I have family over in Beaumont and Winnie. My close cousin, who's more like a brother, is in Beaumont and still hasn't made up his mind about whether to come stay with me here in Austin. The projected path of the storm keeps creeping up closer and closer to the Beaumont area, and right now it's pretty much assured that even if Rita's eye doesn't go directly over Beaumont, that Beaumont is definitely going to feel it. From Alvin, my dad and stepmom (more like a mother than my bio mother) are on there way up here but will be staying with my grandmother. My sister and her family, also from Alvin, left yesterday and is going to stay with my other grandmother in Arkansas. My best friend, blood brother, is leaving today and will be staying with me over the weekend, the rest of his family will be staying with some relatives near Temple.
So, all that I have to worry about is my cousin and his mother and father (my aunt and uncle) now, and it's looking more and more like he's in an area that will suffer the most... and he's actually considering trying to ride it out! I've bugged him over and over... he's pretty hard-headed. He actually told me that maybe if it gets bad that he'll go to Winnie and ride it out there... HELLO... Winnie is in an even worse spot since it's closer to the water than where he's at already. He mentioned the house being really tough... so I sarcastically asked him if he saw what Katrina did, levelling whole towns. Not sure what more I can do aside from driving down to him, hog tie him, and take him away.
I really don't want to tell people that my cousin died in a hurricane... that's just stupid these days with as much advance warning and calls for evacuation that we have. But perhaps this is just natural selection at work. Unlike some in New Orleans, my cousin has a vehicle, he can buy gas for it, and he has a place to go. He has every opportunity to avoid this huge force, and he's twiddling his thumbs. There's still time right now, and all I can do is hope and pray that he opens his eyes to this situation before it's too late.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Renee Zellweger: Chesney's Distaste For Children Reason For Split
Sexy Renee Zellweger. What makes her sexy, in my opinion, is the way she talks. I saw her on the Tonight Show (Jay Leno) and that really impressed the hell outa me. I had never really been a fan or anything, well I thought she looked really good in Jerry Maguire, but that was about it. But you can tell she's probably a really cool person "in real life."
Be that as it may... marrying someone before knowing how they feel about children, raising them, having a family etc., is pretty stupid. I'm sure that's at least one reason why she's being tight lipped about this, because she knows how dumb it appears. However, she did claim fraud, so maybe the guy lied to her, or otherwise wasn't very forthright about his feelings on establishing a family. Since Renee doesn't seem that stupid, I'm leaning on believing that Chesney was a bit deceptive. But who knows, maybe all this is a ruse for Chesney's erectile dysfunction. haha
Be that as it may... marrying someone before knowing how they feel about children, raising them, having a family etc., is pretty stupid. I'm sure that's at least one reason why she's being tight lipped about this, because she knows how dumb it appears. However, she did claim fraud, so maybe the guy lied to her, or otherwise wasn't very forthright about his feelings on establishing a family. Since Renee doesn't seem that stupid, I'm leaning on believing that Chesney was a bit deceptive. But who knows, maybe all this is a ruse for Chesney's erectile dysfunction. haha
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Grandmother Fired for Katrina Absences
Positronic Industries, where people with compassion and ability to think outside the box need not apply. Positronic makes electrical connections, not human ones.
______________________
Grandmother Fired for Katrina Absences
By BILL DRAPER Associated Press Writer
(AP) - KANSAS CITY, Mo.-When forced to decide between caring for her 18-month-old granddaughter while her parents were stranded in New Orleans or showing up for her job, Barbara Roberts chose to be a grandma. And for that, she was fired.
Roberts, 54, had driven 200 miles from her home in Mount Vernon to Columbia on Aug. 27, the Saturday before Hurricane Katrina came ashore, to care for granddaughter Trisana for a couple of days. Her daughter, Tina Roberts, and son-in-law, Chris Hardin, were in New Orleans.
Click here to find out more!
It was supposed to be a weekend business trip for the couple, and Roberts, who had used up her allotted time off in her assembly line job at Positronic Industries, had planned to be back to work on Monday. Her daughter had even arranged for another baby sitter to spend Sunday night with Trisana so Roberts could get home in time.
But when her son-in-law tried to schedule the flight home on the afternoon of Aug. 27, he was told all flights had been canceled because of the approaching hurricane.
"There was a Category 5 hurricane with a bull's-eye on our butts, so we called Barb and said we didn't know when we would be coming home," said Hardin, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Medicine. "We truly didn't know what would happen down there."
With no other relatives in the area to take care of the child, Roberts said she had no choice but to call work on Aug. 29, the day the hurricane hit, and tell her boss that she would be missing a few days.
"There was no decision to make - it was already made," Roberts said. "My daughter could have died down there. This was family. You don't walk out on a child - especially my grandbaby."
Hardin and his wife spent several days locked down in a hotel - safe from the chaos that befell most of New Orleans after the levees broke - and finally made it back to Columbia on Thursday, Sept. 1. Shaken up, they asked Roberts to stay one more day.
She says she was told on the phone that she was going to be fired. And on Sept. 6, she was.
"All I know for sure is that I had missed so many hours, and then this came up," Roberts said. "Usually you have a certain amount of vacation time, and I had used it up. You're also allowed so many unpaid days off, and I'd used them up, too. Fact is, I missed the allotted time and I got fired."
In response to questions about Roberts' termination, Positronic Industries President John Gentry said the company had made cash donations to relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina victims, but he declined to talk about Roberts. The company manufactures electrical connectors.
Hardin said his mother-in-law's firing was "absolutely unethical."
"People speak of family values, and I don't see what's a more central family value than a grandmother stepping up in this sort of situation," he said.
"I sit here trying to imagine what kind of world it would be if grandmothers didn't make that decision."
______________________
Grandmother Fired for Katrina Absences
By BILL DRAPER Associated Press Writer
(AP) - KANSAS CITY, Mo.-When forced to decide between caring for her 18-month-old granddaughter while her parents were stranded in New Orleans or showing up for her job, Barbara Roberts chose to be a grandma. And for that, she was fired.
Roberts, 54, had driven 200 miles from her home in Mount Vernon to Columbia on Aug. 27, the Saturday before Hurricane Katrina came ashore, to care for granddaughter Trisana for a couple of days. Her daughter, Tina Roberts, and son-in-law, Chris Hardin, were in New Orleans.
Click here to find out more!
It was supposed to be a weekend business trip for the couple, and Roberts, who had used up her allotted time off in her assembly line job at Positronic Industries, had planned to be back to work on Monday. Her daughter had even arranged for another baby sitter to spend Sunday night with Trisana so Roberts could get home in time.
But when her son-in-law tried to schedule the flight home on the afternoon of Aug. 27, he was told all flights had been canceled because of the approaching hurricane.
"There was a Category 5 hurricane with a bull's-eye on our butts, so we called Barb and said we didn't know when we would be coming home," said Hardin, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Medicine. "We truly didn't know what would happen down there."
With no other relatives in the area to take care of the child, Roberts said she had no choice but to call work on Aug. 29, the day the hurricane hit, and tell her boss that she would be missing a few days.
"There was no decision to make - it was already made," Roberts said. "My daughter could have died down there. This was family. You don't walk out on a child - especially my grandbaby."
Hardin and his wife spent several days locked down in a hotel - safe from the chaos that befell most of New Orleans after the levees broke - and finally made it back to Columbia on Thursday, Sept. 1. Shaken up, they asked Roberts to stay one more day.
She says she was told on the phone that she was going to be fired. And on Sept. 6, she was.
"All I know for sure is that I had missed so many hours, and then this came up," Roberts said. "Usually you have a certain amount of vacation time, and I had used it up. You're also allowed so many unpaid days off, and I'd used them up, too. Fact is, I missed the allotted time and I got fired."
In response to questions about Roberts' termination, Positronic Industries President John Gentry said the company had made cash donations to relief efforts for Hurricane Katrina victims, but he declined to talk about Roberts. The company manufactures electrical connectors.
Hardin said his mother-in-law's firing was "absolutely unethical."
"People speak of family values, and I don't see what's a more central family value than a grandmother stepping up in this sort of situation," he said.
"I sit here trying to imagine what kind of world it would be if grandmothers didn't make that decision."
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
US grants Iranian president visa for U.N
Maybe heads of state who are known terrorists ought to be an exception to any practices or obligations regarding visits to the USA. Giving the guy permission to come here is really stupid.
__________
US grants Iranian president visa for U.N
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States said on Wednesday it had granted a visa to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to attend U.N. meetings in New York but was still looking into his role in the 1979 U.S. Embassy storming in Tehran.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States had issued a U.S. travel visa to Ahmadinejad on Tuesday in Bern, Switzerland, which would allow him to attend U.N. meetings along with other heads of state next week.
'The decision to allow President Ahmadinejad, as Iranian head of government, to travel to the U.N., is in keeping with past practice and in accordance with our obligations under the U.N. headquarters agreement,' said McCormack.
However, he stressed the issuing of the visa in no way indicated a change of U.S. policy toward
Iran's government. In addition, the United States was still looking into the Iranian president's alleged involvement in the 1979 hostage crisis that lasted 444 days.
The United States says Ahmadinejad was a leader in the student movement behind the embassy takeover and is trying to determine whether he was a hostage-taker, which he and those who took part deny.
'There are still unresolved questions concerning his activities surrounding the taking of the American embassy in Tehran and his activities in that subsequent period in which American citizens were held for 444 days. We have not forgotten that.'"
__________
US grants Iranian president visa for U.N
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States said on Wednesday it had granted a visa to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to attend U.N. meetings in New York but was still looking into his role in the 1979 U.S. Embassy storming in Tehran.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States had issued a U.S. travel visa to Ahmadinejad on Tuesday in Bern, Switzerland, which would allow him to attend U.N. meetings along with other heads of state next week.
'The decision to allow President Ahmadinejad, as Iranian head of government, to travel to the U.N., is in keeping with past practice and in accordance with our obligations under the U.N. headquarters agreement,' said McCormack.
However, he stressed the issuing of the visa in no way indicated a change of U.S. policy toward
Iran's government. In addition, the United States was still looking into the Iranian president's alleged involvement in the 1979 hostage crisis that lasted 444 days.
The United States says Ahmadinejad was a leader in the student movement behind the embassy takeover and is trying to determine whether he was a hostage-taker, which he and those who took part deny.
'There are still unresolved questions concerning his activities surrounding the taking of the American embassy in Tehran and his activities in that subsequent period in which American citizens were held for 444 days. We have not forgotten that.'"
Thursday, September 01, 2005
THANKS!
I would like to recognize the following countries for helping in the ongoing relief effort from the damage caused by hurricane Katrina:
...uhh ...well umm ...maybe they didn't hear about it?
...uhh ...well umm ...maybe they didn't hear about it?
Evacuation Halted As Order Breaks Down
People shooting at helicopters that are trying to help in the relief effort. Sounds like a ghetto is still ghetto even when flooded. Let them rot.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Bush Says Leaving Iraq Now Would Be Wrong - New York Times
As a part of a larger article, the below portion indicates Mrs. Sheehan has already talked to the President in 2004. I guess once wasn't enough for her. And now she's part of an anti-war group... not surprising, but pretty pathetic. Why or how we got to Iraq no longer matters unless you just want to point a finger at someone. But sure, you're free to protest the occupation of Iraq, no matter how stupid it makes you look or how disrespecting it is to others, unless obscene.
If it was me, right now I'd be protesting the war not because of how "immoral" war is, but because we're not taking a healthy portion of the oil. I mean, everyone expected us to take it, so why not? Yeah I know. But in other news, some Generals expect the occupation to continue for at least another 4 years, so that Halliburton stock should be looking good.
________
Gold Star Families for Peace, an antiwar group co-founded by Ms. Sheehan, began running a television ad in Boise on Tuesday that featured her directly addressing Mr. Bush.
In it, she says: 'You were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction. You were wrong about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. You lied to us, and because of your lies, my son died.'
In his remarks to reporters, Mr. Bush reiterated his support for Ms. Sheehan's right to protest. He noted that he had met with her in June 2004, and that he had sent his national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, and his deputy chief of staff, Joe Hagin, to meet with her this month in Crawford.
Ms. Sheehan has said that Mr. Bush was disrespectful to her in their 2004 meeting because he called her 'Mom' throughout the session.
If it was me, right now I'd be protesting the war not because of how "immoral" war is, but because we're not taking a healthy portion of the oil. I mean, everyone expected us to take it, so why not? Yeah I know. But in other news, some Generals expect the occupation to continue for at least another 4 years, so that Halliburton stock should be looking good.
________
Gold Star Families for Peace, an antiwar group co-founded by Ms. Sheehan, began running a television ad in Boise on Tuesday that featured her directly addressing Mr. Bush.
In it, she says: 'You were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction. You were wrong about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. You lied to us, and because of your lies, my son died.'
In his remarks to reporters, Mr. Bush reiterated his support for Ms. Sheehan's right to protest. He noted that he had met with her in June 2004, and that he had sent his national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, and his deputy chief of staff, Joe Hagin, to meet with her this month in Crawford.
Ms. Sheehan has said that Mr. Bush was disrespectful to her in their 2004 meeting because he called her 'Mom' throughout the session.
Friday, August 19, 2005
U.S. senator calling for Iraq pullout by end of 2006
U.S. senator calling for Iraq pullout by end of 2006
"Setting a clear time frame could also undercut the insurgents, he said.
'Most importantly, it provides an answer to the terrorists' very effective argument when they say, `Come to Iraq and fight the American occupation',' Feingold said."
----
You sir, U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, are an idiot. And if you aspire to be elected President, look elsewhere. I seriously hope this guy isn't considered to be a frontrunner for Democrats... yes, based on this lone quote. Republicans and Democrats should unite against this guy's proposal, and then tar and feather the guy so that he might think before he speaks next time.
"Setting a clear time frame could also undercut the insurgents, he said.
'Most importantly, it provides an answer to the terrorists' very effective argument when they say, `Come to Iraq and fight the American occupation',' Feingold said."
----
You sir, U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, are an idiot. And if you aspire to be elected President, look elsewhere. I seriously hope this guy isn't considered to be a frontrunner for Democrats... yes, based on this lone quote. Republicans and Democrats should unite against this guy's proposal, and then tar and feather the guy so that he might think before he speaks next time.
Thursday, August 18, 2005
DeLay and the Mob
It's official: Congressman, lobbyist have parted ways, DeLay's spokesman says
Let's break this down a little...
DeLay had a relationship with Abramoff, DeLay called him his dearest friend at one time. Abramoff appears to have paid for some of DeLay's travel expenses (aka vacations). Abramoff is associated with organized crime. Abramoff and his partner in crime, Adam Kidan, were charged with defrauding Boulis of $60 million. Boulis got gunned down in an ambush afterwards.
DeLay claims that he did not know that his dearest friend paid for some of those vacations. BS. Oh yeah, he also says to blame the democrats... pathetic. It wreaks of a cover-up. I mean, even Rader, the BTK killer, fooled his family, so it's not impossible that DeLay just didn't know this side of Abramoff. So why not just say that... unless he did know and possibly some proof of it.
It's one thing to not know your friend is a murderer, it's another to not know he paid for your vacation. If I paid for a friend's vacation, I'd be sure to let them know I did it. And for a lobbyist to pay for something of DeLay's, expecting favortism, they'd want to make sure they were properly credited.
But then, you can't expect DeLay to admit that he knew the mobster paid for the travelling, because that would make it too easy for the ethics investigation. And if the ethics investigation reveals a close relationship, then they could potentially investigate the extent of DeLay's contacts with the mob.
So, this ethics investigation regarding travel expense payments could potentially open up a very large can of worms for DeLay and maybe other members of Congress. After all, if the mob had influence with DeLay, surely there are others in their pocket for unsavory purposes.
______
"It's official: Congressman, lobbyist have parted ways, DeLay's spokesman says
By WILLIAM C. MANN Associated Press Writer
(AP) - WASHINGTON-As a legal morass deepens for one-time superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, Rep. Tom DeLay, one of the most powerful men in Congress, is doing some damage control to distance himself from a man he once placed among his 'dearest friends.'
DeLay's spokesman says their relationship no longer exists.
Abramoff is free under $2.5 million (�‚�2 million) bond on six federal charges of conspiracy and wire fraud in the purchase of a casino boats. He is spending a few days at his home in Washington's Maryland suburbs before he is to return to Florida on Aug. 29 to file a plea.
