bush developing senility?

my last post about bush brought something back to my attention.

there are people who speculate that bush wasn't always so stupid. right around the 2004 election, some started to speculate that bush is actually getting dumber because he is developing pre-senile dementia (basically alzheimer's) as a consequence of his history of alcohol abuse.

check out the video:



while it may be a case of confirmation bias based on little data, i invite anyone to try to find a video of bush as president speaking that eloquently. the 2004 debates were embarrassing, and he demonstrated no such speaking ability at any moment as far as i can tell.

some of the left-wing cranks think it could be lyme disease instead, though he was supposedly properly treated.

either way, it's really pathetic that we're looking for scientific causes for our president's retardation.

the bush-nazi connection

The Worst President in American History found his way over to israel to kiss a bunch of asses in the last country that likes us, highlighted by a speech at the knesset (their parliament). while setting the stage for world war 3, he made sure to drop some rhetoric to remind everyone that we were actually the good guys in world war 2:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said. "We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

there are some serious problems with bush using this comparison.

first and foremost, this 'appeasement' that's been floating around is a cheap political buzzword used to justify blind aggression without political dialogue. as mr. murder previously reported, appeasement comparisons are often utilized by talking heads with no real knowledge of history. in times when our country isn't run by a spoiled, insulated, braindead, proto-fascist jesusfreak, talking to other people is normal. even republican golden calf ronald 'where am i?' reagan talked to the iranians, though it was only to give them weapons in exchange for hostages.

secondly, where do you think the bush family got all of their money? people seem to forget so quickly that bush's grandfather was far worse than a nazi appeaser. he was a nazi funder. prescott bush was directly involved in several corporations that funded the nazi rise to power. back in 2004, the guardian reported that "even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty."

it wasn't like this was just a 'business is business' sort of thing either. recent documents unveiled by a bbc radio documentary show that prescott bush was involved in the business coup, in which several american industrialists attempted to install a fascist dictatorship in 1934.

hey israel: it might be beneficial from now on to do a little research on your powerful allied heads of state before you invite them into your home. dude's grandpa might have helped set up some concentration camps.

Random tidbits from the random retard

Apparently Anya Kamenetz, author of Generation Debt, has her own blog.

I really want to read her book but it's all sold out. I wonder why?

NonPolitical Interludes: wft ho?

Just remember, this woman already endorsed The Great Black Hope.

John McCain, have fun trying to win while Oprah is busy making ladies freak the fuck out for Obama.

California lifts gay marriage ban

California's supreme court ruled yesterday that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to wed.

In a 4-3 decision that flies in the face of public opinion in the state, the court found said there was no legally justifiable reason why the state should withhold the institution of marriage because of a couple's sexual orientation, and that domestic partnerships were not a suitable substitute.

The court rejected arguments that marriage should be preserved for heterosexual couples on the basis of tradition. Citing a 1948 case overturning a ban on interracial marriage, Chief Justice Ron George wrote in his opinion that "history alone is not invariably an appropriate guide for determining the meaning and scope of this fundamental constitutional guarantee".

What does this have to do with freedoms (other than the obvious civil ones, of course)? Why am I posting this?

Go gay people, but I have a huge problem with this. Not that gays shouldn't or shouldn't wed, but that the government is dealing with something they shouldn't.

Biology doesn't give a flying fuck if you're attached to your pleasure-hole through civil partnership or a marriage. Marriage is marriage because it's blessed by God. Even if you're atheist, you usually get married in a church.

According to the founding document of the US government, there's this thinly-veiled idea that there is separation of church and state? Marriage laws are unconstitutional... but then we know just how often using the constitution as a basis for an argument works. *cough*patriotact

So, apparently church and state are actually not separate in the US as religious laws are incorporated into legislature. Just like in Syria. if you are fervently either pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage legislation, I don't ever want to hear you complaining about Sharia law

Should the gov't not be concerned only with demographics, rather than enforcing the legal code of a religious institution (marriage)? There is no practical difference between a marriage and a civil partnership: Should the gov't really give a damn whether it's a marriage or a civil partnership as long as you live together and share resources? What about Ben & Jerry who formed the famous... partnership to live together and make the world's best ice cream? if we give married couples and baby-makers tax breaks, why not them? In fact, for dependency tax-credits, I say give a tax break for the first kid, and then add taxes for each one after that. Who needs kids anyway? Too many damn people I say.

Where is the Media Uproar? Srsly?

It's so fucking depressing that because John McCain is white (and a veteran), his crackpot racist minister can say whatever he wants.

But because Barack Obama is black with a funny name, his crackpot racist (veteran) minister says some crazy shit, and people flip the fuck out.

I don't think that either of these ministers, for the record, should be judged by sound bites. I actually believe quite the opposite. I think each of these men, despite all the crazy shit they say that I don't agree with, should be judged by the complete works of their entire respective lives, just like everyone else.

However, I think we should give the same amount of coverage to both men, and we haven't, and I think that's racism, plain and simple.

Of course, now that McCain has to actually run a campaign, perhaps this will be shoved more to the forefront.

One can dream.

