The "Amen break" (usually pronounced /ɑːˈmɛn/[citation needed]) was a brief drum solo performed in 1969 by Gregory Sylvester "G. C." Coleman in The Winstons's song "Amen, Brother".
The "Amen Break", "Amen", or imitations thereof, are frequently used as sampled drum loops in hip hop, jungle, breakcore and drum and bass music. It is 5.20 seconds long and consists of four bars of the drum-solo sampled from the song "Amen, Brother" as performed by the 1960s funk and soul outfit The Winstons. The song is an up-tempo instrumental rendition of an older gospel music classic. The Winstons' version was released as a B-side of the 45 RPM 7-inch vinyl single "Color Him Father" in 1969 on Metromedia (MMS-117), and is currently available on several compilations and on a 12-inch vinyl re-release together with other songs by The Winstons.
The Amen Break was used extensively in early hiphop and sample-based music, and became the basis for drum-and-bass and jungle music - "a six-second clip that spawned several entire subcultures"
Learn All About It
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
I Did Not Know That...
Eldfell is a composite volcanic cone just over 200 metres (650 ft) high on the Icelandic island of Heimaey. It formed in a volcanic eruption which began without warning just outside the town of Heimaey on 23 January 1973. Its name means Mountain of Fire in Icelandic.
The eruption caused a major crisis for the island and nearly led to its permanent evacuation. Volcanic ash fell over most of the island, destroying many houses, and a lava flow threatened to close off the harbour, the island's main income source via its fishing fleet. An operation was mounted to cool the advancing lava flow by pumping sea water onto it, which was successful in preventing the loss of the harbour.
After the eruption finished, the islanders used heat from the slowly cooling lava flows to provide hot water and to generate electricity. They also used some of the extensive tephra, fall-out of airborne volcanic material, to extend the runway at the island's small airport, and as landfill, on which 200 new houses were built.
The eruption caused a major crisis for the island and nearly led to its permanent evacuation. Volcanic ash fell over most of the island, destroying many houses, and a lava flow threatened to close off the harbour, the island's main income source via its fishing fleet. An operation was mounted to cool the advancing lava flow by pumping sea water onto it, which was successful in preventing the loss of the harbour.
After the eruption finished, the islanders used heat from the slowly cooling lava flows to provide hot water and to generate electricity. They also used some of the extensive tephra, fall-out of airborne volcanic material, to extend the runway at the island's small airport, and as landfill, on which 200 new houses were built.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
I Did Not Know That...
The Capgras delusion (or Capgras syndrome) is a disorder in which a person holds a delusional belief that a friend, spouse, parent or other close family member, has been replaced by an identical-looking impostor. The Capgras delusion is classed as a delusional misidentification syndrome, a class of delusional beliefs that involves the misidentification of people, places or objects. It can occur in acute, transient, or chronic forms.
Driving the Peterbilt Commentary: Deuteronomy 33-34 and the Pentateuch
Deuteronomy 33:
So, these are the last blessings bestowed by Moses on the tribes of Israel. Read them for yourself. They're fairly idiotic and not worth your time.
Deuteronomy 34:
I've read somewhere that people actually think that Deuteronomy was a contemporaneous writing by Moses himself of the event described. That's right, people believe that Moses chronicled his own death. Neat trick, huh? Although, the part were the writer states that no prophet was ever as great as Moses does sound like the sort of thing Moses would write about himself. You'd also think people would do a better job keeping an eye on the grave of their greatest prophet. Yeah, it's pretty obvious from the writing itself that it was written many years after the events supposedly occurred, but, whatever.
Pentateuch:
So, at this point we have re-written the first five books of the Bible, also known as the Pentateuch. The books are supposed to cover the time from the creation of the universe to the entering of the Hebrews into Canaan, about 3,500 years, I'm guessing. In this time, god shows interest in a tiny corner of the globe, and only a very tiny portion of the population. He's as parochial a being as you've ever seen.
