Yeah, Right, Whatever

To play the game, you need a few things: a shot glass, a television, access to the Loyal Citizens chatroom (accessible via the Rottie), and a designated sober person for either making sure you don't miss a reference during the game or the toilet afterward.

// posted by Beth @ 10:38 PM |

<>While the chopper was near the dome, the pilot was in radio contact with Bobbie Myers, another geophysicist who during the 1980 blast learned to detect subtle changes in seismic monitors. "She's known to be able to predict explosive events up to a couple of minutes ahead of time," Winn said.

// posted by Beth @ 10:25 AM |

"The English-language term for a brew made with a top-fermenting yeast, which should impart to it a distinctive fruitiness. Ales are produced to a wide variety of colours, palates and strengths."

// posted by Beth @ 5:16 PM |

President Bush, after a campaign appearance in Bangor, held his plane on the tarmac when he heard an MD-11 carrying 292 Army reservists and National Guard members was about to refuel here. For the troops, grimly heading toward an 18-to-24-month assignment in Iraq, it was a welcome lift. For Bush, who has been accusing his Democratic presidential opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry, of demoralizing the troops in Iraq by criticizing the war effort, it was a chance to demonstrate his devotion to the troops.

"May God bless you all," the commander in chief said over the plane's public address system. "May God keep you safe." As he worked his way up and down the plane's aisles, posing for photographs, signing autographs and shaking hands, the happily surprised troops called out to him.

"That's my president, hooah!" shouted Sgt. Wanda Dabbs, 22, a member of the 230th Area Support Group, a Guard unit from Tennessee. Others seconded her cheer.

// posted by Beth @ 10:08 AM |

The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been released.

"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said.

Minority voters may be deterred from voting simply by election officials demanding to see drivers' licenses before handing them a ballot, according to Spencer Overton, who teaches law at George Washington University. "African Americans are four to five times less likely than whites to have a photo ID," Overton said at a recent briefing on minority disenfranchisement.

... black voters had been 10 times more likely than non-black voters to have their ballots rejected and were often prevented from voting because their names were erroneously purged from registration lists....registrars across the country often claimed not to have received voter registration forms or rejected them for technical reasons that could have been corrected easily before voting day if the applicant had known there was a problem.....

// posted by Beth @ 9:45 PM |

An Iranian woman, beaten every day by her husband, asked a court to tell him only to beat her once a week. Maryam, the middle-age woman, said she did not want to divorce her husband because she loved him.

// posted by Beth @ 2:41 PM |

In vote-pairing, swing-state progressives whose first instinct might have been to vote for Nader or Cobb announce their strategic decision to vote for Kerry-Edwards instead; Democrats (and others) in "safe" states whose first instinct might have been to vote for Kerry instead announce their strategic decision to vote for Nader or Cobb as part of the VotePair movement.

Unfortunately, there's no third-party candidate in Texas to vote for! It's unlikely that either Cobb or Nader will obtain ballot status. However, it's possible that we'll assign pairs (at the end of October) that involve write-in votes. If you'd still like to register, please indicate who you'd be willing to vote for in that case.

// posted by Beth @ 4:51 PM |

This election is about choices. The most important choices a President makes are about protecting America… at home and around the world. A president’s first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals.

Only a few blocks from here, three years ago, the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight… and to win… the war on terrorism.

With us today is a remarkable group of women who lost loved ones on September 11th … and whose support I am honored to have. Not only did they suffer an unbearable loss – they helped us learn the lessons of that terrible time by insisting on the creation of the 9/11 Commission. I ask them to stand. And I thank them on behalf of our country -- and I pledge to them and to you that I will implement the 9-11 recommendations.

Oh, geez. Not them. You know who I'm talking about... the three or four 9/11 widows who made the morning show circuit and raised a big stink when they weren't accurately informed on the subject. I am truly sorry for their loss. And I'm even more sorry that, in their grief, they choose to lash out at people who had nothing to do with their loss.

In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America’s ideals. We must reach them.

