Links
11.23.2003
Chortler -- Bush Personally Thanks Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton and Prince Charles For Keeping Iraq Out Of Headlines United States President George W. Bush congratulated Michael Jackson, Paris Hilton and Prince Charles today for becoming involved in major scandals that kept Iraq out of the headlines.
“At this crucial time in our history, when keeping people uninformed has never been more important, these celebrities stood up and performed shocking deeds which shifted attention away from what really matters,” President Bush stated.
Bush went on to heap praise on Martha Stewart, Robert Blake and Kobe Byrant for their efforts in preventing ink from being wasted on covering Iraq.
“In our time of great need, their megalomaniacal behavior which led them to think they were above the law has contributed greatly to the American people not having the slightest clue of what's going on in Iraq. For that I am truly grateful,” Bush concluded.
“At this crucial time in our history, when keeping people uninformed has never been more important, these celebrities stood up and performed shocking deeds which shifted attention away from what really matters,” President Bush stated.
Bush went on to heap praise on Martha Stewart, Robert Blake and Kobe Byrant for their efforts in preventing ink from being wasted on covering Iraq.
“In our time of great need, their megalomaniacal behavior which led them to think they were above the law has contributed greatly to the American people not having the slightest clue of what's going on in Iraq. For that I am truly grateful,” Bush concluded.
RollingStone.comCrimes Against Nature: Bush is sabotaging the laws that have protected America's environment for more than thirty years. (By Robert F. Kennedy Jr.)
11.21.2003
11.20.2003
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
11.19.2003
11.17.2003
Interwebnet.org - George W. Bush - welcome to London Site dedicated to chasing Bush out of the UK...
11.16.2003
Wired News: Redford Retrofits Green Building
Redford, a longtime environmental activist born and raised in Santa Monica, said the building symbolized a step forward for the conservation movement, which he said had been dealt setbacks by the Bush administration.
"We are now suffering through an administration that has, in a very calculating way, set out to undermine and destroy 30 years of hard work," he said.
"There's never been a time in my life when I've felt so challenged as a country, so challenged on the environment, as we are now."
Redford, a longtime environmental activist born and raised in Santa Monica, said the building symbolized a step forward for the conservation movement, which he said had been dealt setbacks by the Bush administration.
"We are now suffering through an administration that has, in a very calculating way, set out to undermine and destroy 30 years of hard work," he said.
"There's never been a time in my life when I've felt so challenged as a country, so challenged on the environment, as we are now."
Just because I'm in such a Bush-Bashing mood this morning here are some presidential facts courtesy of The Independent.
Bush telegraph: selected presidential facts:
-In May 2001, Bush's government gave $43m to the Taliban.
-Bush has never attended a funeral or memorial service for a soldier killed in Iraq.
-In August this year, Bush took the second-longest holiday ever by a US president: 28 days.
-Bush's 16-member cabinet is the wealthiest in US history, with an average fortune of $10.9m each.
-As governor of Texas, Bush executed 152 prisoners.
-Sixty-one people who raised $100,000 for Bush's 2000 election campaign have since been given government posts.
-Nine members of Bush's Defense Policy Board sit on the board of defence contractors or are advisers.
-Bush owns more than 250 autographed baseballs.
-Bush has been arrested three times: for stealing a Christmas wreath from a hotel; for ripping down the Princeton goal posts after a Princeton-Yale game; and for drunk driving.
-Bush infuriated the Russian media by spitting a wad of chewing gum into his hand before signing 2002's historic Treaty of Moscow with Vladimir Putin.
-While appearing on the David Letterman show in 2000, Bush was caught surreptitiously cleaning his glasses on the jacket of the programme's executive producer, Maria Pope.
16 November 2003 10:44
Bush telegraph: selected presidential facts:
-In May 2001, Bush's government gave $43m to the Taliban.
-Bush has never attended a funeral or memorial service for a soldier killed in Iraq.
-In August this year, Bush took the second-longest holiday ever by a US president: 28 days.
-Bush's 16-member cabinet is the wealthiest in US history, with an average fortune of $10.9m each.
-As governor of Texas, Bush executed 152 prisoners.
-Sixty-one people who raised $100,000 for Bush's 2000 election campaign have since been given government posts.
-Nine members of Bush's Defense Policy Board sit on the board of defence contractors or are advisers.
-Bush owns more than 250 autographed baseballs.
-Bush has been arrested three times: for stealing a Christmas wreath from a hotel; for ripping down the Princeton goal posts after a Princeton-Yale game; and for drunk driving.
-Bush infuriated the Russian media by spitting a wad of chewing gum into his hand before signing 2002's historic Treaty of Moscow with Vladimir Putin.
-While appearing on the David Letterman show in 2000, Bush was caught surreptitiously cleaning his glasses on the jacket of the programme's executive producer, Maria Pope.
16 November 2003 10:44
Bush is going to London and he is going to get a nasty reception. This article says 100 000 people are going to protest his arrival.
Op-Ed Contributor: Op-Chart How is it really going in Iraq??? A little chart that outlines some scary numbers about what is really going on there. (Nytimes)
Bush does an exclusive interview with The Sun (owned by Rupert Murdoch) (washingtonpost.com)
"His only other one-on-one interviews with print publications this year have been with USA Today, Leaders magazine and Sports Illustrated."
"Word on Fleet Street is it's an obvious payoff to the Sun's owner, Rupert Murdoch, the conservative publisher behind many Bush-friendly news outlets such as Fox News."
"His only other one-on-one interviews with print publications this year have been with USA Today, Leaders magazine and Sports Illustrated."
"Word on Fleet Street is it's an obvious payoff to the Sun's owner, Rupert Murdoch, the conservative publisher behind many Bush-friendly news outlets such as Fox News."
11.15.2003
CBC News: Date set for U.S. handover of power in Iraq BAGHDAD - Iraq will have a provisional government by June 2004 and an elected government the following year, members of the U.S.-backed Governing Council said Saturday.
Wired News: Mac Supercomputer Joins Elite Its official the G5 Cluster at Virginia Tech is the #3 fastest supercomputer in the world...
11.14.2003
PIONEER LAUNCHES REVOLUTIONARY DVJ-X1Pioneer has this new turntable designed specifically for scratching DVDs. Interesting...
The Globe and Mail Ottawa — Jean Chrétien walked on the Liberal stage for the last time as Leader last night, delivering an emotional legacy speech in which he spoke of the new sense of pride, spirit and confidence that Canadians have been left with after his decade in power.
11.13.2003
11.12.2003
11.11.2003
In Flanders Fields
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
John McCrae (1872-1918)
In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
John McCrae (1872-1918)
11.10.2003
Our family dog named Rawli passed away recently. I made a video to say goodbye to her in my own way. You can watch it here.
Kevin Sites Blog Photo Essay: How a "sojo" (solo journalist) files a live report from the field (or doesn't).
11.07.2003
Jessica Lynch condemns Pentagon A US woman soldier who shot to fame after being taken prisoner during the Iraq war has accused the military of using her for propaganda purposes
11.06.2003
No crappy media center on mac Asked about Apple's interest in selling Macs that could serve up the video recording abilities Microsoft offers with its Windows XP Media Center Edition, Jobs joked that Apple was instead focused on melding the computer with a toaster.
"I never get mine quite brown," said Phil Schiller, vice president of marketing. "We can do an up-sell for bagels."
Jobs said that he doesn't see such products creating a big market.
"We're not going to go that direction," Jobs said. "There is a small audience that likes this."
Jobs said there are several problems with the Media Center concept, in particular the wide divergence in the way people want to watch television as compared with how they use a computer. "Generally what they want to view on television has to do with turning their mind off," he said.
"I never get mine quite brown," said Phil Schiller, vice president of marketing. "We can do an up-sell for bagels."
Jobs said that he doesn't see such products creating a big market.
"We're not going to go that direction," Jobs said. "There is a small audience that likes this."
Jobs said there are several problems with the Media Center concept, in particular the wide divergence in the way people want to watch television as compared with how they use a computer. "Generally what they want to view on television has to do with turning their mind off," he said.
11.05.2003
The Register Ipod challenger??? Sony Computer Entertainment chief Ken Kutaragi yesterday revealed the company's prototype design for its upcoming Playstation Portable (PSP) handheld gaming console.
Too much INFORMATION More information has been produced and stored in the past five years, than at any time in human history. E-mails, text messages, mobile phone calls, TV, websites. We are drowning in the stuff. But how much of it has added to the sum of human knowledge? And has anyone thought what it is doing to our brains? "As a result, there are fewer "big thinkers". It has become harder to see the bigger picture, because it has simply become too big.
And, he argues, if your ideas are constantly reviewed against everyone else's, there is arguably less room for idiosyncratic and original thinking.
"I don't think creativity will disappear entirely, but it has become a world of expertise in a more limited field.
"The big thinkers who try to make sense of a whole area of science are fairly rare."
And, he argues, if your ideas are constantly reviewed against everyone else's, there is arguably less room for idiosyncratic and original thinking.
"I don't think creativity will disappear entirely, but it has become a world of expertise in a more limited field.
"The big thinkers who try to make sense of a whole area of science are fairly rare."
11.03.2003
Less Bravado, More Frank Talk After a week of setbacks in Iraq, the Bush team takes a new tack and warns of trouble ahead.
11.02.2003
11.01.2003
10.31.2003
Windfalls of War - The Center for Public Integrity Winning Contractors
U.S. Contractors Reap the Windfalls of Post-war Reconstruction
WASHINGTON, October 30, 2003 %u2014 More than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years, according to a new study by the Center for Public Integrity. Those companies donated more money to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush%u2014a little over $500,000%u2014than to any other politician over the last dozen years, the Center found.
U.S. Contractors Reap the Windfalls of Post-war Reconstruction
WASHINGTON, October 30, 2003 %u2014 More than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years, according to a new study by the Center for Public Integrity. Those companies donated more money to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush%u2014a little over $500,000%u2014than to any other politician over the last dozen years, the Center found.
10.30.2003
10.29.2003
Bush in 30 Seconds Create a TV ad that tells the truth about George W. Bush.
Sick of the propaganda being beamed at you from the current administration's media mavens? Here's a new way to fight back: Enter MoveOn.org Voter Fund's political ad contest. You don't have to be formally trained in the art of filmmaking, just ready, willing and able to create an ad that tells the truth about George Bush.
Sick of the propaganda being beamed at you from the current administration's media mavens? Here's a new way to fight back: Enter MoveOn.org Voter Fund's political ad contest. You don't have to be formally trained in the art of filmmaking, just ready, willing and able to create an ad that tells the truth about George Bush.
Wired 11.11: VIEW Stamping Out Short People:
Growth hormone is just the start of human enhancement
By Gregory Stock
Growth hormone is just the start of human enhancement
By Gregory Stock
10.28.2003
10.27.2003
Yahoo! News - Top Stories Photos - APMOTHER NATURE IS PISSED....
In this satellite image, plumes of smoke caused by wildfires are seen moving off the coast through Southern California on Sunday, Oct. 26, 2003. The fires have grown to more than 208,000 acres, destroying 500 homes in densely populated suburbs and have caused at least 11 deaths. Fires burning are, at left left, Simi Valley and Moorpark; center, the combined Grand Prix and Old Fire, north of San Bernadino and Rancho Cucamonga/Ontario; bottom right, the Scripps Ranch fire in the San Diego area. AP Photo/US Forest Service via NASA (news - web sites))
10.26.2003
10.25.2003
My Ikea Collage The other day I found a huge stack of Ikea catalogues in the lobby of my apartment building. It sort of bugged me because "Like everyone else, I had become a slave to the IKEA nesting instinct."
So, in response to this I decided to pick up one of the catalogues and analyze what was being sold. To my surprise I found some particularly ironic, shocking and disturbing slogans printed in bold lettering in the catalogue. These include : "Power and Control", "coordinated necessities", "why thinking differently makes a big difference", "Open to work, close to relax", "affordable dreams (5X)"...
So I decided to make my own Ikea Catalogue from cutouts from this one catalogue I picked up. You can see it here...
So, in response to this I decided to pick up one of the catalogues and analyze what was being sold. To my surprise I found some particularly ironic, shocking and disturbing slogans printed in bold lettering in the catalogue. These include : "Power and Control", "coordinated necessities", "why thinking differently makes a big difference", "Open to work, close to relax", "affordable dreams (5X)"...
So I decided to make my own Ikea Catalogue from cutouts from this one catalogue I picked up. You can see it here...
10.24.2003
10.23.2003
News Selling you a new past
You've eaten a chocolate bar and you didn't really like it. Can a commercial afterwards persuade you that you did? 'Memory morphing' could be a powerful weapon for advertisers. But, asks David Benady, will they dare use it?
You've eaten a chocolate bar and you didn't really like it. Can a commercial afterwards persuade you that you did? 'Memory morphing' could be a powerful weapon for advertisers. But, asks David Benady, will they dare use it?
ABCNEWS.com : Bush Heckled by Australian Parliament This is (amazing...)
During Bush's speech, two Green Party senators jumped to their feet and shouted war protests at Bush. They were ordered removed from the chamber but sat and refused to leave. One of them, Sen. Bob Brown, shouted "we are not a sheriff," a reference to Bush's recent description of Howard.
"I love free speech," Bush said to laughter.
Several other lawmakers wore white arm bands to protest the Iraq war but remained silent.
During Bush's speech, two Green Party senators jumped to their feet and shouted war protests at Bush. They were ordered removed from the chamber but sat and refused to leave. One of them, Sen. Bob Brown, shouted "we are not a sheriff," a reference to Bush's recent description of Howard.
"I love free speech," Bush said to laughter.
Several other lawmakers wore white arm bands to protest the Iraq war but remained silent.
10.22.2003
Wired News: Big Screens Open Windows on World An Austrian firm is developing a giant video-conferencing system that will be deployed in public spaces in London and Vienna next year, allowing people in the two cities to meet and talk eye-to-eye.
10.21.2003
10.18.2003
10.17.2003
iTunes Music Event Mr. Jobs then used iChatAV and an iSight video camera to rap live with Dr. Dre in Los Angeles, U2�s Bono in Dublin, and Rolling Stone Mick Jagger in London. It should be noted that Jobs switched platforms to accomplish this feat: �Gotta use a Mac for that,� he explained.
10.16.2003
The Apple Store (U.S.) The innovative Belkin Media Reader for iPod lets you store more than tunes. It gives you a great way to transfer images from your digital camera to your iPod. Now you can take more pictures and not worry about running out of space in your digital camera.
10.15.2003
Wraiths Code red missions These urban explorer kids and some places around Vancouver they have gotten into...
Infiltration: Taking the Plunge Pool crashing at hotels and stories about going places your are not supposed to...
10.14.2003
DIRECTORSLABEL.COM IS COMING SOON
Palm Pictures presents the first three installations in an ongoing series highlighting the work of filmmakers who have helped re-define music videos and filmmaking over the last decade. Each volume features music videos, shorts and commercials hand-picked by the directors, exclusive audio and video commentaries from featured artists and collaborators, unreleased shorts and documentaries and much more. A 52-page companion book including photographs, storyboards, treatments, drawings and interviews comes with each specially packaged DVD.
