KPHO reports on July 22,2010 how political candidates - including Governor Brewer, Senator McCain, and Senator Kyl - continue to exaggerate crime and illegal immigration in Arizona despite what the statistics demonstrate. As reporter Morgan Loew says, "Polling indicates that politicians that sound the most alarmist about how dangerous Arizona is get the highest approval ratings." See how this rhetoric harms Arizona tourism at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqPiCm...
Friday, July 23, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Why aren’t tea parties demanding that the government hold BP accountable on behalf of taxpayers? « Climate Progress
Why aren’t tea parties demanding that the government hold BP accountable on behalf of taxpayers? « Climate Progress
Tea Party activists’ self-proclaimed mission is to demand lower taxes. TEA, in fact, stands for Taxed Enough Already. As a part of this anti-tax crusade, the Tea Party has vehemently opposed comprehensive health reform, clean energy legislation, and even mandatory garbage collection.
Given that these protesters take their name from the Boston Tea Party, which was organized around protesting an unfair tax benefit given to a massive British corporation, and that British oil giant BP’s oil disaster could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars, you’d think that Tea Partiers would be demanding that the government hold BP accountable and make the corporation pay the full costs for its bad behavior, so that taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill. Yet they aren’t, as Think Progress explains in this cross-post.
The Tea Partiers haven’t descended on BP’s headquarters or marched on Capitol Hill demanding, for example, that the government lift the $75 million oil spill liability cap on BP so that the damages it pays aren’t severely limited. On the contrary, they’ve attacked President Obama for securing a $20 billion escrow fund from BP to recompense victims of its oil spill and cozied up to politicians who’ve sided with BP. As the Associated Press noted last week, “Tea Party candidates [have stood] by BP to rail against President Obama.” Here are just a few examples of Tea Party organizers and Tea Party-endorsed politicians siding with the foreign oil giant against American taxpayers:
If Tea Partiers truly want to defend taxpayers from facing undue burdens, it may be time for them to don their signs and demand that BP pay for the entire cost of its own disaster by lifting the oil spill liability cap and ask that the government end billions of dollars in special tax breaks for Big Oil (just as the original tea partiers wanted to end the tax advantages of the British East India Trading Company).
Cross posted from Think Progress.
Tea Party activists’ self-proclaimed mission is to demand lower taxes. TEA, in fact, stands for Taxed Enough Already. As a part of this anti-tax crusade, the Tea Party has vehemently opposed comprehensive health reform, clean energy legislation, and even mandatory garbage collection.
Given that these protesters take their name from the Boston Tea Party, which was organized around protesting an unfair tax benefit given to a massive British corporation, and that British oil giant BP’s oil disaster could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars, you’d think that Tea Partiers would be demanding that the government hold BP accountable and make the corporation pay the full costs for its bad behavior, so that taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill. Yet they aren’t, as Think Progress explains in this cross-post.
The Tea Partiers haven’t descended on BP’s headquarters or marched on Capitol Hill demanding, for example, that the government lift the $75 million oil spill liability cap on BP so that the damages it pays aren’t severely limited. On the contrary, they’ve attacked President Obama for securing a $20 billion escrow fund from BP to recompense victims of its oil spill and cozied up to politicians who’ve sided with BP. As the Associated Press noted last week, “Tea Party candidates [have stood] by BP to rail against President Obama.” Here are just a few examples of Tea Party organizers and Tea Party-endorsed politicians siding with the foreign oil giant against American taxpayers:
– Republican Study Committee chair Rep. Tom Price (R-GA), who headlined a Tax Day tea party in the nation’s capitol this year, derided the escrow fund as “Chicago-style shakedown politics.” [6/16/10]
– Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), who has proudly boasted of supporting the “Tea Party movement and the people getting involved,” echoed Price’s language as he apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayword for the White House’s “shakedown” it performed while trying to hold his company accountable. [6/17/10]
– Conservative talk show host and chairman of the Tea Party Express Mark Williams compared Obama’s efforts to secure the escrow fund to those of “mobsters,” and added that where he comes “from, they call it extortion.” [6/21/10]
– The “tea party favorite” in the Oklahoma GOP gubenatorial primary, state senator Randy Brogdon, said that BP’s oil disaster was “a perfect example of why government should never be involved in the private sector,” while blasting efforts to properly regulate the foreign oil giant so that it couldn’t cause more devastation in the future. [6/21/10]
Without tough government action to make sure that BP pays for the own costs of its own disaster and doesn’t drop the tab on taxpayers — as leading right-wing figures like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue and House minority leader John Boehner (OH) have suggested — it is likely that the oil company will get off easy, much like Exxon did following its own oil disaster two decades ago.
If Tea Partiers truly want to defend taxpayers from facing undue burdens, it may be time for them to don their signs and demand that BP pay for the entire cost of its own disaster by lifting the oil spill liability cap and ask that the government end billions of dollars in special tax breaks for Big Oil (just as the original tea partiers wanted to end the tax advantages of the British East India Trading Company).
Cross posted from Think Progress.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
From Wyoming to my Friends in Alaska and Sarah Palin- "Happy Quitter's Day!"