Unfortunately, our enemies aren't open to American ideals. They want to destroy this way of life. And, many of those billions yearning for a better life are either already on our side, or are willing to get that better life by any means possible. If radical Islam can somehow portray a better life for them, they'll jump at that.

To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.

To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America’s strength. Strong alliances, to help us stop the world’s most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America’s power – our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values – each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq.

Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops – and nearly 90 percent of the casualties – are American. Despite the President’s claims, this is not a grand coalition.

When you're the world's only superpower, you tend to have more to give to a situation. And thanks for yet once again belittling our allies' efforts. They do what they can, Senator.

Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us.

When I speak to them… when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do… and what is still to be done. In June, the President declared, “The Iraqi people have their country back.” Just last week, he told us: “This country is headed toward democracy… Freedom is on the march.”

But the administration’s own official intelligence estimate, given to the President last July, tells a very different story. According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the President is saying to the American people.

And we've seen recently just how reliable press reports can be, haven't we?

So do the facts on the ground. Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis.

42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July…66 in August… and already 54 halfway through September.

And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August – more than in any other month since the invasion.

Hate to be callous, sir, but we're at war... injuries happen. Death happens. Especially when the enemy gets desperate as see their future getting more and more bleak.

We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times – a 400% increase.

So, are you saying that, if you were president, you'd go after the countries that are sending the insurgents? Would you put Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran on your "to bomb" list?

Falluja…Ramadi… Samarra … even parts of Baghdad – are now “no go zones”… breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shi’a cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, who’s accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.

Violence against Iraqis… from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation … is on the rise.

Because, due to PC politicians back in the States, our forces aren't allowed to engage them unless fired on, and they have to get super-special permission before bombing "holy sites."

Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.

Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.

Considering how bad it was pre-invasion, that's an improvement.

Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.

Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.

The people willing to take the money are the same ones who would love to see us fail anyway. The money is just bonus for them. Hmmm... maybe the new Iraqi government (who is actually in charge of the country now) should hire some of those grenade throwers to do some trash detail. Just a thought...

Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.

Go right ahead, Mr. Kerry. Belittle the good that has happened. Expect everything to go from bad to perfect overnight. Disregard the work of aid groups and soldiers who have offered to help in their spare time.

But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they’re sitting on the fence… instead of siding with us against the insurgents.

That is the truth. The truth that the Commander in Chief owes to our troops and the American people.

Tell that to the Iraqi woman who spoke at the GOP convention. Tell that to the millions whose lives are better now, who no longer live in fear, who now have hope for a better tomorrow.

It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger.

But it’s essential if we want to correct our course and do what’s right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again. I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell.

But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

The President has said that he “miscalculated” in Iraq and that it was a “catastrophic success.” In fact, the President has made a series of catastrophic decisions … from the beginning … in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction.

The first and most fundamental mistake was the President’s failure to tell the truth to the American people.

Hmmm... there are links between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. That's been established, Senator. Did you forget that part of the 9/11 Commission's report? And, thanks to your friends in *spit* France *spit*, we thought there were WMDs.

The President also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq.

He didn’t tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He didn’t tell us that he wouldn’t take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He didn’t tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn’t tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured.

Is it the President's responsibility to tell the public every detail of an operation? Uhhh, no.

No, sir. Most Americans are behind our military, and behind the Commander in Chief. Hussein needed to be taken out- he was a menace to the Middle East, and he harbored and offered material support to our enemies.

Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted.

We don't really care what Kofi Annon and his gang of merry idiots think of us.

In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: “The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.”

Maybe if de Gaulle were the President of France right now, we wouldn't have as many problems with them. Or maybe we would. But the point is... *spit* France *spit* didn't want us to invade Iraq... why? Because they were getting money from Iraq (from arms sales and the "Food for Oil" fiasco).

How many world leaders have that same trust in America’s president, today?

The ones who matter.

That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment – and judgment is what we look for in a president.

This is all the more stunning because we’re not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings… major outside studies… and even some in the administration itself… predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq.