New GOP tactics target Michelle Obama, scrape bottom of playbook barrel to scratch pseudo patriotic itch

I think the last two days of political machinations and surprise attacks from outside the American soil (I am referring to Bush's speech in the Knesset) just reinforces my point made in an earlier post titled - 'GOP fear mongering costs special election' - that these GOP morons are getting desperate and using hack tactics and unsubstantiated attacks to further their fall presidential aspirations.

It is gonna get worse in the weeks to come. New ads running in Tennessee attack Michelle Obama for her statement that she was 'proud of America for the first time in her adult life'(paraphrase) They basically loop it, take it out of context and use it to question the Obamas' patriotism. First the lapel pin, then this. They replay her comments 6 times in the ad - so as to hit your numbed and anaesthetised brain over and over with non specific misinformation. The GOP wants to say that they have always been proud of this country and always will be while the Obamas are some kind of new species who only discovered this rare and prized emotion after encountering political success. Only they have a 24/7, year-in-and-year-out Nationalist hard-on that can be tested at any time on the granite of Mount Rushmore.

Is pride in the country the primary emotion one feels when he or she wakes up in the morning? Does one walk around all day with images of victory and sacrifice ringing in their head? As one navigates dead-still traffic and imbecilic work assignments, does one feel the silky comfort of being wrapped in a national flag? Does a factory worker pushing a refrigerator feel like he is supporting and raising the flapping banner of freedom in Iwo Jima?

Also as part of their attack strategy, they encourage state radio stations to play patriotic music over and over! Tell me this folks, do you really need your local supermarkets to loop cheesy renditions of Christmas classics in November for you to get into the spirit? Doesn't it actually make you want the whole season to be over after the 10th time you hear 'Jingle Bells'? If anything, the overuse of patriotic imagery, music and language makes the whole thing prosaic.

Have the events of the last 8 years really been things that Americans need to be proud of? How does one turn body bags created from a futile conflict into pride? Even the human courage during 9/11 - how specifically American is it to help people trapped in a burning building? It is something to be proud of, sure. But does it have to always be in the name of the country? When that happens, it becomes easy for a ridiculous clown like Giuliani or Bush to hijack that sentiment and turn it to his political advantage.

Get wise, people. Accusations of the lack of patriotism come from those with little else to offer or say - it is the last refuge of the scoundrel indeed.

Notes from the Right Wing: Bush Right for Once?

From the AP:

Congress responded speedily to voters' angst over rising grocery prices and $4-a-gallon gasoline Thursday, bucking President Bush's veto threats with lopsided votes to boost food stamps and farm subsidies — after ordering Bush to quit pouring oil into the nation's emergency reserves...
On the oil reserve vote, Democrats also easily won as key Republicans lent support...
Bush has refused to halt the shipment of about 70,000 barrels of oil a day into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, saying it was such a small amount that it had no impact on gasoline or crude oil prices.Lawmakers acknowledged in debate on the issue this week that suspending the deliveries into the stockpile was a small step in response to oil prices of nearly $125 a barrel and gasoline threatening to go to $4 a gallon.

... aaaaand pander pander pander. The U.S. federal government's strategic oil reserve was created to provide some relief in the event of a massive oil shortage. WE ARE NOT UNDERGOING A MASSIVE OIL SHORTAGE. Production is up and consumption is down from last year. The benefits of continuing to add to the reserve far outweigh the costs. We're looking at possible extreme shortages in the next 50 years, and we're going to need to be able to cushion the blow. Building the strategic oil reserve is prudent long-term planning.

On to the article's other point...

The White House has indicated that Bush will sign the reserve measure, but he has remained more obstinate on the $290 billion farm legislation. He has said he will veto it, contending it is fiscally irresponsible and too generous to wealthy corporate farmers in a time of record crop prices.

The article is referring to the bill's provision of a $220 Billion increase in funding for food stamps and an additional $70 Billion for farm subsidies.

Why are we subsidizing farming when farmers are enjoying record high profits this year?

A hundred Republicans in the House had voted the same way Wednesday, a day after the party's third straight loss of a long-help GOP seat to Democrats in special elections.The three House districts, located in Illinois, Louisiana and Mississippi, include rural farm areas.

...aaaaand pander pander pander. When are we finally going to call bullshit on this type of thing? Corporate welfare sickens me. Feeding the hungry mouths that are already fat and bloated.

And speaking of feeding fat, bloated mouths, how about the food stamps part of this pander bill? Anyone that's read my other posts can guess how I feel about food stamps, and this is more of a personal note, but have you guys ever noticed how whenever the person in line ahead of you at the grocery store is paying with food stamps, that person is grotesquely fat 90% of the time? This country has a serious problem with overconsumption. Paying people to consume more -- and to have more kids, who will also consume more -- may seem humane, but it's going to cripple us in the long haul.