Until last year, Abramoff was among Washington's premier lobbyists, a man whose telephone calls always would be answered. Now he is at least a sidelines figure in an investigation of a street shooting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, that police said had the trappings of an organized crime murder. His lawyer said Tuesday that Abramoff would be glad to be interviewed by police investigating the killing.
The victim was Konstantinos 'Gus' Boulis, whom Abramoff and a colleague are charged with defrauding in the $147.5 million (�‚�119.8 million) sale of SunCruz Casinos in 2000. Abramoff and Adam Kidan, his business partner are accused of pocketing $60 million (�‚�48.73 million) from the deal. Boulis was gunned down in an ambush some months later.
Abramoff also is a major figure in a House of Representatives ethics investigation of DeLay, which the Texas congressman requested, to determine the truth of allegations that Abramoff or his clients paid some of DeLay's overseas travel expenses in contravention of House rules.
DeLay has said he did not know that the expenses were paid by Abramoff, whom he once described as 'one of my closest and dearest friends.'
Not any more.
'There is no relationship between Mr. Delay and Mr. Abramoff,' DeLay spokesman Ben Porritt said Tuesday. 'Any mention would be in the past tense.'
Porritt blamed politics for the continuing connection in the news media between the two.
'We feel this is an ongoing effort by the political left,' he said. 'Those on the political left target Mr. DeLay because he is capable and effective in delivering the conservative message.'
DeLay, second in power only to Speaker Dennis Hastert in the House, often has used the charge that he was under political attack to divert stories about his relationship with Abramoff since the disgraced lobbyist began to become a liability several months ago.
Last March, as allegations of misconduct began to be aired both in Texas and in the Congress, DeLay said he had not been found to be breaking the rules but that anyway, the Democrats were responsible.
'All they can do is try to tear down the House and burn it down in order to gain power,' DeLay said."
Let's break this down a little...
DeLay had a relationship with Abramoff, DeLay called him his dearest friend at one time. Abramoff appears to have paid for some of DeLay's travel expenses (aka vacations). Abramoff is associated with organized crime. Abramoff and his partner in crime, Adam Kidan, were charged with defrauding Boulis of $60 million. Boulis got gunned down in an ambush afterwards.
DeLay claims that he did not know that his dearest friend paid for some of those vacations. BS. Oh yeah, he also says to blame the democrats... pathetic. It wreaks of a cover-up. I mean, even Rader, the BTK killer, fooled his family, so it's not impossible that DeLay just didn't know this side of Abramoff. So why not just say that... unless he did know and possibly some proof of it.
It's one thing to not know your friend is a murderer, it's another to not know he paid for your vacation. If I paid for a friend's vacation, I'd be sure to let them know I did it. And for a lobbyist to pay for something of DeLay's, expecting favortism, they'd want to make sure they were properly credited.
But then, you can't expect DeLay to admit that he knew the mobster paid for the travelling, because that would make it too easy for the ethics investigation. And if the ethics investigation reveals a close relationship, then they could potentially investigate the extent of DeLay's contacts with the mob.
So, this ethics investigation regarding travel expense payments could potentially open up a very large can of worms for DeLay and maybe other members of Congress. After all, if the mob had influence with DeLay, surely there are others in their pocket for unsavory purposes.
______
"It's official: Congressman, lobbyist have parted ways, DeLay's spokesman says
By WILLIAM C. MANN Associated Press Writer
(AP) - WASHINGTON-As a legal morass deepens for one-time superlobbyist Jack Abramoff, Rep. Tom DeLay, one of the most powerful men in Congress, is doing some damage control to distance himself from a man he once placed among his 'dearest friends.'
DeLay's spokesman says their relationship no longer exists.
Abramoff is free under $2.5 million (�‚�2 million) bond on six federal charges of conspiracy and wire fraud in the purchase of a casino boats. He is spending a few days at his home in Washington's Maryland suburbs before he is to return to Florida on Aug. 29 to file a plea.
Until last year, Abramoff was among Washington's premier lobbyists, a man whose telephone calls always would be answered. Now he is at least a sidelines figure in an investigation of a street shooting in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, that police said had the trappings of an organized crime murder. His lawyer said Tuesday that Abramoff would be glad to be interviewed by police investigating the killing.
The victim was Konstantinos 'Gus' Boulis, whom Abramoff and a colleague are charged with defrauding in the $147.5 million (�‚�119.8 million) sale of SunCruz Casinos in 2000. Abramoff and Adam Kidan, his business partner are accused of pocketing $60 million (�‚�48.73 million) from the deal. Boulis was gunned down in an ambush some months later.
Abramoff also is a major figure in a House of Representatives ethics investigation of DeLay, which the Texas congressman requested, to determine the truth of allegations that Abramoff or his clients paid some of DeLay's overseas travel expenses in contravention of House rules.
DeLay has said he did not know that the expenses were paid by Abramoff, whom he once described as 'one of my closest and dearest friends.'
Not any more.
'There is no relationship between Mr. Delay and Mr. Abramoff,' DeLay spokesman Ben Porritt said Tuesday. 'Any mention would be in the past tense.'
Porritt blamed politics for the continuing connection in the news media between the two.
'We feel this is an ongoing effort by the political left,' he said. 'Those on the political left target Mr. DeLay because he is capable and effective in delivering the conservative message.'
DeLay, second in power only to Speaker Dennis Hastert in the House, often has used the charge that he was under political attack to divert stories about his relationship with Abramoff since the disgraced lobbyist began to become a liability several months ago.
Last March, as allegations of misconduct began to be aired both in Texas and in the Congress, DeLay said he had not been found to be breaking the rules but that anyway, the Democrats were responsible.
'All they can do is try to tear down the House and burn it down in order to gain power,' DeLay said."
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Sen. Biden Says Bush Should Fire Rumsfeld
Sen. Biden Says Bush Should Fire Rumsfeld
"Sen. Biden Says Bush Should Fire Rumsfeld
By RANDALL CHASE Associated Press Writer
(AP) - DOVER, Del.-President Bush needs to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and level with the American people about the situation in Iraq, said U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, who is testing the political waters for a possible White House run in 2008.
Following up on remarks he made Sunday, Biden said the Bush administration is downplaying expectations in Iraq, and that he wouldn't be surprised if a partial withdrawal of U.S. troops is announced before parliamentary elections scheduled for December.
But the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said a premature withdrawal of U.S. troops would be unwise, given that the biggest problem in Iraq, as he sees it, is 'the lack of order.'
Biden disputed administration claims that more than 175,000 Iraqis have been trained to take over security duties from U.S. troops."
______
The article continues with more anti-this and anti-that stuff. In short, as much as I'd like to see a reasonable democrat in the white house, if they're just going to spew anti-stuff... then no thanks, because that's brainless. For crying out loud, take a stand on something and push ideas forward! Stop sitting back and being an armchair quarterback, do something or offer an alternative. Is this so difficult to learn?
I mean come on... Kerry puts up his Vietnam experience at the forefront... that was stupid/needless. I mean, everyone already knew about it, and if not, it would have mentioned anyway. Not making it an issue and leaving it and its medals uncontested would have been more powerful. But, at least that part of the campaign wasn't anti. And how about the flip flopping record and its feeble defense. Yeah, sure, there were good points, and despite all the negatives, it was a close race.
Ok, there are some lessons that should have been learned. Like, figure out where you stand on issues, passionately believe that view, and stick with it. And probably more importantly, promote your own ideas on how something should, or should have, been handled. Don't nominate someone who can't readily admit to believing in God, who doesn't appear to conceal it or acts like he's worried about the atheist vote (Kerry fumbled along a question regarding religious beliefs, I began to wonder if he actually believed in God for a bit before he finally said otherwise). Leave negative campaign to commercials and press, but when you speak, rise above that and project your views.
There's more lessons than this, but if Biden is testing the waters, then I'm cold. I'm getting sick of hearing what's wrong with the US and everything else. It's time for a positive voice. A Democrat Reagan would be great because he inspired hope and gave us strength, that, more than anything, is why so many loved him. If a Republican comes along first who can inspire, and the Democrats continue the anti campaign, then I'll probably vote Republican. Democrats need to get their crap together, it's getting pathetic and shameful. Yeah, even though I'm more in line with Dems than Repubs, I'll go Repub if they can deliver.
"Sen. Biden Says Bush Should Fire Rumsfeld
By RANDALL CHASE Associated Press Writer
(AP) - DOVER, Del.-President Bush needs to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and level with the American people about the situation in Iraq, said U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden, who is testing the political waters for a possible White House run in 2008.
Following up on remarks he made Sunday, Biden said the Bush administration is downplaying expectations in Iraq, and that he wouldn't be surprised if a partial withdrawal of U.S. troops is announced before parliamentary elections scheduled for December.
But the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said a premature withdrawal of U.S. troops would be unwise, given that the biggest problem in Iraq, as he sees it, is 'the lack of order.'
Biden disputed administration claims that more than 175,000 Iraqis have been trained to take over security duties from U.S. troops."
______
The article continues with more anti-this and anti-that stuff. In short, as much as I'd like to see a reasonable democrat in the white house, if they're just going to spew anti-stuff... then no thanks, because that's brainless. For crying out loud, take a stand on something and push ideas forward! Stop sitting back and being an armchair quarterback, do something or offer an alternative. Is this so difficult to learn?
I mean come on... Kerry puts up his Vietnam experience at the forefront... that was stupid/needless. I mean, everyone already knew about it, and if not, it would have mentioned anyway. Not making it an issue and leaving it and its medals uncontested would have been more powerful. But, at least that part of the campaign wasn't anti. And how about the flip flopping record and its feeble defense. Yeah, sure, there were good points, and despite all the negatives, it was a close race.
Ok, there are some lessons that should have been learned. Like, figure out where you stand on issues, passionately believe that view, and stick with it. And probably more importantly, promote your own ideas on how something should, or should have, been handled. Don't nominate someone who can't readily admit to believing in God, who doesn't appear to conceal it or acts like he's worried about the atheist vote (Kerry fumbled along a question regarding religious beliefs, I began to wonder if he actually believed in God for a bit before he finally said otherwise). Leave negative campaign to commercials and press, but when you speak, rise above that and project your views.
There's more lessons than this, but if Biden is testing the waters, then I'm cold. I'm getting sick of hearing what's wrong with the US and everything else. It's time for a positive voice. A Democrat Reagan would be great because he inspired hope and gave us strength, that, more than anything, is why so many loved him. If a Republican comes along first who can inspire, and the Democrats continue the anti campaign, then I'll probably vote Republican. Democrats need to get their crap together, it's getting pathetic and shameful. Yeah, even though I'm more in line with Dems than Repubs, I'll go Repub if they can deliver.
Officer cleared in Rocha shooting
News 8 Austin | Officer cleared in Rocha shooting
I'm sorry, but this is such BS. Since when does fighting with someone who is resisting arrest equate to a justifiable murder? Does a reasonable police officer in similar circumstances do the same? I should hope not. And if she's going to get away with murder, then at least take her off the streets, make her a pencil pusher so she doesn't overreact again and kill another person.
_________
Wednesday August 17, 2005
Officer cleared in Rocha shooting
Updated: 8/16/2005 10:21 PM
By: James Keith
A Travis County grand jury has issued a no bill in the investigation of Austin Police Officer Julie Schroeder. That means she will not face criminal charges from local government for shooting and killing 18-year-old Daniel Rocha in June.
Frustrated protesters expressed their disappointment in the decision outside the Travis County Justice Complex Tuesday evening.
Rocha's mother, Daniela Rocha, says Tuesday's news doesn't soften the pain her family has encountered the past two months.
'My world is shattered right now. I don't know how to handle myself right now, it's very sad. Every day that goes by it's day by day. My daughter, my son, all three of us are going through a difficult time,' Rocha said.
Tuesday, the Travis County District Attorney's office released stacks of documents related to the Rocha investigation.
In it was a statement from Schroeder describing what happened. She said, 'Rocha and I are on the ground and we are fully engaged in a fight, I would describe it as a fight and wrestling match. His arms are on the inside of me and I could feel him grabbing at my vest and waist.' Schroeder added, 'I was scared for my life and my boss' life. I was worried about Rocha using my Taser and using it on my boss and taking his gun. I have been in a number of fights before and never have I felt this scared and afraid. Instinctively, I grabbed for my gun and shot him once. Self-preservation took over.'
The documents don't give insight into only Officer Schroeder's point of view. There are also several statements from witnesses.
One witness said, 'Detective Walker asked me if I saw a fight or struggle. No, I saw the officer holding the man with one hand, the left, and she had her gun with her right. All I could see was his shoulder that she had him by. Then her gun fired once. She was standing up, kind of hunched over and he was already on the ground.'
One of Rocha's former teachers offered a character description of the teenager.
'Rocha would always say, 'No cop is going to take anything from me or take me down. I ain't going to jail.' I started to think he was serious about his big money business and was worried that he may put up a good fight should someone try to stop him. I tried to counsel Rocha and he didn't care about what I had to say or even about himself,' she said.
Austin Police Chief Stan Knee says while some people might be upset by the reports and the grand jury's decision, they should trust that his department is acting properly.
'It has been difficult for the department being scrutinized every which way, is in fact at times very difficult, but the character of this department is that we expect to continue to work hard to make the city safe,' Knee said.
The Austin Police Department's internal affairs investigation into the Rocha shooting is ongoing. Knee expects it to be wrapped up in four to six weeks.
The Department of Justice is also continuing its investigation"
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Al-Zawahri: what a rip-off merchant
spiked-politics | Article | Al-Zawahri: what a rip-off merchant
I was just telling a coworker the other day that maybe the reason terrorists saw an opening for an attack in the USA, was because we had all these "experts" telling everyone that we were and to expect one. So the terrorists heard that we were ripe an attack inside the states and so they went ahead and gave us our prophecy.
A win-win situation for the schemers (security experts and terrorists), a big fat loss for the rest of us. The only thing I'm not sure about is if the anti-terror security experts who were publicly saying the USA is a big fat unsecure target, did so with the hope that they would get more money or prestige after terrorists followed through with the open invitation.
------
August 2005
Al-Zawahri: what a rip-off merchant
The al-Qaeda deputy is only parroting what’s been said on a thousand lefty blogs since 7/7.
by Brendan O'Neill
Someone should have Ayman al-Zawahri, lieutenant to Osama bin Laden, done for plagiarism. There's nothing remotely original in his statement about the London attacks. Instead he has ripped off sentiments already expressed by scaremongering politicians and in handwringing newspaper editorials here in Britain since the 7/7 attacks. He 's only doing what al-Qaeda bosses have consistently done since 9/11: taking the West's own fear and loathing and throwing it back at us in a supposedly scary, finger-wagging statement to camera.
Al-Zawahri 'blames Blair for bombs', says a BBC headline. 'Blair has brought you destruction in central London', said al-Zawahri. Where could he have got an idea like that? He might have seen it on the front cover of the New Statesman (or on the NS website if he's having trouble getting hold of the paper copy), which recently said 'BLAIR'S BOMBS': 'Blair brought home to this country his and Bush's illegal, unprovoked and blood-soaked adventure in the Middle East.'
Or if al-Zawahri prefers a right-wing read, he might have seen Thatcher's old friend Max Hastings say in the Daily Mail that the bombs were Blair's fault - they were 'the price for being America's foremost ally, for joining President Bush's Iraq adventure', a price which 'was always likely to be paid in London, in innocent blood'. Labour politicians and prestigious think-tanks have also said it, and have made headlines around the world. It has been said that al-Qaeda types like to surf the net (in the absence of having much else to do), in which case al-Zawahri might have got his 'Blair is to blame' line from any number of anti-war blogs or websites.
Al-Zawahri also says that the war in Iraq is a war for oil, and demands that the West stop this 'robbing of our oil and resources'. Since when has al-Qaeda been interested in economics? This argument is taken verbatim from the anti-war movement in the West, which has been chanting the mantra 'It's all about oil!' for the past two years as a quick, easy (and some might say lazy) way of denouncing the war. Now al-Zawahri is milking this simplistic but wildly popular slogan for all its worth.
And what's this all about, the bit where al-Zawahri talks about Americans having to watch the 'losses you are having in Afghanistan and Iraq, in spite of all the media blackout'? This echoes an obsession of various anti-war websites recently, which have argued that the US military is 'blacking out' information about the true number of injuries and fatalities suffered by coalition forces in postwar Iraq.