I'm sorry. I must have missed those reports. The Iraqi army was going to roll over, hide, then start a terrorist/ guerilla-style attack? Hundreds of Islamic mujahadeen would come over the border to fight? Al Qaeda operatives would take up residence? Insurgents would resort to kidnapping and murder (which is against their RoP(MA), if I remember correctly) to try to sway opinion in Coalition countries? Nope... don't remember hearing about those possibilities.

Oh, yeah. Those guys who pulled down Saddam's statue only paused in their stone-throwing to work with the soldiers to get rid of the statue. That's right. Our soldiers weren't cheered as they rolled in. We just imagined that.

After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN -- and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that wasn’t part of the original coalition – pushing reluctant countries even farther away.

As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this President has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism?

Yes, I can. This shows the world that we're willing to make the sacrifice with only the support of the willing. We don't need approval from the world to do the right thing.

By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low.

You can thank Clinton for some of the new nuclear dangers around the globe. Terrorism appeals to the egomaniacs of the world. Radicalism is not on the rise- it's just more visible- they don't hide it anymore. And, if what you mean by "standing in the world" our standing in the UN, why should we care about what a bunch of 2 bit dictators think about us?

The President’s policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America.Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this President’s watch…The emerging nuclear danger from Iran…The tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia... And the increasing instability in Afghanistan.

So evidently the US military is incapable of multi-tasking. We can only do one thing at a time. Glad no one told us that during WWII.

Today... the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans... Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away.

We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11th in order invade Iraq . We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda.

Iraq provided material... oh, never mind. They don't listen anyway.

The President’s policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States. We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world.

Iraq was hated throughout the Middle East. Saddam is a muslim in name only, so he upset the radicals. He persecuted certain sects of Islam, which enraged some. He was a threat to everyone around him. No matter what they say, they're glad he's gone. And Iraq is a magnet for terrorism because that's where we are and they want to get us. Easy as that.

The President’s policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.

Then maybe they're not as moderate as they claim.

The power entrusted to the President gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.

Hmmm... we tried that. They were stonewalled and prevented from truly inspecting sites.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: “If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.” He said that military action wasn’t “unavoidable.”

Instead, the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies.

Like I said... they couldn't do their job. And thanks for alienating our friends... again.

He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.

Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq?My answer is no – because a Commander-in-Chief’s first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

Oops. Another flip-flop. Didn't Kerry say that he would have voted for the invasion, knowing what he knows now?

Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the “capability” to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it’s not a reason, it’s an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them?

Well... whose side are they on?

I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden.

I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein – who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.

Oh, yeah, Senator. That would work really well... especially with your friends sneaking Saddam money and weapons. Oh, yeah... he'd be shaking in his boots.

The President’s insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future.... If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be.

With the true face of Islam showing its ugly head, I agree with the Senator, but for different reasons. To defeat Radical Islam and free the oppressed people who live under its thumb, I'm just about to the point where I'm willing to say "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out." If you harbor terrorists, then you are a terrorist. If you are a terrorist, you are our enemy and must be destroyed. May God have mercy on your soul.

In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands... All across this country people ask me what we should do now... I have set out specific recommendations about how we should and should not proceed. (really, missed those- ed.) But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.

Is it incompetance to continue to reject plans doomed to failure? Don't think so...

Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the President was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day, this President makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq – harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize what is – and what is not – happening in Iraq today. And we must act with urgency.Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, (RINO extraordinaire) said we’re “in deep trouble in Iraq … it doesn’t add up … to a pretty picture [and] … we’re going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy.” Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments (more RINOs).

Nice try, using "Republican" opinions to try to sway undecided voters. Too bad those "Republicans" are in-name-only and tend to use their party-affiliation only when it's beneficial for them- like around elections.

We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq. First, the President has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don’t have to go it alone. It is late; the President must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.

You hard-headed twit- we HAVE international support.

Could that be that most of the money that the UN has they get from the US. And we're already spending our money in Iraq. And, does it surprise you that no other country is answering the call to help- everyone that wants to already is.

The President should convene a summit meeting of the world’s major powers and Iraq’s neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq’s borders.

He should give other countries a stake in Iraq’s future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq’s oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

Why should we allow these other counties to develop the oil resources and give OPEC more control than they already have?

