Tuesday, December 30, 2003
1. In February, Michael Jackson causes a stir by offering that he likes to share his bed with really young boys and that it's just about the most generous thing an adult can do for a kid. In hindsight, it seems pretty tame. At the time, it merely seemed like much ado about something we already knew.
2. Paris Hilton makes her Wal-Mart comment on Fox's "The Simple Life." No, the retail giant doesn't merely sell stuff for "walls." But in "Simple Life," Fox found that when you throw enough up against the wall, occasionally something sticks almost in spite of itself.
3. Fox decides it must go back to the well and produce a second "Joe Millionaire" -- and then is shocked (shocked!) when it tanks. It really was the "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" system at work. Maybe they should have tried "Average Joe Millionaire."
4. Arnold Schwarzenegger announces his intention to run for California governor on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno." It says everything about the incestuous alliance between politics and entertainment that something this staged would become a worldwide event, launch a candidacy and, ultimately, result in triumph.
5. Madonna plants the infamous smooch on Britney Spears at the MTV Video Music Awards, and the nation loses its collective lunch. I'll say this much for Madonna: She knows her audience. We're so flipped out by lesbian overtones that it makes anything featuring them, however contrived, an instant classic.
6. Under pressure, CBS decides to bag the miniseries "The Reagans." Oh sure, it must have been purely a creative decision, because the film went on to air on Showtime and wound up landing a pair of Golden Globe nominations. Not a sterling moment in the annals of artistic freedom.
7. On MTV's "Newlyweds," Jessica Simpson expresses confusion over whether Chicken of the Sea features fish or fowl and wonders why they call those things Buffalo wings if buffalo can't, you know, fly.
8. Jon pretends that his real-life grandmother has died in an effort to earn a strategic advantage on "Survivor: Pearl Islands." Oh, hey, sorry about that, granny. It's just business. You understand -- right? Right?
9. Against all reason, CBS rolls out a TV sitcom version of the indie smash "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" -- somehow convinced that the film was no mere one-shot fluke. News flash: It was.
10. The clock on the Osbourne family ticks closer to the 15-minute mark as matriarch Sharon is given her very own megabucks syndicated talk show. It's predictably dreadful. Oh well. The good news is, in a mere two days, we'll have a new year to kick around: 12 whole months to see if we can spot a flying buffalo.
Monday, December 29, 2003
Yeah, abortion. I am not a one issue voter. I don't really care about abortion. Ideally, yes, there would be no abortions. Of course, ideally, 12 year olds would not get pregnant, and we wouldn't have 140 trillion billion people on Earth. However, sometimes another issue gets involved with abortion. This issue I do hold very strong opinions about, I like to call this opinion "hate". Hypocrisy is what I'm talking about here people.
Lacey Peterson. She was killed. She was 8 months pregnant. Those are facts. Her husband is being charged with two murders. That is a fact. (I’ll not get into guilt/innocence here, I don’t know, and frankly I don’t care) Now we enter the problem. At 8 months, a mother may abort the “fetus” (that’s what I’ll call the baby/tissue/whatever for the sake of this writing, regardless of age, until it is birthed). She is not punished. She is consoled. If I take a knife, and stab the same woman in the abdomen and the pregnancy is terminated, I charged with whatever the appropriate assault charge may be against the woman. However, it doesn’t end there. In most jurisdictions I would also be charged with murder. Murder of whom? The fetus of course. Yes, the very same fetus the mother could kill with impunity.
I doubt I’m the only person noticing this paradox in our legal system, but no one else seems to be talking about it. Thus, this writing. The above situation remains the same regardless of the term of the fetus, up until a few months after conception. I do not know the exact term of the earliest fetus who was “murdered”, but I do know that it was prior to viability. So here’s the question. How is it that a fetus may be killed by two different people, possibly even two with the same motive (they just don’t want the baby), and yet one may walk away with only depression, whilst the other sits in a jail cell?