Yes, we know this is a joyous holiday in Alaska, and across America, as one year ago, the Great Narcissistic Alaskan Troglodyte, also known as Sarah Heath Palin the 1st, or for people like me, G.N.A.T. resigned her governorship so she could make lots and lots of money. It's around $15,000,000.00 for the first year, which is pretty damn good if you ask me. It is far better then the paltry $120,000.00 she made as a mere governor of the state defending our northern borders and airspace against the great Russian onslaught with their once mighty air force and military. Shoot, what are we going to do now? What is going to happen to Alaska? We're doomed! To help refresh everyone's memory, here she is giving her infamous resignation speech. Here is her word salad of illogical logic and absurdity. I am guessing she uses the infamous dartboard technique when she writes her word salad, but I'll let you decide.
Here it is a Warp Speed-
Here is the "QuitSpeech" in all its glory, full of tortured metaphors, circular whackjobbery, and one big fat bowl of word salad. And remember, staying and finishing the job is ” a quitter’s way out.”
And now, at regular speed -
And now to lighten things up a little, this neat and strange video I found while surfing the internets.-
Tomorrow is the 4th of July, when some 234 years ago, our "Founding Father's" declared their colonies independence from England! It is one great document that everyone should read every now and then! Happy 4th of July America, and I wish you well during these turbulent times we are now facing. I think of how divided we are as a country, and how those with the loudest mouth's seem to be dictating our fate, regardless of how insane they really are. We have become an under-educated citizenry, with many not doing their homework, which is necessary in a free constitutional republic. And yes, the media is also to blame, as many have forgotten what journalism is truly all about.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
Well, enjoy the 4th of July, and be careful out there.
Good night and good luck!
Here it is a Warp Speed-
Here is the "QuitSpeech" in all its glory, full of tortured metaphors, circular whackjobbery, and one big fat bowl of word salad. And remember, staying and finishing the job is ” a quitter’s way out.”
And now, at regular speed -
And now to lighten things up a little, this neat and strange video I found while surfing the internets.-
Tomorrow is the 4th of July, when some 234 years ago, our "Founding Father's" declared their colonies independence from England! It is one great document that everyone should read every now and then! Happy 4th of July America, and I wish you well during these turbulent times we are now facing. I think of how divided we are as a country, and how those with the loudest mouth's seem to be dictating our fate, regardless of how insane they really are. We have become an under-educated citizenry, with many not doing their homework, which is necessary in a free constitutional republic. And yes, the media is also to blame, as many have forgotten what journalism is truly all about.
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean
Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton
Well, enjoy the 4th of July, and be careful out there.
Good night and good luck!
Monday, June 7, 2010
Did the Bush Administration Experiment on Detainees? | Mother Jones
Did the Bush Administration Experiment on Detainees? | Mother Jones
Not only were terrorism suspects tortured, they were also used as human guinea pigs, a new report alleges.
Sun Jun. 6, 2010 9:00 PM PDT
In the course of trying to prove that its "enhanced" interrogation program was legal, the Bush administration may have broken the law, according to a new report (PDF) by Physicians for Human Rights. The watchdog group claims that in an attempt to establish that brutal interrogation tactics did not constitute torture, the administration ended up effectively experimenting on terrorism detainees. This research, PHR alleges, violated an array of regulations and treaties, including international guidelines on human testing put in place after the Holocaust.
According to the report, which draws on numerous declassified government documents, "medical professionals working for and on behalf of the CIA" frequently monitored detainee interrogations, gathering data on the effectiveness of various interrogation techniques and the pain threshholds of detainees. This information was then used to "enhance" future interrogations, PHR contends.
By monitoring post-9/11 interrogations and keeping records on the effectiveness of various techniques, medical professionals could also provide Bush administration lawyers with the information they needed to set guidelines for the use of so-called "enhanced" interrogation tactics. For instance, attorneys in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) who were devising the legal rationale for the interrogation program could use the research to determine how many times a detainee could be waterboarded. Or, based on the observations of the medical personnel monitoring the interrogation sessions, they could assess whether it was legally justifiable to administer techniques like stress positions or water dousing in combination or whether these methods needed to be applied separately.Physicians for Human Rights makes the case that since human subject research is defined as the "systematic collection of data and/or identifiable personal information for the purpose of drawing generalizable inferences," what the Bush administration was doing amounted to human experimentation:
Human experimentation without the consent of the subject is a violation of international human rights law to which the United States is subject; federal statutes; the Common Rule, which comprises the federal regulations for research on human subjects and applies to 17 federal agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense; and universally accepted health professional ethics, including the Nuremberg Code... Human experimentation on detainees also can constitute a war crime and a crime against humanity in certain circumstances.
Ironically, one goal of the "experimentation" seems to have been to immunize Bush administration officials and CIA interrogators from potential prosecution for torture. In the series of legal papers that are now popularly known as the "torture memos," Justice Department lawyers argued that medical monitoring would demonstrate that interrogators didn't intend to harm detainees; that "lack of intent to cause harm" could then serve as the cornerstone of a legal defense should an interrogator be targeted for prosecution. In 2003, in an internal CIA memo cited in the PHR report, the CIA's general counsel, Scott Muller, argued that medical monitoring of interrogations and "reviewing evidence gained from past experience where available (including experience gained in the course of U.S. interrogations of detainees)" would allow interrogators to inoculate themselves against claims of torture because it "established" they didn't intend to cause harm to the detainees.
The Bush administration believed that the medical teams could boost their legal defense in another way, too. In the memos, the OLC lawyers formulated a legal threshold for the level of pain that constituted torture. In a memo drafted on March 14, 2003, John Yoo, a primary author of the torture memos, defined that boundary as treatment leading to "long-term" mental harm or pain and suffering equal to or greater than that caused by organ failure or death. So one purpose of the medical monitoring project was to insure that the techniques interrogators were using did not breach that bright line.
