Fred Thompson's Web Presence

Somebody has been working overtime setting up Fred Thompson's on-line presence. But there appears to be a stark difference in what is going on with Thompson's presence and Ron Paul's.

It's a facade. Literally.

Somebody planted in the media (specifically Jay Lenno) that Fred's "army" call themselves "fredheads" but looking at the facade they've erected, it is more likely that one of Thompson's campaign staffers came up with the term and hired a few web consultants to create a "presence" and craft Leno some scripted questions to promote the idea of a grass roots campaign.

For instance, fredheads dot com (registered on May 29 of 2007 by somebody in Fred's home state of TN) went live on June 7. Apparently this serves up the "fredheads" forum. Since then, there have been a whopping 109 posts by by 63 users (about 1 post every 2 hours). Based on the content (Hollywood Fred: What's your favorite Fred Thompson role!) it could well be that the 63 users are his staffers hoping to generate enough "buzz" to attract real users...

This was my favorite post by 'admin':

Subject: I can say WOW

We are getting some amazing email from both members and non-members of this board. There is a genuine feeling of excitment about this campaign and we are the initial groundswell of support. [sic]

I can say "wow" too, but it wouldn't be about Fred's internet 'groundswell'.

Interesting to me is the timing. Fred Hasn't announced yet but there is this concerted effort behind the scenes to organize an internet presence disguised as a grassroots effort by "fredheads." Hmmm. Contrast that with Ron Paul's presence which has taken place at already popular sites such as MySpace, technorati, Youtube, Meetup etc. These sites are the natural social networking arenas on the web.

Sure there are some unofficial Ron Paul forums and sites out there but the bulk of the activity is taking place in the blogosphere and on the social networks. Where are the Thompson supporters on Youtube?

Thompson's bizarre video response to Michael Moore is on youtube with about 59,000 views but Thompson's campaign hasn't put up a presence in the YouDecide2008 channel. And that response! Not only does it contain a veiled threat, it's a professional production. A pure Hollywood script with the scene opening on Thompson turning to the camera while reading what *must* be an important briefing to tell Michael Moore he has no time on his schedule to debate him. However, Michael, when you go visit your buddy Castro, keep in mind the last documentary film maker that went down there spent years getting electro shock treatment in one of Castro's mental institutions.

Fade to black while Thompson picks up his important briefing and turns back away from the camera.

I'm pretty sure that Fred made the video especially for the only fans he has on the internet at Free Republic.com.

There are other videos that have been put up over the past year but most have less than 5000 views.

Lawyers for Thompson (registered privately with go daddy on May 31 ) is a good example of the facade. With links running down the sidebar representing every state, all but a few of the "affiliates" use the same blog layout and font and like the main site virtually no comments. Perhaps lawyers don't visit the web or don't do a lot of grassroots political activity. Or maybe aren't that interested in Fred's campaign....

The main "fredheads site" is fredheads usa dot org. It is exactly the same layout and design as the lawyers for Thompson site and is also registered privately with go daddy.

It is also conspicuously void of any significant activity other than by whomever is populating it with blog entries. There is a lot of activity (creating facades) in the past few weeks for a guy who hasn't decided to run yet. But not much in the way of actual traffic. It's early yet but doesn't look too promising.

fredthompson ronpaul

Il Douche!

Check out this great cartoon of the baffon Guliani....from The libertarian enterprise

Pew research suggests Ron Paul's Internet Success may well translate to real votes

Great analysis here by associated content regarding a recent Pew Research poll about where Americans are getting their political news.

The Pew study concluded that although many Americans do still get their political news from mainstream media sources (both online and through TV and newspapers), more and more voters are choosing to use the internet to find out more about the potential candidates. This would certainly help the case of "underdog" candidate Ron Paul, who thus far seems to be winning the election on the internet.

I'm sure part of the reason that people are turning to the internet is due to the mainstream media's refusal to actually cover candidates in depth. Part of that is most certainly due to the vast majority of the candidate's lack of depth but also due to other factors such as government pressure, bias and entertainment value. In spite of the fact that news is a big part of the media's budget, politics is boring to most viewers.

Those who are interested in politics will not find satisfaction from mainstream outlets by and large.

Ron Paul II?

Great piece here by Dan Sullivan at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review regarding Giuliani's unintended consequences or "blowback". (Oh the irony!)

Then came the blowback. Fox's own post-debate Internet poll showed Paul out-polling Giuliani. Paul was praised by Pat Buchanan, featured on Bill Maher's HBO show and on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show." Ron Paul Internet videos now dominate Republican candidates on YouTube and Paul's campaign chest is growing.

Suddenly the Paul campaign is on a roll, thanks to the blowback Giuliani's arrogance generated. Most of all, Giuliani proved Paul's point.

It is a terrible mistake for those on top to bully the less prominent. It's terrible foreign policy, and it's a terrible campaign strategy.

Still, it's better to see it from Candidate Giuliani than from President Giuliani. We've had enough arrogance in the Oval Office.

Zing!

Open Letter to Thomas L. Knapp: Please....

Thomas, give me a break.

You cannot possibly believe that Ron Paul is a racist and this 15 year old newsletter is truly representative of his views.

I accept his explanation and I also accept his statement that he accepts responsibility for the newsletter since it bore his name. Absolutely nothing he has ever said before or after that newsletter was published is racist in even the slightest way.

You may not remember me from back in the libertyforum or free republic days before then, but I was one of Harry Browne's staunchest supporters. I was at the antiwar Convention in 1999 and covered Harry and Patrick Buchanan. To my chagrin, I missed Ron Paul's speech.

Your tack here is much like Jacob Hornberger's was with Harry. And frankly, I think that Jacob was stirring the pot to get himself attention which is why I accused you of the same. If you are not now trying to take advantage of the overwhelming growth of interest in Ron Paul's candidacy on the net, then you are extremely sloppy.

If you had researched the allegations against Paul you'd know that there is nothing more there than an unfortunate blemish that reflects upon Paul's judgment years ago but not upon his character.

And while we're on the subject of strange things you're saying lately; for you to claim that libertarian ideals depend on a party apparatus is absurd. You wrote this on the 14th:

1) If one believes that the Republican Party cannot be reformed into a libertarian party, and that on the other hand the Libertarian Party is the only vehicle through which it is even remotely likely that libertarian ideals may -- sooner or later -- be translated into public policy, then Paul's campaign is worthy of denunciation by virtue of the fact that it will inevitably cause some people who are looking for a libertarian political party to mistake the GOP for that kind, or potentially that kind, of political party, at the expense of the LP.

The message of liberty needs no party. Furthermore, what's worse? That people might mistake the GOP as being libertarian, or that the message of liberty will be left solely in the hands of the LP and all of about 500 thousand people who will hear it?

Really now Thomas. The reason that Ron Paul is garnering so much support is because there isn't anyone on the planet who would mistake the current GOP as being even remotely libertarian, unless of course you consider dispensing "democracy" at gunpoint and bankrupting the nation, libertarian. His refreshing viewpoints and life-long, consistent dedication to libertarian principles are what makes him attractive to voters. He has no baggage. He has not wavered from his principles, he has served his community and his country and at 71, is still showing boyish enthusiasm for the message of liberty.

How many times have you denounced the "you're either with us or agin us" mentality only to now espouse it (albeit couched in flowery terms)?

Whether or not a libertarian runs under the Republican or Libertarian party banner is irrelevant. Though, it is absolutely true that under the Republican banner, there is no time or energy wasted on ballot access.

The Libertarian party has not in 30 years learned how to win elections. In the last 30 years Ron Paul has actually won 10 elections to Congress. I' will grant you that this is due partly because he hasn't had to waste a thin dime on ballot access.

You must have been just as disappointed as I when quite a few libertarians came out in favor of voting for Bush in 2000 because they were afraid of Gore and had no faith in their own party.

Or how about when so-called libertarians started coming out in favor of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Well this attack from you is about as disappointing to me. To see such a valued libertarian thinker as yourself resort to a low-grade, petty, smear of a man who deserves more respectful consideration, is extremely disappointing.

Not that you care, but I would recommend to Steve Kubby and other big-ell libertarians that it is time to go "all in" and support the one libertarian who actually has a chance to win the election - and has a track record of winning elections.

No offense to any Libertarian hopeful. I have always supported Libertarians. But this is one case where I go with Ron Paul rather than the LP. And I would never take personal shots at LP candidates even if they decide to keep running. What a waste! Why anyone would want to attack people who spread the message of liberty is beyond me.

I'll leave you with this. Back in 2001, Ron Paul personally worked with myself and others (I happened to be in his district at the time) to introduce legislation which would re-introduce Letters of Marque and Reprisal to go after Bin Laden.

