The phrase "Verschärfte Vernehmung" is German for "enhanced interrogation". Other translations include "intensified interrogation" or "sharpened interrogation". It's a phrase that appears to have been concocted in 1937, to describe a form of torture that would leave no marks, and hence save the embarrassment pre-war Nazi officials were experiencing as their wounded torture victims ended up in court. The methods, as you can see above, are indistinguishable from those described as "enhanced interrogation techniques" by the president. As you can see from the Gestapo memo, moreover, the Nazis were adamant that their "enhanced interrogation techniques" would be carefully restricted and controlled, monitored by an elite professional staff, of the kind recommended by Charles Krauthammer, and strictly reserved for certain categories of prisoner. At least, that was the original plan.
Also: the use of hypothermia, authorized by Bush and Rumsfeld, was initially forbidden. 'Waterboarding" was forbidden too, unlike that authorized by Bush. As time went on, historians have found that all the bureaucratic restrictions were eventually broken or abridged. Once you start torturing, it has a life of its own. The "cold bath" technique - the same as that used by Bush against al-Qahtani in Guantanamo - was, according to professor Darius Rejali of Reed College,
pioneered by a member of the French Gestapo by the pseudonym Masuy about 1943. The Belgian resistance referred to it as the Paris method, and the Gestapo authorized its extension from France to at least two places late in the war, Norway and Czechoslovakia. That is where people report experiencing it.
In Norway, we actually have a 1948 court case that weighs whether "enhanced interrogation" using the methods approved by president Bush amounted to torture. The proceedings are fascinating, with specific reference to the hypothermia used in Gitmo, and throughout interrogation centers across the field of conflict. The Nazi defense of the techniques is almost verbatim that of the Bush administration...
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Dick Cavet on Bush's failed war
nytimes.com
February 28, 2007, 6:03 pm
What My Uncle Knew About War
by Dick Cavett
It amazes me that this bungled war can still be considered controversial. Who are the 28 percent anyway, who think that George W., the author of this mess, has “done a heckuva job”?
The other word Bill hated was “sacrifice.” Sacrifice is something you give up in order to get something in return. What good are we getting from this monstrous error? Cooked up as it was by that infamous group of neocons (accent on last syllable) who, draft-averse themselves, were willing to inflict on the (largely unprivileged) youth of this country their crack-brained scheme for causing democracy to take root and spread like kudzu throughout that bizarre and ill-understood part of the world, the Middle East.
What service is this great country getting out of all this tragedy, other than the certainty that historians will ask in disbelief, “Was there no one to stand up to this overweening president?”
I cringe at the icky, sentimental way the president talks about what we owe to the people of plucky little Iraq. You’d think we all grew up ending our “Now I lay me down to sleep…” with “… and please, Lord, be good to Iraq.” They detest us now, along with just about everybody else. Personally, I don’t give a damn what happens to Iraq, and don’t think it’s worth a single American life. Or any other kind. Haven’t philosophers taught us the immorality of destroying something of infinite value — like a human life — in order to achieve a possible good? I guess not.
For weeks the word “cause” has rolled around in my head, attached to an elusive quote. I found it. It’s from Shakespeare’s “Henry V” (as distinct, I suppose, from Paris Hilton’s “Henry V”) and it’s the part where the king, in disguise and unrecognized, sits at a fire listening to some of his men discuss the next day’s battle and what it means to be fighting in a good cause. One says, “But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all, ‘We died at such a place,’ … their wives left poor behind … their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle. … Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it.”
February 28, 2007, 6:03 pm
What My Uncle Knew About War
by Dick Cavett
It amazes me that this bungled war can still be considered controversial. Who are the 28 percent anyway, who think that George W., the author of this mess, has “done a heckuva job”?
The other word Bill hated was “sacrifice.” Sacrifice is something you give up in order to get something in return. What good are we getting from this monstrous error? Cooked up as it was by that infamous group of neocons (accent on last syllable) who, draft-averse themselves, were willing to inflict on the (largely unprivileged) youth of this country their crack-brained scheme for causing democracy to take root and spread like kudzu throughout that bizarre and ill-understood part of the world, the Middle East.
What service is this great country getting out of all this tragedy, other than the certainty that historians will ask in disbelief, “Was there no one to stand up to this overweening president?”
I cringe at the icky, sentimental way the president talks about what we owe to the people of plucky little Iraq. You’d think we all grew up ending our “Now I lay me down to sleep…” with “… and please, Lord, be good to Iraq.” They detest us now, along with just about everybody else. Personally, I don’t give a damn what happens to Iraq, and don’t think it’s worth a single American life. Or any other kind. Haven’t philosophers taught us the immorality of destroying something of infinite value — like a human life — in order to achieve a possible good? I guess not.
For weeks the word “cause” has rolled around in my head, attached to an elusive quote. I found it. It’s from Shakespeare’s “Henry V” (as distinct, I suppose, from Paris Hilton’s “Henry V”) and it’s the part where the king, in disguise and unrecognized, sits at a fire listening to some of his men discuss the next day’s battle and what it means to be fighting in a good cause. One says, “But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all, ‘We died at such a place,’ … their wives left poor behind … their children rawly left. I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle. … Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the king that led them to it.”
Monday, May 07, 2007
there is almost no Al Qaeda in Iraq... never has been
A recent study by Gen. Barry McCaffrey suggested that there are in fact 100,000 insurgents (I prefer the term guerrilla) in Iraq, not the 20,000 to 25,000 usually estimated by the US military.
Iraq's previous interior minister estimated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq at less than a thousand. Most of these are Salafi Jihadis of one sort or another (revivalist Sunnis).
So 99,000 insurgents are Iraqis. And none of them is al-Qaeda in the sense of being loyal to the organization or fighting for Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They are fighting for some vision of the Iraqi nation, whether inflected by religion or not.
