Email notification to Brandon Starr's blog has been shown to reduce bad cholesterol in two-toed sloths, and has been used as an effective exfoliant.
|
|
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Only 6 percent of Iraq reconstruction money...
... that Congress approved last year has been spent.
The article I linked to on MSNBC focuses on an intelligence paper downbeat on Iraq. At first I thought it was the big news, but it was based on intel from a few months before the war. Still, it's interesting that the intel from that particular era could be so downbeat, even pessimistic, while Bush was thinking that he'd have our soldiers stroll into Baghdad and everyone would be grateful.
But to me the 6 percent is the real story. Why? Because it means that almost no progress has been made in Iraq. If the money could be spent on public works projects, it would be, but there are too many dangers, and too much insurgency, for that to happen. So bombs go off, and new buildings do not go up. So the Iraqi people are not seeing their society being put back together--far from it.
So much for all the BS about Iraqi new schools and so forth the Bush Administration has tried to put out there.
Kerry goes after Bush's record
Kerry goes after Bush's record
He's been saying Bush has been trying to avoid his record as President. And he is. I would, too, if it were as bad as Bush's.
Finally, a strong move. Well-timed, too. This election should be about the issues, and a big one in any race with an incumbent is "how did the incumbent do?" This should stick, because it will resonate. And it contrasts nicely with all the BS swift-boat lies and so on. As bad as Bush's Vietnam-era record was, it was thirty years ago. Bush's Presidential record is affecting us all today, right now.
Let's roll.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Family "thanks" Bush for death of son Tuesday, September 14, 2004
...in Iraq fighting, including 11 police officers and many lined up to apply to become police officers.
Crowds near the blast denounce U.S. forces and the Iraqi "government" for continued failure to protect police sites.
Separately, an oil pipeline junction was attacked and set afire north of Baghdad.
Oil has been creeping back upward the last couple of days. The main reason: hurricane Ivan's march towards the Gulf Coast and therefore the bulk of U.S. oil production. Today's second reason was the Iraqi pipeline attack.
Again, though this article doesn't go into it: world oil useage has crept up over time. Now it's very near what the world is able to produce regardless of oil quotas in OPEC, etc. Any hiccup in production means oil prices go up. The craziness caused by Bush's war ensures lots of hiccups in production. Add that to the other worldwide hiccups that come up, and oil prices have a tough time going down. My feeling is that they simply won't go down--not down to the high-$20s where they were before Bush's war. If we're lucky and things settle down a bit in Iraq and other worldwide factors don't come into play, we may see the mid-$30s again. But I wouldn't count on that either. (Full disclosure: I currently hold a bullish position in ExxonMobil, largely because of my belief that oil prices won't fall soon or far.)
I still think it's hilarious that the press gives any coverage to Bush's lip service on alternative fuels.
Monday, September 13, 2004
The Republican-held Congress allowed the assault weapons ban to lapse.
I'm having mixed feelings on this one. I am a believer in freedom, and I think most folks allow secondary issues to cloud the gun control arena. Most believe gun control is about crime or hunting or protection from criminals. It isn't. As the founding fathers set it down, it is about forming a last line of defense against the government should it turn dictatorial. An unarmed society is a society ripe for taking over by anyone who can control the army. Just ask any of the citizens of the Central American banana republics.
However, while even quite powerful assault weapons are a boon in the hands of reponsible citizens, they are quite dangerous in criminal hands. So there needs to be some assurance that these guns are kept away from the criminal element. This is the true balance that needs to be struck.
I don't think simply letting the assault weapon ban lapse is the best move. And I don't like the way the Republicans just let the ban lapse overnight, and without debate. It smacks of some of their dirtier legislative tactics of recent years, such as holding the votes open while they strong-arm Congressmen until they get the numbers they need, or holding votes at 3 AM when no one will see them voting.
So, while powerful weapons in the hands of the responsible are fine, the question is how will we keep them from the criminals? While I think the assault weapons ban went too far in keeping regular folks away from guns, it must be said it did a fair job making assault weapons hard for most criminals to get a hold of--except the most desperate or well-connected. With the lapse of this law, we have a legal vacuum with nothing else being put in place.
This I don't like.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
Movement afoot to impeach Tony Blair
Conservative MPs start movement to impeach Blair
The impeachment power hasn't been used in Britain since 1806.
Blair's supporters are going with multiple defenses--rather GOP-style if you ask me. First, they say that Blair has been exonerated by previous investigations. (I don't know how thorough they were or by whom, but they may well have been by Blair-friendly folks.) Second, they say it's a no-hoper--in other words, there just won't be the votes there for impeachment. This makes sense; Parliament puts the Prime Minister in place, thus the PM always has a majority in Parliament to back him up. It's also why Congress doesn't move to impeach Bush--though the majority control by the GOP are not related here in the U.S. Third, they say it's obsolete because it hasn't been used in so long. I say that's bunk--just because a law hasn't been used in a long time doesn't mean it's gone.