One document cited in the PHR report highlights this practice especially well. On May 10, 2005, then-OLC head Steven Bradbury wrote to then-CIA acting general counsel John Rizzo about the legality of using multiple interrogation techniques simultaneously, as opposed to one by one. Referring directly to data gathered by the CIA's Office of Medical Services, Bradbury decided that both methods were okay:
PHR claims that in addition to the data on simultaneous and sequential application of interrogation techniques, the experimentation program focused on two other areas of research: the safety and effectiveness of waterboarding and the effects of sleep deprivation. In each case, PHR points to declassified documents in which Bush administration officials acknowledge how medical information gathered during interrogations is being aggregated and used to inform future questioning.
There is some evidence to suggest that someone in the Bush administration may have realized they could be vulnerable to charges of illegal experimentation. The Military Commissions Act, passed by Congress in 2006, amended the 1996 War Crimes Act, a law that imposes criminal penalties for "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Specifically, the language on illegal "biological experiments" was weakened. The new law no longer requires that an experiment be carried out in the interest of the subject in order to be legal. (Research on how to make torture more effective is clearly not in the interest of the person who is going to be tortured.) In addition, it allows experiments that do not "endanger" the subject—rather than simply prohibiting all experiments that "are not justified by the medical, dental, or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest," as the previous version did.
The PHR report doesn't produce a smoking gun—there's no memo saying "we're going to experiment on detainees." The organization acknowledges as much, noting that none of the actual medical monitoring data from interrogations has ever been made public. PHR says that only a "comprehensive federal investigation" can answer the questions raised by its report. But don't hold your breath for one. To date, the "enhanced interrogation" program itself has yet to be fully probed.
UPDATE: Here's a video of faith leaders responding to the PHR report and calling for an investigation.
Human experimentation without the consent of the subject is a violation of international human rights law to which the United States is subject; federal statutes; the Common Rule, which comprises the federal regulations for research on human subjects and applies to 17 federal agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense; and universally accepted health professional ethics, including the Nuremberg Code... Human experimentation on detainees also can constitute a war crime and a crime against humanity in certain circumstances.
Ironically, one goal of the "experimentation" seems to have been to immunize Bush administration officials and CIA interrogators from potential prosecution for torture. In the series of legal papers that are now popularly known as the "torture memos," Justice Department lawyers argued that medical monitoring would demonstrate that interrogators didn't intend to harm detainees; that "lack of intent to cause harm" could then serve as the cornerstone of a legal defense should an interrogator be targeted for prosecution. In 2003, in an internal CIA memo cited in the PHR report, the CIA's general counsel, Scott Muller, argued that medical monitoring of interrogations and "reviewing evidence gained from past experience where available (including experience gained in the course of U.S. interrogations of detainees)" would allow interrogators to inoculate themselves against claims of torture because it "established" they didn't intend to cause harm to the detainees.
The Bush administration believed that the medical teams could boost their legal defense in another way, too. In the memos, the OLC lawyers formulated a legal threshold for the level of pain that constituted torture. In a memo drafted on March 14, 2003, John Yoo, a primary author of the torture memos, defined that boundary as treatment leading to "long-term" mental harm or pain and suffering equal to or greater than that caused by organ failure or death. So one purpose of the medical monitoring project was to insure that the techniques interrogators were using did not breach that bright line.
One document cited in the PHR report highlights this practice especially well. On May 10, 2005, then-OLC head Steven Bradbury wrote to then-CIA acting general counsel John Rizzo about the legality of using multiple interrogation techniques simultaneously, as opposed to one by one. Referring directly to data gathered by the CIA's Office of Medical Services, Bradbury decided that both methods were okay:
But as we understand the experience involving the combination of various techniques, the OMS medical and psychological personnel have not observed any such increase in susceptibility. Other than the waterboard, the specific techniques under consideration in this memorandum— including sleep deprivation—have been applied to more than 25 detainees.… No apparent increase in susceptibility to severe pain has been observed either when techniques are used sequentially or when they are used simultaneously—for example, when an insult slap is simultaneously combined with water dousing or a kneeling stress position, or when wall standing is simultaneously combined with an abdominal slap and water dousing. Nor does experience show that, even apart from changes in susceptibility to pain, combinations of these techniques cause the techniques to operate differently so as to cause severe pain. OMS doctors and psychologists, moreover, confirm that they expect that the techniques, when combined… would not operate in a different manner from the way they do individually, so as to cause severe pain.It's possible, of course, that the data about detainees' "susceptibility to pain" was collected as part of standard medical monitoring of interrogations. But PHR says that doesn't matter: it's clear that " the collection of medical information was acquired and applied to inform subsequent [interrogation] practices," which amounts to illicit human subject research.
PHR claims that in addition to the data on simultaneous and sequential application of interrogation techniques, the experimentation program focused on two other areas of research: the safety and effectiveness of waterboarding and the effects of sleep deprivation. In each case, PHR points to declassified documents in which Bush administration officials acknowledge how medical information gathered during interrogations is being aggregated and used to inform future questioning.