I'm Joeverkill, and this has been Notes from the Right Wing.

put down the burger before you kill us all

thank god for the british. the bbc has the huevos to say what's right in front of our faces: fat people consume too much energy.

this goes beyond just the fact that they consume "18% more calories than average". they also require more gasoline to tow their fat asses to denny's, more air conditioning to cool their sweaty pathetic excuses for bodies, and so forth.

apologists in the supposed 'fat acceptance movement' would have you believe that we shouldn't judge people based on their size. they say we should accept the fact that our health care system is overburdened by cases of fat fuck diabetes. some asshat from the 'national obesity forum' even said at the end of the aforementioned bbc article that blaming these spheroid slobs for energy woes is "discriminatory towards obese people."

damn right it is. that's ok, and good.

to me, these lardistas represent the ultimate and final failure of the feel-good political correctness movement. this is the bastard son of the civil rights movement, when we all collectively realized we should be less discriminatory towards blacks, gays, women, and so forth. discriminating against them solely on the basis of gayness, blackness, or chickness is not ok. we know that now. however, nobody ever turned black, gay, or female from eating too many doritos. stop defending your right to neglect your own health.

i know a thing or two about this obesity problem. i grew up in that aesthetically pleasing and sexually desirable subgroup of geekdom known as "acne-covered fatty." it's not pretty. right around when i turned 17, i had just about enough having complete shame in my body. it occurred to me that maybe - JUST MAYBE - i could fight my way out fatness and have a little pride in my body. it was then that i discovered two miracle techniques for weight loss.

crack and meth?
anorexia and bulemia?
NO.
DIET AND EXERCISE.
it's really not hard. just ask that annoying pr tool jared fogel. he even managed to pull it off while still eating out every day.

it is in this frame of mind that i wish to send a message to every lardass, porky mcpitstain, and farty fatty out there in the blogosphere:
your fat ass is your fault and your responsibilty. not mcdonalds'. not our culture's. not your pituitary gland's.
yours.

in the face of rising food scarcity and increasing obesity levels in all demographics, i'd like to officially declare the launch on the Global War on Fatties. if you:
A) can't see your own dick,
B) can store whole sandwiches in your folds, or
C) have ever been mistaken for a maternal fertility goddess, and
D) aren't taking any sensible measures to address this problem,
you had better get to a gym and learn to run, because i'm going to personally unleash my throng of starving third-world peasants on you. they're hungry, and they will hunt you, kill you, and gorge themselves on your internal organs.

might as well get some use out of that energy, right?

In lighter news

Rich motherfuckers are about to get F'd in the A.



And yes, I do understand that this fucks everyone. And yes, I still enjoy watching these bastards finally get what's coming to them.

Call me a classist. I'll own up to it. I think that the biggest threats to the extremely delicate global human ecosystem we have set up on this planet are the lusts for money and power (these two tend to go hand-in-hand, if you can believe it).

If you don't like it, then show me I'm wrong.

Also, by the way. The next few years are going to suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

So brace yourself.

Calling on in Transit

Weak American dollar causes shut down of Radio Free Europe.

From the Economist:

FOR outsiders interested in the ex-communist world, the English-language material produced by the research department of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) is invaluable. But it will not be available much longer. The department is closing. Its analysts are job hunting. Some bulletins have stopped already. The reason is simple: budget cuts caused by the weak dollar.

(Italics mine, for effect)

First of all, I'd like to point out that I know finger-pointing when I see it. As one of my good friends who has a bit more perspective (and probably more brains) than I told me - this was a long time coming.

Radio Free Europe served a very specific purpose, and one could certainly argue that they are no longer necessary. However, one could also argue that such an important establishment should never be lost to budget cuts. This is a piece of European history - of world history - and should be treated with a reference not even afforded to NPR in America.

The value of giving hope to the hopeless is unquantifiable. It cannot simply be written out of a budget. And the voice of hope certainly should never be quelled by these wannabe pseudo-fascists (and ultimately, failures in their own right) , and their inability to properly direct a functioning economy.

I know it's not a food crisis, but it is a voice. It's a voice of the people that worked for the greater good of the downtrodden citizens who were themselves forced daily to only half-live their lives under militantly oppressive conditions.

Radio Free Europe gave them news. It gave them truth. Above all, it gave them hope.

And now, it may go the way of the dinosaur, Dynasty, and democracy in America. We can only hope that we can right our own ship in time to preserve one of the truest and brightest beacons of freedom the world has ever known.

Bush Sacrifices Golf, Thousands of Young Blogs for Iraq War

Q: Mr. President, you haven’t been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?

A: Yes, it really is. I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as — to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.

Q: Was there a particular moment of incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?

A: I remember when de Mello, who was at the UN, got killed in Bagdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man’s life. And I was playing golf. I think I was in Central Texas. And they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it’s just not worth it anymore to do.”

Such was the content of a question and answer segment of a recent, much discussed interview with President George W. Bush. Keith Olbermann goes off in this Special Comment YouTube clip.




Hold on for a second while I channel Keith Olbermann for I Can Has Freedoms?'s own Special Blogment:

Golf, Sir?

Golf?

Why did it have to be a leisure activity, Mr. President? Did you think giving up golf would suffice as adequate solidarity for the thousands of millions of I Can Has Freedoms? blog readers gutted and mustachioed by the intrepid ennui of missed blog opportunities by YOUR refusal to do anything whatsoever athletic and by-God scoffable?