So who are the Iraqi insurgents? An important component is Baathists and ex-Baathist nationalists. These are former military officers, party officials, intelligence operatives, etc. The Baath Party itself is said in the Arabic press to have split into four groups [scroll down]. Among the more important of the four, and the least willing to compromise, is that of Saddam Hussein's vice president, Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri. Last January al-Hayat reported in Arabic that there were attempts to hold an Iraqi Baath Party congress in Damascus and reunify the fragments in preparation for a rehabilitation of the party in Iraq when de-Baathification was ended. Al-Duri opposed this step because he saw it as leading to defeat, not victory. Although he is said by some to be in Syria, that is inconsistent with his stance on the Damascus conference, and I think it is more likely that he is in the Mosul area.
Iraq's previous interior minister estimated the number of foreign fighters in Iraq at less than a thousand. Most of these are Salafi Jihadis of one sort or another (revivalist Sunnis).
So 99,000 insurgents are Iraqis. And none of them is al-Qaeda in the sense of being loyal to the organization or fighting for Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They are fighting for some vision of the Iraqi nation, whether inflected by religion or not.
So who are the Iraqi insurgents? An important component is Baathists and ex-Baathist nationalists. These are former military officers, party officials, intelligence operatives, etc. The Baath Party itself is said in the Arabic press to have split into four groups [scroll down]. Among the more important of the four, and the least willing to compromise, is that of Saddam Hussein's vice president, Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri. Last January al-Hayat reported in Arabic that there were attempts to hold an Iraqi Baath Party congress in Damascus and reunify the fragments in preparation for a rehabilitation of the party in Iraq when de-Baathification was ended. Al-Duri opposed this step because he saw it as leading to defeat, not victory. Although he is said by some to be in Syria, that is inconsistent with his stance on the Damascus conference, and I think it is more likely that he is in the Mosul area.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Calling out idiot America
Outstanding article by Scott Ritter, a former Marine intelligence officer, served as a chief weapons inspector for the United Nations. Scott outlines the history behind the Sunni and Shiite conflicts that define our current problems in Iraq and how the actions of this administration, through ignorance of the history of the peoples of Iraq, has just made things worse.
Friday, April 27, 2007
the problem in Iraq is the President Cant admit to a mistake.
(April 27, 2007 -- 02:18 AM EST // link)
With Harry Reid's controversial 'war is lost' quote and with various other pols weighing in on whether we can 'win' or whether it's 'lost', it's a good time to consider what the hell we're actually talking about. Frankly, the whole question is stupid. Or at least it's a very stilted way of understanding what's happening, geared to guarantee President Bush's goal of staying in Iraq forever. A more realistic description is President Bush's long twilight struggle to see just how far he can go into one brown paper bag.
We had a war. It was relatively brief and it took place in the spring of 2003. The critical event is what happened in the three to six months after the conventional war ended. The supporters of the war had two basic premises about what it would accomplish: a) the US would eliminate Iraq's threatening weapons of mass destruction, b) the Iraqi people would choose a pro-US government and the Iraqi people and government would ally themselves wtih the US.
Rationale 'A' quickly fell apart when we learned there were no weapons of mass destruction to eliminate.
That left us with premise or rationale 'B'. But though many or most Iraqis were glad we'd overthrown Saddam, evidence rapidly mounted that most Iraqis weren't interested in the kind of US-aligned government the war's supporters had in mind. Not crazy about a secular government, certainly not wild about one aligned with Israel and just generally not ready to be America's new proxy in the region. Most importantly, those early months showed clear signs that anti-Americanism (not surprisingly) rose with the duration of the occupation.
This is the key point: right near the beginning of this nightmare it was clear the sole remaining premise for the war was false: that is, the idea that the Iraqis would freely choose a government that would align itself with the US and its goals in the region. As the occupation continued, anti-American sentiment -- both toward the occupation and America's role in the world -- has only grown.
I would submit that virtually everything we've done in Iraq since mid-late 2003 has been an effort to obscure this fact. And our policy has been one of continuing the occupation to create the illusion that this reality was not in fact reality. In short, it was a policy of denial.
It's often been noted that we've had a difficult time explaining or figuring out just who we're fighting in Iraq. Is it the Sunni irreconcilables? Or is it Iran and its Shi'a proxies? Or is it al Qaida? The confusion is not incidental but fundamental. We can't explain who we're fighting because this isn't a war, like most, where the existence of a particular enemy or specific danger dictates your need to fight. We're occupying Iraq because continuing to do so allows us to pretend that the initial plan wasn't completely misguided and a mistake. If we continue to run the place a bit longer, the reasoning goes, we'll root out this or that problem that is preventing our original predictions from coming to pass. And of course the longer the occupation continues we generate more and more embittered foes to frame this rationalization around, thus creating an perpetual feedback loop of calamity and self-justification.
It's a huge distortion to say that this means the war was 'lost'. It just means what the war supporters said would happen didn't happen. The premise was bogus. Like I said at the outset, the whole exercise is like getting trapped in a brown paper bag. You can keep going into the bag and into the bag and into the bag and never get out or change anything. Or you can just turn around and walk out of the bag.
Of course, the damage that's been done over the last four years of denial is immense -- damage to ourselves, to the Iraqis, damage to Middle Eastern security and our standing in the world. So walking out of the bag isn't easy and it won't fix things. But the stakes alleged by the White House are largely illusory. Most of the White House's argument amounts to the threat that if we walk out of the bag that we'll have to give up the denial that the White House has had a diminishing percentage of the country in for the last four years. The reality though is that the disaster has already happened. Admitting that isn't a mistake or something to be feared. It's the first step to repairing the damage. What the president has had the country in for four years is a very bloody and costly holding action. And the president has forced it on the country to avoid admitting the magnitude of his errors.
-- Josh Marshall
With Harry Reid's controversial 'war is lost' quote and with various other pols weighing in on whether we can 'win' or whether it's 'lost', it's a good time to consider what the hell we're actually talking about. Frankly, the whole question is stupid. Or at least it's a very stilted way of understanding what's happening, geared to guarantee President Bush's goal of staying in Iraq forever. A more realistic description is President Bush's long twilight struggle to see just how far he can go into one brown paper bag.
We had a war. It was relatively brief and it took place in the spring of 2003. The critical event is what happened in the three to six months after the conventional war ended. The supporters of the war had two basic premises about what it would accomplish: a) the US would eliminate Iraq's threatening weapons of mass destruction, b) the Iraqi people would choose a pro-US government and the Iraqi people and government would ally themselves wtih the US.