There is some evidence to suggest that someone in the Bush administration may have realized they could be vulnerable to charges of illegal experimentation. The Military Commissions Act, passed by Congress in 2006, amended the 1996 War Crimes Act, a law that imposes criminal penalties for "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Specifically, the language on illegal "biological experiments" was weakened. The new law no longer requires that an experiment be carried out in the interest of the subject in order to be legal. (Research on how to make torture more effective is clearly not in the interest of the person who is going to be tortured.) In addition, it allows experiments that do not "endanger" the subject—rather than simply prohibiting all experiments that "are not justified by the medical, dental, or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest," as the previous version did.
The PHR report doesn't produce a smoking gun—there's no memo saying "we're going to experiment on detainees." The organization acknowledges as much, noting that none of the actual medical monitoring data from interrogations has ever been made public. PHR says that only a "comprehensive federal investigation" can answer the questions raised by its report. But don't hold your breath for one. To date, the "enhanced interrogation" program itself has yet to be fully probed.
UPDATE: Here's a video of faith leaders responding to the PHR report and calling for an investigation.
How George Bush, Joe Barton, Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay Caused the Gulf Oil Spill and Made Sure BP Will Never Be Held Accountable | Crooks and Liars
This is a very interesting article from "Crooks and Liars"-
How George Bush, Joe Barton, Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay Caused the Gulf Oil Spill and Made Sure BP Will Never Be Held Accountable | Crooks and Liars
By karoli Monday Jun 07, 2010 2:00pm
Does everyone remember Dick Cheney's "National Energy Task Force"? The one where meetings were held in secret, and energy policy was set by the foxes in charge of the henhouse? Yeah, I figured you might.
The Center for American Progress has connected the dots between this task force, the Bush Administration energy policies, and Tom DeLay's leadership in the House of Representatives to paint a straight line right back to Cheney & Co. I don't agree with the conclusion of "Cheney's Katrina", so how about we call it "Cheney's Oil Apocalypse" instead?
Setting the stage - May, 2001
Cheney's secret task force releases a 170-page harbinger of death under the title "National Energy Policy" (PDF). One of the pillars of their report is California's supposed energy crisis, helped along by the likes of Enron.
In Chapter Five, several recommendations for increasing domestic energy supplies are made, including:
First, the SAFE Act is introduced in the House in 2001. It provides for the following (quotes from CAP post):
A filibuster in the Senate stopped it from becoming law. Then.
Act Two - If at first you don't succeed, try, try again...
In 2004 a second legislative assault on our coastlines was mounted. This time Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) worked with DeLay to get a bill through the House with the assistance of oilman-turned-lobbyist Andrew Lundquist and Abramoff crony Stephen Griles.
CAP reports:
Worth noting: BP liked those categorical exclusions so much they were lobbying as late as April of this year for more of them.
Other gifts to the oil industry included in the Cheney Energy Bill:
On August 8, 2005, George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law.
On October 22, 2007 Randall B. Luthi, Wyoming attorney, Cheney cohort and new director of MMS signed a "Finding of No New Significant Impact" (PDF) with regard to Lease Sale 206, also known as the Deepwater Horizon. This finding was the last barrier for BP to cross before plunging equipment 5000 feet under the ocean's surface, using Halliburton fracture techniques to open the well, and beginning the flow of oil which ends as an environmental and economic disaster to Gulf inhabitants. No significant impact, indeed.
Stay tuned for scenes from next year
It's unclear how the Cheney Energy Act will play out in the legal morass yet to come. What we should expect are many challenges by BP lawyers to any effort to claim damages under the Clean Water Act (given the exemptions) as well as challenges for liability beyond cleaning up the spill.
But whatever happens, dear viewers, know this: The responsible parties are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Joe Barton, and Tom DeLay.
Repeat. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Get the word out. Put the spotlight on the real villains.
How George Bush, Joe Barton, Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay Caused the Gulf Oil Spill and Made Sure BP Will Never Be Held Accountable | Crooks and Liars
By karoli Monday Jun 07, 2010 2:00pm
Does everyone remember Dick Cheney's "National Energy Task Force"? The one where meetings were held in secret, and energy policy was set by the foxes in charge of the henhouse? Yeah, I figured you might.
The Center for American Progress has connected the dots between this task force, the Bush Administration energy policies, and Tom DeLay's leadership in the House of Representatives to paint a straight line right back to Cheney & Co. I don't agree with the conclusion of "Cheney's Katrina", so how about we call it "Cheney's Oil Apocalypse" instead?
Setting the stage - May, 2001
Cheney's secret task force releases a 170-page harbinger of death under the title "National Energy Policy" (PDF). One of the pillars of their report is California's supposed energy crisis, helped along by the likes of Enron.
In Chapter Five, several recommendations for increasing domestic energy supplies are made, including:
- The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the Secretary of the Interior to consider economic incentives for environmentally sound offshore oil and gas development where warranted by specific circumstances: explore opportunities for royalty reductions, consistent with ensuring a fair return to the public where warranted for enhanced oil and gas recovery; for reduction of risk associated with production in frontier areas or deep gas formations; and for development of small fields that would otherwise be uneconomic.
- The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to re-examine the current federal legal and policy regime (statutes, regulations, and Executive Orders) to determine if changes are needed regarding energy-related activi- ties and the siting of energy facilities in the coastal zone and on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
- The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the Secretary of the Interior continue OCS oil and gas leasing and approval of exploration and development plans on predictable schedules.