Palm Pictures presents the first three installations in an ongoing series highlighting the work of filmmakers who have helped re-define music videos and filmmaking over the last decade. Each volume features music videos, shorts and commercials hand-picked by the directors, exclusive audio and video commentaries from featured artists and collaborators, unreleased shorts and documentaries and much more. A 52-page companion book including photographs, storyboards, treatments, drawings and interviews comes with each specially packaged DVD.
straight.com - Vancouver news & entertainment
B.C. Liberals Hit Straight With Million-Dollar Fine
By�Dan McLeod
The Georgia Straight is faced with the biggest threat in its 36-year history.
Following a visit from a provincial-government auditor, the Straight has been stripped of its status as a newspaper under provincial sales-tax legislation and assessed fines and penalties that will total more than one million dollars by year's end. This fine must be paid immediately and can only be reversed through a difficult and expensive appeal process that could tie us up in court for several years to come.
At the same time, community newspapers that are dumped on doorsteps unsolicited and laden with so many advertising flyers that a big elastic is often needed to hold them together are still considered official newspapers and therefore exempt from this legislation. Is it any coincidence that the owners of most of these papers are friends of the B.C. Liberals?
The Georgia Straight thus becomes the only newspaper in Canada to be classified as less than a newspaper under provincial legislation. No other newspaper need fear such a threat. Because of the Straight's uniqueness, the Liberals have found a way to target us without affecting any other paper in the province. In other words, this has all the earmarks of a witch-hunt.
Appeals of the crushing million-dollar assessment must first go to the Minister of Provincial Revenue. Chances of success at this stage are very slim, so our best chance for any justice is to take the matter to the B.C. Supreme Court. The Liberal minister, however, has the power to hold up the matter for months, even years. By that time, the Georgia Straight could be out of business.
The ruling harks back to the Straight's beginnings, when we were prosecuted frequently under a wide assortment of trumped-up charges. In 1967, a crusading mayor and chief prosecutor conspired to use the city licence department to close down the paper. When that attempt was overruled by the Supreme Court, they had us thrown in jail for criminal libel, a charge that had only been used twice in the history of Confederation. And on and on it went, until the harassment ended around 1972.
Using the Revenue Ministry to close down a newspaper is a ploy well-known to political leaders such as Gordon Campbell. For example, it is documented that Richard Nixon used the IRS to harass political opponents. As the only independent newspaper in Vancouver--and, indeed, the only local newspaper that consistently publishes articles critical of the government--we find this move not only discriminatory in the extreme but a politically motivated attempt by the government to silence one of its harshest critics.
It is also a direct attack on all the arts and cultural and business life of the city. The Straight is appealing to arts and entertainment organizations, nonprofit groups and charities, as well as small-business owners, to speak out against this decision and help by swearing affidavits in our defence if and when it comes time to take the government to court. If a court battle does ensue, we intend to fight vigorously and to the bitter end.
The need to fight this battle would stop now if we were to abandon our Time Out listings guide. This we refuse to do. The guide is a free public service that is based on one of this paper's founding principles: to encourage and foster the growth of a healthy and lively arts and cultural scene in our city.
By successfully closing the Straight, Gordon Campbell will have destroyed the only independent media outlet left in this city. He can then take credit for finishing the job that his namesake mayor, Tom Campbell, began more than 36 years ago. It appears that driving our province's social structures into a ditch is not good enough for the premier. Now he must silence the only newspaper that dares to criticize his mean-spirited policies. Making him accountable for his actions is our journalistic duty, even though our very existence is at stake.
B.C. Liberals Hit Straight With Million-Dollar Fine
By�Dan McLeod
The Georgia Straight is faced with the biggest threat in its 36-year history.
Following a visit from a provincial-government auditor, the Straight has been stripped of its status as a newspaper under provincial sales-tax legislation and assessed fines and penalties that will total more than one million dollars by year's end. This fine must be paid immediately and can only be reversed through a difficult and expensive appeal process that could tie us up in court for several years to come.
At the same time, community newspapers that are dumped on doorsteps unsolicited and laden with so many advertising flyers that a big elastic is often needed to hold them together are still considered official newspapers and therefore exempt from this legislation. Is it any coincidence that the owners of most of these papers are friends of the B.C. Liberals?
The Georgia Straight thus becomes the only newspaper in Canada to be classified as less than a newspaper under provincial legislation. No other newspaper need fear such a threat. Because of the Straight's uniqueness, the Liberals have found a way to target us without affecting any other paper in the province. In other words, this has all the earmarks of a witch-hunt.
Appeals of the crushing million-dollar assessment must first go to the Minister of Provincial Revenue. Chances of success at this stage are very slim, so our best chance for any justice is to take the matter to the B.C. Supreme Court. The Liberal minister, however, has the power to hold up the matter for months, even years. By that time, the Georgia Straight could be out of business.
The ruling harks back to the Straight's beginnings, when we were prosecuted frequently under a wide assortment of trumped-up charges. In 1967, a crusading mayor and chief prosecutor conspired to use the city licence department to close down the paper. When that attempt was overruled by the Supreme Court, they had us thrown in jail for criminal libel, a charge that had only been used twice in the history of Confederation. And on and on it went, until the harassment ended around 1972.
Using the Revenue Ministry to close down a newspaper is a ploy well-known to political leaders such as Gordon Campbell. For example, it is documented that Richard Nixon used the IRS to harass political opponents. As the only independent newspaper in Vancouver--and, indeed, the only local newspaper that consistently publishes articles critical of the government--we find this move not only discriminatory in the extreme but a politically motivated attempt by the government to silence one of its harshest critics.
It is also a direct attack on all the arts and cultural and business life of the city. The Straight is appealing to arts and entertainment organizations, nonprofit groups and charities, as well as small-business owners, to speak out against this decision and help by swearing affidavits in our defence if and when it comes time to take the government to court. If a court battle does ensue, we intend to fight vigorously and to the bitter end.
The need to fight this battle would stop now if we were to abandon our Time Out listings guide. This we refuse to do. The guide is a free public service that is based on one of this paper's founding principles: to encourage and foster the growth of a healthy and lively arts and cultural scene in our city.
By successfully closing the Straight, Gordon Campbell will have destroyed the only independent media outlet left in this city. He can then take credit for finishing the job that his namesake mayor, Tom Campbell, began more than 36 years ago. It appears that driving our province's social structures into a ditch is not good enough for the premier. Now he must silence the only newspaper that dares to criticize his mean-spirited policies. Making him accountable for his actions is our journalistic duty, even though our very existence is at stake.
Tony Hawk's Underground This game looks so sick. Check out the put your "face in the game" feature. Get a pic of yourself and map it to the body of a skater. Thats just one of a ton of new rad features.
10.13.2003
10.12.2003
10.09.2003
iTunes auction treads murky legal ground Update to the Ebay seller who wanted to sell a song he downloaded from the Itunes store.
10.08.2003
10.07.2003
Lick Me, I'm A Macintosh / What the hell is wrong with Apple that they still give a damn about design and packaging and "feel"? Apple sure goes out of its way to design killer stuff - even the PACKAGING!
Home-made SegwayThis dude decided to build his own Segway, from scratch. Looks like the Segway isnt the marvel of tech we thought it was.
10.06.2003
The "Terrorist" training camp that the Israelis just bombed in Syria was abandoned 7 years ago according to a local guy...
Bass Station This is the coolest thing ever: The most ghetto fabulous WiFi HiFi yet: an old school boom box called the Bass-Station that's been refitted with 802.11b, a 120GB hard drive, and an MP3 decoder, and that is controlled using a web browser. Besides being able to play MP3s, it can also stream audio to other devices in its local area network, double as a file-server for file-sharing. Sure to come in handy for our next breakdancing battle.
the Degree Confluence ProjectThe goal of the project is to visit each of the latitude and longitude integer degree intersections in the world, and to take pictures at each location. The pictures and stories will then be posted here.
10.03.2003
How to win an election Get photo op with Kitten. "The "kitten-eater" news release was definitely the turning point in the campaign for both the Tories and the Liberals." Absolutely ridiculous.
10.02.2003
10.01.2003
9.29.2003
Iraqis not ready to rule themselves yet Hey, its only going to take the small figure of $87,000,000,000 to rebuild Iraq and thats for this year alone!
We are facing death in Iraq for no reasonA serving US soldier calls for the end of an occupation based on lies
9.26.2003
9.25.2003
9.24.2003
"And Now a Chance to Bid Farewell to Mr. Bush" (from Michael Moore)
September 23, 2003
Last week, over 30,000 of you from my list sent letters to Wesley Clark urging to him to run. And, hey, um -- it looks like it helped! He announced on Wednesday and by Sunday he was #1 in the Newsweek poll on the 10 Democratic candidates. By yesterday, according to the CNN/Time poll, he was nine points ahead of his nearest rival -- and three percentage points ahead of Bush if the election were held today.
But now the hard part begins. In my open letter to General Clark, while strongly encouraging him to run, I told him that I was not yet endorsing him -- I have no plans to endorse anyone at this point -- yet I thought his voice should be heard in this campaign. Why? Because I heard him say things that I think the American public needs to hear.
My wife and I were invited over to a neighbor's home 12 days ago where Clark told those gathered that certain people, acting on behalf of the Bush administration, called him immediately after the attacks on September 11th and asked him to go on TV to tell the country that Saddam Hussein was "involved" in the attacks. He asked them for proof, but they couldn't provide any. He refused their request.
Standing in that living room 12 nights ago, Clark continued to share more private conversations. In the months leading up the Iraq War, friends of his at the Pentagon -- high-ranking career military officers -- told him that the military brass did NOT want this war in Iraq, that it violated the Powell Doctrine of "start no war if you don't know what your exit strategy is." They KNEW we would be in this mess, and they asked the General, in his role now as a television commentator, to inform the American people of this folly. And, as best he could, that's what he did.
I don't know whether I am violating any confidence here, but I think all of you have a right to know these things -- and I left there that night convinced that this pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-affirmative action retired general should be in the debates so that the American people can hear what I heard. The public needs to see and hear what he's all about so we can make up our own minds about him. Now, thanks to all the encouragement you gave him to run, we will have a chance to do just that.
He may very well turn out to be much less than what we thought. Or he may be our best and greatest hope in removing George W. Bush. Whatever the outcome, let's all agree on one thing: There are enough Democrats running, this time around, who stand for most of the things that we stand for. We will not find ourselves having to choose between the "evil of two lessers" in the Democratic primaries. When we know more about each of them and the dust has settled, then we need to unite with each other to keep our eyes on the prize: Bush Removal in �04.
But removal is not enough to turn our country around. We have to stay on these Democrats to do their jobs. We know from experience how spineless they can be. Our job is to keep pushing them to be more progressive in their actions and positions. And we need to continue to build independent, third party movements on the local level which will, in part, let them know that they do not automatically have us in their hip pocket.
That is why I am not endorsing anyone right now -- and I caution you not to throw your whole self behind any of them until they can state clearly what they are going to do on certain issues. If we give them our support before insisting they do this, what leverage will we have to mold them into the candidate we -- and not the political consultants -- want them to be?
For instance, I sat in a room with Howard Dean a couple of months ago and heard him say he supports the death penalty "in certain cases." He probably believes he needs to say this to get elected. What he needs to hear from us are the facts about how many innocent people have been released from death row, people who were about to be executed. We need to show Gov. Dean the right way to address this issue -- by calling for a moratorium on the death penalty until, if ever, this problem of potentially executing the innocent can be solved.
When I watched Howard Dean give his speech announcing his candidacy, he spoke for nearly a half hour. How many times did he say the word "Iraq?"
None.
And he's supposed to be the anti-war candidate! Well, what I'm saying is, let's cut him some slack. He clearly has been against the war, even if he did fail to mention it (the #1 issue of the day) in his speech. We cannot be so quick to want to dismiss him or sink back into our cynicism of believing that all politicians suck. And when Dean says he wouldn't cut the Pentagon budget, he just needs to be educated. So the best way to support Dean right now is to let him know how you feel about these issues and that, if he wants your vote, he has to state clearly that he will cut the Pentagon budget and use that money for the things this country really needs.
Likewise, Clark's first 24 hours as a candidate resembled a Marx Brothers movie. His position on the war, depending on what paper you read, changed about six dozen times. Only one thing was clear -- this guy is not a professional politician! But then, isn't that a good thing? The press has complained that Clinton is secretly behind him. Both right and left wing pundits have roared over that one. Are they that out of touch with the average American that they don't recognize, when the word "Clinton" is mentioned these days, a wave of wistful nostalgia sweeps through a majority of Americans? As most of you know, I had many problems with Clinton, but I can at least realize that when Americans think "Clinton Era," they think of better days -- regardless of just how better they really were. So if you think that by "exposing" the Clinton connection to Clark is going to turn people off, think again. Every time it's reported, Clark's numbers go up.
But it seemed like on Day One of his campaign, General Clark was listening too much to the Arkansas politicos and not enough to his own heart. When you're a Rhodes Scholar (as he is), you have to hate others trying to turn your head into a bowl of spaghetti.
By the time Day Two rolled around, the general had heard from all of us (a big collective "WHAT THE F#@%?!" so to speak), and he straightened things out in an interview with the Associated Press. He said, without equivocation: "Let's make one thing real clear: I would never have voted for this war�. I've got a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case for preemptive war."
Now Clark will be in his first debate this Thursday. As the others have been campaigning and debating for months now, there is no way he will be up to their speed. He doesn't have to be. I hope he is just himself so we can see where he stands on many of the issues that he has yet to weigh in on (NAFTA, health care specifics, etc.).
The day Clark made his announcement, I was in the former Yugoslavia. Clark was the NATO commander during the Kosovo War. If you've seen my film ("Bowling for Columbine") you know that the bombing of civilians in Kosovo is something that bothers me to this day. That is why I put it in my movie. The 19 countries of NATO have yet to account for this decision to bomb in this way. The New York Times reported on Sunday that Clark wanted to use ground troops instead of relying on the bombing (less civilians would be killed that way). Clinton and Defense Secretary William Cohen overruled him. They didn't want to risk having any American casualties; they preferred the "clean" way of killing from 30,000 feet above. Clark, apparently to undermine them, went on TV and took his case to the American people. Cohen was furious and told him to "get your (bleeping) face" off the TV. He and the Pentagon then orchestrated his firing.
Years later, many analysts agree that the Kosovo War would have ended much sooner -- and fewer civilians would have been killed -- had the White House listened to Clark and let him use the ground troops to stop Milosevic's genocide of the people in Kosovo.
Is that the way it went? I'd like to know. And that's one reason why we have election campaigns -- so we can find out things like this. I hope someone asks General Clark the question.
What I do know is that the war we are in NOW is not called Kosovo, but Iraq. That is the war I am trying to stop. That is the war Clark says he will stop. If we have a former general, who may have done some things that some of us don't like -- but he is now offering to be an advocate for peace -- why would any of us want to reject this?
And who among the other candidates does not have blood on his hands? John Kerry? He killed people in Vietnam. Bob Graham? He executed people as governor of Florida. Howard Dean? He says he would have voted in favor of bombing Afghanistan (at least 3,000 civilians slaughtered) and he's already said he would execute people on death row. So would Edwards. Gephardt voted for both wars. Dennis Kucinich used to vote for laws restricting a woman's right to an abortion, potentially forcing women back to the alley and, for many of them, to certain death.