Within 3 days of our request he was introducing it on the house floor. That is exactly the sort of thing which elicits such loyalty to him by his constituents. He "gets it" and he does the right thing.

Don't sell yourself short by resorting to a ridiculous smear campaign. It may elicit a lot of traffic for your blog. But I imagine in the long run it will leave a very bad taste in the mouths of those who, prior to this outburst, trusted your devotion to liberty.

Perhaps I shouldn't speak for others. Speaking strictly for myself, it is very disappointing.

Peace.

The Ron Paul Revolution: Our President

I said I was sick of politics. And I am. I am also cynical and jaded and bitter. I mean...the country elected Bush...TWICE...the second win coming after the disgusting Patriot Act was passed.

The thing is, I have been a fan of Ron Paul's since 1992 when I lived in California. I moved to his district just before it was gerrymandered and to the chagrin of the GOP, he still was able to defeat the establishment GOP challenger.

In all of the years that I've known of Ron Paul, I always wished that he could run for President though I assumed that his message would fall on deaf ears. Boy was I wrong. Just when I thought that I should start looking for places to settle as an expatriate, Ron Paul blasts on to the scene in a firestorm of excitement.

And the thing is...the people I am witnessing who "get it" are the very people I had discounted as being too disaffected to care. Young people. Old people. Black people. Brown people. White people and even Red people like myself.

The mainstream media is trying to discount Paul even though every media poll by the very media companies which televised the debates show Paul as the front runner after the debates.

Of course Gallup et al, won't even ask the people who still have land-lines if they've heard of Ron Paul or would vote for him.

I was a bit worried about that at first. However, I have thought of something that I haven't seen many (if any) of Ron Paul's supporters mention: the 100 million eligible voters that the mainstream media claims are "apathetic".

They're not apathetic. They're disgusted. And they are obviously not that influenced by the mainstream media. If they were to get excited about Ron Paul's candidacy and registered to vote....voila! President Ron Paul.

So all of you in the revolution who read this (all two of you), spread the word. Those are the people you must target if you want to insure he makes it past the primaries. Paul has proven already that he can take on the GOP machine in his own district. He can out raise them and has every time he's tried.

In fact, in 1996, he raised more money for his campaign than any house member not in leadership roles. The only two members who raised more money were Newt Gingrich and Bob Dornan and they received much from Lobbyists and special interests whereas the vast majority of Paul's donations came from individual contributers.

And that is the other way that Paul can win the GOP nomination. He can outspend them. That is, he can outspend them if you commit to helping him save our republic from the despots who have co-opted it for their own personal gain at the expense of your liberties.

Isn't your freedom worth a bit of your excess federal reserve notes? The government has been squeezing you dry through overt taxes like the income tax, the property tax, licensing fees and sales taxes. And covert ones like massive production of federal reserve notes (the true meaning of inflation) which reduces your buying power and transfers wealth into the hands of the banking and investment complex.

Ron Paul has proven that a large group of dedicated investors can beat the establishment. And he has done it consistently for 20 years. 10 terms.

Unlike prior Libertarian candidates who had great ideas but little experience in winning elections (or actually wielding the power bestowed upon them by voters), Ron Paul is very experienced. He's won 5 straight elections since 1996 against some well-connected people.

He is a winner. He is a champion of freedom. And you owe it to yourself to help purchase this election. For once in your life you can make a real difference. Your money will not be the speck compared to the multi-national corporate donations. Your, donation will be as humble or as large as thousands of other like-minded individuals who crave true freedom.

You can afford it. You can make a sacrifice for freedom. It's important. If you fail to make the sacrifice today....well....you know where this train is headed. I don't need to scare you. If you can't give money, and even if you can, talking to people about Ron Paul is the best way to give him the name recognition he will require to win the election in 2008.

Imagine what it would be like to have been involved and to be able to say to yourself , "That's my President."

Ron Paul could be our President. How cool would that be?

Dear ESPN

Todd Boyd's article ("You can't discuss Bonds without race") was well-written but perhaps it would be more satisfying if Todd would actually stand up for Bonds.

After reading as much of "Game of Shadows" as I could stomach, I am disgusted with the sports writing community in general who touted this book as the proof that Bonds was cheating.

Interestingly enough, the authors (my apologies to real writers) concede that Bonds didn't so much as drink a protein shake before the 1998 season.

The current theme in Baseball media circles is to pile on Bonds at every opportunity. You can tune in to almost any show where the name Bonds comes up and find some know-nothing libeling Bonds.

Bonds is going down for perjury, Bonds is a cheater, Bonds associates are in jail, Bonds once beat up an 8 year old who wanted an autograph...It goes one and on. But none have mentioned that Bonds was granted immunity from prosecution during his Balco Grand Jury appearance while touting the book as authoritative.

We are supposed to believe that Bonds, who has been lambasted since well before 1993 when he came to the Giants organization, and who had nothing to lose when it came to public opinion, nor any reason to lie, lied about his steroid use. Absurd.

The authors also let us know (and the general media again doesn't mention this) that Barry, while working with Anderson from BALCO, was being tested regularly. And his test results not only showed no sign of steroids, but also higher testosterone levels than one would expect for somebody who regularly used steroids. All this is in the book, but the sports writers who accuse Barry of "hating baseball" are exposing themselves as the true haters. I'm convinced that most sports personalities who claim the book in question is proof of something other than the fact that you don't have to have talent to be a sports commentator, have not even read the book. And if they have, they didn't do it with even the slightest critical view.

These cretins and their hangers-on are willing to ruin the game for as many within ear shot while promoting themselves.

I'm not black and those who commissioned the recent poll mentioned in Todd's article didn't bother to have its authors contact me or anyone I know who supports bonds.

I'm a fan of Baseball and Barry Bonds. But I wasn't a fan of Barry's when he first came to the Giants. I was a die hard Will Clark fan and didn't want to see Will leave the team.

But in the subsequent years, I have witnessed a marvelous player who loves the game of baseball (in spite of all the valid reasons he could grow to hate it) and who has been treated mercilessly by the so-called press.

I don't think that Bonds used steroids. However, if he did, and here's another bit from the book that you won't see repeated often, "they don't work."

The quote is Barry's. If you've actually paid attention, what fueled Barry's 2001 record-breaking was a change he made to his swing. And if you don't believe me, just compare his first home run to #745. Major league baseball has both available at the Bonds fan page.

Also not mentioned often is that in the years leading up to the single-season record-breaking year, Bonds' home run production actually went down. Prior to 2001, his best year was in 1996 - two years before he is alleged to have started taking steroids - when he hit 46 homers. But again, rather than simply stand back and marvel at the sheer talent and work ethic that has resulted in one of the most productive all-around ball players to ever play the game, fans of this game will be subjected to more "experts" claiming that the only way one can improve himself is to take drugs.

And really, how absurd is that? You have a bunch of middle-aged white guys (mostly), who haven't accomplished nearly as much in their lifetimes, ragging on Barry because he isn't as physically inept as they.

Sour grapes. In closing, I'd like to request that Todd get some stones and stand up for Barry. There may be a racial element to the criticism he has received, but this witch hunt is mainly stirred up by a bunch of jealous wannabees who have had Bonds laugh at them during a press conference one too many times.

Sincerely,

A baseball fan in Austin.

Music over which the RIAA can't sue you for downloading..

Just thought I could share with the 3 or 4 people who actually visit this blog. It took me a year to finally get the pieces put together so I could actually burn it to CD or rip it to mp3's. A really fabulous drummer named Kenny Pardo laid down the groove on about 30 songs with me when I was still living in San Jose. He's from San Francisco and is just a monster drummer. I play all the rest of the instruments on this including the voice box.

So I just found a place to host it. You can download Afraid to Fall and tell me what you think.

Maps are Complicated

I am very dis-satisfied with the state of map services on the Internet. So much so that I've quite my job to write a better service. Yes, this might qualify for an insanity award, but it is my life and I am so far happy with my decisions and illusions.

After playing with some of the MAP API's offered by Google, Yahoo and Mapquest I've come to the conclusion that Mapping software is really complicated. (A collective "Duh" is heard and acknowledged).

One of the gaping holes I've discovered has to do with the standardization of intersection names. Namely, there is no such standardization. Try the following in a few map service providers.