Rationale 'A' quickly fell apart when we learned there were no weapons of mass destruction to eliminate.
That left us with premise or rationale 'B'. But though many or most Iraqis were glad we'd overthrown Saddam, evidence rapidly mounted that most Iraqis weren't interested in the kind of US-aligned government the war's supporters had in mind. Not crazy about a secular government, certainly not wild about one aligned with Israel and just generally not ready to be America's new proxy in the region. Most importantly, those early months showed clear signs that anti-Americanism (not surprisingly) rose with the duration of the occupation.
This is the key point: right near the beginning of this nightmare it was clear the sole remaining premise for the war was false: that is, the idea that the Iraqis would freely choose a government that would align itself with the US and its goals in the region. As the occupation continued, anti-American sentiment -- both toward the occupation and America's role in the world -- has only grown.
I would submit that virtually everything we've done in Iraq since mid-late 2003 has been an effort to obscure this fact. And our policy has been one of continuing the occupation to create the illusion that this reality was not in fact reality. In short, it was a policy of denial.
It's often been noted that we've had a difficult time explaining or figuring out just who we're fighting in Iraq. Is it the Sunni irreconcilables? Or is it Iran and its Shi'a proxies? Or is it al Qaida? The confusion is not incidental but fundamental. We can't explain who we're fighting because this isn't a war, like most, where the existence of a particular enemy or specific danger dictates your need to fight. We're occupying Iraq because continuing to do so allows us to pretend that the initial plan wasn't completely misguided and a mistake. If we continue to run the place a bit longer, the reasoning goes, we'll root out this or that problem that is preventing our original predictions from coming to pass. And of course the longer the occupation continues we generate more and more embittered foes to frame this rationalization around, thus creating an perpetual feedback loop of calamity and self-justification.
It's a huge distortion to say that this means the war was 'lost'. It just means what the war supporters said would happen didn't happen. The premise was bogus. Like I said at the outset, the whole exercise is like getting trapped in a brown paper bag. You can keep going into the bag and into the bag and into the bag and never get out or change anything. Or you can just turn around and walk out of the bag.
Of course, the damage that's been done over the last four years of denial is immense -- damage to ourselves, to the Iraqis, damage to Middle Eastern security and our standing in the world. So walking out of the bag isn't easy and it won't fix things. But the stakes alleged by the White House are largely illusory. Most of the White House's argument amounts to the threat that if we walk out of the bag that we'll have to give up the denial that the White House has had a diminishing percentage of the country in for the last four years. The reality though is that the disaster has already happened. Admitting that isn't a mistake or something to be feared. It's the first step to repairing the damage. What the president has had the country in for four years is a very bloody and costly holding action. And the president has forced it on the country to avoid admitting the magnitude of his errors.
-- Josh Marshall
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Fascist America, in 10 easy steps | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
Fascist America, in 10 easy steps | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited:
"Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree - domestically - as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government - the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors - we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of 'homeland' security - remember who else was keen on the word 'homeland' - didn't raise the alarm bells it might have.
It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable - as the author and political journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here. And that we are further along than we realise."
"Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree - domestically - as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government - the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens' ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors - we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don't learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of 'homeland' security - remember who else was keen on the word 'homeland' - didn't raise the alarm bells it might have.
It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable - as the author and political journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here. And that we are further along than we realise."
Sunday, April 15, 2007
new Republic - A History of Violence
In sixteenth-century Paris, a popular form of entertainment was cat-burning, in which a cat was hoisted in a sling on a stage and slowly lowered into a fire. According to historian Norman Davies, "[T]he spectators, including kings and queens, shrieked with laughter as the animals, howling with pain, were singed, roasted, and finally carbonized." Today, such sadism would be unthinkable in most of the world. This change in sensibilities is just one example of perhaps the most important and most underappreciated trend in the human saga: Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on earth.
In the decade of Darfur and Iraq, and shortly after the century of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, the claim that violence has been diminishing may seem somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. Yet recent studies that seek to quantify the historical ebb and flow of violence point to exactly that conclusion.
Some of the evidence has been under our nose all along. Conventional history has long shown that, in many ways, we have been getting kinder and gentler. Cruelty as entertainment, human sacrifice to indulge superstition, slavery as a labor-saving device, conquest as the mission statement of government, genocide as a means of acquiring real estate, torture and mutilation as routine punishment, the death penalty for misdemeanors and differences of opinion, assassination as the mechanism of political succession, rape as the spoils of war, pogroms as outlets for frustration, homicide as the major form of conflict resolution--all were unexceptionable features of life for most of human history. But, today, they are rare to nonexistent in the West, far less common elsewhere than they used to be, concealed when they do occur, and widely condemned when they are brought to light.
In the decade of Darfur and Iraq, and shortly after the century of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, the claim that violence has been diminishing may seem somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. Yet recent studies that seek to quantify the historical ebb and flow of violence point to exactly that conclusion.
Some of the evidence has been under our nose all along. Conventional history has long shown that, in many ways, we have been getting kinder and gentler. Cruelty as entertainment, human sacrifice to indulge superstition, slavery as a labor-saving device, conquest as the mission statement of government, genocide as a means of acquiring real estate, torture and mutilation as routine punishment, the death penalty for misdemeanors and differences of opinion, assassination as the mechanism of political succession, rape as the spoils of war, pogroms as outlets for frustration, homicide as the major form of conflict resolution--all were unexceptionable features of life for most of human history. But, today, they are rare to nonexistent in the West, far less common elsewhere than they used to be, concealed when they do occur, and widely condemned when they are brought to light.
new Republic - A History of Violence
In sixteenth-century Paris, a popular form of entertainment was cat-burning, in which a cat was hoisted in a sling on a stage and slowly lowered into a fire. According to historian Norman Davies, "[T]he spectators, including kings and
queens, shrieked with laughter as the animals, howling with pain, were singed, roasted, and finally carbonized." Today, such sadism would be unthinkable in most of the world. This change in sensibilities is just one example of perhaps the most
important and most underappreciated trend in the human saga: Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on earth.