What also interesting is what god chose to disclose during this period of time. Or not disclose, as the case may be. Remember, we're talking about half of recorded history, if you believe in biblical time-lines. Yet, god seems to have completely forgotten to disclose the reality of an after-life. No disclosure of an after-life in a perfect heaven or torturous hell, or any disclosure of how to get to one or avoid another. The only punishment god metes out to those who disobey his commandments is death. That's it. Either death he causes himself or death he commands other to inflict. No talk about torture after death, death in itself is enough.
Of course, there is no talk about god being anything other than one being, no Jesus, or holy spirit, unless some of the talk in Genesis where god talks in the "royal we" can be counted. He also seems to be a polytheist, believing in gods other than himself, and is quite angry with the thought his people would decide to worship them.
There is no discussion of Satan either, unless, again, a talking serpent is going to count. God inflicts all the ills you find in the Bible himself, by his neglect sometimes, but mostly through his actions, without any help from Satan. He's quite proud of the fact that all evil comes from himself.
The OT Bible god is also seeming to be pretty well limited in power, knowledge, and love. He's quite a jerk, actually, commanding the Hebrews to murder a lot of people, allowing rape of women and children, setting up some really shitty rules.
Back to the point, all the main tenets of Christianity are absent from the first five books of the Bible, covering the first 3,500 years of instruction of the Hebrews by the bible god, including the most important tenets. The religious beliefs of the patriarchs of the Bible, Abraham, Isaac, and Moses, are so different from the religious beliefs of those that claim them as their forerunners, that it is probable that they would not recognize the beliefs of Christians as being in any way related to their own. That are truly that alien.
So, these are the last blessings bestowed by Moses on the tribes of Israel. Read them for yourself. They're fairly idiotic and not worth your time.
Deuteronomy 34:
I've read somewhere that people actually think that Deuteronomy was a contemporaneous writing by Moses himself of the event described. That's right, people believe that Moses chronicled his own death. Neat trick, huh? Although, the part were the writer states that no prophet was ever as great as Moses does sound like the sort of thing Moses would write about himself. You'd also think people would do a better job keeping an eye on the grave of their greatest prophet. Yeah, it's pretty obvious from the writing itself that it was written many years after the events supposedly occurred, but, whatever.
Pentateuch:
So, at this point we have re-written the first five books of the Bible, also known as the Pentateuch. The books are supposed to cover the time from the creation of the universe to the entering of the Hebrews into Canaan, about 3,500 years, I'm guessing. In this time, god shows interest in a tiny corner of the globe, and only a very tiny portion of the population. He's as parochial a being as you've ever seen.
What also interesting is what god chose to disclose during this period of time. Or not disclose, as the case may be. Remember, we're talking about half of recorded history, if you believe in biblical time-lines. Yet, god seems to have completely forgotten to disclose the reality of an after-life. No disclosure of an after-life in a perfect heaven or torturous hell, or any disclosure of how to get to one or avoid another. The only punishment god metes out to those who disobey his commandments is death. That's it. Either death he causes himself or death he commands other to inflict. No talk about torture after death, death in itself is enough.
Of course, there is no talk about god being anything other than one being, no Jesus, or holy spirit, unless some of the talk in Genesis where god talks in the "royal we" can be counted. He also seems to be a polytheist, believing in gods other than himself, and is quite angry with the thought his people would decide to worship them.
There is no discussion of Satan either, unless, again, a talking serpent is going to count. God inflicts all the ills you find in the Bible himself, by his neglect sometimes, but mostly through his actions, without any help from Satan. He's quite proud of the fact that all evil comes from himself.
The OT Bible god is also seeming to be pretty well limited in power, knowledge, and love. He's quite a jerk, actually, commanding the Hebrews to murder a lot of people, allowing rape of women and children, setting up some really shitty rules.
Back to the point, all the main tenets of Christianity are absent from the first five books of the Bible, covering the first 3,500 years of instruction of the Hebrews by the bible god, including the most important tenets. The religious beliefs of the patriarchs of the Bible, Abraham, Isaac, and Moses, are so different from the religious beliefs of those that claim them as their forerunners, that it is probable that they would not recognize the beliefs of Christians as being in any way related to their own. That are truly that alien.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
The Economic Train Slowly Coming to a Stop
We lost "only" 11,000 jobs in November, the lowest number in over a year, and the unemployment rate fell from 10.2% to 10%, and we have not yet spent all the funds allocated to the stimulus. This is the closest we've come to good economic news in quite a while. Let's hope it continues.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Arlington Mayor Russell Wiseman: Bite Me
From The Commercial Appeal
In the opinion of Arlington Mayor Russell Wiseman, President Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday night on the war in Afghanistan was deliberately timed to block the Christian message of the "Peanuts" television Christmas special.