TX-71 (W) & I-35 (N), Austin, TX

If you haven't guessed, I want the spot where 71 (Ben White) crosses the north bound lanes of IH 35 in south Austin. This string will work for Google, but not Mapquest or Yahoo. I guess that would be bad since they're all about search technology and need to retain some sort of identity apart from one another. But for the end user it really is bad because if you want to get directions to an intersection or pick an intersection as your starting point, there is no reliable way to select an intersection and then tailor your directions from that spot. Yes, you can use an address and pass through the intersection but hitting that spot is the challenge. I stumbled upon this when testing out a trick little jsp tag library for Google Maps.

bv

With everything moving to geocodes, this problem is exacerbated because you have to be accurate when specifying an intersection in order to get the geocodes returned to your app. The tag library above actually uses Yahoo's geocode API to return lat/lon values from address values you provide, so that you can add custom markers on maps you create via the tag library.

Some of the private map software providers provide complicated aliasing schemes where the user actually provides the aliases but has to create a reference to the actual geocode. Starting to see the circular logic problem involved here?

Also, notice the example I provided above isn't even consistent on Google. If I derive a pattern from the above example, I should be able to use something similar to find the spot where I-10 crosses I-45 in Houston. Using the "get directions" link on google maps, enter in your data like this:

From: TX-71 (W) & I-35 (N), Austin, TX To: I-45 (S), I-10 (E), Houston, TX

You get the following:

We could not understand the location I-45 (S), I-10 (E), Houston, TX

Eh? Why not? Now modify this a bit and just replace the destination to "I-45 Houston TX". And Voila! Directions to Houston but going North on I-45! You can't specify that you want to go south unless you make your destination some location south of Houston.

Boo!

I'm not sure that this is Google's "fault", it's a historical thing. The alias information for most of the map data available regarding intersections is derived and people have never been consistent by default. Think about it, address incormation is consistent (within a country anyway). But no such standardization has been devised for intersections.

A standardized intersection naming convention for at least the major and minor freeways and highways would surely be a wonderful thing even if a daunting task.

How much would it be worth to have every intersection abstracted such that you could enter in a string matching a standard pattern and return reliable coordinates? I'd certainly pay for it.

Taking the Plunge

I think I've finally given up on politics. I find it utterly futile and stupid. So I'm not going to talk about politics anymore unless I just can't help myself. Hillary could get elected after all.

After over 3 years at my current job, I'm packing it in to head off on a real adventure. I'll be building an idea I've had for some time about providing software and services for the people who still use the roads and highways to travel.

I have found the various travel sites and map engines lacking in areas I think would provide a good deal of benefit for end users. Software I would actually use. The vehicle (no pun intended) for the software and services will be roadlogs.com. So watch that space and keep your pants on most of the day. You're safe to take them off at night.

I have no idea where that phrase originated. I think I'll go ask Jeeves....

Early Voting!

It's all about the election now. I do hope you vote libertarian or "none of the above" this Tuesday. I mean, you don't really believe that the Democrats are going to do anything significantly different then the Republicans do you? Think that they'll repeal the Patriot Act? Sucker! Think they'll bring the troops home? Sucker!

I mean really....

demidog

Lock Up Your Sons From The Party Of Family Values

Oh the irony. GOP Congressman Mark Foley resigned his House seat today after emails and text messages he sent to minor male staffers started surfacing amongst media outlets today.

While co-chairman of the Congressional Caucus on Missing, Exploited and Runaway Children, Foley was busy drafting an overhaul of the Federal sex offender law. And when he wasn't making haughty speeches about making the minor children of America safe from sexual predators, he was trying to pick up underage staffers.

Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.

Another message:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.

And this one:

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.

If I had to guess, I'd say that at one of the kids came forward as a victim because he wanted to stay in the closet. ABC didn't show the rest of these conversations but it doesn't sound like the kid minds that much. Where's the objection? It's not hard to offer a "Hey, that's pretty creepy" if you are truly offended as the boy is alleging. It would be interesting to know whether or not the kid is really under 18. Foley didn't wait around to defend himself. His first tack was to claim that the messages were taken out of context. When ABC asked him about the above messages, he promptly resigned.

I think that says allot about the authenticity of the messages ABC obtained. It's a shame that Foley is being hounded about sex. He had so many laws ready in the wings to make America safer from sexual predators. Now he won't get to bring them to the House floor. His colleagues will now regale us with the standard falderol about pressing needs and their desire to save America's children. Then they will promptly pass more laws to protect us from lawmakers? That would be a better idea.

I think Foley got confused when the education bill was passed during Bush's first term.."I thought you said, 'No Child's Behind Left Untouched." Maybe Foley has taken too many government programs to heart. "Don't Ask, Don't Text Message" comes to mind.

On a conspiratorial note, the FBI couldn't have been very happy with the shellacking it was taking from Foley.

"Obviously, this is something the Department of Justice needs to work on. Congress wanted the information in order to assemble a comprehensive database of missing children," Foley said.

A little payback? It does make me wonder why the FBI won't produce the information. Perhaps they're saving those runaway kids for themselves? We can't let Congress have all the fun after all. Or maybe, the "epidemic" described by any number of handwringers, is vastly overstated? That is the government's specialty after all, solving non-existent problems or creating problems that they can later not solve so as to whine they are underfunded.

But seriously folks, if somebody offers your teenagers an exciting job as a Congressional staffer, maybe Camp Manitoba would be a better choice.

demidog, foley, hypocrisy

Malkin's intentional deceit exposed

This article in the village voice does much to show how the dumbest member of the Witches of War Ick supports institutionalized racism. And she misleads in order to make her point.

The signal-to-noise ratio here is so slender that one is tempted to just accept Malkin's coy interpretation of them at face value. But in actually reading the evidence, Malkin's shell game becomes apparent. The appendix "Richard Kotoshirodo" excerpts the interrogation of a clerk at the Japanese consulate in Honolulu, who admits to assisting his employers by observing U.S. warships in the months prior to Pearl Harbor. Kotoshirodo was a kibei, born in the U.S. but sent back to Japan for schooling. This is an important distinction, as the Japanese-indoctrinated kibei were seen as more likely to have suspect loyalty. Yet in the caption to the blurry transcript, Malkin refers to "spy ring aide" Kotoshirodo as a "Nisei . . . [testifying] about his loyalty to Japan before an Internee Hearing Board." Casually eliding his kibei status lends weight to her assertions about nefarious native-born Japanese Americans. This is no accident; in the caption to the Kotoshirodo mug shot, she again IDs him as a nisei.

demidog, malkin, hypocrisy

America's "Finest" threaten to kill 7 year-old girl during traffic stop

In the interest of homeland security I presume, Officer Eric Tatusko of the Pittsburgh police department drew his sidearm and threatened a seven year old girl.

“I said, ‘What’s the problem, officer?’ and he said ‘Get your hands up,’” wrote Lawton in a prepared statement. “He repeated, pulled out his gun and pointed into the passenger side of the window where my youngest daughter was trying to get her seatbelt off. So, I put my hands up.” According to Lawton, she and her children spent the next 20 to 30 minutes trying to convince Officer Eric Tatusko to put his weapon down or to at least go to the driver’s side to address the problem with the only adult in the car. “The children were in the car screaming and crying,” she wrote. “My hands were still in the air and I was screaming ‘Help, someone help!’ over and over again.”

The Witches of War Ick

One day, I think it would be fun to actually get paid for depositing my opinion on the door steps or browsers of America. The first thing that might come to the minds of my fair readers is the pidgeon but this is allegedly the land of opportunity and I am entitled to a dream or two now and then. I only mention this in the interest of disclosure since I am not degreed, and the closest I've ever been to college was either marching at halftime Fiesta Bowl activities in 1980, an electronics class in 1986, and a couple of band appearances.

In short, I have absolutely no "credentials."

During my twenty-year career in the high-tech industry, I have worked with many degreed professionals, a good portion of which did not appear to have learned much about their trades in college. Having learned my profession from those who *did* learn something in college, I feel qualified to know the difference between somebody who is good at what he does, and one more suited to flipping burgers than writing software.

Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin fall into the second category if one is judging journalists. As a journalist, I probably fall into the latter category. However, I do not pretend to actually be a journalist.

Ann Coulter and Malkin both seem to be in a competition to see who can write most offensive and badly researched works of punditry. Malkin's work defending racial profiling "In Defense of Internment" has been well-received by Limbauts but is a grossly inaccurate reporting of events that occurred during WWII when thousands of Japanese Americans were stripped of their freedoms. The object apparently is to justify today's "internments" and renditions of those the Bush administration considers enemy combatants. I sure hope, for Malkin's sake, we do not feel the need to crack down on terrorists originating from the Philippine Archipelago.

When Malkin isn't shilling for the federal government's racist programs of the "good old days" she's defending Guantanamo, something even George Bush wants to end (or did a few months ago), if you are one of the few who believes he actually tells the truth.

Coulter is well known for her statements denigrating Muslims, claiming that any and all who disagree with the war are nothing short of treasonists, and that the Abu Ghraib scandal was something that liberals would actually enjoy were they to be able to visit the place.