No one is innocent here. And yet, there is, in everyone, a chance for redemption. John Kerry bravely led the anti-war movement when he returned from Vietnam. Dennis Kucinich changed his position and now supports a woman's right to choose. Howard Dean (with Kucinich) stood alone against the Iraq War when it was not the popular thing to do. People change. If we don't accept this, we are never going to get rid of Bush.
We, the voters, have a job to do right now: Remain strong and steadfast in pushing these candidates to behave, straighten up, and do the right thing. There will be plenty of time to get behind the one candidate who is nominated to defeat Bush. What we should be doing now is making our voices heard so that we can influence them to take the right positions.
Back in February, Patrick Tyler of the New York Times wrote, "there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion." To paraphrase him, I would say that there are now actually ELEVEN campaigns running in this race -- those of the ten announced candidates, and OURS. Those 10 who are running are up against something mightier than any of their fellow candidates -- they must face OUR collective conscience and will. That will is a powerful force -- and we shouldn't give it up until we start hearing and seeing things from these candidates that we expect and demand.
So, Howard Dean, if you want my vote, promise me that you'll cut the Pentagon budget and call for a moratorium on the death penalty. Wesley Clark, if you want my vote, tell me how you'll guarantee health care to every single American and that, even though you're a hunter, you'll push for stronger gun control laws. Dennis Kucinich, if it were you vs. Bush today, I'd hope that you would have done the work needed to convince the majority of Americans to vote for you. Carol Moseley Braun, if the moderator at the debate on Thursday ignores you for the first 15 minutes (as George Stephanopoulos did back in the May debate), I hope you won't wait your turn and will just jump right in�we're long overdue for a woman President. And Al Sharpton, just keep being you and cutting through all the b.s. in these debates -- you produce the stinging laugh we all need right now.
Let the games begin, and let's all hope that the only loser in all of this is George W. Bush.
Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com
September 23, 2003
Last week, over 30,000 of you from my list sent letters to Wesley Clark urging to him to run. And, hey, um -- it looks like it helped! He announced on Wednesday and by Sunday he was #1 in the Newsweek poll on the 10 Democratic candidates. By yesterday, according to the CNN/Time poll, he was nine points ahead of his nearest rival -- and three percentage points ahead of Bush if the election were held today.
But now the hard part begins. In my open letter to General Clark, while strongly encouraging him to run, I told him that I was not yet endorsing him -- I have no plans to endorse anyone at this point -- yet I thought his voice should be heard in this campaign. Why? Because I heard him say things that I think the American public needs to hear.
My wife and I were invited over to a neighbor's home 12 days ago where Clark told those gathered that certain people, acting on behalf of the Bush administration, called him immediately after the attacks on September 11th and asked him to go on TV to tell the country that Saddam Hussein was "involved" in the attacks. He asked them for proof, but they couldn't provide any. He refused their request.
Standing in that living room 12 nights ago, Clark continued to share more private conversations. In the months leading up the Iraq War, friends of his at the Pentagon -- high-ranking career military officers -- told him that the military brass did NOT want this war in Iraq, that it violated the Powell Doctrine of "start no war if you don't know what your exit strategy is." They KNEW we would be in this mess, and they asked the General, in his role now as a television commentator, to inform the American people of this folly. And, as best he could, that's what he did.
I don't know whether I am violating any confidence here, but I think all of you have a right to know these things -- and I left there that night convinced that this pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-affirmative action retired general should be in the debates so that the American people can hear what I heard. The public needs to see and hear what he's all about so we can make up our own minds about him. Now, thanks to all the encouragement you gave him to run, we will have a chance to do just that.
He may very well turn out to be much less than what we thought. Or he may be our best and greatest hope in removing George W. Bush. Whatever the outcome, let's all agree on one thing: There are enough Democrats running, this time around, who stand for most of the things that we stand for. We will not find ourselves having to choose between the "evil of two lessers" in the Democratic primaries. When we know more about each of them and the dust has settled, then we need to unite with each other to keep our eyes on the prize: Bush Removal in �04.
But removal is not enough to turn our country around. We have to stay on these Democrats to do their jobs. We know from experience how spineless they can be. Our job is to keep pushing them to be more progressive in their actions and positions. And we need to continue to build independent, third party movements on the local level which will, in part, let them know that they do not automatically have us in their hip pocket.
That is why I am not endorsing anyone right now -- and I caution you not to throw your whole self behind any of them until they can state clearly what they are going to do on certain issues. If we give them our support before insisting they do this, what leverage will we have to mold them into the candidate we -- and not the political consultants -- want them to be?
For instance, I sat in a room with Howard Dean a couple of months ago and heard him say he supports the death penalty "in certain cases." He probably believes he needs to say this to get elected. What he needs to hear from us are the facts about how many innocent people have been released from death row, people who were about to be executed. We need to show Gov. Dean the right way to address this issue -- by calling for a moratorium on the death penalty until, if ever, this problem of potentially executing the innocent can be solved.
When I watched Howard Dean give his speech announcing his candidacy, he spoke for nearly a half hour. How many times did he say the word "Iraq?"
None.
And he's supposed to be the anti-war candidate! Well, what I'm saying is, let's cut him some slack. He clearly has been against the war, even if he did fail to mention it (the #1 issue of the day) in his speech. We cannot be so quick to want to dismiss him or sink back into our cynicism of believing that all politicians suck. And when Dean says he wouldn't cut the Pentagon budget, he just needs to be educated. So the best way to support Dean right now is to let him know how you feel about these issues and that, if he wants your vote, he has to state clearly that he will cut the Pentagon budget and use that money for the things this country really needs.
Likewise, Clark's first 24 hours as a candidate resembled a Marx Brothers movie. His position on the war, depending on what paper you read, changed about six dozen times. Only one thing was clear -- this guy is not a professional politician! But then, isn't that a good thing? The press has complained that Clinton is secretly behind him. Both right and left wing pundits have roared over that one. Are they that out of touch with the average American that they don't recognize, when the word "Clinton" is mentioned these days, a wave of wistful nostalgia sweeps through a majority of Americans? As most of you know, I had many problems with Clinton, but I can at least realize that when Americans think "Clinton Era," they think of better days -- regardless of just how better they really were. So if you think that by "exposing" the Clinton connection to Clark is going to turn people off, think again. Every time it's reported, Clark's numbers go up.
But it seemed like on Day One of his campaign, General Clark was listening too much to the Arkansas politicos and not enough to his own heart. When you're a Rhodes Scholar (as he is), you have to hate others trying to turn your head into a bowl of spaghetti.
By the time Day Two rolled around, the general had heard from all of us (a big collective "WHAT THE F#@%?!" so to speak), and he straightened things out in an interview with the Associated Press. He said, without equivocation: "Let's make one thing real clear: I would never have voted for this war�. I've got a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case for preemptive war."
Now Clark will be in his first debate this Thursday. As the others have been campaigning and debating for months now, there is no way he will be up to their speed. He doesn't have to be. I hope he is just himself so we can see where he stands on many of the issues that he has yet to weigh in on (NAFTA, health care specifics, etc.).
The day Clark made his announcement, I was in the former Yugoslavia. Clark was the NATO commander during the Kosovo War. If you've seen my film ("Bowling for Columbine") you know that the bombing of civilians in Kosovo is something that bothers me to this day. That is why I put it in my movie. The 19 countries of NATO have yet to account for this decision to bomb in this way. The New York Times reported on Sunday that Clark wanted to use ground troops instead of relying on the bombing (less civilians would be killed that way). Clinton and Defense Secretary William Cohen overruled him. They didn't want to risk having any American casualties; they preferred the "clean" way of killing from 30,000 feet above. Clark, apparently to undermine them, went on TV and took his case to the American people. Cohen was furious and told him to "get your (bleeping) face" off the TV. He and the Pentagon then orchestrated his firing.
Years later, many analysts agree that the Kosovo War would have ended much sooner -- and fewer civilians would have been killed -- had the White House listened to Clark and let him use the ground troops to stop Milosevic's genocide of the people in Kosovo.
Is that the way it went? I'd like to know. And that's one reason why we have election campaigns -- so we can find out things like this. I hope someone asks General Clark the question.
What I do know is that the war we are in NOW is not called Kosovo, but Iraq. That is the war I am trying to stop. That is the war Clark says he will stop. If we have a former general, who may have done some things that some of us don't like -- but he is now offering to be an advocate for peace -- why would any of us want to reject this?
And who among the other candidates does not have blood on his hands? John Kerry? He killed people in Vietnam. Bob Graham? He executed people as governor of Florida. Howard Dean? He says he would have voted in favor of bombing Afghanistan (at least 3,000 civilians slaughtered) and he's already said he would execute people on death row. So would Edwards. Gephardt voted for both wars. Dennis Kucinich used to vote for laws restricting a woman's right to an abortion, potentially forcing women back to the alley and, for many of them, to certain death.
No one is innocent here. And yet, there is, in everyone, a chance for redemption. John Kerry bravely led the anti-war movement when he returned from Vietnam. Dennis Kucinich changed his position and now supports a woman's right to choose. Howard Dean (with Kucinich) stood alone against the Iraq War when it was not the popular thing to do. People change. If we don't accept this, we are never going to get rid of Bush.
We, the voters, have a job to do right now: Remain strong and steadfast in pushing these candidates to behave, straighten up, and do the right thing. There will be plenty of time to get behind the one candidate who is nominated to defeat Bush. What we should be doing now is making our voices heard so that we can influence them to take the right positions.
Back in February, Patrick Tyler of the New York Times wrote, "there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion." To paraphrase him, I would say that there are now actually ELEVEN campaigns running in this race -- those of the ten announced candidates, and OURS. Those 10 who are running are up against something mightier than any of their fellow candidates -- they must face OUR collective conscience and will. That will is a powerful force -- and we shouldn't give it up until we start hearing and seeing things from these candidates that we expect and demand.
So, Howard Dean, if you want my vote, promise me that you'll cut the Pentagon budget and call for a moratorium on the death penalty. Wesley Clark, if you want my vote, tell me how you'll guarantee health care to every single American and that, even though you're a hunter, you'll push for stronger gun control laws. Dennis Kucinich, if it were you vs. Bush today, I'd hope that you would have done the work needed to convince the majority of Americans to vote for you. Carol Moseley Braun, if the moderator at the debate on Thursday ignores you for the first 15 minutes (as George Stephanopoulos did back in the May debate), I hope you won't wait your turn and will just jump right in�we're long overdue for a woman President. And Al Sharpton, just keep being you and cutting through all the b.s. in these debates -- you produce the stinging laugh we all need right now.
Let the games begin, and let's all hope that the only loser in all of this is George W. Bush.
Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com
9.22.2003
9.21.2003
9.19.2003
"1972 Mercury Cougar XR7 Convertible" Dad was just telling me he used to own one of these. This HOT ROD is badass!
Guardian Unlimited | Arts Friday Review | Hello. I'm Johnny Cash The last interview. By Sylvie Simmons.
9.18.2003
9.17.2003
9.16.2003
Weeb-enabled pet feederThis could be quite useful if you're at work and your dog is at home. Watch him on video, or feed him via tha weeb.
Phat pc's The atari one is slick. Also, please note: The bubba PC is also from where else, Saskatchewan.
New PowerBook G4's The new 17s can hold 2 gigs of ram! Even the new 12 inch can hold over a 1.25 gig of RAM! Time to go travelling...
9.15.2003
News - Vancouver - canada.com network VANCOUVER - Despite a media throng and much anticipatory hue and cry, Canada's first-ever safe-injection site opened its doors quietly Monday morning...
The Globe and MailFables of the reconstruction, from Berlin to Baghdad By DOUG SAUNDERS
Saturday, September 13, 2003 - Page F3
Saturday, September 13, 2003 - Page F3
9.14.2003
9.13.2003
9.12.2003
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
ceehiro
ceehiro
Apple - Education - University of Washington, A Video Journey of Nations p.1 Cool. Docs on the cheap.
9.11.2003
Virginia Tech building supercomputer G5 cluster More detail about the G5 supercomputer they're building. Well obviously the G5s are ready!!! Virginia tech is hoping to get their supercomputer ready by October 1st! The G5s will be dual 2 ghz, with upgrades of 4 and 8 GIGS OF RAM!!!
A Mac-Style SupercomputerVirginia Tech is networking 1,100 G5s together to achieve top-dollar performance for a relative bargain, a ringing endorsement for Apple's latest machine. Too bad everyone else gets screwed and Virginia Tech gets their G5s first!
9.10.2003
9.09.2003
The War in Iraq is Not Over and Neither Are the Lies to Justify It
�
�
Published on Monday, September 8, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Bush's Speech:
The War in Iraq is Not Over and Neither Are the Lies to Justify It
by Stephen Zunes
�
�
Published on Monday, September 8, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Bush's Speech:
The War in Iraq is Not Over and Neither Are the Lies to Justify It
by Stephen Zunes
9.08.2003
9.07.2003
Program Details for We Interrupt This Empire
We Interrupt This Empire... (2003, DV, 52:17) is a collaborative work by many of the Bay Area�s independent video activists which documents the direct actions that shut down the financial district of San Francisco in the weeks following the United States� invasion of Iraq. With the audio backdrop including live broadcasts of Enemy Combatant Radio from the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center, the documentary takes a look at the diverse show of resistance from the streets of San Francisco as well as providing a critique of the corporate media coverage of the war and exploring such issues as the Military Industrial Complex, attack on civil liberties, and the United States� current imperialist drive.
The Video Activist Network (VAN) is an informal association of activists and politically conscious artists using video to support social, economic and environmental justice campaigns.
Director: The San Francisco Video Activist Network
Audio/Visual: sound, color
Contact information:
Whispered Media
415 789-8484
wm@whisperedmedia.org
http://www.videoactivism.org
Program Details for We Interrupt This Empire
We Interrupt This Empire... (2003, DV, 52:17) is a collaborative work by many of the Bay Area�s independent video activists which documents the direct actions that shut down the financial district of San Francisco in the weeks following the United States� invasion of Iraq. With the audio backdrop including live broadcasts of Enemy Combatant Radio from the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center, the documentary takes a look at the diverse show of resistance from the streets of San Francisco as well as providing a critique of the corporate media coverage of the war and exploring such issues as the Military Industrial Complex, attack on civil liberties, and the United States� current imperialist drive.
The Video Activist Network (VAN) is an informal association of activists and politically conscious artists using video to support social, economic and environmental justice campaigns.
Director: The San Francisco Video Activist Network
Audio/Visual: sound, color
Contact information:
Whispered Media
415 789-8484
wm@whisperedmedia.org
http://www.videoactivism.org
Program Details for We Interrupt This Empire
Show Details for Antibalas Afrobeat Orchestra: 2002-02-22 Download Antibalas live shows for free... (other bands live here too)
9.05.2003
News Story - canada.com network "We've come up with a Fabian cocktail for our guests," said Paul Tormey, manager of the Fairmont Hamilton Princess hotel , which had nearly 300 guests. "The drinks will have umbrellas turned inside out."
