "The Nation" -- -- Anyone who sees the photographs of the victims of the Nazi concentration camps must wonder how human beings could ever have allowed such things to happen. They must wonder how people of good will could have stood by while their government committed atrocities in their name. In the wake of that nightmarish era, people often asked, "Where were the good Germans?" After the publication of the long-suppressed pictures of Abu Ghraib victims and the United Nations finding that torture and abuse are still taking place at the US prison in Guantánamo Bay, America has fashioned its own nightmare. We now must ask ourselves, "Where are the good Americans?" After an eighteen-month study, five independent experts appointed by the UN Commission on Human Rights have just concluded that practices currently conducted at the US prison in Guantánamo amount to torture: excessive violence, force-feeding of hunger-striking detainees and arbitrary detention of prisoners that violates their right under international law to challenge the legality of their captivity before an independent judicial body. The Bush Administration has condemned the publication of the Abu Ghraib photos and has rejected the UN report as "fundamentally flawed." But Americans should be grateful that people in the rest of the world are helping us discover what the Administration is trying to conceal from its own citizens: It is conducting war crimes in our name. The UN report makes recommendations that are simple and obvious:
-Continued-
03/01/06 "The Nation" -- -- Anyone who sees the photographs of the victims of the Nazi concentration camps must wonder how human beings could ever have allowed such things to happen. They must wonder how people of good will could have stood by while their government committed atrocities in their name. In the wake of that nightmarish era, people often asked, "Where were the good Germans?" After the publication of the long-suppressed pictures of Abu Ghraib victims and the United Nations finding that torture and abuse are still taking place at the US prison in Guantánamo Bay, America has fashioned its own nightmare. We now must ask ourselves, "Where are the good Americans?" After an eighteen-month study, five independent experts appointed by the UN Commission on Human Rights have just concluded that practices currently conducted at the US prison in Guantánamo amount to torture: excessive violence, force-feeding of hunger-striking detainees and arbitrary detention of prisoners that violates their right under international law to challenge the legality of their captivity before an independent judicial body. The Bush Administration has condemned the publication of the Abu Ghraib photos and has rejected the UN report as "fundamentally flawed." But Americans should be grateful that people in the rest of the world are helping us discover what the Administration is trying to conceal from its own citizens: It is conducting war crimes in our name. The UN report makes recommendations that are simple and obvious:
-Continued-
Memo: Bush made intel fit Iraq policy
By WARREN P. STROBEL and JOHN WALCOTT05/06/05 "Knight Ridder" - - WASHINGTON - A highly classified British memo, leaked in the midst of Britain's just-concluded election campaign, indicates that President Bush decided to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by summer 2002 and was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy.The document, which summarizes a July 23, 2002, meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with his top security advisers, reports on a visit to Washington by the head of Britain's MI-6 intelligence service.The visit took place while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made to go to war."There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable," the MI-6 chief said at the meeting, according to the memo. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD," weapons of mass destruction.The memo said "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."No weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003.The White House has repeatedly denied accusations made by several top foreign officials that it manipulated intelligence estimates to justify an invasion of Iraq.It has instead pointed to the conclusions of two studies, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee and one by a presidentially appointed panel, that cite serious failures by the CIA and other agencies in judging Saddam's weapons programs.
-continued-
-continued-
'We surrender'
No longer buying their president's "stay the course" nonsense, a whopping 72% of U.S. troops in Iraq now want America to get out of there within a year.
Only 23% agreed that American forces should stay in Iraq "as long as they are needed."
Pollsters from Zogby interviewed nearly a thousand troops face-to-face in Iraq.
Of those demanding that the United States quit Iraq, 51% said it should happen either immediately or within the next six months.
"This is a credible and representative look at what the troops are saying," pollster John Zogby said, according to today's Stars & Stripes.
"Clearly there are those [in the U.S.] who will speak for the troops, so there is a real value in seeing what they are actually saying."
But the new poll's real shocker is the number of American forces brainwashed by the Bush Administration's deliberate disinformation campaign to link Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks.
An overwhelming 85% of U.S. troops in Iraq still cling to the deliberate White House lie that the 2003 invasion was "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the Sept. 11 attacks."
Despite the Bush Administration's tremendous success in brainwashing its volunteer soldiers, the same troops now beg to surrender and go home.
Not even gung-ho American forces can still be controlled by the Sept. 11 attacks that have given so much to the Bush Administration.
Only 23% agreed that American forces should stay in Iraq "as long as they are needed."
Pollsters from Zogby interviewed nearly a thousand troops face-to-face in Iraq.
Of those demanding that the United States quit Iraq, 51% said it should happen either immediately or within the next six months.
"This is a credible and representative look at what the troops are saying," pollster John Zogby said, according to today's Stars & Stripes.
"Clearly there are those [in the U.S.] who will speak for the troops, so there is a real value in seeing what they are actually saying."
But the new poll's real shocker is the number of American forces brainwashed by the Bush Administration's deliberate disinformation campaign to link Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks.
An overwhelming 85% of U.S. troops in Iraq still cling to the deliberate White House lie that the 2003 invasion was "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the Sept. 11 attacks."
Despite the Bush Administration's tremendous success in brainwashing its volunteer soldiers, the same troops now beg to surrender and go home.
Not even gung-ho American forces can still be controlled by the Sept. 11 attacks that have given so much to the Bush Administration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Who invented the noodle is a hotly contested topic - with the Chinese, Italians and Arabs all staking a claim. But the discovery of a pot of...
-
I work for a rather large company, and before that I worked for a huge company. Both companies had one thing in common, and I see this trend...