The Latter statement may have been tongue-in-cheek. On the other hand, this is the same woman who, when interviewed by O'Reilly in 2004, claimed that Iraq was just as safe if not more safe than Washingon D.C. - hmmm - maybe she's right - both are targets of strict gun-control by the U.S. Federal government - but I digress.

I was happy to see Anne get bitch-slapped by the brave widows of 9/11 victims after her slanderous accusations of them.

I have never in my life encountered women who have ever been this rude or crammed so much violence and false bravado in their "work". Therefore, I dub these two the Witches of War Ick. I know that there were three in John Updike's masterpiece, but I can't find a third who can live up to the same level of vapidity.

Dick Cheney might just fit the part of Daryl Van Horne.

Compare and Contrast

George Bush, September 18, 2003:

We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th

.

George Bush, September 6, 2006:

One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror..."

Any questions?

Doctor Albrecht, I Presume - Name Dropping Alert.

I haven't congratulated my friend, Katherine Albrecht for completing her Harvard doctorate program. Yes, she graduated in June, but better late than never. If you haven't checked out spychips.com or the book Spy Chips, which she co-authored with Liz McIntyre, get thee to Amazon or your favorite book store and buy it.

Congratulations Dr. Albrecht.

I can't imagine...

"a guy like bin Laden understanding the joys of Hanukkah.."

George Bush

A Cast of Thousands?

William L. Anderson writes:

The conspiracy theorists, I suppose, believe that the super-smart federal agents they see on Fox and other network shows, not to mention the movies and Chuck Norris movies are the norm, as opposed to being fictitious characters.

The kind of conspiracy that people are trying to convince me would have been needed for the government to pull off this attack would have required thousands of people to act with near-perfect timing, and that no one would talk. Another problem comes when people declare that since the Bush Administration benefitted initially from the attacks, it must have planned them.

Sorry, but this is a very tired cliche, and it happens to also be a tautology.

9.11 was the result of a conspiracy. Duh. But who conspired? 12 "hijackers?"

The best way to carry off an attack and avoid the government's agents, is to run it from the inside. This is so obvious as to require no further evidentiary support. Time and time again, the "inside job" has netted favorable results for criminals.

The Mafia has long been known to corrupt government officials in order to avoid guilty verdicts or even prosectution without detection. We know they've done this because occassionally, they get caught. But more often they do not.

William here totally poo-poo's the possiblity of an inside job, erects another strawman argument, and totally ignores history to boot.

When PNAC indicates their designs would take much longer unless America experienced another "Pearl Harbor", more scrutiny than just a hand-wave should be directed at their choice of example. Pearl Harbor has chilling similarities to 9.11. About 9 Pentagon officials are said to have known of Roosevelt's plan to provoke Japan. Nine. Those nine, having full control over the US Military, are all that were needed.

One Admiral ordered the bulk of the fleet to leave Pearl Harbor before it was attacked, allowing the losses to be great enough to insure war, but not so great that war couldn't be waged. William may assert that those Captains and naval enlistees who followed orders were involved in the conspiracy to bring the US into WWII, but I find that laughable.

Just prior to 9.11, one man, recently given the power to do so, Dick Cheney, ordered the bulk what might have been early intercepts for the hijacked airplanes to locations far away from the East Coast for training excercises. Was NORAD then part of the conspiracy? Or were they merely following orders and confused due to drills in progress?

Were the thousands of FEMA personnel sent to New York on September 10th aware of anything? Would they have to be aware? Is it merely a coincidence that they were to conduct training excercises on the 12th?

This strawman argument that "thousands upon thousands" had to have intimate knowledge of the conspiracy is absurd and should be abandoned as it makes those who repeat it look foolish. Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin...these are to be ignored because apparently it is more fun to deride people who consider possibilities other than the official story, then actually examine the current available evidence.

I don't have any idea who was specifically responsible for 9.11. I do know that the government's actions in the aftermath are very damning and many of the official explanations of what happened are downright lies.

By the way, William, I haven't had a television in my home for over 11 years.

The Grave Dangers of Self-Defense

A really fun piece from Stefan Molyneux at Lew Rockwell.

The logical – and moral – problem with this is, of course, that if people exist who cannot defend themselves from mere individual criminals, how on earth can they possibly defend themselves against the state? In other words, if you’re afraid of being exploited by violent people, is armed might of the modern state somehow less dangerous than an individual mugger?

Norm, Charles, Give me a break.

Norman Singleton and Charles Featherstone are congratulating each other over at Lew's Blog for their "reasonable" conclusions about the whacko conspiracy theorists out there.

Those of us who think that the government is capable and willing to carry off something like 9.11 are just not that bright. Norman writes:

These people were likely taught at a very young age that the government had the power to make all things right and protect them from all evil. Thus, they cannot accept that the government could be so incompetent as to fail to stop something like the 9-11 attacks.

Earth to Norm, all of us, unless homeschooled were taught this. Some grew up and abused ourselves of our ignorance.

Charles has a similar view:

Those peddling the view that the attacks of September 11 were an "inside job" are selling the idea of an omniscient government, one that controls all and is capable of everything. They also have a strange faith in technology -- that it simply cannot fail in strange and unpredictable ways. Not to mention the belief that nothing happens by accident, and that everything is somehow planned in advance

Listen guys, I'm not stupid, and neither are many of those who follow the research. Contary to the strawman arguments you've both raised, there are other possibilities.

WT7 wasn't hit by an airplane. That was a demolition. There is no controversy there as it is the only valid explanation for the way it collapsed.

Controlled Demolition, the same company that was responsible for carting away the evidence from the OKC bombing, received the contract for carting away 9.11 evidence a mere 11 days after the event. That is a fact. Government *never* operates that fast.

The same sort of thing occurred at Waco. All of the evidence that might have given credence to surviving Branch Davidian's claims that the BATF fired first, was destroyed before investigators could look at it. The steel front doors were important. Gone forever. What did the government have to hide?

Why not stage the main core columns somewhere local instead of shipping them to China and India? That would have allowed investigators to completely debunk the "conspiracy theorists."

But in point of fact, those who believe that 19 (oops 12) terrorists from the Middle East were able to execute this action are also conspiracy theorists. So it is all a matter of perspective, which is the acceptable theory? The one put out by researchers with nothing in particular to gain, or the government which has been so honest to us? Who benefitted from 9/11? The terrorists? Or the government and in particular PNAC the agenda of which government is now enacting verbatim?

You can claim the government is evil and incompetent when it comes to the wars it is fighting or the lies it is telling to justify those wars, but it's just too "out there" to consider that they would go so far as to kill their own citizens in order to advance an agenda. Perish the thought. Where did that perspective come from guys? Private school?

Libertarians: Hold Fast

As the campaigns for power heat up this fall, a variety of populist pundits and candidates will continue to beat the drums of fear and war. As "Internet 2.0" is to the various hype-masters of Internet enthusiasts, so is immigration for the Republicans. On the "left" a plethora of democratic politicians who voted for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will either tout their anti-war "credentials", claim that they were duped by the administration, or let us know their favorite "exit-strategy."

As libertarians, we get to vote for our favorite libertarian candidates knowing that they probably will not win. However, in doing so, we'll gain satisfaction knowing we didn't give approval to anyone representing the largest freedom-hating organizations in America, Congress and the Executive branches of Federal and State governments.

The aftermath of 9.11 has seen libertarians divided to some degree. I witnessed some online friends whom I thought were libertarians favor the wars in Afghanistan and and Iraq. I have also seen libertarians such as Ron Paul come out against "illegal" immigration.

Personally, I have little respect for any so-called libertarian who supports giving the government more power no matter how good the reasons may sound. I don't think I'm alone. But being on the other side of both of these debates hasn't been easy either.

Libertarians have had a number of detractors on the matter of immigration. The Libertarian Party's platform used to advocate "open borders." Sadly, those who recently hijacked the party have changed the immigration plank in complete disregard for libertarian ideals. All we need now is for Pat Buchanan to announce his intent to run as a libertarian and the destruction of the Party will be assured as it was when he ruined the Reform Party.

To those who continuously bash "illegals", their reasoning demands that a person coming into the United States show the pre-requisite "reasonable" legal documents and subject themselves to searches, giving up their rights to privacy and to travel freely. If they refuse to do this, then they are "illegal".

Because they are not citizens, we are supposed to stand for this.

What of our rights? What just law can demand an obligation to hire only naturalized citizens in our businesses or private homes? Recently, the city of council Hazelton, PA, passed ordinances which fine landlords one thousand dollars per day anyone who rents to an "illegal" alien and make English their "official" language.