In the decade of Darfur and Iraq, and shortly after the century of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, the claim that violence has been diminishing may seem somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. Yet recent studies that seek to quantify the historical ebb and flow of violence point to exactly that conclusion.
Some of the evidence has been under our nose all along. Conventional history has long shown that, in many ways, we have been getting kinder and gentler. Cruelty as entertainment, human sacrifice to indulge superstition, slavery
as a labor-saving device, conquest as the mission statement of government, genocide as a means of acquiring real estate, torture and mutilation as routine punishment, the death penalty for misdemeanors and differences of opinion, assassination as the mechanism of political succession, rape as the spoils of war, pogroms as outlets for frustration, homicide as the major form of conflict resolution--all were unexceptionable features of life for most of human history. But, today, they are rare to nonexistent in the West, far less common elsewhere than they used to be, concealed when they do occur, and widely condemned when they are brought to light.
queens, shrieked with laughter as the animals, howling with pain, were singed, roasted, and finally carbonized." Today, such sadism would be unthinkable in most of the world. This change in sensibilities is just one example of perhaps the most
important and most underappreciated trend in the human saga: Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on earth.
In the decade of Darfur and Iraq, and shortly after the century of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, the claim that violence has been diminishing may seem somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene. Yet recent studies that seek to quantify the historical ebb and flow of violence point to exactly that conclusion.
Some of the evidence has been under our nose all along. Conventional history has long shown that, in many ways, we have been getting kinder and gentler. Cruelty as entertainment, human sacrifice to indulge superstition, slavery
as a labor-saving device, conquest as the mission statement of government, genocide as a means of acquiring real estate, torture and mutilation as routine punishment, the death penalty for misdemeanors and differences of opinion, assassination as the mechanism of political succession, rape as the spoils of war, pogroms as outlets for frustration, homicide as the major form of conflict resolution--all were unexceptionable features of life for most of human history. But, today, they are rare to nonexistent in the West, far less common elsewhere than they used to be, concealed when they do occur, and widely condemned when they are brought to light.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Baghdad Burning
Baghdad Burning:
"And yet, as the situation continues to deteriorate both for Iraqis inside and outside of Iraq, and for Americans inside Iraq, Americans in America are still debating on the state of the war and occupation- are they winning or losing? Is it better or worse. Let me clear it up for any moron with lingering doubts: It's worse. It's over. You lost.
You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets. You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq's first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile."
"And yet, as the situation continues to deteriorate both for Iraqis inside and outside of Iraq, and for Americans inside Iraq, Americans in America are still debating on the state of the war and occupation- are they winning or losing? Is it better or worse. Let me clear it up for any moron with lingering doubts: It's worse. It's over. You lost.
You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets. You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq's first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile."
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Monday, December 04, 2006
whoo hoooooo... they canned Bolton
This guy was one of the worst Bush appointments of all time. A neocon jerk to the core. I am glad he is finally gone.
more at Crooksandliars.com
more at Crooksandliars.com
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
AWAKE, MY SOUL, AND WITH THE SUN
Awake, my soul, and with the sun
Thy daily stage of duty run;
Shake off dull sloth, and joyful rise,
To pay thy morning sacrifice.
Thy precious time misspent, redeem,
Each present day thy last esteem,
Improve thy talent with due care;
For the great day thyself prepare.
By influence of the Light divine
Let thy own light to others shine.
Reflect all Heaven’s propitious ways
In ardent love, and cheerful praise.
In conversation be sincere;
Keep conscience as the noontide clear;
Think how all seeing God thy ways
And all thy secret thoughts surveys.
Wake, and lift up thyself, my heart,
And with the angels bear thy part,
Who all night long unwearied sing
High praise to the eternal King.
All praise to Thee, Who safe has kept
And hast refreshed me while I slept
Grant, Lord, when I from death shall wake
I may of endless light partake.
Heav’n is, dear Lord, where’er Thou art,
O never then from me depart;
For to my soul ’tis hell to be
But for one moment void of Thee.
Lord, I my vows to Thee renew;
Disperse my sins as morning dew.
Guard my first springs of thought and will,
And with Thyself my spirit fill.
Direct, control, suggest, this day,
All I design, or do, or say,
That all my powers, with all their might,
In Thy sole glory may unite.
I would not wake nor rise again
And Heaven itself I would disdain,
Wert Thou not there to be enjoyed,
And I in hymns to be employed.
Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Thy daily stage of duty run;
Shake off dull sloth, and joyful rise,
To pay thy morning sacrifice.
Thy precious time misspent, redeem,
Each present day thy last esteem,
Improve thy talent with due care;
For the great day thyself prepare.
By influence of the Light divine
Let thy own light to others shine.
Reflect all Heaven’s propitious ways
In ardent love, and cheerful praise.
In conversation be sincere;
Keep conscience as the noontide clear;
Think how all seeing God thy ways
And all thy secret thoughts surveys.
Wake, and lift up thyself, my heart,
And with the angels bear thy part,
Who all night long unwearied sing
High praise to the eternal King.
All praise to Thee, Who safe has kept
And hast refreshed me while I slept
Grant, Lord, when I from death shall wake
I may of endless light partake.
Heav’n is, dear Lord, where’er Thou art,
O never then from me depart;
For to my soul ’tis hell to be
But for one moment void of Thee.
Lord, I my vows to Thee renew;
Disperse my sins as morning dew.
Guard my first springs of thought and will,
And with Thyself my spirit fill.
Direct, control, suggest, this day,
All I design, or do, or say,
That all my powers, with all their might,
In Thy sole glory may unite.
I would not wake nor rise again
And Heaven itself I would disdain,
Wert Thou not there to be enjoyed,
And I in hymns to be employed.
Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
THANKSGIVING
21 Reasons to Give Thanks
This Thanksgiving, progressives have a lot to be thankful for. Here's
our list:
We're thankful for our country's troops.
We're thankful America dumped the 109th Congress.
We're thankful Rick Santorum will have more free time to find the WMD.
We're thankful we don’t have to go to war with the Secretary of Defense
we had.