(Slow, stern turn to Camera 2)

Golf. And we should expect nothing less from you, Good Sir. Mark Twain once mused that golf was to him “a good walk spoiled.” But you, sir. You. You have made war a good sport spoiled. And in so doing for that most egregious offense to the good blog-writing Americans, there will be no Eagle, no birdie, no par-for-the-course putt for you, Mr. President. Only a double-bogie, a three-under par drop shot hack in the rough so gnarled and overgrown not even your precious Patriot Act, warmongering, brush-clearing obsession can redeem you. No, Sir. Mr. President. No, sir. Shame, Mr. Sir. Shame, Sir. President.

Good night and good luck.

This is also available at my crappy sports-politics blog (shameless plug). It makes more sense there, but what the hell.

If You Don't Know Your Asshole From Your Elbow

You probably shouldn't go on Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Observe:

technology: now with more oppression!

a couple of news items from the ol' intertubes have gotten me a little creeped out about the future of warfare technology.

first, slashdot reports on a program in the us air force dedicated to enable full access to "any and all operating systems, patch levels, applications and hardware." for those of you who don't speak geek, this means that the usaf wants the ability to hack and use any single computer in the world they have access to, from google's mainframe to the blackberry that that self-important douchebag in your office looks at every three seconds.

while this scares the hell out of me and i'm going to do everything i can do avoid a gubmint-made hack attack, they've got every right to begin to develop technologies to withstand cyberattack. cyberwars will be a pivotal part of 21st-century warfare, as our informational nerve center now has huge bearings on commerce, information distribution, and spontaneous grassroots organizations aka 'smart mobs'. the first major cybershots were fired last year, when russia allegedly began attacking estonia's internet infrastructure with ddos attacks (translation: overloaded their web pages with requests). the pentagon is even afraid that china is pushing to "achieve “electronic dominance” over each of its global rivals by 2050, particularly the US, Britain, Russia and South Korea," according to the times of london (disclaimer: the times is wholly owned by rupert murdoch's news corporation).

ok, so if everything is going to be cybernetic in 21st-century wars, what about the soldiers? yep, them too. the next generation of felon-cum-colonel could very well be equipped with "an 'exoskeleton' of aluminum and electronics that multiplies his strength and endurance as many as 20 times," says the associated press. however, it's allegedly being developed with civilian and non-violent purposes in mind as well.

i don't want to immediately scream 'orwell!' over the robot suits. we're probably not going to be constantly raided by thugs and hicks with gatling guns for arms. all i'm saying is that once this future shows up, the second amendment had better be updated to include the right to wear kickass robot suits.

GOP fear mongering costs them another special election

(CNN) -- A third-straight special election defeat in as many months left congressional Republicans reeling Wednesday, seriously concerned about what the November elections have in store for their party.

Travis Childers(D) defeated Greg Davis(R) in a seat that has gone Republican for the last 15 years and one where Bush defeated Kerry by a solid 25 points. The times are a-changing. However, what is interesting is that the Republican party used Davis' campaign leading up to the election to test drive its fall stratergy - that of linking the opposition to Obama and through him to the boogeyman that is Rev Wright. Instead of proposing policy, or attacking Childers' solutions which opposed those put in place by 15 years of GOP rule, or heck, even attacking Obama's policies, they chose to run an attack ad questioning Childer's endorsement of Obama.

In a move reminiscent of Stalinist or McCarthyite tactics, the ad made the point that because Childers endorsed Obama without denouncing his Reverand, he was some how tainted and a depraved radical as well. Lest you think that my earlier reference to Stalin or McCarthy were just typical of my admitted weakness for rhetorical bombast, I will try to explain the similarities. During the Stalinist putsches someone could be arrested simply for failing to denounce an ex-comrade or even a casual acquaintance who had now fallen out of favor with the party line. The most flimsy connection would be used against one when shake up time came. McCarthy too created such a frenzy of fear and distrust, that denunciations, baseless or otherwise, were used by people to exact political revenge or to extract themselves from public scrutiny by pointing out someone else to take the heat.

In this case, the election had little to do with Childers' endorsement of a national candidate and absolutely nothing to do with the Reverand. The GOP simply wanted to see how much play the issue would get them, in what they assumed was a relatively safe electoral playground where they had nothing to lose, save for a few percentage points. They believed they were playing a statistical game and their arrogant decision has come back to bite them.

If anything, the last few weeks have shown us, it is that the American public does not kowtow to any party or media line and it does not appreciate being taken for granted or lied to. Strains of The Who's "Won't be fooled again" soundtracked this entire movement of the campaign process. First they rejected Hillary's penny gas drive and now they have stood up to a party that took their vote for granted and tried to run a badly disguised play to distract them.

Their three losses notwithstanding, the GOP plans to continue using this tactic come fall. What more will it take to convince the people running the Republican campaign to come to their senses? A twenty five point reverse in a conservative stronghold is apparently not enough. This tells me something. They have nothing else left to offer. Continuing the war in Iraq and prolonging the suspensions of freedom under the Patriot Act is starting to turn off even the hardcore Republicans who voted for Bush twice. The economic slowdown and gas crisis hasve shown that the policies in place for the last eight years have not had the promised effect of sustaining growth. The links between the two failed policies - endless war and tax cuts - along with the effects of extravagant government spending, have become apparent to voters.

