Mirrored Decadence

i've moved!

2006-08-01T20:34:00.000-07:00

i've moved to a real space on the web. it looks like crap now, but i will be updating the look for the future. for right now, however, the design looks like crap, but its a great new place to be!

come visit me:

www.mirroreddecadence.com

welcome.

news from other countries

2006-07-29T13:35:00.000-07:00

i know that this piece of news may be, well, "common knowledge" within the states, but there is a big difference when an international news organization decides to report on it as well. this means that not only does the international community know about it, but it also shows them how American media is not reporting on certain things and how uninformed the general American public is.

the BBC reports that the Pentagon is keeping taps on what is posted online by soldiers as well as contractors. not only are they keeping tabs, they are trying to make sure that nothing is posted that would harm the image that the American government has painted. so when these videos from international troops and contractors come out, they are buried swiftly enough that you have to look for them, and the American media doesn't pick up the stories at all.

most people in other countries are appalled that we sit back and just let this happen. this is cause for revolution! but nobody in America, myself included, believes that we have reached the point needed for revolution (however with the news of the other stories on this page, it may be sooner than we wish). it hurts that i have to go to places like the BBC and German newspapers to get the unedited full story rather than what the media owners "allow" to be printed. the only reason for this is because the BBC has no interest in pulling punches when it comes to news about America (they would edit stuff that had to do with the UK). the American media, while good, is sorely lacking because of its obvious use as a tool for the government to tell people what they want to hear and paint a rosy picture.

if you disagree with this, there is a way you can prove it: show me a picture released by the government that shows the flag-draped coffins of our soldiers coming home from Iraq (and not the one used by the Dems for their commercial). if someone can produce that picture, then i will retract all my statements about the media being complient to the government. otherwise, the lack of pictures speaks for themselves. control is the issue. a journalist is supposed to be above and beyond politics. i guess America is just dirtier than most.

dropped to the second section

2006-07-29T13:09:00.000-07:00

San Francisco is a very liberal area. you would assume that most people there are too. well, there is a good mix between the two, although the liberals tend to be a little more dominant. however, there are those who will do many things to provide information to conservatives who think critics of government should not talk. take for example, this article on police infiltration of anti-war groups.

this is really happening. it's been happening for awhile now, but only recently has it become so ramped up that the media is paying a little more attention. this runs along the lines of setting up "free speech zones;" it shouldn't happen. the city of Oakland should have to pay, they were in the wrong (whether it's an overzealous police department or just one guy who made the call).

but most importantly, this article was dropped to the second section. this is something that should be front page, left column above the fold. people should NOT have to look for this, and it should be getting much more media attention than is available right now. this is despicable. if you don't believe in a police state, where we all are watched, then why is this allowed to happen. anti-war protestors may get a lot of big ideas, but i would like to think that there is enough crime in Oakland to keep the officers busy (Oakland police is recruiting on a massive scale, so why spare the people?). i heard some gunshots near my house last night, but no cops come around. i guess they were busy watching somebody like me complain online (and in person) about the degredation of America that the Republicans are responsible for. i bet if the police took the same amount of effort they put into infiltrating the anti-war group into watching some of our elected leaders, there would be many more arrests. but alas, we must not forget the first rule of working: don't bite the hand that pays you.

CT-Sen again

2006-07-29T12:41:00.000-07:00

ok, it's official in my eyes. the Aug 8 primary in CT is going to set the stage for how the rest of the November elections will work. everybody is paying attention to this race. if Lieberman wins, the status quo will be OK; running the same, staying the course. however if Lamont wins, many incumbent Senators will be in for a huge fight, as the people-powered progressive movement will have shown itself to be a hardball player in the political field (this will, on the good side, make sure that Senators pay more attention to their state rather than pander to Washington). i hope Lamont wins by a landslide.

in the spirit of that, we find more and more publications weighing in on Lieberman's political disaster. his voting record doesn't help him. nothing really helps him. the NYT is about to endorse Lamont on Sunday.

and Forbes has a great article on why Lieberman is going down the shitter.

Doug Schwartz, survey director at Quinnipiac University, said Lieberman polled ahead of Lamont only among voters 65 and older, those with incomes of less than $30,000 a year, and those without a college degree.

Lamont, 52, ran ahead in the survey among voters in all other age and income groups, as well as among those with college degrees, Schwartz said. Lamont outpolled Lieberman among men, 56-44 percent. Fifty-one percent of the women surveyed backed Lieberman, to 47 percent for Lamont, a statistically insignificant difference.

Forbes explains everything very precisely. it's not about pandering to the voters anymore. the people-powered movement is about action. Lieberman has not taken the one action that would have mattered to most of his constituents: he has not apologized for supporting the war but instead rabidly defends his, and bush's, position. maybe this will be the rabbit out of the hat at the end of September when Lieberman finds his back against the wall. but i just have to think: maybe Lieberman is looking over his shoulder and sees that wall 25 feet away, but he looks right through the glass wall that is only 5 feet behind him. tick-tock Senator Lieberman..

bush, once again, showing he is "the decider"

2006-07-29T12:04:00.000-07:00

the White House, probably working overtime to try and get this to Congress before he loses total control, has put out a new bill. this "terror detainee bill" is an effort to try and get the Pentagon's tribunal system (which wanted to try the Gitmo detainees without going through the civil courts) passed.

the problem with this bill is twofold. first, it directly refutes Hamdan, rendering the Supreme Court verdict invalid. the Hamdan verdict said that detainees were subjected to the Geneva Convention, meaning that they had to be tried in a public court of law. this bill will make will set up tribunals and all people labeled "detainee" would be tried and sentenced in a private forum.

the second problem is the wording of the bill, which, according to legal experts, is essentially the next step toward facism:

U.S. citizens suspected of terror ties might be detained indefinitely and barred from access to civilian courts under legislation proposed by the Bush administration, say legal experts reviewing an early version of the bill.

no trial, no phone call, just jail. the important word in that caption is suspected. this is going to be like the Salem Witch Hunts all over again, with neighbors framing neighbors, or more importantly (and WORSE!), religious people "cleansing" America.

Legal experts said Friday that such language is dangerously broad and could authorize the military to detain indefinitely U.S. citizens who had only tenuous ties to terror networks like al Qaeda.

"That's the big question ... the definition of who can be detained," said Martin Lederman, a law professor at Georgetown University who posted a copy of the bill to a Web blog.

Scott L. Silliman, a retired Air Force Judge Advocate, said the broad definition of enemy combatants is alarming because a U.S. citizen loosely suspected of terror ties would lose access to a civilian court — and all the rights that come with it. Administration officials have said they want to establish a secret court to try enemy combatants that factor in realities of the battlefield and would protect classified information.

The administration's proposal, as considered at one point during discussions, would toss out several legal rights common in civilian and military courts, including barring hearsay evidence, guaranteeing "speedy trials" and granting a defendant access to evidence. The proposal also would allow defendants to be barred from their own trial and likely allow the submission of coerced testimony.

allowing coerced testimony. allowing hearsay evidence. barred from your own trial. no access to evidence within trial. you are a prisoner, with no rights. because you are suspected of possibly having ties with a terrorist network.

welcome to facism, America style.

CT-Sen

2006-07-29T11:28:00.000-07:00

once again, Connecticut takes attention. it's probably the hottest race going on in America today. everybody knew about it. well, almost everybody. apparently, Lieberman is starting to wake up. this could make for something interesting. i understand the tactic of waiting until near the vote because that way the "issues" are fresh in the minds of people who go to the polls and they will vote on what they heard recently. except, this is different. it's not about what people hear last. in this race, the progressive Democrats now have a cause. this is a huge difference from just talking points. the Lamont crew wants to change the system. Lieberman doesn't.

that is really the source of this whole race. it's why Lieberman has gotten most of the money donated to his campaign from upstate New York and Washington, NOT from Connecticut (which Connecticut voters are aware of). Lamont is getting huge support from the state. they are lining up behind him, and he has raised more money in the state than Lieberman could hope for in this race.

earlier this week i was greatly saddened to see Senator Boxer get up and stump for Lieberman. she said she has done it on the principal of women's issues, but most women's rights groups seem to be lining up behind Lamont. she misrepresented what Lieberman has said about the day after pill. women's groups like NOW are amazed:

the National Organization for Women's political action committee backs Lamont partly because he supports requiring all publicly funded hospitals — including Catholic hospitals — to provide day-after emergency contraception to rape victims, while Lieberman doesn't. NOW also has dinged Lieberman for voting in January to let Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's confirmation proceed.

is this the stance you wish to take Senator Boxer? that is what you told me in response to my email, that you are with Joe 100% on all women's issues. what if you were raped and the hospital you went to refused to give you the pill? would you want to walk down (and it's more than 5 blocks to the next hospital on the west coast) to make sure you got that pill? or would you be pissed at the male doctor, who could never fully understand the situation, for refusing to help you? THAT is what your stance should be, Senator Boxer. most of California is pissed at you. personal or party loyalty should never come before the greater good. and if you don't think that helping rape victims receive immediate treatment at the nearest facility is a greater good... you may need to reevaluate yourself. i posed another question to Senator Boxer that was never answered by the staff she assigned to reply: if Lamont agreed with Lieberman on all other issues except for the Iraq war, would you still support Lieberman? too bad she didn't answer.

today i am proud to say that i donated as much as i could to Lamont. i encourage everyone to do the same. Lieberman does not deserve to hold a seat representing the people but promoting his own ideological views. come August 8th, American politics are going to change. August 8th will be the day that the people who say they represent the people of their state will realize that the people power their politics, and their going to take back the government we want it to be.

[UPDATE] it seems that tomorrow, in their editorial section, the New York Times will throw their support behind Lamont instead of Lieberman. if that doesn't start spelling trouble for Lieberman, i don't know what does. congrats to the NYTs for finally understanding that it's the people who matter, not those who think they represent them.

minimum wage & capital gains taxes

2006-07-29T11:08:00.000-07:00

because these two are directly related right? i mean, the more you earn, the more you can leave to your heirs, so not getting taxed on that would be a great thing right? oh wait, the cut in tax doesn't really help if you only have $50,000 to leave to your children. capital gains taxes would certainly dent the number, especially to those who never had that $50k (and this number is already grossly inflated, for how many people really end up leaving more than $25k after all bills/costs are taken care of?) to leave to anybody.

so when the Democrats wanted to raise the minimum wage, the Republicans were upset. this is an election year! raising the minimum wage would strike gold with the voters. but, it's only benefiting the poor! we can't do that. so the Republicans decided to include extra conditions. as AP describes here, the estate tax was pinned onto the bill. so now if the Dems don't vote for it, the Republicans can say that they are against the raise! they literally held the American wage earnings bill HOSTAGE for their own greedy purposes!

i would like to provide examples, but i am not math-based. however, i found a great article breaking down just what this tax cut means to the rich. David Grossman (great guy) has put up a great diary explaining how much Paris Hilton would actually benefit from this bill. he uses Paris Hilton as an example (mostly because the numbers were more readily available, but it's still very striking), and finds that with this new tax cut, she will get another $91 Million (from what she would have gotten before the cut) if she was sole inheritor of about $350 Million.

so what really happened. the way i see the cause and effect goes like this: the average Joe earns more money over time (good thing), has a little more to put into the economy to buy things for himself and his family (good thing). but wait, prices seem to be going up a little bit. why is that? well, now that the CEOs and heirs can get more money, they start charging a little more to gain a little more. and now that they are paying less taxes, the government is either declining further by cutting education and health care programs to make up for the lack of funds (it's not like Joe will be contributing taxes to the point that he can single-handedly repair the budget cuts) to pay for things like Iraq. so now regular taxes start to rise to help make up for it. goodbye extra little bit of money that Joe used to have. that $2.00 pay raise just went straight to taxes. but $2.00 out of the theoretical $91 Million that Paris would get? according to Republicans she should get to keep that. i would dare say that the $91 Million that these new tax cuts give her would make a huge dent in the health care and education budgets.

but no, the rich people who believe they should run the country because they have been doing it for awhile and their families have been doing it don't need to believe in repairing the education and health care budgets. they can afford better stuff anyways, so they don't need to take out health insurance (i know they do, but if you can buy the hospital the insurance is moot), and they can send their children to private schools who actually pay teachers what they are worth (i believe all K-12 teachers should get at least $50k-$75k per year depending on grade). no, the rich obviously don't care about the average citizen of the country, so when time comes and you hear some Republican talking about how they voted for the minimum wage hike, ask them if they would have voted for the wage hike if the estate tax exemption was not included in it. if they say yes, they lie, for they had a chance to vote on it without this tacked-on "extra."

health care? what health care?