"What I'm doing here is protecting the legal taxpayer of any race," said the dapper 50-year-old mayor, sweeping his hands toward the working-class city outside. "And I will get rid of the illegal people. It's this simple: They must leave ."

The Mayor's efforts are already "paying off" - proving that as usual, government is the problem rather than the solution.

The law doesn't take effect for another month. But the Republican mayor already sees progress. "I see illegal immigrants picking up and leaving -- some Mexican restaurants say business is off 75 percent," Barletta says. "The message is out there."

There is no reason for any libertarian to avoid, or apologize for, opposition to solution(s) in current fashion. All of the proposed solutions punish both citizens and immigrants alike.

The war on illegal immigration is as full of hyperbolic vapidity as is the war on terrorism. We will hear any number of arguments for protecting our borders. "We need a Fence" is among the scariest to anyone old enough to remember the Berlin Wall. Those who support this are apparently able only to see one side of the issue and, coincidentally, one side of a wall. If you have come into casual contact with walls and have even the slightest cognizant ability, you recognize that a wall has two sides. A wall keeps people in at the same time it keeps people out. The number of folks who have jumped on the bandwagon is frightening.

Far from being a slippery slope, the problems inherent in branding anyone without a proper set of documents on their person, illegal, are already upon us. The powers that be are already punishing "legal" persons in the name of safety.

It would be a pity if those libertarians of influence whom are left, play the populists in order to seek expansion of their own influence. It was the dogged devotion to the ideals of liberty which swayed me to become a libertarian and it is that same devotion which will win over those inclined to reason. Those who have jumped on bandwagons have discredited themselves. Think about it. All arguments against the libertarian philosophy are rooted in a fear of liberty itself!

"Why, think of how many terrorists could enter the country with 'open borders'!" "What would happen if everyone owned guns?!!" "What would happen if just anyone had children." "If we didn't outlaw plastic forks on airplanes, there'd be so many more terrorist attacks!" If you're talking about the issue with others, try these counter arguments on for size.

• A border is not a property boundary except by coincidence. It is a demarcation of legal jurisdiction.
• The constitution does not state that liberties are reserved to citizens. Quite the contrary, the first, fourth and fifth amendments use the words "people" and "persons."
• Walls have two sides and prohibit crossing from either side equally well.
• The right to travel freely, without molestation or perturbance is well established common law.
• Rights are not established by geography but by birth. A Mexican is presumably born with the same rights as any other American.
• No passage in the constitution gives Congress any legal jurisdiction over foreign travel. The only passage that relates is Congress' power to write the statutes determining citizenship.

The LP has completely gone mad, but I do hope that the real libertarians will hold fast. In the long run, it will be our saving grace. There may be no more "Party of Principle" but the individuals who count themselves as libertarians can keep to theirs.

No ID? No Problem.

Over on Looking Glass News is this gem describing how to fly without an ID. What you say? It's the law! You have to have a government ID to fly! Nope.

told the agents that I could not find any federal regulation mandating that type of identification, and then asked them to cure my ignorance and please cite the regulation. Now, at this point, individual airline agents have reacted differently. Some called in their supervisor. Alaska Air employees were the most gracious; Northwest agents were the worst -- they were rude, belligerent and hostile brats. But they all folded, every time. A particularly nasty Northwest employee marched me all the way back to the electronic detection equipment, made me pass through it a second time, and had the guard thoroughly search my carry-on bag. The same airline agent-from-hell actually made rude and demeaning remarks to me as we trudged back to the counter -- and then she let me on the plane.

I am definitely going to try this next time I have to fly.

How Much Do We Really Owe?

Interesting article at buzzflash regarding the actual U.S. Federal debt and deficit.

But wait, there's more! The U.S. Financial Report does not mention that if Medicare and Social Security are factored into the equation (which the Treasury Department did not), the true deficit was actually a whopping $3.3 trillion last year, over ten times more than Bush claims. And when Social Security projections are adjusted to reflect current life expectancies instead of the old 75-year mark, Cooper said the true national debt is "probably closer to $65 trillion."

The Bush administration isn't truthful? Come on. Buncha partisans....

Medved: Genocide Is OK If Your Motives Are Pure

"The way to judge the morality of a military effort isn’t to consider the level of enemy death and suffering but to examine the purpose for which that destruction has been inflicted."

Michael Medved

Don't Believe Everything you Read

Wired News has had to pull at least three stories by writer Philip Chien due to faked sources. It doesn't just happen to the New York Times apparently....

Why We Fight

We have become the United States of Amnesia

Gore Vidal

Why We fight, Eugene Jarecki's 2005 documentary, dryly examines the transformation of America after WWII to a well-oiled war machine. It's name coincidentally (or not) is shared by WWII propaganda produced by the legendary Frank Capra.

The film gives us a look at Eisenhower we may not have gleaned from our text books in public schools or from our first look at John Birch Society hysterics on various internet sites.

We are given a view of our current foreign policy as a progression beginning from the vast buildup of the "military-industrial complex" - a term coined by Eisenhower - during and afer WWII. There may be a colorable argument to suggest that this corporate love fest between Congress, the Pentagon and private interests, began long before WWII, according to Smedley Butler. However, since this film was produced by the Eisenhower Project, we can't necessarily fault them for failing to find somebody who warned us about the usurpation of foreign policy by politicians and private interests long before Eisenhower.

This film deftly weaves pictures which reveal the incestuous nature of foreign policy think tanks, politicians and giant defense contractors (corporations) with personal stories from those involved in designing bombs, delivering those bombs and even dedicating those bombs to victims of the attacks on 9/11/2001.

One of the more more effective personal stories is that of William Sekzer, retired New York Police officer and former Viet Nam Veteran who lost his son, Jason M. Sekzer, when the World Trade Center towers collapsed.

Sekzer was motivated by a need for revenge. In spite of his skepticism over the lies told by LBJ about the Gulf of Tonkin "attack", which marked the largest escalation in US involvement in Viet Nam, Sekzer was supportive of any move by the government to avenge his son. If the government said Iraq was a target, his support was unshakable. It is hard to blame the man. His epiphany arrives the day President Bush announces in response to a reporter that the US never had any evidence linking Saddam with 9/11.

Ahn Duong, a refugee from Saigon, now works at Indianhead Naval Center designing bombs, specifically the "bunker busters" used in the opening salvos of "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

And it is in this arena where the film truly shines. Those who support the war in various ways, are made human to us. For those of us who oppose US hegemony, our first instinct is to brand those who don't see how they are being manipulated as morons. But those who support the war are not just Bush sychophants. Every individual who supports the war, has his own reasons. Some of which can be understood by any of us. The US government's control of the press is as stunning and shrewd as any totalitarian regime preceding it.

But there are also interviews with members of the true "axis of evil", namely, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Bill Kristol. All contributers to PNAC and the so-called "Bush Doctrine."

Interviews with these particular players are perfect. There is no attempt to challenge their statements or their rationalizations. Some might object to this but given the overall premise, their own words and attitudes stand alone as evidence of their ill-will toward anyone objecting to blatant Imperialism.

My only nit with the film is its blithe acceptence of the "terrorists were responsible for the 9/11 attacks" theory. It doesn't necessarily detract from the film, but it would have been even more powerful to mention that PNAC's paper Rebuilding America's Defenses stated:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor. -pp 51

In spite of this, I found this film to have done a superb job of exposing Fascism's latest incarnation, even if it wasn't called such. It is entertaining and frightening, but does offer us a means to stop the madness. I'll let you watch the film to find out how.

A Must See

This is some of the most amazing art I've ever seen. It's on a sidewalk no less.....

Thanks to the folks at Lew Rockwell's blog for introducing me to Julian Beever.

Still a Major League Threat

"For all of those skeptics who don't think [Bonds] is as dangerous as he used to be, I think he answered that tonight"

Bobby Cox

Barry Bonds on Tuesday hit his 69th multiple-homer game and also had enough spring in his step to rob Atlanta's Jeff Francoeur of a three run homer at the left field wall.

A big kiss-my-ass to the sportswriters who keep claiming that his success has been juice induced. At 42, he's still putting fear into pitchers and managers alike throughout the league.

In his last 10 games Barry is batting an astonishing .538 average. And just in time too. The Giants are in a tight race for the National League West, five and a half games back of the Dodgers and two and a half back of the Padres in the wild card race.

Go Barry, Go!

You're On Notice!

Stephen Colbert gets around. I'm on the bandwagon though I haven't watched television in over 11 years. Here's My On notice list:

Too much web surfing at work? Surf the web and find out why!

