Today's New York Sun editorial advocates a presidential pardon for Lewis Libby. This editorial does not get everything right, but on some points it swats the ball out of the park. Here are a few ot them in the space of one paragraph:
If Ms. Plame didn't want her identity out, she shouldn't have gotten her husband a secret mission and then allowed him to wage a public campaign against the president's foreign policy. The leading prevaricator in this case is Mr. Wilson himself. He has accused Mr. Bush of falsely leading America to war. Mr. Bush had claimed "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Mr. Wilson drank tea in Niger for a week and said that Mr. Bush's claim was not true. But even after Mr. Wilson's objection, the July 2004 report by the British government's Butler Commission found that Mr. Bush's comment was "well-founded." In a July 2004 report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senators Roberts, Hatch, and Bond said of Mr. Wilson, "The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading." The question pregnant in this paragraph seems to me whether there is a serious journalist among the mainstream media who thinks the story in the Libby case might be the CIA's efforts to defeat the president. Isn't that the big story?
Monday, October 31, 2005
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
Here’s an Agence France Presse release that has to be the most outrageous example of mainstream media anti-Israel bias I have seen for, oh, the last few days: Concerned citizen hacks Israeli army’s ‘rocket hotline’.
JERUSALEM (AFP) - A concerned Israeli has thwarted the army’s latest anti-militant initiative by hacking its ‘rocket hotline’ set up so that Palestinians in Gaza can rat on those firing projectiles at Israel, the Yediot Aharonot daily reported.
Following a week of multiple Israeli air strikes targeting rocket-firing militants in northern Gaza, the air force tried a new tactic: dropping leaflets encouraging locals to anonymously snitch on any rocket-toting militants.
JERUSALEM (AFP) - A concerned Israeli has thwarted the army’s latest anti-militant initiative by hacking its ‘rocket hotline’ set up so that Palestinians in Gaza can rat on those firing projectiles at Israel, the Yediot Aharonot daily reported.
Following a week of multiple Israeli air strikes targeting rocket-firing militants in northern Gaza, the air force tried a new tactic: dropping leaflets encouraging locals to anonymously snitch on any rocket-toting militants.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Child Abuse
Iranian school boys attend an anti-Israeli rally marking 'Al-Quds Day' (Jerusalem Day), to support the Palestinian cause, in Tehran, Iran, Friday, Oct. 28, 2005. Tens of thousands of Iranians staged anti-Israel protests across the country Friday and repeated calls by their ultraconservative president who repeated the words of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, by saying: 'Israel must be wiped off the map.' (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)
At MSNBC, an AP wire story notes a simple fact, buried amidst heaps of hyperbole.
In the end, Fitzgerald accused Libby of lying about his conversations with reporters, not outing a spy.
They spent two years and millions of dollars to come up with this.
All three networks interrupted their broadcasts to carry Fitzgerald’s press conference live. Hmm. I wonder what other historical events were considered important enough to interrupt commercial broadcasts?
Pearl Harbor Under Attack
John Glenn Orbits Earth
Martin Luther King Jr. Assassinated
Nixon Resigns
Iran Hostage Crisis
Berlin Wall Crumbles
Rodney King Verdicts Incite Riots
The 2000 Election
In the end, Fitzgerald accused Libby of lying about his conversations with reporters, not outing a spy.
They spent two years and millions of dollars to come up with this.
All three networks interrupted their broadcasts to carry Fitzgerald’s press conference live. Hmm. I wonder what other historical events were considered important enough to interrupt commercial broadcasts?
Pearl Harbor Under Attack
John Glenn Orbits Earth
Martin Luther King Jr. Assassinated
Nixon Resigns
Iran Hostage Crisis
Berlin Wall Crumbles
Rodney King Verdicts Incite Riots
The 2000 Election
Make sure your irony meter is properly calibrated before reading the following headline from the Boston Globe: Democratic leaders offer a national security plan. (Hat tip: The RCP Blog.)
"Separately, Clinton administration secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright delivered a report to top Democratic congressional leaders calling for a 50 percent increase in federal spending on homeland security, the creation of a domestic intelligence agency, and a Cabinet-level ranking for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
“We are all looking at the Iraq issue, how to make America safe and not leave the situation in complete chaos,” Albright added, echoing many of Kerry’s themes. “The Democrats are basically supportive of the troops.”
Jim Geraghty smells a new Democratic slogan in the works.
There’s your slogan for 2006! “The Democrats: Basically supportive of the troops. Kinda. Sorta. You know. Enough.”
"Separately, Clinton administration secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright delivered a report to top Democratic congressional leaders calling for a 50 percent increase in federal spending on homeland security, the creation of a domestic intelligence agency, and a Cabinet-level ranking for the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
“We are all looking at the Iraq issue, how to make America safe and not leave the situation in complete chaos,” Albright added, echoing many of Kerry’s themes. “The Democrats are basically supportive of the troops.”
Jim Geraghty smells a new Democratic slogan in the works.
There’s your slogan for 2006! “The Democrats: Basically supportive of the troops. Kinda. Sorta. You know. Enough.”
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Christopher Hitchens on George Galloway's very bad week:
"For George Galloway. . .the war would seem to be over. The evidence presented suggests that he lied in court when he sued the Daily Telegraph in London over similar allegations (and collected money for that, too). It suggests that he lied to the Senate under oath. And it suggests that he made a deceptive statement in the register of interests held by members of the British House of Commons. All in all, a bad week for him, especially coming as it does on the heels of the U.N. report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, which appears to pin the convict's badge on senior members of the Assad despotism in Damascus, Galloway's default patron after he lost his main ally in Baghdad.
Yet this is the man who received wall-to-wall good press for insulting the Senate subcommittee in May, and who was later the subject of a fawning puff piece in the New York Times, and who was lionized by the anti-war movement when he came on a mendacious and demagogic tour of the country last month. I wonder if any of those who furnished him a platform will now have the grace to admit that they were hosting a man who is not just a pimp for fascism but one of its prostitutes as well."
"For George Galloway. . .the war would seem to be over. The evidence presented suggests that he lied in court when he sued the Daily Telegraph in London over similar allegations (and collected money for that, too). It suggests that he lied to the Senate under oath. And it suggests that he made a deceptive statement in the register of interests held by members of the British House of Commons. All in all, a bad week for him, especially coming as it does on the heels of the U.N. report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, which appears to pin the convict's badge on senior members of the Assad despotism in Damascus, Galloway's default patron after he lost his main ally in Baghdad.
Yet this is the man who received wall-to-wall good press for insulting the Senate subcommittee in May, and who was later the subject of a fawning puff piece in the New York Times, and who was lionized by the anti-war movement when he came on a mendacious and demagogic tour of the country last month. I wonder if any of those who furnished him a platform will now have the grace to admit that they were hosting a man who is not just a pimp for fascism but one of its prostitutes as well."
Religion of Peace
Wipe Israel from map, says Iran's president
By Gareth Smyth in Tehran and Guy Dinmore in Washington Published: October 27 2005 03:00 Last updated: October 27 2005 03:00
Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran's fundamentalist president, yesterday declared that Israel "must be wiped off the map" and warned Arab countries against developing economic ties with Israel in response to its withdrawal from Gaza.
His remarks, delivered at a conference in Tehran entitled "A World without Zionism", led to diplomatic protests by the UK, France and Spain, while Shimon Peres, Israel's deputy prime minister, said Iran should be expelled from the United Nations.
In Washington, spokesmen for the Bush administration said the statement underscored US concern over Iran's nuclear weapons programme.
Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's comments came as Islamic Jihad, a militant Palestinian group allied to Iran, killed at least five Israelis with a bombing in the Israeli town of Hedera. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility, saying it was avenging Israel's killing of a West Bank commander on Monday.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," Mr Ahmadi-Nejad said, citing the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
US analysts noted that the president's remarks were not a departure from hardline Iranian rhetoric and did not represent new policy. But they said the rhetoric was aggressive and badly timed and would serve to confirm western suspicions of Iran's more confrontational appr-oach that were raised by the new president's speeches at the United Nations last month. However, European diplomats suggested the comments would not derail efforts by France, Germany and the UK to get Iran to return to the negotiating table and halt work at its Isfahan uranium conversion facility. One diplomat said the EU3 had made a point of keeping the nuclear issue separate from Iranian support for militant Palestinian groups during two years of talks.
The president told an audience of students there was "no doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world".
"Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury," he said in remarks aimed at Arab states.
Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, who took office in August, was departing from the moderate line of his reformist predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, who argued Iran should be no more radical over the issue than the Palestinians themselves. Reformist figures in Iran have recently warned Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's stern rhetoric endangers Iran's national interest and could encourage the referral of Tehran's nuclear programme to the UN Security Council. Iran denies its development of the nuclear fuel cycle is for military use.
By Gareth Smyth in Tehran and Guy Dinmore in Washington Published: October 27 2005 03:00 Last updated: October 27 2005 03:00
Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, Iran's fundamentalist president, yesterday declared that Israel "must be wiped off the map" and warned Arab countries against developing economic ties with Israel in response to its withdrawal from Gaza.
His remarks, delivered at a conference in Tehran entitled "A World without Zionism", led to diplomatic protests by the UK, France and Spain, while Shimon Peres, Israel's deputy prime minister, said Iran should be expelled from the United Nations.
In Washington, spokesmen for the Bush administration said the statement underscored US concern over Iran's nuclear weapons programme.
Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's comments came as Islamic Jihad, a militant Palestinian group allied to Iran, killed at least five Israelis with a bombing in the Israeli town of Hedera. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility, saying it was avenging Israel's killing of a West Bank commander on Monday.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," Mr Ahmadi-Nejad said, citing the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.
US analysts noted that the president's remarks were not a departure from hardline Iranian rhetoric and did not represent new policy. But they said the rhetoric was aggressive and badly timed and would serve to confirm western suspicions of Iran's more confrontational appr-oach that were raised by the new president's speeches at the United Nations last month. However, European diplomats suggested the comments would not derail efforts by France, Germany and the UK to get Iran to return to the negotiating table and halt work at its Isfahan uranium conversion facility. One diplomat said the EU3 had made a point of keeping the nuclear issue separate from Iranian support for militant Palestinian groups during two years of talks.
The president told an audience of students there was "no doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world".
"Anybody who recognises Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury," he said in remarks aimed at Arab states.
Mr Ahmadi-Nejad, who took office in August, was departing from the moderate line of his reformist predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, who argued Iran should be no more radical over the issue than the Palestinians themselves. Reformist figures in Iran have recently warned Mr Ahmadi-Nejad's stern rhetoric endangers Iran's national interest and could encourage the referral of Tehran's nuclear programme to the UN Security Council. Iran denies its development of the nuclear fuel cycle is for military use.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Drunk Student Hit by Car Near Campus
By Elise Craig Hoya Staff Writer Tuesday, October 25, 2005; Page A1
A Georgetown University Hospital employee ran over a drunk Georgetown student Saturday near the intersection of 35th and O Streets as the student and a friend were crossing the street.
Reid Swanson (MSB ’06) was backed over by a car driven by University Hospital radiologist Filip Banovac just after 4 p.m., according to a Metropolitan Police Department report. Banovac was driving eastbound on O Street when he came upon cones blocking the intersection of 35th and O Streets, which forced him to stop and back up, the report said. The report said that Banovac began backing up in front of the cones “not realizing that there was someone lying in his path on the ground.” Banovac said that people screamed for him to stop after he began to back up, and he noticed Swanson under the vehicle shortly afterwards.
Banovac said that he did not see anyone behind him when he started to back up and added that Swanson must already have been on the ground when he put his car into reverse.
“He was down there already,” Banovac said. Swanson said that he and a friend were carrying a keg across the street when he slipped and fell. He agreed that he was already on the ground when Banovac ran over him but contended that the driver should have been more careful when backing up. “He should have looked behind him,” Swanson said.
Banovac was unable to stop, however, before his car’s back right tire ran over Swanson’s chest and its front right tire ran over Swanson’s left shoulder. Banovac said that he got out of his car and checked on Swanson by making sure he was breathing and conscious. He said that he did not administer further medical attention to Swanson because he thought Swanson may have been drinking alcohol. “The general rule if drinking is involved is not to move the victim because they can be more hurt than they think,” Banovac said. Although he did not provide immediate medical assistance to Swanson, Banovac said that he jacked up his car to give Swanson “some breathing room.” Shortly after Swanson was injured, MPD, the D.C. Fire Department, and D.C. Emergency Medical Service arrived on the scene, at which point the Fire Department extracted Swanson from underneath the car, according to the police report.
Swanson was transported to the George Washington University Hospital, where he was treated and released the next day. Swanson did not sustain any major injuries, but the police report said that he was found to have had a blood alcohol level of .365, nearly five times the District’s legal driving limit, at the time of the incident.
“I most likely fell because of the alcohol,” Swanson said. Swanson said the police gave him a $5 ticket for walking as to create a hazard so as to limit any possible legal action he might be able to against Banovac. Swanson was critical of the ticket, saying that it unfairly limited his legal options. “The police gave me the … ticket so I can’t take legal action,” he said.
By Elise Craig Hoya Staff Writer Tuesday, October 25, 2005; Page A1
A Georgetown University Hospital employee ran over a drunk Georgetown student Saturday near the intersection of 35th and O Streets as the student and a friend were crossing the street.
Reid Swanson (MSB ’06) was backed over by a car driven by University Hospital radiologist Filip Banovac just after 4 p.m., according to a Metropolitan Police Department report. Banovac was driving eastbound on O Street when he came upon cones blocking the intersection of 35th and O Streets, which forced him to stop and back up, the report said. The report said that Banovac began backing up in front of the cones “not realizing that there was someone lying in his path on the ground.” Banovac said that people screamed for him to stop after he began to back up, and he noticed Swanson under the vehicle shortly afterwards.
Banovac said that he did not see anyone behind him when he started to back up and added that Swanson must already have been on the ground when he put his car into reverse.
“He was down there already,” Banovac said. Swanson said that he and a friend were carrying a keg across the street when he slipped and fell. He agreed that he was already on the ground when Banovac ran over him but contended that the driver should have been more careful when backing up. “He should have looked behind him,” Swanson said.
Banovac was unable to stop, however, before his car’s back right tire ran over Swanson’s chest and its front right tire ran over Swanson’s left shoulder. Banovac said that he got out of his car and checked on Swanson by making sure he was breathing and conscious. He said that he did not administer further medical attention to Swanson because he thought Swanson may have been drinking alcohol. “The general rule if drinking is involved is not to move the victim because they can be more hurt than they think,” Banovac said. Although he did not provide immediate medical assistance to Swanson, Banovac said that he jacked up his car to give Swanson “some breathing room.” Shortly after Swanson was injured, MPD, the D.C. Fire Department, and D.C. Emergency Medical Service arrived on the scene, at which point the Fire Department extracted Swanson from underneath the car, according to the police report.