In any event, it's an interesting turn of events in our strongest ally in the so-called "coalition of the willing."
Oh, yeah, and news from our second-strongest ally in the S-C"COTW": Australian leaders are also sparring over Iraq.
Both stories from the BBC.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
Ivan bears down on Florida
It's looking almost certain now Ivan will raze the west coast of Florida
Three hurricanes in a month. No power, and high heat. Yeah, I'm glad I don't live in Florida.
I remember the one time I vacationed there, a storm passed through. The rain came down in sheets. I don't think I've been through rain anywhere else that hard. And I've lived in the Pacific Northwest for a long time now.*
Between living under a second Bush, the heat, and the hurricanes, I don't think I would want to live there. Beautiful state, though, at least when a hurricane hasn't been through.
* We usually get gentle rain, almost a mist, but we get our share of genuine rain storms too.
Friday, September 10, 2004
Cheney embarrassed by his own words, backs off on threat that terrorist attacks will happen more if Kerry elected (AP)
Cheney's role in the Bush campaign is to say the ugly, nasty things so that Bush can look "Presidential." Or, at least, as Presidential as Bush can look.
Cheney said:
"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
In other words, vote Republican or else. Of course, we know that Bush in his incompetence had 9/11 happen on HIS watch, while Clinton thwarted a millenium bomb threat and a multiple-hijacking threat. This despite the facts that 1) Clinton during the handover let Bush know that terrorism would be his number-one priority (or should be), 2) he got a briefing saying that bin Laden was trying to attack the United States and that hijackings would be part of that attack. Despite this, Bush never had a major counterterrorist meeting between the briefing and 9/11, and the Bush Administration CUT antiterrorist intelligence funding.
Today Cheney backed off his statement, lying by saying,
"I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack," Cheney told the newspaper. "Whoever is elected president has to anticipate more attacks.
"My point was the question before us is: Will we have the most effective policy in place to deal with that threat? George Bush will pursue a more effective policy than John Kerry,"
So who puts us in more ACTUAL danger by being in power? I say it's the incompetent. And we all know who that is.
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Details of Bush's Air Nat'l Guard suspension come out
Memos detail Bush's failure to fulfill his obligations to Texas Air National Guard that kept him out of Vietnam
The more memos from the period that come out, the more Kerry's service record shines--and the more the lies told against him are proven false. The more memos from the period that come out, the more Bush's "service" record is shown to be a sham--and the more the lies told to protect him are proven false.
In other words, the facts are all on Kerry's side, and the lies are all on Bush's side. The honorable service is all on Kerry's side, and the cowardice and shirking is all on Bush's side.
We're also starting to hear from those who got Bush placed ahead of other people to get into the Texas Air National Guard-- as happened on "Sixty Minutes." They themselves are calling it "preferential treatment" and seem uneasy about their actions--as they should be.
It's odd. The National Guard, during Vietnam, was a way of escaping the war. There was precious little honor in it, and none at all for guys like Bush, who were placed ahead of other people simply to get them in the Guard and out of Nam. But now, in Bush's War, the National Guard members are being sent over there to be shot at. Now it's a real, dangerous service to the country. It's almost as though Bush is trying to make the National Guard seem like it's always been a dangerous, useful service. Transmuting lead into gold, as it were. And the price is low--to Bush, which is how he likes it. That it costs the lives of National Guard members of today means precious little.
"Caption This!" is no longer online.
"Caption This!" didn't hit the radar screens for a lot of folks, but it was a lot of fun. It was based on the idea of being an online simulacrum of "Mystery Science Theater 3000," my favorite all-time TV show.
At "Caption This!" you saw screengrabs of whatever was playing on the Sci Fi Channel at the time--including ads, old "Star Trek" and "Twilight Zone" episodes, old bad horror movies, and even "Mystery Science Theater 3000" itself. Then you could enter a humorous caption and send it off for other folks to laugh at, and you could check out theirs. It was a continuous process. If you Google "caption this" you can find collections of peoples' favorite screengrab captions. Making fun of "Star Trek" was especially fun because it's a cultural touchstone and it made it easy to make funny references.
But with MST3k ending its run a few years ago, and more recently with reruns of the show ending on the Sci Fi Channel, apparently they've decided to stop that part of their site. I haven't found it moved to another site or anything.
If you want to know what "Caption This!" was like, check out Inventing Situations. It's the same concept, but instead of grabbing from a station, it grabs from old copyright-expired movies and shorts. It's a lot of fun, too.
But I'll miss "Caption This!" as it was one final link to that late, great show set on the Satellite of Love.
|
|
|