2006-07-28T16:08:00.000-07:00

the prices of health care are soaring. good for private insurance companies, bad for the 70% of people in America who can't afford the proper health insurance coverage that they should be getting for free. the prices of hospitalization and any kind of surgery are also rising to the point where a 2nd mortgage on your house will not be enough to cover your heart bypass. so what do we do? outsource.

many companies and individual insrance holders are finding more and more that going to places like India or Thailand to have open heart or hip replacement surgery is cheaper than getting the work done in America. and that includes the plane ticket.

"This is hard-dollar savings," says Jonathan Edelheit, vice president of sales for United Group Programs, which offers a plan to self-insured employers that includes services at Bumrungrad Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand. "If we send someone there for a bypass, the employer saves $60,000 to $70,000. We would consider this a magic bullet."

travel companies are starting up that specifically get flights for medical procedures. it seems to be becoming a lucrative business. there is a term for it: medical tourism." our health system is crumbling around us, and only the high government officials (who can be rushed to Ceder Sinai to get 5 doctors to remove the spliner from the podium when talking to the Senate floor) can afford to go; they can afford to go because it doesn't cost them anything, it costs us. we are paying for health care that is not ours, but our government officials believe that private health care is the way to go. with more and more people going away, it is reasonably assumed that the other countries will get more experience, more money, and eventually be able to surpass the US as a medical leader.

we get less health care for every dollar we spend than many other countries (assuming a 1:1 ratio for currency). that is horrible. especially when we have the ability to fix this problem, if not for the greed. we do not have the best health care in the world; we have the most expensive. a very important distinction.

technology for the masses

2006-07-28T15:48:00.000-07:00

awhile back, the telecoms convinced the American government to give them large subsidies so that they could lay fiber-optic cable all the way to people's homes. that project never really got off the ground, as the telecoms found that even though they would still make money, they would make more if they just left the lines the same but still took the subsidies. the telecoms promised fiber-optic cable and 100Mbps to all major metropolitan areas by 2006, and to most homes by 2008. we never reached that goal, and not even a T3 line holds the same speeds promised (and they are paying in the thousands per month).

alas, Paris looks to do what American telecoms couldn't. Paris will be laying fiber-optic cable direct to the home.

"For €70 ($88) a month, customers participating in the fiber trial get Internet access, digital television broadcasts, and unlimited telephone calls over an optical connection with a theoretical maximum data rate of 2.5Gbps downstream, and 1.2Gbps upstream. The price includes installation and activation of equipment at the customers' homes, and the first two months' access are free."

telecoms, don't tell us that it is impossible. you have been fleecing the government for years, and now it's time to pay up on the promises. we are nowhere near the top when it comes to internet speed/technology. we are intentionally stifling it to make sure that corporations get to pay their CEOs 150 times more than their average worker. expect this to be a huge success for Paris, and expect it to probably be picked up all over Europe, and then, finally, when Americans realize that we've been left in the dust to rot our big heads, the telecoms may actually decide to upgrade their lines.

[on a side note, i know of one company that understands this and is taking plans for the future. Google is buying up lots of dark-fiber (meaning fiber-optic cable that has been laid out but not in use). they have not said why, but if they put out an ISP, half the state of California would join if they could. if they do this, not even Comcast will be able to keep up unless they lay (or buy) their own fiber network.]

the US House of Reps also had another banging day on technology. they passed a bill that says schools and other public institutions should ban social networking and chat sites from access. sounds good. until you get to the title of the bill: Deleting Online Predators Act. again, in true fashion, the title has nothing to do with the bill. the bill does not enact any action against online predators, nor does it give money to police services who try and catch them. all it does is put blockades on the computer to limit where the user can go to online. this is a direct fight against MySpace, which has shown itself to be an easy way to reach out and "touch" [lol] someone. you have to remember something here. social networking sites, by definition, can include blogs. but here is the kicker: what about when the child is at home (i would assume most kids who don't have a computer at school would visit MySpace from their homes)? how does this "delete" child predators? this bill is a farce. all it will do is drive the more technologically advanced (that's right Senators, your kids know a hell of a lot more about computers than you do *ahem* Ted Stevens *cough*) further underground to copycat sites of MySpace that are just as unsafe. this bill, like most others passed lately, paints your children as the guilty party. welcome to facism; guilty before proven anything.

Putin puts the sqeeze on bush

2006-07-28T15:35:00.000-07:00

President Vladimir Putin. president of Russia. home of the "not the dollar" currency. also home to one of the biggest natural gas fields on the planet. a nice tappable source that many countries, especially the US, wants in on.

however not all is well in Moscow. Russia still wants to become a member of the WTO. Putin thinks that it's been reasonably long enough to get a full voice. he's right. but America, or rather bush, doesn't see it that way. so when Russia asked to become a member, it was a big slap in the face when America said it would not support the effort. Putin expected bush to allow it. it was a slap in the face because the G8 meeting this year was held in Russia.

so Putin decided to hit where it hurts. Putin is blocking the American oil companies from trying to get in on the gas field. he will probably reject any bid made by American companies, and sell to Europe or Asia, who also want to be able to tap the fields. by doing this, Putin puts bush in a hard spot. you can't expect to tell a country that they cannot join an organization like the World Trade Organization and then try to bid on creating busniess and trade in that same country. only an idiot like bush would believe that (he wouldn't believe that other people won't listen to him anyways).

either way, i don't see this in any American papers. the link leads to the UK Guardian. its sad that the American media couldn't care less that bush just costs America a good source of gas energy. but then again, he's not a gas man, he's an oil man. looks like we'll be in Iraq for awhile longer.

nuclear attack threats

2006-07-28T15:25:00.000-07:00

so we all know that FAUX news tends to be, well, a bit on the conservative side. they do try to keep up appearances, most notably on a little show called Hannity & Colmes, supposedly a "real" Dem and a real Republican. the Dem (Colmes) is farther to the right than Lieberman. so much for fair and balanced.

anyways, yesterday on the show they had Cham Dallas, director for the Center for Mass Destruction Defense. apparently, Mr. Dallas believes that a nuclear strike on American soil is eminent. so the new message is that nuclear weaponry is being used to attack the US and the new round of fear that this brings to people who don't want to think for themselves will make them flock to the polls and vote Republican.

but let me make one thing very clear: if there is a nuclear attack on American soil, sole responsibility for the attack will rest with the Republicans. they have control of everything. every piece of government, and most media services, are owned by them. they have total control over the national security of our country. anything bad happens they are to blame. yes, if nothing happens then they are responsible for that too, but then why spread the fear? the fear is a control device for masses who, again, don't wish to think for themselves. America, WAKE UP! we can stand strong if we stand together instead of giving up ourselves to "feel" safe.

Wal-Mart tries to "dump" Germany

2006-07-28T14:58:00.000-07:00

Germany has shown itself to be a very people-oriented country. Wal-Mart had the bright idea awhile back to try and take their economy killing stores overseas to Europe. however, they encountered something that they haven't seen in America. Resistance.

it seems that the "social dumping" that Wal-Mart is so well known for in the US just doesn't fly there. the workers were organized (at least more so than here) and more importantly there was no "underclass" that is willing to do any job just for the crumbs from the table, so to speak. Wal-Mart tried to pull out their bag of tricks but was routinely put down by the local unions and by the common sense of the workers not to be treated like they were in a "circus."

but i just love this quote from the article:

Chicago's decision to establish a 10 dollar minimum wage for big box store workers and a 3 dollar hourly minimum level for other benefits has effectively exposed the company's weakness. It was going to pay its South Side workers only 7.25 dollars as an entry wage and has now declared that this will probably remain their only store in the city.

Wal-Mart deserves to go down in flames. yes they give cheap stuff. everyone knows it. but the major problem why Wal-Mart does not deserve to exist is because they treat their employees like expendable commodities (which, in America, they have proven time and again) instead of the most important part of the business to care about. take an example from Costco. they may be a little more expensive, but i'll shop there before Wal-Mart any day. at least the people actually like working there.

oil and the hot weather

2006-07-27T16:02:00.000-07:00

oil prices are still rising. many are looking at crude prices and wondering when it will hit $100. it seems that the general feeling is that it is no longer a possibility, its a reality that will soon hit. news comes today that Shell has been forced to lower production of gasoline because of the war and the availability of crude. however, Shell also posted another quarter of record profits. Shell shares rose 2.24%, with the company posting a rise in profits of 36%.

"It is a very good performance for Shell ... even though production was lower. High oil prices obviously work well for the company," Jaap Barendregt, at FBS Bankiers said.

it also seems that global warming is still being debated (which is just sad). it also turns out that many of the opposition to the "claim" of global warming was based upon the findings of Peter Doran and his collegues, who wrote a paper detailing what was happening in Antarctica from 1986 to 2000. in today's NYT Op-Ed, he puts tries to make it stop, believing that even though what he found in Antarctica at that time disputed global warming, it was only in PART of Antarctica. and even then he believes that global warming is really happening. to top it off, he makes sure to let everyone know that he wants his name taken off the list of those who dispute global warming. thank you, Mr. Doran, for having the courage to speak up when your work is being used for something that you don't support.

election cycle

2006-07-27T15:39:00.000-07:00

it must be the elction cycle that is making everyone so testy. or maybe it's the summer heat. either way, politics is getting to be a dirty business. with a nod to the movie The Godfather, a NY councilwoman found a severed horse's head in her swimming pool. if things are turning this nasty at the local level, what must bush be waking up to!? *gasp* *shudder* the horror! still, a severed horse's head seems to be going a little to far. no need for intimidation unless you are not rich enough to buy off the government worker. and even then, a face-to-face talk should accomplish more than a severed horse's head.

going west, Montana Senator Conrad Burns had a couple of his own. with 92,000 acre fires burning in Montana, Virginia firefighters were called in to help. afterwards, Senator Burns had some words to say on the issue. but instead of taking it up with the fire bosses or with the people who coordinated it, he walks up to the aftual firefighters who were waiting for rides home and point-blank tells them "they did a poor job" of fighting the fire. there is absolutely no excuse for this whatsoever. how dare he go up to the people who just helped SAVE his state from fire and tell them that they did a poor job. especially after they just finished! Senator Burns, the linked article may play it down, but you don't deserve to represent anybody in any state if this is the attitude you have towards good samaritans. maybe next time that wage hike comes around you may decide to speak up in favor (since you seemed so surprised that the firefighters weren't paid more).

up in arms, or maybe it's time to hide

2006-07-27T14:53:00.000-07:00

the US government has shown that it can play both sides of the field when it comes to being challenged in court. Illinois has already dismissed the lawsuit against AT&T in that state, and California seems that it will be headed toward granting the lawsuit the ability to move forward. however in Missouri, the balance is off. the US government has enacted a civil lawsuit against the state officials, alleging

"that the State Defendants do not have the authority to seek confidential and sensitive federal government information and thus cannot enforce the subpoenas they have served on the telecommunications carriers."

what kind of bullshit is this!? if the head officials of the state wish to know what is going on in their state, and must bring a lawsuit to do it, then they damn well have the authority to seek confidential and sensitive federal government information. the federal government exists at the behest of states, not the other way around. ~~bush's personal attorney~~ AG Alberto Gonzales needs to get his head out of his ass.

on a better note, more and more people are distancing themselves from bush. Lt. Govenor Steele from Maryland was cited as an anonymou source in an article that said that the new "scarlet letter" was "R." when it was confirmed that he made the statements, he told reporters that the conversation was off the record. however, in an email obtained by the Maryland Democratic Party, it shows his office was notified of the article to make any corrections. no corrections were made, and no objections voiced. it's called ACCOUNTABILITY, Mr. Steele. Americans are starting to like it. get used to it or get out.

however, even during the elction cycle the Dems are going to have to go to work. i put my resume up for consideration for The Patriot Corps, a little project being initiated by Senator Feingold (they are looking for 20 people, not 15). i highly encourage others to do something like this. donate, volunteer, just get the message out! this is all so that people will be more educated about the elections coming up. Iraq is a hot-button issue. we need to push these kinds of issues in the faces of all politicians. this needs to happen because of things like spin, hooplah, and low voter turnout:

The White House sees the risk [of staying the course in Iraq] but is banking, in part, on the Democrats' history of not capitalizing on such moments [of weakness]. Bush advisers point to 2004, when the situation in Iraq appeared particularly dire, and yet the president won reelection and Republicans retained both houses of Congress.