Swanson was transported to the George Washington University Hospital, where he was treated and released the next day. Swanson did not sustain any major injuries, but the police report said that he was found to have had a blood alcohol level of .365, nearly five times the District’s legal driving limit, at the time of the incident.
“I most likely fell because of the alcohol,” Swanson said. Swanson said the police gave him a $5 ticket for walking as to create a hazard so as to limit any possible legal action he might be able to against Banovac. Swanson was critical of the ticket, saying that it unfairly limited his legal options. “The police gave me the … ticket so I can’t take legal action,” he said.
CNN - Objective!
"In the poll, 42 percent of those interviewed approved of the way the president is handling his job and 55 percent disapproved. In the previous poll, released October 17, 39 percent approved of Bush's job performance -- the lowest number of his presidency -- and 58 percent disapproved. However, all the numbers are within the poll's sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, so it's possible that the public's opinion has not changed at all."
Do the mention the margin of error when the polls go down?
Do the mention the margin of error when the polls go down?
So damn good.
Council panel backs foie gras ban
October 26, 2005
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
Amid comparisons to the mistreatment of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, a City Council committee agreed Tuesday to ban the sale of the liver delicacy known as foie gras in Chicago restaurants. If the full Council follows the Health Committee's lead, Chicago would join the state of California and a host of countries that have already banned the pricey appetizer. They include the United Kingdom, Denmark, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic and Israel. Famed Chicago chef Charlie Trotter has already stopped serving foie gras, and more than 100 other Illinois restaurants have signed similar pledges. Ald. Joe Moore (49th), who proposed the Chicago ban, estimated that "not more than a dozen" local restaurants still serve it. "It'll mean that there will be fewer restaurants serving this product and, hence, fewer ducks and geese being tortured to create this product," said Moore, who has been ridiculed in some circles for trying to ban a food that most Chicagoans have never tasted.
"Chicago is in the nation's heartland. It's not known as a city that passes, without considerable thought and deliberation, ordinances of this nature. It'll encourage other legislative bodies to consider similar measures." It was actress Loretta Swit of MASH and "Hot Lips" fame who made the prison comparison. Her voice choking with emotion, Swit talked about the "torture" that geese and ducks endure while being force fed to enlarge their livers 10 times normal size.
Three times a day, a steel pipe is jammed down a bird's esophagus. When the monthlong ordeal ends in slaughter, the birds can barely walk, much less breathe, experts contend.
Swit quoted Chicago Sun-Times columnist Laura Washington as saying that creating the delicacy "may not be pretty, but it pales by comparison to problems like Abu Ghraib, police brutality and racial profiling." "Are we ever going to forget the memory of that girl smiling, holding a tortured prisoner on a leash and enjoying it? . . . She grew up with the acceptance of this kind of behavior in whatever form it was, whether it was torturing a cat or a dog or seeing somebody doing it and looking the other way," Swit said. "If we look the other way -- if we say, 'It's a guinea pig. It's a mouse. Who cares? It's a kitten. Whatever,' then why are we surprised at the existence of inhumane acts directed toward each other? Violence begets violence. Brutality begets brutality. Inhumanity is a disease." Didier Durand, chef/owner of Cyrano's Bistrot, 546 N. Wells, spoke in opposition to the ban on behalf of the Illinois Restaurant Association. He noted that foie gras is a delicacy that dates back "many hundreds of years" to the Egyptians, the Romans, Germans and French. "To take it off our menu would be destroying a time-honored culinary tradition. Every restaurant has the right to serve what they want. We welcome all palates. But we strongly contend that they are not matters to be regulated by law, but by personal choice," said Durand, who serves roughly 30 foie gras appetizers each week at a cost of $15 apiece. Carrie Nahabedian, chef/co-owner of Naha Restaurant, 500 N. Clark, called foie gras "part of the tradition of what a chef becomes when they learn to cook. They learn the values and the ancestry." She added, "We're going down a slippery slope. If we're going to look at foie gras, then we should look at a lot of other things. Maybe it moves on to hamburger and maybe it should. We have mad cow [disease] threatening us on every shore. We have the bird flu that is of major concern. Maybe we need to look at everything." Earlier this year, Mayor Daley ridiculed the proposed foie gras ban as a Big Brother-style government intrusion.
"We're trying to tell people they can't eat certain foods. They can't buy certain foods. They can't ship certain foods in. Pretty soon, you can't drink. Do you really want government to keep telling you every day what to do?" Daley said.
October 26, 2005
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
Amid comparisons to the mistreatment of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, a City Council committee agreed Tuesday to ban the sale of the liver delicacy known as foie gras in Chicago restaurants. If the full Council follows the Health Committee's lead, Chicago would join the state of California and a host of countries that have already banned the pricey appetizer. They include the United Kingdom, Denmark, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic and Israel. Famed Chicago chef Charlie Trotter has already stopped serving foie gras, and more than 100 other Illinois restaurants have signed similar pledges. Ald. Joe Moore (49th), who proposed the Chicago ban, estimated that "not more than a dozen" local restaurants still serve it. "It'll mean that there will be fewer restaurants serving this product and, hence, fewer ducks and geese being tortured to create this product," said Moore, who has been ridiculed in some circles for trying to ban a food that most Chicagoans have never tasted.
"Chicago is in the nation's heartland. It's not known as a city that passes, without considerable thought and deliberation, ordinances of this nature. It'll encourage other legislative bodies to consider similar measures." It was actress Loretta Swit of MASH and "Hot Lips" fame who made the prison comparison. Her voice choking with emotion, Swit talked about the "torture" that geese and ducks endure while being force fed to enlarge their livers 10 times normal size.
Three times a day, a steel pipe is jammed down a bird's esophagus. When the monthlong ordeal ends in slaughter, the birds can barely walk, much less breathe, experts contend.
Swit quoted Chicago Sun-Times columnist Laura Washington as saying that creating the delicacy "may not be pretty, but it pales by comparison to problems like Abu Ghraib, police brutality and racial profiling." "Are we ever going to forget the memory of that girl smiling, holding a tortured prisoner on a leash and enjoying it? . . . She grew up with the acceptance of this kind of behavior in whatever form it was, whether it was torturing a cat or a dog or seeing somebody doing it and looking the other way," Swit said. "If we look the other way -- if we say, 'It's a guinea pig. It's a mouse. Who cares? It's a kitten. Whatever,' then why are we surprised at the existence of inhumane acts directed toward each other? Violence begets violence. Brutality begets brutality. Inhumanity is a disease." Didier Durand, chef/owner of Cyrano's Bistrot, 546 N. Wells, spoke in opposition to the ban on behalf of the Illinois Restaurant Association. He noted that foie gras is a delicacy that dates back "many hundreds of years" to the Egyptians, the Romans, Germans and French. "To take it off our menu would be destroying a time-honored culinary tradition. Every restaurant has the right to serve what they want. We welcome all palates. But we strongly contend that they are not matters to be regulated by law, but by personal choice," said Durand, who serves roughly 30 foie gras appetizers each week at a cost of $15 apiece. Carrie Nahabedian, chef/co-owner of Naha Restaurant, 500 N. Clark, called foie gras "part of the tradition of what a chef becomes when they learn to cook. They learn the values and the ancestry." She added, "We're going down a slippery slope. If we're going to look at foie gras, then we should look at a lot of other things. Maybe it moves on to hamburger and maybe it should. We have mad cow [disease] threatening us on every shore. We have the bird flu that is of major concern. Maybe we need to look at everything." Earlier this year, Mayor Daley ridiculed the proposed foie gras ban as a Big Brother-style government intrusion.
"We're trying to tell people they can't eat certain foods. They can't buy certain foods. They can't ship certain foods in. Pretty soon, you can't drink. Do you really want government to keep telling you every day what to do?" Daley said.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Diamond Dave to Replace Stern
Some great quotes from Dave;
"Do I ever get turned down by women? I never ask."
"When you're on the road for nine months a year and you always have these cute little chiquitas running around in their halter tops, it's kind of hard to worry about things like nuclear proliferation."
"Hey, your girlfriend was partying with us backstage before the show, and she had a message for ya: 'mmfp mmf umf fmff mmm.'"
"After you take out the managers' percentage, the agents' percentage, the money for the roadies, the lighting, the trucks, the buses, the sound and everything, the most I'll probably see as far as money goes after it's all said and done, is...an island."
"I used to have a drug problem, now I make enough money."
"I used to jog but the ice-cubes kept falling out of my glass."
"I won't go down in history, but I will go down on your sister."
"Always had it, always WILL have it!"
'Whatever guy said that money don't but you pleasure didn't know where to go shopping'
"I approach my concerts as if I were having a first date with a woman. I ask myself, `Would I still be here if I were blind? "
"A lot of people think that a VH tour is just one long orgy with a few stops on stage in between. Well, let me tell you - they're right."
"I don't get all the women that I want...I get all the women that want me!
"I was with a girl not terribly long ago and she said "Mr. Roth, I think you�re the oldest person I've ever been with." I said "Honey I was gonna say the same thing to you."
"I've been going steady with my girlfriend for maybe two, maybe three... days!"
"We get to the hotel, there's people partyin' in the parking lot, people gettin' down in the elevator, wow! I swear to God I had this one chick, this chick was poundin' on my door, she was kickin' and screamin' at my door 'til about 6.30 this morning. Finally, I just said, "Fuck it! and let her out of my room"
"Nothing in here is worth dying for"- message on DLR's gate
"Money can't buy you happiness, but it can buy you a yacht big enough to pull up right alongside it"
"The perfect woman has an IQ of 150, wants to make love until 4 in the morning, then turns into a pizza!"
25 Conservative Philosophy Books
One for the Ladies
"Levon Levan. Hairy chest, golden chains, & leather pants are his trademarks. His closets are full of ladies panties. Hot ladies are drawn to him. Levon Levan is a sex symbol & God's gift to every woman. A Croatian stallion whose real name is Slavko Skoro, born in a poor farming village called Runovic in thecity of Imotski,with his Brothers in 1969 left across the big Ocean. He took music as his life's passion. In Portland, OR, he put together a band of extremely talented musicians & immediately stepped on the stage at the local bars. After just a few months he started filling arenas. Put in a category w/ Tom Jones & Elvis Presley. Not only about music, American media talked about his Love life."
http://www.levonlevan.com/
He will thrust his way into your heart.
Wednesday October 26, 2005 - Portland - Ash Street Saloon (MAP)
Levon Levan at the Ash Street Saloon
http://www.levonlevan.com/
He will thrust his way into your heart.
Wednesday October 26, 2005 - Portland - Ash Street Saloon (MAP)
Levon Levan at the Ash Street Saloon
Monday, October 24, 2005
1000 Candles
A rogue researcher challenges scientists to reverse human aging
By THOMAS BARTLETT
Cambridge, England
If you wish to be a prophet, first you must dress the part. No more silk ties or tasseled loafers. Instead, throw on a wrinkled T-shirt, frayed jeans, and dirty sneakers. You should appear somewhat unkempt, as if combs and showers were only for the unenlightened. When you encounter critics, as all prophets do, dismiss them as idiots. Make sure to pepper your conversation with grandiose predictions and remind others of your genius often, lest they forget. Oh, and if possible, grow a very long beard.
By these measures, Aubrey de Grey is indeed a prophet. The 42-year-old English biogerontologist has made his name by claiming that some people alive right now could live for 1,000 years or longer. Maybe much longer. Growing old is not, in his view, an inevitable consequence of the human condition; rather, it is the result of accumulated damage at the cellular and molecular levels that medical advances will soon be able to prevent — or even reverse — allowing people to go on living pretty much indefinitely. We'll still have to worry about angry bears and falling pianos, but aging, the biggest killer of all, will cease to be a threat. Death, as we know it, will die.
Mainstream gerontologists do not agree and hate to even raise the topic in public. They shy away from talk about life extension or "curing" aging and prefer to focus on keeping older people healthy for as long as possible, a goal referred to in the discipline as "compression of morbidity" or "healthspan." Many of them write off Mr. de Grey as more beard than brain."
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i10/10a01401.htm
By THOMAS BARTLETT
Cambridge, England
If you wish to be a prophet, first you must dress the part. No more silk ties or tasseled loafers. Instead, throw on a wrinkled T-shirt, frayed jeans, and dirty sneakers. You should appear somewhat unkempt, as if combs and showers were only for the unenlightened. When you encounter critics, as all prophets do, dismiss them as idiots. Make sure to pepper your conversation with grandiose predictions and remind others of your genius often, lest they forget. Oh, and if possible, grow a very long beard.
By these measures, Aubrey de Grey is indeed a prophet. The 42-year-old English biogerontologist has made his name by claiming that some people alive right now could live for 1,000 years or longer. Maybe much longer. Growing old is not, in his view, an inevitable consequence of the human condition; rather, it is the result of accumulated damage at the cellular and molecular levels that medical advances will soon be able to prevent — or even reverse — allowing people to go on living pretty much indefinitely. We'll still have to worry about angry bears and falling pianos, but aging, the biggest killer of all, will cease to be a threat. Death, as we know it, will die.
Mainstream gerontologists do not agree and hate to even raise the topic in public. They shy away from talk about life extension or "curing" aging and prefer to focus on keeping older people healthy for as long as possible, a goal referred to in the discipline as "compression of morbidity" or "healthspan." Many of them write off Mr. de Grey as more beard than brain."
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i10/10a01401.htm
Timer
I'm so hungry I can eat a wagon wheel!
When my get-up-and-go has got up and went, I hanker fer a hunk o' cheese.
If yer headin' for a showdown, and yer feelin' kinda lowdown, then hanker fer a hunk o' cheese!
If yer ten gallon hatis feelin' five gallons flatthen hanker fer a hunk o' cheese.
It's a real winner,and yet won't spoil my dinner-
I hanker fer a hunk o' cheese-
I hanker fer a hunk o'-
A slab a slice a chunk o'-
I hanker fer a hunk o' cheese.
Oh, look! A wagon wheel!
When my get-up-and-go has got up and went, I hanker fer a hunk o' cheese.
If yer headin' for a showdown, and yer feelin' kinda lowdown, then hanker fer a hunk o' cheese!
If yer ten gallon hatis feelin' five gallons flatthen hanker fer a hunk o' cheese.
It's a real winner,and yet won't spoil my dinner-
I hanker fer a hunk o' cheese-
I hanker fer a hunk o'-
A slab a slice a chunk o'-
I hanker fer a hunk o' cheese.
Oh, look! A wagon wheel!
Friday, October 21, 2005
Thursday, October 20, 2005
US Army to Taliban-"You are lady boys"
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 - The Pentagon announced Wednesday night that the Army had started a criminal investigation into allegations that American soldiers in Afghanistan had burned the bodies of two dead Taliban fighters and then used the charred and smoking corpses in a propaganda campaign against the insurgents.