There is a simple answer here. Someone MUST set a scientifically defined time where a fetus is considered a human. After this time, any damage to it should be considered as if it were an actual child. Not being well versed in biology and anatomy etc, I offer no postulated time period. But I know someone out there can.
Don't know what that title means? Then read this article.
Sunday, December 21, 2003
Yep, not a typo. Check out this court case and article and such.
Judge: I saw police commit felonies
A judge who said he witnessed some of the anti-free trade protests complains in open court about how police handled the demonstrations.
By AMY DRISCOLL
A judge presiding over the cases of free trade protesters said in court that he saw ''no less than 20 felonies committed by police officers'' during the November demonstrations, adding to a chorus of complaints about police conduct.
Judge Richard Margolius, 60, made the remarks in open court last week, saying he was taken aback by what he witnessed while attending the protests.
''Pretty disgraceful what I saw with my own eyes. And I have always supported the police during my entire career,'' he said, according to a court transcript. ``This was a real eye-opener. A disgrace for the community.''
In the transcript, he also said he may have to remove himself from any additional cases involving arrests made during the Free Trade Area of the Americas summit.
''I probably would have been arrested myself if it had not been for a police officer who recognized me,'' said the judge, who wears his hair in a graying ponytail.
Saturday, December 20, 2003
From the UK Sun
By NIC CECIL
BARMY BBC bosses have banned reporters from calling tyrant Saddam Hussein a former dictator.
Instead, staff must refer to the barbaric mass murderer as â€œthe deposed former Presidentâ€�.
The astonishing edict was seized on by MPs last night as more proof of a Left-wing bias inside the BBC against the Iraqi war.
Labour MP Kevan Jones, of the Commons Defence Select Committee, said: â€œThis shows the crass naivety of the BBC. Such political correctness will be deeply hurtful to many of our servicemen serving in Iraq."
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Don't you just love seeing these self-righteous punks getting caught? Anyway, this is from Drudge:
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU DEC 18, 2003 09:25:08 ET XXXXX
HOST UNHINGED AFTER SALES FIGURES REVEALED; CALLS DRUDGE 'THREAT TO DEMOCRACY'
TalkerAuthor Bill O'Reilly lashed out against this space during his popular FOXNEWS O'REILLY FACTOR Wednesday night -- just hours after closely guarded book sales figures were splashed over the internet.
Sales figures show how, contrary to his claims, O'Reilly lags far behind rivals Al Franken and Sen. Hillary Clinton for nonfiction props!
Responding to an exclusive yearender DRUDGE dispatch, which presented NIELSEN's Top 20 BOOKSCAN list of 2003 sales, O'Reilly called the DRUDGE REPORT a "threat to democracy."
"I mean you can't believe a word Matt Drudge says," O'Reilly told the cameras. "Now you've got the Matt Drudges of the world and these other people, Michael Moore and all of these crazies, all right, no responsibility... that is a threat to democracy, I think." O'Reilly warned: "They'll just spin it and twist it and take it out of proportion every which way."
Last year, the host of Cable TVs most-watched newscast became unbuckled and turned unstable after this space first revealed how O'Reilly was plotting a new radio program to air opposite Rush Limbaugh [who had just lost his hearing] and how WOR-AM in New York would receive cash compensation from VIACOM to carry the program. [The broadcast launched several months later.]
"There is no other cure than to kill Matt Drudge," O'Reilly charged on the IMUS in the MORNING radio show.
"I just want to tell everybody that Matt Drudge is smoking crack - right now, in South Miami Beach on Washington Avenue... And the authorities should know it."
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2003
Wednesday, December 17, 2003
To our troops (irrelevant of my opinions of the administration's actions): We love you guys. I wish you all the best. I'm just 22, and I know most of you are younger than me. I wish I could be there with you. I've tried 3 times to get in to the military, but they won't take me due to a minor, but chronic, health problem. You all have my utmost support and respect. Use whatever methods are necessary to protect yourselves and your brothers and sisters with you. Also, Col. West, you did the right thing. You saved lives and you know it. I was taken with joy when I hear you were not going to lose your career over this. Thank you Col West, and thank you all. It is appreciated more than you know.