9.04.2003
9.03.2003
9.02.2003
8.28.2003
8.26.2003
8.25.2003
8.23.2003
Yahoo! News - Top Stories Protestors scream from behind a barricade as President Geroge W. Bush and his motorcade arrives at the home of telecommunications billionaire Craig McCaw for a $2,000-per-plate presidential reelection campaign fundraiser at the exclusive Hunts Point neighborhood near Seattle, Washington on August 22, 2003. Bush is visiting Washington State briefly after a two-day stop in Oregon. REUTERS/Anthony P. Bolante
8.22.2003
I ordered the brand new Power Mac G5 and so now I'm just waiting to receive it. Once I get it, I will continue with my Video Blog section. If you are interested in Video Blogs then you should check out:
VOG
Demand Media
Blogumentary
Media Matters
VOG
Demand Media
Blogumentary
Media Matters
8.20.2003
The Likely Story: Bush "Changes Tone" on Iraq; Huge Explosion
Bush "Changes Tone" on Iraq; Huge Explosion
A massive truckbomb ripped through the UN headquarters in Iraq killing at least 15. The casulties included the chief U.N. official in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello. The security council issued a statement of resolve, but UN officials acknowledged the attack would seriously setback the UN mission in Iraq.
Meanwhile, President Bush was receiving several updates from Condi Rice while he enjoyed a game of golf. Later, Bush decided he'd better get back to his ranch to 'monitor events' related to the bombing. Recently, Bush has been decidedly upbeat about the 'progress' the occupation is making in Iraq despite all evidence to the contrary. Once again, he's chosen idealogy and faith-based foreign policy over the undue hassle of facts and reason.
He's spoken enthusiastically about international troops and their help in reconstruction as our soldiers die every day, renowned camera men are shot dead at close range, oil lines are blown completely apart, riots erupt in Basra and other parts of the Shia south, the US incites riots in Sadr City ... now, he's decided to 'change the tone':
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."
George Bush President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended May 1, 2003
This was his story then. Now, Bush would like to dump that USS Abraham Lincoln speech as historical revisionism. President Bush now admits that combat operations are not over. Dana Milbank at the Washington Post has carefully searched his speeches and found that this is an entirely new revelation for Bush.
Bush Revises Views On 'Combat' in Iraq
"Actually, major military operations," Bush replied. "Because we still have combat operations going on." Bush added: "It's a different kind of combat mission, but, nevertheless, it's combat, just ask the kids that are over there killing and being shot at."
In his May 1 speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, Bush declared: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country." The headline on the White House site above Bush's May 1 speech is "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended."
Since then, a search of Bush speeches on the White House Web site indicates, the president had not spoken of the guerrilla fighting in Iraq as combat until this interview; he had earlier spoken of the "cessation of combat" in Iraq.
The article also relates several other examples of historical revisionism. I'm sure Tim Russert will be happy to pounce on the fact that Bush wasn't aware of troop strength issues in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, I'm sure Bush will just snap back that all problems stem from Russert and NBC war-mongering. Sheesh.
UPDATE
Holy historical revisionism Batman! The WH has changed the title of the Lincoln speech posthumously. The WaPo article gives the title as 'combat operations' and now the WH gives it 'major combat operations'. Never fear, google has the play by play. How telling that the only folks supporting the WH version are the freepers. Hilarious. I don't know why the WH is so concerned over the word 'major' as it is absolutely evident that both 'major combat operations' and 'combat operations' have not ended. Bush loses either way.
ANOTHER UPDATE
Justo Y. Equilibrado noted the last modified date on the WH Abraham Lincoln page: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:53:04 GMT These White House baffoons are sooooooooo sad! Here are some screenshots for posterity: image1, image2, image3, image4. (Thanks for the last one Atrios)
YET ANOTHER UPDATE
These dimwits can't help themselves. The White House web team is systematically going through their archive of the USS Abraham Lincoln speech and inserting 'major' in every document. I don't know which is funnier, their inept attempt to play historical revisionists OR the fact that we're watching this (unbeknownst to them) in real time as they do it. These crackpots should lose their jobs. I wonder which White House staffer saw the Washington Post piece and thought, hey, what a wonderfully idea it'd be to instruct the web team to insert 'major' into the title of all these files. Check out the idiots at work: image5. I'm writing to Dana Milbank to alert the WaPo to what they are doing, but perhaps you folks would like to write too: whitehouse@washpost.com
Posted by Adam in MA at August 19, 2003 01:39 PM
Bush "Changes Tone" on Iraq; Huge Explosion
A massive truckbomb ripped through the UN headquarters in Iraq killing at least 15. The casulties included the chief U.N. official in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello. The security council issued a statement of resolve, but UN officials acknowledged the attack would seriously setback the UN mission in Iraq.
Meanwhile, President Bush was receiving several updates from Condi Rice while he enjoyed a game of golf. Later, Bush decided he'd better get back to his ranch to 'monitor events' related to the bombing. Recently, Bush has been decidedly upbeat about the 'progress' the occupation is making in Iraq despite all evidence to the contrary. Once again, he's chosen idealogy and faith-based foreign policy over the undue hassle of facts and reason.
He's spoken enthusiastically about international troops and their help in reconstruction as our soldiers die every day, renowned camera men are shot dead at close range, oil lines are blown completely apart, riots erupt in Basra and other parts of the Shia south, the US incites riots in Sadr City ... now, he's decided to 'change the tone':
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."
George Bush President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended May 1, 2003
This was his story then. Now, Bush would like to dump that USS Abraham Lincoln speech as historical revisionism. President Bush now admits that combat operations are not over. Dana Milbank at the Washington Post has carefully searched his speeches and found that this is an entirely new revelation for Bush.
Bush Revises Views On 'Combat' in Iraq
"Actually, major military operations," Bush replied. "Because we still have combat operations going on." Bush added: "It's a different kind of combat mission, but, nevertheless, it's combat, just ask the kids that are over there killing and being shot at."
In his May 1 speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, Bush declared: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country." The headline on the White House site above Bush's May 1 speech is "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended."
Since then, a search of Bush speeches on the White House Web site indicates, the president had not spoken of the guerrilla fighting in Iraq as combat until this interview; he had earlier spoken of the "cessation of combat" in Iraq.
The article also relates several other examples of historical revisionism. I'm sure Tim Russert will be happy to pounce on the fact that Bush wasn't aware of troop strength issues in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of course, I'm sure Bush will just snap back that all problems stem from Russert and NBC war-mongering. Sheesh.
UPDATE
Holy historical revisionism Batman! The WH has changed the title of the Lincoln speech posthumously. The WaPo article gives the title as 'combat operations' and now the WH gives it 'major combat operations'. Never fear, google has the play by play. How telling that the only folks supporting the WH version are the freepers. Hilarious. I don't know why the WH is so concerned over the word 'major' as it is absolutely evident that both 'major combat operations' and 'combat operations' have not ended. Bush loses either way.
ANOTHER UPDATE
Justo Y. Equilibrado noted the last modified date on the WH Abraham Lincoln page: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:53:04 GMT These White House baffoons are sooooooooo sad! Here are some screenshots for posterity: image1, image2, image3, image4. (Thanks for the last one Atrios)
YET ANOTHER UPDATE
These dimwits can't help themselves. The White House web team is systematically going through their archive of the USS Abraham Lincoln speech and inserting 'major' in every document. I don't know which is funnier, their inept attempt to play historical revisionists OR the fact that we're watching this (unbeknownst to them) in real time as they do it. These crackpots should lose their jobs. I wonder which White House staffer saw the Washington Post piece and thought, hey, what a wonderfully idea it'd be to instruct the web team to insert 'major' into the title of all these files. Check out the idiots at work: image5. I'm writing to Dana Milbank to alert the WaPo to what they are doing, but perhaps you folks would like to write too: whitehouse@washpost.com
Posted by Adam in MA at August 19, 2003 01:39 PM
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China's 'lucky' phone number The number 8888 8888 is highly auspicious in China. It may be lucky for some, but is the telephone number 8888 8888 really worth paying 2.33m yuan ($280,000) for?
sandiego.indymedia.org | Protesters jeer Bush in San Diego-4 Arrested I love the photo with the guy holding the sign that reads "YEE-HAH is not a foreign policy".
8.19.2003
US notches world's highest incarceration rate | csmonitor.comfrom the August 18, 2003 edition. A report highlights extent to which many citizens have served time in prison. By Gail Russell Chaddock | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Goths
Circle I Limbo
fruit booters
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind
Militant Vegans
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow
General asshats
Circle IV Rolling Weights
Creationists
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled
River Styx
NAMBLA Members
Circle VI Buried for Eternity
River Phlegyas
Republicans
Circle VII Burning Sands
Osama bin Laden
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement
George Bush
Circle IX Frozen in Ice
8.18.2003
The Kansas City Star
Bush toy was not much fun.
By MATT LITTLE Special to The Star
Dear Blue Box:
With great disappointment, I am returning the George W. Bush �action figure,� which you will find enclosed in this package. I am seeking a full refund for this defective toy for the following reasons:
� Despite its billing as an action figure to pair up with my GI Joes, it was obviously not made to be a soldier. Never mind the lack of any scar on its face. The bigger problem is that I cannot find any weapons of mass destruction anywhere in the box. Heck, I can't find any weapons at all!
� When I pull the string to make it talk, the results are muffled and unintelligible or make no sense at all. Is this supposed to be some kind of rotten joke on your customers?
� Every time I turn the doll upside down and shake it, white powder comes out. What's with that?
� Even worse, my GI Joe dolls don't seem to like this one at all, and I'm beginning to understand why:
All last week, during the grueling sandbox battles in my backyard between my GI Joes and the hideous armies of Grog, the GW Bush doll was missing. I thought it was lost for good. But then, after my GI Joes won the day and made the sandbox safe again, there the Bush doll was, front and center, looking splendid and unruffled in pristine army fatigues. Evidently it'd been playing dress-up all week with my sister's Ken doll but was right there to take the credit for the GI Joe's victory.
My GI Joes are all saying that the GW Bush doll is stealing money out of their pockets and giving it to my sister's Ken and Barbie dolls. I didn't believe this at first, but this afternoon I spied a nice, new dollhouse in my sister's room and now I'm thinking it must be so.
I'm certain you can understand my desire to return this toy to you. Your quality control supervisor must be asleep on the job. Frankly, I don't know why you even produced this doll in the first place. If you value your reputation at all, you will recall it immediately.
All this is terrible, but the worst part of all is that this is not the doll I originally ordered! I carefully filled out the order form, yet the toy I received was not the one I expected. I wonder how many other customers ended up with a different �action figure� than the one they requested. I hope the rumor that you cannot correct this error for two more years is untrue.
Please either send me the action figure I ordered or refund my money. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Matt Little is a marketing, communications and design consultant who lives in Overland Park.
Bush toy was not much fun.
By MATT LITTLE Special to The Star
Dear Blue Box:
With great disappointment, I am returning the George W. Bush �action figure,� which you will find enclosed in this package. I am seeking a full refund for this defective toy for the following reasons:
� Despite its billing as an action figure to pair up with my GI Joes, it was obviously not made to be a soldier. Never mind the lack of any scar on its face. The bigger problem is that I cannot find any weapons of mass destruction anywhere in the box. Heck, I can't find any weapons at all!
� When I pull the string to make it talk, the results are muffled and unintelligible or make no sense at all. Is this supposed to be some kind of rotten joke on your customers?
� Every time I turn the doll upside down and shake it, white powder comes out. What's with that?
� Even worse, my GI Joe dolls don't seem to like this one at all, and I'm beginning to understand why:
All last week, during the grueling sandbox battles in my backyard between my GI Joes and the hideous armies of Grog, the GW Bush doll was missing. I thought it was lost for good. But then, after my GI Joes won the day and made the sandbox safe again, there the Bush doll was, front and center, looking splendid and unruffled in pristine army fatigues. Evidently it'd been playing dress-up all week with my sister's Ken doll but was right there to take the credit for the GI Joe's victory.
My GI Joes are all saying that the GW Bush doll is stealing money out of their pockets and giving it to my sister's Ken and Barbie dolls. I didn't believe this at first, but this afternoon I spied a nice, new dollhouse in my sister's room and now I'm thinking it must be so.
I'm certain you can understand my desire to return this toy to you. Your quality control supervisor must be asleep on the job. Frankly, I don't know why you even produced this doll in the first place. If you value your reputation at all, you will recall it immediately.
All this is terrible, but the worst part of all is that this is not the doll I originally ordered! I carefully filled out the order form, yet the toy I received was not the one I expected. I wonder how many other customers ended up with a different �action figure� than the one they requested. I hope the rumor that you cannot correct this error for two more years is untrue.
Please either send me the action figure I ordered or refund my money. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Matt Little is a marketing, communications and design consultant who lives in Overland Park.
8.17.2003
Yahoo! News - Entertainment Photos - Reuters
Actor Gary Coleman (news) and adult film actress Mary Carey, both candidates for governor of California in the October 7, 2003 recall election, pose at a press conference in Los Angeles, August 15, 2003. Coleman and Carey are two of the five candidates who will be participating in a televised election spoof on Oct. 1. (Fred Prouser/Reuters)
Actor Gary Coleman (news) and adult film actress Mary Carey, both candidates for governor of California in the October 7, 2003 recall election, pose at a press conference in Los Angeles, August 15, 2003. Coleman and Carey are two of the five candidates who will be participating in a televised election spoof on Oct. 1. (Fred Prouser/Reuters)
8.16.2003
The New York Times on the Web I love this headline: "Lights Go On After Biggest Blackout, But Not Without 2nd Day of Suffering". Its funny how a day without electricity means suffering when an average of 24 000 people a day die from malnutrition and preventable illnesses.
Iraqis Offer Tips Over U.S. Blackout
Fri Aug 15, 9:32 AM ET
By NIKO PRICE, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqis who have suffered for months with little electricity gloated Friday over a blackout in the northeastern United States and southern Canada and offered some tips to help Americans beat the heat.
From frequent showers to rooftop slumber parties, Iraqis have developed advanced techniques to adapt to life without electricity.
Daily highs have soared above 120 degrees recently as Iraq (news - web sites)'s U.S. administrators have been unable to get power back to prewar levels. Some said it was poetic justice that some Americans should suffer the same fate, if only briefly.
"Let them taste what we have tasted," said Ali Abdul Hussein, selling "Keep Cold" brand ice chests on a sidewalk. "Let them sit outside drinking tea and smoking cigarettes waiting for the power to come back, just like the Iraqis."
Here are some tips from the streets of Baghdad:
_ SLEEP ON THE ROOF. Without power � and hence without air conditioning � Iraqis have taken to climbing up stairs in the hot nights. Some install metal bed frames on rooftops, while others simply stretch out on thin mattresses. "It's cooler there," said Hadia Zeydan Khalaf, 38.
_ SIT IN THE SHADE. Many Iraqis head outside when the power's off. "We sit in the shade," said George Ruweid, 27, playing cards with friends on the sidewalk. Of the U.S. blackout, he said: "I hope it lasts for 20 years. Let them feel our suffering."
_ HEAD FOR THE WATER. "We go to the river, just like in the old days," said Saleh Moayet, 53.
_ SHOWER FREQUENTLY. "I take showers all day," said Raed Ali, 33.