According to the program's translation of the taunts, which were delivered in the local language by American forces on the scene, a soldier identified as Sgt. Jim Baker, said: "You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to come down and retrieve the bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be."
According to the program's translation of the taunts, which were delivered in the local language by American forces on the scene, a soldier identified as Sgt. Jim Baker, said: "You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to come down and retrieve the bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be."
www.powerlinblog.com
Kofi Annan doesn't speak
Today's New York Sun runs an eloquent editorial that captures the cultural corruption of the United Nations: "Annan is mum." The editorial reads:
"Secretary General Annan is refusing to comment to the press on the decision of the world body to give a platform to one of the world's most repressive dictators, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, to compare President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to Hitler and Mussolini. Maybe Congress can get him to say something as it continues its probe as to why America is funding the world body. Let Congress ask about the applause that greeted Mr. Mugabe at the U.N. conference this week in Rome in connection with the 60th birthday of the Food and Agriculture Organization. Not only did Mr. Mugabe compare President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to Hitler and Mussolini but he called them "international terrorists." It pumped the crowd.
It would be ironical, if it weren't so offensive, that a U.N. body whose stated aim is to lead "international efforts to defeat hunger" invites a dictator responsible for turning a once prosperous country into an economic basket-case to address it. Mr. Mugabe's Marxist land-reform policies have led to once productive farms being ruined. If there was racial injustice in Zimbabwe, as there was, this was clearly not the way to deal with it. Now more than 4 million Zimbabweans need aid. Poverty, disease, and starvation are rampant across the country.
When questioned on the suitability of inviting a despot like Mr. Mugabe to address the meeting, a spokesman for the FAO, Nicholas Parsons, told The New York Sun that all heads of member states were invited, and as Zimbabwe has been a "member in good standing" since the 1980s, it is "appropriate" that it, like all members, could attend. Only under the auspices of the United Nations could one of the world's most repressive dictators be reelected to a Human Rights Commission - a feather Mr. Mugabe placed in his cap earlier this year despite a habit of rigging elections and beating opponents - before being cheered for denouncing two leaders who liberated a country from another repressive dictator. And now the head of the whole organization stands mum while asking for more money from the alleged Hitlers and Mussolinis."
Today's New York Sun runs an eloquent editorial that captures the cultural corruption of the United Nations: "Annan is mum." The editorial reads:
"Secretary General Annan is refusing to comment to the press on the decision of the world body to give a platform to one of the world's most repressive dictators, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, to compare President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to Hitler and Mussolini. Maybe Congress can get him to say something as it continues its probe as to why America is funding the world body. Let Congress ask about the applause that greeted Mr. Mugabe at the U.N. conference this week in Rome in connection with the 60th birthday of the Food and Agriculture Organization. Not only did Mr. Mugabe compare President Bush and Prime Minister Blair to Hitler and Mussolini but he called them "international terrorists." It pumped the crowd.
It would be ironical, if it weren't so offensive, that a U.N. body whose stated aim is to lead "international efforts to defeat hunger" invites a dictator responsible for turning a once prosperous country into an economic basket-case to address it. Mr. Mugabe's Marxist land-reform policies have led to once productive farms being ruined. If there was racial injustice in Zimbabwe, as there was, this was clearly not the way to deal with it. Now more than 4 million Zimbabweans need aid. Poverty, disease, and starvation are rampant across the country.
When questioned on the suitability of inviting a despot like Mr. Mugabe to address the meeting, a spokesman for the FAO, Nicholas Parsons, told The New York Sun that all heads of member states were invited, and as Zimbabwe has been a "member in good standing" since the 1980s, it is "appropriate" that it, like all members, could attend. Only under the auspices of the United Nations could one of the world's most repressive dictators be reelected to a Human Rights Commission - a feather Mr. Mugabe placed in his cap earlier this year despite a habit of rigging elections and beating opponents - before being cheered for denouncing two leaders who liberated a country from another repressive dictator. And now the head of the whole organization stands mum while asking for more money from the alleged Hitlers and Mussolinis."
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Angel is worth it.
Katrina evacuees boozing up on Cape Cod
BOURNE, Oct. 18 (UPI) -- Hurricane Katrina evacuees using federal assistance money are living the high life with alcohol and strippers in Massachusetts, the Boston Herald said Tuesday.
The newspaper's investigation recorded "a virtual parade of evacuees from a bus stop in the Wal-Mart parking lot in Falmouth to nearby liquor stores. "Some emerged and openly swilled from brown-bagged containers, while others poured booze into jugs or plastic cups and casually sipped drinks at the Wal-Mart bus stop." At a Mashpee strip club, a dancer named Angel told the newspaper she had done several lap dances for evacuees, who tipped her $5 each time. Since the Sept. 8 arrival of the original 235 evacuees, Gov. Mitt Romney and the Legislature approved a $25 million emergency aid package to feed and house the evacuees at Camp Edwards on Otis Air Force Base. As of mid-September, the Red Cross had also given out another $25,000 in debit cards for victims sent to Massachusetts after the storm slammed Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama Aug. 29.
BOURNE, Oct. 18 (UPI) -- Hurricane Katrina evacuees using federal assistance money are living the high life with alcohol and strippers in Massachusetts, the Boston Herald said Tuesday.
The newspaper's investigation recorded "a virtual parade of evacuees from a bus stop in the Wal-Mart parking lot in Falmouth to nearby liquor stores. "Some emerged and openly swilled from brown-bagged containers, while others poured booze into jugs or plastic cups and casually sipped drinks at the Wal-Mart bus stop." At a Mashpee strip club, a dancer named Angel told the newspaper she had done several lap dances for evacuees, who tipped her $5 each time. Since the Sept. 8 arrival of the original 235 evacuees, Gov. Mitt Romney and the Legislature approved a $25 million emergency aid package to feed and house the evacuees at Camp Edwards on Otis Air Force Base. As of mid-September, the Red Cross had also given out another $25,000 in debit cards for victims sent to Massachusetts after the storm slammed Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama Aug. 29.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Media utters nonsense, won't call enemy out
October 16, 2005
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
From Thursday's New York Times: ''Nalchik, Russia -- Insurgents launched a series of raids today in this southern Russian city, striking the area's main airport and several police and security buildings in large-scale, daytime attacks that left at least 85 people dead.''
"Insurgents," eh?
From Agence France Presse:
"Nalchik, Russia: More than 60 people were killed as scores of militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."
"Militants," you say?
From the Scotsman:
"Rebel forces battled Russian troops for control of a provincial capital in the Caucasus yesterday . . ."
"Rebel forces,'' huh?
From Toronto's Globe & Mail:
"Nalchik, Russia -- Scores of rebels launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."
"Rebels," by the score. But why were they rebelling? What were they insurging over? You had to pick up the Globe & Mail's rival, the Toronto Star, to read exactly the same Associated Press dispatch but with one subtle difference:
''Nalchik, Russia -- Scores of Islamic militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."
Ah, "Islamic militants." So that's what the rebels were insurging over. In the geopolitical Hogwart's, Islamic "militants" are the new Voldemort, the enemy whose name it's best never to utter. In fairness to the New York Times, they did use the I-word in paragraph seven. And Agence France Presse got around to mentioning Islam in paragraph 22. And NPR's "All Things Considered" had one of those bland interviews between one of its unperturbable anchorettes and some Russian geopolitical academic type in which they chitchatted through every conceivable aspect of the situation and finally got around to kinda sorta revealing the identity of the perpetrators in the very last word of the geopolitical expert's very last sentence.
When the NPR report started, I was driving on the vast open plains of I-91 in Vermont and reckoned, just to make things interesting, I'll add another five miles to the speed for every minute that goes by without mentioning Islam. But I couldn't get the needle to go above 130, and the vibrations caused the passenger-side wing-mirror to drop off. And then, right at the end, having conducted a perfect interview that managed to go into great depth about everything except who these guys were and what they were fighting over, the Russian academic dude had to go and spoil it all by saying somethin' stupid like "republics which are mostly . . . Muslim." He mumbled the last word, but nevertheless the NPR gal leapt in to thank him and move smoothly on to some poll showing that the Dems are going to sweep the 2006 midterms because Bush has the worst numbers since numbers were invented.
I underestimated multiculturalism. After 9/11, I assumed the internal contradictions of the rainbow coalition would be made plain: that a cult of "tolerance" would in the end founder against a demographic so cheerfully upfront in their intolerance. Instead, Islamic "militants" have become the highest repository of multicultural pieties. So you're nice about gays and Native Americans? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of the tolerant, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti- masochists. And so Islamists who murder non-Muslims in pursuit of explicitly Islamic goals are airbrushed into vague, generic "rebel forces." You can't tell the players without a scorecard, and that's just the way the Western media intend to keep it. If you wake up one morning and switch on the TV to see the Empire State Building crumbling to dust, don't be surprised if the announcer goes, "Insurging rebel militant forces today attacked key targets in New York. In other news, the president's annual Ramadan banquet saw celebrities dancing into the small hours to Mullah Omar And His All-Girl Orchestra . . ."
What happened in Russia on Thursday was serious business, not just in the death toll but in the number of key government installations that the alleged insurging rebel militants of non-specific ideology managed to seize with relative ease. The militantly rebellious insurgers of no known religious affiliation have long said they want a pan-Caucasian Islamic state from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea, and the carnage they wreaked in the hitherto semi-safe-ish republic of Kabardino-Balkaria suggests that they're more likely to spread the conflict to other parts of the Russian Federation than Moscow is to contain it.
Did you see that news item in Stavropolsky Meridian last October? "Strontium, Uranium And Plutonium Found In Train To Caucasus." When a region already regarded as a Bud's Discount Warehouse for nuclear materials is getting sucked deeper into the maw of Islamism, why be so sheepish about letting us know the forces at play?
The Russians couldn't hold on to Eastern Europe. They couldn't hold on to Central Asia. Why would they fare any better with the present so-called Russian "Federation"? The country is literally dying. It's had a net population loss every year since 1992, one of the lowest fertility rates in the world -- 1.2 children born per woman -- and one of the highest abortion rates: some 70 percent of pregnancies are terminated. Russian men now have a lower life expectancy than Bangladeshis -- not because Bangladesh is brimming with actuarial advantages but because, if he had four legs and hung from a tree in a rain forest, the Russian male would be on the endangered species list.
Yet, within their present territory, there remain a few exceptions to the grim statistics cited above, parts of Russia that retain healthy fertility rates and healthy mortality rates. And guess what? They're the Muslim parts. Or, as the New York Times/NPR/Agence France Presse/Scotsman/Toronto Globe & Mail would say, they're the insurgent rebel militant parts. Many of these Russian Muslim areas -- like Bashkortistan (and no, I didn't make that up, it's a real stan. Check it out in the World Book Of Stans) -- are also rich in natural resources.
If you're an energy-rich Muslim republic, what's the point of going down the express garbage chute of history with the Russian Federation? The Islamification of significant parts of present-day Russia is going to be a critical factor in its death spiral.
I'm aware the very concept of "the enemy" is alien to the non-judgment multicultural mind: There are no enemies, just friends whose grievances we haven't yet accommodated. But the media's sensitivity police apparently want this to be the first war we lose without even knowing who it is we've lost to. C'mon, guys, next time something happens in the Caucasus, why not blame the "Caucasians"? At least that way, we'll figure it must have been right-wing buddies of Timothy McVeigh.
October 16, 2005
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
From Thursday's New York Times: ''Nalchik, Russia -- Insurgents launched a series of raids today in this southern Russian city, striking the area's main airport and several police and security buildings in large-scale, daytime attacks that left at least 85 people dead.''
"Insurgents," eh?
From Agence France Presse:
"Nalchik, Russia: More than 60 people were killed as scores of militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."
"Militants," you say?
From the Scotsman:
"Rebel forces battled Russian troops for control of a provincial capital in the Caucasus yesterday . . ."
"Rebel forces,'' huh?
From Toronto's Globe & Mail:
"Nalchik, Russia -- Scores of rebels launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."
"Rebels," by the score. But why were they rebelling? What were they insurging over? You had to pick up the Globe & Mail's rival, the Toronto Star, to read exactly the same Associated Press dispatch but with one subtle difference:
''Nalchik, Russia -- Scores of Islamic militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings . . ."
Ah, "Islamic militants." So that's what the rebels were insurging over. In the geopolitical Hogwart's, Islamic "militants" are the new Voldemort, the enemy whose name it's best never to utter. In fairness to the New York Times, they did use the I-word in paragraph seven. And Agence France Presse got around to mentioning Islam in paragraph 22. And NPR's "All Things Considered" had one of those bland interviews between one of its unperturbable anchorettes and some Russian geopolitical academic type in which they chitchatted through every conceivable aspect of the situation and finally got around to kinda sorta revealing the identity of the perpetrators in the very last word of the geopolitical expert's very last sentence.
When the NPR report started, I was driving on the vast open plains of I-91 in Vermont and reckoned, just to make things interesting, I'll add another five miles to the speed for every minute that goes by without mentioning Islam. But I couldn't get the needle to go above 130, and the vibrations caused the passenger-side wing-mirror to drop off. And then, right at the end, having conducted a perfect interview that managed to go into great depth about everything except who these guys were and what they were fighting over, the Russian academic dude had to go and spoil it all by saying somethin' stupid like "republics which are mostly . . . Muslim." He mumbled the last word, but nevertheless the NPR gal leapt in to thank him and move smoothly on to some poll showing that the Dems are going to sweep the 2006 midterms because Bush has the worst numbers since numbers were invented.
I underestimated multiculturalism. After 9/11, I assumed the internal contradictions of the rainbow coalition would be made plain: that a cult of "tolerance" would in the end founder against a demographic so cheerfully upfront in their intolerance. Instead, Islamic "militants" have become the highest repository of multicultural pieties. So you're nice about gays and Native Americans? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of the tolerant, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti- masochists. And so Islamists who murder non-Muslims in pursuit of explicitly Islamic goals are airbrushed into vague, generic "rebel forces." You can't tell the players without a scorecard, and that's just the way the Western media intend to keep it. If you wake up one morning and switch on the TV to see the Empire State Building crumbling to dust, don't be surprised if the announcer goes, "Insurging rebel militant forces today attacked key targets in New York. In other news, the president's annual Ramadan banquet saw celebrities dancing into the small hours to Mullah Omar And His All-Girl Orchestra . . ."
What happened in Russia on Thursday was serious business, not just in the death toll but in the number of key government installations that the alleged insurging rebel militants of non-specific ideology managed to seize with relative ease. The militantly rebellious insurgers of no known religious affiliation have long said they want a pan-Caucasian Islamic state from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea, and the carnage they wreaked in the hitherto semi-safe-ish republic of Kabardino-Balkaria suggests that they're more likely to spread the conflict to other parts of the Russian Federation than Moscow is to contain it.