An astute co-worker sent me this today. Yahoo is featuring this article on their front door:

Find another job......maybe one that is more understanding about how much time you spend surfing the web during work hours?

Speech as a crime

Mardin Amin, trying to avoid embarrassment during an airport security checkpoint identified an unusual object in one of his carry-on bags by whispering "pump" to the TSA agent. The agent swears that he "clearly" said "bomb".

A Cook County judge has decided there is enough evidence to prosecute a man who says an airport security guard misheard him when she thought he said that a sexual device in his backpack was actually a bomb.

Mardin Amin claims he actually told the guard the small, black object was a "pump" - as in a penis pump.

And if you're a television broadcasting company, do not dare to broadcast Hezbollah TV. Government agents will shut you down, steal all of your money and charge you with terrorism.

US authorities have arrested a New York man for locally broadcasting Hezbollah television al-Manar, which the US Treasury Department has designated a terrorist entity.

Javed Iqbal, 42, was arrested because his Brooklyn-based company HDTV Ltd was providing New York-area customers with the Hezbollah-operated channel, US federal prosecutors said in a statement.

The US Treasury Department froze US assets of al-Manar in March, saying it supported fund-raising and recruitment activities of Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim group backed by Syria and Iran that has been at war with Israel in southern Lebanon.

America, what a country.

Government Is Bad Medicine For What Ails Us

Whenever I discuss politics with statists, the argument eventually ends up with the statist asking me when libertarianism has ever worked historically. My first answer is usually, "The US shortly after the revolution."

Statists don't like that answer. Their view is that people cannot be responsible for themselves. The libertarian/anarchist point of view is that they can and generally are responsible and are capable of governing themselves. But like me, ancaps and libertarians are always asked to provide examples of "civilized" people governing themselves. The question is a logical fallacy akin to "When did you stop beating your wife?" A circular argument that assumes government is itself the dividing line between civilized and uncivilized people.

It is time for libertarians to stop resorting to defense. Our position can be defended, but it is becoming clear that this is hardly necessary given history and recent events.

Lebanon

Take the recent dust up between Hezbollah and Israel for example. For at least 24 years, Israel has been occupying Lebanon. July 12th was not the beginning - nor will it likely be the end - of the dispute between the two countries. It is the aftermath of the latest hostilities that gives us a view of the vast differences between the libertarian and the statist.

Those who claim that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization and that it has some sort of stranglehold over Lebanese government do so with an obvious agenda. This point of view also demonstrates a severe ignorance on the part of the claimant, a fact if we provide superlative generosity as to their motivations.

As Lebanon attempts to return itself to "normal", we find it is the private sector, namely Hezbollah, which has turned out to repair the various communities inside Lebanon devastated by US-made planes, guns, artillary and bombs.

"There is no government here," said an agitated Abdul Muhsen Husseini, president of the Union of Municipalities in the Tyre region — the man who is supposed to be in charge — as he handled requests from a stream of petitioners asking for money to buy medicine and what to do with the dead.

"We asked the government in Beirut to accompany the returning people to their villages, to repair water and prepare the roads," he said. "They said to me, 'God willing, we will come.' And they didn't come."

The intent here is not to argue that the government should be responsible for medical care, housing or damage control. Libertarians don't think that the government should do any of those things. Even when governments claim that they are the rightful parents of the oppressed masses, they do little or nothing to eliminate these problems since by actually solving such problems, they would put themselves out of "business."

For Bush and Olmert (and their underlings), the only concern is to avoid a public relations problem. They need to publicly excoriate Hezbollah and question its legitimacy. Unfortunately for the US and Israeli governments, Hezbollah is making this virtually impossible.

Even as government officials complain that they are expected to clear shattered towns with nothing but shovels and a few bulldozers, Hezbollah already owns or is in the process of renting the required machinery.

Most important, Hezbollah can draw on the manpower needed to begin the massive reconstruction.

Those factors present a serious challenge to the central government in Beirut and the Bush administration, which is scrambling to launch its own rebuilding effort and deny Hezbollah a public relations dividend.

The US

Those who live in New Orleans and Missippi are intimate with government's ineffectiveness and government's tendency to make excuses. A year ago, Michael Chertoff was plopped in front of reporters to defend FEMA's response to the crisis:

"That 'perfect storm' of a combination of catastrophes exceeded the foresight of the planners, and maybe anybody's foresight," Chertoff said.

He called the disaster "breathtaking in its surprise."

But engineers say the levees preventing this below-sea-level city from being turned into a swamp were built to withstand only Category 3 hurricanes. And officials have warned for years that a Category 4 could cause the levees to fail.

Similarly to what is occurring in Lebanon, the US government had one goal in the aftermath of Katrina, and that was to hinder local efforts to rescue and rebuild. The casual observer, if basing his opinion of events on main stream press accounts, would simply think that FEMA officials were inept. The reality is that they were protecting their jobs. FEMA routinely shut down all private and foreign rescue and relief efforts under color of law, cutting off local emergency phone lines and misleading local officials.

If this doesn't convince the statists that formal government is a farce, then what the statist needs to do is show us where it has worked rather than demand proof that an absence of "government", or individuals governing themselves, have ever been effective at fending off life's catastrophes.

Recent events expose the statist's ideas as intellectually, morally and logically bankrupt. It's time the notion of democracy, republicanism, communism, nationalism and all other nannyisms be de-legitimized since none have done anything to improve the human condition. It is only the individuals and private organizations they have created which have been able to do this, the State isn't interested.

In his office in Tyre, Husseini, the regional government official, begrudgingly credited Hezbollah and its Shiite allies in the Amal militia.

"At least they are on the ground helping," he said. "If you call them at midnight, they come out to help. They are the government."

Exactly.

Do the warmongers support these troops?

This article is proof in my mind that we don't need television or newspapers anymore. It discusses the growing resistence to Iraq deployment by US troops. They're speaking out and refusing to go.They defend liberty thus. Those who follow orders favor no one. The US has enough enemies to last a lifetime.

"It takes real courage to resist the war," says Cloy Richards, a former artillery cannoneer for the Marines. "I was afraid to not go; afraid to say no. I took the easy way out and went to the war. It takes way more bravery to say no."

Corporal Richards did two tours of duty in Iraq, between March and October of 2003, and again between March and October of 2004. Like so many in the military, his initial support for the invasion began to disintegrate as the occupation lengthened and became more brutal.

"I was in the artillery unit. I saw a lot of civilian casualties," says Richards, who has seven nephews and one niece. "I love kids," he says. And his views of the Iraq war began to change as he saw Iraqi children die. He particularly remembers watching some kids play with unexploded ammunition. When it exploded, several of them were killed and several more were disfigured. "It was kind of like everything else over there. I just shoved it to the back of my mind somewhere and forgot about it." Except that Richards couldn't actually forget.

Somehow I don't think the Republicans are supportive of men who question their wisdom.

Bloggers Against Torture

Bloggers Against Torture Interesting site.

Enterpreneurs - Not Terrorists

What a nice experience for the three "terrorists" I mentioned in my last post. Arrested and charged with money laundering, terrorism and buying "too many" cell phones. Exhonorated. No kidding?

"I hope this unfortunate turn of events will open some eyes and shed some light on the paranoia and xenophobia that is gripping the country," Abulhassan told reporters at a news conference.

"These are serious issues and they need to be addressed. We can no longer turn and look the other way. There needs to be accountability."

The men returned home Tuesday following a week in jail after prosecutors in southeast Ohio dropped the terror charges, saying they could not prove a terrorism link. The 20-year-olds from Dearborn say they were targeted because they are Arab-Americans.

Law enforcement officials in Ohio deny that claim.

Don't count on anyone actually paying for this screwup.

They Hate Our Freedoms

In light of the latest "terror scare" we are learning that Bush was telling us the truth when he said that the terrorists "hate our freedoms"

Director of Homeland Terrorism, and neocon apologist Michael Chertoff, has been out stumping for increased police-state powers this weekend.

Michael Chertoff, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, stopped short of calling for immediate changes, noting there might be constitutional barriers to the type of wide police powers the British had in apprehending suspects in the plot to blow up airliners headed to the U.S.

But Chertoff made clear his belief that wider authority could thwart future attacks at a time when Congress is reviewing the proper scope of the Bush administration's executive powers for its warrantless eavesdropping program and military tribunals for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Isn't that lovely. The Constitution apparently, even in its currently abused state, is getting in the way of the terrorists. And how can you not consider them terrorists? They have a political agenda and use every means at their disposal to terrorize the public into giving them nore power.

The Department of Defense defines terrorism thusly: "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

Notice that the threat of force or even use of force doesn't have to be unlawful under their definition. Governments, the organizations which control most of the world's "lawful force" are terrorists if they threaten the use of force or use force to acheive political objectives.