Moreover, they note, Bush has three months to paint the Middle East conflict in terms of his vision of the fight against terrorism.

i would like to say something like "it's time to armor ourselves with truth" but that just doesn't quite get to my heart. the new slogan that i think will touch everybody: it's time to temper our actions with common sense.

more Iraq

2006-07-27T13:20:00.000-07:00

i was thinking of combining the two posts about Iraq, but then i realized that this really does need it's own space. we already know that the Iraq war has not gone the way bush wish it did. the Pentagon is sending more troops to Iraq and keeping those that are due to come home there as well. and that is after pulling all troops from across Iraq back to Baghdad. this is hard news for families hoping their loved ones will return, and even worse news for those troops who have been stationed in Iraq for some time. and on the heels of this announcement, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki asks the US to send not just troops but MORE MONEY using the tired rhetoric of how terrorism is against the world so we should stop it there (which obviously hasn't happened yet, and we've thrown BILLIONS down the drain trying).

the Washington Post gives us an updated view on what some soldiers are thinking about their morale levels. you really must read the article. i can't do it justice with my crappy rhetoric. but just to give you that nudge; the title of the article is: "Waiting to Get Blown Up"

if this is how our soldiers are thinking, then they need to get out of there. bush would like to believe that there is a tangible "enemy" to destroy, but it seems more and more that in this situation there is no 'cutting the head off the snake' to kill the movement. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Al Qaeda "leader" in Iraq was killed, and the violence rose instead of falling flat.

we are NOT winning the war. get that through your heads and come up with a plan to change (that's for Dems AND Republicans); "staying the course" can no longer be considered an option.

Iraq

2006-07-27T13:01:00.000-07:00

yup, still there. the country is, at the moment, whole and, well, whole. escalating violence and multiple tens of people killed per day never seem to make the news as much here in America. yes, the media is controlled or doesn't want to look like the fools they are by not reporting all of this and letting the lie that Iraq is on it's way up run rampant.

take this nice post on GOP.com about how the Iraqi people "overwhelmingly unite behind Al-Maliki," the newly elected Prime Minister. sounds great right? it even gives you the link to the original story at The Washington Times. however, it seems that our good posters at GOP.com didn't decide to read the rest of the article:

..."nearly 80 percent of respondents in the largely Sunni region around Kirkuk and Mosul said they were "very unconfident" that the new government would succeed.

Fifty-nine percent overall rated the country's economic situation as "poor," and 75 percent gave the same rating for Iraq's overall security."

so yes, maybe the Iraqi people are lining up behind Al-Maliki because he is the current figurehead, but those numbers above come from a poll done from June 14-24. thats a little more recent than touting the "great new democratic government of Iraq" the month before. it seems alot of things have changed since then. GOP.com, thank you for showing us how to pick select parts of an article; next time make sure that article doesn't also refute you on the next page.

i also have this great link to a diary at DKos. yes it is a very left-wing blog, an i may not agree with some of it, but it has some great insights sometimes, just like Powerline. however, this diary puts the Iraq war into a perspective that people within the US can understand. subject for comparison: If California was Iraq.

enough is enough

2006-07-24T21:40:00.000-07:00

ok. its official. Israel has officially gone too far. now i've said before that this whole incedent is overblown and Israel had too much wiggle room. bush wasn't stepping up for anything, and he and Rice are ignoring all calls for a cease-fire. so the question is will they listen to this? this news hasn't hit the big media (probably for tomorrow's papers) but what will the reaction be? most Americans were probably content to lok at the incedent as something that is somewhat normal in the Middle East, but even Americans have a big heart for the Red Cross people, especially when the word "volunteer" is used. still, Israel may have just hung itself with the world watching, and with the bushites soon to be out of office, i'm not so sure that Americans still believe that protecting the state of Israel is in America's best interest. hell, i'm not so sure that i believe it's in America's best interest, but that's only based on my assumption that if we throw the kind of money we are throwing at Iraq at developing new fuel we can do it pretty quickly (believable). if it's impossible to do that (and with this kind of government it is; counterproductive to his personal profits, you know) then having Israel as an ally (and the biggest nuclear power over there so we don't have to carry all our heavy nukes) would be very beneficial to America/bush, and we should protect our allies. still, the destruction of Red Cross people and equipment is a thing that should be condemned by all leaders. bush should hold Israel accountable and finally tell them to "stop this shit."

Feingold's making more waves

2006-07-24T15:08:00.000-07:00

what's gonna happen this time!? it's the issue that (frankly) i've been waiting for for awhile! Feingold is pushing a series of Medical Reform bills that will lead to universal health care for all citizens! well, that actually depends on the state (check out the fact sheet for more information), and how they want to proceed with it, but still! the idea is out there! the plan has been pushed forward. now we wait for the critics, and do just like the Republicans. as soon as they attack: "so you are saying that you don't want to give the citizens that you represent health care?" keep repeating that like a mantra and browbeat the opposite side into either saying they don't want to give citizens free health care or make them go on record and join your side.

THANK YOU SENATOR FEINGOLD!

it's time to Die-Bold

2006-07-24T14:38:00.000-07:00

Diebold. what a name for a company. methinks that they had one too many. either way, the problem with this company has been ongoing for so long now, it feels like old news. way old. which it is. we KNOW that the machines are extremely flawed. its not a secret. tests have been done that SHOW the vulneribility unquestioningly! the state of Maryland's House of Delegates voted UNANIMOUSLY to not use the Diebold machines in their elections. common sense.

Lincoln's Law, or the "Whistleblower Law," allows a private citizen to bring suit against a company in the name of the United States. on July 13, 2006, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. did just that. the allegation: false advertising. Diebold told Congress that their voting machines were unhackable, and it was said nobody could do it. obviously (as above) that's not true. the machines were extremely easy to hack and Diebold even admitted they left a back door open for "updates." Kennedy claims to have witnesses deep within the company, who can testify that Diebold witheld the knowledge of the security flaws to procure government contracts.

i suppose that it's easiest to end with a quote that doesn't need a long explaination. this is how out of touch with reality the spokesman of Diebold seems to be, and if it's true, then why in the world would they get a contract for something as core to our government as voting?

"For there to be a problem here, you're basically assuming a premise where you have some evil and nefarious election officials who would sneak in and introduce a piece of software," he said. "I don't believe these evil elections people exist."

CT-Sen

2006-07-24T14:19:00.000-07:00

it's usually always fun to write about Senator Lieberman. he always gives so much to work with and his face! its just so simple sometimes. however, i write about this now with more of a heavy heart. for things are not well in Connecticut. it turns out that Bill Clinton (controlled by the DNC, maybe through his wife) will be helping to endorce Lieberman, and he will try to give Lieberman a great big push. this is just sad on so many levels, but most importantly: how can someone support another when that other helped destroy not just your career but your sense of honor and self-worth? Lieberman did exactly that to Clinton (yes, even Feingold said that he was dissapointed in Clinton, but Lieberman did it from the floor of the senate to someone in his own party, Feingold disagreed on the level of honor, away from politics). i can only come up with one reason why Clinton should stand on a stump for Lieberman: it's the money. follow the money. is it in the best interest of the DNC for someone like Lamont to come in and shake things up by using *gasp* the will of the people as a weapon? of course not. but Lieberman won't shake things up. he'll stay the course (as he's been wont to do) and take direction from the DNC, which will in turn try and wonder why they don't gain control of Congress because Lieberman is everyone's favorite Democrat on the hill. *sigh* Clinton, you could have saved face, but not only did you get stuffed your political career because of this guy, you are now taking it up the ass and asking for more by helping him retain his seat.

i'm even more saddened by the appearance of Senator Boxer, who i was sure would come down with i-missed-my-train-itis. let's just get one thing straight, Senator Boxer; just because you are popular here in CA doesn't mean that a whole lot of people watch you directly lie to contituents about issues you obviously haven't researched (with video!). when she said that Lieberman "never said that a woman had to go to another hospital, but rather that if there was a hospital next door they should walk and get help for the patient if they don't do that treatment." WHAT A LOAD OF BULLSHIT! Senator Boxer, i don't know how many people will see that video, but i do know that you are about to receive a deluge of mail, and probably a lot of hate mail from women who were betrayed by you when you made that statement. if you don't understand something said in plain english, then maybe you've been listening to spin way to long. there is NO excuse for what you have done besides ignorance, which is a currency that you cannot afford to gain. you still have time to recant what you said. as for me, i hope planned parenthood or whatever pro-choice groups that support you give you extra hell, and make you work like a dog to beg back fogiveness. if you don't want to know the truth, that's fine, but don't spread the false claim of supporting something that, if you actually paid attention and read the words, goes against a lot of what you preach. go in peace to CT... don't come back if you are the same.

constitutional apeshit

2006-07-24T13:19:00.000-07:00

the ABA meets next month in Hawaii. they do this anually (i knew there was a reason i wanted to be a lawyer). however, this year there seems to be a more somber presentation. today, an ABA task force that looks at the legality of certain issues released a report on the signing statements the president has been issuing [.pdf]. the report talks about signing statements used within the government (only the president can use them) and the past history of use. as it turns out, there have been a total of 600 signing statments before the current bush's presidency. in the 1.5 terms in office, that number has risen to 1400. that's right, our president has signed over 800 signing statements into laws more than all past presidents combined.

you really have to ask yourself: what has been going on that 1 president needs to sign 120% more statements than all other presidents in the history of our nation? there is no way in hell that these will be used to protect America, as all bush's signing statements say that he is allowed to interpret the law as needed based on his view of what the nation needs as national security. in other words, he can ignore laws that are passed because he writes in a little line that says he can.

i'm glad the ABA finally took good notice and unleashed a task force. of course the answer is obvious: signing statements, especially in this gross quantity, directly undermine the constitution. if you can ignore all laws, then the consititution doesn't matter. oh yeah, bush thinks that "it's just a goddamn piece of paper."

my epiphany over this article: i'm really really glad i chose to work in law. it's wonderful to see a Congress who didn't know what they were doing being trounced when they finally realize it got out of their control, and to top it off, you have the judiciary telling them they've not only lost control, if they don't do something soon there won't be a way to regain it. just like the judiciary to sit it out and peck at both sides until they bleed to death, but what fun being a vulture! this is great analogy toward society - different types of governments live and die, but the law will always be there to pick your bones. muahahahaha

what the hell is "natural marriage"?

2006-07-24T12:14:00.000-07:00

so there's this guy. his name is Michael Medved. apparently, he is tired of people who bash on gay marriage of using the term "traditional marriage." so he's come up with something different. he says that people should use the term "natural marriage" to describe the union between a man and a woman. however, i can think of many problems with this!

first off: MARRIAGE IS NOT NATURAL. it is something that our species came up with and has been tried to be used as a controlling device (women didn't seem to have many rights "traditionally" and were "given" away as property) as well as an enforcement for other beliefs (mainly religion). so Mr. Medved, let's just call it what you really want to call it: Christian Marriage (and maybe some Jews who support you).

second thing: from what i understand, the big argument is that our children will be confused about.. what exactly? sexual orientation? because homosexuality is wrong? then why are so many gays religious? why are so many religious people closet gays? if you can't love and support your children and respect their life decisions, doesn't that make you a bad person? yes, it may make you a great Christian (in accordance with neo-conservatism) but i thought Christianity was more about the mutual respect and peacefullness that we should all share, rather than making sure that your son/daughter doesn't embarass you in front of your congregation (which would be selfish, or to use another word: vain; and thats a sin!).

third thing: i have yet to see a child who has grown up with 2 mothers or 2 fathers turn into something that the "devil" would embrace as his own or confused about anything, especially sexual orientation (actually, the only one i know from personal experience is already married and has a cute little girl, and he doesn't seem confused at all). there is the possibility that because there have not been enough children who have been raised to adulthood to study that there may be some ramifications of this, but there are ramifications about growing up with a single mother/father too. at least in this relationship the child will get double the care and love. if this is an issue of stability, how does the statistic that 19% of long-term gay partnerships would end in "divorce" over the 46% of heterosexual marriages that end in divorce sound? this would actually show that gay relationships would have a more stable platform for raising a child. would it really be bad to give 2 people who say they love each other the ability to file taxes under the same name? and how dare you, Mr. Medved, insinuate that these relationships cannot be "eternal." apparently they work better for longer.

mostly, the only thing that i really see is one side spewing hate about the other because, well, they just don't live the same way. if you oppose them because you don't agree with homosexuality, why? if you have to bring god into a homosexuality argument then you've automatically lost - why should i bow down to your god and do like you do? for prizes after i'm dead here? i'll deal with it when i get there.