Did you see that news item in Stavropolsky Meridian last October? "Strontium, Uranium And Plutonium Found In Train To Caucasus." When a region already regarded as a Bud's Discount Warehouse for nuclear materials is getting sucked deeper into the maw of Islamism, why be so sheepish about letting us know the forces at play?
The Russians couldn't hold on to Eastern Europe. They couldn't hold on to Central Asia. Why would they fare any better with the present so-called Russian "Federation"? The country is literally dying. It's had a net population loss every year since 1992, one of the lowest fertility rates in the world -- 1.2 children born per woman -- and one of the highest abortion rates: some 70 percent of pregnancies are terminated. Russian men now have a lower life expectancy than Bangladeshis -- not because Bangladesh is brimming with actuarial advantages but because, if he had four legs and hung from a tree in a rain forest, the Russian male would be on the endangered species list.
Yet, within their present territory, there remain a few exceptions to the grim statistics cited above, parts of Russia that retain healthy fertility rates and healthy mortality rates. And guess what? They're the Muslim parts. Or, as the New York Times/NPR/Agence France Presse/Scotsman/Toronto Globe & Mail would say, they're the insurgent rebel militant parts. Many of these Russian Muslim areas -- like Bashkortistan (and no, I didn't make that up, it's a real stan. Check it out in the World Book Of Stans) -- are also rich in natural resources.
If you're an energy-rich Muslim republic, what's the point of going down the express garbage chute of history with the Russian Federation? The Islamification of significant parts of present-day Russia is going to be a critical factor in its death spiral.
I'm aware the very concept of "the enemy" is alien to the non-judgment multicultural mind: There are no enemies, just friends whose grievances we haven't yet accommodated. But the media's sensitivity police apparently want this to be the first war we lose without even knowing who it is we've lost to. C'mon, guys, next time something happens in the Caucasus, why not blame the "Caucasians"? At least that way, we'll figure it must have been right-wing buddies of Timothy McVeigh.
Friday, October 14, 2005
A Flu Hope, Or Horror?
By Charles KrauthammerFriday, October 14, 2005; Page A19
While official Washington has been poring over Harriet Miers's long-ago doings on the Dallas City Council and parsing the byzantine comings and goings of the Patrick Fitzgerald grand jury, relatively unnoticed was perhaps the most momentous event of our lifetime -- what is left of it, as I shall explain. It was announced last week that U.S. scientists have just created a living, killing copy of the 1918 "Spanish" flu.
This is big. Very big.
First, it is a scientific achievement of staggering proportions. The Spanish flu has not been seen on this blue planet for 85 years. Its re-creation is a story of enterprise, ingenuity, serendipity, hard work and sheer brilliance. It involves finding deep in the bowels of a military hospital in Washington a couple of tissue samples from the lungs of soldiers who died in 1918 -- in an autopsy collection first ordered into existence by Abraham Lincoln -- and the disinterment of an Alaskan Eskimo who died of the flu and whose remains had been preserved by the permafrost. Then, using slicing and dicing techniques only Michael Crichton could imagine, they pulled off a microbiological Jurassic Park: the first-ever resurrection of an ancient pathogen. And not just any ancient pathogen, explained virologist Eddie Holmes, but "the agent of the most important disease pandemic in human history."
Which brings us to the second element of this story: Beyond the brilliance lies the sheer terror. We have brought back to life an agent of near-biblical destruction. It killed more people in six months than were killed in the four years of World War I. It killed more humans than any other disease of similar duration in the history of the world, says Alfred W. Crosby, who wrote a history of the 1918 pandemic. And, notes New Scientist magazine, when the re-created virus was given to mice in heavily quarantined laboratories in Atlanta, it killed the mice more quickly than any other flu virus ever tested .
Now that I have your attention, consider, with appropriate trepidation, the third element of this story: What to do with this knowledge? Not only has the virus been physically re-created, but its entire genome has also now been published for the whole world, good people and very bad, to see. The decision to publish was a very close call, terrifyingly close.
On the one hand, we need the knowledge disseminated. We've learned from this research that the 1918 flu was bird flu, "the most bird-like of all mammalian flu viruses," says Jeffery Taubenberger, lead researcher in unraveling the genome. There is a bird flu epidemic right now in Asia that has infected 117 people and killed 60. It has already developed a few of the genomic changes that permit transmission to humans. Therefore, you want to put out the knowledge of the structure of the 1918 flu, which made the full jump from birds to humans, so that every researcher in the world can immediately start looking for ways to anticipate, monitor, prevent and counteract similar changes in today's bird flu.
We are essentially in a life-or-death race with the bird flu. Can we figure out how to preempt it before it figures out how to evolve into a transmittable form with 1918 lethality that will decimate humanity? To run that race we need the genetic sequence universally known -- not just to inform and guide but to galvanize new research.
On the other hand, resurrection of the virus and publication of its structure open the gates of hell. Anybody, bad guys included, can now create it. Biological knowledge is far easier to acquire for Osama bin Laden and friends than nuclear knowledge. And if you can't make this stuff yourself, you can simply order up DNA sequences from commercial laboratories around the world that will make it and ship it to you on demand. Taubenberger himself admits that "the technology is available." And if the bad guys can't make the flu themselves, they could try to steal it. That's not easy. But the incentive to do so from a secure facility could not be greater. Nature, which published the full genome sequence, cites Rutgers bacteriologist Richard Ebright as warning that there is a significant risk "verging on inevitability" of accidental release into the human population or of theft by a "disgruntled, disturbed or extremist laboratory employee."
Why try to steal loose nukes in Russia? A nuke can only destroy a city. The flu virus, properly evolved, is potentially a destroyer of civilizations. We might have just given it to our enemies.
Have a nice day.
By Charles KrauthammerFriday, October 14, 2005; Page A19
While official Washington has been poring over Harriet Miers's long-ago doings on the Dallas City Council and parsing the byzantine comings and goings of the Patrick Fitzgerald grand jury, relatively unnoticed was perhaps the most momentous event of our lifetime -- what is left of it, as I shall explain. It was announced last week that U.S. scientists have just created a living, killing copy of the 1918 "Spanish" flu.
This is big. Very big.
First, it is a scientific achievement of staggering proportions. The Spanish flu has not been seen on this blue planet for 85 years. Its re-creation is a story of enterprise, ingenuity, serendipity, hard work and sheer brilliance. It involves finding deep in the bowels of a military hospital in Washington a couple of tissue samples from the lungs of soldiers who died in 1918 -- in an autopsy collection first ordered into existence by Abraham Lincoln -- and the disinterment of an Alaskan Eskimo who died of the flu and whose remains had been preserved by the permafrost. Then, using slicing and dicing techniques only Michael Crichton could imagine, they pulled off a microbiological Jurassic Park: the first-ever resurrection of an ancient pathogen. And not just any ancient pathogen, explained virologist Eddie Holmes, but "the agent of the most important disease pandemic in human history."
Which brings us to the second element of this story: Beyond the brilliance lies the sheer terror. We have brought back to life an agent of near-biblical destruction. It killed more people in six months than were killed in the four years of World War I. It killed more humans than any other disease of similar duration in the history of the world, says Alfred W. Crosby, who wrote a history of the 1918 pandemic. And, notes New Scientist magazine, when the re-created virus was given to mice in heavily quarantined laboratories in Atlanta, it killed the mice more quickly than any other flu virus ever tested .
Now that I have your attention, consider, with appropriate trepidation, the third element of this story: What to do with this knowledge? Not only has the virus been physically re-created, but its entire genome has also now been published for the whole world, good people and very bad, to see. The decision to publish was a very close call, terrifyingly close.
On the one hand, we need the knowledge disseminated. We've learned from this research that the 1918 flu was bird flu, "the most bird-like of all mammalian flu viruses," says Jeffery Taubenberger, lead researcher in unraveling the genome. There is a bird flu epidemic right now in Asia that has infected 117 people and killed 60. It has already developed a few of the genomic changes that permit transmission to humans. Therefore, you want to put out the knowledge of the structure of the 1918 flu, which made the full jump from birds to humans, so that every researcher in the world can immediately start looking for ways to anticipate, monitor, prevent and counteract similar changes in today's bird flu.
We are essentially in a life-or-death race with the bird flu. Can we figure out how to preempt it before it figures out how to evolve into a transmittable form with 1918 lethality that will decimate humanity? To run that race we need the genetic sequence universally known -- not just to inform and guide but to galvanize new research.
On the other hand, resurrection of the virus and publication of its structure open the gates of hell. Anybody, bad guys included, can now create it. Biological knowledge is far easier to acquire for Osama bin Laden and friends than nuclear knowledge. And if you can't make this stuff yourself, you can simply order up DNA sequences from commercial laboratories around the world that will make it and ship it to you on demand. Taubenberger himself admits that "the technology is available." And if the bad guys can't make the flu themselves, they could try to steal it. That's not easy. But the incentive to do so from a secure facility could not be greater. Nature, which published the full genome sequence, cites Rutgers bacteriologist Richard Ebright as warning that there is a significant risk "verging on inevitability" of accidental release into the human population or of theft by a "disgruntled, disturbed or extremist laboratory employee."
Why try to steal loose nukes in Russia? A nuke can only destroy a city. The flu virus, properly evolved, is potentially a destroyer of civilizations. We might have just given it to our enemies.
Have a nice day.
www.weeklystandard.com
Lincoln, Calhounand the U.N.'s Dilemma
Why Americans reflexively reject the values of the United Nations.
by Michael Brandon McClellan 10/14/2005 12:00:00 AM
Email a Friend
PRIOR TO THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, John Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln articulated two very different ideas of equality. Each idea was powerful, and if followed, would lead to radically different outcomes. Calhoun's organizing principle can be boiled down to two words: state sovereignty. He believed in the equality of sovereign political states. In contrast, Lincoln's organizing principle of equality was the idea of individual natural rights. While Lincoln's idea of individual rights triumphed in the United States with the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Constitutional Amendments and the success of the civil rights movement a century later, the Calhoun / Lincoln debate is, in a sense, still blazing in the arena of international law and in the dilemma of the United Nations. From a perspective of organizing political principles, it is fair to say that above all else, John Calhoun stood for the idea of "entity equality." He believed that there was no higher level of political morality than that of a state being free to govern itself. Accordingly, if a group of citizens that held all of the political power in a state sought to enslave another group of citizens, the governing group was entitled to do so with the full protection of the law. In Calhoun's logic, this was derived from the fact that the governing group represented the sovereign and equal entity of the state. For Calhoun, this idea of state equality was the only rational basis of organizing a free society in a stable federal system. No state could infringe upon the rights of another state. For, if state equality was not held sacrosanct and inviolable, then the people of a state could tyrannically infringe upon the rights of the people of another state. There would be no legal principle to stop, for example, the people of Massachusetts from imposing their will upon the people of South Carolina. All that would remain to prevent such imposition would be political and martial power.
In contrast, Lincoln stood for the idea of the natural rights of the individual. Lincoln believed that the fundamental principle of the Declaration of Independence must illuminate all valid legal systems, and accordingly the U.S. Constitution. That fundamental principle, of course, is the idea that "all men are created equal" and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Lincoln, like the Founders, understood these rights to be universal.
Lincoln held that the purpose of government--at all levels--was to secure the rights of the governed. In Lincoln's framework, no government, even if democratically elected by a certain segment of society, had the right to enslave its citizens, for such would violate the natural rights of the governed. For Lincoln, Calhoun's principle was a farce; one could not, in the name of state liberty, deny individuals their God-given liberty.
Given this context, it is worth asking, whose ideas serve as the guiding principle of the United Nations system of international law? Calhoun's or Lincoln's?....
If Calhoun's idea of "entity equality" is the organizing principle of a legal system, then there is indeed no basis for challenging the internal governance of an autonomous and equal entity. There is no basis upon which to say that a free state is better than a slave state (and thus just in acting to free the slaves), or that a constitutional democracy is better than an absolute despotism (and thus just in removing the despot). In such a framework, what matters is the principle of non-aggression between equal sovereign entities--in the case of Calhoun this meant states, and in the case of the United Nations this means nation states.
Perhaps because Lincoln's ideas have prevailed so emphatically in the United States, it is difficult for Americans to embrace a U.N. system that is moored so securely to the "entity equality" logic of John Calhoun. Just as the moral bankruptcy of Calhoun's political philosophy is so apparent when placed in the natural rights framework of Lincoln, so too is the U.N. framework undermined when viewed in the context of individual human freedom.
Why Americans reflexively reject the values of the United Nations.
by Michael Brandon McClellan 10/14/2005 12:00:00 AM
Email a Friend
PRIOR TO THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, John Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln articulated two very different ideas of equality. Each idea was powerful, and if followed, would lead to radically different outcomes. Calhoun's organizing principle can be boiled down to two words: state sovereignty. He believed in the equality of sovereign political states. In contrast, Lincoln's organizing principle of equality was the idea of individual natural rights. While Lincoln's idea of individual rights triumphed in the United States with the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Constitutional Amendments and the success of the civil rights movement a century later, the Calhoun / Lincoln debate is, in a sense, still blazing in the arena of international law and in the dilemma of the United Nations. From a perspective of organizing political principles, it is fair to say that above all else, John Calhoun stood for the idea of "entity equality." He believed that there was no higher level of political morality than that of a state being free to govern itself. Accordingly, if a group of citizens that held all of the political power in a state sought to enslave another group of citizens, the governing group was entitled to do so with the full protection of the law. In Calhoun's logic, this was derived from the fact that the governing group represented the sovereign and equal entity of the state. For Calhoun, this idea of state equality was the only rational basis of organizing a free society in a stable federal system. No state could infringe upon the rights of another state. For, if state equality was not held sacrosanct and inviolable, then the people of a state could tyrannically infringe upon the rights of the people of another state. There would be no legal principle to stop, for example, the people of Massachusetts from imposing their will upon the people of South Carolina. All that would remain to prevent such imposition would be political and martial power.
In contrast, Lincoln stood for the idea of the natural rights of the individual. Lincoln believed that the fundamental principle of the Declaration of Independence must illuminate all valid legal systems, and accordingly the U.S. Constitution. That fundamental principle, of course, is the idea that "all men are created equal" and "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Lincoln, like the Founders, understood these rights to be universal.
Lincoln held that the purpose of government--at all levels--was to secure the rights of the governed. In Lincoln's framework, no government, even if democratically elected by a certain segment of society, had the right to enslave its citizens, for such would violate the natural rights of the governed. For Lincoln, Calhoun's principle was a farce; one could not, in the name of state liberty, deny individuals their God-given liberty.
Given this context, it is worth asking, whose ideas serve as the guiding principle of the United Nations system of international law? Calhoun's or Lincoln's?....