Al-Zawahri also warns of more attacks against Britain. Perhaps he has heard of the 6,000 police officers that have been deployed to protect 'nervous London' (as one report described it) every Thursday since 7/7. Or he may have seen reports such as this one from two weeks ago: 'EXPERTS FEAR MORE ATTACKS IN LONDON.' 'I hate to be a pessimist', said one counterterrorism expert, 'but my expectation is that the two London attacks are an overture and worse is coming.' Al-Zawahri's warning of 'more destruction' in London is not evidence that he or any of his cronies are directly planning something, but rather suggests that they are tapping into our self-confessed 'pessimism' and 'nervousness' and winding us up some more.
This doesn't only suggest that al-Zawahri has not got an original thought in his head - it also reveals an essential truth about al-Qaeda. They feed off our fears. Far from being the terrible enemy we have been led to believe - who are planning a 'holocaust' against the West, as one particularly overexcited author has put it - al-Qaeda is a ragbag of deluded nihilists and opportunists who thrive on tapping into our doubt and uncertainty. We are scaring ourselves, and al-Qaeda bosses merely cheer along from the sidelines.
We pretty much wrote that script for al-Zawahri and he just read it back to us in a scary, shouty Middle Eastern voice, like a James Bond villain circa 1980. Come on, people, are we really scared of that?"
I was just telling a coworker the other day that maybe the reason terrorists saw an opening for an attack in the USA, was because we had all these "experts" telling everyone that we were and to expect one. So the terrorists heard that we were ripe an attack inside the states and so they went ahead and gave us our prophecy.
A win-win situation for the schemers (security experts and terrorists), a big fat loss for the rest of us. The only thing I'm not sure about is if the anti-terror security experts who were publicly saying the USA is a big fat unsecure target, did so with the hope that they would get more money or prestige after terrorists followed through with the open invitation.
------
August 2005
Al-Zawahri: what a rip-off merchant
The al-Qaeda deputy is only parroting what’s been said on a thousand lefty blogs since 7/7.
by Brendan O'Neill
Someone should have Ayman al-Zawahri, lieutenant to Osama bin Laden, done for plagiarism. There's nothing remotely original in his statement about the London attacks. Instead he has ripped off sentiments already expressed by scaremongering politicians and in handwringing newspaper editorials here in Britain since the 7/7 attacks. He 's only doing what al-Qaeda bosses have consistently done since 9/11: taking the West's own fear and loathing and throwing it back at us in a supposedly scary, finger-wagging statement to camera.
Al-Zawahri 'blames Blair for bombs', says a BBC headline. 'Blair has brought you destruction in central London', said al-Zawahri. Where could he have got an idea like that? He might have seen it on the front cover of the New Statesman (or on the NS website if he's having trouble getting hold of the paper copy), which recently said 'BLAIR'S BOMBS': 'Blair brought home to this country his and Bush's illegal, unprovoked and blood-soaked adventure in the Middle East.'
Or if al-Zawahri prefers a right-wing read, he might have seen Thatcher's old friend Max Hastings say in the Daily Mail that the bombs were Blair's fault - they were 'the price for being America's foremost ally, for joining President Bush's Iraq adventure', a price which 'was always likely to be paid in London, in innocent blood'. Labour politicians and prestigious think-tanks have also said it, and have made headlines around the world. It has been said that al-Qaeda types like to surf the net (in the absence of having much else to do), in which case al-Zawahri might have got his 'Blair is to blame' line from any number of anti-war blogs or websites.
Al-Zawahri also says that the war in Iraq is a war for oil, and demands that the West stop this 'robbing of our oil and resources'. Since when has al-Qaeda been interested in economics? This argument is taken verbatim from the anti-war movement in the West, which has been chanting the mantra 'It's all about oil!' for the past two years as a quick, easy (and some might say lazy) way of denouncing the war. Now al-Zawahri is milking this simplistic but wildly popular slogan for all its worth.
And what's this all about, the bit where al-Zawahri talks about Americans having to watch the 'losses you are having in Afghanistan and Iraq, in spite of all the media blackout'? This echoes an obsession of various anti-war websites recently, which have argued that the US military is 'blacking out' information about the true number of injuries and fatalities suffered by coalition forces in postwar Iraq.
Al-Zawahri also warns of more attacks against Britain. Perhaps he has heard of the 6,000 police officers that have been deployed to protect 'nervous London' (as one report described it) every Thursday since 7/7. Or he may have seen reports such as this one from two weeks ago: 'EXPERTS FEAR MORE ATTACKS IN LONDON.' 'I hate to be a pessimist', said one counterterrorism expert, 'but my expectation is that the two London attacks are an overture and worse is coming.' Al-Zawahri's warning of 'more destruction' in London is not evidence that he or any of his cronies are directly planning something, but rather suggests that they are tapping into our self-confessed 'pessimism' and 'nervousness' and winding us up some more.
This doesn't only suggest that al-Zawahri has not got an original thought in his head - it also reveals an essential truth about al-Qaeda. They feed off our fears. Far from being the terrible enemy we have been led to believe - who are planning a 'holocaust' against the West, as one particularly overexcited author has put it - al-Qaeda is a ragbag of deluded nihilists and opportunists who thrive on tapping into our doubt and uncertainty. We are scaring ourselves, and al-Qaeda bosses merely cheer along from the sidelines.
We pretty much wrote that script for al-Zawahri and he just read it back to us in a scary, shouty Middle Eastern voice, like a James Bond villain circa 1980. Come on, people, are we really scared of that?"
26 Years!
26 Years Later, DNA Clears Man of Rapes
This guy was wrongly convicted of being the, "Bird Road Rapist." What I'm wondering though, is what happened to the real rapist. Why did he stop, if he did (I haven't researched this), once this guy was on trial? Did he feel so guilty that he put an innocent behind bars that he changed his life, or just thought it was an opportune time to quit and get away with his crimes? Or maybe he continued, but decided to rape on another road... or maybe he was convicted on another rape. And lastly, will the police reopen the investigation, or did the case hinge on the faulty eyewittnesses?
-------
By JOHN PAIN Associated Press Writer
(AP) - MIAMI-A man who spent 26 years behind bars as Florida's 'Bird Road Rapist' was released from prison Wednesday after DNA evidence cleared him in two of the attacks and cast doubt on whether he was responsible for any of the crimes.
'Victory,' 67-year-old Luis Diaz said as he walked out of the courthouse a free man. He said he planned to spend time with his family, was not bitter about the time he lost and didn't blame prosecutors.
'They did their job. You have to respect that,' he said later at a news conference. Payment for his years in prison also wasn't on his or his family's mind - for now.
'He is our compensation right now,' said son Jose Diaz, 40, who was flanked by his brother and sister.
Circuit Judge Cristina Pereya-Shuminer threw out his five rape convictions at the request of both Miami-Dade County's chief prosecutor and lawyers for the Innocence Project, a nonprofit organization that works to get inmates exonerated via DNA.
About 30 relatives and friends in the courtroom stood and applauded after the judge said he was free to go. A handcuffed Diaz, dressed in a red jail jumpsuit, waved to his family and wiped his eyes with tissues.
Prosecutors stopped short of declaring Diaz innocent in all the rapes, instead citing the difficulty of retrying him after a quarter-century.
'It is impossible to ignore the difficulties inherent in retrying five very old cases even under the best of circumstances. Police investigators retire, memories fade, and victims move on with their lives,' the dismissal request said.
Diaz was convicted in 1980 and sentenced to life in prison for seven of 25 sexual assaults that occurred between 1977 and 1979 in the Bird Road area of Coral Gables, south of downtown Miami.
The Bird Road Rapist would attack young women drivers, signaling them to pull over by flashing his headlights and then forcing them to have sex at gunpoint.
Diaz was arrested after a victim who worked as a gas station attendant spotted a driver she said looked like her attacker. She gave police the license plate number, which led them to Diaz.
The convictions were based on identifications made by eight victims in all, even though some of them initially described a much heavier and taller Hispanic who spoke English. Diaz, a Cuban-American, spoke little English and, because of his work as a fry cook, smelled of onions - something no victim mentioned.
In 1993, two victims recanted their identification of Diaz, and those two convictions were thrown out. But five other convictions remained, until lawyers asked for DNA testing.
Evidence gathered from the two of the rape victims was discovered, and DNA testing of the semen conclusively excluded Diaz as the attacker in both cases. That, in turn, cast doubt on his other convictions.
Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, who was the county prosecutor when Diaz was convicted, did not return a call for comment Wednesday.
Defense attorney Roy Black, who represented Diaz at his trial, said he was thrilled.
'That Luis' innocence has finally been admitted is cause for celebration, but nothing can erase the 26 years he spent in prison, in horrible condition, separated from his family,' Black said in statement.
Barry Scheck, executive director of the Innocence Project, said the Diaz case demonstrates anew the need for police to improve the accuracy of eyewitness identifications.
He said three-quarters of the 160 prisoners who have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA in the United States had been convicted based on mistaken identification.
'This should be a landmark case in the history of eyewitness reform,' Scheck said. 'There are reforms police and prosecutors are using across the country that reduce error, protect the innocent and help apprehend the guilty.'"
This guy was wrongly convicted of being the, "Bird Road Rapist." What I'm wondering though, is what happened to the real rapist. Why did he stop, if he did (I haven't researched this), once this guy was on trial? Did he feel so guilty that he put an innocent behind bars that he changed his life, or just thought it was an opportune time to quit and get away with his crimes? Or maybe he continued, but decided to rape on another road... or maybe he was convicted on another rape. And lastly, will the police reopen the investigation, or did the case hinge on the faulty eyewittnesses?
-------
By JOHN PAIN Associated Press Writer
(AP) - MIAMI-A man who spent 26 years behind bars as Florida's 'Bird Road Rapist' was released from prison Wednesday after DNA evidence cleared him in two of the attacks and cast doubt on whether he was responsible for any of the crimes.
'Victory,' 67-year-old Luis Diaz said as he walked out of the courthouse a free man. He said he planned to spend time with his family, was not bitter about the time he lost and didn't blame prosecutors.
'They did their job. You have to respect that,' he said later at a news conference. Payment for his years in prison also wasn't on his or his family's mind - for now.
'He is our compensation right now,' said son Jose Diaz, 40, who was flanked by his brother and sister.
Circuit Judge Cristina Pereya-Shuminer threw out his five rape convictions at the request of both Miami-Dade County's chief prosecutor and lawyers for the Innocence Project, a nonprofit organization that works to get inmates exonerated via DNA.
About 30 relatives and friends in the courtroom stood and applauded after the judge said he was free to go. A handcuffed Diaz, dressed in a red jail jumpsuit, waved to his family and wiped his eyes with tissues.
Prosecutors stopped short of declaring Diaz innocent in all the rapes, instead citing the difficulty of retrying him after a quarter-century.
'It is impossible to ignore the difficulties inherent in retrying five very old cases even under the best of circumstances. Police investigators retire, memories fade, and victims move on with their lives,' the dismissal request said.
Diaz was convicted in 1980 and sentenced to life in prison for seven of 25 sexual assaults that occurred between 1977 and 1979 in the Bird Road area of Coral Gables, south of downtown Miami.
The Bird Road Rapist would attack young women drivers, signaling them to pull over by flashing his headlights and then forcing them to have sex at gunpoint.
Diaz was arrested after a victim who worked as a gas station attendant spotted a driver she said looked like her attacker. She gave police the license plate number, which led them to Diaz.
The convictions were based on identifications made by eight victims in all, even though some of them initially described a much heavier and taller Hispanic who spoke English. Diaz, a Cuban-American, spoke little English and, because of his work as a fry cook, smelled of onions - something no victim mentioned.
In 1993, two victims recanted their identification of Diaz, and those two convictions were thrown out. But five other convictions remained, until lawyers asked for DNA testing.
Evidence gathered from the two of the rape victims was discovered, and DNA testing of the semen conclusively excluded Diaz as the attacker in both cases. That, in turn, cast doubt on his other convictions.
Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, who was the county prosecutor when Diaz was convicted, did not return a call for comment Wednesday.
Defense attorney Roy Black, who represented Diaz at his trial, said he was thrilled.
'That Luis' innocence has finally been admitted is cause for celebration, but nothing can erase the 26 years he spent in prison, in horrible condition, separated from his family,' Black said in statement.
Barry Scheck, executive director of the Innocence Project, said the Diaz case demonstrates anew the need for police to improve the accuracy of eyewitness identifications.
He said three-quarters of the 160 prisoners who have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA in the United States had been convicted based on mistaken identification.
'This should be a landmark case in the history of eyewitness reform,' Scheck said. 'There are reforms police and prosecutors are using across the country that reduce error, protect the innocent and help apprehend the guilty.'"
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Watchdog Group Attacks School Bible Study
Watchdog Group Attacks School Bible Study:
The only thing more askew than the below article is the textbook used in the bible study class.
The Texas Freedom Network (www.tfn.org) has the report posted. Apparently, the people who published the text were seriously stupid or maybe just plain inept for the task.
One of things I found pretty amusing, that displays the ignorance and lack of scholorly ability of the author, is a passage that asks students to consider the use of single syllable (english) words as being typical for the Hebrews. Of course the original text wasn't monosyllabic, but it goes to show how focussed they are on the King-James version (interpretation) of the original texts. That's just one of far too many bumbles, like the big P of any written work... Plagiarism.
There's so many flaws with the text that people need to read this report before they defend its use. I mean, I'm a Christian, attended Christian schools, and would certainly hate to see Christianity disrespected. The textbook is a debacle, and its use makes Christians, especially conservative Protestants, look as ignorant as the text.
Now, this article puts an interesting spin on the situation. It glosses over the report by just stating some key items the author of the report listed in the introduction a part showing how the curriculum presents Christian faith claims as history. And even then the reporter can't even get that correct.
In short, the class concept is fine, but the text and its leanings are inappropriate for public schools. Here's the article, which needs some work itself:
------
"Monday, Aug. 1, 2005
Watchdog Group Attacks School Bible Study
By JIM VERTUNO Associated Press Writer
(AP) - AUSTIN, Texas-A religious watchdog group complained Monday that a Bible study course taught in hundreds of public schools in Texas and across the country promotes a fundamentalist Christian view and violates religious freedom.
The Texas Freedom Network, which includes clergy of several faiths, also said the course offered by the Greensboro, N.C.-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools is full of errors and dubious research.
The producers of the Bible class dismissed the Texas Freedom Network as a 'far left' organization trying to suppress study of a historical text.
The National Council on Bible Curriculum Web site says its elective course is offered in high schools and junior highs by more than 300 school districts in 37 states.
Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller said her group looked at the course after the Odessa school board voted in April to offer the class. It asked Southern Methodist University biblical scholar Mark A. Chancey to review the curriculum.
Chancey's review found that the course characterizes the Bible as inspired by God, that discussions of science are based on the biblical account of creation, that Jesus is referred to as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, and that archaeological findings are erroneously used to support claims of the Bible's historical accuracy.
He said the course also suggests the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation's founding document.
'No public school student should have to have a particular religious belief forced upon them,' the Rev. Ragan Courtney, pastor of The Sanctuary, a Baptist congregation in Austin, said at a news conference held by Texas Freedom Network.
Elizabeth Ridenour, president of the Bible class group, accused the Texas Freedom Network of censorship.
'They are actually quite fearful of academic freedom, and of local schools deciding for themselves what elective courses to offer their citizens,' she said in a statement.
According to the Texas Freedom Network, 52 Texas school districts offer the class. In Odessa, more than 6,000 people signed a petition in support before it was approved in April.
Although representatives of the Bible council have attended school board meetings in Odessa, superintendent Wendell Sollis said course materials have not yet been selected.
Miller said the Texas Freedom Network supports study of the Bible as a significant historical text, but not in a way that amounts to religious indoctrination.
2005-08-02T01:06:42Z
Copyright 2005
The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."
The only thing more askew than the below article is the textbook used in the bible study class.
The Texas Freedom Network (www.tfn.org) has the report posted. Apparently, the people who published the text were seriously stupid or maybe just plain inept for the task.
One of things I found pretty amusing, that displays the ignorance and lack of scholorly ability of the author, is a passage that asks students to consider the use of single syllable (english) words as being typical for the Hebrews. Of course the original text wasn't monosyllabic, but it goes to show how focussed they are on the King-James version (interpretation) of the original texts. That's just one of far too many bumbles, like the big P of any written work... Plagiarism.