Wiseman made the statements on his Facebook page, where he declared Obama to be a Muslim. Only people on Wiseman's "friend's list" had access to the post. He has more than 1,600 friends on Facebook.
"Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch 'The Charlie Brown Christmas Special' and our muslim president is there, what a load.....try to convince me that wasn't done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation (sic) about it....w...hen the answer should simply be 'yes'...."
To Russell Wiseman, Bite Me.
In the opinion of Arlington Mayor Russell Wiseman, President Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday night on the war in Afghanistan was deliberately timed to block the Christian message of the "Peanuts" television Christmas special.
Wiseman made the statements on his Facebook page, where he declared Obama to be a Muslim. Only people on Wiseman's "friend's list" had access to the post. He has more than 1,600 friends on Facebook.
"Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch 'The Charlie Brown Christmas Special' and our muslim president is there, what a load.....try to convince me that wasn't done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation (sic) about it....w...hen the answer should simply be 'yes'...."
To Russell Wiseman, Bite Me.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Rick Warren: Bite Me
From Fark and Newsweek
Now Warren's on the defensive again, this time for his affiliation with Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan pastor who has endorsed proposed legislation in Uganda that makes certain homosexual acts punishable by life in prison or even, in some cases, death. Ssempa has made appearances at Saddleback and has been embraced warmly by Warren and his wife, Kay.
...
But Warren won't go so far as to condemn the legislation itself. A request for a broader reaction to the proposed Ugandan antihomosexual laws generated this response: "The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations." On Meet the Press this morning, he reiterated this neutral stance in a different context: "As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides." Warren did say he believed that abortion was "a holocaust." He knows as well as anyone that in a case of great wrong, taking sides is an important thing to do.
Right, Warren can pronounce that abortion is wrong, but a law condemning gays to death? Too touchy.
So, to Rick Warren, for failing to condemn a law that would condemn gays to death two words: Bite Me.
Now Warren's on the defensive again, this time for his affiliation with Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan pastor who has endorsed proposed legislation in Uganda that makes certain homosexual acts punishable by life in prison or even, in some cases, death. Ssempa has made appearances at Saddleback and has been embraced warmly by Warren and his wife, Kay.
...
But Warren won't go so far as to condemn the legislation itself. A request for a broader reaction to the proposed Ugandan antihomosexual laws generated this response: "The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations." On Meet the Press this morning, he reiterated this neutral stance in a different context: "As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides." Warren did say he believed that abortion was "a holocaust." He knows as well as anyone that in a case of great wrong, taking sides is an important thing to do.
Right, Warren can pronounce that abortion is wrong, but a law condemning gays to death? Too touchy.
So, to Rick Warren, for failing to condemn a law that would condemn gays to death two words: Bite Me.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Obama Pledges 30,000 More Troops, For 18 Months Only
Okay, well, this is a pleasant surprise. Obama pledges 30,000 more troops but only for a definite period of 18 months. We go in, shore up the Afghanistan government troops, then get out. No mission creep, no additional troops, no indefinite commitment. That is something the American people can get behind, I think. I always prefer definite time frame so that the Afghan government understands we won't support them and their corruption forever.
Politically, it's also good. Troops will start coming home from both Iraq and Afghanistan by summer 2011, making Obama look like he's "getting things done." This will placate the Liberals, and satisfy independents. Republicans will never vote for him, so their opinion does not really matter.
Good job, Obama, if you keep to your time-line, you'll end up as a successful president.
Politically, it's also good. Troops will start coming home from both Iraq and Afghanistan by summer 2011, making Obama look like he's "getting things done." This will placate the Liberals, and satisfy independents. Republicans will never vote for him, so their opinion does not really matter.
Good job, Obama, if you keep to your time-line, you'll end up as a successful president.