If Calhoun's idea of "entity equality" is the organizing principle of a legal system, then there is indeed no basis for challenging the internal governance of an autonomous and equal entity. There is no basis upon which to say that a free state is better than a slave state (and thus just in acting to free the slaves), or that a constitutional democracy is better than an absolute despotism (and thus just in removing the despot). In such a framework, what matters is the principle of non-aggression between equal sovereign entities--in the case of Calhoun this meant states, and in the case of the United Nations this means nation states.
Perhaps because Lincoln's ideas have prevailed so emphatically in the United States, it is difficult for Americans to embrace a U.N. system that is moored so securely to the "entity equality" logic of John Calhoun. Just as the moral bankruptcy of Calhoun's political philosophy is so apparent when placed in the natural rights framework of Lincoln, so too is the U.N. framework undermined when viewed in the context of individual human freedom.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
A moment with Donald Gibb
Ogre: Still crazy after all these years
Written by JON SINGER; side photo by BARRY BRECHEISEN
"Ogre!" "Ogre!" "Ogre!"The crowd chants as the biggest and scariest jock of "Revenge of the Nerds" holds a helpless victim off of the Alpha Beta frat house.
Then, the movie's plot begins. Ogre yells, "NERDS!" as he spots lowly Gilbert Lowell and oblivious Lewis Skolnick across the campus. Ogre is so flustered that he drops the poor, nameless victim two stories to the ground.For everyone who's ever been called a nerd, geek, or dork, a hero is born in Lewis and the nerds, and an anti-hero in Ogre and the jocks.Donald Gibb, who gave life to Ogre in a magnificent performance. He perfectly straddled the line between reality and caricature. Ogre is just believable enough for audiences. Everyone knows an Ogre in their group of friends.Gibb, didn't have to look far for inspiration. "I think a lot of Ogre was me," Gibb says. "Whenever you play a character there's always some of you in that character. I was in a fraternity in college and I think I drew off a lot of that crud."Catching the role was a big break for Gibb. He had previously done bits in "Magnum P.I.," "Lost in America," and more, but "Revenge of the Nerds" was his first time in the spotlight. "I really had just started acting, I was actually a stuntman," Gibb says. "['Nerds'] pretty much put me on the map as far as comedy goes."Gibb's chance at playing Ogre didn't come easy. He had a little luck on his side. Or, let's just say he had friends in high enough places. "I read for them, and I didn't think I was going to get it," Gibb says. "Then a stunt coordinator, who was a friend of mine, called me up and said , 'Listen, man, if you shave that beard off they want to see you.'"The beard made 28-year-old Gibb look too old, so he promptly shaved it off and read for the part again. And a third time. Finally, he got the part.From the start and with leeway from director Jeff Kanew, Gibb molded Ogre from afterthought to American cinematic icon."I think they really thought they were hiring a stuntman, so they didn't think too much until I started doing the movie," Gibb says. "Then they realized that they had something pretty funny and they started adding stuff to my part." The classic crazy hair and look was all Gibb's doing. "I started frizzing my hair up every day, it just started happening," Gibb says. "I just became Ogre, and [Kanew] pretty much let me do whatever I wanted.""I tried to make Ogre as crazy as I could, within limits," Gibb says. "If you cross the line between funny and then you go over to ridiculous, people don't laugh anymore, it becomes pathetic."As much as a jock icon as Ogre was and still is today, "Nerds" fans must keep in mind that he became a Tri-Lam in "Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise." Gibb thinks Ogre was always a nerd."I think [producers] figured Ogre was a nerd, basically through the whole thing," Gibb says. "I wanted to make the character a jock, but one who didn't really understand what was going on. So they kind of went with me on that."Today, 50-year-old Gibb hangs out in Chicago. Though he's lived in Los Angeles most of his life, he's got a business and a girlfriend in the Windy City."It's a big city with nice people. I don't really dig the winters, I'm used to California, 58 degrees, 78 degrees," Gibb says. "This minus-5 stuff I'm really not too hip on."Gibb has started selling Ogre Beer with a partner in Chicago. The beer is in about 200 stores in the greater Chicago area. Plans are to go national in the near future. Until then, he is taking a break from acting, although he acted a part in the drama "Lightning Bug" about a year ago. It has since been in several film festivals. Gibb can't go anywhere without being recognized as Ogre."It's just absolutely beyond belief," Gibb says. "If you're with me, you just can't believe it, everybody recognizes you."To see Gibb for yourself, visit Trader Todd's at 3216 N. Sheffield Ave. in Chicago. The bar is owned by Gibb's beer business partner, and Gibb frequents the bar often.
http://www.luminomagazine.com/mw/content/view/347/30
Written by JON SINGER; side photo by BARRY BRECHEISEN
"Ogre!" "Ogre!" "Ogre!"The crowd chants as the biggest and scariest jock of "Revenge of the Nerds" holds a helpless victim off of the Alpha Beta frat house.
Then, the movie's plot begins. Ogre yells, "NERDS!" as he spots lowly Gilbert Lowell and oblivious Lewis Skolnick across the campus. Ogre is so flustered that he drops the poor, nameless victim two stories to the ground.For everyone who's ever been called a nerd, geek, or dork, a hero is born in Lewis and the nerds, and an anti-hero in Ogre and the jocks.Donald Gibb, who gave life to Ogre in a magnificent performance. He perfectly straddled the line between reality and caricature. Ogre is just believable enough for audiences. Everyone knows an Ogre in their group of friends.Gibb, didn't have to look far for inspiration. "I think a lot of Ogre was me," Gibb says. "Whenever you play a character there's always some of you in that character. I was in a fraternity in college and I think I drew off a lot of that crud."Catching the role was a big break for Gibb. He had previously done bits in "Magnum P.I.," "Lost in America," and more, but "Revenge of the Nerds" was his first time in the spotlight. "I really had just started acting, I was actually a stuntman," Gibb says. "['Nerds'] pretty much put me on the map as far as comedy goes."Gibb's chance at playing Ogre didn't come easy. He had a little luck on his side. Or, let's just say he had friends in high enough places. "I read for them, and I didn't think I was going to get it," Gibb says. "Then a stunt coordinator, who was a friend of mine, called me up and said , 'Listen, man, if you shave that beard off they want to see you.'"The beard made 28-year-old Gibb look too old, so he promptly shaved it off and read for the part again. And a third time. Finally, he got the part.From the start and with leeway from director Jeff Kanew, Gibb molded Ogre from afterthought to American cinematic icon."I think they really thought they were hiring a stuntman, so they didn't think too much until I started doing the movie," Gibb says. "Then they realized that they had something pretty funny and they started adding stuff to my part." The classic crazy hair and look was all Gibb's doing. "I started frizzing my hair up every day, it just started happening," Gibb says. "I just became Ogre, and [Kanew] pretty much let me do whatever I wanted.""I tried to make Ogre as crazy as I could, within limits," Gibb says. "If you cross the line between funny and then you go over to ridiculous, people don't laugh anymore, it becomes pathetic."As much as a jock icon as Ogre was and still is today, "Nerds" fans must keep in mind that he became a Tri-Lam in "Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise." Gibb thinks Ogre was always a nerd."I think [producers] figured Ogre was a nerd, basically through the whole thing," Gibb says. "I wanted to make the character a jock, but one who didn't really understand what was going on. So they kind of went with me on that."Today, 50-year-old Gibb hangs out in Chicago. Though he's lived in Los Angeles most of his life, he's got a business and a girlfriend in the Windy City."It's a big city with nice people. I don't really dig the winters, I'm used to California, 58 degrees, 78 degrees," Gibb says. "This minus-5 stuff I'm really not too hip on."Gibb has started selling Ogre Beer with a partner in Chicago. The beer is in about 200 stores in the greater Chicago area. Plans are to go national in the near future. Until then, he is taking a break from acting, although he acted a part in the drama "Lightning Bug" about a year ago. It has since been in several film festivals. Gibb can't go anywhere without being recognized as Ogre."It's just absolutely beyond belief," Gibb says. "If you're with me, you just can't believe it, everybody recognizes you."To see Gibb for yourself, visit Trader Todd's at 3216 N. Sheffield Ave. in Chicago. The bar is owned by Gibb's beer business partner, and Gibb frequents the bar often.
http://www.luminomagazine.com/mw/content/view/347/30
"SEC WHOLE TRACK"
This questionaire document was developed by Scientology founder and onetime science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard for use during "auditing" sessions—you know, the ones designed to identify your trapped "thetans." The "thetans," or alien ghosts, were implanted in earth’s volcanoes 75 million years ago by the evil intergalactic ruler Xenu, until the nasty buggers escaped and invaded the bodies of each and every one of us. New recruits like Katie Holmes, or "preclears," answer the questions while hooked up to an E-meter—a crude, polygraph-like contraption—as a Church-sanctioned auditor records the subject’s responses for further expensive inquiry.
Here is a list of 20 out of 343 questions-
• Have you driven anyone insane?
• Have you ever killed the wrong person?
• Is anybody looking for you?
• Have you ever set a poor example?
• Did you come to Earth for evil purposes?
• Are you in hiding?
• Have you systematically set up mysteries?
• Have you ever made a practice of confusing people?
• Have you ever philosophized when you should have acted instead?
• Have you ever gone crazy?
• Have you ever sought to persuade someone of your insanity?
• Have you ever deserted, or betrayed, a great leader?
• Have you ever smothered a baby?
• Do you deserve to have any friends?
• Have you ever castrated anyone?
• Do you deserve to be enslaved?
• Is there any question on this list I had better not ask you again?
• Have you ever tried to make the physical universe less real?
• Have you ever zapped anyone?
• Have you ever had a body with a venereal disease? If so, did you spread it?
Here is a list of 20 out of 343 questions-
• Have you driven anyone insane?
• Have you ever killed the wrong person?
• Is anybody looking for you?
• Have you ever set a poor example?
• Did you come to Earth for evil purposes?
• Are you in hiding?
• Have you systematically set up mysteries?
• Have you ever made a practice of confusing people?
• Have you ever philosophized when you should have acted instead?
• Have you ever gone crazy?
• Have you ever sought to persuade someone of your insanity?
• Have you ever deserted, or betrayed, a great leader?
• Have you ever smothered a baby?
• Do you deserve to have any friends?
• Have you ever castrated anyone?
• Do you deserve to be enslaved?
• Is there any question on this list I had better not ask you again?
• Have you ever tried to make the physical universe less real?
• Have you ever zapped anyone?
• Have you ever had a body with a venereal disease? If so, did you spread it?
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Gaul does not give orders to Rome
Wow, I came across this article about US/European relations- a little dated, but powerful-
"Oh, we know how you see us. You never cease telling us. We are uncultured, because we cannot recall the date of the first performance of Das Rheingold. We are heartless, since our society favors opportunity over security. We are naïve, since we do not share your prejudices. We are warmongers, because we still believe some things are worth defending."
-Read it all
http://www.chronwatch.com/featured/contentDisplay.asp?aid=3265
"Oh, we know how you see us. You never cease telling us. We are uncultured, because we cannot recall the date of the first performance of Das Rheingold. We are heartless, since our society favors opportunity over security. We are naïve, since we do not share your prejudices. We are warmongers, because we still believe some things are worth defending."
-Read it all
http://www.chronwatch.com/featured/contentDisplay.asp?aid=3265
Seized Letter Outlines Al Qaeda Goals in Iraq
By Susan B. Glasser and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 12, 2005; A13
Al Qaeda's top deputy urged the leader of his Iraq branch in July to prepare for the inevitable U.S. withdrawal by carrying out political as well as military actions, and he lectured him that he risked being shunned by an Islamic world angered over his gruesome and not "palatable" killings of fellow Muslims, according to an intercepted letter released yesterday by the U.S. government.
The 6,000-word letter from Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenant, Ayman Zawahiri, to Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi amounts to a detailed portrait of al Qaeda's long-term goals in Iraq and the Middle East, and includes a striking critique of how Zarqawi has gone about waging his war against not only U.S. troops but also Iraqi civilians. The letter was posted yesterday on the Web site of Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte -- http://www.dni.gov -- after senior intelligence officials released excerpts of it last week.
Invoking the specter of the United States abruptly abandoning Iraq as it did to Vietnam, Zawahiri counseled immediate political action: "We must take the initiative and impose a fait accompli upon our enemies, instead of the enemy imposing one on us."
The missive also suggests the degree to which al Qaeda's leadership remains eager to assert its prerogatives with Zarqawi, who has become the increasingly public face of the movement when Zawahiri and bin Laden are in hiding. Although the letter does not contain a direct reference to Zarqawi until a cryptic greeting to him at the end, a senior intelligence official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity said "it's absolutely certain" it was meant for Zarqawi, declining to elaborate on how U.S. officials made that conclusion. The letter was dated July 9, but the official would not say whether it had been sent. "We obtained it in the course of counterterrorism operations in Iraq," he said.
Throughout, Zawahiri -- the Egyptian doctor who fused his own Islamic movement with bin Laden's al Qaeda in the late 1990s and is believed to operate now as the group's top commander -- comes across as a strategist trying to rein in a guerrilla operating at odds with the movement's political goals. The official said that in its repeated criticism of Zarqawi, the letter also amounts to a reproof from "an al Qaeda elder to an occasionally hotheaded field commander."
"He comes down like a ton of bricks on what has happened tactically," the official said.
"This is not a rant. It is more chilling in a sense because it's so well-argued, clean and calm," the official added. "There's a high political content. Zawahiri calls for political action equivalent to military action."
Zarqawi has been high on the list of most wanted insurgents since last year after he pledged allegiance to bin Laden, but in recent months U.S. military commanders have given even greater urgency to disrupting his network of foreign fighters and Iraqi supporters. The network is still thought to constitute only a fraction of the Iraqi insurgency in numbers, but it is credited with carrying out a disproportionately large share of the violence, as a result of suicide bombings often aimed at Shiite civilians to foment sectarian strife.
But Zawahiri urged Zarqawi in the letter to change that formula and refocus on politics. When the United States leaves, al Qaeda must be ready to claim as much territory politically in the inevitable void that will arise, he writes. Zawahiri called that stage the setting up of an "emirate," in as much of Sunni-dominated Iraq as possible, to be followed by the longer-term goal of a "caliphate," reuniting the historical Islamic empire centered in modern-day Egypt, Lebanon and Israel.
Zawahiri also questions Zarqawi's targeting of Iraqi Shiites, telling him bluntly that the "majority of Muslims don't comprehend this" and wondering whether such targeting is a "wise decision" given the need to wage war against the United States and the current Iraqi government. And even if Shiite leaders should be targeted, Zawahiri asks, "why were there attacks on ordinary Shia?"
He also told Zarqawi that fellow Muslims "will never find palatable" the televised scenes of hostage beheadings that have earned Zarqawi the sobriquet "sheik of the slaughterers." among like-minded fighters. In the media battle "for the hearts and minds" of the Islamic world, Zawahiri said, such tactics will not work.