We're thankful for "red state values," like protecting reproductive
rights, supporting stem cell research, and rejecting discrimination.
We're thankful Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who calls climate change the
"greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," will no longer
chair the Senate environmental committee.
We're thankful that Matt Drudge does not rule our world.
We're thankful Al Gore helped the country face the inconvenient truth.
We're thankful Bill O'Reilly does not resort to name calling - well,
besides labeling the Progress Report/ThinkProgress as "far left loons,"
"kool-aid zombies," "hired guns," "vile," "haters," a "far left smear
website," and "a very well-oiled, effective character assassination
machine."
We're thankful minimum wage ballot initiatives passed in six states.
We're thankful the Dixie Chicks aren't ready to make nice.
We're thankful Ted Haggard bought the meth but never used it.
We're thankful for the 100,000 readers who responded to our Tell the
Truth About 9/11 campaign.
We're thankful for "the Google" and "the email" (and the "series of
tubes" that make them possible) -- but not iPods, which are endangering
our nation.
We're thankful Maf54 isn't online right now.
We're thankful people send us Jack Abramoff's email.
We're thankful Keith Olbermann's ratings are up and Bill O'Reilly's
ratings are down.
We're thankful President Bush's secret plan for Iraq is safe with Conrad
Burns.
We're thankful we won't spend Thanksgiving turkey hunting with Dick
Cheney.
We're thankful the "Decider " only gets to make the decision 789 more
days.
And last but not least: We're thankful to the Progress Report readers
for their tips, energy and support.
Happy Thanksgiving! – The Progress Report Team.
P.S. Remember, if you are short on cash over the holiday shopping
season, a gift subscription to the Progress Report is free.
21 Reasons to Give Thanks
This Thanksgiving, progressives have a lot to be thankful for. Here's
our list:
We're thankful for our country's troops.
We're thankful America dumped the 109th Congress.
We're thankful Rick Santorum will have more free time to find the WMD.
We're thankful we don’t have to go to war with the Secretary of Defense
we had.
We're thankful for "red state values," like protecting reproductive
rights, supporting stem cell research, and rejecting discrimination.
We're thankful Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who calls climate change the
"greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people," will no longer
chair the Senate environmental committee.
We're thankful that Matt Drudge does not rule our world.
We're thankful Al Gore helped the country face the inconvenient truth.
We're thankful Bill O'Reilly does not resort to name calling - well,
besides labeling the Progress Report/ThinkProgress as "far left loons,"
"kool-aid zombies," "hired guns," "vile," "haters," a "far left smear
website," and "a very well-oiled, effective character assassination
machine."
We're thankful minimum wage ballot initiatives passed in six states.
We're thankful the Dixie Chicks aren't ready to make nice.
We're thankful Ted Haggard bought the meth but never used it.
We're thankful for the 100,000 readers who responded to our Tell the
Truth About 9/11 campaign.
We're thankful for "the Google" and "the email" (and the "series of
tubes" that make them possible) -- but not iPods, which are endangering
our nation.
We're thankful Maf54 isn't online right now.
We're thankful people send us Jack Abramoff's email.
We're thankful Keith Olbermann's ratings are up and Bill O'Reilly's
ratings are down.
We're thankful President Bush's secret plan for Iraq is safe with Conrad
Burns.
We're thankful we won't spend Thanksgiving turkey hunting with Dick
Cheney.
We're thankful the "Decider " only gets to make the decision 789 more
days.
And last but not least: We're thankful to the Progress Report readers
for their tips, energy and support.
Happy Thanksgiving! – The Progress Report Team.
P.S. Remember, if you are short on cash over the holiday shopping
season, a gift subscription to the Progress Report is free.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
OMFG
Watching the MSM this morning.
I only got one thing to say about the mid term elections....
OMFG.
WinterBear
I only got one thing to say about the mid term elections....
OMFG.
WinterBear
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
OpEd in NYTimes today.
Subject: RE: The Difference Two Years Made
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 08:58:16 -0500
The editorial below makes me feel a tiny bit vindicated after years of
concern and comments about the current US administration. When a
centrist, establishment newspaper, that many mistakenly label "liberal"
reaches this point, if I were not sad because of the waste of
resources-people and programs---during the past six years, I would
smile.
I watched C-Spajn last night, Gary Hart on his new book, The Courage of
Our Convictions: A Manifesto for Democrats., His position and statement
of the need for principles and conviction seem to be well stated. He
observes that the Democrats have no principles around which to coalesce.
Remember the "old days" of "platforms?" At least these platforms tried
to stand for something substantial. Hart said that people should look up
the word "liberal." It means open/broad-minded, generous, free,
committed to civic virtue ( not bedroom politics) among other things,
such as LIBERTY, and other progressive thoughts. The dysfunctional,
delusional paranoids in power could use a lot of "shock therapy." I
hope tomorrow applies the needed wattage.
Actually, I do not think either entrenched party has the guts and
grit to pull out of its self-destructive mind-set. Understanding the
reluctance of Americans to move beyond its adolescent concerns, I would
like to hope for the incorporation of less self-serving and more
communally productive ideas to begin to emerge, as in global without
the military-corporate control. After all, Thomas Jefferson named the
first US political party "Democrat-Republican."
g
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: 11/5/2006 3:19:06 PM
Subject: The Difference Two Years Made
Editorial
NY Times
The Difference Two Years Made
Published: November 5, 2006
On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has
endorsed for election, we will include no Republican
Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory.
Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on
national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a
long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House.
Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as
vital and responsible as possible.
That is why things are different this year.
To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House
and for the most part, the Senate during President Bushs tenure
has done a terrible job on the basics. Its
tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the
middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has
refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically
little about the countrys dependence on foreign oil.
Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed
toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too
long in power. They methodically shut the opposition and even
the more moderate members of their own party out of any role in
the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be
self-perpetuation.
The current Republican majority managed to achieve that
burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a
shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It
was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal
austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse
that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even
directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed
their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.
That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page
endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics
reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues
like the environment, civil liberties and womens rights.