First, the SAFE Act is introduced in the House in 2001. It provides for the following (quotes from CAP post):
- Taxpayer funds to reimburse oil companies for the costs of complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (Sec. 6234)
- A suspension of royalties on tens of millions of barrels of oil produced in the Gulf of Mexico—especially from deepwater wells like the one now spewing into the gulf (Sec. 6202)
- Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling—with expedited leasing, limited judicial review, and lip service to environmental concerns (Div. F, Title V)
A filibuster in the Senate stopped it from becoming law. Then.
Act Two - If at first you don't succeed, try, try again...
In 2004 a second legislative assault on our coastlines was mounted. This time Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) worked with DeLay to get a bill through the House with the assistance of oilman-turned-lobbyist Andrew Lundquist and Abramoff crony Stephen Griles.
CAP reports:
One of the worst elements of what has come to be known as the “Dick Cheney energy bill” had a direct role in eliminating the kind of regulatory oversight that may have prevented the blowout of BP’s Mississippi Canyon 252 well on April 20 of this year. Section 390 of the legislation dramatically expanded the circumstance under which drilling operations could forego environmental reviews and be approved almost immediately under so-called “categorical exclusions” from the National Environmental Policy Act.There you go. Fast-track approvals by waiving environmental reviews and granting "categorical exclusions". In other words, tell the oil companies like BP that it's totally okay to ride their iron horses out to the wild coastal frontier without regard for safety or environmental damage.
Worth noting: BP liked those categorical exclusions so much they were lobbying as late as April of this year for more of them.
Other gifts to the oil industry included in the Cheney Energy Bill:
- Permanent permit exemptions granted to all oil and gas construction activities for roads, drill pads, pipeline corridors, refineries and compressor stations required under the Clean Water Act.
- Exempted oil companies from paying royalties on oil produced from deepwater wells.
- Created a special exception to the Safe Drinking Water Act for the "hydraulic fracturing process". As CAP notes, this process was invented by Halliburton.
- Mandated a federally-funded study to identify ways that legislation, regulations and local zoning laws impeded development of existing leases and unexplored oil reserves.
- Limited states' voice with regard to projects affecting their coastlines. This also included limiting court action with respect to offshore oil development.
- Reinstated lapsed leases due to nonpayment of royalties and rents.
- Transferred mineral rights of national seashores to private ownership or Texas state ownership in order to allow oil companies to drill under them.
On August 8, 2005, George W. Bush signed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law.
On October 22, 2007 Randall B. Luthi, Wyoming attorney, Cheney cohort and new director of MMS signed a "Finding of No New Significant Impact" (PDF) with regard to Lease Sale 206, also known as the Deepwater Horizon. This finding was the last barrier for BP to cross before plunging equipment 5000 feet under the ocean's surface, using Halliburton fracture techniques to open the well, and beginning the flow of oil which ends as an environmental and economic disaster to Gulf inhabitants. No significant impact, indeed.
Stay tuned for scenes from next year
It's unclear how the Cheney Energy Act will play out in the legal morass yet to come. What we should expect are many challenges by BP lawyers to any effort to claim damages under the Clean Water Act (given the exemptions) as well as challenges for liability beyond cleaning up the spill.
But whatever happens, dear viewers, know this: The responsible parties are George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Joe Barton, and Tom DeLay.
Repeat. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Get the word out. Put the spotlight on the real villains.
Monday, May 17, 2010
"Return To The Wild" Trailer #2
The movie "Return to the Wild" takes an in-depth look at the re-introduction of the gray wolf to the Northern Rockies, the friction it has caused, and the passionate debate it has stirred. The goal of the documentary is to address the issue of how man and predator can co-exist, in the hope of finding a balanced solution that addresses the needs of the ranchers, wildlife supporters, hunters, and most importantly, the wolves themselves. This is just the trailer from the film.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Senator John Barrasso has shown his hand on Kagan!
Yes, Johnny has shown his hand, and it isn't pretty! He doesn't even have a pair of 2's, or any pair for that matter. He should just fold, and go back into his man-cave, and leave the important things to us thinking people!
Oh yes, Johnny Barrasso is at it again.
Why is it that everytime he opens his mouth he shows the world how ignorant he really is about politics? Why John, WHY? Because that is what Johnny does, as he is a talking-point sock-puppet for the right. Yes, Barrasso has Right-winged Talking Points Tourette's, or RTPT. Just watch his 72 videos on YouTube, but do it on an empty stomach, as getting nauseated on a full stomach is not a good idea. Johnny just loves to be on TV, part of his illness!
http://www.youtube.com/user/barrassowyo
Now, constitutional scholar Johnny B. said this bit of vetting wisdom, “In light of the recently passed health-care legislation, I look forward to speaking with Ms. Kagan about the constitutionality of the new health insurance mandate. Her response will shine a light on her fundamental judicial interpretation of the Constitution.” Umm... Sounds a little like he wants Kagan to tell him how she would rule on the mandate, doesn't it?
Now, as a nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy, a nominee really can not discuss an issue, like the healthcare legislation or health insurance mandate in the new law, because there is the possibility that it may come before the Supreme Court in the future, a Supreme Court in which she may be an Associate Justice. Just like previous Justices during their vetting and confirmation hearings. Sure, she can talk in judicial abstracts and philosophies, but she is not going to talk to you about the constitutionally of the health insurance mandate, or any other specific piece of legislation. I think that he thinks that just because he is a doctor, he is the unconfirmed and absolute expert on all healthcare issues and legislation. I don't think so. He has a Chief of Staff, Shawn Whitman who might inform him of the little peculiarities about this vetting process of a nominee for the Supreme Court, and the nomination process. Just a thought. But, who knows Mr. Whitman's bona fides? He has been a Chief of Staff for a Wyoming Senator (He was Chief of Staff for Craig Thomas before he was Barrasso's.) since October 1, 2003, so he seems to have some experience with previous Supreme Court nominees. Maybe he just forgot to tell know-it-all Johnny?