This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances(uh... you did that, Senator, not the President- ed.), this President may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq.

Then we continue to succeed without them.

Second, the President must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.

The President should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.

Third, the President must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.

Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority … 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical … 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.

No, Senator, it took 17 months to fully assess the situation. It took 17 months to see where the long-term problems would be. It took 17 months to determine just how poorly Saddam had been treating his people and prioritizing rebuilding plans.

One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent.

I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we’re paying the price.

Now, the President should look at the whole reconstruction package…draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects… and cut through the red tape.

He did that and got blasted for playing favorites.

He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton.

He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

So, we should stop paying Congress? Works for me! And... has he ever tried to get through the redtape of trying to fire a government employee?

Fourth, the President must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year.

Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.

Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the President agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt.

The UN would like nothing better than for Iraq to fail as a democracy, because democracy and freedom are things that many nations in the UN know nothing about.

Because the security situation is so bad… and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission… the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.

Go figure... not one nation volunteered... can't the UN assign duties like that? And isn't there an outside organization who monitors elections? Once they're done here, just ship them off to Iraq.

The President should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won’t be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N.

We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone.

And this is a rehash of number three! The little sneak!

[snip through boring rehash of all he's said so far] This is what has to be done. This is what I would do as President today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.

The President is putting Iraq on the right track. It will take more than 17 months to fix all the problems there. It's irresponsible to think otherwise.

The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world’s responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden.

We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that’s essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it’s up to them to run their own country. That’s the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

Which is what we're doing, Senator.

[snip through a whole bunch of "W stands for Wrong!"] At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the President has made the wrong choice. I have a plan to make America stronger.

Which plan? The plan from this week? Last week? The secret plan you're not telling anyone?

George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.

Today, because of George Bush’s policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans.

No, the world is not a dangerous place because of Bush's policy- it's a dangerous place because dangerous people want to spread their vision to the rest of the world.

If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we are …that we can make America stronger and safer than it is… then November 2 is your chance to speak... and to be heard. It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course.

No, sir, the election is not about change... it's about having the right man for the job in the office. And he's in office right now, and he's going to stay there.

I’m convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals.

Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, and America’s sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.

And that is why we must re-elect President George W. Bush.

// posted by Beth @ 10:24 AM |

"I can't say Saudi Arabia is the freest country. But it is the cradle of Islam. Are they proposing to have churches or synagogues or Buddhist temples here?" said Abdulaziz al-Fayez, a member of Saudi Arabia's consultative Shura Council.

"All Saudis are Muslims and this is a Muslim state."

Well, let's see... to have religious freedom, you have to be free to worship as you choose. If there are no churches or synagogues or temples there, you can't do that, now, can you? And if it is an understood that "all Saudis are Muslims," then conversion to another religion is dealt with... harshly. Sorry, Mr. al-Fayez... you deserve what the State Department said about you.

In Iraq... a Canadian military journalist says that the Taliban is in Iraq. I'm wondering if he means al Qaida. If so, we knew that. I can't imagine why the Taliban is there, unless it's to move their religious/government center to Iraq. That would make this report about potential Iraqi civil war even more scary.

Iran is on everyone's radar because of their nuclear program. Unfortunately, there are many different opinions on it. Oh, well... we're used to being ignored.

Gorby and the Lush speak out against Putin's moves to reform Russia's electoral system. Me thinks Vlad spent too much time in the KGB. This does not bode well for the future of democracy in Russia.

Great Britain seems to have issues with security. Kinda scary.

In the States:
Congress has been dragging its heels, and may have to come back after the election for a Lame Duck Session. Fine... but all of the Senators and Representatives have to wear Elton John-like duck costumes.

Hurricane Ivan left disaster in its wake, and Jeanne and Karl aren't far behind.

The FDA has approved home difibrillators without a prescription. I honestly can't decide how I feel about this. I mean, it could potentially save many, many lives. But, people, as a rule, are stupid. There will probably be more than one accidental death. Heck, Hubby almost got zapped on accident once, and those guys were supposedly trained professionals.