Labels:
Afghanistan,
al qaeda,
Obama,
terrorism,
Washington politics
Obama's Afghanistan Decision Today
Reports are coming out that Obama has already ordered 30,000 additional troops for Afghanistan, as requested by his generals. We will hear his rational tonight.
I don't know if this is the right decision. I am of the belief that a war that cannot be won within eight years may be a war that cannot be won at all. But the counter-argument to this is that Bush never really tried to win Afghanistan, that he got distracted by Iraq and pulled all the material and men needed to win in Afghanistan on his little Iraqi adventure.
And I voted for Obama knowing that he promised during his campaign to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan. I would not have been disappointed if he broke this campaign promise, especially in the face of the rampant voting fraud perpetrated by Karzai in the recent election. Now, after consultation with his generals, Obama is doubling-down, adding an additional 30,000 to the tens of thousands of troops he has already sent, at the cost of $1 million per troop. I hope this surge works. I have my doubts. After all, Afghanistan is the place know as the Graveyard of Empires. But I was wrong about the Iraqi surge, so, what do I know? I hope, at the least, that he makes it clear that this is the last gasp for the generals, that we will not keep sending troop after troop into Afghanistan based on some general saying, "Really, I mean it this time, 25,000 more troops, and the war is over." No more mission creep.
Politically, Obama is taking the most politically difficult course of action. Many Democrats, irrationally, feel Obama has betrayed them by ordering more troops, despite the fact that he campaigned on this issue. They may decide to sit the next elections out to punish him. Republicans are mostly applauding his action, but they will never vote for him, and they will turn on him in a second as soon as the slightest hint of trouble arises. In fact, they almost seem to be gleefully awaiting the moment Afghanistan turns sour so they can dump on Obama for "losing Afghanistan." Obama could easily have declared victory in Afghanistan, or, citing Karzai's corruption, declared it a lost cause, and pulled our troops out, with little to no hit to himself politically. In three years, a continuing war in Afghanistan will be harder to defend politically than a withdrawal three years past.
Anyway, I will be listening tonight to hear his pitch. Make it a good one.
For a good look at the reasons we should withdraw, read The Speech Obama Should Give, But Won't.
I don't know if this is the right decision. I am of the belief that a war that cannot be won within eight years may be a war that cannot be won at all. But the counter-argument to this is that Bush never really tried to win Afghanistan, that he got distracted by Iraq and pulled all the material and men needed to win in Afghanistan on his little Iraqi adventure.
And I voted for Obama knowing that he promised during his campaign to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan. I would not have been disappointed if he broke this campaign promise, especially in the face of the rampant voting fraud perpetrated by Karzai in the recent election. Now, after consultation with his generals, Obama is doubling-down, adding an additional 30,000 to the tens of thousands of troops he has already sent, at the cost of $1 million per troop. I hope this surge works. I have my doubts. After all, Afghanistan is the place know as the Graveyard of Empires. But I was wrong about the Iraqi surge, so, what do I know? I hope, at the least, that he makes it clear that this is the last gasp for the generals, that we will not keep sending troop after troop into Afghanistan based on some general saying, "Really, I mean it this time, 25,000 more troops, and the war is over." No more mission creep.
Politically, Obama is taking the most politically difficult course of action. Many Democrats, irrationally, feel Obama has betrayed them by ordering more troops, despite the fact that he campaigned on this issue. They may decide to sit the next elections out to punish him. Republicans are mostly applauding his action, but they will never vote for him, and they will turn on him in a second as soon as the slightest hint of trouble arises. In fact, they almost seem to be gleefully awaiting the moment Afghanistan turns sour so they can dump on Obama for "losing Afghanistan." Obama could easily have declared victory in Afghanistan, or, citing Karzai's corruption, declared it a lost cause, and pulled our troops out, with little to no hit to himself politically. In three years, a continuing war in Afghanistan will be harder to defend politically than a withdrawal three years past.
Anyway, I will be listening tonight to hear his pitch. Make it a good one.
For a good look at the reasons we should withdraw, read The Speech Obama Should Give, But Won't.