These types of comments that Johnny blurbs out validate my opinion that he is an extremely ignorant Senator, particularly about the law, politics, public policy, proper vetting of possible Supreme Court Justices, etc. How he got to be our Senator just baffles me. Did he have something on those who originally chose him? Initially that is? Or all the people who actually voted for him? Sure he may be smart when it comes to doctoring, as he did go to Georgetown University, but still? The man hasn't a lick of commonsense.
Here he is talking about free speech, and Bill Ayers, and other things.
Remember, there was no uproar on the right when the University of Wyoming named a building after Dick Cheney, just because he donated millions from the blood money he got from Halliburton. Go figure! And let's not forget Wyoming State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jim McBride said in 3 different e-mails that Ayers’ visit could possibly cost the university “millions” from their big money donors. So, I guess in Wyoming, getting money from politically powerful moneyed right-winged elites trumps free speech at a "Public University". What a warped sense of reality, and the Constitution these fools have.
Oh yes, Johnny Barrasso is at it again.
Why is it that everytime he opens his mouth he shows the world how ignorant he really is about politics? Why John, WHY? Because that is what Johnny does, as he is a talking-point sock-puppet for the right. Yes, Barrasso has Right-winged Talking Points Tourette's, or RTPT. Just watch his 72 videos on YouTube, but do it on an empty stomach, as getting nauseated on a full stomach is not a good idea. Johnny just loves to be on TV, part of his illness!
http://www.youtube.com/user/barrassowyo
Now, constitutional scholar Johnny B. said this bit of vetting wisdom, “In light of the recently passed health-care legislation, I look forward to speaking with Ms. Kagan about the constitutionality of the new health insurance mandate. Her response will shine a light on her fundamental judicial interpretation of the Constitution.” Umm... Sounds a little like he wants Kagan to tell him how she would rule on the mandate, doesn't it?
Now, as a nominee for the Supreme Court vacancy, a nominee really can not discuss an issue, like the healthcare legislation or health insurance mandate in the new law, because there is the possibility that it may come before the Supreme Court in the future, a Supreme Court in which she may be an Associate Justice. Just like previous Justices during their vetting and confirmation hearings. Sure, she can talk in judicial abstracts and philosophies, but she is not going to talk to you about the constitutionally of the health insurance mandate, or any other specific piece of legislation. I think that he thinks that just because he is a doctor, he is the unconfirmed and absolute expert on all healthcare issues and legislation. I don't think so. He has a Chief of Staff, Shawn Whitman who might inform him of the little peculiarities about this vetting process of a nominee for the Supreme Court, and the nomination process. Just a thought. But, who knows Mr. Whitman's bona fides? He has been a Chief of Staff for a Wyoming Senator (He was Chief of Staff for Craig Thomas before he was Barrasso's.) since October 1, 2003, so he seems to have some experience with previous Supreme Court nominees. Maybe he just forgot to tell know-it-all Johnny?
These types of comments that Johnny blurbs out validate my opinion that he is an extremely ignorant Senator, particularly about the law, politics, public policy, proper vetting of possible Supreme Court Justices, etc. How he got to be our Senator just baffles me. Did he have something on those who originally chose him? Initially that is? Or all the people who actually voted for him? Sure he may be smart when it comes to doctoring, as he did go to Georgetown University, but still? The man hasn't a lick of commonsense.
Here he is talking about free speech, and Bill Ayers, and other things.
Remember, there was no uproar on the right when the University of Wyoming named a building after Dick Cheney, just because he donated millions from the blood money he got from Halliburton. Go figure! And let's not forget Wyoming State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jim McBride said in 3 different e-mails that Ayers’ visit could possibly cost the university “millions” from their big money donors. So, I guess in Wyoming, getting money from politically powerful moneyed right-winged elites trumps free speech at a "Public University". What a warped sense of reality, and the Constitution these fools have.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Sarah Palin- "Read Baby, Read!" If you can?
Palin, who made this comment, "Soldier pay decreases in the midst of overspending elsewhere and government union pay raises? Seriously? What are our priorities?" on her FaceBook Page, actually failed to read the article she was making reference too. This lady is so, so ignorant, and so are her followers. Those who pointed out this discrepancy had their comments deleted, and were then banned from commenting on Palin's FB page. So, all that is left there are fools who haven't read the article, but just follow blindly like the Paliban that they are. Every word is Gospel to them, regardless if it's a lie, or more misinformation. And the 3000+ comments are based on this ignorance. And, FYI- I followed Palin on FB because as the old saying goes, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."
Here are a few examples:Conrad O'Connell What else can you expect from obama who is hell bent on turning this country into the United Socialist States of America
"Outrage: Obama Administration Targets Military for Pay Reductions"
Now, no where in their article did they say they were actually getting a reduction, but they did reference the Washington Post article,"Pentagon asking Congress to hold back on generous increases in troop pay."