_ BUY BLOCKS OF ICE. Mohammed Abdul Zahara, 24, sells about 20 a day from a roadside table.
_ GET A GENERATOR. Abbas Abdul al-Amir, 53, has one of a long row of shops selling generators in Baghdad's Karadah shopping street. When the power goes out, sales go up, he said.
_ CALL IN THE IRAQIS. Some suggested the Americans ask the Iraqis how to get the power going again. "Let them take experts from Iraq," said Alaa Hussein, 32, waiting in a long line for gas because there was no electricity for the pumps. "Our experts have a lot of experience in these matters."
Story Link
Iraqis Offer Tips Over U.S. Blackout
Fri Aug 15, 9:32 AM ET
By NIKO PRICE, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqis who have suffered for months with little electricity gloated Friday over a blackout in the northeastern United States and southern Canada and offered some tips to help Americans beat the heat.
From frequent showers to rooftop slumber parties, Iraqis have developed advanced techniques to adapt to life without electricity.
Daily highs have soared above 120 degrees recently as Iraq (news - web sites)'s U.S. administrators have been unable to get power back to prewar levels. Some said it was poetic justice that some Americans should suffer the same fate, if only briefly.
"Let them taste what we have tasted," said Ali Abdul Hussein, selling "Keep Cold" brand ice chests on a sidewalk. "Let them sit outside drinking tea and smoking cigarettes waiting for the power to come back, just like the Iraqis."
Here are some tips from the streets of Baghdad:
_ SLEEP ON THE ROOF. Without power � and hence without air conditioning � Iraqis have taken to climbing up stairs in the hot nights. Some install metal bed frames on rooftops, while others simply stretch out on thin mattresses. "It's cooler there," said Hadia Zeydan Khalaf, 38.
_ SIT IN THE SHADE. Many Iraqis head outside when the power's off. "We sit in the shade," said George Ruweid, 27, playing cards with friends on the sidewalk. Of the U.S. blackout, he said: "I hope it lasts for 20 years. Let them feel our suffering."
_ HEAD FOR THE WATER. "We go to the river, just like in the old days," said Saleh Moayet, 53.
_ SHOWER FREQUENTLY. "I take showers all day," said Raed Ali, 33.
_ BUY BLOCKS OF ICE. Mohammed Abdul Zahara, 24, sells about 20 a day from a roadside table.
_ GET A GENERATOR. Abbas Abdul al-Amir, 53, has one of a long row of shops selling generators in Baghdad's Karadah shopping street. When the power goes out, sales go up, he said.
_ CALL IN THE IRAQIS. Some suggested the Americans ask the Iraqis how to get the power going again. "Let them take experts from Iraq," said Alaa Hussein, 32, waiting in a long line for gas because there was no electricity for the pumps. "Our experts have a lot of experience in these matters."
Story Link
8.15.2003
8.14.2003
Blackout New york Times Shot 1. A huge power failure swept through parts of the Northeast, Midwest and Canada today, shutting down trains, subways and airports from New York City to Detroit, forcing people into the streets.
Blackout New york Times Shot 2. Passengers on the downtown A train were stuck underground for two hours before being led out by MTA employees.
Blackout New york Times Shot 3. Transit workers escorted riders off a subway car on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.
Blackout New york Times Shot 4. Pedestrians clogged the Brooklyn Bridge as the power outage brought life to a standstill.
Blackout New york Times Shot 5. The hallways of Saint Vincent's Hospital in Manhattan were dark after the blackout. Power generators lit emergency and patient care areas.
Blackout New york Times Shot 6. The whole of the city was dark and the setting sun painted one building.
People poured onto 8th Avenue, outside the Port Authority, unable to leave the city.
8.12.2003
<------------ Video Blog Entry #3
This is a little montage of pictures and video from various times in my life. The song is from Amelie.
This is a little montage of pictures and video from various times in my life. The song is from Amelie.
8.11.2003
8.10.2003
<------------ Video Blog Entry #2
On April 22 2001 I went to Quebec city to protests against the Free Trade Area of the Americas. This little clip sums up what took place that day.
On April 22 2001 I went to Quebec city to protests against the Free Trade Area of the Americas. This little clip sums up what took place that day.
WhiteHouseforSale.org | Home Page
Tracking the influence of private money in President Bush's re-election campaign. So far, donors have given Bush: $46,950,000.00
Tracking the influence of private money in President Bush's re-election campaign. So far, donors have given Bush: $46,950,000.00
8.09.2003
Funny email forward:
HOW TO POOP AT WORK*
We've all been there but don't like to admit it. We've all kicked back in our cubicles and suddenly felt something brewing down below. As much as we try to convince ourselves otherwise, the WORK POOP is inevitable. For those who hate pooping at work, following is the Survival Guide for taking a dump at work.
CROP DUSTING
When farting, you walk really fast around the office so the smell is not in your area and everyone else gets a whiff but doesn't know where it came from. Be careful when you do this. Do not stop until the full fart has been expelled. Walk an extra 30 feet to make sure the smell has left your pants.
FLY BY
The act of scouting out a bathroom before pooping. Walk in and check for other poopers. If there are others in the bathroom, leave and come back again. Be careful not to become a FREQUENT FLYER. People may become suspicious if they catch you constantly going into the bathroom.
ESCAPEE
A fart that slips out while taking a leak at the urinal or forcing a poop in a stall. This is usually accompanied by a sudden wave of embarrassment. If you release an escapee, do not acknowledge it. Pretend it did not happen. If you are standing next to the farter in the urinal, pretend you did not hear it. No one likes an escapee. It is uncomfortable for all involved. Making a joke or laughing makes both parties feel uneasy.
JAILBREAK
When forcing a poop, several farts slip out at a machine gun pace. This is usually a side effect of diarrhea or a hangover. If this should happen, do not panic. Remain in the stall until everyone has left the bathroom to spare everyone the awkwardness of what just occurred.
COURTESY FLUSH
The act of flushing the toilet the instant the poop hits the water. This reduces the amount of air time the poop has to stink up the bathroom. This can help you avoid being caught doing the WALK OF SHAME.
WALK OF SHAME
Walking from the stall, to the sink, to the door after you have just stunk up the bathroom. This can be a very uncomfortable moment if someone walks in and busts you. As with farts, it is best to pretend that the smell does not exist. Can be avoided with the use of the COURTESY FLUSH.
OUT OF THE CLOSET POOPER
A colleague who poops at work and is damn proud of it. You will often see an Out Of The Closet Pooper enter the bathroom with a newspaper or magazine under their arm. Always look around the office for the Out Of The Closet Pooper before entering the bathroom.
THE POOPING FRIENDS NETWORK (P.F.N)
A group of co-workers who band together to ensure emergency pooping goes off without incident. This group can help you to monitor the whereabouts of Out Of The Closet Poopers, and identify SAFE HAVENS.
SAFE HAVENS
A seldom used bathroom somewhere in the building where you can least expect visitors. Try floors that are predominantly of the opposite sex. This will reduce the odds of a pooper of your sex entering the bathroom.
TURD BURGLAR
Someone who does not realize that you are in the stall and tries to force the door open. This is one of the most shocking and vulnerable moments that can occur when taking a poop at work. If this occurs, remain in the stall until the Turd Burglar leaves. This way you will avoid all uncomfortable eye contact.
CAMO-COUGH
A phony cough that alerts all new entrants into the bathroom that you are in a stall. This can be used to cover-up a WATERMELON, or to alert potential Turd Burglars. Very effective when used in conjunction with an ASTAIRE.
ASTAIRE
A subtle toe-tap that is used to alert potential Turd Burglars that you are occupying a stall. This will remove all doubt that the stall is occupied. If you hear an Astaire, leave the bathroom immediately so the pooper can poop in peace.
WATERMELON
A poop that creates a loud splash when hitting the toilet water. This is also an embarrassing incident. If you feel a Watermelon coming on, create a diversion.
See CAMO-COUGH.
HAVANAOMELET
A case of diarrhea that creates a series of loud splashes in the toilet water. Often accompanied by an Escapee. Try using a Camo-Cough with an Astaire.
UNCLE TED
A bathroom user who seems to linger around forever. Could spend extended lengths of time in front of the mirror or sitting on the pot. An Uncle Ted makes it difficult to relax while on the crapper, as you should always wait to poop when the bathroom is empty. This benefits you as well as the other bathroom attendees.
Funny email forward.
HOW TO POOP AT WORK*
We've all been there but don't like to admit it. We've all kicked back in our cubicles and suddenly felt something brewing down below. As much as we try to convince ourselves otherwise, the WORK POOP is inevitable. For those who hate pooping at work, following is the Survival Guide for taking a dump at work.
CROP DUSTING
When farting, you walk really fast around the office so the smell is not in your area and everyone else gets a whiff but doesn't know where it came from. Be careful when you do this. Do not stop until the full fart has been expelled. Walk an extra 30 feet to make sure the smell has left your pants.
FLY BY
The act of scouting out a bathroom before pooping. Walk in and check for other poopers. If there are others in the bathroom, leave and come back again. Be careful not to become a FREQUENT FLYER. People may become suspicious if they catch you constantly going into the bathroom.
ESCAPEE
A fart that slips out while taking a leak at the urinal or forcing a poop in a stall. This is usually accompanied by a sudden wave of embarrassment. If you release an escapee, do not acknowledge it. Pretend it did not happen. If you are standing next to the farter in the urinal, pretend you did not hear it. No one likes an escapee. It is uncomfortable for all involved. Making a joke or laughing makes both parties feel uneasy.
JAILBREAK
When forcing a poop, several farts slip out at a machine gun pace. This is usually a side effect of diarrhea or a hangover. If this should happen, do not panic. Remain in the stall until everyone has left the bathroom to spare everyone the awkwardness of what just occurred.
COURTESY FLUSH
The act of flushing the toilet the instant the poop hits the water. This reduces the amount of air time the poop has to stink up the bathroom. This can help you avoid being caught doing the WALK OF SHAME.
WALK OF SHAME
Walking from the stall, to the sink, to the door after you have just stunk up the bathroom. This can be a very uncomfortable moment if someone walks in and busts you. As with farts, it is best to pretend that the smell does not exist. Can be avoided with the use of the COURTESY FLUSH.
OUT OF THE CLOSET POOPER
A colleague who poops at work and is damn proud of it. You will often see an Out Of The Closet Pooper enter the bathroom with a newspaper or magazine under their arm. Always look around the office for the Out Of The Closet Pooper before entering the bathroom.
THE POOPING FRIENDS NETWORK (P.F.N)
A group of co-workers who band together to ensure emergency pooping goes off without incident. This group can help you to monitor the whereabouts of Out Of The Closet Poopers, and identify SAFE HAVENS.
SAFE HAVENS
A seldom used bathroom somewhere in the building where you can least expect visitors. Try floors that are predominantly of the opposite sex. This will reduce the odds of a pooper of your sex entering the bathroom.
TURD BURGLAR
Someone who does not realize that you are in the stall and tries to force the door open. This is one of the most shocking and vulnerable moments that can occur when taking a poop at work. If this occurs, remain in the stall until the Turd Burglar leaves. This way you will avoid all uncomfortable eye contact.
CAMO-COUGH
A phony cough that alerts all new entrants into the bathroom that you are in a stall. This can be used to cover-up a WATERMELON, or to alert potential Turd Burglars. Very effective when used in conjunction with an ASTAIRE.
ASTAIRE
A subtle toe-tap that is used to alert potential Turd Burglars that you are occupying a stall. This will remove all doubt that the stall is occupied. If you hear an Astaire, leave the bathroom immediately so the pooper can poop in peace.
WATERMELON
A poop that creates a loud splash when hitting the toilet water. This is also an embarrassing incident. If you feel a Watermelon coming on, create a diversion.
See CAMO-COUGH.
HAVANAOMELET
A case of diarrhea that creates a series of loud splashes in the toilet water. Often accompanied by an Escapee. Try using a Camo-Cough with an Astaire.
UNCLE TED
A bathroom user who seems to linger around forever. Could spend extended lengths of time in front of the mirror or sitting on the pot. An Uncle Ted makes it difficult to relax while on the crapper, as you should always wait to poop when the bathroom is empty. This benefits you as well as the other bathroom attendees.
Funny email forward.
The Globe and Mail
By GEOFFREY YORK
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Beijing � A senior Pentagon adviser has given details of a war strategy for invading North Korea and toppling its regime within 30 to 60 days, adding muscle to a lobbying campaign by U.S. hawks urging a pre-emptive military strike against Pyongyang's nuclear facilities.
Less than four months after the end of the Iraq war, the war drums in Washington have begun pounding again. A growing number of influential U.S. leaders are talking openly of military action against North Korea to destroy its nuclear-weapons program, and even those who prefer negotiations are warning of the mounting danger of war.
Some analysts predict that North Korea could test a nuclear warhead by the end of this year � an event that could cross the "red line" that would provoke a U.S. attack.
The tensions were heightened by a recent exchange of gunfire across the border between North Korean and South Korean soldiers. Talks between U.S. and North Korean officials are expected to be held in Beijing soon, but nobody is predicting an imminent diplomatic agreement, especially after North Korea denounced a U.S. negotiator as a "bloodsucker" and "human scum."
Military conflict in the Korean peninsula could trigger a catastrophe, not only because of the suspected presence of nuclear bombs in North Korea, but also because of the 11,000 North Korean artillery weapons along the border that could inflict death and destruction on millions of people in the South Korean capital, Seoul, which is within artillery range of the North's guns.
Former CIA director James Woolsey, a Pentagon adviser and close ally of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, gave the most explicit glimpse into the thinking of U.S. military planners this week when he revealed the details of a possible plan of attack against North Korea.
The plan would include 4,000 daily air strikes against North Korean targets, the deployment of cruise missiles and stealth aircraft to destroy the Yongbyon nuclear plant and other nuclear facilities, the stationing of U.S. Marine forces off the coasts of North Korea to threaten a land attack on Pyongyang, the deployment of two additional U.S. Army divisions to bolster South Korean troops in a land offensive against North Korea, and the call-up of National Guard and Reserve units to replace U.S. combat forces that are currently bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Massive air power is the key to being able both to destroy Yongbyon and to protect South Korea from attack by missile or artillery," Mr. Woolsey wrote this week in the Wall Street Journal in an article co-written by retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant-General Thomas McInerney.
"We believe the use of air power in such a war would be swifter and more devastating than it was in Iraq," the article said. "We judge that the U.S. and South Korea could defeat North Korea decisively in 30 to 60 days with such a strategy."
Mr. Woolsey and Lt.-Gen. McInerney said the U.S. should already be preparing "to assess realistically what it would take to conduct a successful military operation to change the North Korean regime."
They acknowledged the risk that U.S. military strikes could trigger an explosion of radiation from North Korean nuclear plants, along with massive artillery attacks against Seoul by the North Korean heavy guns that are hidden in hardened underground bunkers on the border.
But U.S. cruise missiles and stealth aircraft could launch precision bombing attacks that would "minimize radiation leakage" at Yongbyon, while also sealing shut the underground bunkers where the artillery pieces are hidden, they said.
They warned that a war could soon become necessary to prevent North Korea from selling weapons-grade plutonium to "rogue states" and terrorist organizations. "The world has weeks to months, at most, to deal with this issue, not months to years," Mr. Woolsey and Lt.-Gen. McInerney wrote.