For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans attempt to
undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have
safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact
that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one
party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as
everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the
Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has
made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond
any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb
these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated
themselves to removing restraints on the presidents ability to
do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans
feel you dont need to have oversight hearings if your party is
in control of everything.
An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a
partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the
chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.
Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing
questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president
accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It
also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about
whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of
mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one
agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American
contractors who have botched everything from construction work
to the security of weapons.
After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal
detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantnamo Bay,
Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the
atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the
election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House,
Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of
noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though
many of them were clearly sent there in error.
In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful
of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation
for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the
Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the
presidents campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers
used this bill to further Mr. Bushs goal of stripping the powers
of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.
This election is indeed about George W. Bush and the
Congressional majoritys insistence on protecting him from the
consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the
popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an
enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004,
he announced he now had real political capital and intended to
spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to
contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next
Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on
the House and Senate.
Subject: RE: The Difference Two Years Made
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 08:58:16 -0500
The editorial below makes me feel a tiny bit vindicated after years of
concern and comments about the current US administration. When a
centrist, establishment newspaper, that many mistakenly label "liberal"
reaches this point, if I were not sad because of the waste of
resources-people and programs---during the past six years, I would
smile.
I watched C-Spajn last night, Gary Hart on his new book, The Courage of
Our Convictions: A Manifesto for Democrats., His position and statement
of the need for principles and conviction seem to be well stated. He
observes that the Democrats have no principles around which to coalesce.
Remember the "old days" of "platforms?" At least these platforms tried
to stand for something substantial. Hart said that people should look up
the word "liberal." It means open/broad-minded, generous, free,
committed to civic virtue ( not bedroom politics) among other things,
such as LIBERTY, and other progressive thoughts. The dysfunctional,
delusional paranoids in power could use a lot of "shock therapy." I
hope tomorrow applies the needed wattage.
Actually, I do not think either entrenched party has the guts and
grit to pull out of its self-destructive mind-set. Understanding the
reluctance of Americans to move beyond its adolescent concerns, I would
like to hope for the incorporation of less self-serving and more
communally productive ideas to begin to emerge, as in global without
the military-corporate control. After all, Thomas Jefferson named the
first US political party "Democrat-Republican."
g
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: 11/5/2006 3:19:06 PM
Subject: The Difference Two Years Made
Editorial
NY Times
The Difference Two Years Made
Published: November 5, 2006
On Tuesday, when this page runs the list of people it has
endorsed for election, we will include no Republican
Congressional candidates for the first time in our memory.
Although Times editorials tend to agree with Democrats on
national policy, we have proudly and consistently endorsed a
long line of moderate Republicans, particularly for the House.
Our only political loyalty is to making the two-party system as
vital and responsible as possible.
That is why things are different this year.
To begin with, the Republican majority that has run the House
and for the most part, the Senate during President Bushs tenure
has done a terrible job on the basics. Its
tax-cutting-above-all-else has wrecked the budget, hobbled the
middle class and endangered the long-term economy. It has
refused to face up to global warming and done pathetically
little about the countrys dependence on foreign oil.
Republican leaders, particularly in the House, have developed
toxic symptoms of an overconfident majority that has been too
long in power. They methodically shut the opposition and even
the more moderate members of their own party out of any role in
the legislative process. Their only mission seems to be
self-perpetuation.
The current Republican majority managed to achieve that
burned-out, brain-dead status in record time, and with a
shocking disregard for the most minimal ethical standards. It
was bad enough that a party that used to believe in fiscal
austerity blew billions on pork-barrel projects. It is worse
that many of the most expensive boondoggles were not even
directed at their constituents, but at lobbyists who financed
their campaigns and high-end lifestyles.
That was already the situation in 2004, and even then this page
endorsed Republicans who had shown a high commitment to ethics
reform and a willingness to buck their party on important issues
like the environment, civil liberties and womens rights.
For us, the breaking point came over the Republicans attempt to
undermine the fundamental checks and balances that have
safeguarded American democracy since its inception. The fact
that the White House, House and Senate are all controlled by one
party is not a threat to the balance of powers, as long as
everyone understands the roles assigned to each by the
Constitution. But over the past two years, the White House has
made it clear that it claims sweeping powers that go well beyond
any acceptable limits. Rather than doing their duty to curb
these excesses, the Congressional Republicans have dedicated
themselves to removing restraints on the presidents ability to
do whatever he wants. To paraphrase Tom DeLay, the Republicans
feel you dont need to have oversight hearings if your party is
in control of everything.
An administration convinced of its own perpetual rightness and a
partisan Congress determined to deflect all criticism of the
chief executive has been the recipe for what we live with today.
Congress, in particular the House, has failed to ask probing
questions about the war in Iraq or hold the president
accountable for his catastrophic bungling of the occupation. It
also has allowed Mr. Bush to avoid answering any questions about
whether his administration cooked the intelligence on weapons of
mass destruction. Then, it quietly agreed to close down the one
agency that has been riding herd on crooked and inept American
contractors who have botched everything from construction work
to the security of weapons.
After the revelations about the abuse, torture and illegal
detentions in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan and Guantnamo Bay,
Congress shielded the Pentagon from any responsibility for the
atrocities its policies allowed to happen. On the eve of the
election, and without even a pretense at debate in the House,
Congress granted the White House permission to hold hundreds of
noncitizens in jail forever, without due process, even though
many of them were clearly sent there in error.
In the Senate, the path for this bill was cleared by a handful
of Republicans who used their personal prestige and reputation
for moderation to paper over the fact that the bill violates the
Constitution in fundamental ways. Having acquiesced in the
presidents campaign to dilute their own authority, lawmakers
used this bill to further Mr. Bushs goal of stripping the powers
of the only remaining independent branch, the judiciary.
This election is indeed about George W. Bush and the
Congressional majoritys insistence on protecting him from the
consequences of his mistakes and misdeeds. Mr. Bush lost the
popular vote in 2000 and proceeded to govern as if he had an
enormous mandate. After he actually beat his opponent in 2004,
he announced he now had real political capital and intended to
spend it. We have seen the results. It is frightening to
contemplate the new excesses he could concoct if he woke up next
Wednesday and found that his party had maintained its hold on
the House and Senate.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
In an alternative universe near you.