Labels:
Afghanistan,
Obama,
Washington politics
Monday, November 30, 2009
Huckabee Commuted Sentence of Quadruple Cop Killer?
From Americablog
Maybe.
LAKEWOOD, Wash. — Four uniformed police officers were shot to death Sunday morning as they sat in a coffee shop preparing to begin patrol, prompting a widespread search for the gunman, who remained at large.
Late Sunday, the authorities said they were seeking a “person of interest” in the shootings whom they identified as Maurice Clemmons, 37. They described him as having an “extensive, violent criminal history” in Arkansas and said he had recently been arrested in Pierce County and charged with assaulting a police officer and raping a child.
Nine years ago in Arkansas, The Seattle Times reported, Mr. Clemmons was released from prison after Gov. Mike Huckabee commuted his lengthy prison sentence, over the protests of prosecutors.
That's two for the Huckster.
Maybe.
LAKEWOOD, Wash. — Four uniformed police officers were shot to death Sunday morning as they sat in a coffee shop preparing to begin patrol, prompting a widespread search for the gunman, who remained at large.
Late Sunday, the authorities said they were seeking a “person of interest” in the shootings whom they identified as Maurice Clemmons, 37. They described him as having an “extensive, violent criminal history” in Arkansas and said he had recently been arrested in Pierce County and charged with assaulting a police officer and raping a child.
Nine years ago in Arkansas, The Seattle Times reported, Mr. Clemmons was released from prison after Gov. Mike Huckabee commuted his lengthy prison sentence, over the protests of prosecutors.
That's two for the Huckster.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Osama In Our Sights, Let Slip Away
From Talking Points Memo
Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.
The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.
Any other President would have been impeached for gross incompetence if they had failed have as many times as Bush the Lesser did.
Osama bin Laden was unquestionably within reach of U.S. troops in the mountains of Tora Bora when American military leaders made the crucial and costly decision not to pursue the terrorist leader with massive force, a Senate report says.
The report asserts that the failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences beyond the fate of one man. Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today's reinvigorated Afghan insurgency and inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan, it says.
Any other President would have been impeached for gross incompetence if they had failed have as many times as Bush the Lesser did.
Labels:
al qaeda,
Bush Worse President Ever,
terrorism
Obama's First Year: Radical Change
It's been interesting to see the directly conflicting memes Republicans have been trying to launch about Obama. Republicans complain that Obama is both an inexperienced, empty-suit, unaccomplished, failed President who only talks a good game but never DOES anything, or he is a slick, Chicago-trained politician who is hell-bent on driving the country into a Socialist (Conservative) Nightmare by ramming radical Liberal legislation down the throat of Republicans.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, this two memes are in direct conflict. It's either one or the other.
Well, I think we finally have a winner.
If, as seems increasingly likely, Obama wins passage of a health care reform a bill by that date, he will deliver his first State of the Union address having accomplished more than any other postwar American president at a comparable point in his presidency. This isn't an ideological point or one that depends on agreement with his policies. It's a neutral assessment of his emerging record—how many big, transformational things Obama is likely to have made happen in his first 12 months in office.
Now the real fun can begin. You're welcome, Republicans.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, this two memes are in direct conflict. It's either one or the other.
Well, I think we finally have a winner.
If, as seems increasingly likely, Obama wins passage of a health care reform a bill by that date, he will deliver his first State of the Union address having accomplished more than any other postwar American president at a comparable point in his presidency. This isn't an ideological point or one that depends on agreement with his policies. It's a neutral assessment of his emerging record—how many big, transformational things Obama is likely to have made happen in his first 12 months in office.
Now the real fun can begin. You're welcome, Republicans.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Obama's New Rules to Bar Lobbyists in Advisory Panels
Washington Post
Hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists are likely to be ejected from federal advisory panels as part of a little-noticed initiative by the Obama administration to curb K Street's influence in Washington, according to White House officials and lobbying experts.
The new policy -- issued with little fanfare this fall by the White House ethics counsel -- may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama, who also has sought to restrict the ability of lobbyists to get jobs in his administration and to negotiate over stimulus contracts.