"But..but but...", the statists stammer, "the government is only threatening the `real terrorists`." Actually, they are threatening everyone. I mean, unless you believe that the government has technology which can automatically switch off when surveilling a "non" terrorist, then you are a potential target for such surveilance. Today's "suggestion" by Chertoff, who is presumably speaking the will of more government agents and agencies than himself, totally ignores the surveillance of people travelling and working in the US already. If it hasn't worked so far, why will more improve matters?

This in spite of the fact that the Federal government is only authorized to gather minimal census data once every ten years. I haven't seen anyone challenge the government's massive data collection on citizens based on that constitutional restriction before, but I'd sure like to see it done. It is clear to me that data collection such as video, SSN, and private financial records is a direct violation of this restriction on the collection of personal information.

But why limit the definition of terrorism to the use of force alone? The government's ability to manipulate the major news networks is a almost as powerful as the use of force. The use of propaganda designed to instill terror in the minds of citizens here and abroad doesn't count?

The news media is all too willing to play along. After all, they assert, "bad news sells. "If it bleeds, it leads."

In reality, when you take an objective look at the government-approved media, the bulk of its content, including what constitutes "entertainment" is chock full of propaganda meant to terrorize the populice so that they rush out and buy certain products. It works so well with a variety of products, but some still haven't realized that the news itself is designed to yield the same results.

The people running the show want us to be afraid. A sad example of this coincidentally happened this weekend. Three men in Texas were arrested for excercising enterprenurial spirit, (and subsequently charged with money laundering and conspiracy to commit terroristic acts) something that has been long-touted as an admirable trait, and distinctly American. The problem for these naturlized citizens was their "scary" names.

The three men were described as being of Pakistani descent but live in Texas. Police say the three, ages 19, 22, and 23 appear to be naturalized citizens. One man was driving while the other two were in the back opening the phone packages with box cutters throwing the phones in one box, batteries in another and the packaging and phone charger in another container. The suspects had 1000 other cell phones in the van. There was also a bag of receipts showing that someone was in Wisconsin the day before.

The phones were Nokia Tracfones selling for $20 at Wal-Mart. For your twenty dollars you receive a phone charger and 40 minutes of airtime. The phones do not have to be registered with a name. Also discovered was a laptop with store addresses and store logos.

The men have been "cooperative, upfront, not hiding" anything according to police. They also told officers they get stopped frequently and say they buy the phones for $20 and sell them elsewhere for $38. They sell them without the packaging or charger.

The US is just doing the same thing governments all over the world have done for centuries. This is why it is so disheaertening to see history consistently repeat itself. Sitting Bull was a terrifying name at one time. So terrifying that Sherman's cavalry did what it could to wipe out any Indian it could find, man woman and child. Some of the propaganda produced at that time still persists to this day.

Here we go again. We'll still hear the statists like David Horowitz and Michelle Malkin ratcheting up the terror while maintaining an apologetic government stance. The closer the pundit lives to DC, the more piss-soaked their perfuntory analysis, passed off as political insight, becomes.

The terrorists are in DC, not in Dearborne or Iraq. They hate our freedoms, and so do their sycophants in the media.

Who Knew and When?

Remember when the Bush administration denied that the US government had no idea that attacks of the specificity of 9.11.2001 could have been possible? The Administration trotted out every neocon official and pundit they could find to deny, deny deny.

David Horrowitz on 5.17.2002 went to bat for the President as he is often wont to do:

If, on the other hand, Bush had known what the Clinton administration knew -- that al-Qaida had plans to use commercial airliners as bombs and fly them into buildings, specifically the CIA headquarters -- this would be a serious charge. But they did not know it, because the Clinton team never told them. (The fact that Bush didn't know about plans to hijack planes and run them into tall buildings was confirmed by Condoleezza Rice at her Thursday press conference.)

Shortly after 9.11, when every reporter on the east coast was vying for a pulitzer prize in journalism, David Maraniss, of the Washington Post wote a piece tying together the lives of a few involved in the tragedy. Not only should this article prove that Bush lied, it contains a very interesting coincidence that has been rarely noticed.

At Dulles Airport, Capt. Charles Burlingame, who had been a Navy F-4 pilot and once worked on anti-terrorism strategies in the Pentagon, was steering his 757, American Airlines Flight 77, down the runway for the long flight to Los Angeles. Plenty of empty seats in his cabin, like several other cross-country trips at that hour.

...

Matt Rosenberg was down on Corridor 8, a medic at the health clinic in the massive military headquarters, grateful for an uninterrupted hour in which he could study a new medical emergency disaster plan based on the unlikely scenario of an airplane crashing into the place.

[emphasis added] Washington Post 9/16/2001

Burlingame's plane, if indeed it crashed into the Pentagon, crashed into the area where he would have worked. As a reservist, he wrote plans for the Navy War College and the Pentagon on counter-terrorism. It is likely that he authored the plan that Mr. Rosenberg was studying.

But you know, even if Bush didn't know about this plan (which is highly suspect) top government officials did know. And if it was "unlikely" that a plane could crash into the Pentagon, why would the government spend the time and energy planning for the possibility?

Hezbollah captured the Soldiers inside Lebanon

This fact seems to have been ignored by most of the media. It is awfully inconvenient to those who claim that Hezbollah started this.

The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them. The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity.

So, Israel had sent soldiers into Lebanon and now must bomb Beirut until it is a pile of rubble. Perhaps it is so nobody will be left to complain that it was Israel itself which started this mess.

Video from Lebanon

Static Brain has posted a chilling video from Lebanon. No worries, you won't see graphic depictions of deaths. But it is worth watching. One day, if the neocons in and around the White House have their way, it could be coming to a city near you. Somebody please vote these sociopaths out of office and replace them with people who actually care about the stated principles of this nation.

By the way, does anyone else find Israel's claim (parroted today by the drug-addled Rush Limbaugh) that the Beirut airport is a valid military target, to be utterly psychotic?

Ron Paul Tells the Truth

Ron Paul, one of the only, if not the only Congressman in America who tells the truth said this on the house floor yesterday (Click on item 53 and then Page: H5453):

Between 1997 and 2004, and that doesn't even count the last 2 years, we gave over $7 billion in weapons grants. It wasn't a loan. It was a weapons grant.

Now, the neat thing about this, this was an economic deal because it was beneficial because under the foreign military financing program that we have, Israel is required to spend 74 percent of that back here. So you are talking about a military-industrial complex, a pretty good deal. You know, we subsidize them, send the money over here, it comes over here, and our arms manufacturers make even more money and then dig a bigger hole for us in foreign policy and contribute to the many problems that we have. And that amount of money, they get $2.3 billion of these military grants, and they automatically increase it $60 million per year. So it is locked in place.

Now, you say, well, that is money for our ally. And fine, if it was used for defense, maybe. But if it is used to antagonize 1 billion Muslims and there is no willingness to even consider the fact that we should look at it in a balanced way, and instead it is ridiculed and said, oh, this is ridiculous to think of neutrality or balance and think about both sides, and the innocent people dying on both sides should be considered.

So we are moving toward a major crisis, a major crisis financially and a major crisis in our foreign policy. I don't believe we can maintain this.

So even if you totally disagree with our aggressive empire building and policing the world, let me tell you, I am going to win the argument, because we are running out of money. We are in big debt, and we are borrowing it. We borrowed $3 billion a day from countries like China and Japan and Saudi Arabia to finance this horrendous debt. And it won't be, it can't be continued. The dollar will eventually weaken. You are going to have horrendous inflation. Interest rates are going to go up, and it is going to be worse than the stagflation of the 1970s.

There's the reason things are so messed up in the middle east.

I am glad I turned off the TV 12 years ago. I can only imagine the pro-Israel screeds broadcast over every station disguised as news. Invest in gold. You're going to need it.

Revenge, Hubris and World War III begins...

The recent events in the Middle East should remind us just how morally bankrupt is the current administration of the U.S. "republic." In an almost verbatim (canned?) response to reporters during the G8 summit, Bush parrotted his May 2004 speech to AIPAC (one which was interrupted 67 times by applause and chants of "Four more years."):

"As a sovereign nation, Israel has every right to defend itself against terrorist activity,"

Daniel Ayalon, Israel's Ambassador to the US apparently thinks that barbequeing innocent civilians is the means to "show restraint."

"If we do not want to see further escalation, deterioration, violence, this is the time to stop Hizbollah and what we are doing is the most effective (way) to stop them."