Similar warnings were issued recently by William Perry, the former U.S. defence secretary, who said North Korea and the United States were drifting toward war � perhaps as early as this year.
Mr. Perry said the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is "losing control" of the North Korean nuclear crisis, making it possible for Pyongyang to begin selling nuclear weapons to terrorists soon. "The nuclear program now under way in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities," he told The Washington Post.
He said North Korea seems to have begun reprocessing some of the 8,000 spent fuel rods from a closed nuclear plant. This could allow Pyongyang to build up to six nuclear bombs in the next six months. "I have thought for some months that if the North Koreans moved toward processing," he said, "then we are on a path toward war."
By GEOFFREY YORK
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
By GEOFFREY YORK
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Beijing � A senior Pentagon adviser has given details of a war strategy for invading North Korea and toppling its regime within 30 to 60 days, adding muscle to a lobbying campaign by U.S. hawks urging a pre-emptive military strike against Pyongyang's nuclear facilities.
Less than four months after the end of the Iraq war, the war drums in Washington have begun pounding again. A growing number of influential U.S. leaders are talking openly of military action against North Korea to destroy its nuclear-weapons program, and even those who prefer negotiations are warning of the mounting danger of war.
Some analysts predict that North Korea could test a nuclear warhead by the end of this year � an event that could cross the "red line" that would provoke a U.S. attack.
The tensions were heightened by a recent exchange of gunfire across the border between North Korean and South Korean soldiers. Talks between U.S. and North Korean officials are expected to be held in Beijing soon, but nobody is predicting an imminent diplomatic agreement, especially after North Korea denounced a U.S. negotiator as a "bloodsucker" and "human scum."
Military conflict in the Korean peninsula could trigger a catastrophe, not only because of the suspected presence of nuclear bombs in North Korea, but also because of the 11,000 North Korean artillery weapons along the border that could inflict death and destruction on millions of people in the South Korean capital, Seoul, which is within artillery range of the North's guns.
Former CIA director James Woolsey, a Pentagon adviser and close ally of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, gave the most explicit glimpse into the thinking of U.S. military planners this week when he revealed the details of a possible plan of attack against North Korea.
The plan would include 4,000 daily air strikes against North Korean targets, the deployment of cruise missiles and stealth aircraft to destroy the Yongbyon nuclear plant and other nuclear facilities, the stationing of U.S. Marine forces off the coasts of North Korea to threaten a land attack on Pyongyang, the deployment of two additional U.S. Army divisions to bolster South Korean troops in a land offensive against North Korea, and the call-up of National Guard and Reserve units to replace U.S. combat forces that are currently bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Massive air power is the key to being able both to destroy Yongbyon and to protect South Korea from attack by missile or artillery," Mr. Woolsey wrote this week in the Wall Street Journal in an article co-written by retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant-General Thomas McInerney.
"We believe the use of air power in such a war would be swifter and more devastating than it was in Iraq," the article said. "We judge that the U.S. and South Korea could defeat North Korea decisively in 30 to 60 days with such a strategy."
Mr. Woolsey and Lt.-Gen. McInerney said the U.S. should already be preparing "to assess realistically what it would take to conduct a successful military operation to change the North Korean regime."
They acknowledged the risk that U.S. military strikes could trigger an explosion of radiation from North Korean nuclear plants, along with massive artillery attacks against Seoul by the North Korean heavy guns that are hidden in hardened underground bunkers on the border.
But U.S. cruise missiles and stealth aircraft could launch precision bombing attacks that would "minimize radiation leakage" at Yongbyon, while also sealing shut the underground bunkers where the artillery pieces are hidden, they said.
They warned that a war could soon become necessary to prevent North Korea from selling weapons-grade plutonium to "rogue states" and terrorist organizations. "The world has weeks to months, at most, to deal with this issue, not months to years," Mr. Woolsey and Lt.-Gen. McInerney wrote.
Similar warnings were issued recently by William Perry, the former U.S. defence secretary, who said North Korea and the United States were drifting toward war � perhaps as early as this year.
Mr. Perry said the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is "losing control" of the North Korean nuclear crisis, making it possible for Pyongyang to begin selling nuclear weapons to terrorists soon. "The nuclear program now under way in North Korea poses an imminent danger of nuclear weapons being detonated in American cities," he told The Washington Post.
He said North Korea seems to have begun reprocessing some of the 8,000 spent fuel rods from a closed nuclear plant. This could allow Pyongyang to build up to six nuclear bombs in the next six months. "I have thought for some months that if the North Koreans moved toward processing," he said, "then we are on a path toward war."
By GEOFFREY YORK
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
8.08.2003
MoveOn.org: Democracy in Action
Former Vice President Al Gore
Remarks to MoveOn.org
New York University
August 7, 2003
-AS PREPARED-
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Thank you for your investment of time and energy in gathering here today. I would especially like to thank Moveon.org for sponsoring this event, and the NYU College Democrats for co-sponsoring the speech and for hosting us.
Some of you may remember that my last formal public address on these topics was delivered in San Francisco, a little less than a year ago, when I argued that the President's case for urgent, unilateral, pre-emptive war in Iraq was less than convincing and needed to be challenged more effectively by the Congress.
In light of developments since then, you might assume that my purpose today is to revisit the manner in which we were led into war. To some extent, that will be the case - but only as part of a larger theme that I feel should now be explored on an urgent basis.
The direction in which our nation is being led is deeply troubling to me -- not only in Iraq but also here at home on economic policy, social policy and environmental policy.
Millions of Americans now share a feeling that something pretty basic has gone wrong in our country and that some important American values are being placed at risk. And they want to set it right.
The way we went to war in Iraq illustrates this larger problem. Normally, we Americans lay the facts on the table, talk through the choices before us and make a decision. But that didn't really happen with this war -- not the way it should have. And as a result, too many of our soldiers are paying the highest price, for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments, and historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harm's way.
I'm convinced that one of the reasons that we didn't have a better public debate before the Iraq War started is because so many of the impressions that the majority of the country had back then turn out to have been completely wrong. Leaving aside for the moment the question of how these false impressions got into the public's mind, it might be healthy to take a hard look at the ones we now know were wrong and clear the air so that we can better see exactly where we are now and what changes might need to be made.
In any case, what we now know to have been false impressions include the following:
(1) Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attack against us on September 11th, 2001, so a good way to respond to that attack would be to invade his country and forcibly remove him from power.
(2) Saddam was working closely with Osama Bin Laden and was actively supporting members of the Al Qaeda terrorist group, giving them weapons and money and bases and training, so launching a war against Iraq would be a good way to stop Al Qaeda from attacking us again.
(3) Saddam was about to give the terrorists poison gas and deadly germs that he had made into weapons which they could use to kill millions of Americans. Therefore common sense alone dictated that we should send our military into Iraq in order to protect our loved ones and ourselves against a grave threat.
(4) Saddam was on the verge of building nuclear bombs and giving them to the terrorists. And since the only thing preventing Saddam from acquiring a nuclear arsenal was access to enriched uranium, once our spies found out that he had bought the enrichment technology he needed and was actively trying to buy uranium from Africa, we had very little time left. Therefore it seemed imperative during last Fall's election campaign to set aside less urgent issues like the economy and instead focus on the congressional resolution approving war against Iraq.
(5) Our GI's would be welcomed with open arms by cheering Iraqis who would help them quickly establish public safety, free markets and Representative Democracy, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US soldiers would get bogged down in a guerrilla war.
(6) Even though the rest of the world was mostly opposed to the war, they would quickly fall in line after we won and then contribute lots of money and soldiers to help out, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US taxpayers would get stuck with a huge bill.
Now, of course, everybody knows that every single one of these impressions was just dead wrong.
For example, according to the just-released Congressional investigation, Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks of Sept. 11. Therefore, whatever other goals it served -- and it did serve some other goals -- the decision to invade Iraq made no sense as a way of exacting revenge for 9/11. To the contrary, the US pulled significant intelligence resources out of Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to get ready for the rushed invasion of Iraq and that disrupted the search for Osama at a critical time. And the indifference we showed to the rest of the world's opinion in the process undermined the global cooperation we need to win the war against terrorism.
In the same way, the evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama Bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction. So our invasion of Iraq had no effect on Al Qaeda, other than to boost their recruiting efforts.
And on the nuclear issue of course, it turned out that those documents were actually forged by somebody -- though we don't know who.
As for the cheering Iraqi crowds we anticipated, unfortunately, that didn't pan out either, so now our troops are in an ugly and dangerous situation.
Moreover, the rest of the world certainly isn't jumping in to help out very much the way we expected, so US taxpayers are now having to spend a billion dollars a week.
In other words, when you put it all together, it was just one mistaken impression after another. Lots of them.
And it's not just in foreign policy. The same thing has been happening in economic policy, where we've also got another huge and threatening mess on our hands. I'm convinced that one reason we've had so many nasty surprises in our economy is that the country somehow got lots of false impressions about what we could expect from the big tax cuts that were enacted, including:
(1) The tax cuts would unleash a lot of new investment that would create lots of new jobs.
(2) We wouldn't have to worry about a return to big budget deficits -- because all the new growth in the economy caused by the tax cuts would lead to a lot of new revenue.
(3) Most of the benefits would go to average middle-income families, not to the wealthy, as some partisans claimed.
Unfortunately, here too, every single one of these impressions turned out to be wrong. Instead of creating jobs, for example, we are losing millions of jobs -- net losses for three years in a row. That hasn't happened since the Great Depression. As I've noted before, I was the first one laid off.
And it turns out that most of the benefits actually are going to the highest income Americans, who unfortunately are the least likely group to spend money in ways that create jobs during times when the economy is weak and unemployment is rising.
And of course the budget deficits are already the biggest ever - with the worst still due to hit us. As a percentage of our economy, we've had bigger ones -- but these are by far the most dangerous we've ever had for two reasons: first, they're not temporary; they're structural and long-term; second, they are going to get even bigger just at the time when the big baby-boomer retirement surge starts.
Moreover, the global capital markets have begun to recognize the unprecedented size of this emerging fiscal catastrophe. In truth, the current Executive Branch of the U.S. Government is radically different from any since the McKinley Administration 100 years ago.
The 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, George Akerlof, went even further last week in Germany when he told Der Spiegel, "This is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history...This is not normal government policy." In describing the impact of the Bush policies on America's future, Akerloff added, "What we have here is a form of looting."
Ominously, the capital markets have just pushed U.S. long-term mortgage rates higher soon after the Federal Reserve Board once again reduced discount rates. Monetary policy loses some of its potency when fiscal policy comes unglued. And after three years of rate cuts in a row, Alan Greenspan and his colleagues simply don't have much room left for further reductions.
This situation is particularly dangerous right now for several reasons: first because home-buying fueled by low rates (along with car-buying, also a rate-sensitive industry) have been just about the only reliable engines pulling the economy forward; second, because so many Americans now have Variable Rate Mortgages; and third, because average personal debt is now at an all-time high -- a lot of Americans are living on the edge.
It seems obvious that big and important issues like the Bush economic policy and the first Pre-emptive War in U.S. history should have been debated more thoroughly in the Congress, covered more extensively in the news media, and better presented to the American people before our nation made such fateful choices. But that didn't happen, and in both cases, reality is turning out to be very different from the impression that was given when the votes -- and the die -- were cast.
Since this curious mismatch between myth and reality has suddenly become commonplace and is causing such extreme difficulty for the nation's ability to make good choices about our future, maybe it is time to focus on how in the world we could have gotten so many false impressions in such a short period of time.
At first, I thought maybe the President's advisers were a big part of the problem. Last fall, in a speech on economic policy at the Brookings Institution, I called on the President to get rid of his whole economic team and pick a new group. And a few weeks later, damned if he didn't do just that - and at least one of the new advisers had written eloquently about the very problems in the Bush economic policy that I was calling upon the President to fix.
But now, a year later, we still have the same bad economic policies and the problems have, if anything, gotten worse. So obviously I was wrong: changing all the president's advisers didn't work as a way of changing the policy.
I remembered all that last month when everybody was looking for who ought to be held responsible for the false statements in the President's State of the Union Address. And I've just about concluded that the real problem may be the President himself and that next year we ought to fire him and get a new one.
But whether you agree with that conclusion or not, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican -- or an Independent, a Libertarian, a Green or a Mugwump -- you've got a big stake in making sure that Representative Democracy works the way it is supposed to. And today, it just isn't working very well. We all need to figure out how to fix it because we simply cannot keep on making such bad decisions on the basis of false impressions and mistaken assumptions.
Earlier, I mentioned the feeling many have that something basic has gone wrong. Whatever it is, I think it has a lot to do with the way we seek the truth and try in good faith to use facts as the basis for debates about our future -- allowing for the unavoidable tendency we all have to get swept up in our enthusiasms.
That last point is worth highlighting. Robust debate in a democracy will almost always involve occasional rhetorical excesses and leaps of faith, and we're all used to that. I've even been guilty of it myself on occasion. But there is a big difference between that and a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that is felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty.
Unfortunately, I think it is no longer possible to avoid the conclusion that what the country is dealing with in the Bush Presidency is the latter. That is really the nub of the problem -- the common source for most of the false impressions that have been frustrating the normal and healthy workings of our democracy.
Americans have always believed that we the people have a right to know the truth and that the truth will set us free. The very idea of self-government depends upon honest and open debate as the preferred method for pursuing the truth -- and a shared respect for the Rule of Reason as the best way to establish the truth.
The Bush Administration routinely shows disrespect for that whole basic process, and I think it's partly because they feel as if they already know the truth and aren't very curious to learn about any facts that might contradict it. They and the members of groups that belong to their ideological coalition are true believers in each other's agendas.
There are at least a couple of problems with this approach:
First, powerful and wealthy groups and individuals who work their way into the inner circle -- with political support or large campaign contributions -- are able to add their own narrow special interests to the list of favored goals without having them weighed against the public interest or subjected to the rule of reason. And the greater the conflict between what they want and what's good for the rest of us, the greater incentive they have to bypass the normal procedures and keep it secret.
That's what happened, for example, when Vice President Cheney invited all of those oil and gas industry executives to meet in secret sessions with him and his staff to put their wish lists into the administration's legislative package in early 2001.
That group wanted to get rid of the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming, of course, and the Administration pulled out of it first thing. The list of people who helped write our nation's new environmental and energy policies is still secret, and the Vice President won't say whether or not his former company, Halliburton, was included. But of course, as practically everybody in the world knows, Halliburton was given a huge open-ended contract to take over and run the Iraqi oil fields-- without having to bid against any other companies.
Secondly, when leaders make up their minds on a policy without ever having to answer hard questions about whether or not it's good or bad for the American people as a whole, they can pretty quickly get into situations where it's really uncomfortable for them to defend what they've done with simple and truthful explanations. That's when they're tempted to fuzz up the facts and create false impressions. And when other facts start to come out that undermine the impression they're trying to maintain, they have a big incentive to try to keep the truth bottled up if -- they can -- or distort it.