people of America, rise off your hatred and understand that change comes before us all. "traditionally" marriage was made of a man and woman. "traditionally" we used to sacrafice virgins to the volcano god. if one tradition can change, why can't the other one (if you say that you don't agree with it i would like to point out that i doubt the volcano god was "ok" with stopping his 12-year-old sacrafices). "tradition" changes to become new traditions, it just takes time. most importantly, realize that marriage is a CHOICE. how can you choose to not let them get married on the belief that you would be uncomfortable. i'm unconfortable that faux news is a widely accepted reputeable news forum (except when they tried to control AP reporters), but that doesn't mean it should be banned. just because Christianity may be the major religion in America doesn't mean it is the national religion or belief. be OPEN!

and i would just like to say a few words about the "islamo-nazi" shit in the article as well. this is just pure hate and evil spilling out. and i am highly agitated that talking about Islamic extremists leads you to think of gay marriage Mr. Medved. try to get out of the house more. the Islamic extremists you label are a minority within the religion. the nazis were a totally different class. it was political, not religious. yes, they did horrible things but they did it as a national identity. the Islamic extremists also do horrible things, but they do it at the behest of what they believe in (hmm, kinda like you wanting to ban gay marriage! analogies are fun!). individual interpretations should not impact the group as a whole. that would be like me labeling all Christians "neo-conservatives" when in actually many are moderate.

i'll just leave with one final thought: Mr. Medved, your words sicken me.

its Bolton time

2006-07-24T11:55:00.000-07:00

at least that's what bush should do. but alas, bush will sing some nice praises and maybe even give him some new political medal made up on the spot and superglued to his jacket. how in the world does this keep happening. you want to know why Bolton will be either fully placed into the position or put there by another presidential appointment? because the media has nicely buried any news for the past 2 years that Bolton has been a supreme ass at the UN. they bury it because they know the American people don't really care (seriously, it's a token gesture when the ambassador from the world's [at this time] superpower on a non-permanent appointment blows in and demands changes his way or he won't bother to work with you). if he thought that after a year that people in the UN would "warm up" to his ways or start agreeing with him he was sorely mistaken. bush doesn't care about the UN, just his own agenda, so why should Bolton be anything close to nice? Bolton is the number 1 muscle in bush's internationally integrated mafia. does he deserve the appointment? hell no. anybody who doesn't seem to have any tact has no business calling themselves an ambassador, especially for a nation that supposedly purports peace and equal rights as a badge of honor. if he represents American honor, i want none of it.

on the other hand, Bolton does seem to be a master at question dodging until absolutely necessary. Tim Russert rips into Bolton all about stem-cell research and if he agreed with bush's decision and reasoning to veto the research bill. Bolton becomes a little unglued because Russert seems to be cutting him off and jumping in when he doesn't have an answer or he's just repeating talking points instead of opinion. kudos to Russert, it's nice to see Bolton being the one squirming rather than looking like an angry drunk Irish (maybe Welsh?) yelling at the telivision.. which is turned off.

because Lieberman is easy

2006-07-21T15:56:00.000-07:00

i leave you with this quote by Joshua Marshall:

"Following up on that, I think the Lieberman skeptics are really on to something when they point out that in the Kondrackes and others there is this sense that for a well-liked-in-the-beltway senior pol like Lieberman to face a primary challenge is somehow a genuine threat to the foundations of the system. You'd think he was a life peer, if not an hereditary noble, suddenly yanked out of the House of Lords and forced to run for his seat like they do in the Commons."

for the nerds and geeks... my friends

2006-07-21T15:37:00.000-07:00

technology is a great thing. from those great solar panels, to the little electric cars, which all look like glorified toys to me. until now. finally, there is an electric car that will actually accelerate at the speeds that people really travel on the freeway. the people who like to go real fast real quick now have a cost-effective way of doing so. or at least they will after a couple of years when the company actually makes a car the rest of us can afford. still, great breakthrough to making everybody aware that electric cars may be able to hold their own in the fast lane very soon.

and now, we can also be a couch potato forever! CinemaNow launched their new download and burn service recently, allowing you to (i'm guessing) buy a select few DVDs which you can download and burn. the catch it seems is that you may have to use their burning software to actually do the burn, which may cause time codes which may limit the amount of times you play or the amount of days you can play. however, i think that this is a huge step in the right direction for movie rental places (*ahem* iTunes *choke*). cater to the consumer! the burn to DVD section looks like crap now, but once they put good stuff in, the idea will take off and be very successful.

and now, the elephant in the room

2006-07-21T15:16:00.000-07:00

or rather, overseas. so now the middle east really is a hotspot of activity. yes, Israel's overblown response and Hezbollah's reactions to them are going nuts. but what about Iraq? remember Iraq? that country we tore apart because the guy ruling/leading it "tried to kill [bush's] daddy"? time to take off the rose-colored glasses and open people's eyes.

Iraq is in a Civil War, and America caused it.

the Iraqi police are falling apart, being infiltrated by secretarian movements and breaking into factions. the green zone is basically non-existent. no Senator is going to risk their lives over there, and the President will certainly stay far away from anything remotely dangerous. but this isn't really much news. many knew this was coming, and any military leader worth his shit should've known it too.

but wait, there's more. the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) hasn't been done since 2004 which was brushed off as "pessimistic." it turns out that the CIA has been increasingly asking to form one of these reports for the past 2 years, but have been stonewalled by the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte, who knows the report before the Novermber elections will be the nail in the coffin for many Republicans, especially bush. the breaking civil war will be all over the news very soon anyways (there is no way the Republicans can convince the media to stop covering Iraq enough to not make this a big issue), and Senator Frist has already used those words; although the way he sounds it's like nobody has been talking about it and he's the big man for bringing it up. be a man, admit you did wrong. then go accept a Democratic proposal to bring troops home instead of slamming a copycat with your name attached trhough Congress.

now to get people oriented

2006-07-21T14:33:00.000-07:00

san francisco. great town. lots of great people. big gay population. home to the place that is starting the fight against "gay panic" defenses in the courts. this is a great thing. getting angry at gay people is just prejudice. i would like to dissect the word "homophobia".

homo=homosexual. pretty safe bet.

from dictionary.com:

pho·bi·a (fb-)
n.

1. A persistent, abnormal, or irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid the feared stimulus.
2. A strong fear, dislike, or aversion.

now, the funny thing here is i don't see anything about anger in this. just fear. from what i understand, phobias don't cause people to lash out in anger, but rather freeze with fear or go stir crazy. but nothing about anger. the word "avoid" seems to stick out very prominently to me. to avoid something is definitely not controntational. now prejudice lashes out with anger all the time, is very confrontational and it is never driven by fear. even if you did get tricked into having sex with the same sex it does not mean that your escape from ebarassment can be shunted to manslaughter. at least have the decency to designate it a hate crime. in either case, "gay panic" or "homophobia" is no legitimate excuse for harming someone else. do not force your religious ideals (i assume this has a religious root for i do not recall anybody who is non-religious who disliked gay people) on others.

sneaky, evil and stupid

2006-07-21T13:05:00.000-07:00

they are like the 3 wise men of bushes fantasy. so after news came out that bush personally blocked the probe into the evesdropping program there would be a swift reminder that the judicial branch does care that they have the final say of legal issues.

Yesterday Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the surveillance lawsuit can move forward in the courts and not be struck down by the "state secrets" motion. in essence, he said that the program was hardly a secret anymore, and

dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security.

its about time the judicial branch got on the bandwagon. it only took a direct assault on their powers of oversight.

on another bad side of bush, he has once again nominated Bolton as UN Abassador. apparently, a Dem decided to cross the line. shame on you, Senator Voinovich. especially because you felt like this before. Bolton does not deserve the appointment, and he never has. bush snuck around and appointed him on recess, and you just let it be. you should still be just as outraged.

stem cells veto

2006-07-21T12:35:00.000-07:00

as we get into deeper understanding of the bill that was just vetoed, it seems as though there is a strom brewing. Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa has some great words for the president: "you are not our moral ayatollah." i doubt anyone could have said it better. but there are specific reasons why this holds more creditbility than just a face attack on religion. (there is a nice video of his floor speech on his website in the right hand column).

the bill itself has 3 big points that it tries to get in hand. the first is something that helps tighten the eithical ramifications: no new embryos will be created for the purpose of using them for stem cell research; only those already frozen and being prepped for destruction can be used. the second is another tightener: written permission from both sides of the genetic code (the parents) of the embryo will be required before these embryos can be used for the purpose of stem cell research. and third is to protect those same genetic givers: all embryos covered by this bill will be donated by those who wish so. no monetary value can be placed on these, and they cannot be "sold" for the purpose of stem cell research.

so in all, not only is this going to be ethically moral (is it moral to destroy embryos, either by total destruction (i.e. i don't want to pay the lab to hold my frozen embryos anymore because i've already had a child/do not want anymore children) or by using them for stem cell research?), it will also help protect humans from becoming "slave embryo growers." i agree totally with Senator Harkin. bush is not my moral ayatollah. if he was, i think that no matter how much praying we do would save us from the fires of hell. if you can't tell what's right or wrong by this (even staunch conservative Republicans support this bill!) then you (as i've said before, and as Senator Harkin explained) can't support in-vitro fertilization. and if you do know anybody that has destroyed frozen embryos, then they are the same kind of murder as someone who gets an abortion.

destruction is distruction. at least one of these destructions can possibly benefit all of man (and woman) -kind. now, ask yourself the moral question: if they will both be destroyed, but one will be destroyed for benefit and the other for waste, which is better? the unborn child would be gone in either case. but if you look at it religiously, would god have wanted people to help people, or just destroy them?

on the plus side, Ahnold has decided to go around bush and give $150 Million to stem cell research in CA. smart move, very smart. but (and this is a tangent) that still won't help come November, when everyone realizes you helped make CA dumber than before. but at least we'll be healthy dumb people! still, good job on getting behind the voters.

fun conspiracy theory alert: Ahnold did this for Hollywood, cuz what actress (or actor *cough* Connery *cough cough*) wouldn't like a glob of something that would make you look younger! i bet Goldie Hawn if behind the whole movement! lol

you want to leave? i hope you have $$$

2006-07-19T15:39:00.000-07:00

so it turns out that the American government really is the ultimate capatalistic society, especially towards its own citizens.

the US Embassy in Beirut has put this wonderful notification for American citizens up on their website. what does it say? why, it says that if you want be evacuated from Lebanon by the US government, its gonna cost ya some cash.

oh i'm sorry, we don't take any credit cards. and of course there will be a $50 return check fee (double because it's an international transaction). what's that? no money? why, that's OK! we'll give you a loan. only a small interest rate. your first born. but that's worth not dying right? but, but, the Canadians are covering the evacuation costs of their citizens! too bad. according to the state department, its "the law" that they must charge "reasonable commercial air fare" for all evacuees. even if you are dead. that's right, i said dead. you still gotta pay the same price as an evacuee. because, you know, the us government needs to make sure they get reimbursed for the crappy dry roasted peanuts (at least give em honey roasted!).

go capitalism!

UPDATE: so according to CNN, Mz. Rice has waived the fee to flee (probably after bowing to pressure from Pelosi). however, i highly doubt that this information has gotten to the US embassy in Beirut; even if it has, the government will probably say: "well, we got you out of Lebanon now you have to pay your way from here." we'll just have to see if any of the families who are brought back are eventually charged.

who you callin' guilty?

2006-07-19T15:22:00.000-07:00

a woman gets arrested for attempted murder. while she is in jail, she get's fired from her job. months pass, the woman is aquitted of the crime. self-defense, say the jurors. case closed. but alas, the woman has no more job. Ms. Spangler is suing DaimlerChrysler Corp on a discriminatory charge, saying that they fired her to protect their image. should someone be presumed guilty by the workforce based on an allegation/charge?

some states (CA, WI, HI) have laws that prohibit employers from discriminating due to arrest records. can't even talk about them, let alone base a decision on one. on the other hand, NY has a law that specifically allows emplyers to consider pending criminal charges in making employment decisions. both states argue that their laws are better for the people of their states.

i'm more willing to believe that the NY kind of laws are more to protect the businesses, while the CA laws are there to try and protect the actual citizens. is it all about big business? not really. the one point that really comes off in my mind is this: in the criminal justice system you are innocent until proven guilty; but in the private sector/employment context, that presumption cannot apply. this holds true because business decisions are based off of the success of the company, and hiring someone with a possible violent background can be bad for business. while in the eyes of the law we must prove that you are bad, a business should have the ability to make decisions based on whether or not they feel the applicant will make a good employee. however, there should be a clause within this sentiment. you may make a hiring decision based upon this, but a firing decision should definitely wait until they have a conviction (a company should always stand behind the employees they employ on the grounds that they should believe that they made a good decision in hiring this person).

we'll just have to wait to see what happns. the case is Spangler v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 06-073490-CZ (Oakland Co., Mich., Cir. Ct.)