And, now... for a cute story to finish it off... a quick thinking young man probably saved his mom's life. Then he waited for paramedics... in a doctor's outfit! Someone set him up with a scholarship to med school! He's a natural!

// posted by Beth @ 8:12 AM |

In the end, it's the Packers' score -- more than the Packers vote -- that could determine Kerry's fate. In the past 18 presidential elections, if the Redskins lost or tied the last game before the election, the party in the White House lost, too. The Redskins' opponent Oct. 31: the Packers, but not at Lambert, er, Lambeau Field.

// posted by Beth @ 9:13 AM |

The strategy comes late in the campaign. Democrats acknowledge Kerry has had difficulty pinning down the message he wants voters to take to the ballot box on Nov. 2, while the Bush campaign has been more disciplined and consistent. Now Kerry is trying to turn Bush's policy choices into character flaws.

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that he has trouble pinning down his own position on most issues. But, steady on, Senator Kerry. Keep up that putting the President down without actually telling us your plans. That's what we want. No plans. Just lofty ideas. You go, John!

Rathergate... CBS stands by the authenticity of the memos, but... they're still gonna check everything out again. And Dan "Don't let facts get in my way" Rather thinks it's the "story" that's important (and true), and it doesn't matter if the memos are fake. His proof that the story is true? Let's see... a disgraced Texas Attorney General (Barnes) who is one of Kerry's top fund raisers says so, AND a 86 year old granny who worked for the colonel who didn't write the memos and can't stand Bush says that the colonel felt that way, even if he never wrote it down. Doesn't matter that the colonel's family says he didn't feel that way, or that Barnes is either lying now or back in 2000 when he said he didn't give Bush preferential treatment. (Oh, yeah, and it looks like those memos were faxed to CBS from a Kinkos in Abiline, TX, which is the closest Kinkos to Bill Burkett. Who's he? Well, in a nutshell, he's the former Guardsman who said that he heard GOP people talking about sanitizing Bush's Guard record. This link talks about the Kinkos link, but it also has some good background on Burkett.)

At the UN... Kofi Annan thinks that the war in Iraq was illegal. Then again, the poor moron thinks that the US went in there unilaterally, completely ignoring the 30+ countries who have contributed troops and the 70+ countries that have provided material support. Poor delusional man. (For an impressive tirade on this, check out BC's post at the Rott. But, be warned, he's quite liberal with his use of invective (lots of bad language, for those of you who were in public schools). I think that's one of only time you could call him "liberal." hmmm... hope I don't anger the Imperial Torturer... I wouldn't like him when he's angry.)

Then there's this guy. He's just not bright.

And now, a moment of silence. Johnny Ramone passed away yesterday afternoon after a long battle with cancer. Rock on, Johnny. Rock on.

// posted by Beth @ 8:02 AM |

TORONTO (AP) - Beer, a health food? That's what some Canadian researchers report.

A study from the University of Western Ontario finds a brew could be good for you. The researchers say beer has antioxidant boosters that could help fight cancer, heart disease and diabetes.

But the key is moderation. The researchers found three beers would have the opposite effect.

The study was funded by beermakers Guinness and Labatt. But the university says the financial support had no influence on the outcome.

The study was funded by Guinness and Labatt. That's kinda funny. No, actually, that's really funny.


I thought about just asking, "What's your favorite beer?" That's too vague- I'd get everything from stouts to lagers to wheats and everything in between. So, for the first Adult Beverage Survey, let's start light: What's your favorite lager? (yes, you may defend your choice, if you'd like.) In case anyone was wondering... MGD, Bud Light, or maybe the real Budweiser Budvar we had in Prague.

Ya know, if I get a decent response, I'll keep this up. I'll also take suggestions for survey questions.

// posted by Beth @ 6:20 PM 1 comments |

I have a good friend who believes, gloomily, bitterly, resignedly, that not only are we in for four more years of painful and cheerless BushCo-branded tyranny and misprision and aww-shucks dumb-guy shtick, but also that we are actually at the beginning of a long, brutal, fear-based Republican juggernaut that will last a good 16 more years, at least.