For example, a couple of weeks ago, the White House ordered its own EPA to strip important scientific information about the dangers of global warming out of a public report. Instead, the White House substituted information that was partly paid for by the American Petroleum Institute. This week, analysts at the Treasury Department told a reporter that they're now being routinely ordered to change their best analysis of what the consequences of the Bush tax laws are likely to be for the average person.
Here is the pattern that I see: the President's mishandling of and selective use of the best evidence available on the threat posed by Iraq is pretty much the same as the way he intentionally distorted the best available evidence on climate change, and rejected the best available evidence on the threat posed to America's economy by his tax and budget proposals.
In each case, the President seems to have been pursuing policies chosen in advance of the facts -- policies designed to benefit friends and supporters -- and has used tactics that deprived the American people of any opportunity to effectively subject his arguments to the kind of informed scrutiny that is essential in our system of checks and balances.
The administration has developed a highly effective propaganda machine to imbed in the public mind mythologies that grow out of the one central doctrine that all of the special interests agree on, which -- in its purest form -- is that government is very bad and should be done away with as much as possible -- except the parts of it that redirect money through big contracts to industries that have won their way into the inner circle.
For the same reasons they push the impression that government is bad, they also promote the myth that there really is no such thing as the public interest. What's important to them is private interests. And what they really mean is that those who have a lot of wealth should be left alone, rather than be called upon to reinvest in society through taxes.
Perhaps the biggest false impression of all lies in the hidden social objectives of this Administration that are advertised with the phrase "compassionate conservatism" -- which they claim is a new departure with substantive meaning. But in reality, to be compassionate is meaningless, if compassion is limited to the mere awareness of the suffering of others. The test of compassion is action. What the administration offers with one hand is the rhetoric of compassion; what it takes away with the other hand are the financial resources necessary to make compassion something more than an empty and fading impression.
Maybe one reason that false impressions have a played a bigger role than they should is that both Congress and the news media have been less vigilant and exacting than they should have been in the way they have tried to hold the Administration accountable.
Whenever both houses of Congress are controlled by the President's party, there is a danger of passivity and a temptation for the legislative branch to abdicate its constitutional role. If the party in question is unusually fierce in demanding ideological uniformity and obedience, then this problem can become even worse and prevent the Congress from properly exercising oversight. Under these circumstances, the majority party in the Congress has a special obligation to the people to permit full Congressional inquiry and oversight rather than to constantly frustrate and prevent it.
Whatever the reasons for the recent failures to hold the President properly accountable, America has a compelling need to quickly breathe new life into our founders' system of checks and balances -- because some extremely important choices about our future are going to be made shortly, and it is imperative that we avoid basing them on more false impressions.
One thing the President could do to facilitate the restoration of checks and balances is to stop blocking reasonable efforts from the Congress to play its rightful role. For example, he could order his appointees to cooperate fully with the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, headed by former Republican Governor Tom Kean. And he should let them examine how the White House handled the warnings that are said to have been given to the President by the intelligence community.
Two years ago yesterday, for example, according to the Wall Street Journal, the President was apparently advised in specific language that Al Qaeda was going to hijack some airplanes to conduct a terrorist strike inside the U.S.
I understand his concern about people knowing exactly what he read in the privacy of the Oval Office, and there is a legitimate reason for treating such memos to the President with care. But that concern has to be balanced against the national interest in improving the way America deals with such information. And the apparently chaotic procedures that were used to handle the forged nuclear documents from Niger certainly show evidence that there is room for improvement in the way the White House is dealing with intelligence memos. Along with other members of the previous administration, I certainly want the commission to have access to any and all documents sent to the White House while we were there that have any bearing on this issue. And President Bush should let the commission see the ones that he read too.
After all, this President has claimed the right for his executive branch to send his assistants into every public library in America and secretly monitor what the rest of us are reading. That's been the law ever since the Patriot Act was enacted. If we have to put up with such a broad and extreme invasion of our privacy rights in the name of terrorism prevention, surely he can find a way to let this National Commission know how he and his staff handled a highly specific warning of terrorism just 36 days before 9/11.
And speaking of the Patriot Act, the president ought to reign in John Ashcroft and stop the gross abuses of civil rights that twice have been documented by his own Inspector General. And while he's at it, he needs to reign in Donald Rumsfeld and get rid of that DoD "Total Information Awareness" program that's right out of George Orwell's 1984.
The administration hastened from the beginning to persuade us that defending America against terror cannot be done without seriously abridging the protections of the Constitution for American citizens, up to and including an asserted right to place them in a form of limbo totally beyond the authority of our courts. And that view is both wrong and fundamentally un-American.
But the most urgent need for new oversight of the Executive Branch and the restoration of checks and balances is in the realm of our security, where the Administration is asking that we accept a whole cluster of new myths:
For example, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was an effort to strike a bargain between states possessing nuclear weapons and all others who had pledged to refrain from developing them. This administration has rejected it and now, incredibly, wants to embark on a new program to build a brand new generation of smaller (and it hopes, more usable) nuclear bombs. In my opinion, this would be true madness -- and the point of no return to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -- even as we and our allies are trying to prevent a nuclear testing breakout by North Korea and Iran.
Similarly, the Kyoto treaty is an historic effort to strike a grand bargain between free-market capitalism and the protection of the global environment, now gravely threatened by rapidly accelerating warming of the Earth's atmosphere and the consequent disruption of climate patterns that have persisted throughout the entire history of civilization as we know it. This administration has tried to protect the oil and coal industries from any restrictions at all -- though Kyoto may become legally effective for global relations even without U.S. participation.
Ironically, the principal cause of global warming is our civilization's addiction to burning massive quantities carbon-based fuels, including principally oil -- the most important source of which is the Persian Gulf, where our soldiers have been sent for the second war in a dozen years -- at least partly to ensure our continued access to oil.
We need to face the fact that our dangerous and unsustainable consumption of oil from a highly unstable part of the world is similar in its consequences to all other addictions. As it becomes worse, the consequences get more severe and you have to pay the dealer more.
And by now, it is obvious to most Americans that we have had one too many wars in the Persian Gulf and that we need an urgent effort to develop environmentally sustainable substitutes for fossil fuels and a truly international effort to stabilize the Persian Gulf and rebuild Iraq.
The removal of Saddam from power is a positive accomplishment in its own right for which the President deserves credit, just as he deserves credit for removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. But in the case of Iraq, we have suffered enormous collateral damage because of the manner in which the Administration went about the invasion. And in both cases, the aftermath has been badly mishandled.
The administration is now trying to give the impression that it is in favor of NATO and UN participation in such an effort. But it is not willing to pay the necessary price, which is support of a new UN Resolution and genuine sharing of control inside Iraq.
If the 21st century is to be well started, we need a national agenda that is worked out in concert with the people, a healing agenda that is built on a true national consensus. Millions of Americans got the impression that George W. Bush wanted to be a "healer, not a divider", a president devoted first and foremost to "honor and integrity." Yet far from uniting the people, the president's ideologically narrow agenda has seriously divided America. His most partisan supporters have launched a kind of 'civil cold war' against those with whom they disagree.
And as for honor and integrity, let me say this: we know what that was all about, but hear me well, not as a candidate for any office, but as an American citizen who loves my country:
For eight years, the Clinton-Gore Administration gave this nation honest budget numbers; an economic plan with integrity that rescued the nation from debt and stagnation; honest advocacy for the environment; real compassion for the poor; a strengthening of our military -- as recently proven -- and a foreign policy whose purposes were elevated, candidly presented and courageously pursued, in the face of scorched-earth tactics by the opposition. That is also a form of honor and integrity, and not every administration in recent memory has displayed it.
So I would say to those who have found the issue of honor and integrity so useful as a political tool, that the people are also looking for these virtues in the execution of public policy on their behalf, and will judge whether they are present or absent.
I am proud that my party has candidates for president committed to those values. I admire the effort and skill they are putting into their campaigns. I am not going to join them, but later in the political cycle I will endorse one of them, because I believe that we must stand for a future in which the United States will again be feared only by its enemies; in which our country will again lead the effort to create an international order based on the rule of law; a nation which upholds fundamental rights even for those it believes to be its captured enemies; a nation whose financial house is in order; a nation where the market place is kept healthy by effective government scrutiny; a country which does what is necessary to provide for the health, education, and welfare of our people; a society in which citizens of all faiths enjoy equal standing; a republic once again comfortable that its chief executive knows the limits as well as the powers of the presidency; a nation that places the highest value on facts, not ideology, as the basis for all its great debates and decisions.
Former Vice President Al Gore
Remarks to MoveOn.org
New York University
August 7, 2003
Former Vice President Al Gore
Remarks to MoveOn.org
New York University
August 7, 2003
-AS PREPARED-
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Thank you for your investment of time and energy in gathering here today. I would especially like to thank Moveon.org for sponsoring this event, and the NYU College Democrats for co-sponsoring the speech and for hosting us.
Some of you may remember that my last formal public address on these topics was delivered in San Francisco, a little less than a year ago, when I argued that the President's case for urgent, unilateral, pre-emptive war in Iraq was less than convincing and needed to be challenged more effectively by the Congress.
In light of developments since then, you might assume that my purpose today is to revisit the manner in which we were led into war. To some extent, that will be the case - but only as part of a larger theme that I feel should now be explored on an urgent basis.
The direction in which our nation is being led is deeply troubling to me -- not only in Iraq but also here at home on economic policy, social policy and environmental policy.
Millions of Americans now share a feeling that something pretty basic has gone wrong in our country and that some important American values are being placed at risk. And they want to set it right.
The way we went to war in Iraq illustrates this larger problem. Normally, we Americans lay the facts on the table, talk through the choices before us and make a decision. But that didn't really happen with this war -- not the way it should have. And as a result, too many of our soldiers are paying the highest price, for the strategic miscalculations, serious misjudgments, and historic mistakes that have put them and our nation in harm's way.
I'm convinced that one of the reasons that we didn't have a better public debate before the Iraq War started is because so many of the impressions that the majority of the country had back then turn out to have been completely wrong. Leaving aside for the moment the question of how these false impressions got into the public's mind, it might be healthy to take a hard look at the ones we now know were wrong and clear the air so that we can better see exactly where we are now and what changes might need to be made.
In any case, what we now know to have been false impressions include the following:
(1) Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attack against us on September 11th, 2001, so a good way to respond to that attack would be to invade his country and forcibly remove him from power.
(2) Saddam was working closely with Osama Bin Laden and was actively supporting members of the Al Qaeda terrorist group, giving them weapons and money and bases and training, so launching a war against Iraq would be a good way to stop Al Qaeda from attacking us again.
(3) Saddam was about to give the terrorists poison gas and deadly germs that he had made into weapons which they could use to kill millions of Americans. Therefore common sense alone dictated that we should send our military into Iraq in order to protect our loved ones and ourselves against a grave threat.
(4) Saddam was on the verge of building nuclear bombs and giving them to the terrorists. And since the only thing preventing Saddam from acquiring a nuclear arsenal was access to enriched uranium, once our spies found out that he had bought the enrichment technology he needed and was actively trying to buy uranium from Africa, we had very little time left. Therefore it seemed imperative during last Fall's election campaign to set aside less urgent issues like the economy and instead focus on the congressional resolution approving war against Iraq.
(5) Our GI's would be welcomed with open arms by cheering Iraqis who would help them quickly establish public safety, free markets and Representative Democracy, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US soldiers would get bogged down in a guerrilla war.
(6) Even though the rest of the world was mostly opposed to the war, they would quickly fall in line after we won and then contribute lots of money and soldiers to help out, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US taxpayers would get stuck with a huge bill.
Now, of course, everybody knows that every single one of these impressions was just dead wrong.
For example, according to the just-released Congressional investigation, Saddam had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks of Sept. 11. Therefore, whatever other goals it served -- and it did serve some other goals -- the decision to invade Iraq made no sense as a way of exacting revenge for 9/11. To the contrary, the US pulled significant intelligence resources out of Pakistan and Afghanistan in order to get ready for the rushed invasion of Iraq and that disrupted the search for Osama at a critical time. And the indifference we showed to the rest of the world's opinion in the process undermined the global cooperation we need to win the war against terrorism.
In the same way, the evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama Bin Laden at all, much less give him weapons of mass destruction. So our invasion of Iraq had no effect on Al Qaeda, other than to boost their recruiting efforts.
And on the nuclear issue of course, it turned out that those documents were actually forged by somebody -- though we don't know who.
As for the cheering Iraqi crowds we anticipated, unfortunately, that didn't pan out either, so now our troops are in an ugly and dangerous situation.
Moreover, the rest of the world certainly isn't jumping in to help out very much the way we expected, so US taxpayers are now having to spend a billion dollars a week.
In other words, when you put it all together, it was just one mistaken impression after another. Lots of them.
And it's not just in foreign policy. The same thing has been happening in economic policy, where we've also got another huge and threatening mess on our hands. I'm convinced that one reason we've had so many nasty surprises in our economy is that the country somehow got lots of false impressions about what we could expect from the big tax cuts that were enacted, including:
(1) The tax cuts would unleash a lot of new investment that would create lots of new jobs.
(2) We wouldn't have to worry about a return to big budget deficits -- because all the new growth in the economy caused by the tax cuts would lead to a lot of new revenue.
(3) Most of the benefits would go to average middle-income families, not to the wealthy, as some partisans claimed.
Unfortunately, here too, every single one of these impressions turned out to be wrong. Instead of creating jobs, for example, we are losing millions of jobs -- net losses for three years in a row. That hasn't happened since the Great Depression. As I've noted before, I was the first one laid off.
And it turns out that most of the benefits actually are going to the highest income Americans, who unfortunately are the least likely group to spend money in ways that create jobs during times when the economy is weak and unemployment is rising.
And of course the budget deficits are already the biggest ever - with the worst still due to hit us. As a percentage of our economy, we've had bigger ones -- but these are by far the most dangerous we've ever had for two reasons: first, they're not temporary; they're structural and long-term; second, they are going to get even bigger just at the time when the big baby-boomer retirement surge starts.
Moreover, the global capital markets have begun to recognize the unprecedented size of this emerging fiscal catastrophe. In truth, the current Executive Branch of the U.S. Government is radically different from any since the McKinley Administration 100 years ago.
The 2001 winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics, George Akerlof, went even further last week in Germany when he told Der Spiegel, "This is the worst government the US has ever had in its more than 200 years of history...This is not normal government policy." In describing the impact of the Bush policies on America's future, Akerloff added, "What we have here is a form of looting."
Ominously, the capital markets have just pushed U.S. long-term mortgage rates higher soon after the Federal Reserve Board once again reduced discount rates. Monetary policy loses some of its potency when fiscal policy comes unglued. And after three years of rate cuts in a row, Alan Greenspan and his colleagues simply don't have much room left for further reductions.
This situation is particularly dangerous right now for several reasons: first because home-buying fueled by low rates (along with car-buying, also a rate-sensitive industry) have been just about the only reliable engines pulling the economy forward; second, because so many Americans now have Variable Rate Mortgages; and third, because average personal debt is now at an all-time high -- a lot of Americans are living on the edge.
It seems obvious that big and important issues like the Bush economic policy and the first Pre-emptive War in U.S. history should have been debated more thoroughly in the Congress, covered more extensively in the news media, and better presented to the American people before our nation made such fateful choices. But that didn't happen, and in both cases, reality is turning out to be very different from the impression that was given when the votes -- and the die -- were cast.