The initiative is aimed at a system of advisory committees so vast that federal officials don't have exact numbers for its size; the most recent estimates tally nearly 1,000 panels with total membership exceeding 60,000 people.
Under the policy, which is being phased in over the coming months, none of the more than 13,000 lobbyists in Washington would be able to hold seats on the committees, which advise agencies on trade rules, troop levels, environmental regulations, consumer protections and thousands of other government policies.
"Some folks have developed a comfortable Beltway perch sitting on these boards while at the same time working as lobbyists to influence the government," said White House ethics counsel Norm Eisen, who disclosed the policy in a September blog posting on the White House Web site. "That is just the kind of special interest access that the president objects to."
But lobbyists and many of the businesses they represent say K Street is being unfairly demonized by a White House intent on scoring political points with scandal-weary voters. They warn that the latest policy will severely handicap federal regulators, who rely heavily on advisory boards for technical advice and to serve as liaisons between government and industry.
"It's taken me years to learn what the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is," said Robert Vastine, a lobbyist for the Coalition of Service Industries who also serves as chairman of a trade advisory board. "It's a whole different and specialized world. It is not easily obtained knowledge, and they are crippling themselves terribly by ruling out all registered lobbyists."
Awesome. Good for Obama. Good for government.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of lobbyists are likely to be ejected from federal advisory panels as part of a little-noticed initiative by the Obama administration to curb K Street's influence in Washington, according to White House officials and lobbying experts.
The new policy -- issued with little fanfare this fall by the White House ethics counsel -- may turn out to be the most far-reaching lobbying rule change so far from President Obama, who also has sought to restrict the ability of lobbyists to get jobs in his administration and to negotiate over stimulus contracts.
The initiative is aimed at a system of advisory committees so vast that federal officials don't have exact numbers for its size; the most recent estimates tally nearly 1,000 panels with total membership exceeding 60,000 people.
Under the policy, which is being phased in over the coming months, none of the more than 13,000 lobbyists in Washington would be able to hold seats on the committees, which advise agencies on trade rules, troop levels, environmental regulations, consumer protections and thousands of other government policies.
"Some folks have developed a comfortable Beltway perch sitting on these boards while at the same time working as lobbyists to influence the government," said White House ethics counsel Norm Eisen, who disclosed the policy in a September blog posting on the White House Web site. "That is just the kind of special interest access that the president objects to."
But lobbyists and many of the businesses they represent say K Street is being unfairly demonized by a White House intent on scoring political points with scandal-weary voters. They warn that the latest policy will severely handicap federal regulators, who rely heavily on advisory boards for technical advice and to serve as liaisons between government and industry.
"It's taken me years to learn what the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is," said Robert Vastine, a lobbyist for the Coalition of Service Industries who also serves as chairman of a trade advisory board. "It's a whole different and specialized world. It is not easily obtained knowledge, and they are crippling themselves terribly by ruling out all registered lobbyists."
Awesome. Good for Obama. Good for government.
Labels:
Lobbyists,
Obama,
Washington politics
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Happy Thanksgiving!
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Did Bush Protect Us from Terror? Seven Attacks in Seven Years
Dana Perino, Bush's former press secretary, was on Scarborough, stating that the Ft. Hood attack was a terror attack, and that Bush protected America from all such attacks. Being generous, we'll assume she meant after 9/11.
However, she was completely wrong. If Ft. Hood qualifies as terrorism, and, as such, must be held against Obama as a failure to protect us from terrorism, then, under this standard, Bush failed to protect the U.S. against domestic terror attacks at least seven times after 9/11. Those terrorists in the Ft. Hood mold include the following: the D.C. Snipers (2002), Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, (2002) Naveed Afzal Haq, (2006) Mohammed Taheri-azar, (2006) and Sulejman Talovic (2007).
If Republicans want to argue that Obama failed to prevent terror in the Ft. hood case, then you must also agree that Bush failed to prevent terror attacks in both his first (obviously) and second terms. Perino is wrong, no matter how you parse it.
And if we are talking body counts, then Bush's failure is even more obvious.
