data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/934e3/934e3f5b77bb2c47072c99f920929abd0015d327" alt=""
Click image for larger view.
Thanks to Dr. Demmy for the link.
Via Bye The Times
Neocons only care about total power...to the insane.
One has to worry about the state of our republic when the majority party chastises its more moderate members for lack of guts and fortitude for not squashing and obliterating minority dissension ("No evidence of courage as Republicans flinch," @issue, May 27).
Debate and compromise mean nothing to Republicans of the neocon persuasion --- not when the opportunity for total and complete power is tantalizingly close. In their view, a 51 percent majority is a political mandate to do everything they ever wanted and minority dissent is a bug that must be squashed.
That means that in a country of 295 million people, 150 million want to tell 145 million others to shut up. Does that sound like America?
CALVIN HARRIS, Atlanta
Majority rule: Stop the stalling of minority party
Where is there any justification for allowing the minority party to hamstring judicial nominations or any other nominations ("Democrats stall vote on U.N. ambassador," News, May 27)?
There is no justification for minority rule in any area of our governmental structure. For one juror to rule the decision in criminal cases would be ridiculous. The U.S. Supreme Court approves serious matters with 5-4 decisions.
The majority should rule. If the Democrats want to rule, then let them work to win elections. It's that simple.
LEWIS STOVER JR., Lawrenceville
More than a year after their son was shot several times by his fellow Army Rangers on a craggy hillside near the Pakistani border, Tillman's mother and father said in interviews that they believe the military and the government created a heroic tale about how their son died to foster a patriotic response across the country. They say the Army's "lies" about what happened have made them suspicious, and that they are certain they will never get the full story.Via The Washington Post
I was on the first cup of coffee and we were talking about this incredible sight yesterday of Barbara Boxer lecturing Judge Janice Rogers Brown. Here's this white, wealthy, elitist liberal from San Francisco -- I think she's actually from Marin -- lecturing a black daughter of sharecroppers who has risen on her own to become a member of the California Supreme Court, Janice Rogers Brown.See, Rush doesn't judges people on the color of their color. He judges people on the content of their color. Or something like that. Just for the record, though, Boxer grew up in a "lower-middle-class" neighborhood in that part of Marin also known as Brooklyn, New York. And at some point in Rogers Brown's youth -- details are sketchy -- her dad joined the Air Force. Then, in 1977, Rogers Brown graduated from law school and became a deputy counsel for the California State Legislature. So presumably she's been living a middle-class life or better for at least, oh, thirty years or so. Still, you've gotta hand it to Rush. A vision of America where a 56-year-old woman who's held important, high-powered jobs for nearly three decades can grow up to become "a black daughter of sharecroppers"? That's pretty inspiring.
So a Delta Airlines representative told me tonight that Delta routinely ignores the FAA's anti-terrorism regulations. And the reason they violate it is that a lot of their passengers are foreigners. Oh, well THAT explains it. I mean, we wouldn't want a FOREIGNER to have to comply with our anti-terrorism regulations, I mean, who would want to do something crazy like that.Delta Airlines employee says Delta routinely violates FAA anti-terrorism regulations
We're not going to try to defend Newsweek -- Mark Whitaker cocking that up nicely on his own. But we do wonder if the administration should be piling on like a bunch of naked prisoners. If you're the one that soaked the field in gasoline, is it a good idea to draw a lot of attention to the guy who walked by smoking a cigarette?Priceless!
Ironic that after Terri Schivao’s ‘loving’ husband denied his wife treatment that could have made her better two people whose real loving families allowed them the same treatments have come out of their comas.My response:
Terri Schiavo wasn’t in a coma. She was in a persistent vegetative state from which there is no return. Her cerebral cortex had liquefied. Kind of like yours.
Selective outrage comes from the rightNote: When the editor called to verify my letter he said that the first two letters he received were the only ones critical of Newsweek so he printed them both. He went on to say that he received so many more, in rebuttal, that he wasn't able to print them all. We may me a red state overall but at least we're civilized here in the Metro Atlanta area.
Sometimes I feel as if I'm living in an alternate universe.
People are going ballistic over Newsweek's flawed article about the alleged desecration of the Quran by U.S. interrogators. They decry the fact that 17 people were killed in riots that took place as a result of that story.
Where is their outrage over the 1,700 American deaths caused by President Bush's embracing flawed intelligence? As it turns out, he lied to make the intelligence fit his purpose. The right is adept at ignoring their own liars and then shouting at the top of their voices when the other side doesn't check their facts.
JOHN Xxxxx, Marietta
Scenario sounds familiar
President Bush took this country to war, basing his decision on information he thought was credible about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Newsweek published a short article about religious desecrations at Guantanamo Bay, basing its decision on information it thought was credible.