According to Sen. Bill Nelson of FL, the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that "Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities." They were told that Iraq had UAV's, or some similar delivery device, that could be used to attack us. Of course, nothing even NEAR that has been found. Just one more lie from an administration I used to respect. Of course, Bush isnt' the first to instigate war over false pretenses, and probably won't be the last. But he IS the first within my psuedo-adulthood now, and I think I owe it to my country to try to do my itty bitty part in getting the word out.
This is just a repost of my previous to parts of this essay. I've reposted them together and in the correct order simply to aid your reading and make it look more like an actual essay.
Yeah so it wasn't PC, but at least they would tell us who the enemy was back then.
Now, our leaders can hide behind the word "terrorist". That's who we're at war with. Of course, this is beside the point, but we're not even really at war. Congress has made no such declaration, as only they have the constitutional right to do. This "war" that is spoken of is ethereal, no more real than the"War on Drugs" or the "War on Poverty". Domestically, this might as well be the "War on Liberty". That's easy enough to see. But internationally, thereâ€™s a problem. Since we ARE in conflict abroad, it's obvious to the ignorant masses that we must be at war.
But who is the enemy? Our great leaders bellow back, "The evil-doers! The Terrorists!" Hmmâ€¦there's that word again. But what does it truly mean? Terrorism is usually defined like this: Anyone who uses terror to reach a social, political, or material end. Iâ€™m paraphrasing Webster here, but that's a close facsimile. If you feel I may be incorrect, feel free of course to check the dictionary yourself. Quite a broad swath of people to be at war with, no? That puts us at war, then, with every criminal in the U.S. For after all, what is a hold up man doing if not using fear (terror) to get money/goods/etc (material ends)? To that we must add all the rival paramilitary groups and pseudo-governments in Central and South America. Do they not inflict terror in horrible ways to gain power? Murdering parents in front of their children, video taping these acts, and then using them to demonstrate their power/skill/insanity/whatever. Is that not terrorism? Perhaps we can add the Chinese government to this list as well. There are many well-documented cases of the Chinese leaders using deadly force and illegal incarceration to squelch dissent. Is this not terrorism?
To this, the administration has nothing to say. But their silence fills books. The fact alone that we are not in any way going after the above mentioned terrorists shows us that our leaders are not interested in a war against all terrorists. And of course they aren't. Such a notion would be bizarre and impossible. But why use such broad jargon to explain why our men and women must fight and die? Why is the truth not brought into the light?
On September 11th, 2001 two tall buildings were struck down in New York. You may, in fact, remember this. It was in most of the papers. I am tempted, now, to delve into the many questions and conspiracy theories regarding this event. However, Iâ€™m afraid it would give the affect of demeaning my credibility and, as well, it is not necessary to make my points.
As far as anyone can say, airplanes were used by Middle Eastern men in their 20â€™s and 30â€™s to bring down the Twin Towers. The Medelin Cartel was not involved. The IRA was not involved. It would seem to me that there is one type of terrorist we are looking at here. That, of course, is the Islamist animal. I call members of this type animals, for they are not men.
Today in northern Iraq two of our men from the 101st Airborne were gunned down as they drove through town in their vehicle. The details are sketchy, but whether alive or dead after the bullets, people came and slit their throats. Their bodies were dragged out of the humvee. They lay on the ground, dead and bleeding. This, of course, is not enough for the "terrorists." The bodies of these two soldiers were beaten with concrete blocks. Their faces crushed beyond recognition. One man had a foot severed. The truck and the bodies were looted. Shoes, guns, clothes, a couple of CDâ€™s. Whatever these creatures could grab, they did.
The Nazis were not nice people. They pillaged and tortured and murdered. But we can at least see that they had an agenda. They used these tactics to gain material and slaves to bring more power to their empire and to help them defeat there enemies. Their acts can not be excused, but they can be understood.