There's so many flaws with the text that people need to read this report before they defend its use. I mean, I'm a Christian, attended Christian schools, and would certainly hate to see Christianity disrespected. The textbook is a debacle, and its use makes Christians, especially conservative Protestants, look as ignorant as the text.
Now, this article puts an interesting spin on the situation. It glosses over the report by just stating some key items the author of the report listed in the introduction a part showing how the curriculum presents Christian faith claims as history. And even then the reporter can't even get that correct.
In short, the class concept is fine, but the text and its leanings are inappropriate for public schools. Here's the article, which needs some work itself:
------
"Monday, Aug. 1, 2005
Watchdog Group Attacks School Bible Study
By JIM VERTUNO Associated Press Writer
(AP) - AUSTIN, Texas-A religious watchdog group complained Monday that a Bible study course taught in hundreds of public schools in Texas and across the country promotes a fundamentalist Christian view and violates religious freedom.
The Texas Freedom Network, which includes clergy of several faiths, also said the course offered by the Greensboro, N.C.-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools is full of errors and dubious research.
The producers of the Bible class dismissed the Texas Freedom Network as a 'far left' organization trying to suppress study of a historical text.
The National Council on Bible Curriculum Web site says its elective course is offered in high schools and junior highs by more than 300 school districts in 37 states.
Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller said her group looked at the course after the Odessa school board voted in April to offer the class. It asked Southern Methodist University biblical scholar Mark A. Chancey to review the curriculum.
Chancey's review found that the course characterizes the Bible as inspired by God, that discussions of science are based on the biblical account of creation, that Jesus is referred to as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, and that archaeological findings are erroneously used to support claims of the Bible's historical accuracy.
He said the course also suggests the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation's founding document.
'No public school student should have to have a particular religious belief forced upon them,' the Rev. Ragan Courtney, pastor of The Sanctuary, a Baptist congregation in Austin, said at a news conference held by Texas Freedom Network.
Elizabeth Ridenour, president of the Bible class group, accused the Texas Freedom Network of censorship.
'They are actually quite fearful of academic freedom, and of local schools deciding for themselves what elective courses to offer their citizens,' she said in a statement.
According to the Texas Freedom Network, 52 Texas school districts offer the class. In Odessa, more than 6,000 people signed a petition in support before it was approved in April.
Although representatives of the Bible council have attended school board meetings in Odessa, superintendent Wendell Sollis said course materials have not yet been selected.
Miller said the Texas Freedom Network supports study of the Bible as a significant historical text, but not in a way that amounts to religious indoctrination.
2005-08-02T01:06:42Z
Copyright 2005
The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Lawyers spar over whether death row inmate is retarded
Lawyers spar over whether death row inmate is retarded; case led to Supreme Court decision:
"Atkins was 18 when he and William Jones killed Airman 1st Class Eric Nesbitt, 21, for beer money. Nesbitt was abducted outside a convenience store, forced to withdraw money from an automated teller machine and driven to a desolate road, where he was shot eight times.
Prosecutors said Atkins was the triggerman. A plea agreement was reached with Jones, who testified against Atkins and received a life sentence.
Three years ago, Supreme Court justices sided with Atkins' lawyers in ruling that execution of the mentally retarded is unconstitutionally cruel, but did not decide whether Atkins has the disability."
----
Yes, killing someone is stupid. Yes, this guy is very stupid. But basing retardedness on IQ is pretty stupid too. Why not apply insanity to the same test, after all stupid people do things that those of normal or higher intelligence consider insane... like killing someone.
Isn't Hawking retarded? But isn't he also like the smartest person on Earth right now? Oh, 'mentally' retarded... hmm, little bit different. Oh it makes sense now, I see the light. Mentally retarded is the same thing as "stupid." So the law of the land as determined by the Supreme Court is that it is cruel to execute someone very stupid. Why? In this case, the guy was smart enough to robbing someone is wrong, smart enough to know that shooting someone would kill them, smart enough to wait until in a desolate place to start shooting the victim.
You know, the only way this guy should be applicable to the law (not be executed) is if he was just doing what his partner was telling him to do. So that if he was an active participant, not just a tool, then he is smart enough to be executed without the execution being cruel.
Forget this bright line IQ test, take the time to look at each case individually and have a jury make the determination whether the guy is in fact an active participant or if he was under a false impression or other manipulation.
"Atkins was 18 when he and William Jones killed Airman 1st Class Eric Nesbitt, 21, for beer money. Nesbitt was abducted outside a convenience store, forced to withdraw money from an automated teller machine and driven to a desolate road, where he was shot eight times.
Prosecutors said Atkins was the triggerman. A plea agreement was reached with Jones, who testified against Atkins and received a life sentence.
Three years ago, Supreme Court justices sided with Atkins' lawyers in ruling that execution of the mentally retarded is unconstitutionally cruel, but did not decide whether Atkins has the disability."
----
Yes, killing someone is stupid. Yes, this guy is very stupid. But basing retardedness on IQ is pretty stupid too. Why not apply insanity to the same test, after all stupid people do things that those of normal or higher intelligence consider insane... like killing someone.
Isn't Hawking retarded? But isn't he also like the smartest person on Earth right now? Oh, 'mentally' retarded... hmm, little bit different. Oh it makes sense now, I see the light. Mentally retarded is the same thing as "stupid." So the law of the land as determined by the Supreme Court is that it is cruel to execute someone very stupid. Why? In this case, the guy was smart enough to robbing someone is wrong, smart enough to know that shooting someone would kill them, smart enough to wait until in a desolate place to start shooting the victim.
You know, the only way this guy should be applicable to the law (not be executed) is if he was just doing what his partner was telling him to do. So that if he was an active participant, not just a tool, then he is smart enough to be executed without the execution being cruel.
Forget this bright line IQ test, take the time to look at each case individually and have a jury make the determination whether the guy is in fact an active participant or if he was under a false impression or other manipulation.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
News 8 Austin | 24 Hour Local News | TOP STORIES | M.E. now says Rocha had drugs in his system
News 8 Austin | 24 Hour Local News | TOP STORIES | M.E. now says Rocha had drugs in his system: "M.E. now says Rocha had drugs in his system
Updated: 7/19/2005 8:14 AM
By: News 8 Austin Staff
The Travis County Medical Examiner's office reversed their previous position Monday on the investigation into the police shooting of Daniel Rocha.
The ME now says Rocha did have drugs in his system when he was killed by an Austin police officer on June 16. Original toxicology reports showed no traces of drugs in his system.
'We feel very bad that this happened, but this is a very special case and it could have happened in any other office,' Travis County Medical Examiner Dr. Roberto Bayardo said.
Rocha, 18, was shot in the back and killed after police say he struggled with Officer Julie Schroeder after a traffic stop in Southeast Austin.
The Travis County Medical Examiner's office said APD detectives 'strongly believed' Rocha had smoked marijuana before the incident, and pushed for a different, more specific test.
The medical examiner reported Daniel Rocha had marijuana in his system, which contradicts a previous report.
Austin Police Chief Stan Knee said his department 'is disturbed by the inconsistent findings.'
'Immediately upon being notified of the results, I contacted the District Attorney's office and urged them to seize the blood and urine evidence and send it to a third party laboratory for analysis,' Knee said.
'We are very disturbed, too. Exceptionally disturbed, and we are very glad that we are going to submit the specimens to another laboratory to confirm our findings,' Bayardo said.
The shooting death upset many in his neighborhood. One week after the event, police and city leaders hosted a community forum. For many, it was a night to vent frustrated emotions. The forum is available on News 8 on Demand, channel 1458 on Time Warner Cable.
The Hispanic Advocates and Business Leadership of Austin hosted another panel Monday to try and rebuild that trust.
Police chief Stan Knee and Austin City Manager Tobey Futrell attended the meeting and talked with neighbors.
City leaders say the timing of the forum with the announcement of Rocha's new toxicology report was just a coincidence.
6/23/05 Rocha investigation turned over to DA
6/17/05 APD, city to address community concerns raised in forum
6/17/05 APD answers questions in Rocha's death
6/16/05 FBI will investigate Rocha shooting
6/14/05 Knee speaks out on officer-related shooting
6/13/05 Protestors angry over police shooting of drug suspect
6/12/05 Community groups call for investigation into Rocha shooting
6/10/05 Officer shoots suspect dead"
------------
Rocha... probably wasn't the nicest guy in town... probably smoked pot. Fine, does that deserve the death penalty? Hell no.
Here's a fact not mentioned in the article nor by the police... Rocha had TRACE amounts of pot in his system. Someone who had recently smoked pot would have about 10 times the amount he had. Maybe if he had been high when he got pulled over, he would be alive today because pot makes one mellow, not violent.
Here's probably the short version of what happened. Rocha, who's had many prior dealings with the police and this particular officer for a while, gets pulled over. The cop suspects that there is probably something else going on, like someone having some weed on them, so she fabricates this "suspicion of marijuana" to validate a search of the vehicle. Rocha correctly sees this as a fishing expedition/harassment, and knows only rich people can really fight the system. So he tries to run away.
Policewoman isn't strong enough to keep Rocha at the scene, and as she is being overpowered, and not wanting to have to chase after Rocha, she shoots him in the back. Maybe she didn't mean to kill him... but she did.
But in order for all this to be on the up and up, this suspected marijuana use which gave rise to the search and altercation, must be supported. Unfortunately for Austin PD and Policewoman/murderer, TRACE amounts of pot means he had smoked some earlier but wasn't under the effects, and would not be noticeable to the keenest of eyes, police or otherwise.
Policewoman needs to be charged for the murder, and waving a report that basically proves Rocha wasn't drug-free, is only fodder for the naive or police-biassed.
Sure, I believe the chief should stand behind his officers and have faith in their abilities... but he shouldn't do so when the evidence clearly indicates the officer is not only in the wrong, but criminally negligent at the least. Policewoman needs to be brought to justice and held accountable, just like everyone else.
Updated: 7/19/2005 8:14 AM
By: News 8 Austin Staff
The Travis County Medical Examiner's office reversed their previous position Monday on the investigation into the police shooting of Daniel Rocha.
The ME now says Rocha did have drugs in his system when he was killed by an Austin police officer on June 16. Original toxicology reports showed no traces of drugs in his system.
'We feel very bad that this happened, but this is a very special case and it could have happened in any other office,' Travis County Medical Examiner Dr. Roberto Bayardo said.
Rocha, 18, was shot in the back and killed after police say he struggled with Officer Julie Schroeder after a traffic stop in Southeast Austin.
The Travis County Medical Examiner's office said APD detectives 'strongly believed' Rocha had smoked marijuana before the incident, and pushed for a different, more specific test.
The medical examiner reported Daniel Rocha had marijuana in his system, which contradicts a previous report.
Austin Police Chief Stan Knee said his department 'is disturbed by the inconsistent findings.'
'Immediately upon being notified of the results, I contacted the District Attorney's office and urged them to seize the blood and urine evidence and send it to a third party laboratory for analysis,' Knee said.
'We are very disturbed, too. Exceptionally disturbed, and we are very glad that we are going to submit the specimens to another laboratory to confirm our findings,' Bayardo said.
The shooting death upset many in his neighborhood. One week after the event, police and city leaders hosted a community forum. For many, it was a night to vent frustrated emotions. The forum is available on News 8 on Demand, channel 1458 on Time Warner Cable.
The Hispanic Advocates and Business Leadership of Austin hosted another panel Monday to try and rebuild that trust.
Police chief Stan Knee and Austin City Manager Tobey Futrell attended the meeting and talked with neighbors.
City leaders say the timing of the forum with the announcement of Rocha's new toxicology report was just a coincidence.
6/23/05 Rocha investigation turned over to DA
6/17/05 APD, city to address community concerns raised in forum
6/17/05 APD answers questions in Rocha's death
6/16/05 FBI will investigate Rocha shooting
6/14/05 Knee speaks out on officer-related shooting
6/13/05 Protestors angry over police shooting of drug suspect
6/12/05 Community groups call for investigation into Rocha shooting
6/10/05 Officer shoots suspect dead"
------------
Rocha... probably wasn't the nicest guy in town... probably smoked pot. Fine, does that deserve the death penalty? Hell no.
Here's a fact not mentioned in the article nor by the police... Rocha had TRACE amounts of pot in his system. Someone who had recently smoked pot would have about 10 times the amount he had. Maybe if he had been high when he got pulled over, he would be alive today because pot makes one mellow, not violent.
Here's probably the short version of what happened. Rocha, who's had many prior dealings with the police and this particular officer for a while, gets pulled over. The cop suspects that there is probably something else going on, like someone having some weed on them, so she fabricates this "suspicion of marijuana" to validate a search of the vehicle. Rocha correctly sees this as a fishing expedition/harassment, and knows only rich people can really fight the system. So he tries to run away.
Policewoman isn't strong enough to keep Rocha at the scene, and as she is being overpowered, and not wanting to have to chase after Rocha, she shoots him in the back. Maybe she didn't mean to kill him... but she did.
But in order for all this to be on the up and up, this suspected marijuana use which gave rise to the search and altercation, must be supported. Unfortunately for Austin PD and Policewoman/murderer, TRACE amounts of pot means he had smoked some earlier but wasn't under the effects, and would not be noticeable to the keenest of eyes, police or otherwise.
Policewoman needs to be charged for the murder, and waving a report that basically proves Rocha wasn't drug-free, is only fodder for the naive or police-biassed.
Sure, I believe the chief should stand behind his officers and have faith in their abilities... but he shouldn't do so when the evidence clearly indicates the officer is not only in the wrong, but criminally negligent at the least. Policewoman needs to be brought to justice and held accountable, just like everyone else.
Friday, July 15, 2005
'Not In the Name of Islam'
'Not In the Name of Islam' - Yahoo! News: "'Not In the Name of Islam'
By Ibrahim Hooper Fri Jul 15, 7:38 AM ET
The question I am asked most often in media interviews and on radio call-in programs is: 'Why don't Muslim leaders condemn terrorism?'
As a person who writes frequent statements condemning terrorism in all its forms, it is frustrating to hear that question come up in interview after interview.
After all, it was a broad coalition of American Muslim groups that issued what was perhaps the first condemnation of the 9/11 attacks. My own organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), published a full-page advertisement condemning those attacks and offering condolences to the victims.
Muslim organizations and leaders in this country and around the world have consistently condemned violence against civilians, whether it is suicide bombs in the Middle East, attacks on Christian churches in Pakistan or the bombing of London's transportation system. Those condemning terrorism ranged from the Grand Shaykh of Al-Azhar University in Egypt to ayatollahs in
Iran.
Following the latest terrorist outrage in Britain on Thursday, CAIR echoed a call by British Muslim groups urging all Islamic prayer leaders, or imams, to condemn terrorism in their Friday sermons.
Ordinary Muslims contacted British diplomatic offices to offer condolences. A delegation of Muslim leaders also met with the British ambassador to show solidarity with the people of the United Kingdom.
In 2004, CAIR launched a petition drive, called 'Not in the Name of Islam,' designed to disassociate Islam from the violent acts of a few Muslims. The petition, signed by some 700,000 Muslims, states in part: 'We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside the teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad.'
This week, we turned that petition into a television public service announcement that is being distributed nationwide. Arabic and Urdu subtitled versions will also be made available to television stations in Muslim countries. (To read the petition or to view the PSA, go to www.cair.com)
Mutual misunderstanding is the fuel that propels the twin phenomena of anti-Americanism and Islamophobia. Muslims have a religious duty to speak out against terrorism. People of other faiths have a similar duty to hear mainstream Muslim voices and to help avoid a downward spiral of mutual mistrust and hostility. The best way to break that cycle of mistrust is to know each other as individuals. Prejudice decreases as one-on-one interaction between ordinary people of different faiths increases.
Are Muslims doing all they can to condemn terrorism and repudiate those who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam? We ask ourselves that question every day. And every day, we try to give our fellow Americans a reason to answer in the affirmative.
Ibrahim Hooper is national communications director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations; CAIR is the nation's largest Muslim civil liberties group."