Newsweek gave the Pentagon an opportunity to review and challenge the story, and it chose not to challenge the desecration allegation. In both scenarios, precious lives were lost --- vastly more as a result of Bush's bad information. The White House is now sharply critical of Newsweek's editors and reporters for their bad information. Something about living in glass houses and throwing stones comes to mind.
HARRELL LAWSON, Sparta
Administration guilty of hypocrisy
How many lives have been lost in an ongoing war predicated on false intelligence and political subterfuge?
While it does not exonerate Newsweek's shoddy journalism, the Bush administration's admonishment of the magazine's muckraking is the pot calling the kettle black.
What dog wags this tale?
ALEX LEVY, Atlanta
Set higher standards for government
It is ludicrous that the White House was sharply critical of Newsweek for its misguided and irresponsible article, while the Bush administration refuses to take responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of American troops, thousands of Iraqi civilians and countless civilian contractors in its misguided and irresponsible war.
It's appalling that we, the public, hold a magazine to higher standards and levels of responsibility than we hold our government.
VALERIE WATTS, Duluth
Lies, deceit led to many deaths in Iraq
The Bush administration has reached a new low in chastising Newsweek for disseminating false information that led to riots and fatalities.
Perhaps the administration should do some self-examination: Weren't they the ones who falsely claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to al-Qaida --- accusations that have resulted in the loss of life for thousands of Iraqi civilians and American soldiers?
If Newsweek should be running and hiding for printing a story based on hearsay (one assumes the editors thought the story was true), shouldn't this administration be resigning over the lies and deceit that led to the miserable failure that is the war in Iraq? The hypocrisy of this group of thugs is appalling.
TIM TODD, Conyers
"Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" -- it doesn't completely suck, but it certainly isn't good. By the way, the attempt by some to turn it into a dig at Bush (political figure uses fear to seize power and end democracy) has fallen apart under its own silliness. Really, Lucas is about as political as an Ewok.LOL!
If your boyfriend's a Republican I want you. Now. - 35
Reply to: anon-73770448@craigslist.org
Date: 2005-05-16, 9:12PM PDT
I don’t care how old you are, how much you weigh or what you look like. I don’t care if you like cuddling by the fire or being slathered in mayonnaise with a clown mask on. So long as you have a significant other who cares for you deeply and voted for Bush, I can promise you without hesitation the very best sex you will ever, ever have: brain-scrambling, soul-shattering, scream-to-the-heavens sex that will leave you not only walking funny, but mumbling incoherently for days. And believe me, it’ll be nowhere near as good for you as it will be for me.
This offer not valid to married or underage women or those with boyfriends currently serving in Iraq. They’ve been screwed enough.
As a longtime critic of the Iraqi war, I've been having some second thoughts.Doing what the Busheviks did to get their war ball rolling was reprehensible and, no matter what the end result is, it will never be worth the toll in lives and having the world view us as invaders. This occupation should have never happened. We should have kept our sites firmly on Bin Laden until he was either captured or killed. It is now quite obvious that 9-11 gave them the opportunity to do what they had planned all along. It makes me wonder what justification they would have manufactured if 9-11 had never happened.
The administration's recent change of emphasis from preventing something (WMD, terrorist attacks, etc.) to promoting something (worldwide democracy and freedom) may warrant a new look at our invasion of Iraq. If toppling one oppressive middle eastern country can give heart and hope to other oppressed peoples in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Iran and Lebanon, then invading Iraq might not have been a bad idea.
My lingering concern is with how we went about it -- this business of "pre-emptive war." To achieve a noble goal like the spread of regional democracy abroad, is it acceptable to attack another nation, destroy its infrastructure, cause the death of innocent civilians, break international treaties, risk misleading our own nation, even allow torture?
The administration's current position seems to be that all this 'bad stuff' may turn out to have been worth it in the end. There is a case to be made for this view. Years from now we may look back to see that our attack of Iraq was the precipitating factor in improving the political and social life of the Middle East (or we may see it as a tragic mistake that further promoted world-wide terrorism).
The question is, does the end ever justify the means? Does liberating oppressed peoples make it alright that we attacked and crippled one country to do it? Are these `means' morally justified in light of our hope for a good outcome?
Ancient wisdom, the experience of nations and the moral codes of most great religions would answer "No." Good ends never justify questionable means. But could the U.S. be an exception?
It was Chairman Mao who said that his ideal society (communism) grew out of the barrel of a gun. Is it possible that our ideal society (democracy) can also grow out of the barrel of a gun?