However, she was completely wrong. If Ft. Hood qualifies as terrorism, and, as such, must be held against Obama as a failure to protect us from terrorism, then, under this standard, Bush failed to protect the U.S. against domestic terror attacks at least seven times after 9/11. Those terrorists in the Ft. Hood mold include the following: the D.C. Snipers (2002), Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, (2002) Naveed Afzal Haq, (2006) Mohammed Taheri-azar, (2006) and Sulejman Talovic (2007).
If Republicans want to argue that Obama failed to prevent terror in the Ft. hood case, then you must also agree that Bush failed to prevent terror attacks in both his first (obviously) and second terms. Perino is wrong, no matter how you parse it.
And if we are talking body counts, then Bush's failure is even more obvious.
Blair Knew No WMD in Iraq
From Rawstory
British Prime Minister Tony Blair was told ten days before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs likely remained "dismantled," but the prime minister continued to insist that Iraq was producing chemical and biological weapons, a British inquiry heard Wednesday.
"With British and US troops massed on the border, the new intelligence was dismissed," reports the Times of London.
Sir William Ehrman, the director of international security at the UK's Foreign Office from 2000 to 2002, told the British government's inquiry into the Iraq invasion that "on March 10 we got a report saying that the chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and that Saddam hadn’t yet ordered their re-assembly and he might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents."
The US and Britain led the Iraq invasion on March 20, 2003, ten days after that report. As the Guardian notes, "in the government's dossier on Iraqi weapons, published that month, Blair wrote that he believed intelligence assessments had established "beyond doubt" that Saddam was continuing to produce chemical and biological weapons – an assertion repeated up to the invasion."
If Blair knew, Bush knew. If Blair lied, Bush lied. It's as simple and reprehensible as that.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair was told ten days before the invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs likely remained "dismantled," but the prime minister continued to insist that Iraq was producing chemical and biological weapons, a British inquiry heard Wednesday.
"With British and US troops massed on the border, the new intelligence was dismissed," reports the Times of London.
Sir William Ehrman, the director of international security at the UK's Foreign Office from 2000 to 2002, told the British government's inquiry into the Iraq invasion that "on March 10 we got a report saying that the chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and that Saddam hadn’t yet ordered their re-assembly and he might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents."
The US and Britain led the Iraq invasion on March 20, 2003, ten days after that report. As the Guardian notes, "in the government's dossier on Iraqi weapons, published that month, Blair wrote that he believed intelligence assessments had established "beyond doubt" that Saddam was continuing to produce chemical and biological weapons – an assertion repeated up to the invasion."
If Blair knew, Bush knew. If Blair lied, Bush lied. It's as simple and reprehensible as that.
White House Releases Records of Visitors, Meetings with health Insurance Lobbyists
From Rawstory
White House officials "met early and often with lobbyists" involved in the health care reform effort, visitor logs obtained by the Associated Press show.
The White House on Wednesday released some 1,600 records of visitors to the White House since the inauguration of President Barack Obama in January. AP reports that among the visitors were several health care experts who advocate a more radical overhaul of the health care system than the one being debated in Congress. Eliot Fisher of Dartmouth Medical School, a vocal opponent of inefficiency in health care, and David Himmelstein of Harvard Medical School, a supporter of single-payer universal health care, were both on the list.
Also on the list were a plethora of health insurance CEOs and lobbyists, including the CEOs of Blue Cross Blue Shield, Kaiser Health Plans and the heads of pharma lobby group PhRMA and the American Hospital Association.
Not the change I was looking for, but at least he has released the records.
White House officials "met early and often with lobbyists" involved in the health care reform effort, visitor logs obtained by the Associated Press show.
The White House on Wednesday released some 1,600 records of visitors to the White House since the inauguration of President Barack Obama in January. AP reports that among the visitors were several health care experts who advocate a more radical overhaul of the health care system than the one being debated in Congress. Eliot Fisher of Dartmouth Medical School, a vocal opponent of inefficiency in health care, and David Himmelstein of Harvard Medical School, a supporter of single-payer universal health care, were both on the list.
Also on the list were a plethora of health insurance CEOs and lobbyists, including the CEOs of Blue Cross Blue Shield, Kaiser Health Plans and the heads of pharma lobby group PhRMA and the American Hospital Association.