Because this is how long it will take for the current horrific conservative cycle to play itself out, and this would resemble a more typical and historically proven 20-year pendulum swing, in this case one toward neoconservative right-wing hate and homophobia and warmongering that will careen us toward heretofore unprecedented extremes of sadness and isolationism and far too many overweight white people with guns.

It's my hope that this is actually a sign of a longer-lasting trend of "normal" Americans taking back their country and refusing to be battered by moonbats who fell off the left end of the ideological scale. And I'm not even sure how to convince these people that we're not full of hate- that's their territory. Homophobia? Nah- we just don't want their deviant lifestyle in our faces 24/7. Warmongering? Only when necessary. And "too many overweight white people with guns"??? Nope- no stereotyping there. (Hey- any skinny minority conservative gun owners out there? We need you to start speaking up- NOW!) Not all conservatives are white, many are health conscious, and they don't all own guns (but they should!)

But here's the catch. Here's the argument: This dark era, this wicked 20-year dystopia America could now be facing, it might be a very good and necessary thing indeed.

Not, as you might dream, because four more years of BushCo and a dozen more of sneering Republican domination means there will likely be good times ahead. Not because we will enjoy an unprecedented era of peace and stability and generosity and environmental sustenance, humanitarian progress and U.N. cooperation and fiscal responsibility and a generally relaxed and open-minded attitude toward religion and multiculturalism and sex. I mean, don't be ridiculous. Besides, the Clinton era already happened.

Nice to know y'all enjoyed the fruits of the Reagan Revolution! You really think Clinton did all that? He just demeaned the Office and questioned what the meaning of the word "is" is. As for open-mindedness toward sex, all Clinton did was give a bunch of kids wrong ideas. When 7th graders say "What's wrong with it? The President said it wasn't sex", you know we're in trouble. Thanks, Bill.

But, rather, it will be necessary because the moral and spiritual and physical hemispheres of our existence will quickly become so dire and toxic and the nation's socioeconomic situation will become so extreme and desperate that maybe, just maybe, we will finally learn something.
This is the argument. It is bitter and defeatist and, maybe, if you let your inner devil's advocate speak, a little bit true.

Dire? Toxic? Last I heard (this morning on the news), our socioeconomic situation is getting better. We are learning something- give a person a bunch of freebies, they have no incentive to get anything on their own.

Look at it this way: If Kerry wins now, the nation won't have suffered enough, won't have traveled far enough down the road of right-wing egotism and misogyny and homophobia and religious self-righteousness and deficit mauling and sanctimonious ideology and mangled grammar...

Egotism? Is not ego- it's confidence. Mysogyny? There is nothing hateful toward women in this administration, no matter what Planned Parenthood might have told you. Homophobia? We're not afraid of homosexuality- we're afraid of it being taught as perfectly normal in our schools. Religious self-righteousness? Not quite- evidently Mr. Morford has never met any conservative atheists. Could do him a world of good. Deficit mauling? Thank Mr. Clinton's recession combined with war for that. Mangled grammar? Geeez- not everyone can be a gifted orator.

...to really learn anything indelible, nothing that will affect a permanent sea change in our worldview, and we will just continue to limp along, never really healing and never really refocusing our intention and never fully understanding the depths of our dark side.

Mr. Morford, the Left is the Dark Side. We understand its depths, and it sickens us.

And, furthermore, if Kerry wins, history might not be as fully and inevitably antagonistic toward BushCo as his short, dreadful despotism deserves. Our national memory is frightfully short. Everyone will think, oh well, it's all over now and the damage has been done and it wasn't all that bad, really, was it?

So, you want Bush re-elected just so he'll be hated for the rest of eternity. That's just... sad.

I mean (they will say), sure Bush is widely regarded as the most politically inept and ethically dangerous and environmentally hostile president in American history, and sure women's rights were hammered and civil rights were shriveled and every single major ally we have in the world now either disrespects us or mistrusts us or openly abhors us like an Olsen twin shuns direct sunlight.