Zawahiri has spoken before about the broad plans of the al Qaeda movement. In a book smuggled out of Afghanistan in December 2001, Zawahiri said the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks "would be nothing more than disturbing acts" if they "do not serve the ultimate goal of establishing the Muslim nation in the heart of the Islamic world." In the 2001 volume, he said the first goal should be to strike Americans and Jews "in our Muslim countries."
In the new letter, Zawahiri said the Muslim masses "do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy, especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish and secondly American."
In an unusual reverse, the letter asks Zarqawi to send money to al Qaeda, saying many of its "lines have been cut off," and that "we'll be very grateful to you" for financial help.
By Susan B. Glasser and Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, October 12, 2005; A13
Al Qaeda's top deputy urged the leader of his Iraq branch in July to prepare for the inevitable U.S. withdrawal by carrying out political as well as military actions, and he lectured him that he risked being shunned by an Islamic world angered over his gruesome and not "palatable" killings of fellow Muslims, according to an intercepted letter released yesterday by the U.S. government.
The 6,000-word letter from Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenant, Ayman Zawahiri, to Iraqi insurgent leader Abu Musab Zarqawi amounts to a detailed portrait of al Qaeda's long-term goals in Iraq and the Middle East, and includes a striking critique of how Zarqawi has gone about waging his war against not only U.S. troops but also Iraqi civilians. The letter was posted yesterday on the Web site of Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte -- http://www.dni.gov -- after senior intelligence officials released excerpts of it last week.
Invoking the specter of the United States abruptly abandoning Iraq as it did to Vietnam, Zawahiri counseled immediate political action: "We must take the initiative and impose a fait accompli upon our enemies, instead of the enemy imposing one on us."
The missive also suggests the degree to which al Qaeda's leadership remains eager to assert its prerogatives with Zarqawi, who has become the increasingly public face of the movement when Zawahiri and bin Laden are in hiding. Although the letter does not contain a direct reference to Zarqawi until a cryptic greeting to him at the end, a senior intelligence official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity said "it's absolutely certain" it was meant for Zarqawi, declining to elaborate on how U.S. officials made that conclusion. The letter was dated July 9, but the official would not say whether it had been sent. "We obtained it in the course of counterterrorism operations in Iraq," he said.
Throughout, Zawahiri -- the Egyptian doctor who fused his own Islamic movement with bin Laden's al Qaeda in the late 1990s and is believed to operate now as the group's top commander -- comes across as a strategist trying to rein in a guerrilla operating at odds with the movement's political goals. The official said that in its repeated criticism of Zarqawi, the letter also amounts to a reproof from "an al Qaeda elder to an occasionally hotheaded field commander."
"He comes down like a ton of bricks on what has happened tactically," the official said.
"This is not a rant. It is more chilling in a sense because it's so well-argued, clean and calm," the official added. "There's a high political content. Zawahiri calls for political action equivalent to military action."
Zarqawi has been high on the list of most wanted insurgents since last year after he pledged allegiance to bin Laden, but in recent months U.S. military commanders have given even greater urgency to disrupting his network of foreign fighters and Iraqi supporters. The network is still thought to constitute only a fraction of the Iraqi insurgency in numbers, but it is credited with carrying out a disproportionately large share of the violence, as a result of suicide bombings often aimed at Shiite civilians to foment sectarian strife.
But Zawahiri urged Zarqawi in the letter to change that formula and refocus on politics. When the United States leaves, al Qaeda must be ready to claim as much territory politically in the inevitable void that will arise, he writes. Zawahiri called that stage the setting up of an "emirate," in as much of Sunni-dominated Iraq as possible, to be followed by the longer-term goal of a "caliphate," reuniting the historical Islamic empire centered in modern-day Egypt, Lebanon and Israel.
Zawahiri also questions Zarqawi's targeting of Iraqi Shiites, telling him bluntly that the "majority of Muslims don't comprehend this" and wondering whether such targeting is a "wise decision" given the need to wage war against the United States and the current Iraqi government. And even if Shiite leaders should be targeted, Zawahiri asks, "why were there attacks on ordinary Shia?"
He also told Zarqawi that fellow Muslims "will never find palatable" the televised scenes of hostage beheadings that have earned Zarqawi the sobriquet "sheik of the slaughterers." among like-minded fighters. In the media battle "for the hearts and minds" of the Islamic world, Zawahiri said, such tactics will not work.
Zawahiri has spoken before about the broad plans of the al Qaeda movement. In a book smuggled out of Afghanistan in December 2001, Zawahiri said the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks "would be nothing more than disturbing acts" if they "do not serve the ultimate goal of establishing the Muslim nation in the heart of the Islamic world." In the 2001 volume, he said the first goal should be to strike Americans and Jews "in our Muslim countries."
In the new letter, Zawahiri said the Muslim masses "do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy, especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish and secondly American."
In an unusual reverse, the letter asks Zarqawi to send money to al Qaeda, saying many of its "lines have been cut off," and that "we'll be very grateful to you" for financial help.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Tillich
Theology
Tillich's approach to Protestant theology was highly systematic. He sought to correlate culture and faith such that "faith need not be unacceptable to contemporary culture and contemporary culture need not be unacceptable to faith". As a consequence, Tillich's orientation is highly apologetic, seeking to make concrete theological answers such that they become applicable to an ordinary day's course of events. This contributed to his popularity by the virtue of the fact that it made him highly accessible to lay readers. In a broader perspective, revelation is understood as the fountainhead of religion. Tillich sought to reconcile revelation and reason by arguing that revelation never runs counter to reason (affirming Thomas Aquinas when he said that faith is eminently rational), but both poles of the subjective human experience are complimentary.
In his metaphysical approach, Tillich was a staunch existentialist, focusing on the nature of being. Nothingness is a major motif of existentialist philosophy and so Tillich included this concept as a means of reifying being itself. Tillich argued that anxiety of non-being (existential anguish) is inherent in the experience of being itself. Put simply, people are afraid of their own non-existence, ie, their death. Following a line similar to Kierkegaard and almost identical to that of Freud, Tillich says that in our most introspective moments we face the terror of our own nothingness. That is, we "realize our mortality", that we are finite beings. The question which naturally arises in the mind of one in this introspective mood is what causes us to "be" in the first place. Tillich concludes that radically finite beings (which are, at least potentially, infinite in variation) cannot be sustained or caused by another finite being. What can sustain finite beings is being itself, or the "ground of being". This Tillich identifies as God.
Another name for the ground of being is essence. Essence is thought of as the power of being, and is forever unassailable by the conscious mind. As such it remains beyond the realm of thought, preserving the need for revelation in the Christian tradition.
Opposed to essence but dependent upon it is existence. Existence is that which is finite. Essence is the infinite. Since existence is being and essence is the ground of being, then essence is the ground or source of existence. But because the one is infinite and the other not, then existence (the finite) is fundamentally alienated from the essence. Man is alienated from God. This Tillich takes to be sin. To exist is to be alienated.
Tillich's radical departure from traditional Christian theology is his view of Christ. According to Tillich, Christ is the "New Being", who rectifies in himself the alienation between essence and existence. Essence fully shows itself within Christ, but Christ is also a finite man. This indicates, for Tillich, a revolution in the very nature of being. The gap is healed and essence can now be found within existence. Thus for Tillich, Christ is not God per se in himself, but Christ is the revelation of God. Whereas traditional Christianity regards Christ as a wholly alien kind of being, Tillich believed that Christ was the emblem of the highest goal of man, what God wants men to become. Thus to be a Christian is to make oneself progressively "Christ-like", a very possible goal in Tillich's eyes. In other words, Christ is not God in the traditional sense, but reveals the essence inherent in all existence, including mine and your own. Thus Christ is not different than you or I except insofar as he fully reveals God within his own finitude, something you and I can also do in principle.
"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."
This statement of Tillich's summarizes his conception of God. We cannot think of God as a being which exists in time and space, because that constrains Him, and makes Him finite. But all beings are finite, and if God is the Creator of all beings, God cannot logically be finite since a finite thing cannot be the sustainer of an infinite variety of finite things. Thus we must think of God as beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself.
A final major point of Tillich's theology is this: since things in existence are corrupt and therefore ambiguous, no finite thing can be (by itself) that which is infinite. All that is possible is for the finite to be a vehicle for revealing the infinite, but the two can never be confused. This leaves religion itself in a place where it cannot be taken as too dogmatic, because of its conceptual and therefore finite and corrupt nature. True religion is that which correctly reveals the infinite, but no religion can ever do so in any way other than through metaphor and symbol. Thus the whole of the Bible must be understood symbolically, and all spiritual and theological knowledge cannot be other than symbol. This is often seized upon by theologians to utilize as an effective counterpoint to religious fundamentalism.
Tillich's approach to Protestant theology was highly systematic. He sought to correlate culture and faith such that "faith need not be unacceptable to contemporary culture and contemporary culture need not be unacceptable to faith". As a consequence, Tillich's orientation is highly apologetic, seeking to make concrete theological answers such that they become applicable to an ordinary day's course of events. This contributed to his popularity by the virtue of the fact that it made him highly accessible to lay readers. In a broader perspective, revelation is understood as the fountainhead of religion. Tillich sought to reconcile revelation and reason by arguing that revelation never runs counter to reason (affirming Thomas Aquinas when he said that faith is eminently rational), but both poles of the subjective human experience are complimentary.
In his metaphysical approach, Tillich was a staunch existentialist, focusing on the nature of being. Nothingness is a major motif of existentialist philosophy and so Tillich included this concept as a means of reifying being itself. Tillich argued that anxiety of non-being (existential anguish) is inherent in the experience of being itself. Put simply, people are afraid of their own non-existence, ie, their death. Following a line similar to Kierkegaard and almost identical to that of Freud, Tillich says that in our most introspective moments we face the terror of our own nothingness. That is, we "realize our mortality", that we are finite beings. The question which naturally arises in the mind of one in this introspective mood is what causes us to "be" in the first place. Tillich concludes that radically finite beings (which are, at least potentially, infinite in variation) cannot be sustained or caused by another finite being. What can sustain finite beings is being itself, or the "ground of being". This Tillich identifies as God.
Another name for the ground of being is essence. Essence is thought of as the power of being, and is forever unassailable by the conscious mind. As such it remains beyond the realm of thought, preserving the need for revelation in the Christian tradition.
Opposed to essence but dependent upon it is existence. Existence is that which is finite. Essence is the infinite. Since existence is being and essence is the ground of being, then essence is the ground or source of existence. But because the one is infinite and the other not, then existence (the finite) is fundamentally alienated from the essence. Man is alienated from God. This Tillich takes to be sin. To exist is to be alienated.
Tillich's radical departure from traditional Christian theology is his view of Christ. According to Tillich, Christ is the "New Being", who rectifies in himself the alienation between essence and existence. Essence fully shows itself within Christ, but Christ is also a finite man. This indicates, for Tillich, a revolution in the very nature of being. The gap is healed and essence can now be found within existence. Thus for Tillich, Christ is not God per se in himself, but Christ is the revelation of God. Whereas traditional Christianity regards Christ as a wholly alien kind of being, Tillich believed that Christ was the emblem of the highest goal of man, what God wants men to become. Thus to be a Christian is to make oneself progressively "Christ-like", a very possible goal in Tillich's eyes. In other words, Christ is not God in the traditional sense, but reveals the essence inherent in all existence, including mine and your own. Thus Christ is not different than you or I except insofar as he fully reveals God within his own finitude, something you and I can also do in principle.
"God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him."
This statement of Tillich's summarizes his conception of God. We cannot think of God as a being which exists in time and space, because that constrains Him, and makes Him finite. But all beings are finite, and if God is the Creator of all beings, God cannot logically be finite since a finite thing cannot be the sustainer of an infinite variety of finite things. Thus we must think of God as beyond being, above finitude and limitation, the power or essence of being itself.
A final major point of Tillich's theology is this: since things in existence are corrupt and therefore ambiguous, no finite thing can be (by itself) that which is infinite. All that is possible is for the finite to be a vehicle for revealing the infinite, but the two can never be confused. This leaves religion itself in a place where it cannot be taken as too dogmatic, because of its conceptual and therefore finite and corrupt nature. True religion is that which correctly reveals the infinite, but no religion can ever do so in any way other than through metaphor and symbol. Thus the whole of the Bible must be understood symbolically, and all spiritual and theological knowledge cannot be other than symbol. This is often seized upon by theologians to utilize as an effective counterpoint to religious fundamentalism.
"The Infinite Wisdom...."
Check out this blub from Steven Seagal's website promoting his new "Red Bull" type energy drink-
STEVEN SEAGAL ENTERPRISES- About Us
Steven Seagal Enterprises was formed in 2004 as a way for Steven Seagal to share his wisdom and experience of energy with the world. The infinite wisdom of Steven Seagal combined with an experienced Sales and Marketing team has made it possible for Lightning Bolt to emerge as one of the most unique energy drinks on the market. Our team is as follows:
http://lightningdrink.com/company/contactus.html
STEVEN SEAGAL ENTERPRISES- About Us
Steven Seagal Enterprises was formed in 2004 as a way for Steven Seagal to share his wisdom and experience of energy with the world. The infinite wisdom of Steven Seagal combined with an experienced Sales and Marketing team has made it possible for Lightning Bolt to emerge as one of the most unique energy drinks on the market. Our team is as follows:
http://lightningdrink.com/company/contactus.html
Bubba Ho-Tep
I watched this movie last night and thought it was great- corny but pretty funny.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/bubba_hotep/
Monday, October 10, 2005
BitterWaitress has a fantastic board where people post their bad tip experiences called the Shitty Tipper Database!
(Celeb - total check/ tip, followed by servers comment)
(Celeb - total check/ tip, followed by servers comment)
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/default.htm#attacks
Check out this link that details Islamic terror attacks since 9/11- amazing
Freeh, At Last
Former FBI Director Louie Freeh has finally decided to reveal his opinions about President Bill Clinton, the man he served for seven and a half years. In a new book, Mr. Freeh confesses that he stuck out his long tour of duty mainly because he feared what a new Clinton-appointed director would do to the investigations of various administration scandals.
Mr. Freeh directly faults the Clinton administration for its handling of terrorists. He says the former president let down the American people and the families of victims of the 1996 Khobar Towers terror attack in Saudi Arabia. The bombing killed 19 U.S. military personnel. Though the president had vowed to bring to justice those who committed the attacks, Mr. Clinton refused personally to ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects in Saudi custody -- the only way the FBI would have gotten access to the suspects. "Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis' reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library." So far, Mr. Clinton's office has declined to comment on the Freeh allegations.
Former FBI Director Louie Freeh has finally decided to reveal his opinions about President Bill Clinton, the man he served for seven and a half years. In a new book, Mr. Freeh confesses that he stuck out his long tour of duty mainly because he feared what a new Clinton-appointed director would do to the investigations of various administration scandals.