All that is left is an appeal to the religious right and to the much vaunted 'values voters'.
However the problem with those folks is that they were going to vote Republican anyway if they voted at all. They are not swing voters anymore and the kind that may have needed swaying are not going to be swayed by McCain. That alliance is at this point a festering corpse that McCain is poking with the sceptre/spectre of a Democratic Victory.

Here is another piece of interesting news regarding this particular loss in Missisipi that I was lucky to hear about on CNN(TV). They sent Dick Cheney to Mississippi to campaign for Greg Davis. That has to be the stupidest thing the GOP can do at this point. Their effort should be to distance the new candidate from the old guard, so that he can sell the same old snake oil in new packaging without letting voters know what he is doing - whether it be this guy Davis or McCain in the fall. Sending out Ol' Forked Tongue at this point only points to a paucity of ideas in the Republican camp. What are they gonna do next? Unfreeze Donald Rumsfeld and send him out to trot up support from senile voters nostalgic for the times when being told the US was winning in Iraq was the same as actually winning outright?

bush, greenspan kick me in the nuts

Thank you for your interest in Sallie Mae, the nation's leading provider of saving- and paying-for-college programs. We have temporarily suspended offering our private consolidation loan program. No new private consolidation loan requests will be processed at this time.

shit.
and in case all you academic types are interested (i know you are):

Sallie Mae's Federal Consolidation Loan service is not available at this time.

Severe legislative cuts made by Congress made federal loan consolidation uneconomical. This, combined with the credit market deterioration, has caused us to suspend participation in the federal consolidation loan program.

as long as i keep pretending my private school education was financially worth it, everything will be ok.

link.

Tinfoil Hat Time: 9/11 Conspiracy

Look - I'm not trying to go all "Loose Change" on a motherfucker, but the fact remains that if we are still debating the legitimacy of the whole 9/11 official story, then shouldn't we actually take another objective look at it?

I'm not saying Dick Cheney was laughing maniacally as the towers fell, but I will say that it's been seven years, these men have proven themselves completely untrustworthy and perhaps it's time that we just reopened the books, just to be sure nothing inappropriate went on behind closed doors.

"Who the hell is debating the legitimacy of the 9/11 story?" you ask?

Why, it's some kooky fucking Arizona Republican calling out the government, of course!

Verbatim:

A recent letter to the editor asked for evidence of my claims regarding the tragedy of 9/11. Below I present some points that are presently known. I won’t be able to convince anyone who doesn’t want to be convinced, but for those who are willing to deal with factual evidence, consider the following:

• 37 different people reported explosions in the basement of the World Trade Center Towers before the first plane hit, and seismic equipment recorded both the explosions and the impacts. In addition, people were injured by the explosions in the basement, providing well-documented evidence. Yet this evidence is ignored.

•The media and government have promoted the “pancake theory” as the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers — that is, fire weakened the steel support beams, causing the upper floors to collapse. Then the weight of the collapsing floors above caused the floors below to collapse. This theory is not consistent with scientific principles or the facts. Frank Legge, who has a doctorate in chemistry, and Tony Szamboti, a mechanical engineer, reported in December in the Journal of 9/11 Studies: “It appears therefore that the official concept of a free-fall collapse of the upper portion through the initiation story, due to heat effects from fire, is a fantasy. If the temperature did become high enough for collapse to occur” — and everyone agrees that it did not — “it could not have happened in the observed manner. In particular it could not have been sudden and thus could not have produced the velocity, and hence the momentum and kinetic energy, upon which the official story depends for the second stage of collapse.”

• The theory that the buildings collapsed due to controlled-demolition explosives, however, is consistent with scientific principles and the facts. The “demolition” theory, in fact, is the only one which scientists have been able to corroborate. That is, “… all observations are in accord with the use of explosives in a time sequence.” (Legge and Szamboti, December, Journal of 9/11 Studies.)

• Peer-reviewed reports indicate that the masses of dust particles created by the disaster contained tiny pieces of metal that had been exposed to both extreme temperatures (higher than could have been produced by a burning office or burning airplane fuel) and extreme pressure (such as an explosion) that would fragment material into minute particles. Official reports ignore this.

• In December, physicist Steven Jones announced the discovery of thermite chips in World Trade Center dust samples. The chemical composition of these chips are an exact match to known thermite samples used in controlled demolitions — further corroboration that explosive devices were involved.

• Steel support beams recovered from the site of the World Trade Center exhibit cut edges that are characteristic of thermite used to slice steel support beams in building demolitions but are not characteristic of steel beams that have been burned in a fire.

When the 9/11 Commission Report was finally released, it was woefully inadequate. It never even addressed the collapse of Building 7, for example. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has stated that there are inaccuracies in the report and unanswered questions. Even the two chairmen of the 9/11 Commission — Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton — have accused the CIA of “obstructing” the commission, and one commissioner, U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, resigned, stating that the commission was “compromised.”