I am at a public gathering and I get to ask the President of the United States of America one question.
Winterbear: "Sir, You say you work hard. I believe you. Your hair has turned grey while you have been in office. Here is my question for you: 'Sir, Can you define the word Palliative and if you were President in 2009, what would you do to make Palliative Care better or worse."
I am at a public gathering and I get to ask the President of the United States of America one question.
Winterbear: "Sir, You say you work hard. I believe you. Your hair has turned grey while you have been in office. Here is my question for you: 'Sir, Can you define the word Palliative and if you were President in 2009, what would you do to make Palliative Care better or worse."
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Keith Olbermann monday Oct 30th
wow... just wow...
Last nights (monday, Oct 30th) Keith Olbermans Countdown show on MSNBC at 7pm and 10pm was terrific.
1) first segment was about how no republicans want to be seen with Bush. In fact, on a Maryland senate candidate, Michael Steele, was on "Meet the Press" on Sunday Steele said, "I am a proud republican. My orientation is the Republican party not just one individual.... If anything I am a Lincoln republican." He went on to kind of dis Bush and distance himself from the president. You can see the video of this on www.crooksandliars.com
2) The next segment was about the irrational boosterism and enthusiasm of Karl Rove. They had Wayne Slater (Dallas Morning News) on who wrote the book and movie "Bush's Brain". He explained the techniques and motivation Karl Rove has for being so publicly enthusiastic about the Republican's chance in these elections. Again, video is up on YouTube and CrooksandLiars.com The big point he made was that the machine that Karl Rove has put together is still very much in tact and will be a big influence on this election.
3) Then Keith did a segment on "Dirty Politics". In the last week he has talked a lot about the dirty ads in Tenn. and the smears on Michael J Fox and the other goofy ads this year. This segment was all about Allen Raymond, a republican political operative, who in 2002 broke a bunch of election laws in New Hampshire and spent 3 months in Jail. He admits what he did was illegal, and then admits that he ran a dirty tele marketing campaign (funded by the RNC) against the democrats that used his phone switch to make non-stop hang up phone calls to tie up democratic phone lines on and before election day 2002(basically a denial of service attack for those of us in the computer industry). He said he was contacted by the RNC and they came up with the idea. He said, "Yes, we were trying to create chaos and prevent the democratic party from operating." Because of this dirty trick, the democratic program to give people rides to the polls on election day had to be shut down and the republican candidate won by a narrow margin. He said, "lets be clear about one thing, the New Hampshire phone jamming was not a dirty trick, it was a criminal act." Raymond pled guilty to conspiracy and was convicted. He also said that what he did was only one of the dirty tricks and that most of the people that do what he does get away with it or are protected from prosecution by the RNC and Bush admin. Again, video is on YouTube and Crooksandliars.com.
4) After a very funny oddball segment he talked about the MilBloggers. He quoted from time magazine and Newsweek magazine that this week printed letters written by men who have died in the last month in Iraq. Both expressed their disillusion with the government, Defense department, Main stream media (especially fox) and who honestly question why we are in this war. Then he had an ex soldier who runs a site called www.chasingghosts.com where he reports and comments on the MilBlogs and how the Military, after allowing them to happen for 6 years is now trying to censure and stifle these dispatches from the grunts in the field. The military has created a special unit to monitor the blogs.
5) top 3 sound bites were interesting...
O'Relly on Letterman. "You want the United states to win in Iraq, Yes or No... Its easy." Dave, "its not such an easy question for me because I am thoughtful. O'Reilly, "it isnt so black and white dave... your saying we are a bad country...". Dave, "I didnt say he was an evil... your putting words in my mouth Just like your putting artificial facts in your head..." Ouch...
then a 2000 pound pumpkin with a baby on it...
6) A very nice story on Red Auerbach, legendary boston celtic coach, dead today
worst people in the world were a moron at National review who complained about Keith's use of "Mr Bush" as a name for bush even though his boss, the great Bill Buckley, has used "mr bush" to refer to george over 150 times in the last year.
that shrill moron that slandered Murtha was at it again, this time advocating storing nuke waste in her district.
and comedian Rush Limbaugh has been saying that the MSM has sped up video of him ridiculing Michael J Fox for his appeals to support stem sell research. Keith, "Hey Rush, your lies used to be slightly amusing. Please... go back on the drugs!"
7) the last segment was about the very sad break up of Sir Paul Mc Cartney's marriage and how his ex-wife (heather fields) is saying horrible things about Linda...
Overall, the best Countdown I've ever seen...
Last nights (monday, Oct 30th) Keith Olbermans Countdown show on MSNBC at 7pm and 10pm was terrific.
1) first segment was about how no republicans want to be seen with Bush. In fact, on a Maryland senate candidate, Michael Steele, was on "Meet the Press" on Sunday Steele said, "I am a proud republican. My orientation is the Republican party not just one individual.... If anything I am a Lincoln republican." He went on to kind of dis Bush and distance himself from the president. You can see the video of this on www.crooksandliars.com
2) The next segment was about the irrational boosterism and enthusiasm of Karl Rove. They had Wayne Slater (Dallas Morning News) on who wrote the book and movie "Bush's Brain". He explained the techniques and motivation Karl Rove has for being so publicly enthusiastic about the Republican's chance in these elections. Again, video is up on YouTube and CrooksandLiars.com The big point he made was that the machine that Karl Rove has put together is still very much in tact and will be a big influence on this election.