Mr. Freeh directly faults the Clinton administration for its handling of terrorists. He says the former president let down the American people and the families of victims of the 1996 Khobar Towers terror attack in Saudi Arabia. The bombing killed 19 U.S. military personnel. Though the president had vowed to bring to justice those who committed the attacks, Mr. Clinton refused personally to ask Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects in Saudi custody -- the only way the FBI would have gotten access to the suspects. "Bill Clinton raised the subject only to tell the crown prince that he understood the Saudis' reluctance to cooperate and then he hit Abdullah up for a contribution to the Clinton Presidential Library." So far, Mr. Clinton's office has declined to comment on the Freeh allegations.
Weird
In a push to turn the science fiction of exoskeletons into a military reality and deliver the advantages of such technology to soldiers in combat environments, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), is funding a US$50 million project known as "Exoskeletons for Human Performance Augmentation".
The scope of the program includes the development of actively controlled exoskeletons that not only increase strength and speed, but enable larger weapons to be carried, provide a higher level of protection from enemy fire or chemical attack, allow wearers to stay active longer and carry more food, ammunition and field supplies. Exoskeletons may eventually even be programmed to bring injured soldiers back to base by themselves.
Systems will range from un-powered mechanical devices that assist a particular aspect of human function to fully-mechanised exoskeletons relying on chemical or hydrocarbon fuels for totally independent operation by soldiers in the field.Several different projects under the DARPA umbrella are underway including SARCOS Research Corporation's Wearable Energetically Autonomous Robots (WEAR). Designed for on-foot combat, WEAR will include a base unit configured like legs, torso and arms that mimic human movement using complex kinematic systems and contain energy storage, power systems, actuators and everything needed for an autonomous wearable system.
Friday, October 07, 2005
The Politics of Fighting Radical Islam
The transcript of President Bush’s speech is available at the White House site: President Discusses War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy.
There was still quite a bit of political eggshell-walking, but this marks the first time that Bush has identified and described the real goals of radical Islam—to re-establish the mythical caliphate and the global dominance of Islam.
"Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda — paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world.
We know the vision of the radicals because they’ve openly stated it — in videos, and audiotapes, and letters, and declarations, and websites. First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, quote, their “resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of their lands.” Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 — only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.
Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they’ve set their sights on Iraq. Bin Laden has stated: “The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It’s either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.” The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.
Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation."
The transcript of President Bush’s speech is available at the White House site: President Discusses War on Terror at National Endowment for Democracy.
There was still quite a bit of political eggshell-walking, but this marks the first time that Bush has identified and described the real goals of radical Islam—to re-establish the mythical caliphate and the global dominance of Islam.
"Many militants are part of global, borderless terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, which spreads propaganda, and provides financing and technical assistance to local extremists, and conducts dramatic and brutal operations like September the 11th. Other militants are found in regional groups, often associated with al Qaeda — paramilitary insurgencies and separatist movements in places like Somalia, and the Philippines, and Pakistan, and Chechnya, and Kashmir, and Algeria. Still others spring up in local cells, inspired by Islamic radicalism, but not centrally directed. Islamic radicalism is more like a loose network with many branches than an army under a single command. Yet these operatives, fighting on scattered battlefields, share a similar ideology and vision for our world.
We know the vision of the radicals because they’ve openly stated it — in videos, and audiotapes, and letters, and declarations, and websites. First, these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. Al Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden, has called on Muslims to dedicate, quote, their “resources, sons and money to driving the infidels out of their lands.” Their tactic to meet this goal has been consistent for a quarter-century: They hit us, and expect us to run. They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 — only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences.
Second, the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments. Over the past few decades, radicals have specifically targeted Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and Jordan for potential takeover. They achieved their goal, for a time, in Afghanistan. Now they’ve set their sights on Iraq. Bin Laden has stated: “The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries. It’s either victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.” The terrorists regard Iraq as the central front in their war against humanity. And we must recognize Iraq as the central front in our war on terror.
Third, the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, and to blackmail our government into isolation."
Staralfur
Starálfur Blá Nótt Yfir HimininnBlá Nótt Yfir MérHorf-Inn Út Um GluggannMinn Með HendurFaldar Undir KinnHugsum Daginn MinnÍ Dag Og Í GærBlá Náttfötin Klæða Mig ÍBeint Upp Í RúmBreiði Mjúku SænginaLoka AugunumÉg Fel Hausinn Minn Undir SængStarir Á Mig Lítill ÁlfurHleypur Að Mér En Hreyfist EkkiÚr Stað – SjálfurStarálfurOpna AugunStírurnar ÚrTeygi Mig Og Tel (Hvort Ég Sé Ekki)Kominn Aftur Og AlltalltílæSamt Vantar EitthvaðEins Og Alla Vegginna
Staring Elf Blue Night Over The Sky Blue Night Over Me Dis-Appeared Out Of The Window Me With Hands Hidden Under My Cheek I Think About My Day Today And Yesterday I Put On My Blue Nighties Go Straight To Bed I Pull The Soft Covers Over Close My Eyes I Hide My Head Under The Covers A Little Elf Stares At Me Runs Towards Me But Doesn’t Move From Place - Himself A Staring Elf I Open My EyesTake The Crusts Out Stretch Myself And Check (If I Haven’t)Returned Again And Everything Is Okay Still There Is Something Missing Like All The Walls
Staring Elf Blue Night Over The Sky Blue Night Over Me Dis-Appeared Out Of The Window Me With Hands Hidden Under My Cheek I Think About My Day Today And Yesterday I Put On My Blue Nighties Go Straight To Bed I Pull The Soft Covers Over Close My Eyes I Hide My Head Under The Covers A Little Elf Stares At Me Runs Towards Me But Doesn’t Move From Place - Himself A Staring Elf I Open My EyesTake The Crusts Out Stretch Myself And Check (If I Haven’t)Returned Again And Everything Is Okay Still There Is Something Missing Like All The Walls
Thursday, October 06, 2005
OK Suicide Bomber
Here is an overview of what’s known so far about the Suicide Bombing in Norman, Oklahoma, a case that is getting curiouser and curiouser—with news that the person who died in the blast, Joel Henry Hinrichs III, had a roommate who was a member of the Muslim Students Association, and may have attended a nearby mosque.
Gonzales v. Oregon
High Court Clashes Over Assisted Suicide
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
New Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide, as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives. The justices will decide if the federal government, not states, has the final say on the life-or-death issue. It was a wrenching debate for a court touched personally by illness. Roberts replaced William H. Rehnquist, who died a month ago after battling cancer for nearly a year. Three justices have had cancer and a fourth has a spouse who counsels children with untreatable cancer.
The outcome is hard to predict, in part because of the uncertain status of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who seemed ready to support Oregon's law. Her replacement may be confirmed before the ruling is handed down, possibly months from now. Roberts repeatedly raised concerns that a single exception for Oregon would allow other states to create a patchwork of rules. "If one state can say it's legal for doctors to prescribe morphine to make people feel better, or to prescribe steroids for bodybuilding, doesn't that undermine the uniformity of the federal law and make enforcement impossible?" he asked.
The Supreme Court eight years ago concluded that the dying have no constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide. O'Connor provided a key fifth vote in that decision, which left room for state-by-state experimentation. The new case is a turf battle of sorts, started by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favorite among the president's conservative religious supporters. Hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned in 2001, an opposite conclusion from the one reached by Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration.
Oregon won a lawsuit in a lower court over its voter-approved law, which took effect in 1997 and has been used by 208 people. The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided in hearing the Bush administration's appeal. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has had colon cancer, talked about medicines that make a sick person's final moments more comfortable. David Souter, in an emotional moment, said that it's one thing for the government to ban date rape drugs and harmful products but "that seems to me worlds away from what we're talking about here." On the other side, Roberts and Antonin Scalia appeared skeptical of Oregon's claims that states have the sole authority to regulate the practice of medicine.
Roberts, 50, was presiding over his first major oral argument and thrust himself in the middle of the debate. Over and over he raised concerns that states could undermine federal regulation of addictive drugs. He interrupted Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson in his first minute, then asked more than a dozen more tough questions. Roberts said the federal government has the authority to determine what is a legitimate medical purpose and "it suggests that the attorney general has the authority to interpret that phrase" to declare that assisted suicide is not legitimate. Roberts asked three questions of the Bush administration lawyer, noting that Congress passed one drug law only after "lax state treatment of opium."
"I was wondering if the new chief would hold back and wouldn't ruffle other people's feathers. It appears clear he's not waiting for anything or anyone," said Neil Siegel, a law professor at Duke University and a former Supreme Court clerk. The two justices who seemed most conflicted were Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer. Breyer's wife counsels young cancer patients. Besides Ginsburg, the justices who have had cancer are O'Connor and John Paul Stevens. "For me, the case turns on the statute. And it's a hard case," Kennedy told the Bush administration's lawyer, and later he asked about the "serious consequences" of curbing federal government authority in regulating drugs. Solicitor General Paul Clement said, "If this court makes clear that state law can overtake the federal regime, I think it at least creates the potential for there to be a lot of holes in the regime." Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his usual practice, asked no questions. He could be sympathetic to Oregon. He was one of three justices who said in a summer decision that the federal government should not interfere with state medical marijuana laws. The other two were O'Connor and Rehnquist.
If O'Connor is the deciding vote in the case, the court would probably delay the decision and schedule a new argument session after the arrival of the new justice. On Monday Bush named White House lawyer Harriet Miers to replace O'Connor. Dozens of spectators gathered outside the court, waving signs supporting and opposing the Oregon law. "My Life, My Death, My Choice," read one sign. "Oregon Law Protects Doctors — Not Patients," said another. Oregon is the only state with an assisted suicide law, but other states may pass their own if the court rules in the state's favor.
The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
New Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward Wednesday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide, as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives. The justices will decide if the federal government, not states, has the final say on the life-or-death issue. It was a wrenching debate for a court touched personally by illness. Roberts replaced William H. Rehnquist, who died a month ago after battling cancer for nearly a year. Three justices have had cancer and a fourth has a spouse who counsels children with untreatable cancer.
The outcome is hard to predict, in part because of the uncertain status of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who seemed ready to support Oregon's law. Her replacement may be confirmed before the ruling is handed down, possibly months from now. Roberts repeatedly raised concerns that a single exception for Oregon would allow other states to create a patchwork of rules. "If one state can say it's legal for doctors to prescribe morphine to make people feel better, or to prescribe steroids for bodybuilding, doesn't that undermine the uniformity of the federal law and make enforcement impossible?" he asked.
The Supreme Court eight years ago concluded that the dying have no constitutional right to doctor-assisted suicide. O'Connor provided a key fifth vote in that decision, which left room for state-by-state experimentation. The new case is a turf battle of sorts, started by former Attorney General John Ashcroft, a favorite among the president's conservative religious supporters. Hastening someone's death is an improper use of medication and violates federal drug laws, Ashcroft reasoned in 2001, an opposite conclusion from the one reached by Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration.
Oregon won a lawsuit in a lower court over its voter-approved law, which took effect in 1997 and has been used by 208 people. The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided in hearing the Bush administration's appeal. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has had colon cancer, talked about medicines that make a sick person's final moments more comfortable. David Souter, in an emotional moment, said that it's one thing for the government to ban date rape drugs and harmful products but "that seems to me worlds away from what we're talking about here." On the other side, Roberts and Antonin Scalia appeared skeptical of Oregon's claims that states have the sole authority to regulate the practice of medicine.
Roberts, 50, was presiding over his first major oral argument and thrust himself in the middle of the debate. Over and over he raised concerns that states could undermine federal regulation of addictive drugs. He interrupted Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Robert Atkinson in his first minute, then asked more than a dozen more tough questions. Roberts said the federal government has the authority to determine what is a legitimate medical purpose and "it suggests that the attorney general has the authority to interpret that phrase" to declare that assisted suicide is not legitimate. Roberts asked three questions of the Bush administration lawyer, noting that Congress passed one drug law only after "lax state treatment of opium."
"I was wondering if the new chief would hold back and wouldn't ruffle other people's feathers. It appears clear he's not waiting for anything or anyone," said Neil Siegel, a law professor at Duke University and a former Supreme Court clerk. The two justices who seemed most conflicted were Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer. Breyer's wife counsels young cancer patients. Besides Ginsburg, the justices who have had cancer are O'Connor and John Paul Stevens. "For me, the case turns on the statute. And it's a hard case," Kennedy told the Bush administration's lawyer, and later he asked about the "serious consequences" of curbing federal government authority in regulating drugs. Solicitor General Paul Clement said, "If this court makes clear that state law can overtake the federal regime, I think it at least creates the potential for there to be a lot of holes in the regime." Justice Clarence Thomas, as is his usual practice, asked no questions. He could be sympathetic to Oregon. He was one of three justices who said in a summer decision that the federal government should not interfere with state medical marijuana laws. The other two were O'Connor and Rehnquist.
If O'Connor is the deciding vote in the case, the court would probably delay the decision and schedule a new argument session after the arrival of the new justice. On Monday Bush named White House lawyer Harriet Miers to replace O'Connor. Dozens of spectators gathered outside the court, waving signs supporting and opposing the Oregon law. "My Life, My Death, My Choice," read one sign. "Oregon Law Protects Doctors — Not Patients," said another. Oregon is the only state with an assisted suicide law, but other states may pass their own if the court rules in the state's favor.
The case is Gonzales v. Oregon, 04-623.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Marion Barry is the focus of a federal tax probe
WASHINGTON - D.C. Council member and former mayor Marion Barry is under investigation for failing to file federal income tax returns and pay his taxes, according to two sources close to the probe. But rather than focus on that, let us look at some happier moments taken with the Mayor for life.
These are actual quotes taken from Mayor Marion Barry, of Washington, D.C.
"The contagious people of Washington have stood firm against diversity during this long period of increment weather."
"I promise you a police car on every sidewalk."
"If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate."
"First, it was not a strip bar, it was an erotic club. And second, what can I say? I'm a night owl."
"Bitch set me up."
"I am clearly more popular than Reagan. I am in my third term. Where's Reagan? Gone after two! Defeated by George Bush and Michael Dukakis no less."
"The laws in this city are clearly racist. All laws are racist. The law of gravity is racist." -- M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
"I am making this trip to Africa because Washington is an international city, just like Tokyo, Nigeria or Israel. As mayor, I am an international symbol. Can you deny that to Africa?"
"People have criticized me because my security detail is larger than the president's. But you must ask yourself: are there more people who want to kill me than who want to kill the president? I can assure you there are."
"The brave men who died in Vietnam, more than 100% of which were black, were the ultimate sacrifice."
"I read a funny story about how the Republicans freed the slaves. The Republicans are the ones who created slavery by law in the 1600's. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and he was not a Republican."
"What right does Congress have to go around making laws just because they deem it necessary?"