Private individuals with specialized knowledge — scientists, engineers, architects, demolitions experts, and the firefighters and police officers who were on the scene on Sept. 11, 2001, have tested theories, constructed models, provided testimony, and dug for the truth about what really happened on 9/11. They have been ignored by media and the government.

The mainstream media parrot the less-than-credible conclusions of the 9/11 Commission without giving any thought to the many omissions and inconsistencies. In a truly free country, the press would ask hard questions and do real investigating, but this is not happening. Only the alternative media, such as Internet news sites, have done any solid investigating.

The events of 9/11 led immediately to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and passage of the Patriot Act (what double-speak), both of which deprive us of Constitutional rights and have brought us to the brink of becoming a police state. Homeland Security is currently trying to force a national ID card down our throats, although some governors have politely (or not so politely) told Secretary Michael Chertoff where he can go.

If we’re going to sacrifice our freedom, there ought to be a very good reason, and we have a right to know what that is. It isn’t enough for government to say, “Trust me.” It’s way past time for Congress to authorize an independent investigation of 9/11 that will consider the mass of new evidence that has been gathered in the past seven years. The longer they stall, the more suspicions grow.

Sen. Karen S. Johnson, R-Mesa, represents District 18.

Say what you want, but the lady makes some solid points. She also has, y'know numbers and shit, which look impressive. It's always good to have things like data and such to back your claims.

I show you this, so I can then show you the other. And this is really why I think we need to reopen the investigation. For as you will see, while poor Karen Johnson must live in a world where things like reality and numbers factor into her perspective, those who oppose her views on 9/11 seem less inclined to do so.

Example 1:

Not impossible, but still crazy

Like I have always said, people believe what they want to believe and refuse to believe what they do not want to believe, as Sen. Karen Johnson once again demonstrates (“Backing my claims about 9/11 questions,” Opinion 2, Saturday).

The History Channel did a program examining 9/11 conspiracy theories and offered evidence that these theories were not credible. But it is not possible to prove, of course, that our government did not attack America and destroy the World Trade Center. It is possible to think this is a silly and dangerous idea. Once an event happens it becomes history and can only be reconstructed from less-that-perfect evidence. This invites everyone to give it his or her own two-cent ideas.

To concentrate on proving our government is this evil is to ignore the reality of our enemy. They have proven motive, means and opportunity for 9/11. They have been killing Americans for more than 40 years now and have in their own thoughts been at war with America for a long time.

It would be wrong to ignore the problems in our intelligence community and in the State Department, that have persisted through several administrations, of all persuasions, that has given us such a poor understanding of the Middle East.

JAMES R. SCHER

CHANDLER

If you're scoring at home, yes, Mr. Scher cited The History Channel as his main source.

Example 2:

Wacky and wackier

What a double-header on the Opinion 2 page Saturday! I wasn’t sure whether it was “Dumb and Dumber” redux, or nut and nuttier. I’ll settle for the latter, because Tibor Machan and Sen. Karen Johnson probably are intelligent, just wacko....

Johnson has never met a conspiracy theory she didn’t like. Her brain has a sign on it that says “for amusement only.” I think she is almost due to leave the Legislature thanks to term limits — now we just have to pay her retirement for the rest of her life. How about a story from the Tribune on the retirement pay for legislators? And a sidebar on the regular pay including per diem and travel allowances?

This started out to be a cancellation of our subscription (what a shame — our family has read the Trib since the 1940s), but my wife likes the bridge column and I do the crossword. We’ll try to avoid the editorial pages from here on out to help our blood pressure.

FRANK BENNETT SR.

MESA

As you can see, Mr. Bennett has eschewed sources in favor of good old-fashioned insults.

Example 3:

Why trust Congress?

I was saddened to read Sen. Karen Johnson’s, R-Mesa, piece (Opinion 2, Saturday) defending her belief that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. She says she can’t convince anyone that doesn’t want to be convinced and then presents the “factual evidence” that should convince those who can be convinced.

When I first saw the “evidence” some years ago, I too was intrigued by it, but then I did something that the 9/11 conspiracy folks never seem to do — I sought out knowledgeable explanations for the “evidence.”

Beyond the fact that the “evidence” is refutable, I would ask Sen. Johnson and all those who are so eager to believe in a 9/11 conspiracy (other than the actual one hatched by bin Laden), did you not believe your eyes? We saw the planes hit the buildings. The people who were on those planes are gone, are they not? We know who the hijackers were and how they trained for their hideous mission. Do you have any idea how long it takes and what is involved in preparing a large building (let alone the Twin Towers and Building No. 7) for demolition with explosives? And none of the many thousands of people who worked in those buildings every day noticed anything untoward?

Most of the 9/11 conspiracy folks tend to be leftists who are so warped by their hatred of President Bush and his “evil administration” they have no problem accepting the most absurd premises; so it is with some surprise to see Johnson, who I usually agree with politically, getting fitted for a tinfoil hat. I would ask her one last question. If she truly believes that the government was behind 9/11 and she wants “Congress to authorize an independent investigation,” how does she know Congress isn’t in on the conspiracy?