CT-Sen

2006-07-19T14:24:00.000-07:00

its fun to talk about Lieberman. and Lamont. but its more fun to make fun of Lieberman. it turns out that someone asked Noah Kores if Lieberman could run as a Republican (Mr. Kores is his campaign deputy press secretary). it seems as though Mr. Kores could not or has not answered the question. this is a poor tactic. Lieberman would have to say no to that, or risk losing everything. this question does not seem to extend from the Lamont camp but rather out of the blogosphere, but in the end this may serve more to make the race more fragmented and allow Lieberman to gain ground on Lamont. tsk.

on another note, Lamont is faltering slightly due to recent revelations that he owns stock in Halliburton. Lamont's answer? his money manager is responsible. while this may seem logical, it does 2 bad things to Lamont's campaign. 1) it shows that he is a little out of touch with money issues ($50,000 is a small investment to him) that are facing his proposed constituents, and that fact he is trying to blame his money manager seems to show that he is not aware of what happens with his money and/or its not important for him to know. if your name is attached to something, it is YOUR responsibility, Mr. Lamont. 2) it allows Lieberman a big attack point: if you are against war profiteering, why own stock in those companies that are engaged in war profiteering? again, he can try to blame his financial manager but in the end it is Lamont who is making money.

to refute that point, however, if you were a financial manager 5 years ago, buying stock in big oil and companies like Halliburton was a seriously smart move. Lamont can score big points by selling off his Halliburton (and other such questionable stock) and promise to put all profits from the stock towards his campaign to show that he is serious about becoming a representative and leave behind the money-making schemes. i do, however, have to give props to Lamont for disclosing all this info to begin with. it's not neccessary, and if anyone looks closely it's very obvious that he did not do this to try and make money for the election; he may even have genuinely not known about the buy. that doesn't excuse him (which is why he should sell the stock), so he'll have some tough questions and accusations coming at him, but something tells me that Lamont will sit and actually answer the questions and try to explain himself rather than passing it to his campaign spokesman (something i believe Lieberman would do).

not everyone is happy

2006-07-19T12:56:00.000-07:00

and most people won't be for awhile. not only is the middle class eroding away (thank you very much Republicans AND Democrats (seriously, when you get paid over $150k/year and actually only work for like 90 days, you are helping take money away from the middle class (especially if you keep allowing auto raises!)). and when 40% of the population believe wages suck, then you have a light problem. still think the economy is bouncing back? check how much money you have in your pocket.. can you really afford that $1 double cheeseburger or do you need to pay rent?

what's that? you mean you have a better job because of your education? that means that the government must be giving money to the schools! oh wait a second... $100 million? is that it? i mean, you would think that they would give that $100 million plus the $15.4 billion that bush cut from the No Child Left Behind budget. i'm happy those 28,000 students will be able to get a better education, but i'm saddened by the fact that they will only get that education by abandoning their current underfunded school system. now it's time to start on the other 15 million kidsin underfunded education programs.

and lo and behold stem cell research is on the horizon! oh wait, false alarm. it looks like stem cell research, something that 2/3 of America thinks is important research for the future (PDF document), isn't something that the bush administration believes the American people want. oh well, at least those great right-wing zealots will be appeased by this. and just to put this out there, why should the bush administration allow in-vitro embryo farming? wouldn't that be almost the same as abortion (they are little lives, just not attached to a mother ("grower") yet)? shouldn't the government believe that the health and care and life of their born/living/breathing citizens rather than those we cannot be sure will be born (complications can happen at any time to force the loss of the unborn child). ah well, at least we can look back upon this time and say that our government will force you to keep a child but doesn't care if you are maimed afterwards, or if there are methods to help. i mean, it's not like bush needs those stem cells for his body. and even if he did, well, he can certainly afford the Mayo clinic (*gasp* an American elected official using health care services that aren't American!?). maybe if we were able to use stem cells our health care system will rapidly become better (under the assumption that newer technology forces the costs down on old technology).

although throwing a bone to his rabid zealots, the regular conservatives of the Republican party are becoming increasingly angrier at the direction of the administration on foreign policiy. hey, wait a second, weren't THEY the ones calling for randmon things like invasions and killings and spreading democracy their way? so how can you get angry when your elected official listens to you!? this is YOUR mess, these were YOUR ideas. welcome to the consequences of your actions. FLIP-FLOPPERS UNITE under the RED flag!

and just to wrap up the foreign policiy bullshit, here is the Republican party machine, spewing more ideas on what America should do, following closely with the utterly failed plan of liberating Iraq. let's do the same to Iran! what in the world makes anybody at faux news think that Iran would welcome a US attack to force a regime change?? and what would happen after the start of the regime change? the same thing we did to Iraq? to counter, yes, there will always be someone in a country that would like to have regime change, but to steal an analogy: i don't like the current regime in America but that doesn't mean i would welcome an invasion from China to change it. when the stupidity of the people who run our government runs out, i don't think it will be better. i think we won't have a government. and that "welcoming with open arms" stuff sounds a lot like what was said right before we invaded Iraq. *ahem* i'm still waiting for my flowers of thanks.

and just to add to the howling, THANK YOU SF Chronicle for printing the pictures of bush's manhandling and not wimping out like the LA Times who's reporter obviously cannot tell a grimace from a smile. or even an UNCOMFORTABLE smile, if you want to reeeeaaaallllyyy stretch the tension-filled moment. go SF Chronicle! front page above the fold!

its been awhile

2006-07-19T11:00:00.000-07:00

oh man what a week. it's been crazy over here, so although there was no lack of info for updating and ridicule, i could not jump on. everything kind of conspired to keep me offline.

first, i switched out of AT&T for my DSL provider now that they have decided to own all the information that passes through and have signed up with earthlink. a little more expensive, but i've always been taken care of by earthlink when i've been with them. the woman from AT&T was very nice and wished me to further explain my reasons for cancelling, so i talked her ear off for awhile and actually got her to say that now that she knows this if she had to pay for internet (she gets it for free) from AT&T she would cancel also. ha! wish i could have recorded it. as it turns out though, earthlink takes like a week to set everything up, so i've been without internet till now! oh the horrors! oh the decadent macabre of lost innocence! or something like that. =p

on top of that, the plumbing was acting up. the toilet was not being very nice, but just being slow. then i started having to plunger it a couple times. then, everything was ok! but alas, twas not to remain so, as the washing machine helped to back up the plumbing to where the tub was filling up with... lets just say "dirty" water. so i call up a plumber to give an estimate. he takes a look at 1 joint, notices that it is leaking water, and says we have a broken pipe. $2600 to dig it out and replace it. freak out time. but we get the bright idea for a second opinion; as it turns out, one of my coworkers husband is a plumber. he comes over, and 1.5 hours and $300 later, the drain is totally clear and we have no more problems. just a clog. so what's up with the big upsell? i mean, just examining the piping and the ground around it was obvious (and this is why we questioned his opinion) that there was no broken pipe, the ground was bone dry. i think that they did it because it probably seemed that i had no clue what was happening (which was true). still, that's an outrageous effort to take advantage of someone's position, especially when it would be replacing something that didn't need to be replaced. i'm just glad i can take a shower..

i've also been working on a port to a new website and server space, to eventually get off of blogspot. i'm not sure when things will be up and running, and right now i'm working on graphics and other things that will at least give some eye candy to everyone. since i'm doing this off my own work schedule (which has been getting more demanding) it may end up taking till like the end of the month. but hey, i'm worth it. :D

no noose is good news... i think

2006-07-12T16:24:00.000-07:00

so yesterday bush celebrated. he partied hard. why? because he found out that America will only be $246 billion in the hole. "only"? yes, i suppose because we cut the projected deficit by half that would be something. but not when the same guy is responsible for the top 4 largest deficits in this country's history, followed by his father! and that's just within the last 4 years, not even his first years in office! what happened to that nice surplus of Clinton's? and more so, what happened about bush's projected budget for his presidency (warning, this link goes to a .pdf file. Pg. 154 is the projected surplus budget for this year, standing at $516 billion for surplus)?

now, all in all maybe that is a victory for them. but the LA Times weighs in and calls out the falsity of bush's plan. on top of that, bush has said that the proposed tax cuts will eventually pay for themselves. yay! oh wait, is that a US Treasury report that directly undermines his statements on how his budget will eventually help us? is the fact that everyone realizes that bush is out of touch with his own government so apparent that we brush him off and focus on how much Lieberman is out of touch? then again, i guess bush hasn't really been making noise with surprise visits to Iraq (too dangerous, they actually attacking the green zone now).

but at least our money is going to the right place. well, besides that $8 billion in cash that mysteriously vanished in Iraq. or the $2 billion that was spirited away by the screw-up that was trying to fix the mess of hurricane Katrina. on the other hand, at least we won't have to deal with Halliburton anymore. finally, the army is going to open up the bidding contracts!... to a whole 3 or 4 companies, ONE OF WHOM IS HALLIBURTON. glad to see we don't leave our greedy friends out of sharing the pie. just wouldn't be fair, i guess.

randomness

2006-07-12T12:48:00.000-07:00

this is the exact reason that people who support the flag burning amendment can kiss my ass!

and for those who love the forbidden fruit, here is a nice list of banned or challenged books within our recent history.

and one last jump for everyone. you can now take The Political Compass Quiz that will tell you how facist or neo-liberal or economist-like you are. they plot it all in a nice little graph and give you points of interest by person: Ghandi, Hitler, bush etc. my point stands:

Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79

that, according to the comparison graph, puts me somewhere near Ghandi. but i don't think hunger strikes are the way to go, cuz i'm fat. and i like food. but still! who knew that sarcasm led to the road to peace? or rather social libertarianism.

going to hell in a handbasket

2006-07-11T12:01:00.000-07:00

yup, this country is goin down the tubes. can we fix it? sure we can. but will the people who have power let us fix it? certainly not! however, sometimes, its not always about those in political power. sometimes, we have to realize that the special interest groups who put on events for the benefit of something (i.e. AIDS, MS, Breast Cancer, etc.) would know some things about the people they have appearing.

take LIFEbeat for instance. they are about to hold a summer reggae concert to benefit AIDS. this is a great thing. however, there is one small little thing that i can nitpick at. i know that AIDS is not a "gay" disease, but i do know that the gay community is definitely more aware of the dangers than the heterosexuals out there (who would rather choose to ignore it as something that happens to others). so i would expect that the gay community would represent in force at these events (as i have seen them do in San Francisco). so here's the deal: 2 of the artists that are headlining (Beenie Man and TOK) both have songs out that glorify the killing (and burning) of gays. a response to letters sent to LIFEbeat show that the organization wants people to show up, and promises there will be no offensive lyrics. i must admit, to give a public platform to someone who is openly hostile to the gay community at an event that many backwards-thinking people equate with the gay community is not worthwhile, even if it will bring in a couple hundred more people. by allowing them to perform at a venue that supposedly is trying to help all those who have AIDS, LIFEbeat is saying that they will allow their supporters (and/or moneymakers) to cherry-pick who they would like to support in the fight against AIDS rather than fighting AIDS as a disease that can strike anybody.

one more time!

2006-07-10T16:52:00.000-07:00

monday already. the weekend just seems to always blow by so fast, and nothing i do ever seems to slow it down. but alas, all may not be well and good in the land. well, in Connecticut land, anyways.

the senatorial race has taken a turn for the ugly. i mean, c'mon. if Lamont is making ads about himself that attack himself, then Lieberman must really be in trouble. this ad is a great one. Go Lamont! Hillsman, you have outdone yourself once more, and if this doesn't get Lieberman hot under the collar, i don't know what will..

oh wait, i do know what will! how about the fact that the Lieberman campaign has filed the necessary forms to not run as a dependent, but to CREATE HIS OWN POLITICAL PARTY. and the name of this wonderful party that we should all want to be part of? why, Connecticut for Lieberman, of course. and who wouldn't want to be in the party of the guy who tells you how you should vote in your own state? ah, that sounds so snarky.. its not the guy who tells you how to vote in your own state, its the guy who refuses to support his own political party by demanding (very narcissistically) that an entire political party be devoted and named just for him to keep him in place. now yes, this would only technically happen if Lieberman loses the primary (and with Lamont ads like the one above, he must be scared as hell), but it shows the underlying defeat that he has already dealt to himself. by filing the paperwork, it shows that he believes there is a very good chance that he may not win and would need to run as ~~Independent~~ a Connecticut for Lieberman candidate. what i really want to know is how you can create a political party specifically naming one state and one specific candidate without making it sound like you want to own the whole damn state. if the Connecticut Dems (and Independents) don't wake up to the fact that Lieberman is looking out for Lieberman and nobody else, then they will become the next Ohio (yes, maybe Ohio's rep has gone down some, but i still hear people picking on the state... Florida too!).

seriously.. even Senator Leaghy is dissapointed he won't support the Democratic primary winner. but even when push comes to shove, Lieberman can count on his backers and support base right? well, as it turns out, not even the big boy Biden came out to support Lieberman (and i'm very glad Boxer is not there at the moment either). why? well, Lieberman says that he got back from Iraq late Sunday, but it's clear from records that Biden got back early Saturday, holding press interviews on both Saturday and Sunday. the next opinion would be that Biden simply missed the train down to Stamford, which would be hilarious because the train he would have taken runs every 30 minutes. poor poor Joe. i hope his ~~Lieberman Owns Connecticut~~ i mean ~~Vote For Me Cuz I Said So~~ i mean his stupid political party that names himself does something for him. at least we know that since he will be at the top of the party list, we know where his loyalties really lie (does he seriously believe that by filing paperwork to run as something other than Democrats will make more Democrats support him?)