------
What's that? Hmm, I don't think I've ever heard this before. Maybe I did and forgot? Maybe... maybe I'm thinking of an interview with an "ordinary muslim" on some street who said muslims felt good about 9/11 because of their resentment towards the U.S. Maybe I'm not seeing muslims actively trying to disuade the terrorists. Maybe I'm seeing muslim regimes support and/or turn a blind eye to terrorists. To make a statement that these muslim terrorists/extremists are a "tiny minority" is bold, because the 700k muslims that object to it is a tiny minority of muslims itself.
Let's get real... most muslims hate the U.S., as hypocritical as it is since many live here and enjoy the freedoms and/or technology produced here, they continue to hate the U.S. for whatever reason. From this nonsensical animosity, most allow extremism/terrorism to happen or take no stance against it.
Thus, I label this article as being... deceitful bullshit. Or, if the author really believes what he's saying, just bullshit.
By Ibrahim Hooper Fri Jul 15, 7:38 AM ET
The question I am asked most often in media interviews and on radio call-in programs is: 'Why don't Muslim leaders condemn terrorism?'
As a person who writes frequent statements condemning terrorism in all its forms, it is frustrating to hear that question come up in interview after interview.
After all, it was a broad coalition of American Muslim groups that issued what was perhaps the first condemnation of the 9/11 attacks. My own organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), published a full-page advertisement condemning those attacks and offering condolences to the victims.
Muslim organizations and leaders in this country and around the world have consistently condemned violence against civilians, whether it is suicide bombs in the Middle East, attacks on Christian churches in Pakistan or the bombing of London's transportation system. Those condemning terrorism ranged from the Grand Shaykh of Al-Azhar University in Egypt to ayatollahs in
Iran.
Following the latest terrorist outrage in Britain on Thursday, CAIR echoed a call by British Muslim groups urging all Islamic prayer leaders, or imams, to condemn terrorism in their Friday sermons.
Ordinary Muslims contacted British diplomatic offices to offer condolences. A delegation of Muslim leaders also met with the British ambassador to show solidarity with the people of the United Kingdom.
In 2004, CAIR launched a petition drive, called 'Not in the Name of Islam,' designed to disassociate Islam from the violent acts of a few Muslims. The petition, signed by some 700,000 Muslims, states in part: 'We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside the teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad.'
This week, we turned that petition into a television public service announcement that is being distributed nationwide. Arabic and Urdu subtitled versions will also be made available to television stations in Muslim countries. (To read the petition or to view the PSA, go to www.cair.com)
Mutual misunderstanding is the fuel that propels the twin phenomena of anti-Americanism and Islamophobia. Muslims have a religious duty to speak out against terrorism. People of other faiths have a similar duty to hear mainstream Muslim voices and to help avoid a downward spiral of mutual mistrust and hostility. The best way to break that cycle of mistrust is to know each other as individuals. Prejudice decreases as one-on-one interaction between ordinary people of different faiths increases.
Are Muslims doing all they can to condemn terrorism and repudiate those who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam? We ask ourselves that question every day. And every day, we try to give our fellow Americans a reason to answer in the affirmative.
Ibrahim Hooper is national communications director for the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations; CAIR is the nation's largest Muslim civil liberties group."
------
What's that? Hmm, I don't think I've ever heard this before. Maybe I did and forgot? Maybe... maybe I'm thinking of an interview with an "ordinary muslim" on some street who said muslims felt good about 9/11 because of their resentment towards the U.S. Maybe I'm not seeing muslims actively trying to disuade the terrorists. Maybe I'm seeing muslim regimes support and/or turn a blind eye to terrorists. To make a statement that these muslim terrorists/extremists are a "tiny minority" is bold, because the 700k muslims that object to it is a tiny minority of muslims itself.
Let's get real... most muslims hate the U.S., as hypocritical as it is since many live here and enjoy the freedoms and/or technology produced here, they continue to hate the U.S. for whatever reason. From this nonsensical animosity, most allow extremism/terrorism to happen or take no stance against it.
Thus, I label this article as being... deceitful bullshit. Or, if the author really believes what he's saying, just bullshit.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Teen Allegedly Confesses to Creating Worm
Teen Allegedly Confesses to Creating Worm - Yahoo! News:
"VERDEN, Germany - A German teenager reiterated his confession to creating last year's 'Sasser' computer worm as he went on trial Tuesday on computer sabotage and related charges, a court official said."
Seems like most of the crackers that make headlines are from either Europe or Asia. Are American crackers too good to get caught, or are they lagging behind?
Of course, right beside this article was this one...
"More Computer Classes Urged for Kids
"
"By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer Mon Jul 4, 1:47 PM ET
"LOS ANGELES - Even in a nation where most every school has Internet access and computer use often starts by nursery school, teachers of technology see a warning message flashing.
"For students in elementary and secondary schools, states have few developed standards or required courses in computer science — a field that goes beyond basic literacy to encompass hardware and software design, real-world applications and computers' effect on society."
So there ya go.
"VERDEN, Germany - A German teenager reiterated his confession to creating last year's 'Sasser' computer worm as he went on trial Tuesday on computer sabotage and related charges, a court official said."
Seems like most of the crackers that make headlines are from either Europe or Asia. Are American crackers too good to get caught, or are they lagging behind?
Of course, right beside this article was this one...
"More Computer Classes Urged for Kids
"
"By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer Mon Jul 4, 1:47 PM ET
"LOS ANGELES - Even in a nation where most every school has Internet access and computer use often starts by nursery school, teachers of technology see a warning message flashing.
"For students in elementary and secondary schools, states have few developed standards or required courses in computer science — a field that goes beyond basic literacy to encompass hardware and software design, real-world applications and computers' effect on society."
So there ya go.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
President Terrorist
Top News Article | Reuters.com:
"'As soon as I saw his picture in the paper, I knew that was the bastard,' said Scott, of Jonesboro, Georgia. 'The new president of Iran is a terrorist.'"
I knew he looked familiar, but I figured maybe I was just stereotyping or something. He's definitely the guy in the photos that show him walking beside hostages with an unfriendly look on his face. 25 years and he still has the same hairstyle, beard, everything. I think the people of Tehran and probably most of Iran had to know who he is, I'm sure he kept his "look" for the recognition factor that always plays a part in elections.
So... what's next? Does this just put him along the lines of Kim Jong Mentally Ill, or is he something different because he took a leading part of one of America's darkest hours? I say he's obviously different, and I think he makes Iran a prime target for the USA to... oh, how should I say... spread democracy. Yeah, this guy brings back old wounds, and it would be great to get revenge on him. Paybacks are a bitch. =)
"'As soon as I saw his picture in the paper, I knew that was the bastard,' said Scott, of Jonesboro, Georgia. 'The new president of Iran is a terrorist.'"
I knew he looked familiar, but I figured maybe I was just stereotyping or something. He's definitely the guy in the photos that show him walking beside hostages with an unfriendly look on his face. 25 years and he still has the same hairstyle, beard, everything. I think the people of Tehran and probably most of Iran had to know who he is, I'm sure he kept his "look" for the recognition factor that always plays a part in elections.
So... what's next? Does this just put him along the lines of Kim Jong Mentally Ill, or is he something different because he took a leading part of one of America's darkest hours? I say he's obviously different, and I think he makes Iran a prime target for the USA to... oh, how should I say... spread democracy. Yeah, this guy brings back old wounds, and it would be great to get revenge on him. Paybacks are a bitch. =)
Ozone Advisory - Your Lungs Are Burning
I finally read something that tells why ozone on the ground is bad aside from it being "pollution."
---
Editorial: No Breathing Easy: Heed ozone danger;
your lungs will thank you
Dallas Morning News
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
"Picture the worst sunburn you ever saw. Now picture it inside your lungs.
"That's the picture you get from a couple of photos the EPA uses to illustrate the way breathing ground-level ozone sears lung tissue. The healthy tissue is the color of a white peach: creamy with tinges of pink. The ozone-inflamed tissue is the color of a ripe tomato.
"That's why it's important to pay attention and curtail outdoor activity – especially for children – when the ozone alert level climbs to orange or red. That's why anyone who believes that North Texas' air isn't a serious health hazard needs to come back from Washington and spend a couple of days in the emergency room at Children's Hospital.
"This summer may or may not turn out to be especially bad for our lungs. But it got an early start on the ozone season, with the first orange alert May 6 and the first red alert last Tuesday. If the bad days do continue to stack up, it may be tempting to ignore the warnings. Kids – and even adults – do not like being cooped up indoors. But before you blow off the cautions, consider these facts, taken directly from the EPA's Web site:
•Even at very low levels, ground-level ozone triggers a variety of health problems including aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity and increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses like pneumonia and bronchitis.
•Repeated exposure to ozone pollution for several months may cause permanent lung damage.
•Damage to children's developing lungs may lead to reduced lung function in adulthood. In adults, ozone exposure may accelerate the natural decline in lung function that occurs as part of normal aging.
•Ozone damage can occur without any noticeable signs. People who live in areaswhere ozone levels are frequently high may find that their initial symptoms goaway over time – particularly when exposure to high ozone levels continues forseveral days. Ozone continues to cause lung damage even when the symptoms have disappeared.
"For an hour-by-hour animated map of current ozone conditions, go towww.epa.gov/airnow/aqimaps.html. And enjoy your summer."
---
Editorial: No Breathing Easy: Heed ozone danger;
your lungs will thank you
Dallas Morning News
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
"Picture the worst sunburn you ever saw. Now picture it inside your lungs.
"That's the picture you get from a couple of photos the EPA uses to illustrate the way breathing ground-level ozone sears lung tissue. The healthy tissue is the color of a white peach: creamy with tinges of pink. The ozone-inflamed tissue is the color of a ripe tomato.
"That's why it's important to pay attention and curtail outdoor activity – especially for children – when the ozone alert level climbs to orange or red. That's why anyone who believes that North Texas' air isn't a serious health hazard needs to come back from Washington and spend a couple of days in the emergency room at Children's Hospital.
"This summer may or may not turn out to be especially bad for our lungs. But it got an early start on the ozone season, with the first orange alert May 6 and the first red alert last Tuesday. If the bad days do continue to stack up, it may be tempting to ignore the warnings. Kids – and even adults – do not like being cooped up indoors. But before you blow off the cautions, consider these facts, taken directly from the EPA's Web site:
•Even at very low levels, ground-level ozone triggers a variety of health problems including aggravated asthma, reduced lung capacity and increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses like pneumonia and bronchitis.
•Repeated exposure to ozone pollution for several months may cause permanent lung damage.
•Damage to children's developing lungs may lead to reduced lung function in adulthood. In adults, ozone exposure may accelerate the natural decline in lung function that occurs as part of normal aging.
•Ozone damage can occur without any noticeable signs. People who live in areaswhere ozone levels are frequently high may find that their initial symptoms goaway over time – particularly when exposure to high ozone levels continues forseveral days. Ozone continues to cause lung damage even when the symptoms have disappeared.
"For an hour-by-hour animated map of current ozone conditions, go towww.epa.gov/airnow/aqimaps.html. And enjoy your summer."
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Lying Liars & the Presidents Who Employ Them
Lying Liars & the Presidents Who Employ Them - Yahoo! News:
"As Karl Rove's comments later demonstrated, however, Durbin's cave was pointless. Speaking to New York's Conservative Party, Rove all but termed Durbin--and every liberal--a traitor:
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what MoveOn.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be to 'use moderation and restraint in responding to the...terrorist attacks against the United States.'...Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: We will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: We must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags and the killing fields of Cambodia. Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot--three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the twentieth century? Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
I saw a documentary regarding Karl Rove. In it, he is depicted as someone who is fairly smart and detailed. That he is a liar is a given. That's nothing new for anyone in politics, and it certainly is within the current track record for Republicans. This article ends pointing out that the times have changed in politics. There is no more working together like we had even in the 80s where then-democrat Phil Gramm worked on Reagan's budget or some sort of economic package. Yeah, those days are dead right now, and if there isn't compromise to achieve an American agenda, as opposed to a strictly Republican agenda, I predict that there will either be a major backlash, or there is going to be some vietnam-style protests to get back lost rights, freedoms, and fairness, and other signs of social strife by non-baby-boomer Americans.
"As Karl Rove's comments later demonstrated, however, Durbin's cave was pointless. Speaking to New York's Conservative Party, Rove all but termed Durbin--and every liberal--a traitor:
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. In the wake of 9/11, conservatives believed it was time to unleash the might and power of the United States military against the Taliban; in the wake of 9/11, liberals believed it was time to submit a petition. I am not joking. Submitting a petition is precisely what MoveOn.org did. It was a petition imploring the powers that be to 'use moderation and restraint in responding to the...terrorist attacks against the United States.'...Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said: We will defeat our enemies. Liberals saw what happened to us and said: We must understand our enemies. Conservatives see the United States as a great nation engaged in a noble cause; liberals see the United States and they see Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags and the killing fields of Cambodia. Has there been a more revealing moment this year than when Democratic Senator Richard Durbin, speaking on the Senate floor, compared what Americans had done to prisoners in our control at Guantanamo Bay with what was done by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot--three of the most brutal and malevolent figures in the twentieth century? Let me put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts to the region the words of Senator Durbin, certainly putting America's men and women in uniform in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
I saw a documentary regarding Karl Rove. In it, he is depicted as someone who is fairly smart and detailed. That he is a liar is a given. That's nothing new for anyone in politics, and it certainly is within the current track record for Republicans. This article ends pointing out that the times have changed in politics. There is no more working together like we had even in the 80s where then-democrat Phil Gramm worked on Reagan's budget or some sort of economic package. Yeah, those days are dead right now, and if there isn't compromise to achieve an American agenda, as opposed to a strictly Republican agenda, I predict that there will either be a major backlash, or there is going to be some vietnam-style protests to get back lost rights, freedoms, and fairness, and other signs of social strife by non-baby-boomer Americans.
Iraqis Split Over Bush Pledge on Troops
Iraqis Split Over Bush Pledge on Troops - Yahoo! News
The Iraqi people should be hoping that their security/armed forces can get trained or be able to control the terrorists faster, instead of hoping for the coalition forces to leave. If the coalition forces suddenly left today, Iraqies would be whining even more. Whine whine whine, that's all you ever hear over there, bunch of whiners. Too lazy to do things for themselves, have to hold their hands for everything, try to be nice to them and they still keep whining. The only people over there that you don't hear whining are the terrorists, but that's probably because they don't have as much access to the media.
The Iraqi people should be hoping that their security/armed forces can get trained or be able to control the terrorists faster, instead of hoping for the coalition forces to leave. If the coalition forces suddenly left today, Iraqies would be whining even more. Whine whine whine, that's all you ever hear over there, bunch of whiners. Too lazy to do things for themselves, have to hold their hands for everything, try to be nice to them and they still keep whining. The only people over there that you don't hear whining are the terrorists, but that's probably because they don't have as much access to the media.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
As Iranians head to polls, a lesson emerges for U.S.
Yahoo! News:
"In Iraq, the USA is already facing some unintended consequences. Iraq wasn't a central battleground in the war on terror when the United States invaded, but it is now. Long-term uncertainties include the possibility of an Islamic, anti-U.S. government.
If so, one lasting hope for a successful democratic model in the Muslim world might be Iran. Not because the United States can hammer it into its own image, but because Iran's people, looking westward, might demand what they do not have."
So very optimistic this one is (in a yoda voice). Optimistic, but unrealistic. The middle east folks appear to need a very strong and "hands on" government. I think the political systems over there reflect that, because a stable government over there needs to be able to handle the unstable/wild population, and the only way to do that, apparently, is to be controlling/brutal/totalitarian. Although they could give democracy or republicanism (not the GOP) a try, I predict it will ultimately fail due to the instability. Hopefully I'm wrong, hopefully the Iraq experiment will be a success, hopefully democracy will take root and bear fruit... I doubt it, but there's hope.
Perhaps I'm thinking that democracy in any form will probably only be a real option for civilized nations. When one thinks of civilized nations, I do not believe any middle-east country comes to mind. Instead, the monicker of "Arabic country" comes in. I mean, come on, they're stuck in time... they still dress like people 2,000 freekin years ago, and sadly, that's not a joke. Either their religion set the clothing of its time upon them forever, or they're not creative enough to progress even clothing! Either way, it's pathetic.
And then of course comes the contradictions. The biggest one people hear about is how they abhore the "West" for its technology. Well here's a technology they should get rid of if they really believe that, electricity. Here's another one that they need to scrap, plumbing. And how about medical and surgical technologies, are they doing without those at all? No, of course not. They want technology as much as anyone else, so it's not really a belief, but an excuse, and not a very good one at that.