Gee, Danny, do you actually think that bombing apartment buildings and fleeing civilians is a means to stop Hezbollah? The Washington Post confirms that the US administration and Israel share the same interests when it comes to current events:

For Israel, the goal is to eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat -- or altogether, the sources said. A senior Israeli official confirmed that Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is a target, on the calculation that the Shiite movement would be far less dynamic without him.

For the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East, U.S. officials say.

As somebody who is old enough to remember, this all looks like revenge. Israel was by most accounts, whooped by Hezbollah which gained a reputation amongst those who have noticed facts rather than Israeli propaganda, of targetting the military rather than civilians.

The US still hasn't gotten over Iran's rebuff and the debacle that was the Iran hostage crisis. Contrary to popular opinion, Carter actually did not appease "terrorists" in 1979. He refused to negotiate which is why the hostages were taken. When Carter let the Shah of Iran enter the US and refused to extradite him to Iran to be charged for crimes the Iranians believed he had committed against the people, violence erupted.

The entire affair was a foreign policy disaster going back to 1953's Operation Ajax in which the CIA influenced Iranian elections.

Iran is still much maligned and there is plenty of leftover resentment to support their acts of revenge. The truly sad part about all of this is that the US administration, which takes grandiose claims about its striving to acheive freedom and democracy the world over, won't even comment on Israel's targetting of civilians.

It's deja vu all over again. During the Iranian hostage crisis, the US under Carter was ramping up to supply Mujahadeen fighters to battle the Soviet infadels who had invaded Afghanistan. Even to the point of ( in collusion with the ISI Pakistan's intelligence agency) schools which taught young boys the importance of Jihad so they could be recruited into the war later.

It was announced yesterday that the US has blocked Russia from entering the WTO. Putin is not amused. He has even taken to stating publically that Iran has the right to defend itself using Bush's own rhetoric in a sardonic twist.

WWIII Anyone?

Home of the Free

I just got a frantic call from a friend.

She and her husband are buying property and have a large sum of cash that they've saved over the years for just such an event.

The problem is that nobody will take the cash as payment. They might be terrorists. They might be tax cheats. They might not have done anything at all exept to do what millions of Americans have done in the past and hoard away federal reserve notes in a closet somewhere.

But today, they risk the upturned noses of nosy bank personnel, IRS audits and worse for merely using the money they've saved over the years to purchase a piece of property on the river.

The powers that be, want you and I to insure that our financial situation be one of living paycheck to paycheck. Getting out of the rat-race by buying a piece of property that might sustain us without having to work for somebody else or start a highly regulated business, is potentially criminal. So don't do it. Never defy the slave-masters or your money will be confiscated. After all, we don't know where you got that money. Nobody saves money of any substantial amount without plotting criminal activity.

My friend is now considering driving around to over 30 different locations to obtain money orders under the legal limit. Thanks to the patriot act and other banking laws, she can't rightfully spend more than 1000 "dollars" without intense scrutiny.

I sure am glad the terrorists aren't winning. What would it be like for a country targetted  by "freedom haters" if its citizens were actually free?

Suicide is now an "act of war."

The Bush administration and the military is desparately trying to contol the damage they have caused to their own credibility with the execution of this so called war on terror. I never cease to be amazed at the hyperbole and outright lies they tell in these attempts. Three detainees at Guantanamo killed themselves Saturday morning and the camp commander, who previously exclaimed he woultn't let this happen, is now alleging that the suicides were "acts of war".

No, they weren't killing themselves out of despair for being held in a foreign country and without charges or hope of release. They were trying to make the U.S. look bad and gain sympathy amongst the world's terrorist population. Hey, if the only people who sympathize with the plight of the Guantanamo detainees are "terrorists", we have a serious lack of morality amongst the world's non-terrorist population.

Why shouldn't we feel sorry for them? And why won't  Rear Admiral Harry Harris show his real mettle and retaliate by blowing his own head off? This is war after all.

We can all feel a little better though since George "hand up my back" Bush has "expressed serious concern" over the deaths. And you know he's serious about human rights. He is the same man who it is reported called the constitution "just a God-damned piece of paper."

Just 340 days ago Bush was defending Guantanamo:

These people are being treated humanely. There are very few prison systems around the world that have seen such scrutiny as this one..

GW Bush, Wednesday, July 6, 2005

Saturday Bush had this to say:

And I appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister is concerned about the decisions that I made on -- toward Guantanamo. I assured him that we would like to end the Guantanamo. We'd like it to be empty. And we're now in the process of working with countries to repatriate people.

GW Bush, Friday, June 9, 2006

It is extremely hard to take anyone in this administration at their word. I'd say that it was hard to take them seriously but meglomaniacs and sociopaths need to be treated very seriously. They could snap at any moment and another batch of innocent people could be thrown into a prison somewhere.

Be safe....



Technorati Tags: demidog, Bush, satan, corruption, guantanamo, terrorism,

HGH is now a problem in baseball?

My God, the new crop of sports writers seem to be sniveling busy bodies, the lot of them. I'd say it was all of America, but in point of fact, Barry Bonds draws more fans to opposing stadiums than any other player in baseball. What the sports writers have deemed crucial to the integrity of baseball does not seem to ring true with the fans.


Barry Bonds has been crucified in the press on the flimsiest of evidence over alleged steroid use, and the shrill voices continue to cry. The latest moron to weigh in on the "performance enhancement issue is Jeff Pasan who writes for Yahoo! Sports. He's now convinced that HGH is a dangerous pharmacuetical that should be banned from baseball based on the testimony of a single pitcher; who's overall record wouldn't be something I'd tout as evidence that HGH or steroids are helpful to one's athletic performance, much less a widespread problem in the major leagues. I mean, who the hell heard of Jason Grimsley before he was deposed by "federal investigators?" He has a career ERA of 4.77 over his 15 year career as a middle relief pitcher.


If anyone actually takes this bonehead seriously, we can expect Congressional hearings on vitamin use and its danger to the "sanctity of the game."

Intelligent Design Spec

I have a friend who is a landscape architect. He's been in this area of Texas for at least 30 years.

The other day we were talking about the scam of pesticides and herbacides. They don't work. Pestacides are especially notorious for losing efficacy over time due to insect adaptation. Plus they are bad for humans. Yeah, I want to eat that tomato covered in 24D. Hand it over.

There are some folks who scoff at the notion that something other than random chance created the universe. I don't know why exactly this idea elicits so many negative reactions but the latest incarnation of creation science is "Intelligent Design" and I think it gets a pretty bad rap generally speaking.

My landscaper friend was explaining how the fire ants (brought to this part of the continent by "intelligent" humans) used to be susceptible to pesticide use. Now they are not. And they did so over the past 2 decades without developing resistence to Amdro. Amdro is a bait. The ants take the food to their queen, feed her poison and she dies.

Fire ants  typically care for  a single queen. If that queen dies, so dies the colony. The fireants here in Texas, to mitigate the effects of Amdro, have taken to caring for 2 and 3 queens. When a neighboring colony's queen dies, one of the queens is shared with the other.

This level of cooperation is unprecedented amongst the fire ant population. Man, being the highest intelligence in the universe, in its attempt to clean up a mess he made, has made the mess worse. One can find example after example of this sort of environmental disaster occurring through man's meddling.

Either man isn't nearly as intelligent as he believes, or most everything in the universe is more intelligent.

Pentagon People

The "plane" that hit the pentagon is curious. A security cam turns up ~5 years after the event and has a new streak "proving" that it was a 757. The government confiscated all video that may have captured the crash from surrounding businesses shortly after the crash. How convenient. Few parts, no black boxes but every single passenger and terrorist accounted for via autopsy well....sort of. We're supposed to believe that the people inside the plane and the pentagon were more resilient than the plane itself. .....right....

Coulter the drag queen?

At the risk of giving this bolemic hag more publicity, Strap on Veterans For Truth have an expose on Ann Coulter's previous manhood.

Technorati Tags: demidog, coulter, transvestite, GOP, bolemia, disorder, humor

America: From Freedom To Fascism

CBS rates Aaron Russo's new movie 4 stars.

"FOUR STARS (Highest Rating). The scariest
goddamn film you'll see this year. It will leave you staggering out of the
theatre, slack-jawed and trembling. Makes 'Fahrenheit 9/11' look like 'Bambi.'
After watching this movie, your comfy, secure notions about America -- and about
what it means to be an American -- will be forever shattered. Producer/director
Aaron Russo and the folks at Cinema Libre Studio deserve to be heralded as
heroes of a post-modern New American Revolution. This is shocking stuff. You'll
be angry, you'll be disgusted, but you may actually break out in a cold sweat
and feel a sickness deep in your gut; I would advise movie theatre managers to
hand out vomit bags. You may end up needing one."

--- Todd David
Schwartz, CBS
demidog

powered by performancing firefox