BlueGrassReport.org has filed a lawsuit against the Govenor of Kentucky, alledging that the blog was blocked because of disagreeable content. according to most of the stories out there, it seems to be true. that Kentucky government employees were able to access conservative blogs and websites (the Govenor contends that all blogs were blocked, not just bluegrassreport.org, however this has shown to be a selective blocking) and not BlueGrass is a big problem that i have been seeing for awhile. it won't end anytime soon, and we a floundering (the laws too) because this is all new to us and we haven't found an effective way to regulate it in any way (which, in my opinion, is a good thing because differences of opinions matter). either way, this should turn out to be an interesting battle. what makes it more important is the fact that this is not a scheme to make a buck. the only damages that are being asked for is the removal of the website block and attorney's fees. damn reasonable to uphold the 1st Amendment.

there has been more noise being made about John Murtha, and the attempt to Swift-boat him. it will be mighty hard to do so, but something tells me that someone has the imagination to come up with something credible enough for the average fox news watcher would believe. however, i have my own plan. it seems that there is a woman named Amanda Doss who wants to drum up support to boot Murtha and discredit him by asking for personal involvment from her readers. she wants us to send in stuff that will hurt Murtha's service record. so my plan involves forwarding her all the useful information that we have that would support Murtha's service record (and honor). when she says that we were supposed to give info that would undermine what our information provides, we say: "sorry, i looked and looked but all i could find was documents that support his service to his country and what he's done in service for it since." it won't do much, but it will put a smile on your face just to piss her off (i am NOT calling for her harassment, please be nice. i would also like to point out that if anyone else had asked for this info the plan would be the same) by showing that we can freep too.

twisted sense of humor time

2006-07-07T15:54:00.000-07:00

ok. sad, but still damn funny. yes, i said funny.

karma's a bitch

2006-07-07T08:56:00.000-07:00

and it always comes back to bite you in the ass. remember when bush called an Amnesty International report "absurd"? its been a whole year since then, and the UN has been demanding reports by groups who will file for violations, and it turns out that over 100 organizations have contributed to the "shadow report" which flames the US administration with blatant human rights violations; it makes you wonder if Bush hasn't thought of if only he could go back in time and not have the Geneva Convention happen!? i find this more sad that i have been a silent partner in this because i don't feel i have spoken out enough or volunteered for enough etc. still, it's nice to see that organizations like these are still on the ball and willing to throw truth into the arena, even as the corrupt administration tries to bury it behind news of thrwarting a new terrorist threat. it also makes you wonder why all of a sudden we are seeing "success" stories. and before the flaming, i say good for the FBI for showing some competence, but that still doesn't excuse you for taping my phone sex conversations just so you can get off.

on a brighter note: HOORAY for Lamont!! It seems as though the post-debate talk is mostly about how a person new to politics was able to stand his own against a seasoned senator. it will be interesting to see how Conneticut voters now stand, especially because Lamont seems to be riding a nice roots movement, and it will carry over bigtime in time for the primary election. Lieberman, it seems, turned out to be a pretty mean guy when it comes to losing something he thinks is rightfully his. this just goes to show how deep the corruption has gone. to believe you have the right over someone else to hold a public service job elected by the people. i hope Lamont beats his ass come August.

however, Lieberman also has his own base. he believes that he can fall back upon the Jewish base (making up 3% of the CT population). as a Jew, I would like to believe that as a people we don't need to vote for this guy just because he is also Jewish. i don't believe Lamont will advocate to pull out of Israel or even to lessen the relationship we now share with the country. i've talked with some people who believe that this creates a dilemna for Jewish voters. i don't believe this at all, not just for the reasoning above, but i think that even some Jewish voters who would have voted for him just because he's a Jew are fed up with him being a resident bitch Democrat for the Republicans and understand that a true Democrat would support the party gracefully and not try to run for himself. Lamont may not be buying the election as Lieberman loves to try and point out, but at least hes not purposely sabatoging the party for his own gain. again: if you represent the voters, than support their wishes (just like you did for Bush when he stole the 2000 election).

the war is another great topic to get onto. we haven't heard any real news about over there for awhile (either the US media is directly sheilding the populace or it really has quieted down for the moment). but alas, this isn't about any "insurgents" or IEDs, its about our own lovely military. you know, with the stringent entrance rules and regulations? well, this little gem was buried in the NYTs, and it really deserves the front page attention it can lead to. this should be a very big worry for America, and yet i believe that it would be an even bigger worry for Bush if these assholes couldn't join (there goes his border patrol and army!). parents should be very aware of this and word should spread. now, i have no doubts that most of these guys want to proctect, save and serve the country, i just think they are doing it for the wrong reasons, ESPECIALLY if they try to link themselves to the "War on Terror." fight because you believe that the people you are fighting are responsible for an injustice, not because you hate them for who they have no choice at being (i.e. themselves).

a little on the supply side

2006-07-06T11:57:00.000-07:00

i was never good with math (a Jew not good at math? OMG!) that's why i am trying to become a lawyer. :) i know there are a hell of a lot of economic problems that are facing the US today, and i can't even begin to analyze it. i leave that up to the folks who know what they are talking about, like bonddad over at dKOS. here he talks about the US economy and the imbalences that he percieves. it is a very interesting read, and if i could do it any justice i would try to analyze it myself and give my readers a take, but since i can't the best i can do is point you in his direction. if anything else, its good to see a nice outline of the finances within the economy spelled out in layman's terms and not in terms of interest rates.

and now we have the first non-conscientious objector in the army who has been arrested for refusing to serve in the Iraq war. he is not an objector because he still believes in war, just not the one in Iraq, which he believes to be illegal after he researched it. it will be intersting to see what becomes of this. i am curious to know if he had the right to ask for deployent somewhere else or if the army had to accept his resignation upon refusal for redeployment. i am also curious to know how the military tribunal will argue that he had to serve in a war that isn't really a war. again, without Congress itself declaring war BY VOTES (bush telling them we are at war is NOT a delcaration of war by the United States), then we are not really at war. if he objects to something that he feels is illegal, and can be proven illegal, than not even a military tribunal can dishonorably discharge him.

looks like things are heating up for this coming election season.

gone on for too long

2006-07-06T10:21:00.000-07:00

now i know that this is old news. and, seriously, after a certain amount of time it was bound to happen (although i am surprised this happened during election year). so yes, the unit that was created to catch Osama Bin Laden is closed. i kinda wished that they broke the story on July 4th, just to make it that much more... important? linked to our nation? i mean, what else would we want to celebrate on our independence day but finding out the news that the government has closed the unit created to catch the man "dead or alive?"

what is more surprising is the lack of response. oh yes, John Kerry decides to weigh in but in the end nobody seems to be paying attention. i asked a Republican friend of mine and he said that the government should focus on Al-Queda and their growing presence within Iraq. when i asked him how capturing and killing the figurehead of the terrorist organization we are trying to stop wouldn't help, he just brushed it off and said "he'll probably die soon anyways so why waste the resources." i am very curious is most of the college Republicans in his group also feel the same way. probably.. which is very sad. i doubt that they have the guts to say that in front of anyone who lost someone on 9/11. i know for a fact my friend would never say something like that in front of a victim because he is a fighting keyboardist.

but where are all the right wingers who should be acclaiming this decision? there are now more resources to fight in Iraq! will our troops get better armor? no? then how about better vehicles? no again? the right colored helmet? a full battery pack for the radio? clean underwear? no? why aren't the fighting keyboardists ecstatic over this news? oh yeah, because it makes them look like fools. and again, even the NYT article on the closing just says that it was closed. no accusations, no real worry. as a matter of fact it makes the unit sound a bit scary/idiotic, rather than attacking the administration who OBVIOUSLY fails to keep its promises. yay NYT, for conforming to the Republican view of giving bad news and then keeping it as stupid as possible to aviod having a backlash.

and speaking of backlashes, wasn't John Ashcroft making a lot of noise about the porn industry or something about decent christian moral values? are those the same moral values that force a Jewish family from their homes due to persecution or the ones that just believe that all other religious ideals are wrong? this kind of story makes me sick to my stomach. if you believe that Jesus is your savior, that he died for your sins, that you should emulate his actions in goodwill towards all man (i don't recall seeing anywhere in the bible that you need to convert to Christianity in order to believe in the message), THEN HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY AND STAND FOR THIS? a lot of Christian friends i have are outraged over this story, especially when they found that the local churches also seemed to support this. shame on those who think their way is "right" and others are "wrong." if you want to believe, believe. i will support you all the way. but the day you say that i should believe what you do because i'm wrong to believe in what i do is the day that your beliefs become oppressive and you are spoiling for a fight with me.

all of this stems from stoptheACLU.com and stoptheaclu.org which claimed they had nothing to do with each other. as it turns out, there is a post right here (PLEASE TURN YOUR SPEAKERS OFF!) that actually says the exact opposite and shows the link between the 2 in the first sentence. it seems, however, that these websites (and i've crawled them looking at the comments) are blissfully unaware of all of the times the ACLU has defended religious freedoms. well, it seems that some of them are, but all those times must be flukes or something because the ACLU only helps liberals.. and cemetaries.

and last for now, we are going to get off of religion, and butt right into Texas, where it seems that Tom DeLay is unable to remove himself from the ballot for this November's elections. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. i hope that he has to stay on for the whole thing and the Republicans won't be able to replace him. and yet, there is this horrible sinking feeling that the people in his district of Texas are so red and so damn inbred that they'll see his name and vote for him anyways. now i'm not saying that Texans are stupid (go Kinky!), i just believe that a lot of the south (and that side of Texas seems very southern to me, a Cali boy) seems to have their heads up their butts when it comes to voting. this is only because i'll never understand how someone can vote directly against their self interests time and again based on the fact that the guy running happens to be the same religion. and yes, that is exactly the reasoning described to me by someone from DeLay's district.

someone, please, pinch America and wake her up from this horrible nightmare we call our current government.

ouch

2006-07-05T18:05:00.000-07:00

my eyes hurt. and now my brain. ow ow ow ow ow.

hopefully this helps you feel my pain.

i... am... amazed. ow ow. i would like to make two points clear for all the bible people out there:

1) christianity was NOT part of the foundations of the country, it happened to be the major religious belief of the time. something tells me that people would rise up against tyrants with or without religion.

and 2) the bible was written a long ass time ago. you cannot pick and choose which bible passages to follow to the letter and which you can change ("evolve" anyone?) to fit the current day situation. its all or nothing. THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN SO THE PEOPLE OF THE TIME WOULD TAKE IT AS LITERAL LAW! we do not have to do that anymore! change yourself before you realize your morals and values are 2000 years behind.... oh, wait. too late.

ps. i will say, however, that this is a great creative use of free speech. the pastor is totally within his rights to create something like this and put it up on church grounds, as long as it was totally paid for by the church and not one cent of taxpayer money. if, as a taxpayer, i had a part in helping to raise this, then i have the absolute right to show up there tomorrow with a rope and try to pull it down. a church/synagogue/mosque should fund itself, otherwise maybe the faithful are just paying the lip service required for the pope to make sure that the vatican gets more and you go to hell. ;) have a nice day.