Anyway, even though Persia was once a model of civilization, for its time, that's not longer the case. They have something holding them back in a big way. It's not their religion though, that'd just be another excuse. It's fear. Fear of what? Well, a lot. Trying, success, individualism, accountability, expression, and change, to name a few. But maybe I'm wrong. /shrug
"In Iraq, the USA is already facing some unintended consequences. Iraq wasn't a central battleground in the war on terror when the United States invaded, but it is now. Long-term uncertainties include the possibility of an Islamic, anti-U.S. government.
If so, one lasting hope for a successful democratic model in the Muslim world might be Iran. Not because the United States can hammer it into its own image, but because Iran's people, looking westward, might demand what they do not have."
So very optimistic this one is (in a yoda voice). Optimistic, but unrealistic. The middle east folks appear to need a very strong and "hands on" government. I think the political systems over there reflect that, because a stable government over there needs to be able to handle the unstable/wild population, and the only way to do that, apparently, is to be controlling/brutal/totalitarian. Although they could give democracy or republicanism (not the GOP) a try, I predict it will ultimately fail due to the instability. Hopefully I'm wrong, hopefully the Iraq experiment will be a success, hopefully democracy will take root and bear fruit... I doubt it, but there's hope.
Perhaps I'm thinking that democracy in any form will probably only be a real option for civilized nations. When one thinks of civilized nations, I do not believe any middle-east country comes to mind. Instead, the monicker of "Arabic country" comes in. I mean, come on, they're stuck in time... they still dress like people 2,000 freekin years ago, and sadly, that's not a joke. Either their religion set the clothing of its time upon them forever, or they're not creative enough to progress even clothing! Either way, it's pathetic.
And then of course comes the contradictions. The biggest one people hear about is how they abhore the "West" for its technology. Well here's a technology they should get rid of if they really believe that, electricity. Here's another one that they need to scrap, plumbing. And how about medical and surgical technologies, are they doing without those at all? No, of course not. They want technology as much as anyone else, so it's not really a belief, but an excuse, and not a very good one at that.
Anyway, even though Persia was once a model of civilization, for its time, that's not longer the case. They have something holding them back in a big way. It's not their religion though, that'd just be another excuse. It's fear. Fear of what? Well, a lot. Trying, success, individualism, accountability, expression, and change, to name a few. But maybe I'm wrong. /shrug
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Award Limit in Tobacco Case Sets Off a Strenuous Protest - New York Times
Award Limit in Tobacco Case Sets Off a Strenuous Protest - New York Times
So, the whiners here are those who have the power to make tobacco illegal. So if they were really concerned about the health issues, then they could do something more productive than whine about the money that they were expecting to get from tobacco companies.
The original figure was based on testimony from Dr. Michael C. Fiore, an expert on tobacco addiction, who said an effective nationwide program that included a telephone help-line, access to medical treatment and counseling and a budget for advertising and promotion would cost $5.2 billion a year for 25 years
I don't think I like the idea of the government relying on one person's testimony/research in seeking billions of dollars. Me thinks other experts' figures were probably less than this guy's.
So, the whiners here are those who have the power to make tobacco illegal. So if they were really concerned about the health issues, then they could do something more productive than whine about the money that they were expecting to get from tobacco companies.
The original figure was based on testimony from Dr. Michael C. Fiore, an expert on tobacco addiction, who said an effective nationwide program that included a telephone help-line, access to medical treatment and counseling and a budget for advertising and promotion would cost $5.2 billion a year for 25 years
I don't think I like the idea of the government relying on one person's testimony/research in seeking billions of dollars. Me thinks other experts' figures were probably less than this guy's.
Monday, June 06, 2005
Democrats Unlikely to Stop Bolton
Biden: Democrats Unlikely to Stop Bolton - Yahoo! News
It's funny because I think Bush would look better getting rid of Bolton rather than forcing his approval. Bolton is nut and is an indicator of the current administration.
It's funny because I think Bush would look better getting rid of Bolton rather than forcing his approval. Bolton is nut and is an indicator of the current administration.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
49ers' PR Director Apologizes for Video
49ers' PR Director Apologizes for Video - Yahoo! News
A guy makes a video of what not to do or what to be careful of doing. It sounds like he did exactly that. But now, of course, instead of looking at it for it what it is, let's take a moral highground and condemn it as though it was an actual reflection of someone's, or the 49er's, values. Gimme a break, much ado about something so stupid.
A guy makes a video of what not to do or what to be careful of doing. It sounds like he did exactly that. But now, of course, instead of looking at it for it what it is, let's take a moral highground and condemn it as though it was an actual reflection of someone's, or the 49er's, values. Gimme a break, much ado about something so stupid.
Friday, May 27, 2005
FDA Looking Into Blindness-ED Drug Link
FDA Looking Into Blindness-ED Drug Link - Yahoo! News
Take Viagra, Go Blind. Who'da thunk it. Sounds like something that was said in the old days.
Take Viagra, Go Blind. Who'da thunk it. Sounds like something that was said in the old days.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
War on drugs gone to pot
War on drugs gone to pot - Yahoo! News
Very interesting article because I thought the war on drugs was supposed to be for things like the boats of cocaine/heroin coming in from South America or wherever, or planes, or whatever is used to bring the drugs into the US. Isn't that the justification for the high dollar helicopters and equipment that police receive? Wasn't cocaine/heroin the reason for the "war?" If the money for this war on drugs is being so mishandled, it's time to elect people who have the balls to say enough is enough, and go after the intended culprits, the foreigners who bring the cocaine and heroin into the US.
As for marijuana, I don't hear about or see on the news, babies being addicted to it when they're born. I don't hear about or see on TV people whoring themselves for it. When was the last time you saw on ER or Cops or anything, an episode where they rush someone to the hospital because they smoked too much pot, pumped their stomache, do CPR, or do anything else to save the life of someone too stoned? To know that America spends tons of money on this war and we're going after the stoners/pot-heads of America... I'm thinking the drug czar must be on drugs, because it seems pretty stupid to do so when there's drugs like cocaine, crack, PCP, heroin and god knows what else out there that impact society in a much more tangible and serious way than pot-heads.
"War on drugs gone to pot
Wed May 18, 6:25 AM ET
Marijuana is the most widely used illegal substance. About 15 million Americans smoke it, and police make nearly 700,000 pot-related arrests each year, accounting for nearly half of all drug arrests.
ADVERTISEMENT
The $35 billion-a-year war on drugs has turned largely into a war on marijuana, and a losing war at that. Pot isn't harmless, but shouldn't law enforcement focus more of its resources on hard drugs - cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines - that are associated with violence and devastated lives?
According to a new study by The Sentencing Project, a liberal research group that favors alternatives to incarceration:
• Marijuana arrests increased 113% from 1990 through 2002, while arrests for all other drugs rose just 10%.
• Four of five marijuana arrests are for possession, not dealing.
The theory behind the war on drugs is that enough arrests will curtail both supply and demand. But the impact of increased marijuana arrests appears negligible. According to private and government studies, overall marijuana use is the same as it was in 1990, while daily use by high school seniors has nearly tripled, from 2.2% to 6%. Since 1992, the inflation-adjusted price of pot has fallen about 16% while potency has doubled, the studies show.
So the intensified crackdown has coincided with cheaper, stronger pot that's readily available. Law enforcement's efforts to arrest marijuana smokers are diverting resources from combating other crimes and those who traffic in hard drugs.
Few people arrested for possessing marijuana serve jail time, but the consequences they face are severe. They may not qualify for federal student loans or entry to public housing, may lose the right to vote, and face a job market with criminal records they must report to potential employers.
The drug war against low-level users also sparks resentment against police, particularly in the minority community. African-Americans represent 14% of marijuana users but account for 30% of arrests, The Sentencing Project study found.
The get-tough approach is showing cracks both at home and abroad. Twelve states have some form of decriminalization or reduced sentences. Great Britain, Canada and Russia have decriminalized possession of small amounts of the drug.
Today's more potent marijuana carries substantial health and social risks. It can lead to depression, thoughts of suicide and schizophrenia, especially among teens, according to government research. Its use should be discouraged. But it's a smoke screen to suggest that rising arrest numbers show the war on drugs is working. It's time for a serious debate on whether massive arrests of low-level users are worth the cost or having any benefit."
Very interesting article because I thought the war on drugs was supposed to be for things like the boats of cocaine/heroin coming in from South America or wherever, or planes, or whatever is used to bring the drugs into the US. Isn't that the justification for the high dollar helicopters and equipment that police receive? Wasn't cocaine/heroin the reason for the "war?" If the money for this war on drugs is being so mishandled, it's time to elect people who have the balls to say enough is enough, and go after the intended culprits, the foreigners who bring the cocaine and heroin into the US.
As for marijuana, I don't hear about or see on the news, babies being addicted to it when they're born. I don't hear about or see on TV people whoring themselves for it. When was the last time you saw on ER or Cops or anything, an episode where they rush someone to the hospital because they smoked too much pot, pumped their stomache, do CPR, or do anything else to save the life of someone too stoned? To know that America spends tons of money on this war and we're going after the stoners/pot-heads of America... I'm thinking the drug czar must be on drugs, because it seems pretty stupid to do so when there's drugs like cocaine, crack, PCP, heroin and god knows what else out there that impact society in a much more tangible and serious way than pot-heads.
"War on drugs gone to pot
Wed May 18, 6:25 AM ET
Marijuana is the most widely used illegal substance. About 15 million Americans smoke it, and police make nearly 700,000 pot-related arrests each year, accounting for nearly half of all drug arrests.
ADVERTISEMENT
The $35 billion-a-year war on drugs has turned largely into a war on marijuana, and a losing war at that. Pot isn't harmless, but shouldn't law enforcement focus more of its resources on hard drugs - cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines - that are associated with violence and devastated lives?
According to a new study by The Sentencing Project, a liberal research group that favors alternatives to incarceration:
• Marijuana arrests increased 113% from 1990 through 2002, while arrests for all other drugs rose just 10%.
• Four of five marijuana arrests are for possession, not dealing.
The theory behind the war on drugs is that enough arrests will curtail both supply and demand. But the impact of increased marijuana arrests appears negligible. According to private and government studies, overall marijuana use is the same as it was in 1990, while daily use by high school seniors has nearly tripled, from 2.2% to 6%. Since 1992, the inflation-adjusted price of pot has fallen about 16% while potency has doubled, the studies show.
So the intensified crackdown has coincided with cheaper, stronger pot that's readily available. Law enforcement's efforts to arrest marijuana smokers are diverting resources from combating other crimes and those who traffic in hard drugs.
Few people arrested for possessing marijuana serve jail time, but the consequences they face are severe. They may not qualify for federal student loans or entry to public housing, may lose the right to vote, and face a job market with criminal records they must report to potential employers.
The drug war against low-level users also sparks resentment against police, particularly in the minority community. African-Americans represent 14% of marijuana users but account for 30% of arrests, The Sentencing Project study found.
The get-tough approach is showing cracks both at home and abroad. Twelve states have some form of decriminalization or reduced sentences. Great Britain, Canada and Russia have decriminalized possession of small amounts of the drug.
Today's more potent marijuana carries substantial health and social risks. It can lead to depression, thoughts of suicide and schizophrenia, especially among teens, according to government research. Its use should be discouraged. But it's a smoke screen to suggest that rising arrest numbers show the war on drugs is working. It's time for a serious debate on whether massive arrests of low-level users are worth the cost or having any benefit."
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
High Court Won't Revive Race Riot Lawsuit
High Court Won't Revive Race Riot Lawsuit:
"'I guess we just have to except whatever they do,' said riot survivor Otis"
Great writing skills, SHAUN SCHAFER-Associated Press Writer, but the word you meant to write is "accept."
"'I guess we just have to except whatever they do,' said riot survivor Otis"
Great writing skills, SHAUN SCHAFER-Associated Press Writer, but the word you meant to write is "accept."
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Bolton is an ordinary psycho
Is your boss just an ordinary psycho?
Is your boss a charming, well-educated and polished leader intent on climbing the career ladder? If so, he could be a psychopath, psychologists gathered in Stockholm said on Wednesday.
Recent research has shown that not all psychopaths are violent killers -- many of them hold normal jobs, with some rising to the highest levels of executive management.
But their charisma and ambition are often mistaken for leadership traits rather than psychopathic ones, industrial-organisation psychologist Paul Babiak of the United States told the EuroScience Open Forum in Stockholm.
'Psychopaths tend to be charming, have a grandiose sense of self, and they like money, power and sex. They have strong verbal skills and can manipulate by telling a good story. Because they can talk big, you think they have vision and can lead an organisation, but a psychopath will mislead,' Babiak said.
He warned that the number of psychopaths in corporations will probably increase in coming years, as they thrive in the dynamic and rapidly-changing organisations of today's business market where they can advance quickly.
Psychopaths don't like to work in bureaucratic organisations,' he said, noting that they are 'thrill-seekers who like to play the game'.
Babiak said a psychopath typically shows no signs of remorse, or feels other emotions the way mentally stable people do.
'So while a psychopath would have no qualms about closing down a plant, a true leader would feel bad about putting all those people out of work,' he said.
But the corporate world's dirty little secret may well be that psychopaths thrive because companies actively seek them out: The focus on short-term results in today's 'quarterly capitalism' requires ruthless leaders not afraid to take hard quick decisions without looking back.
Babiak conceded that a psychopath may indeed be good for a company in the short-term, but will invariably become a problem later. Psychopaths can spin a good tale, but they can't do the day-to-day work. They leech off other workers,' he said.
Psychopaths can spin a good tale, but they can't do the day-to-day work. They leech off other workers,' he said.
Professor Erich Bartel of the Frankfurt Business School of Finance and Management agreed.
'In the short-term the company will maximize its profit but in the long-term it will be unable to because it will lose out on human capital,' he said.
Babiak said psychopaths were found in all professions.
In his work as a consultant for US companies, Babiak said he had come across eight psychopaths among some 100 employees, and all but one have moved up in their organisation"
Is your boss a charming, well-educated and polished leader intent on climbing the career ladder? If so, he could be a psychopath, psychologists gathered in Stockholm said on Wednesday.
Recent research has shown that not all psychopaths are violent killers -- many of them hold normal jobs, with some rising to the highest levels of executive management.
But their charisma and ambition are often mistaken for leadership traits rather than psychopathic ones, industrial-organisation psychologist Paul Babiak of the United States told the EuroScience Open Forum in Stockholm.
'Psychopaths tend to be charming, have a grandiose sense of self, and they like money, power and sex. They have strong verbal skills and can manipulate by telling a good story. Because they can talk big, you think they have vision and can lead an organisation, but a psychopath will mislead,' Babiak said.
He warned that the number of psychopaths in corporations will probably increase in coming years, as they thrive in the dynamic and rapidly-changing organisations of today's business market where they can advance quickly.
Psychopaths don't like to work in bureaucratic organisations,' he said, noting that they are 'thrill-seekers who like to play the game'.
Babiak said a psychopath typically shows no signs of remorse, or feels other emotions the way mentally stable people do.
'So while a psychopath would have no qualms about closing down a plant, a true leader would feel bad about putting all those people out of work,' he said.
But the corporate world's dirty little secret may well be that psychopaths thrive because companies actively seek them out: The focus on short-term results in today's 'quarterly capitalism' requires ruthless leaders not afraid to take hard quick decisions without looking back.
Babiak conceded that a psychopath may indeed be good for a company in the short-term, but will invariably become a problem later. Psychopaths can spin a good tale, but they can't do the day-to-day work. They leech off other workers,' he said.
Psychopaths can spin a good tale, but they can't do the day-to-day work. They leech off other workers,' he said.
Professor Erich Bartel of the Frankfurt Business School of Finance and Management agreed.
'In the short-term the company will maximize its profit but in the long-term it will be unable to because it will lose out on human capital,' he said.
Babiak said psychopaths were found in all professions.
In his work as a consultant for US companies, Babiak said he had come across eight psychopaths among some 100 employees, and all but one have moved up in their organisation"
Hagel admits to being Bush's puppet
Voinovich Slams Bolton but OKs Senate Vote - Yahoo! News: "Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who earlier expressed misgivings about the nomination, told the panel he decided he had 'enough confidence in this president to take him at his word, and take Mr. Bolton at his word.'"