DAN DOMINEY

MESA

Mr. Dominey chooses to refute Sen. Johnson's ideas, but he cites only his "own eyes" as his sources. He does say that he did a bit of research, but he doesn't say where. He then calls into the question the basic patriotism of anyone who doesn't like President Bush.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying I agree with the Senator's views on this. I'm not saying some of her information isn't possibly false. What I am saying is that her argument is constructed in such a way so as to cause me to think she is someone who might possibly have her wits about her.

As such, I think that an abject dismissal of her point of view is unfair. To call her patriotism into question simply because she refuses to support the worst President we've ever had is just imbecilic.

Why is it that I can't tell you that I believe that an administration that has no problem torturing people, wiretapping its own citizens or starting a war for the sake of profit and deflection might - I mean maybe, possibly, I'm not saying they did I'm just saying they could have - might have possibly not let us all in on the full story of what went down on the day that basically GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO PULL EVERY SINGLE TYPE OF BULLSHIT THEY'VE BEEN PULLING EVER SINCE IT HAPPENED???

Seriously, you don't think maybe we should keep digging until we absolutely know beyond a shadow of a doubt that these guys are clean?

It'd be a better use of our tax money than the war, in my humble opinion.

Swiss Government Tackles Important Issues

Fear not, tater fans! The Swiss government has taken preemptive action against a potential french fry shortage!

I think it's kind of weird that there are rarely articles in the newspaper about the Swiss. Hell, I kind of forgot that country even existed. Anyway, keep on truckin' Swiss government--I, for one, appreciate your efforts!

Holy Flame War pt 1

I don't mean to be hard on the new guy, but I'm about to be hard on the new guy.

As someone who has actually read the bible front to back more than once, I take general offense to people passing dogmatic and political bullshit off as the teachings of Jesus.

In the interests of full disclosure, let me say that I believe the Religious Right is a bigoted, fearful, hypocritical and ultimately horribly misguided monster of a political machine that threatens the very sanctity of American freedom, not to mention human life around the world (just ask those one million Iraqis. Does Jesus not love them?)

Southern_Pride, you said this:

1. You're right, I wrote it, not Jesus... Jesus doesn't write for this blog, therefore your first comment about paragraphs doesn't make sense.

2. If Jesus is completely man AND completely God, as Christians believe, then who said he wasn't omniscient? If you think Jesus played all the cards in His deck I'd go ahead and say that you're sorely mistaken.

3. Unless you have one, there's no written record by the man Himself on the Sermon on the Mount. Pretty sure that was written by my man Matthew the Evangelist in his post tax collector days.


To your first point - I apologize for being facetious. It was disrespectful to you and your belief system. I was not forthright in letting you know that I too share many core beliefs of the Christian faith, and therefore was talking a bit out the side of my mouth. I could see how you could misconstrue this as an attack on your beliefs. This was not my goal.

To your second point - Jesus was god in the form of man. This ridiculous notion that he was somehow 200% GodMan has stake neither in theology nor logic. The story of Jesus is a simple and touching one. God so loved the world that he made himself man and walked the earth. He understood temptation, hunger, pain and all number of other horrors before ultimately sacrificing himself for the greater good of all of his most-valued creation.

Don't mar this story with the All-American Christ nonsense about some messianic superhero. It's quite a gorgeous narrative without Jesus knowing everything all the time.

To your third point - You can't have your cake and eat it too. The Bible is either the pure and holy WORD OF GOD, or it's the work of many men who felt they needed to pass down stories that may or may not be somewhat imperfect due to the flaws of their authors.

If you want to argue the latter, you won't get any resistance from me. However, the Religious Right will not be down with your new interpretation of The Good Book.

And finally, to my point - I find it bothersome that the Religious Right feels free to pick and choose the parts of their religious tome and belief structure that should or shouldn't be applicable to politics. This subversive and insidious practice has no place in 21st century America. It smacks of the Dark Ages and bothers those of us who have found a way to adhere to the teachings of a man who may well have been as enlightened as there ever was without being complete fucking cocks about it.

Questions? Comments?

This is just sad

From a CNN news story detailing the West Virginia primary:

Under pressure from some to withdraw from the race, Clinton insists that West Virginia, where only 28 delegates are at stake, is a key state in the fight for the White House.

She said again Monday that no Democratic candidate since 1916 has gone on to win the White House without first winning West Virginia.

"West Virginia is making a decision that has far-reaching consequences to send a message to people what you expect from your next president," she said at a stop in Clear Fork, West Virginia.

That's all well and good, and she's totally right. Peep these numbers, later in the article:

Clinton's campaign says she would be more electable in a general election because she has done well in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, as well as Florida and Michigan, which were stripped of their delegates.

West Virginia is also a key swing state. Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, and George Bush carried it in 2000 and 2004.

Wow. All the sudden maybe it doesn't look like Hillary Clinton is just totally out of her mind! Can this be?