But Newsmax.com did say, "The Pentagon wants a pay raise of 1.4 percent for service members next year, an increase based on the Employment Cost Index, which the Labor Department uses to measure private-sector salary increases. Congress, as it has for the past several years, has indicated it favors a slightly bigger bump, of 1.9 percent."So, the way I read that is that the military will get a raise, unless Congress decides otherwise to give them a larger raise, against the recommendations of the DoD, and Gates., based on the ECI. I see no pay reduction here, but then again I don't have the mental acuity of a Palin, or a Newsmax.com reporter. They just do this to rile up their base of blithering idiots, and get them into some frothing rage-like frenzy.
The Washington Post said, "Health care alone is projected to cost the military $51 billion next year, nearly one-tenth of the Pentagon's budget, excluding the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2002, wages have risen 42 percent, compared with about 32 percent for the private sector. Housing and subsistence allowances, which troops receive tax-free, have gone up even more.
Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the extra half of a percent may not sound like much, but it would accrue annually and cost about $3.5 billion over the next decade. "If you continue doing it, it becomes a huge burden on the defense budget in the long term," he said.
In February, the Pentagon abruptly shut down a new tuition-assistance program for military spouses after it was overwhelmed with applicants. Defense officials had set aside $61 million for the program, which reimburses tuition costs of up to $6,000 per person, but discovered they might need as much as $2 billion to satisfy unexpected demand.
Congress chastised the Pentagon for mismanaging the program, which has since resumed, though defense officials aren't sure how they will pay for it."
Newsmax.com also interpreted the Washington Post articles by saying, "The Obama administration is “pleading” with Congress to give military personnel a much smaller increase in pay than lawmakers have proposed." But, a 1.4% increase is not that much smaller then a 1.9% increase, just my opinion. But 19 paragraphs later they say, "Congress, as it has for the past several years, has indicated it favors a slightly bigger bump, of 1.9 percent." So, on one hand it says slightly bigger, and on the other they say, much smaller. So which one is it? I report, you decide. I'm being fair and balanced. Besides, Newsmax.com just copied word for word portions of the Washington Post article, but just gave the link to the story in the second paragraph, referencing their story. They didn't give credit to WashPo for the parts they copied word for word, but copyrighted it as their own. Go figure.
Palin is just plain dumb, and a liar, but her cult, who do not bother to read the articles, make comments that are absurd at best, and totally ignorant and racist at worse. Are these people our country's future? I sure as hell hope not, because having a theocracy/idiocracy is not what our Founding Fathers wanted, or wished for for our country.
The simple act of researching, and reading the article, either one, albeit Newsmax.com's headline is a major spin on reality, (What else is new?) will let one see that what non-reader Palin stated was wrong. One begins to wonder, when Katie Couric asked Palin what newspapers she read, and she really couldn't answer, except for the idiotic, "I read everything" comment, was it a precursor of what was to come? Is she happy as a pig in shit leading a happy band of ignorant, non-reading, and bias, prejudice, and racist Palinistas? You betcha!
Read! Sarah! Read!
So, remember when Sarah Palin says, "Soldier pay decreases in the midst of overspending elsewhere and government union pay raises? Seriously? What are our priorities?" she is lying again. It is the only thing she knows how to do well, but the sad fact is that there are thousands, if not millions of Americans who actually believe every word she says. It really does not speak well about their intelligence or moral character either. Shame on them for their self imposed ignorance. Reading is fundamental.
Good night and good luck!Monday, May 10, 2010
I've been away too long!
Well, bet you all thought I was dead, hey? I have to disappoint you, but I am still here. I have this issue with staying focused, and I wander the world wide cyber universe, becoming easily distracted.
So, on my first day back, I'll go with something less serious, as my congressional delegation is at it again, especially WY Senator TV Guy- Dr. John BadAss. I could write a book about how bloody ignorant that man is, but here is the abridged edition- "Idiot".
Now for some fun.
This really is interesting...and now you are smarter.
After reading it, you'll go "Duh,I didn't know that."
'Stewardesses'
Is the longest word typed with only the left hand,
And 'Lollipop'
Is the longest word typed with your right hand.
(Bet you tried this out mentally, didn't you?)
No word in the English language rhymes with
Month, orange, silver, or purple.
'Dreamt' is the only English word that ends in the letters 'MT.
(Are you doubting this?)
Our eyes
are always the same size from birth,
But our nose and ears
Never stop growing!
The sentence:
"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog",
Uses every letter of the alphabet.
(Now, you KNOW you're going to try this out for accuracy, right?
The words racecar, kayak, and 'level' are the same whether they are read
left to right or right to left (palindromes).
So is my dog. FredDerf
There are only four words in the English language which end in 'dous':
Tremendous, horrendous, stupendous, and hazardous.
(You're not doubting this, are you?)
There are two words in the English language that have all five vowels in order: 'abstemious' and 'facetious.'
TYPEWRITER is the longest word
That can be made using the letters only on one row of the keyboard.
(All you typists are going to test this out)
A cat has 32 muscles in each ear.
A goldfish has a memory span of three seconds.
(Some days that's about what my memory span is.)
A 'jiffy' is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.
A shark is the only fish that can blink with both eyes.
A snail can sleep for three years.
(I know some people that could do this too.!)
Almonds are a member of the peach family.
An ostrich's eye is bigger than its brain.
(I know some people like that also)
Babies are born without kneecaps.
They don't appear until the child reaches 2 to 6 years of age.
February 1865 is the only month in recorded history not to have a full moon.
In the last 4,000 years, no new animals have been domesticated.
If the population of China walked past you, 8 abreast,
The line would never end because of the rate of reproduction.