David C. Duncombe
White Salmon
Beware activist clergy...and from the Dark Side
Anyone claiming to be a Christian knows that Jesus didn't walk with the politically correct or the kings of the land, but with the common people, many of whom held beliefs that differed from his ("Supporters of gays denied Communion," News, May 16). Jesus was sure to feed and care for these people, never once denying anyone from partaking in his graciousness.
Now a priest in Minnesota has denied parishioners Communion because they chose to show love and support for their gay friends. Does this priest really think that he is doing Jesus' work? How self-righteous he is to claim to know who God would or would not want to come to his table. No religion has the right to keep anyone from God because of outdated beliefs that choose to persecute rather than love.
Our country needs to worry less about "activist judges" and more about "activist clergymen" who claim to hold our souls in the palms of their hands.
KEITH MICHAUD, Clarkston
Magazine the cause of too much death, griefI responded to these last two with my own Letter to the Editor. I failed to save it so I can't include it in this post as I had planned. If they decide to print it I'll post it here.
Nine years ago this week, one of the United States' finest naval officers, Jeremy Michael Boorda, committed suicide because of Newsweek's harassment over a trivial issue of the wearing of a certain ribbon on his uniform. Now we have more deaths and embarrassment because of the policies of that magazine.
Enough of causing terror and death because of journalism that causes anger, frustration, fury and outcries for vengeance.
Newsweek should be flushed itself, or at least closed, and its editors and policy-makers sent back to jobs where their only responsibilities would be to ask, "Will you have fries with that?"
CLINT BEACH, Dunwoody
Readers should boycott till editors quit
After Newsweek reported that U.S. interrogators had flushed a copy of the Quran down the toilet in an effort to make detainees talk, riots in Afghanistan and other countries left 17 people dead and more than 100 hurt. The actions of the American interrogators were condemned across the Middle East and U.S. prestige took another blow throughout the Muslim world.
Now we learn that the single source for the story is recanting. People are dead because of the sloppy reporting. Newsweek editors should resign, and I will not buy or read the magazine until they do.
JEFF FISHER, Atlanta
May 16, 2005
Mr. John Xxxxx
XXX Xxxxx Dr
Xxxxxxxx, Georgia XXXXX
Dear Mr. Xxxxx:
Thank you for contacting my office and sharing your concerns.
As your United States Senator, I look forward to hearing from all of my constituents from the State of Georgia, especially when they have concerns or problems, need guidance or information, or want to share any other matters of interest with me.
If I can ever be of assistance to you or your family, please don't hesitate to contact me. I appreciate hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Saxby Chambliss
United States Senate
"Revenge of the Sith," it turns out, can also be seen as a cautionary tale for our time -- a blistering critique of the war in Iraq, a reminder of how democracies can give up their freedoms too easily, and an admonition about the seduction of good people by absolute power.
Some film critics suggest it could be the biggest anti-Bush blockbuster since "Fahrenheit 9/11."
New York Times movie critic A.O. Scott gives "Sith" a rave, and notes that Lucas "grounds it in a cogent and (for the first time) comprehensible political context.
" 'Revenge of the Sith' is about how a republic dismantles its own democratic principles, about how politics becomes militarized, about how a Manichaean ideology undermines the rational exercise of power. Mr. Lucas is clearly jabbing his light saber in the direction of some real-world political leaders. At one point, Darth Vader, already deep in the thrall of the dark side and echoing the words of George W. Bush, hisses at Obi-Wan, 'If you're not with me, you're my enemy.' Obi-Wan's response is likely to surface as a bumper sticker during the next election campaign: 'Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.' "
AFP reports that the movie delivers "a galactic jab to US President George W. Bush."
So where does Lucas stand in this political polemic? "I'm more on the liberal side of things," he says. "I grew up in San Francisco in the '60s, and my positions are sort of shaped by that ... If you look back 30 years ago, there were certain issues with the Kennedys, with Richard Nixon, that focused my interest." Lucas' own geopolitics can sound pretty bleak: "All democracies turn into dictatorships—but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it's Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea ... What kinds of things push people and institutions into this direction?"
In Clones, Lucas goes a way toward answering that question. "That's the issue that I've been exploring: How did the Republic turn into the Empire? That's paralleled with: How did Anakin turn into Darth Vader? How does a good person go bad, and how does a democracy become a dictatorship? It isn't that the Empire conquered the Republic, it's that the Empire is the Republic." Lucas' comments clarify the connection between the Anakin trilogy and the Luke trilogy: that the Empire was created out of the corruption of the Republic, and that somebody had to fight it. "One day Princess Leia and her friends woke up and said, 'This isn't the Republic anymore, it's the Empire. We are the bad guys. Well, we don't agree with this. This democracy is a sham, it's all wrong.'"
bush: build oil refineries at ex-military bases
president bush proposed allowing oil companies to build new refineries at abandoned military bases and encouraging new nuclear power plants in steps that critics said would do nothing to address america's immediate problem of high gasoline prices. - abc news (27 april 05)
180 u.s. military bases targeted for closure by pentagon
the pentagon today proposed shutting about 180 military installations from maine to hawaii including 33 major bases, triggering the first round of base closures in a decade and an intense struggle by communities to save their facilities. - houston chronicle (13 may 05)
things that make you go.....hmmmmmm.....