Why is this guy even a Senator, he's supposed to be representing his constituency, not endorsing Bush. Well, unless that's why they elected him, and if so that's pretty pathetic and sad.
Why is this guy even a Senator, he's supposed to be representing his constituency, not endorsing Bush. Well, unless that's why they elected him, and if so that's pretty pathetic and sad.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Pastor Accused of Running Out Dems Quits
Pastor Accused of Running Out Dems Quits - Yahoo! News
How can someone this stupid ever get the opportunity to be a leader of any church, aside from the "Church of the Grand Old Party?"
How can someone this stupid ever get the opportunity to be a leader of any church, aside from the "Church of the Grand Old Party?"
Monday, May 09, 2005
Kingdom of B.S. by Debbie Schlussel
FrontPage magazine.com :: Kingdom of B.S. by Debbie Schlussel
For such a short article, it really tells a lot of truth. A must read for anyone that saw or is considering seeing the movie, "Kingdom of Heaven," or anyone wanting a reality check regarding muslims and the crusades.
For such a short article, it really tells a lot of truth. A must read for anyone that saw or is considering seeing the movie, "Kingdom of Heaven," or anyone wanting a reality check regarding muslims and the crusades.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Evolution v. Creationism
Darwin on trial: Evolution hearings open in Kansas - Yahoo! News
Apples v. Oranges
Go back a few hundred years in science and Kansas would be having a hearing on whether to teach that Earth is not the center of the universe but actually orbits the sun. What dolts, from a Christian who isn't afraid of science or what it may reveal.
Apples v. Oranges
Go back a few hundred years in science and Kansas would be having a hearing on whether to teach that Earth is not the center of the universe but actually orbits the sun. What dolts, from a Christian who isn't afraid of science or what it may reveal.
Stern's Game Can Be Called Misdirection
Stern's Game Can Be Called Misdirection - New York Times
An assertion of a conspiracy against Ming... Stern quick to attack and fine the whistleblower without investigating the allegation... I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the conspiracy existed, and I think it should be investigated rather than seeing a spat.
An assertion of a conspiracy against Ming... Stern quick to attack and fine the whistleblower without investigating the allegation... I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the conspiracy existed, and I think it should be investigated rather than seeing a spat.
Star Wars
Marin Independent Journal - Marin
PG-13. Wow, I was actually considering skipping the movie for a while since every SW movie since RotJ has been pretty kiddy. But if this next one is "for real," then I just might be standing in line.
PG-13. Wow, I was actually considering skipping the movie for a while since every SW movie since RotJ has been pretty kiddy. But if this next one is "for real," then I just might be standing in line.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Pentagon releases banned photos of war coffins
Pentagon releases banned photos of war coffins - World - Times Online
I'd rather these types of pictures be withheld from the public. Yeah I believe in open government, but I don't think these pictures fall under the intent of the FOIA.
I'd rather these types of pictures be withheld from the public. Yeah I believe in open government, but I don't think these pictures fall under the intent of the FOIA.
Nuclear North Korea
The New York Times > Washington > U.S. Aide Sees Nuclear Arms Advance by North Korea
If they can make a nuclear explosive device, then all they need to do is build or buy a missile to bury any city in California. Their wacked out leader, Kim Jong Il, is ill in the noggen, severely, and certainly poses a much larger threat to the US than Iraq ever did. But the good news is that he also poses a threat to everyone in Asia, so maybe Kim Jong can be their Saddam.
It would be interesting if both Russia AND China turned up the heat on Kim. It's a real opportunity for either of them to show their prowess at foreign relations/dealing with adverse leaders, which could heighten either's political clout. But I predict both of them with defer to the USA to clean up the world's problems so they can sit back and critisize.
If they can make a nuclear explosive device, then all they need to do is build or buy a missile to bury any city in California. Their wacked out leader, Kim Jong Il, is ill in the noggen, severely, and certainly poses a much larger threat to the US than Iraq ever did. But the good news is that he also poses a threat to everyone in Asia, so maybe Kim Jong can be their Saddam.
It would be interesting if both Russia AND China turned up the heat on Kim. It's a real opportunity for either of them to show their prowess at foreign relations/dealing with adverse leaders, which could heighten either's political clout. But I predict both of them with defer to the USA to clean up the world's problems so they can sit back and critisize.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
United States "is responsible in some way" for the attacks
Yahoo! News - Maggie Gyllenhaal Tackles 9/11 Policies
Yeah, it's not difficult, it's called freedom and liberty.
Yeah, it's not difficult, it's called freedom and liberty.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Bennifer
Ben Affleck-Jennifer Garner get engaged?
I remember when Ben and Matt were being portrayed as two total newbies/outsiders suddenly come up with a movie and act for the first time and get then get an oscar. Total fairy tale, just look at imdb.com and you'll see a few credits before Good Will Hunting.
Well, the road has been a little rocky lately for Ben, both in his personal relationships and his "acting." In fact, this latest headline for him seems to be turning into a gig or routine for him, and is seemingly extending his 15 minutes of fame. Yeah, I know he's continuing to "act" or whatever you call it, but he's not in any movies I want to see. I think Armegeddon was the downfall for me... yeah, a year after Good Will. I mean, I think I like his "acting" before Good Will more than what's come after.
Anyway, I hope he gets a role in a good movie sometime, maybe a stoner comedy since he seems to be more believable in those... kinda like how Kenu is best in roles where he has to act confused. That way, maybe people will get the attention he craves from something he has accomplished rather than something he's dating/marrying.
I remember when Ben and Matt were being portrayed as two total newbies/outsiders suddenly come up with a movie and act for the first time and get then get an oscar. Total fairy tale, just look at imdb.com and you'll see a few credits before Good Will Hunting.
Well, the road has been a little rocky lately for Ben, both in his personal relationships and his "acting." In fact, this latest headline for him seems to be turning into a gig or routine for him, and is seemingly extending his 15 minutes of fame. Yeah, I know he's continuing to "act" or whatever you call it, but he's not in any movies I want to see. I think Armegeddon was the downfall for me... yeah, a year after Good Will. I mean, I think I like his "acting" before Good Will more than what's come after.
Anyway, I hope he gets a role in a good movie sometime, maybe a stoner comedy since he seems to be more believable in those... kinda like how Kenu is best in roles where he has to act confused. That way, maybe people will get the attention he craves from something he has accomplished rather than something he's dating/marrying.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Bolton
Yahoo! News - Vote on Bolton U.N. Nomination Postponed
This guy has some serious power issues. Put him in as president and I bet he'd be worse than Hitler. I saw an article about many psychotics being successful in the workplace due to willingness to screw over whomever gets in their way and having no remorse of doing so. But Bush stands by his nomination, apparently being a psychotic himself.
This guy has some serious power issues. Put him in as president and I bet he'd be worse than Hitler. I saw an article about many psychotics being successful in the workplace due to willingness to screw over whomever gets in their way and having no remorse of doing so. But Bush stands by his nomination, apparently being a psychotic himself.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Karl Rove's Texas
I watched a pretty good piece on PBS about Karl Rove and how he's the architect of not only Bush's administration, but the republican takeover in Texas. To that I say, "bull."
First of all, the republican takeover was already underway in Texas, Clements had been elected twice (not in a row). The increasingly popular Phil Grahm switched to the republican party. All the signs were already written on the wall, Texas was becoming republican.
Like many other people that are given credit, Rove just happened to be in the right place at the right time. You see, people forget about Clayton Williams. Williams was not a Rove guy, he was a Goldwater guy. His campaign stuck to a few issues and took a moral highground. For instance, one of his more shocking ads on TV I mistook for a joke the first time I saw it. As you watch some teen getting arrested and then fading into a boot camp, you hear Clayton say something like... "Juvenille offenders, I'll take away their license and make them do heavy labor at a boot camp," fade in kids busting rocks with picks. Not an exact quote, but it was pretty extreme. However, there was something admirable about him anyway, sorta like, "let's cut the bull and tackle the real problems." Karl Rove obviously took notes because his candidate at the time wasn't even a contender in that election, Clayton Williams was simply steamrolling over any potential Republican candidates. He handily won the nomination and was on his way to defeating Ann Richards. The only person that could defeat him was himself, and that's exactly what happened.
What you may not realize is that it wasn't the rape joke (google him and you'll find it) that killed his campaign. He was already rebounding from that and it was making more controversy outside of Texas than inside. The killer, which was truly unforgivable, was when he voted for something, came out of the building and was asked about what he had just voted for... he knew that he voted for it and what it was called, but didn't know anything about the content of it, and a totally uninformed vote is not what anyone expects from their state representatives. So that was the political suicide of Clayton Williams. If he had simply not been so willing to speak with reporters about it, he would have become governor, no doubt about it whatsoever, tasteless joke and all.
So anyway, at the time you couldn't be involved with Texas politics and not see the tremendous rise of an unknown figure who was on the brink of thrashing Ann Richards in the governor's race. And to someone like Karl Rove who thrives off of being informed, he certainly learned a lot from Clayton, and obviously put it to work on the next election in a major way. Turned out to be a winning strategy not only for Texas, but the entire USA.
So there you go, PBS's credit to Karl Rove's genius of how he orchestrated Texans to vote for republicans was fairly unrealistic. And the program's failure to address the huge, even monumental, impact of the Clayton Williams campaign was just inexcusable. Karl Rove didn't invent his campaign strategy, he got it from Clayton Williams.
First of all, the republican takeover was already underway in Texas, Clements had been elected twice (not in a row). The increasingly popular Phil Grahm switched to the republican party. All the signs were already written on the wall, Texas was becoming republican.
Like many other people that are given credit, Rove just happened to be in the right place at the right time. You see, people forget about Clayton Williams. Williams was not a Rove guy, he was a Goldwater guy. His campaign stuck to a few issues and took a moral highground. For instance, one of his more shocking ads on TV I mistook for a joke the first time I saw it. As you watch some teen getting arrested and then fading into a boot camp, you hear Clayton say something like... "Juvenille offenders, I'll take away their license and make them do heavy labor at a boot camp," fade in kids busting rocks with picks. Not an exact quote, but it was pretty extreme. However, there was something admirable about him anyway, sorta like, "let's cut the bull and tackle the real problems." Karl Rove obviously took notes because his candidate at the time wasn't even a contender in that election, Clayton Williams was simply steamrolling over any potential Republican candidates. He handily won the nomination and was on his way to defeating Ann Richards. The only person that could defeat him was himself, and that's exactly what happened.
What you may not realize is that it wasn't the rape joke (google him and you'll find it) that killed his campaign. He was already rebounding from that and it was making more controversy outside of Texas than inside. The killer, which was truly unforgivable, was when he voted for something, came out of the building and was asked about what he had just voted for... he knew that he voted for it and what it was called, but didn't know anything about the content of it, and a totally uninformed vote is not what anyone expects from their state representatives. So that was the political suicide of Clayton Williams. If he had simply not been so willing to speak with reporters about it, he would have become governor, no doubt about it whatsoever, tasteless joke and all.
So anyway, at the time you couldn't be involved with Texas politics and not see the tremendous rise of an unknown figure who was on the brink of thrashing Ann Richards in the governor's race. And to someone like Karl Rove who thrives off of being informed, he certainly learned a lot from Clayton, and obviously put it to work on the next election in a major way. Turned out to be a winning strategy not only for Texas, but the entire USA.
So there you go, PBS's credit to Karl Rove's genius of how he orchestrated Texans to vote for republicans was fairly unrealistic. And the program's failure to address the huge, even monumental, impact of the Clayton Williams campaign was just inexcusable. Karl Rove didn't invent his campaign strategy, he got it from Clayton Williams.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Poll: Bush and Congress' Approval Slumping
Yahoo! News - Poll: Bush, Congress Approval Slumping
Ok, someone needs to tap the mic to make sure it's working, and then ask, "Hello?" Because the issues mentioned in this article are nothing new, indeed they were debated. But, the reason Bush won according to what I remember was his "moral" stance, or at least the perception that he is moral. He isn't, he's as big of a liar as anyone else in politics, but it's all in a stearing wheel that Rove is behind so that a winning perception is seen. Everything in this administration is run off of perceptions, and the fact that Bush won just proves that many here in the USA are old, gullible, and vote on feelings rather than information.
Who was a more capable person in the past election? If you answer Bush, it's because you're pretty biased towards either the party or a particular issue that Bush either supports or is perceived as supporting. If you're like me and don't really care about party affiliation, look at the overall person, and can tell when you're reading bullshit (Ann Coulter comes to mind as well as this woman on the election day coverage who was pretty much a snobby democrat counting eggs that weren't in the basket), then looking at Bush and Kerry you would have to say that although Bush a determined individual, the focus of his determination is not admirable or distinctive, and that even though Kerry's demeanor was not as forceful as Bush's, Kerry is much more qualified and would make sound, even-handed, thought-out, decisions in fulfilling his duties.
No, I'm not a Democrat, and no, I'm not a Republican though I used to vote for more Republicans earlier. I remember "hating" Tip O'Neil (sp?) because he always seemed to be a roadblock to achieving Reagan's goals. I didn't like Jimmy Carter because of a couple things that I shouldn't have been hating him for... the Iranian hostage mess, and inflation. The actual cause for the inflation was Congress, they knew it would get rid of him since Carter was more of an independent than democrat (I like that about him now). And the hostage crisis was not his doing, but the failed military operation to get them, which would have re-elected Carter had it been successful, made us, the USA, feel helpless. Reagan did a great job turning that 180 degrees. I also like Phil Grahm. He used to be a Democrat but then turned Republican. I like to think he switched because he believed his ideals were closer to Republican, but everyone could see that people were identifying with Republican policy more so than Democratic at the time, so he switched because he wanted to win. As long as he continues to vote on what he believes to be right, and not on what the party would like to see, then he's ok.
I think Clinton did ok, not really sure because the only thing remarkable about his terms were the scandals. Other than that, the country seemed to be doing fine economically... Greenspan probably deserves the most credit for it though. But maybe Clinton is one of those people so good that they make tough things look easy.
When Bush and Gore debated, I could see that Bush was nothing but hype and Gore had substantive arguments and ideas. I could aslo see spin being made during the debates by Bush. I found Bush for the first time, even though he was governor of my state, to be a puppet, something hollow and deceptive, and cruel. The national spotlight can really be revealing. I found out more about his past, and his willingness to profit from corporate interests. To this day it continues with his trying to sell the people "privitized social security" which looks oxymoronic. Anyway, then came Sept. 11, and I think Bush could have risen to the occasion and maybe even been another Reagan, but he didn't, he just blamed Clinton, blamed this, and blamed that. He could have really brought this country together at the time, but he didn't, he just isn't a very adept leader or he let his aides decide what to do. Doesn't matter, either way he's a loser.
So then it's time for the next election and Kerry debates and wins every argument. Don't think so? Then you're kidding yourself. Anyway, Kerry is obviously the better of the two, and yet Bush won. Why? Because even the issues mentioned in this article, which were brought up before and Kerry, like Gore before him, had a more logical way thinking and dealing with the circumstances, but the apparent overriding factor for many of the people who voted, had nothing to do with the debated or current issues... they just thought Bush was more of a Christian than Kerry. So, with an ever-increasing elderly population, we have people voting on what matters to them more than individual issues, the character of the person. And I say, even considering the character of the candidates, they made the wrong choice. They were told that Bush was more moral, and they didn't bother questioning it. And when I compare, I'm not looking at which candidate says they're moral more often or references God more, I look at their actions, not words. And by Bush's actions, he's very deceptive. But again, it's the spin that wins.
Ok, someone needs to tap the mic to make sure it's working, and then ask, "Hello?" Because the issues mentioned in this article are nothing new, indeed they were debated. But, the reason Bush won according to what I remember was his "moral" stance, or at least the perception that he is moral. He isn't, he's as big of a liar as anyone else in politics, but it's all in a stearing wheel that Rove is behind so that a winning perception is seen. Everything in this administration is run off of perceptions, and the fact that Bush won just proves that many here in the USA are old, gullible, and vote on feelings rather than information.
Who was a more capable person in the past election? If you answer Bush, it's because you're pretty biased towards either the party or a particular issue that Bush either supports or is perceived as supporting. If you're like me and don't really care about party affiliation, look at the overall person, and can tell when you're reading bullshit (Ann Coulter comes to mind as well as this woman on the election day coverage who was pretty much a snobby democrat counting eggs that weren't in the basket), then looking at Bush and Kerry you would have to say that although Bush a determined individual, the focus of his determination is not admirable or distinctive, and that even though Kerry's demeanor was not as forceful as Bush's, Kerry is much more qualified and would make sound, even-handed, thought-out, decisions in fulfilling his duties.