I would really love to see documentation on all of those allegations. But, alas, it's all a bunch of lies, so...

And sure Dubya's sanctimonious and violent warmongering actions in the Middle East have done far, far more to inflame anti-U.S. hatred and have amplified the threat of terrorism against us a thousandfold, but hey, the Texas schlub only lasted four years and now we can move on, right?

Amplified the threat? Then why have there been no more attacks? They hated us long before Bush took office (the 9/11 plan was begun back in the mid to late 90s). They will hate us as long as we are free.

Wrong. Call it the fatalist maxim: The only way the national soul can really change is through serious crisis, through near-death apocalypse, through things getting so dire and tormented and swollen that something finally has to give, the psycho-spiritual levee at last has to break. And it won't be the slightest bit pretty. But it will be mandatory. And in the long (long, long) run, ultimately healthy. Sort of like finally purging a massive cancerous lump from your colon. Only not as much fun.

True. And that levee has broken. We have survived the feel good era that began in the 70s and continued into the early 90s. But we were beginning to once again embrace traditional values. 9/11 was our wake up call- our cancer scare. Now we're out to embrace those values with all our strength.

History and the culture, it would seem, bear this view out: We don't shun pollutive monster SUVs until gas prices hit five bucks a gallon. We don't quit smoking until we have a lung removed after coughing up enough blood and phlegm to gag a horse. We don't take care of our bodies until after that second heart attack and we don't ease up on the toxic garbage foods until we get so fat they have to haul us to the lipo appointment with a forklift.

Well, we won't shun the pollutive SUV until the market demands a cleaner version of it. Then we'll have it. As for the rest, he's got a point. Most people don't make sincere change until there ceases to be any other choice, because sincere change is often difficult.

We don't lift a finger to protect the environment until the hurricanes slam down and the heat waves crack the streets and vaporize your precious swimming pool and ruin the ski resorts. And even then we just sort of shrug and move somewhere else.

Funny. I just watched an interview with a guy from the Hurricane Center, and he said that hurricane force and quantity per year is cyclical, and we are (unfortunately) in the high point of the cycle. Nature happens, Mr. Morford. And the whole "global warming" thing? Some experts believe that the only thing keeping us from a global Ice Age (also cyclical) is humanity. Drat. I like snow.

We ignore the Social Security nightmare until 70 million boomers retire and the infrastructure collapses. We don't touch the truly dire water-supply issue until the reservoirs dry up and the pipelines crack and Earth recoils. We glut on the planet's natural resources until the land is choked and billions go hungry and even then we seem to think, well, why the hell don't they get themselves a nice Costco?

The Social Security system has been in trouble for a very long time. If Congress would actually privatize it, we'd be ok. As for ecological issues, non-industrialized countries put a larger strain on natural resources and cause more pollution, but their governments will not allow substantial modernization because it would make their citizens less dependent on the people in charge. And, I hate to sound cruel, but it is not the job of the US government to feed and water the world. Sorry, but that's the cold, hard truth.

We are, ultimately, a species of stasis and lethargy. We are rarely sympathetically proactive, always violently reactive -- and only when the threat is immediate and overwhelming. We have a fetish for shortsightedness and instant gratification and damn the costs and the impending toll on our stunned mal-educated children. We move, in short, only when we have to.

Uh-oh. I agree with him. Scary. Especially with the mal-educated children part... I'm all for vouchers.

So then. Maybe it has to happen. Maybe we need four more years of BushCo (though not, let us pray, 16 years of toxic Republicanism) just to see how bad it can get, to snap us out of this fearful lethargy, this ignorant numbness, this weird and tragic belief that it is only through sheer faux-macho posturing and pre-emptive bombings and through decimating foreign relationships and igniting holy wars and trying to prove that our angry acidic well-armed God is better than their angry acidic well-armed God, that we are actually safe and healthy and spiritually attuned.