This filibuster is nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority. If this is allowed to stand, the Minority will have effectively seized from the President the power to appoint judges. Never mind the Constitution.Today on the Senate floor Sen. Byrd asked Frist about his claim:
SEN. BYRD: I ask the Senator from Tennessee, I ask any Senator to respond to that question. Does this Constitution accord to each nominee an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor?The really sad part is, Frist will keep saying the same thing anyway. Never mind the Constitution.
SEN. FRIST: The question: Does the Constitution say that every nominee of the President deserves an up-or-down vote. And the ABC is - the answer is: no, the language is not there.
Finally saw you on TV. I had no idea you were a homo. That explains your limp-wristed, pre-emptive surrender, foriegn policy,....... but most gays I know are bright. You're ignorance is somewhat unique.Ted replies:
You don't think swallowing man-juice can affect intelligence?........do you?
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."Since Dubya, a Texas oil man, is trying to abolish social security as we know it, starve unemployment programs, weaken labor laws, and decimate rural/farm programs, let's hope Ike was right about the future of the GOP.
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54
NEWS SUMMARY
Brides gotta run, planes gotta stray, and cable news networks gotta find a way to fill a lot of programming hours as cheaply as possible. (CNBC gets to talk about the booming April retail sales numbers, and the NRA's television network will replay the Secretary of State on Larry King over and over.)
We say with all the genuine apolitical and non-partisan human concern that we can muster that the death and carnage in Iraq is truly staggering.
And/but we are sort of resigned to the Notion that it simply isn't going to break through to American news organizations, or, for the most part, Americans.
Democrats are so thoroughly spooked by John Kerry's loss —- and Republicans so inspired by their stay-the-course Commander in Chief —- that what is hands down the biggest story every day in the world will get almost no coverage. No conflict at home = no coverage.
Sgt. Kelt: "Hey Chris, this is Sgt. Kelt at the army, man, I think we got disconnected. Ok, I know you're on your cell, probably, and, uh you just had bad reception, connection or something like that. I know you didn't hang up on me. Anyway, uh, by, by uh, federal law you've got an appointment with me at two o'clock this afternoon at Greenpoint Mall, ok? That's the Greenpoint Mall army recruiting station at two o'clock. Fail to appear, and, uh, we'll have a warrant, ok? Give me a call back (phone number given) bye."See the scumbag in action. Click here and then click Video: Desperate Army Recruiters.
In fear, Monarch called the recruiter back. Chris recounted that Kelt said, "Oh Chris, don't worry about that. That's just a marketing technique I use."
May 6, 2005
Mr. John Xxxxx
XXX Xxxxx Drive
Xxxxxxxx, Georgia xxxxx
Dear Mr. Xxxxx:
Thank you for your letter of concern regarding President Bush's nomination of John Bolton to be the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (U.N.). I appreciate hearing from you.
On March 7, 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the nomination of John Bolton to be the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed his congratulations and has said he looks forward to working with him. Mr. Bolton's nomination awaits confirmation by the Senate.
I support Mr. Bolton for several reasons. First, Mr. Bolton believes in a strong and more effective U.N., and has consistently argued that the U.S. must take the lead in helping to reform the U.N. I believe this is the only way the U.N. can fulfill its original promise of promoting international peace and security. Second, Mr. Bolton has promoted effective multilateral solutions to real world problems. He was President Bush's point person in designing the Proliferation Security Initiative. He also served as the principal U.S. negotiator for the Treaty of Moscow, and was a pioneer in helping to construct the G-8 Global Partnership to secure dangerous technologies and stop the spread of dangerous weapons. Finally, John Bolton believes in frank and honest diplomacy. He has not shied away from naming rogue states that violate their international commitments to treaties -- not calling attention to these violators is too dangerous in a post 9-11 world.
In an organization that has been riddled in scandal and corruption, John Bolton will help reform the U.N. and make its mission more effective. I am confident John Bolton is the right man for the job.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you would like to receive timely email alerts regarding the latest congressional actions and my weekly e-newsletter, please sign up via my web site at: www.chambliss.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to be in touch if I may ever be of assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Saxby Chambliss
United States Senate