The actions of the creatures we are fighting can not be so understood. From the instant murder of thousands in New York, to the slow killing of those two men in Mosul, these "terrorists" seem to kill for no reason other than their own bloodlust. Such a creature can no longer be called a terrorist now, now that there is no goal that is attempting to be reached here, other than simply killing. Murder. Destruction. No, we are not at war against terrorists. We are at war against every Allah praising animal in this world of ours. But this is of course not PC-enough for our handlers to admit. It must remain â€œThe Terrorists.â€�
The words Islam, Muslim, even Arab, never show up in the vapid indictments our president makes against our enemies. Yet the truth screams to be heard. Our troops are not being dismembered by atheists or ultra-fundamentalist Christians such as the Nazis were. Our friends and sons and daughters are not dying at the hands of the communists as we were once afraid they might. Our people are being killed by ignorant animalistic third-world coyotes.
Before I go any further, let me state that this is not a full condemnation of Islam. I am not a Muslim. I have though, unlike most Americans I would wager, actually read most of the Koran. I studied Islam shortly from a scholarly and historical light, as I also studied many other religions. (And just for the record, the common notion that â€œIslamâ€� means peace is at best a half-truth, the better translation is "complete submission to the will of Allah". The assumption being that peace is acquired only after this.) Is this a religion of only bloodthirsty dogs? No, of course not. Neither is every republican a slave to the corporate empire. But the fact remains that our enemies here ARE driven by a very widespread interpretation of the Koran and its appendictic literature. Why is it impossible for this to be addressed by our leaders? I honestly donâ€™t know. I assume that they are trying to look tolerant and world-wise, but at what price?
More to follow
Yes, a shocking claim I know, but his ceaseless book-hawking has lead to lying! He claimed today on the Today show that he was "up against Hillary [Clinton] for most copies of nonfiction books sold this year. Well, as you can see by the chart below from BOOKSCAN (considered THE authority on such rankings, and usually considered to get 70-80% of books sold) he is FAR from the truth. He even trails Al Franken.
With two weeks to go for 2003:
1. South Beach Diet Dr. Arthur Agatston 2,304,608 [units scanned]
2. Purpose Driven Life Warren 1,507,902
3. Living History Clinton 1,084,520
4. Ultimate Weight Solution McGraw 836,043
5. Lies and The Lying Liars Franken 674,024
6. Who's Looking Out for You O'Reilly 430,407
7. Benjamin Franklin Isaacson 384,137
8. Dude, Where's My Country Moore 365,519
9. Treason Coulter 364,848
10. Fly Boys Bradley 222,685
11. Short History of Nearly Everything Bryson 217,591
12. Moneyball Lewis 210,108
13. Royal Duty Burrell 159,261
14. Who's Your Caddy? Reilly 151,978
15. Every Second Counts Armstrong 145,183
16. World According to Mr. Rogers 141,405
17. Madame Secretary Albright 122,167
18. New Cookbook, BH&G Better Homes & Gardens 118,230
19. Merriam Websters Dictionary 115,185
20. Bushwacked Ivans 110,000
I am delighted to say I stand corrected. I listed Saddam in my list of Things That Would Never Be Found, and I was wrong. We caught the guy. Good for us. I don't know what a boon this shall be to us, but I think it is brilliant for the Iraqi people. Kudos all around!
Saturday, December 06, 2003
From The Liberty Committee
Santa Claus doesn’t live at the North Pole anymore. He lives in Washington, D.C. He still visits his hometown occasionally, but he finds his time is better spent in our nation’s capital. Why? There are several hundred elves eager to help him dole out goodies of all kinds throughout the land.
Take for example:
$5,000,000 Kennedy Center Potomac River Pedestrian and Bike Path
$250,000 Call Me Mister program, Clemson University
$16,000 National Distance Running Hall of Fame, Utica, New York
$325,000 Construction of a swimming pool, Salinas California
$100,000 Renovation of the historic Coca-Cola building, Macon, Georgia
$75,000 Thelonious Monk Institute of Jazz, Washington, D.C.