Leonardo Da Vinci invented the scissors.
Peanuts are one of the ingredients of dynamite!
Rubber bands last longer when refrigerated.
The average person's left hand does 56% of the typing.
The cruise liner, QE-2 Moves only six inches for each gallon of diesel that it burns.
The microwave was invented after a researcher walked by a radar tube and a chocolate bar melted in his pocket.
(Good thing he did that.)
The winter of 1932 was so cold that Niagara Falls froze completely solid.
There are more chickens than people in the world.
Winston Churchill was born in a ladies' room during a dance.
Women blink nearly twice as much as men.
Now you know more than you did before!!
So, on my first day back, I'll go with something less serious, as my congressional delegation is at it again, especially WY Senator TV Guy- Dr. John BadAss. I could write a book about how bloody ignorant that man is, but here is the abridged edition- "Idiot".
Now for some fun.
This really is interesting...and now you are smarter.
After reading it, you'll go "Duh,I didn't know that."
'Stewardesses'
Is the longest word typed with only the left hand,
And 'Lollipop'
Is the longest word typed with your right hand.
(Bet you tried this out mentally, didn't you?)
No word in the English language rhymes with
Month, orange, silver, or purple.
'Dreamt' is the only English word that ends in the letters 'MT.
(Are you doubting this?)
Our eyes
are always the same size from birth,But our nose and ears
Never stop growing!
The sentence:
"The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog",
Uses every letter of the alphabet.
(Now, you KNOW you're going to try this out for accuracy, right?
The words racecar, kayak, and 'level' are the same whether they are read
left to right or right to left (palindromes).
So is my dog. FredDerf
There are only four words in the English language which end in 'dous':
Tremendous, horrendous, stupendous, and hazardous.
(You're not doubting this, are you?)
There are two words in the English language that have all five vowels in order: 'abstemious' and 'facetious.'
TYPEWRITER is the longest word
That can be made using the letters only on one row of the keyboard.
(All you typists are going to test this out)
A cat has 32 muscles in each ear.
A goldfish has a memory span of three seconds.
(Some days that's about what my memory span is.)
A 'jiffy' is an actual unit of time for 1/100th of a second.
A shark is the only fish that can blink with both eyes.
A snail can sleep for three years.
(I know some people that could do this too.!)
Almonds are a member of the peach family.
An ostrich's eye is bigger than its brain.
(I know some people like that also)
Babies are born without kneecaps.
They don't appear until the child reaches 2 to 6 years of age.
February 1865 is the only month in recorded history not to have a full moon.
In the last 4,000 years, no new animals have been domesticated.
If the population of China walked past you, 8 abreast,
The line would never end because of the rate of reproduction.
Leonardo Da Vinci invented the scissors.
Peanuts are one of the ingredients of dynamite!
Rubber bands last longer when refrigerated.
The average person's left hand does 56% of the typing.
The cruise liner, QE-2 Moves only six inches for each gallon of diesel that it burns.
The microwave was invented after a researcher walked by a radar tube and a chocolate bar melted in his pocket.
(Good thing he did that.)
The winter of 1932 was so cold that Niagara Falls froze completely solid.
There are more chickens than people in the world.
Winston Churchill was born in a ladies' room during a dance.
Women blink nearly twice as much as men.
Now you know more than you did before!!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
America's Wars: How Serial War Became the American Way of Life
Well said. As a veteran who is disabled, I once believed the lies, (This was years ago, but it is a never-ending pattern in American politics, and government.) and was naive to the reality staring me right in the face. I've changed over the last 30 years, and I question everything. It has been so sad over the 8 years in particular, because of my stance against these wars, that I, I have been looked at as unpatriotic, and a traitor. I live in Wyoming, so people of my ilk are frond upon, and a small minority. Lincoln once said, "To stand in silence when one should protest makes cowards out of men." So, I have dealt with many wilsonveteran's for years, and even my early letters to the editor in our local paper have come to fruition. I have become cynical about what our government does on many levels, and I believe we as a country need to question them more often, with greater intensity, and with more force. Americans need to be more open-minded, more educated and informed about our government, and stop listening to the meme produced by them, and repeated back to others as if they were a parrot.
Thanks for your post Austintatious.
About Vietnam
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Thanks for your post Austintatious.
About Vietnam
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Dave Barnes I hope our country will last another 2 yrs. and hopefully obama will get voted out. 1 term only for this guy.
Kyle Kilpatrick Why can't those CANCERS (liberals and Democrates just leave people like me alone.
Julie Wynn Malone this makes no sense at all. go ahead and screw the ones that fight for us and our way of life!!!! Obama makes me sick~!~
Cecil Shelley Instead of giving money to Grech and Brazil shouldn't we being paiying of our debt to China. Cecil
John Geiger YEA!!!!! down with the infidels!!!!! Take back Christinanity to Washinton!!!!
and,
There are 3000+ more of these types of comments, with all the typo's left in, just like I did here with those comments I posted. But all that suggested she read the article, along with her cult reading the article, were DELETED, and we were banned from making further comments. So much for democracy and freedom of speech in PalinLand. As you can see, their grammar is below average, although there was a poll awhile back that said tea partiers are above average in intelligence, which I find amazing. Above-average for what? A tadpole? I guess when you ask a Paliban/Teabagger if they are smart, at least they will be smart enough to lie (But that comes naturally, as they are constantly lying to themselves about their alternative reality.) and say yes. I think that poll is extremely flawed, just my opinion.