I hope it happens. I hope we have at LEAST 16 years of Republican leadership, not to see how bad it can get, but to show the nay-sayers how good it can be. We can be safe and healthy and spiritually attuned, not because of all the false reasoning he gave, but because we have the freedom in this country to seek it. There is no faux-macho posturing- it's diligent preparations. The pre-emptive bombings were because those countries contained a clear and present danger to the US (and, yes, I know we didn't find the WMDs. Doesn't mean they weren't there to begin with or that the government in question didn't provide aid and comfort to the enemy.) And, "our God" (I presume he means the God of Christianity) is not an angry and acidic God. Nor does He need to be armed. Their "god" is (angry and acidic, not armed). That's a statement of fact.

If the past four years are any indication, four more years of BushCo would be just unimaginably dreadful for America, for the health of the planet, for human rights, for the poor and for women and minorities and gays and non-Christian religions.

How has the President trampled on human rights? What has he or his administration done to any of those groups? Once again, accusations with no documentation. Lovely.

After all, no one could have predicted, four years ago, just how much damage this boot-lickin' puppet president could have wrought on the culture in such a short time. He seemed so harmless and bumbling and lost -- at first.

Hmmm... military enlistments are up... more people going to church... conservatives becoming more vocal about their opinions. Yup- our culture is collapsing, even as I type.

But, then again, no one anticipated that he would be handed the golden political grenade that was 9/11, and no one could have imagined the he and his snarling administration would so shamelessly, so heartlessly leverage our most horrific national tragedy for such brutal and oily gain...

PLEASE tell me he isn't going down the "No War for Oil" road! Please. And to assume that Bush saw 9/11 as anything but horrific is incomprehensible.

...using it not only as a fear tactic and a justification for multiple wars and as a vicious excuse to quell dissenting voices, but also as an actual political slogan, a veritable trademarked brand for the Republican Party. BushCo '04: Vote for Us, or Die.

So, the US wasn't supposed to retaliate after we were attacked? We were supposed to just sit there and understand why everyone hates us? No, I don't think so. And, going back to the pre-9/11 attitude will not help.

By the way, there is another option. The path of direness and cataclysm is certainly available and will almost definitely eventually result in significant change born of pain and war and dread.

But know this, too: The mystics and psychics and the energy workers, the healers and the deep astrologers and the ancient shamanistic texts, all tend to agree that a major shift is already under way on this planet, a massive spiritual/energetic transformation slowly sweeping all of humanity, right now and throughout the coming decade, affecting everyone and everything, ready or not, bringing the world's issues and conflicts and spiritual questions to a critical head.

So, we're supposed to agree with you that the US is going to hell in a hand basket because someone looked into their crystal ball and told you? We should prepare for a major transformation because a group of worshippers of I-have-no-idea-what tell us to? Honestly, all that talk sounds a little like End Times prophecy... are you sure you're not trying to get us to all prepare for the Second Coming? I'm ready. Are you?

Here's the bottom line: It is our choice.

Can I choose to vote you off the island? (Sorry... had to be done.)

It is up to us whether this astounding and deeply profound change will be, as my friend's opinion suggests, bloody and violent and full of disease and death and flagrant corporate-sponsored abuse of the planet, or whether it will be, instead, full of light and generosity and awareness and a deep, abiding respect for those who share this pale blue dot with us.

Have you ever seen what happens in a Left-controlled country? There is no light and generosity and awareness and respect. There is poverty and cruelty and a lack of respect for individual rights. Even now, years after their freedom from liberal rule, the abuses of liberal governments on the environment can be seen in former communist Bloc countries. It wasn't corporate-sponsored- it was government sponsored.

Both avenues, after all, will cure the cancer. The question then becomes, Do you want it sliced out with a hatchet, or with a feather?

Well, since cancer can never be cured with a feather, only utterly and completely destroyed... You answered your own question, didn't you?

One look at the cruel and arrogant BushCo agenda, and the answer seems evident: We are already making our choice.

Ask the Afghani people if they think Bush is arrogant. Ask the Iraqi people if they think Bush is cruel. Not the insurgents trying create chaos and the former government officials. Ask the ones who had been beaten and tortured by those regimes. They're happy with the choices we've made so far.

// posted by Beth @ 1:37 PM 1 comments |