Since this curious mismatch between myth and reality has suddenly become commonplace and is causing such extreme difficulty for the nation's ability to make good choices about our future, maybe it is time to focus on how in the world we could have gotten so many false impressions in such a short period of time.
At first, I thought maybe the President's advisers were a big part of the problem. Last fall, in a speech on economic policy at the Brookings Institution, I called on the President to get rid of his whole economic team and pick a new group. And a few weeks later, damned if he didn't do just that - and at least one of the new advisers had written eloquently about the very problems in the Bush economic policy that I was calling upon the President to fix.
But now, a year later, we still have the same bad economic policies and the problems have, if anything, gotten worse. So obviously I was wrong: changing all the president's advisers didn't work as a way of changing the policy.
I remembered all that last month when everybody was looking for who ought to be held responsible for the false statements in the President's State of the Union Address. And I've just about concluded that the real problem may be the President himself and that next year we ought to fire him and get a new one.
But whether you agree with that conclusion or not, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican -- or an Independent, a Libertarian, a Green or a Mugwump -- you've got a big stake in making sure that Representative Democracy works the way it is supposed to. And today, it just isn't working very well. We all need to figure out how to fix it because we simply cannot keep on making such bad decisions on the basis of false impressions and mistaken assumptions.
Earlier, I mentioned the feeling many have that something basic has gone wrong. Whatever it is, I think it has a lot to do with the way we seek the truth and try in good faith to use facts as the basis for debates about our future -- allowing for the unavoidable tendency we all have to get swept up in our enthusiasms.
That last point is worth highlighting. Robust debate in a democracy will almost always involve occasional rhetorical excesses and leaps of faith, and we're all used to that. I've even been guilty of it myself on occasion. But there is a big difference between that and a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that is felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty.
Unfortunately, I think it is no longer possible to avoid the conclusion that what the country is dealing with in the Bush Presidency is the latter. That is really the nub of the problem -- the common source for most of the false impressions that have been frustrating the normal and healthy workings of our democracy.
Americans have always believed that we the people have a right to know the truth and that the truth will set us free. The very idea of self-government depends upon honest and open debate as the preferred method for pursuing the truth -- and a shared respect for the Rule of Reason as the best way to establish the truth.
The Bush Administration routinely shows disrespect for that whole basic process, and I think it's partly because they feel as if they already know the truth and aren't very curious to learn about any facts that might contradict it. They and the members of groups that belong to their ideological coalition are true believers in each other's agendas.
There are at least a couple of problems with this approach:
First, powerful and wealthy groups and individuals who work their way into the inner circle -- with political support or large campaign contributions -- are able to add their own narrow special interests to the list of favored goals without having them weighed against the public interest or subjected to the rule of reason. And the greater the conflict between what they want and what's good for the rest of us, the greater incentive they have to bypass the normal procedures and keep it secret.
That's what happened, for example, when Vice President Cheney invited all of those oil and gas industry executives to meet in secret sessions with him and his staff to put their wish lists into the administration's legislative package in early 2001.
That group wanted to get rid of the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming, of course, and the Administration pulled out of it first thing. The list of people who helped write our nation's new environmental and energy policies is still secret, and the Vice President won't say whether or not his former company, Halliburton, was included. But of course, as practically everybody in the world knows, Halliburton was given a huge open-ended contract to take over and run the Iraqi oil fields-- without having to bid against any other companies.
Secondly, when leaders make up their minds on a policy without ever having to answer hard questions about whether or not it's good or bad for the American people as a whole, they can pretty quickly get into situations where it's really uncomfortable for them to defend what they've done with simple and truthful explanations. That's when they're tempted to fuzz up the facts and create false impressions. And when other facts start to come out that undermine the impression they're trying to maintain, they have a big incentive to try to keep the truth bottled up if -- they can -- or distort it.
For example, a couple of weeks ago, the White House ordered its own EPA to strip important scientific information about the dangers of global warming out of a public report. Instead, the White House substituted information that was partly paid for by the American Petroleum Institute. This week, analysts at the Treasury Department told a reporter that they're now being routinely ordered to change their best analysis of what the consequences of the Bush tax laws are likely to be for the average person.
Here is the pattern that I see: the President's mishandling of and selective use of the best evidence available on the threat posed by Iraq is pretty much the same as the way he intentionally distorted the best available evidence on climate change, and rejected the best available evidence on the threat posed to America's economy by his tax and budget proposals.
In each case, the President seems to have been pursuing policies chosen in advance of the facts -- policies designed to benefit friends and supporters -- and has used tactics that deprived the American people of any opportunity to effectively subject his arguments to the kind of informed scrutiny that is essential in our system of checks and balances.
The administration has developed a highly effective propaganda machine to imbed in the public mind mythologies that grow out of the one central doctrine that all of the special interests agree on, which -- in its purest form -- is that government is very bad and should be done away with as much as possible -- except the parts of it that redirect money through big contracts to industries that have won their way into the inner circle.
For the same reasons they push the impression that government is bad, they also promote the myth that there really is no such thing as the public interest. What's important to them is private interests. And what they really mean is that those who have a lot of wealth should be left alone, rather than be called upon to reinvest in society through taxes.
Perhaps the biggest false impression of all lies in the hidden social objectives of this Administration that are advertised with the phrase "compassionate conservatism" -- which they claim is a new departure with substantive meaning. But in reality, to be compassionate is meaningless, if compassion is limited to the mere awareness of the suffering of others. The test of compassion is action. What the administration offers with one hand is the rhetoric of compassion; what it takes away with the other hand are the financial resources necessary to make compassion something more than an empty and fading impression.
Maybe one reason that false impressions have a played a bigger role than they should is that both Congress and the news media have been less vigilant and exacting than they should have been in the way they have tried to hold the Administration accountable.
Whenever both houses of Congress are controlled by the President's party, there is a danger of passivity and a temptation for the legislative branch to abdicate its constitutional role. If the party in question is unusually fierce in demanding ideological uniformity and obedience, then this problem can become even worse and prevent the Congress from properly exercising oversight. Under these circumstances, the majority party in the Congress has a special obligation to the people to permit full Congressional inquiry and oversight rather than to constantly frustrate and prevent it.
Whatever the reasons for the recent failures to hold the President properly accountable, America has a compelling need to quickly breathe new life into our founders' system of checks and balances -- because some extremely important choices about our future are going to be made shortly, and it is imperative that we avoid basing them on more false impressions.
One thing the President could do to facilitate the restoration of checks and balances is to stop blocking reasonable efforts from the Congress to play its rightful role. For example, he could order his appointees to cooperate fully with the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, headed by former Republican Governor Tom Kean. And he should let them examine how the White House handled the warnings that are said to have been given to the President by the intelligence community.
Two years ago yesterday, for example, according to the Wall Street Journal, the President was apparently advised in specific language that Al Qaeda was going to hijack some airplanes to conduct a terrorist strike inside the U.S.
I understand his concern about people knowing exactly what he read in the privacy of the Oval Office, and there is a legitimate reason for treating such memos to the President with care. But that concern has to be balanced against the national interest in improving the way America deals with such information. And the apparently chaotic procedures that were used to handle the forged nuclear documents from Niger certainly show evidence that there is room for improvement in the way the White House is dealing with intelligence memos. Along with other members of the previous administration, I certainly want the commission to have access to any and all documents sent to the White House while we were there that have any bearing on this issue. And President Bush should let the commission see the ones that he read too.
After all, this President has claimed the right for his executive branch to send his assistants into every public library in America and secretly monitor what the rest of us are reading. That's been the law ever since the Patriot Act was enacted. If we have to put up with such a broad and extreme invasion of our privacy rights in the name of terrorism prevention, surely he can find a way to let this National Commission know how he and his staff handled a highly specific warning of terrorism just 36 days before 9/11.
And speaking of the Patriot Act, the president ought to reign in John Ashcroft and stop the gross abuses of civil rights that twice have been documented by his own Inspector General. And while he's at it, he needs to reign in Donald Rumsfeld and get rid of that DoD "Total Information Awareness" program that's right out of George Orwell's 1984.
The administration hastened from the beginning to persuade us that defending America against terror cannot be done without seriously abridging the protections of the Constitution for American citizens, up to and including an asserted right to place them in a form of limbo totally beyond the authority of our courts. And that view is both wrong and fundamentally un-American.
But the most urgent need for new oversight of the Executive Branch and the restoration of checks and balances is in the realm of our security, where the Administration is asking that we accept a whole cluster of new myths:
For example, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was an effort to strike a bargain between states possessing nuclear weapons and all others who had pledged to refrain from developing them. This administration has rejected it and now, incredibly, wants to embark on a new program to build a brand new generation of smaller (and it hopes, more usable) nuclear bombs. In my opinion, this would be true madness -- and the point of no return to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty -- even as we and our allies are trying to prevent a nuclear testing breakout by North Korea and Iran.
Similarly, the Kyoto treaty is an historic effort to strike a grand bargain between free-market capitalism and the protection of the global environment, now gravely threatened by rapidly accelerating warming of the Earth's atmosphere and the consequent disruption of climate patterns that have persisted throughout the entire history of civilization as we know it. This administration has tried to protect the oil and coal industries from any restrictions at all -- though Kyoto may become legally effective for global relations even without U.S. participation.
Ironically, the principal cause of global warming is our civilization's addiction to burning massive quantities carbon-based fuels, including principally oil -- the most important source of which is the Persian Gulf, where our soldiers have been sent for the second war in a dozen years -- at least partly to ensure our continued access to oil.
We need to face the fact that our dangerous and unsustainable consumption of oil from a highly unstable part of the world is similar in its consequences to all other addictions. As it becomes worse, the consequences get more severe and you have to pay the dealer more.
And by now, it is obvious to most Americans that we have had one too many wars in the Persian Gulf and that we need an urgent effort to develop environmentally sustainable substitutes for fossil fuels and a truly international effort to stabilize the Persian Gulf and rebuild Iraq.
The removal of Saddam from power is a positive accomplishment in its own right for which the President deserves credit, just as he deserves credit for removing the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. But in the case of Iraq, we have suffered enormous collateral damage because of the manner in which the Administration went about the invasion. And in both cases, the aftermath has been badly mishandled.
The administration is now trying to give the impression that it is in favor of NATO and UN participation in such an effort. But it is not willing to pay the necessary price, which is support of a new UN Resolution and genuine sharing of control inside Iraq.
If the 21st century is to be well started, we need a national agenda that is worked out in concert with the people, a healing agenda that is built on a true national consensus. Millions of Americans got the impression that George W. Bush wanted to be a "healer, not a divider", a president devoted first and foremost to "honor and integrity." Yet far from uniting the people, the president's ideologically narrow agenda has seriously divided America. His most partisan supporters have launched a kind of 'civil cold war' against those with whom they disagree.
And as for honor and integrity, let me say this: we know what that was all about, but hear me well, not as a candidate for any office, but as an American citizen who loves my country:
For eight years, the Clinton-Gore Administration gave this nation honest budget numbers; an economic plan with integrity that rescued the nation from debt and stagnation; honest advocacy for the environment; real compassion for the poor; a strengthening of our military -- as recently proven -- and a foreign policy whose purposes were elevated, candidly presented and courageously pursued, in the face of scorched-earth tactics by the opposition. That is also a form of honor and integrity, and not every administration in recent memory has displayed it.
So I would say to those who have found the issue of honor and integrity so useful as a political tool, that the people are also looking for these virtues in the execution of public policy on their behalf, and will judge whether they are present or absent.
I am proud that my party has candidates for president committed to those values. I admire the effort and skill they are putting into their campaigns. I am not going to join them, but later in the political cycle I will endorse one of them, because I believe that we must stand for a future in which the United States will again be feared only by its enemies; in which our country will again lead the effort to create an international order based on the rule of law; a nation which upholds fundamental rights even for those it believes to be its captured enemies; a nation whose financial house is in order; a nation where the market place is kept healthy by effective government scrutiny; a country which does what is necessary to provide for the health, education, and welfare of our people; a society in which citizens of all faiths enjoy equal standing; a republic once again comfortable that its chief executive knows the limits as well as the powers of the presidency; a nation that places the highest value on facts, not ideology, as the basis for all its great debates and decisions.
Former Vice President Al Gore
Remarks to MoveOn.org
New York University
August 7, 2003
Blog Archive
-
►
2003
(994)
-
►
November
(56)
- Chortler -- Bush Personally Thanks Michael Jackson...
- RollingStone.comCrimes Against Nature: Bush is sab...
- The toppling of bush Hilarious that they put tony ...
- Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | War critics...
- Gizmodo : A bad time to call
- eBay item 3364369573 (Ends Nov-19-03 19:58:17 PST)...
- BUSH QUOTE: "'In some cases, the measured use o...
- A journalist infiltrates Buckingham Palace...
- BBC NEWS | Technology | Mobile users told ...
- Interwebnet.org - George W. Bush - welcome to Lond...
- "A Killer Comes to Town"
- New Zealand News - World - Protester scales Buckin...
- Scotsman.com News - Latest News - London Mayor Liv...
- London Mayor Livingstone Denounces President Bush...
- Wired News: Redford Retrofits Green Building ...
- Just because I'm in such a Bush-Bashing mood this ...
- Bush is going to London and he is going to get a n...
- Op-Ed Contributor: Op-Chart How is it really goin...
- Bush does an exclusive interview with The Sun (own...
- The War Within A great article written by a soldie...
- CBC Radio 3 | Music and Modern Media Another inter...
- Yahoo! News - Top Stories Photo op.
- CBC News: Date set for U.S. handover of power in I...
- Wired News: Mac Supercomputer Joins Elite Its off...
- Fast Company | The Wal-Mart You Don't Know
- Guerrillas Posing More Danger, Says U.S. More tro...
- PIONEER LAUNCHES REVOLUTIONARY DVJ-X1Pioneer has t...
- Wired News: Sex and Tech in the Fleshbot
- The Globe and Mail Ottawa — Jean Chrétien walk...
- MTV.com - News -Hey, You Guuuuuuys! 'Goonies' Dire...
- Brad Sucks Songs inspired by spam...
- Strongbad Email 88
- CBC News Indepth: Remembrance Day (a day late)
- WorkingForChange-This Modern World: Chicken Hawk ...
- Soros's Deep Pockets vs. Bush (washingtonpost.com)...
- In Flanders Fields In Flanders fields the poppi...
- Daze Reader: Paris Hilton sex tape in circulation ...
- Our family dog named Rawli passed away recently. ...
- Kevin Sites Blog Photo Essay: How a "sojo" (solo j...
- Fleshbot I think this is the first porn blog...
- TIME Magazine: Coolest Inventions 2003, Apple Musi...
- MoveOn.org: Democracy in Action As Prepared for D...
- Supreme Court Takes First Case on Guantanimo Detai...
- The truth about Jessica Lynch
- Jessica Lynch condemns Pentagon A US woman soldier...
- No crappy media center on mac Asked about Apple's ...
- Giving away a BILLION songs Fries with that?
- The Register Ipod challenger??? Sony Computer Ent...
- Too much INFORMATION More information has been pro...
-
►
November
(56)