The answer is no, because if you keep reading, you'll see this:

Clinton is expected to trounce Obama in West Virginia, but [West Virginia Governor Joe] Manchin said he thinks Obama would also be able to carry the state in the general election.

homo sapiens: earth's version of herpes

i'm not sure what it is, but every time i read the news i get a little terrified about the fate of the world. it used to be ok when i'd just read this kind of stuff on crank blogs (thank you very much, reddit). now, mainstream media is in the act. an op-ed from sunday's edition of the west coast's foremost liberal rag, the los angeles times, has officially reached chicken little status with regard to climate change. the sky is fucking falling:

[fixing the problem] means no more new coal-fired power plants anywhere, and plans to quickly close the ones already in operation. (Coal-fired power plants operating the way they're supposed to are, in global warming terms, as dangerous as nuclear plants melting down.) It means making car factories turn out efficient hybrids next year, just the way U.S. automakers made them turn out tanks in six months at the start of World War II. It means making trains an absolute priority and planes a taboo.

It means making every decision wisely because we have so little time and so little money, at least relative to the task at hand. And hardest of all, it means the rich countries of the world sharing resources and technology freely with the poorest ones so that they can develop dignified lives without burning their cheap coal.

this kind of thing used to look like alarmism. back when kerry was the great hope for the democrats, i used to feel like a complete crank even bringing up the worst-case scenarios regarding climate change, the economy, america's future, or anything else that's completely falling apart in 2008. thankfully, these days there are now fewer people left who refuse to accept the danger of the situation. the problem? the people who deny it are oil executives and their shit-for-brains cronies in washington.

meet senator james inhofe (r-oklahoma). he represents his constituency well, honoring the family values and so forth that they hold so dear. his website invites you to "help save america! beat back the status quo." truly, he is the candidate of change. he's a staunch supporter of israel's right to exist ("I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so."), and traditional families ("I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.")

this may sound surprising, but sen. inhofe has trouble coming to grips with reality, and is an avid climate change denier. he has compared 'an inconvenient truth' to 'mein kampf' (funny, i don't remember hitler winning the nobel peace prize), and climate change zealots to nazis.

so what's the big deal, you ask? why is this one asshole a problem?

SENATOR JAMES INHOFE IS THE RANKING MINORITY MEMBER OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS.

before the democrats took back the senate in '06, he was the fucking chairman. this means, roughly speaking, that any scientific data that comes through that senate committee gets filtered by way of a literal interpretation of the bible. coincidentally, he takes a lot of cash from the oil and gas industries.

if you still think that this election cycle is not important, think again. the reason myself and others are alarmists about this is because alarmism is the rational outlook in this day and age. the clock is ticking, and ignorant zealots like james inhofe absolutely must be marginalized while there's still time.

i'm laughing only to keep from crying

REARDAN, Wash. - Mom-and-pop service stations are running into a problem as gasoline marches toward $4 a gallon: Thousands of old-fashioned pumps can't register more than $3.99 on their spinning mechanical dials.
---
Many of the same pumps can only count up to $99.99 for the total sale, preventing owners of some SUVs, vans, trucks and tractor-trailers to fill their tanks all the way.
---
Mechanical meters can be retrofitted with higher numbers when pump prices climb another dollar. The last time that happened was in late 2005, when gas went over $3 a gallon, and owners of the older pumps installed kits that went to $3.999.

This time around, owners of the old pumps will need to install another kit that can handle prices up to $4.999, and possibly higher. Industry experts say those changes could cost as much as $650 per pump.

link.

the all-poverty diet

so you know how the price of corn is shooting way up? turns out that'll have some good results. sugar manufacturers are predicting that high-fructose corn syrup will be priced out in favor of actual fucking sugar, according to this wall street journal article (subscription/trial needed. i didn't do either...sue me. we're better off not giving old man murdoch any cash anyway).

for those of you who are unaware of the difference, sugar is a natural thing that grows out of the ground in canes. it tastes sweet, because anyone who paid attention in high school biology realizes it's our basic fuel. meanwhile, high fructose corn syrup is "any of a group of corn syrups which have undergone enzymatic processing in order to increase their fructose content and are then mixed with pure corn syrup (100% glucose) to reach their final form." (source: wikipedia)

sound very good to you? me neither.

because of high sugar tariffs and american protectionism for corn farmers, pure cane sugar was gradually phased out as a sweetener in favor of this sugary corn sludge (tinfoil hat time: some people suspect the new coke fiasco was actually a bait-and-switch for a new hfcs-based formula). thankfully, i shop at a costco in san diego, meaning i can get the old-school cane sugar stuff in glass bottles. it's made in mexico, but mark my words, mexicoke tastes so much better. for those of you keeping track, that means mexico has higher quality coca-cola than us.

anyone notice that's right around the time we started getting really fucking fat in america? surprise surprise! high-fructose corn syrup is potentially linked to obesity and diabetes, which is great, because they've been putting it in chocolate milk for schoolkids. even the fda won't call it 'natural' anymore.

maybe the threat of hfcs is overblown, and it's really just a fancy high-tech substitute for sugar, but i tend to favor the foods that don't have long chemical names.

but just so we're clear here, even if you get regular ol' sugar-coke in favor of the hfcs nonsense, it's still probably not a good idea to get 64 ounces of the shit to go with your burger.