"People blame me because these water mains break, but I ask you, if the water mains didn't break, would it be my responsibility to fix them then? WOULD IT!?!"
"I am a great mayor; I am an upstanding Christian man; I am an intelligent man; I am a deeply educated man; I am a humble man."
These are actual quotes taken from Mayor Marion Barry, of Washington, D.C.
"The contagious people of Washington have stood firm against diversity during this long period of increment weather."
"I promise you a police car on every sidewalk."
"If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate."
"First, it was not a strip bar, it was an erotic club. And second, what can I say? I'm a night owl."
"Bitch set me up."
"I am clearly more popular than Reagan. I am in my third term. Where's Reagan? Gone after two! Defeated by George Bush and Michael Dukakis no less."
"The laws in this city are clearly racist. All laws are racist. The law of gravity is racist." -- M. Barry, Mayor of Washington, DC
"I am making this trip to Africa because Washington is an international city, just like Tokyo, Nigeria or Israel. As mayor, I am an international symbol. Can you deny that to Africa?"
"People have criticized me because my security detail is larger than the president's. But you must ask yourself: are there more people who want to kill me than who want to kill the president? I can assure you there are."
"The brave men who died in Vietnam, more than 100% of which were black, were the ultimate sacrifice."
"I read a funny story about how the Republicans freed the slaves. The Republicans are the ones who created slavery by law in the 1600's. Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and he was not a Republican."
"What right does Congress have to go around making laws just because they deem it necessary?"
"People blame me because these water mains break, but I ask you, if the water mains didn't break, would it be my responsibility to fix them then? WOULD IT!?!"
"I am a great mayor; I am an upstanding Christian man; I am an intelligent man; I am a deeply educated man; I am a humble man."
"American Idol" winner Fantasia Barrino reveals in her memoirs that she is functionally illiterate and had to fake her way through some scripted portions the televised talent show, which she won in 2004.
"You're illiterate to just about everything. You don't want to misspell," Fantasia told ABC's 20/20- "So that, for me, kept me in a box and I didn't, wouldn't come out."
First of all: "You're illiterate to just about everything"? What else can you be illiterate to other than words? My guess is nothing, but maybe I only know that because I can read stuff. Like dictionaries. Second: The article mentions that she dropped out of high school, and, um, I'm no Jean Piaget, but isn't reading a skill they need you to master in, like, elementary school? So how did she even get to high school? In fact, how did she get to be famous for singing songs she can't read the lyrics to? I'm thinking somebody really dropped the ball on this one. And that somebody Is America.
Miers is the wrong pick
Oct 4, 2005
by George Will ( bio archive contact )
WASHINGTON -- Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.
It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's ``argument'' for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.
He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their prepresidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections.
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers' nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.
In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ``I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ``I do.''
It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.
The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers' confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.
Under the rubric of ``diversity'' -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can only be understood, empathized with and represented by a member of that group.
The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who ``legislate from the bench.''
Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, said Jordan, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, ``discriminated against'' because of her gender.
Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?
Oct 4, 2005
by George Will ( bio archive contact )
WASHINGTON -- Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.
It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's ``argument'' for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.
He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their prepresidential careers, and this president, particularly, is not disposed to such reflections.
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers' nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers' name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.
In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ``I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ``I do.''
It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.
The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers' confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.
Under the rubric of ``diversity'' -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can only be understood, empathized with and represented by a member of that group.
The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who ``legislate from the bench.''
Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, said Jordan, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, ``discriminated against'' because of her gender.
Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president?
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Current Travel Warnings
Travel Warnings are issued when the State Department recommends that Americans avoid a certain country. The countries listed below are currently on that list. In addition to this list, the State Department issues Consular Information Sheets for every country of the world with information on such matters as the health conditions, crime, unusual currency or entry requirements, any areas of instability, and the location of the nearest U.S. embassy orconsulate in the subject country.
Liberia 09/23/2005
Côte d'Ivoire 08/25/2005
Sudan 08/05/2005
Bosnia-Herzegovina 08/01/2005
Somalia 07/21/2005
Algeria 07/21/2005
Uzbekistan 07/01/2005
Kenya 07/01/2005
Iran 06/30/2005
Iraq 06/28/2005
Congo-Kinshasa 06/24/2005
Nepal 06/24/2005
Israel, the West Bank and Gaza 06/20/2005
Afghanistan 06/09/2005
Haiti 05/26/2005
Nigeria 05/20/2005
Saudi Arabia 05/17/2005
Indonesia 05/10/2005
Yemen 05/06/2005
Colombia 05/04/2005
Lebanon 04/21/2005
Central African Republic 04/19/2005
Pakistan 03/25/2005
Philippines 03/23/2005
Zimbabwe 03/16/2005
Burundi 12/07/2004
Travel Warnings are issued when the State Department recommends that Americans avoid a certain country. The countries listed below are currently on that list. In addition to this list, the State Department issues Consular Information Sheets for every country of the world with information on such matters as the health conditions, crime, unusual currency or entry requirements, any areas of instability, and the location of the nearest U.S. embassy orconsulate in the subject country.
Liberia 09/23/2005
Côte d'Ivoire 08/25/2005
Sudan 08/05/2005
Bosnia-Herzegovina 08/01/2005
Somalia 07/21/2005
Algeria 07/21/2005
Uzbekistan 07/01/2005
Kenya 07/01/2005
Iran 06/30/2005
Iraq 06/28/2005
Congo-Kinshasa 06/24/2005
Nepal 06/24/2005
Israel, the West Bank and Gaza 06/20/2005
Afghanistan 06/09/2005
Haiti 05/26/2005
Nigeria 05/20/2005
Saudi Arabia 05/17/2005
Indonesia 05/10/2005
Yemen 05/06/2005
Colombia 05/04/2005
Lebanon 04/21/2005
Central African Republic 04/19/2005
Pakistan 03/25/2005
Philippines 03/23/2005
Zimbabwe 03/16/2005
Burundi 12/07/2004
Sun-Google
Sun and Google News Conference
Tuesday, October 4, 200510:30 a.m. PT/1:30 p.m. ETComputer History MuseumMountain View, CA
Please join Scott McNealy, Sun Microsystems Chairman and CEO and Dr. Eric Schmidt, Google Chairman of the Executive Committee and CEO as they discuss a new collaborative effort between the two companies.
Speculation is they are announcing a web-based "Office" application. Big news for MSFT?
Tuesday, October 4, 200510:30 a.m. PT/1:30 p.m. ETComputer History MuseumMountain View, CA
Please join Scott McNealy, Sun Microsystems Chairman and CEO and Dr. Eric Schmidt, Google Chairman of the Executive Committee and CEO as they discuss a new collaborative effort between the two companies.
Speculation is they are announcing a web-based "Office" application. Big news for MSFT?
Monday, October 03, 2005
HON. GEORGE E. SANGMEISTER in the House of Representatives
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 1990
Mr. SANGMEISTER. Mr. Speaker, each year the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary conduct the Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. This year more than 137,000 secondary school students participated in the contest competing for the 12 national scholarships totaling $56,000, which was distributed among the top 12 winners. The contest theme this year was `Why I Am Proud of America.'
The winning contestant from each State came to Washington, DC, for the final judging as a guest of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
I am proud to announce that Steven Connor Cortes from Park Forest, IL, was the first place winner for the State of Illinois in the Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. Mr. Cortes is a senior at Marian Catholic High School in Chicago Heights, IL. I am submitting Mr. Cortes' speech for the Record so that others may benefit and be inspired by this young man's words.
(BY STEVEN C. CORTES)
I am in love with a lady in New York. We have met only once, yet I am in awe of her. She is beautiful, yet strong, old yet forever young. She is the Statue of Liberty, and she represents the reasons Why I Am Proud of America.
The Statue of Liberty, majestic and beautiful, stands as a symbol of the greatness of America. I am proud of America because America is a great nation, the greatest in the world. However, this greatness is not deprived from our national wealth or prestige. No, America's greatness emanates from its people - its spirit. Dwight D. Eisenhower stated it well when he said, `America is great because America is good.' You can see the goodness of America everywhere, in South Carolina, where volunteer groups are helping the victims of Hurricane Hugo rebuild their shattered homes - in Northern California, where neighbor is helping neighbor recover from a devastating earthquake. America's goodness is evident in the inner-cities, where volunteers are teaching their fellow Americans to read and write and providing food and shelter for the less fortunate.
I am proud of America because we welcome immigrants from around the world and allow them to share in our opportunity. Opportunity - America still is the land of opportunity - a country where no dream is too big, and dreams can become a reality. In America's free enterprise system, a person is rewarded and judged by merit, not birthright or status. Because of this opportunity, we have become a nation of vision - a bold nation of men and women striving to defy the odds and achieve success - such as Walt Disney, who as a boy in Chicago held two jobs to help support his poor family, but through hard work and visionary spirit rose to achieve unparalleled success in the entertainment industry.
The American people are champions of the underdog, this is the country where a man, like Abraham Lincoln, can go from a log cabin to the White House where a poor ghetto kid can become a head of a corporation, and an immigrant can share in the American Dream. I am proud of America because the American Dream is still a reality. The American Dream says that anyone who is willing to work can share in the prosperity that is America.
I am also proud of America because we are free people - free to determine our own destiny, free to express ourselves, free to exercise our religious beliefs. We are free from the tyranny and oppression which so much of the world endures. We enjoy these freedoms because we are a democracy, a nation in which the people rule the government, not the other way around.
This past summer, we all witnessed with great admiration the students of Beijing, China, as they raised an effigy of the Statue of Liberty, and quoted Patrick Henry while demanding freedom and democracy from their communist government. Then, we were horrified when the Chinese Army slaughtered thousands of those innocent demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. The difference between China and the United States is that those brave Chinese students have no rights. I am proud that in America we have rights to protect us from tyranny. I am proud that in this, the 200 year anniversary of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution still protects our personal liberty.
We owe much of our liberty to the Fathers of our country, men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin, patriots who fought and died for our independence and created our government, truly they did pledge, in the words of the Declaration of Independence their `lives,' their `fortunes,' and their `sacred honor.'
In the intervening years and wars, countless brave veterans from Saratoga to Normandy, from Yorktown, to Iwo Jima have renewed this pledge and paid the price for freedom. Often that price was their lives.
The Statue of Liberty symbolizes the goodness, the opportunity, and the freedom of America, I am proud of the United States, and I thank God daily that I was born an American. May we all, young and old, rich and poor, black and white, pledge `our lives our fortunes, and our sacred honor' to defend and advance the cause of mankinds greatest hope -the United States of America.
TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 1990
Mr. SANGMEISTER. Mr. Speaker, each year the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary conduct the Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. This year more than 137,000 secondary school students participated in the contest competing for the 12 national scholarships totaling $56,000, which was distributed among the top 12 winners. The contest theme this year was `Why I Am Proud of America.'
The winning contestant from each State came to Washington, DC, for the final judging as a guest of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
I am proud to announce that Steven Connor Cortes from Park Forest, IL, was the first place winner for the State of Illinois in the Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. Mr. Cortes is a senior at Marian Catholic High School in Chicago Heights, IL. I am submitting Mr. Cortes' speech for the Record so that others may benefit and be inspired by this young man's words.
(BY STEVEN C. CORTES)
I am in love with a lady in New York. We have met only once, yet I am in awe of her. She is beautiful, yet strong, old yet forever young. She is the Statue of Liberty, and she represents the reasons Why I Am Proud of America.
The Statue of Liberty, majestic and beautiful, stands as a symbol of the greatness of America. I am proud of America because America is a great nation, the greatest in the world. However, this greatness is not deprived from our national wealth or prestige. No, America's greatness emanates from its people - its spirit. Dwight D. Eisenhower stated it well when he said, `America is great because America is good.' You can see the goodness of America everywhere, in South Carolina, where volunteer groups are helping the victims of Hurricane Hugo rebuild their shattered homes - in Northern California, where neighbor is helping neighbor recover from a devastating earthquake. America's goodness is evident in the inner-cities, where volunteers are teaching their fellow Americans to read and write and providing food and shelter for the less fortunate.
I am proud of America because we welcome immigrants from around the world and allow them to share in our opportunity. Opportunity - America still is the land of opportunity - a country where no dream is too big, and dreams can become a reality. In America's free enterprise system, a person is rewarded and judged by merit, not birthright or status. Because of this opportunity, we have become a nation of vision - a bold nation of men and women striving to defy the odds and achieve success - such as Walt Disney, who as a boy in Chicago held two jobs to help support his poor family, but through hard work and visionary spirit rose to achieve unparalleled success in the entertainment industry.
The American people are champions of the underdog, this is the country where a man, like Abraham Lincoln, can go from a log cabin to the White House where a poor ghetto kid can become a head of a corporation, and an immigrant can share in the American Dream. I am proud of America because the American Dream is still a reality. The American Dream says that anyone who is willing to work can share in the prosperity that is America.
I am also proud of America because we are free people - free to determine our own destiny, free to express ourselves, free to exercise our religious beliefs. We are free from the tyranny and oppression which so much of the world endures. We enjoy these freedoms because we are a democracy, a nation in which the people rule the government, not the other way around.
This past summer, we all witnessed with great admiration the students of Beijing, China, as they raised an effigy of the Statue of Liberty, and quoted Patrick Henry while demanding freedom and democracy from their communist government. Then, we were horrified when the Chinese Army slaughtered thousands of those innocent demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. The difference between China and the United States is that those brave Chinese students have no rights. I am proud that in America we have rights to protect us from tyranny. I am proud that in this, the 200 year anniversary of the Bill of Rights, the Constitution still protects our personal liberty.
We owe much of our liberty to the Fathers of our country, men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin, patriots who fought and died for our independence and created our government, truly they did pledge, in the words of the Declaration of Independence their `lives,' their `fortunes,' and their `sacred honor.'
In the intervening years and wars, countless brave veterans from Saratoga to Normandy, from Yorktown, to Iwo Jima have renewed this pledge and paid the price for freedom. Often that price was their lives.
The Statue of Liberty symbolizes the goodness, the opportunity, and the freedom of America, I am proud of the United States, and I thank God daily that I was born an American. May we all, young and old, rich and poor, black and white, pledge `our lives our fortunes, and our sacred honor' to defend and advance the cause of mankinds greatest hope -the United States of America.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
On Francisco Franco
On Francisco Franco written by Charles Few Americans know much about Francisco Franco, leader of the winning side in the Spanish C...
-
Starálfur Blá Nótt Yfir HimininnBlá Nótt Yfir MérHorf-Inn Út Um GluggannMinn Með HendurFaldar Undir KinnHugsum Daginn MinnÍ Dag Og Í GærBlá ...
-
"From our perspective this is an issue between Colombia and Ecuador," he said. "I'm not sure what this has to do with Ven...
-
OK, Grandma ... put your hands in the air ... slowly ... step away from the bingo machine ... put down the knitting needles...