damn it all, i spoke too soon

2006-07-05T16:43:00.000-07:00

isn't that always the case? although, maybe i just wanted to rant that out in a whole 'nother space, just by itself because i thought it was important? lol, yeah, right. so as it says, it seems that i spoke too soon. here on the west coast, we kinda get our news on a little delay line. also, there is one thing i forgot to mention, so we'll start off with that:

muahahahahahahahaha at Ken Lay and enron. yes, that is me laughing at him for what happened to him. it couldn't have happned to a nicer asshole. don't get me wrong, death can be a harrying horrifying experience and one i would rather not witness happen to another close relative, but i also do realize that it has to happen at one point, and all i'm doing right now is saying what everyone else wants to. HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. i just wish he could have been sentenced with all he had coming to him and had his assets frozen before he died. that way, at least the government could have used his money to fund next month's Iraq bill instead of the normal taxpayers. he deserves to go to hell. i hope they make him man an oil pump and he gets his arms/hands chopped off everyday for eternity because he doesn't know how to work it.

on to lighter things, it turns out that C-SPAN is planning on carrying the Lamont-Lieberman debate LIVE! i gotta make sure that i come home from work early so that i can watch joe slowly die in his own muck. i hope i have popcorn..

the administration is taking good care of the veterans AT the VA hospital. now this is just messed up. where has the free speech expression gone? i REFUSE to allow my free expression to be set up in "zones" where it can happen and then i have to conform to 'big brother' rules everywhere else. Mr. Ferner, i wish you much luck, and wish that i could provide you with legal counsel for this great fight that you are gearing up for. godspeed!

and last but certainly not anywhere close to the least, we have dear John W. Dean, writing this beautiful article for FindLaw, aptly named Senators Kyl and Graham's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Scam: The Deceptive Amicus Brief They Filed in the Guantanamo Detainee Case. i don't even want to quote anything from it or tell my readers anything about it because this needs to be fully read to understand the implecations of what he is saying. suffice to say that the "culture of corruption" charge that the Democrats are currently using doesn't seem to be drying up the well any.

ha, i'm in a better mood already.

work sucks

2006-07-05T16:14:00.000-07:00

it really does. i work and work and then i take a break and read the blogs or the random news sites that may seem somewhat interesting (although it seems that the NYT subscription is only good nowadays because i can get full access to the comics). and yet, today has just been a sober one. there is news, but it is the same old rhetoric and the same shit over and over again.

Left: "lets do this"
Right: "ur plan sux. we hate you and all you stand for. we are better. we don't need to come up with anything else because you suck on general principals."
Left: "nuh-uh! *whine* that's not fair! you should play fair! well, we hate you too! so there!"

its really sad when someone who loved politics gets bored with it.

but face it, this country is in a doomed spiral that the Republicans NOR the Democrats can get us out of. its not that we need a new plan. its the fact that we seem to have outgrown the system we are currently using (yes, this happens and that's why governments change: peacefully when realized, violently when fought against). its that the democracy that many people claim to be practicing isn't actually democracy, but rather a facade that quiets the masses and let's those who have power keep it. now i'm not saying that any idiot should be in power, but that's the idea behind legacy families-every idiot in the family gets power. will the Republicans want to change the system? of course not! why change what has worked for them for 150 years? will the Democrats? highly doubtful also, but only because most leading Democrats are under the impression that we need to "fix" the system. if the fix still won't give the people the power (general popular election anyone? campaign limits?) and power just recirculates to those at the top, what good does the "fix" do? changing one master for the other because they throw us a bone now and then doesn't make it better, it just makes it different.. until they do something to get on someone's bad side and they blow it out of proportion, catch media attention, and then it's the Republican's turn to "fix" the country.

this cheesy little cycle of feasting on the last party's vomit has got to end. however it won't end without changing the system, and that's never going to happen because when the whole system changes everyone starts back at square 1, something that not even the Democrats are likely to want.

in the end, i think i've come up with the main problem: this country is run and law is decided upon by a bunch of old people who are about to die. and deep down i know i mean that as harshly as it sounds. why should someone who is turning 70-something on the SCOTUS get to decide what is right or "traditional" or "moral" for me to do? i really hate it when the word "tradition" is brought in. like: it was traditional for the states to ban homosexuality... well, it was also traditional to burn witches, to beat women, pagan rituals WAAAAAYY before Christianity became a stain on Mary's legs, etc. "tradition" is a bunch of hooey that people need to keep them stabalized in the face of the uncertain future ahead of them. it is ALSO "traditional" to overthrow those who we believe to be tyrants.. but if we took those old geezers (and geezettes!) off the board and put someone a little younger, more in touch with the average age of the population, more in touch with people who are actually large contributers to society (yes, old people WERE large contributers, but no more), then we may have a more modern and adaptable government, one ready to fight wars of technology and intellect rather than the brute force that has been "traditional" for centuries.

but then again, i'm only 23, so what the hell do i know?

joementum has no faith

2006-07-03T11:48:00.000-07:00

mr. Joe Lieberman has officially cut-and-run from the democratic party. he has stated his intention to run as an "independent democrat", whatever the hell that means. what it really means is that Lieberman doesn't think he can cut it against Lamont when dealing with the actual issues, and seems to think that by running as an independent against the democratic challenger (especially if DNC throws their weight to Lamont after the primary) he can score points by trying to be the "underdog." sorry Joe, if the incumbent needs to run as independent because the national party won't give you automatic endorsement for the primary, you KNOW you are in serious trouble.

Many cheers to Lamont for forcing Lieberman's hand BEFORE the debate! i hope you cream him silly and he decides to forgo his pension that he would get from the government (plus the $20k/speaking session he may get by himself, not that he's worth that) and actually have to WORK for a living. hey Joe! try making $7.00 (<- way above fed minimum wage) and having to pay for your own gas! if Gore can do it, you can too right? i mean, you won't let a pussy like Gore show you up!?

ps, Gore's not really that big of a pussy... he's just slow. i'd still vote for Gore over Lieberman though...

a day which will live in short-term memory

2006-07-03T09:34:00.000-07:00

that is today! who knew it would be such a new experience and a wonderful cold and slightly rainy day. i thought it was summer!? well, i guess that's why this day will only live on in my short-term memory (thenk yew very much, Berkeley!).

anyways, i've been out of touch with the news, and checking on it this morning allowed me to see much more of the same. blah blah blah Iraq. blah blah blah maybe bomb Iran. blah blah blah insurgency does something that makes bush believe it is in last throes... again. blah blah NYT is treasonous for posting pictures of Rumsfeld's house takenwith his permission. oh my oh my. will this sordid business ever finish? probably not (which really does make it all the more fun to laugh at).

oh, and it turns out that i was wrong on the number of national guardsmen that were placed in the Mexico/US border states to "protect" the US from those mean old Mexicans that want to pick my fruit. the number i quoted was much higher than the number of troops who actually showed up for duty.

it also seems that WaPo is not above burying stories that would make the US seem like the evil little dudes we are in Iraq. at one point it seems that there was a woman who was raped and killed by US troops. well, in the subscription only section (link to Daily Kos story) Ellen Knickmeyer reports from Iraq that after talking with a neighbor, the "woman" is in fact a girl of 15 years. i would hate to think that US troops could do that, but i am under no obligation to look at what the US is doing with rose-colored glasses, and i have no doubts that the human race is entirely capable of doing something like this; and even more so within a war zone where people feel like they are less/more than other people based on the situation. if its true, something tells me that we will never hear the true story in America because of the wonderful penchant to either bury the story in the back of the papers or just do a plain old cover up.

on a lighter note, its time to get personal. i've randomly started to go onto grouphug.us while at work because i'm bored as hell. i see the random stuff and it always seems that i see posts that would fit perfectly for people in my life. so i always wonder who is writing (which of course is the wonderful thing about the site) and wait patiently until i see my own post pop up on the random pages (haven't seen it yet!)

i don't know how to use this, but in case you ever need to grab your password off xp or 2000, this seems to be the tool of choice, or something like that. or you can just hire these fools and make them play dodgeball in the solarium. emeryville still sucks!

VW is now officially my favorite car maker. this is why!

and last but not least, a wonderful and insightful quote by Ted Stevens on net neutrality: ""I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?" thank you senator Stevens, for making sure that everyone knows that the people we have in office aren't qualified to make decisions on the current technology that they obviously don't understand.

theres not much left to say

2006-06-30T08:54:00.000-07:00

the government just doesn't let up. if it's not decrying the NYT for their "treasonous" story of SWIFT (which has a PUBLIC website wherein the program was known since around 2003), then its screwing the farmers of America. just like the good old days! the best part from the article: "Why did President Bush do this before harvest?” Drazdoff said. well Mr. Drazdoff, let me clear it up for you. bush did not do this before the harvest. he did this before the ELECTION. he doesn't care if you can't pick all your fruit and it rots on the vine. why should he care if it drives the cost up for the rest of the country. not only is he rich enough to buy your orchards more than 10 times over, he also gets all that expensive fruit for FREE until he leaves office! WOW! america, fuck yeah!

and remember all that immigration reform talk? like when bush promised to put 2,500 national guard troops on the Mexican border to help stem the crossings of illegal aliens? well, he didn't quite make it. matter of fact he barely got half. and i think i know the reason why: because he dropped the rest off in Iran to start scouting for the invasion! or maybe there weren't any more 42 year olds camping out in front of the recruiting offices to fill the numbers.

so you think with all the money we've been spending in Iraq we would remember 9/11. yeah, remember that? remember how there was going to be this great memorial and we would remember forever the tragedy? well, a "state redevelopment agency" has decided that it would a little too expensive and decided to scale back on the costs and make it smaller. because we care.

WaPo has actually come out with a fairly good analysis of the recent SCOTUS decision to block bush from using military tribunals to prosecute the "unlawful combatants." does anyone remember a quote from Andrew Jackson: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." i was reminded of it by oregondem who wrote about it here. the moral of this story is transparency within the government (not that that will ever happen anytime soon) and how trustworthy the people are if they have the knowledge. if bush goes around the SCOTUS and tries to enact legislation through Congress (which Frist has already promised to do after the 4th of July break (how many days has Congress actually worked so far? 20?)), then the judiciary will be severly crippled in their check powers against the executive and the legislative. something that the administration should remember: legislature can enact ideas it would like to become law, but the courts MAKE law by setting precedent. to go around their precedent without their approval is a slap in the face, and i'm not even sure if Scalia would take that from bush.

but, to top it all off. to show the wonderful ineptitude or the unwillingness to treat others as fair (even as the government decry other countries from doing the same and not pushing ~~our~~ bush's democracy), the British paper has found witnesses that would allow a GITMO detainee proof of innocence. the US governement said they made efforts to find them, but they could not be found. one witness works for the president of Afghanistan, one living in Kabul, and ONE TEACHING AT A LEADING AMERICAN UNIVERSITY. the british paper, The Guardian, found these witnesses within 3 days. if we are going to spend all this money on the war to make sure that the prisoners are tried the way bush wants them too, you think they would make sure that there were no witnesses. i'm super-happy that they were found, and i hope that it allows the release of the POW, if only because the stupidness of the american government not being able to hide their tracks.

i'm also very curious to find out the opinions of the public about the proposed amnesty for all Iraqi ~~insurgents~~ revolutionaries now that the Iraqi government has asked america to provide a timetable for withdrawing from the ~~war~~ occupation. wasn't one of the promises by bush that we would pull out if the Iraqi people ever wanted us out? so where's the timetable now mr. preznit?

its a wonderful day for... something, i guess

2006-06-29T11:44:00.000-07:00

so i'm swamped with work and other stuffs, but sometimes we just need to get the info out there. so unfortunately, all i have for y'all is a bunch of links that were interesting to me.

apparently, there is a company in Sweden where you pay them $19/year and if you get sued by the RIAA they will help or entirely cover your lawsuit. this is gonna make some money for someone if word gets around they're legit. we'll see how fast the RIAA actually catches on.

the scotus (supreme court of the united states) has found that the guantanamo bay tribunals are illegal under the Geneva Convention. unfortunately, this doesn't release the detainees because they are still classified as "unlawful combatants;" rather this just allows the bush administration to make up a different reason that they should be held indefinitely and prosecuted under the facist bush terms.

and speaking of facism, once more we see that the bush administration does not limit their spying to suspected terrorist activities.. 'nuff said.

and now speaking of "terrorism", i just found this link to the website telling random stuff about voting within the united states. conspiracy theorists unite under this banner. it does bring up interesting questions on the security of the "secure" voting machines (even though the company itself admits that there are such big security flaws on the machines that 1 person with the technological knowhow can change the results of an election).

and with that nice segway into election talk, you have to be a citizen to vote. so go here and take the mini citizenship test. i think the results can be surprising (let's just say i'm glad i was born here)..

2006-06-27T15:19:00.000-07:00

here is a happy little button for all:

Keep the Car. Get OpenOffice.org

and thats on top of this little gem. say goodbye all you illegal windows owners... hey, wait a minute, i didn't install WGA either! this is the time i wish they made more stuff for linux (sorry mac people, just not my cup-o-tea).

ain't this nation great.. and i mean ain't.