3) Then Keith did a segment on "Dirty Politics". In the last week he has talked a lot about the dirty ads in Tenn. and the smears on Michael J Fox and the other goofy ads this year. This segment was all about Allen Raymond, a republican political operative, who in 2002 broke a bunch of election laws in New Hampshire and spent 3 months in Jail. He admits what he did was illegal, and then admits that he ran a dirty tele marketing campaign (funded by the RNC) against the democrats that used his phone switch to make non-stop hang up phone calls to tie up democratic phone lines on and before election day 2002(basically a denial of service attack for those of us in the computer industry). He said he was contacted by the RNC and they came up with the idea. He said, "Yes, we were trying to create chaos and prevent the democratic party from operating." Because of this dirty trick, the democratic program to give people rides to the polls on election day had to be shut down and the republican candidate won by a narrow margin. He said, "lets be clear about one thing, the New Hampshire phone jamming was not a dirty trick, it was a criminal act." Raymond pled guilty to conspiracy and was convicted. He also said that what he did was only one of the dirty tricks and that most of the people that do what he does get away with it or are protected from prosecution by the RNC and Bush admin. Again, video is on YouTube and Crooksandliars.com.
4) After a very funny oddball segment he talked about the MilBloggers. He quoted from time magazine and Newsweek magazine that this week printed letters written by men who have died in the last month in Iraq. Both expressed their disillusion with the government, Defense department, Main stream media (especially fox) and who honestly question why we are in this war. Then he had an ex soldier who runs a site called www.chasingghosts.com where he reports and comments on the MilBlogs and how the Military, after allowing them to happen for 6 years is now trying to censure and stifle these dispatches from the grunts in the field. The military has created a special unit to monitor the blogs.
5) top 3 sound bites were interesting...
O'Relly on Letterman. "You want the United states to win in Iraq, Yes or No... Its easy." Dave, "its not such an easy question for me because I am thoughtful. O'Reilly, "it isnt so black and white dave... your saying we are a bad country...". Dave, "I didnt say he was an evil... your putting words in my mouth Just like your putting artificial facts in your head..." Ouch...
then a 2000 pound pumpkin with a baby on it...
6) A very nice story on Red Auerbach, legendary boston celtic coach, dead today
worst people in the world were a moron at National review who complained about Keith's use of "Mr Bush" as a name for bush even though his boss, the great Bill Buckley, has used "mr bush" to refer to george over 150 times in the last year.
that shrill moron that slandered Murtha was at it again, this time advocating storing nuke waste in her district.
and comedian Rush Limbaugh has been saying that the MSM has sped up video of him ridiculing Michael J Fox for his appeals to support stem sell research. Keith, "Hey Rush, your lies used to be slightly amusing. Please... go back on the drugs!"
7) the last segment was about the very sad break up of Sir Paul Mc Cartney's marriage and how his ex-wife (heather fields) is saying horrible things about Linda...
Overall, the best Countdown I've ever seen...
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Keith Olbermann Rocks
I have been enjoying Keith Olbermann since I discovered him last year during the Katrina disaster. I set up my 3 tivo's to download all the news during that time and the person I ended up enjoying watching the most of was Keith. Since then I have watched him at least once a week.
His videos are all over the net. You can usually get his most current things at www.crooksandliars.com. They post something of his every couple of days. He is also all over YouTube and other video sites.
Recently he has begun to do a series of commentaries that I think are some of the greatest serious political stuff I have ever seen. When they write the history of this period, I think he is going to be mentioned as one of the great journalists of this age. (Unless the Neocons win and get to re-write the history books...)
I have also enjoyed reading the blog www.olbermannwatch.com. It is run by someone named John Dollar with a serious aversion to Keith, but most of the folks that post to the site are really great and they tend to be about 75% supportive of Keith's point of view. The other 25% of the people that post there are compleatly inarticulate so you get a range of flames from them and they are easy to ignore.
WinterBear says check it out!
His videos are all over the net. You can usually get his most current things at www.crooksandliars.com. They post something of his every couple of days. He is also all over YouTube and other video sites.
Recently he has begun to do a series of commentaries that I think are some of the greatest serious political stuff I have ever seen. When they write the history of this period, I think he is going to be mentioned as one of the great journalists of this age. (Unless the Neocons win and get to re-write the history books...)
I have also enjoyed reading the blog www.olbermannwatch.com. It is run by someone named John Dollar with a serious aversion to Keith, but most of the folks that post to the site are really great and they tend to be about 75% supportive of Keith's point of view. The other 25% of the people that post there are compleatly inarticulate so you get a range of flames from them and they are easy to ignore.
WinterBear says check it out!
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
great business model
post by by misanthrope101 on slashdot.com
great business model - by misanthrope101 (Score: 5, Insightful) Thread
Since the government doesn’t need warrants/probable cause/oversight anymore, it would be easy to set up a business to sell “confiscated” laptops second-hand. With no oversight, there is no need for record-keeping, no way to see if someone is abusing their power, etc. Just yell “You hate America!” at anyone who questions how you bought your new house. It’s worked so far. The only people who believe in old-fashioned due process are apparently terrorist appeasers, if you believe the dominant Republicans and Fox News. Can anyone think of an argument FOR government oversight, warrants, and due process that would be considered persuasive in the current political environment? We seem to have given up altogether on the idea that government is dangerous to freedom.
What happened to all the “conservatives”? Am I the only conservative who actually believes in limited government? That may be the most tangible benefit of a Democratic victory in an (any) election—the conservatives would be (ostensibly, if dishonestly) anti-government again. Right now we’re stuck with the dichotomy that government-funded healthcare is creeping totalitarianism, but government torture is innocuous. Strange world we live in.
great business model - by misanthrope101 (Score: 5, Insightful) Thread
Since the government doesn’t need warrants/probable cause/oversight anymore, it would be easy to set up a business to sell “confiscated” laptops second-hand. With no oversight, there is no need for record-keeping, no way to see if someone is abusing their power, etc. Just yell “You hate America!” at anyone who questions how you bought your new house. It’s worked so far. The only people who believe in old-fashioned due process are apparently terrorist appeasers, if you believe the dominant Republicans and Fox News. Can anyone think of an argument FOR government oversight, warrants, and due process that would be considered persuasive in the current political environment? We seem to have given up altogether on the idea that government is dangerous to freedom.
What happened to all the “conservatives”? Am I the only conservative who actually believes in limited government? That may be the most tangible benefit of a Democratic victory in an (any) election—the conservatives would be (ostensibly, if dishonestly) anti-government again. Right now we’re stuck with the dichotomy that government-funded healthcare is creeping totalitarianism, but government torture is innocuous. Strange world we live in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)