$100,000 Amphitheater construction, Bracken County, Kentucky
$150,000 Regional Youth Baseball Complex, Lancaster, California
$400,000 Davenport Music History Museum, Davenport, Iowa
$150,000 Renovation of Farmers Market, Dallas, Texas
$175,000 Wichita Art Museum, Wichita, Kansas
$250,000 Lou Frey Institute of Politics, University of Central Florida
$75,000 U.S. Dream Academy, Columbia, Maryland
$500,000 LOVE Social Services, Fairbanks, Alaska
$450,000 Johnny Appleseed Heritage Center, Ashland County, Ohio
$6,000,000 Police Athletic League
$1,800,000 2003 Women's World Cup Tournament
Thursday, December 04, 2003
Well, I care. That's of course why I even bother to pass on this story.
By Timothy Noah
Monday 01 December 2003
Rep. Nick Smith, R-Mich., says that sometime late Nov. 21 or early in the morning Nov. 22, somebody on the House floor threatened to redirect campaign funds away from his son Brad, who is running to succeed him, if he didn't support the Medicare prescription bill. This according to the Associated Press. Robert Novak further reports,
On the House floor, Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, [Rep.] Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat.
Speaking through Chief of Staff Kurt Schmautz, Smith assured Chatterbox that Novak's account is "basically accurate." That means Smith was an eyewitness to a federal crime. United States Code, Title 18, Section 201, "Bribery of public officials and witnesses," states that under federal law, a person commits bribery if he
directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity [italics Chatterbox's], with intent to influence any official act. …
Promising to direct $100,000 to Rep. Smith's son's campaign clearly meets the legal definition of bribery. The only question, then, is who to prosecute. The AP had Smith attributing threats to support his son's opponent to "House GOP leaders," but that was a paraphrase, and it is possible Smith meant someone else when he spoke of an actual offer of $100,000. We know House Speaker Dennis Hastert spent a lot of time that night trying to win over Smith. The trade publication CongressDaily spotted Hastert around 4 a.m., about an hour into the extended Medicare roll call, placing his arm around Smith and gesturing. Twenty minutes later, CongressDaily saw Hastert work Smith over again, this time with Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson. At 5:30 a.m., with less than half an hour left until the final tally, CongressDaily saw Hastert and Thompson give it one final try. The Washington Post's David Broder, in his Nov. 23 column, wrote that House aides "recounted that Hastert said Smith's help was vital to the party and the president—a fitting gift at the end of a long career—and suggested it would also help Smith's son, who plans to run for the seat." That's pretty close to Novak's version.
Ain't govment great?
Monday, December 01, 2003
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading Republican Sen. John McCain Sunday berated fellow lawmakers for "spending money like a drunken sailor" and said President Bush was also to blame for pushing the nation toward higher interest rates and inflation.
On the "Fox News Sunday" program, McCain lamented the closing actions of the Senate and House before recessing for the year, most notably passage of a massive overhaul of the Medicare insurance program for the elderly.
He also decried a $31 billion national energy bill, still pending until at least next year, much of which would fund industry tax breaks.
"The numbers are astonishing," said McCain, an Arizona Republican. "Congress is now spending money like a drunken sailor. And I've never known a sailor drunk or sober with the imagination that this Congress has."
Wow...quite a conservative we have here in Mr. Bush. Why is it that Republicans always whine about big government and government spending but then get into office and spend like crazy? Is that odd? Anyway, here's a link to the full story via CNN.
More truth...after the fact. From the AFP:
WASHINGTON, (AFP) - The US Central Intelligence Agency has acknowledged it "lacked specific information" about alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction when it compiled an intelligence estimate last year that served to justify the US-led invasion of Iraq.
But it said that and other uncertainties surrounding the case had been fully presented to President George W. Bush and other US policymakers in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a document often referred to by members of the Bush administration as a basis of their claim that Iraq had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the UN Security Council last February that Saddam Hussein and his regime were "concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction" and that their weapons programs "are a real and present danger to the region and to the world."
Interesting, no? Click here for the full story via Yahoo