2006-06-27T12:53:00.000-07:00

already, news stories have much to discuss. Specter is befuddling himself trying to lead a "nice" investigation into the bush administration for writing in something called a signing statement, which allows him to ignore anything within the law the signing statement is applied to at his discretion. meaning, as in the article above, that he can ignore the ban on torture that he signed into law (sponsored by McCain). isn't that just peachy? as a matter of fact, Bush can claim the highest amount of signing statements than all other presidents combined. the administration's argument? - other presidents have used them. but have any of them used the statement to undermine something as morally important as banning torture? i don't think so. and yes, i believe that most people would believe that torture is a morally important issue. so remember, bush is IN FAVOR of torture when he wants it.. who did YOU vote for?

and the administration doesn't stop. if its not making sure that the legislation doesn't actually have to mean anything, then its making sure that the widows of the soldiers killed in iraq have to fight to get the "blood money" benefits that the administration had promised. go beauracracy!

but, for the finale, we have to go deep into middle america. forget Texas (well, the red parts anyways), we are headed into kansas! that's right, kansas. because there, the most wonderful thing has happened. the Kansas Republican party chairman, Mark Parkinson, has decided that he needs to get down with his people. he has defected to the better side"! some more wonderful information about his defection as well as some other people in Kansas (and a very good analysis by Lolligolli) can be found here. the world is turning topsy turvy! most democrats welcome him with open arms to the party. i do too, but i just need to put in an "i told ya so" for the argument we had on which party was more for the people and which catered to the fatcats of the beauracracy.

there was a realization that my friend had for the first time today (he is a beginner political advocate). the finalized thought: you should know the country is in trouble when 95% of people who are in charge of the nation are legacy incumbents. meaning, that people like Lamont are shaking up the foundations of what was commonly held as a good government model, until the average joe woke up and realized that most of what the Republican party is doing is good for them, not for everyone.

jumping off that line of thought, it makes me wonder how the Republican party can convince people to vote against their self interest time and time again by dangling the fake "carrot" of gay marriage and abortion in front of them. if their party was really serious about banning abortion, well, the whole administration is controlled by Republicans, you think they would be able to push it through. but even the right wing understands the backlash it can get. vote for results, not for promises!

class warfare

2006-06-27T08:33:00.000-07:00

isn't it great that we are fighting a war on 2 different fronts? the nice ~~war~~ occupation of iraq and of course, the wonderful class war that is going on here at home. what's that you say? no class warfare? well, with the fast eroding middle class, all the nice tax breaks (trying to repeal the estate tax are we, bushite?) that will only REALLY affect the top 10% of highest wage earners in the nation. tsk tsk.

i could spell it all out for you, but someone has already graciously done the work for me! so thank you bonddad for laying it all flat for us RIGHT HERE!

ah, the smell of someone going down in flames

2006-06-26T20:40:00.000-07:00

2 funny things of note that happened in the nice world we call politics:

first, our good friend Rush Limbaugh is at it again, this time being detained after coming back from the Dominican Republic. tsk tsk Rush! what will all those young college republicans do now? they can't emulate bush because even they know he is too stupid to run the country for real, and now the backbone of their ideals has once again shown himself to be nothing of a hypocrite. he should be saying "do what i do and you won't have to remember what i say." and yes, he was let go to go on his merry "happy" little way, but c'mon, 2 different doctors and random pills? just because an explaination is available doesn't mean it's the truth.

and the coup-de-gras? Ned Lamont's campaign (running against Lieberman for a Conneticut senate seat) has released a BEA-UTIFUL television ad (by Bill Hillsman, an extremely creative consultant who has been shunned by the DC beltway (all the more reason to love him & Lamont)) against Lieberman... you just have to see it to really get the full effect. After the announcement, Lieberman's campaign released a nice statement which seems to be ridiculed across the blogosphere. and just because it all makes sense:

one last thing found while searching for all the damning Lieberman stuff. global warming is still happening. we do not understand it any better. i haven't seen An Inconvinient Truth and i don't really plan on doing so (i don't need no movie to tell me global warming is real, its HOT!) however i just found this WONDERFUL video commercial about it. simple, elegant and drives the point home. you just can't beat what works.

its just been that kind of day

2006-06-26T16:25:00.000-07:00

today has been an extremely giddy day. i have no clue why. i just felt, all in all, very silly, and had an extremely good time being in the center of a bunch of laughter. we were telling so many jokes i got thrown out of the front office because the receptionist's weave was becoming undone due to all the laughing (i didn't even know this was possible!). lmao.

however, the news world is anything but. i swear, how out of touch does the government really have to be before the american people wake up and actually critically think through whatever just came out of bush's mouth? the disclosure of the doesmestic spying program is shameful? maybe if the law was followed to begin with the disclosure of the program wouldn't hurt so much. when you only breif the minimum amount of senators and then forbid them to talk about the program, that is NOT full disclosure. when you are trying to rush legislation through that would make your past actions legal retroactively, you KNOW that you've done something wrong. so why does the government seem so surprised that the american people are upset that they are being spied upon (especially after the administration said that they would not spy domestically!), especially when the average joe wakes up and realizes that when he decided to pay off his $3,000 credit card bill he will be audited for possible terrorist actions!?

and this myspace issue is getting way out of hand; "Connecticut attorney general Richard Blumenthal didn't accept all the naysaying [on age verification]: 'Don't tell me it can't be done. If we can put a man on the moon, we can verify age.'" again, how out of touch does the damn government have to be? short of stopping services for all people, i would like someone to name 1, ONE, age verification process that people can't lie to pass. even the pornography industry has major trouble with this issue, and it is most likely at the forefront of the age verification technology industry (someone has to protect profits). so it doesn't matter if myspace raises their minimum age to 16, or 18, or 21. if all i have to do is check a ToS box, then lie about my birthdate and it will be accepted, then IT'S MY OWN DAMN FAULT IF SOMETHING HAPPENS. blame the fucking child. maybe if she had told the truth, she may have been solicited, but it would have been a truer case of child predation.

and PS to AG Blumenthal: putting someone on the moon is a hell of a lot different than getting someone to tell the truth-its fuckin' easier.

driving

2006-06-24T20:15:00.000-07:00

so i went and drove my girlfriend back up in her brand spankin new car (runs very nicely, but the gas mileage is well, not as wonderful as made out to be). anyways, what the hell is it about sunny days that bring out all the idiot drivers!? seriously, they just come out of the woodwork! lots of drama on the road too - some truck went and cut off an acura, then the acura cut around and did the same to him. they came pretty close. and damn if some of those idjits are driving slow until they see you trying to cut around and then speed up just so you can't... grr. still, overall it seemed like a very fast trip.

on the way, the topic came up about that myspace lawsuit from that underage girl. the lawsuit is based on the premise that myspace did not do enough to protect minors from contact by anybody who may have been a predator. this premise is true, as it is way to easy to contact just anybody, and the only real "safeguard" is that you have to be 13 to create an account. however, there is the problem that the girl represented herself as older than she was (which in turn makes the ages of the young man and the girl only 4 years apart (ps, i am not condoning this. he deserves to be charged with statutory rape as per law)). by doing this and having an active talking relationship, she cannot blame myspace for what she had led on (she does carry some blame, although only a minor part, for the young man never represented himself as younger than he was). his myspace counter claim is frivolous for the same reasons as hers. a judge who finds against myspace for $30 million needs to ask himself if giving that much money to a young girl will help stop child predators, or maybe is should fine them $30 million and order to pay for child predator awareness programs and take harsher steps then only having to know someones full name or email address to contact them. raise the min age to 16. the one main problem is that there is no real way to verify the age (many young people lie about their age, just as she did).

anyways, that brought on some twisted logic. so on the drive up, i asked a question: if it is illegal to go over the speed limit, then wouldn't the car manufacturers be liable for any speeding violations? it follows that if a car couldn't go above the speed limit, then we wouldn't have to worry about speeding. so why offer something illegal and get away with it? because the manufacturer assumes that you take responsibility for anything you do with the car (a lot like mysapce does!). just something to think about.

one last question for the quiet minds. i would like to pose a question to those who believe that life begins at conception: if it does, why are we not 9 months old when we are born? i understand that we can celebrate our "birth"-day on that date every year, but that would make us 1 year and 9 months. that is the kind of argument they should be saying, however i don't see how this would be beneficial to them at all. would be damn entertaining to pretty much everyone else though..

corporate sanctity is a myth

2006-06-22T16:09:00.001-07:00

so as it turns out, the bank that issues paychecks to my workplace is actually one of the same banks that we have problems dealing with (they work both sides of the fence). its amazing to me how such a company can exist, literly paying both sides to fight against each other while the overlord creditor cleans up house. you would think that it would be a conflict of interest or something..

and i just came across a great post at dkos that says that democrats should stop callin the iraq war a "war" but rather start calling it what it is (and i totally agree with this): an occupation. the definition fits with what we are doing in iraq. yes, we may be helping build up the city (not really) or taking pictures of people in shorts and calling it a victory, but when the majority of the people who we placed in government ask our leaders for a timetable within which we will withdraw and hand over power and we DON'T, then we now are occupying instead of liberating (that, by definition, was done when we caught Saddam). i wonder how the 101st keyboardists will take to this new word. i call upon all people who do not believe in the "war" effort, be you democrat or republican, to start using the word "occupation" instead of "war"

PS! did anybody realize that the only way there could be a war is if congress declares it? or has this lone fact been forgetten since nobody listened to the rantings of the people who said it to begin with? since we were never at war, we could only be invaders! and one last thing for those who still want to believe in the effort: if we were only supposed to topple Saddam and get out, why is America currently building the largest base of military operations we have ever had in the middle east in iraq? iran is just around the corner...

so, as i heard earlier today: when will YOU say "enough"?

new movie

2006-06-21T23:03:00.000-07:00

so there is word out on the net about a new movie that is supposed to blow everyone's socks off. its called America: Freedom to Facism and the website you can find more info at is here. i was searching through the site and became thouroughly interested. seems like the documentaries are comin out fast and hard hitting. social justice? i doubt it. however it may wake enough people up to put pressure on the current members of congress to get off their asses and do something like up the minimum wage law (NOT) instead of giving themselves raises!

anyways, i can't wait for that movie to come out. in the spirit of this news, i highly encourage everyone who reads this post to watch Outfoxed which is extremely informative on how controlling the media really is (and that goes for both sides, its just that fox news has been at it longer so they are a little better than the dems, who are trying their best to catch up) and how they are able to direct public view.

so much for the rest

2006-06-21T12:02:00.000-07:00

i am amazed at how fast the speed of internet actually is. already a friend of mine has seen it and a random comment on the test post (thank you!), all without pimping. not that it needs pimping.. yet. still, i am working on making the blog a little more asthetic and then i'll be up and running.

and yet, i still have something to rant about. i try to create an account a blogger.com, and the username that i have used since the only way you could get online was aol was taken! oh my. first time that it has ever happened to me. turns out that it was taken by someone from New Mexico. i am curious to know how they came up with the name..

update: not so random a comment after all. whats up bro? long time no talk. heard about law acceptances. congrats!

Mirrored Decadence

i've moved!

news from other countries

dropped to the second section

CT-Sen again

bush, once again, showing he is "the decider"

CT-Sen

minimum wage & capital gains taxes

health care? what health care?

technology for the masses

Putin puts the sqeeze on bush

nuclear attack threats

Wal-Mart tries to "dump" Germany

oil and the hot weather

election cycle

up in arms, or maybe it's time to hide

more Iraq

Iraq

enough is enough

Feingold's making more waves

it's time to Die-Bold

CT-Sen

constitutional apeshit

what the hell is "natural marriage"?

its Bolton time

because Lieberman is easy

for the nerds and geeks... my friends

and now, the elephant in the room

now to get people oriented

sneaky, evil and stupid

stem cells veto

you want to leave? i hope you have $$$

who you callin' guilty?

CT-Sen

not everyone is happy

its been awhile

no noose is good news... i think

randomness

going to hell in a handbasket

one more time!

twisted sense of humor time

karma's a bitch

a little on the supply side

gone on for too long

ouch

damn it all, i spoke too soon

work sucks

joementum has no faith

a day which will live in short-term memory

theres not much left to say

its a wonderful day for... something, i guess

ain't this nation great.. and i mean ain't.

class warfare

ah, the smell of someone going down in flames

its just been that kind of day

driving

more oil problems

corporate sanctity is a myth

new movie

so much for the rest