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-
2006/03/17
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.
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...