Not the change I was looking for, but at least he has released the records.
Labels:
Big Health Care,
Obama,
Washington politics
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Obama Hatred Goes Biblical
Some people are completely fucked in the head.
There’s a new slogan making its way onto car bumpers and across the Internet. It reads simply: “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8”
A nice sentiment?
Maybe not.
The psalm reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”
...
But the verse immediately following the psalm referenced is a bit more ominous: “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”
Fucktards.
There’s a new slogan making its way onto car bumpers and across the Internet. It reads simply: “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8”
A nice sentiment?
Maybe not.
The psalm reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”
...
But the verse immediately following the psalm referenced is a bit more ominous: “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”
Fucktards.
Labels:
Assination plot on Obama,
Obama Slurs
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Republican Rep. Shadegg: Bite Me
From Crooks and Liars
Shadegg spoke from the House floor to rail against a criminal trial for alleged 9/11 conspirators in New York City. In particular, the far-right Arizonan was incensed that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) believes, "It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered."
As Matt Finkelstein reported, Shadegg doesn't see it quite the same way. "I saw the Mayor of New York said today, 'We're tough. We can do it,'" the Republican congressman said. "Well, Mayor, how are you going to feel when it's your daughter that's kidnapped at school by a terrorist? How are you going to feel when it's some clerk -- some innocent clerk of the court -- whose daughter or son is kidnapped? Or the jailer's little brother or little sister?"
Rep. Shadegg, Bite Me, you reprehensible piece of shit.
Shadegg spoke from the House floor to rail against a criminal trial for alleged 9/11 conspirators in New York City. In particular, the far-right Arizonan was incensed that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) believes, "It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered."
As Matt Finkelstein reported, Shadegg doesn't see it quite the same way. "I saw the Mayor of New York said today, 'We're tough. We can do it,'" the Republican congressman said. "Well, Mayor, how are you going to feel when it's your daughter that's kidnapped at school by a terrorist? How are you going to feel when it's some clerk -- some innocent clerk of the court -- whose daughter or son is kidnapped? Or the jailer's little brother or little sister?"
Rep. Shadegg, Bite Me, you reprehensible piece of shit.
Labels:
9/11,
Bite Me,
Justice,
Pure Stupidity,
Republicans
Monday, November 16, 2009
New York City Cries Out For Justice
The Republican bed-wetters are all afraid of the porposal to try Kalid Sheik Mohommad in a New York federal court. Why? Because, well, he might go free? Muslims will riot? He's too scary? I don't know. They're Republicans, Obama makes a proposal, they oppose it, rinse, repeat.
But here's the heart of the matter: New York City. New York City. The murders of over 3000 Americans, the majority of them New Yorkers, took place in New York. New York has the right to see that justice is done for those 3000 victims in her courts. Obviously, New York is not afraid of the consequences of holding the trial. So, cowardly Republicans should just get out of the way and let them get on with it. And stop pretending that you care what happens in the Liberal, Gay-friendly, hedonistic N.Y.C. Republicans never cared about her before 9/11, and they don't care what happened to her after 9/11. You hated her and her epitome of Liberalism just as much as al Qaeda. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.
But here's the heart of the matter: New York City. New York City. The murders of over 3000 Americans, the majority of them New Yorkers, took place in New York. New York has the right to see that justice is done for those 3000 victims in her courts. Obviously, New York is not afraid of the consequences of holding the trial. So, cowardly Republicans should just get out of the way and let them get on with it. And stop pretending that you care what happens in the Liberal, Gay-friendly, hedonistic N.Y.C. Republicans never cared about her before 9/11, and they don't care what happened to her after 9/11. You hated her and her epitome of Liberalism just as much as al Qaeda. Stop trying to pretend otherwise.
Obama's Embarrassing Bow
Apparently, the Right-wing media machine are all in a tizzy about Obama's flubbed handshake/bow to the Emperor of Japan. It truly was embarrassing, one of those culture clash mishaps which occur when a members of different societies meet each other. But, all in all, a whole lot of nothing about nothing. But, as long as it keeps the rabid right fuming and frothing for awhile, and out of the way while the adults handle all the important stuff, I'm all for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