No, I'm not a Democrat, and no, I'm not a Republican though I used to vote for more Republicans earlier. I remember "hating" Tip O'Neil (sp?) because he always seemed to be a roadblock to achieving Reagan's goals. I didn't like Jimmy Carter because of a couple things that I shouldn't have been hating him for... the Iranian hostage mess, and inflation. The actual cause for the inflation was Congress, they knew it would get rid of him since Carter was more of an independent than democrat (I like that about him now). And the hostage crisis was not his doing, but the failed military operation to get them, which would have re-elected Carter had it been successful, made us, the USA, feel helpless. Reagan did a great job turning that 180 degrees. I also like Phil Grahm. He used to be a Democrat but then turned Republican. I like to think he switched because he believed his ideals were closer to Republican, but everyone could see that people were identifying with Republican policy more so than Democratic at the time, so he switched because he wanted to win. As long as he continues to vote on what he believes to be right, and not on what the party would like to see, then he's ok.
I think Clinton did ok, not really sure because the only thing remarkable about his terms were the scandals. Other than that, the country seemed to be doing fine economically... Greenspan probably deserves the most credit for it though. But maybe Clinton is one of those people so good that they make tough things look easy.
When Bush and Gore debated, I could see that Bush was nothing but hype and Gore had substantive arguments and ideas. I could aslo see spin being made during the debates by Bush. I found Bush for the first time, even though he was governor of my state, to be a puppet, something hollow and deceptive, and cruel. The national spotlight can really be revealing. I found out more about his past, and his willingness to profit from corporate interests. To this day it continues with his trying to sell the people "privitized social security" which looks oxymoronic. Anyway, then came Sept. 11, and I think Bush could have risen to the occasion and maybe even been another Reagan, but he didn't, he just blamed Clinton, blamed this, and blamed that. He could have really brought this country together at the time, but he didn't, he just isn't a very adept leader or he let his aides decide what to do. Doesn't matter, either way he's a loser.
So then it's time for the next election and Kerry debates and wins every argument. Don't think so? Then you're kidding yourself. Anyway, Kerry is obviously the better of the two, and yet Bush won. Why? Because even the issues mentioned in this article, which were brought up before and Kerry, like Gore before him, had a more logical way thinking and dealing with the circumstances, but the apparent overriding factor for many of the people who voted, had nothing to do with the debated or current issues... they just thought Bush was more of a Christian than Kerry. So, with an ever-increasing elderly population, we have people voting on what matters to them more than individual issues, the character of the person. And I say, even considering the character of the candidates, they made the wrong choice. They were told that Bush was more moral, and they didn't bother questioning it. And when I compare, I'm not looking at which candidate says they're moral more often or references God more, I look at their actions, not words. And by Bush's actions, he's very deceptive. But again, it's the spin that wins.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
'The Daily Show'
Yahoo! News - 'Daily Show' Wins Second Peabody Award
I read this and recall the two times I've been able to watch this show. I loved both times I was able to view it, just so funny. I don't know if it's a regular thing, but they had this reporter go and cover some real news, but with a hillarious spin on whatever he chose. I think if I had cable I would watch this show ad nauseam, but as it is I only catch it if I'm visiting my parents or my granny. I just love the way they expose reality in a humorous light.
I read this and recall the two times I've been able to watch this show. I loved both times I was able to view it, just so funny. I don't know if it's a regular thing, but they had this reporter go and cover some real news, but with a hillarious spin on whatever he chose. I think if I had cable I would watch this show ad nauseam, but as it is I only catch it if I'm visiting my parents or my granny. I just love the way they expose reality in a humorous light.
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Border Controls by 2008
Yahoo! News - U.S. to Tighten Border Controls by 2008
What a load of bull. Illegal aliens are crossing over in droves without having to present any ID whatsoever, but now law abiding citizens will have to go the extra expense and time consuming effort of obtaining a vista to visit our neighboring countries. Also, al quaeda isn't talking about obtaining fake driver's licenses to cross the border, why do that when it's easier to just cross over the Rio Grande Sewer and not have to show any ID. Maybe it's just my perception, but it seems to me Condoleezza Rice isn't a critical thinker because this program diverts from addressing the elephant in the room, unguarded borders with known areas of high illegal entry. This program's money would be much better served fixing the actual problem, and until the details reveal a need that isn't apparent at this moment, then this whole thing is a sham and someone needs to get fired or have a fire lit under their arse.
What a load of bull. Illegal aliens are crossing over in droves without having to present any ID whatsoever, but now law abiding citizens will have to go the extra expense and time consuming effort of obtaining a vista to visit our neighboring countries. Also, al quaeda isn't talking about obtaining fake driver's licenses to cross the border, why do that when it's easier to just cross over the Rio Grande Sewer and not have to show any ID. Maybe it's just my perception, but it seems to me Condoleezza Rice isn't a critical thinker because this program diverts from addressing the elephant in the room, unguarded borders with known areas of high illegal entry. This program's money would be much better served fixing the actual problem, and until the details reveal a need that isn't apparent at this moment, then this whole thing is a sham and someone needs to get fired or have a fire lit under their arse.
Monday, April 04, 2005
China blocks comments on the pope
Yahoo! News - China blocks Internet comments on the pope
It looks to me like the sites in question have a history of spewing some nastiness. So it was probably wise of the Chinese people who made the decision out of respect for the pope and his memory. I don't this this reporter went deep enough to make any definitive statements, but there at least a clue given that maybe there was a rational reason besides the "evil communist government" stereotypical mudslinging.
China is a different country with a very different culture and different way of life. I saw a program discussing that the chinese environment seems to be condusive to a different way of thinking. The program compared Chinese persons' and a U.S. Americans' (I think, maybe western European) brain activity locations when given similar tasks. So, there you go, Chinese people are different that U.S. Americans. Point being, just because they did something you might not agree with or understand, doesn't mean they were evil in doing so. I think they know how to better deal with their people than we do.
It looks to me like the sites in question have a history of spewing some nastiness. So it was probably wise of the Chinese people who made the decision out of respect for the pope and his memory. I don't this this reporter went deep enough to make any definitive statements, but there at least a clue given that maybe there was a rational reason besides the "evil communist government" stereotypical mudslinging.
China is a different country with a very different culture and different way of life. I saw a program discussing that the chinese environment seems to be condusive to a different way of thinking. The program compared Chinese persons' and a U.S. Americans' (I think, maybe western European) brain activity locations when given similar tasks. So, there you go, Chinese people are different that U.S. Americans. Point being, just because they did something you might not agree with or understand, doesn't mean they were evil in doing so. I think they know how to better deal with their people than we do.
Google doubles G-mail space
MediaPost Publications Home of MediaDailyNews, MEDIA and OMMA Magazines
Google has gone from 1 gig of space to two gigs of space. Big deal. Yahoo was doing it already, Google is beta, and Google is by invite only - so I, as well as most other people, have no interest in this except curiosity.
Google has gone from 1 gig of space to two gigs of space. Big deal. Yahoo was doing it already, Google is beta, and Google is by invite only - so I, as well as most other people, have no interest in this except curiosity.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Ailing Pope
Catholics divided over appearances of ailing Pope - Sify.com
Imagine if he was Peter. Would the popular opinion be, "Sorry Peter, we know you walked and talked with Jesus, we know he said you were the rock, and even though you can do just about everything but speak right now because of your recent illness, you look pretty sick and we can't display you because our regular customers want to see someone healthy in your position."
I'm not into catholicism, but the guy is an inspiration to many. He probably knew he couldn't say squat on Easter, but that didn't stop him from trying. The guy has courage and strength his own peers can't see, what a shame.
Imagine if he was Peter. Would the popular opinion be, "Sorry Peter, we know you walked and talked with Jesus, we know he said you were the rock, and even though you can do just about everything but speak right now because of your recent illness, you look pretty sick and we can't display you because our regular customers want to see someone healthy in your position."
I'm not into catholicism, but the guy is an inspiration to many. He probably knew he couldn't say squat on Easter, but that didn't stop him from trying. The guy has courage and strength his own peers can't see, what a shame.
Terri Schiavo Dies
Terri Schiavo, 41, Dies in Fla. Hospice (washingtonpost.com)
Like her, if I'm in a vegatative state and a shell of what I was, let me die in peace so that I'll be remembered not as what I had become, but what I was.
Like her, if I'm in a vegatative state and a shell of what I was, let me die in peace so that I'll be remembered not as what I had become, but what I was.
Bush Social Security "Plan"
Yahoo! News - Bush Undeterred by Resistance to Plan
What plan? He's going on tour to promote an idea. The idea is privitization of social security, oxymoronish? Does anyone have any details about this supposed plan? Costs? Savings? Any unbiased study on how this would help? Come on, even Alan Greenspan only gave it a slight nod because he knows something has to be done urgently. Let me display my ignorance of the plan even more, when I hear privitization, I think of the privitization of energy companies and how that blew up in a major way. When I hear privitization, I'm thinking Enron, and know someone will be making a lot of money if it were to happen, and at the expense of those who were forced or lured into this so called plan. But I don't blame Bush, I blame his obviously inferior education at Yale.
What plan? He's going on tour to promote an idea. The idea is privitization of social security, oxymoronish? Does anyone have any details about this supposed plan? Costs? Savings? Any unbiased study on how this would help? Come on, even Alan Greenspan only gave it a slight nod because he knows something has to be done urgently. Let me display my ignorance of the plan even more, when I hear privitization, I think of the privitization of energy companies and how that blew up in a major way. When I hear privitization, I'm thinking Enron, and know someone will be making a lot of money if it were to happen, and at the expense of those who were forced or lured into this so called plan. But I don't blame Bush, I blame his obviously inferior education at Yale.
Iran Seeks to Obtain Nuclear Warheads
Yahoo! News - Exiles: Iran Seeks to Obtain Nuclear Warheads
And the USA sits back and does nothing, hoping Israel will take care of the problem, and while we expect/hope Israel takes care of business, we are sloppy in supporting them through the futile peace talks. A lot of lessons were learned in Iraq, and the military probably needed a war with a soft target to learn what adjustments are needed when fighting a country in the middle-east. Iran must think that the war has weakened us since they clearly seek nuclear weapons and know that the USA (and maybe most other civilized countries?) will not tolerate it from them because they seek to reverse our way of life. Misery loves company after all.
And the USA sits back and does nothing, hoping Israel will take care of the problem, and while we expect/hope Israel takes care of business, we are sloppy in supporting them through the futile peace talks. A lot of lessons were learned in Iraq, and the military probably needed a war with a soft target to learn what adjustments are needed when fighting a country in the middle-east. Iran must think that the war has weakened us since they clearly seek nuclear weapons and know that the USA (and maybe most other civilized countries?) will not tolerate it from them because they seek to reverse our way of life. Misery loves company after all.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Yahoo or Google who's on top?
Yahoo or Google who's on top? | geekBlue.net
I like Google, a lot. I mean, I'm even using this blog thing that they have. But as far as email goes... it's not even close, Yahoo wins hands down. Why? Because Yahoo has email, and Google does not. What about Gmail? That's a beta, as far as I know, it must have some serious flaws because Google started handing out some accounts and were seeming about to release the thing to the public... and then... fizzle. Even now it's being projected to be released in a couple/few months.
Now, if you're talking about other products in a Google vs. Yahoo competition, then it's a much closer competition and perhaps Google would come out ahead. But Yahoo is no slouch, and if anything the competitive spirit of Yahoo is being seen and appreciated as they admirably joust with Google. I like Yahoo a lot, too.
I like Google, a lot. I mean, I'm even using this blog thing that they have. But as far as email goes... it's not even close, Yahoo wins hands down. Why? Because Yahoo has email, and Google does not. What about Gmail? That's a beta, as far as I know, it must have some serious flaws because Google started handing out some accounts and were seeming about to release the thing to the public... and then... fizzle. Even now it's being projected to be released in a couple/few months.
Now, if you're talking about other products in a Google vs. Yahoo competition, then it's a much closer competition and perhaps Google would come out ahead. But Yahoo is no slouch, and if anything the competitive spirit of Yahoo is being seen and appreciated as they admirably joust with Google. I like Yahoo a lot, too.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Well, I have a digital camera and so I left Austin this past weekend because for the 7th week in a row, rain was predicted. I went to Beaumont to visit with my cousin, an aspiring DJ. I didn't leave until Saturday morning, didn't take long, and we spend a good portion of the day at Bolivar, Point Bolivar, something like that. Then afterwards, we got drunk and he DJed. Then even later, his friend Jason comes over and DJs some too, and then we go to some lame club. Well, the club probably wasn't that lame, but we didn't stay long for 2 reasons... 1. The music wasn't our type of music (I think we arrived too early 10 p.m.) and 2. There was this really young girl bothering my cousin, trying to get him to dance with her and he didn't want any part of that... he won't have anything to do with a chick unless she's pretty good-looking (he got that from me).
Anyway, I took some pics of the Bolivar area, some sucked, ok a lot sucked, but a few are ok by me. I'd been happy even if I didn't get any shots because we had fun. But, I don't have photoshop CS, and I feel like I'm missing out on making some of my shots a lot more polished. I'm new to the digital camera, and autofocus, so it's a little daunting still, and then looking at the price for the electronic darkroom (photoshop) makes me start to gasp. But I love taking pictures, and I think once I get used to the digital camera and start taking better shots, then... nah, I think I still want it because it's practically required if you want to do what I envision, selling photos. Maybe I'll post some here if I take some time to do it.
The Postal Service, heard them on a Grey's Anatomy commercial... so that show will probably be a hit. =) Well, we'll see, but that collaboration of musicians (Gibbard and Tamborello) is really nice. I like Death Cab too, I listen to Transatlanticism or whatever it's called (in my vehicle atm) a fair bit, but there's just something about The Postal Service, positive musical energy perhaps, that's so uplifting, even though a glance at some of the lyrics could make you think they're depressing.
Anyway, I took some pics of the Bolivar area, some sucked, ok a lot sucked, but a few are ok by me. I'd been happy even if I didn't get any shots because we had fun. But, I don't have photoshop CS, and I feel like I'm missing out on making some of my shots a lot more polished. I'm new to the digital camera, and autofocus, so it's a little daunting still, and then looking at the price for the electronic darkroom (photoshop) makes me start to gasp. But I love taking pictures, and I think once I get used to the digital camera and start taking better shots, then... nah, I think I still want it because it's practically required if you want to do what I envision, selling photos. Maybe I'll post some here if I take some time to do it.
The Postal Service, heard them on a Grey's Anatomy commercial... so that show will probably be a hit. =) Well, we'll see, but that collaboration of musicians (Gibbard and Tamborello) is really nice. I like Death Cab too, I listen to Transatlanticism or whatever it's called (in my vehicle atm) a fair bit, but there's just something about The Postal Service, positive musical energy perhaps, that's so uplifting, even though a glance at some of the lyrics could make you think they're depressing.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Spying for the U.S. Doesn't Pay
Tenet et al. v. Doe et ux.
At least we American's are consistent. Continuing a track record that includes notorious negotiations/contracts with native Americans and even its own war veterans, the U.S. government once again has decided to disregard its obligations. The CIA paid money to this couple in exchange for spying. Apparently, the couple had some good stuff because the CIA/U.S. promised to pay them for the rest of their lives.
So one day the guy is running short on money because he lost his job (merger casualty), and decides to see if he can get those payments back since there was an agreement with regard to salary vs amount of CIA contribution. Oh let's not forget the CIA put restrictions on the types of employment he's allowed to hold.
The CIA apprently said in a letter that the money wasn't available anymore, and that the money already paid was sufficient for the services rendered, paraphrasing. The CIA also knows that there is no obligation to pay anymore thanks to an old, but still very good law, case following the conclusion of the Civil War. Basically, that case said that contracts the government makes with a spy are not reviewable because the essence of the contract is secret and public policy forbids hearing a trial where secret squirrel stuff would inevitably be disclosed.
I might be wrong here, but I think the plaintiffs were saying that a trial on the contractual merits would not inevitably disclose secrets, in simple form. But come on, secrets are the essence of this contract, national secrets, secrets so secret that it precluded a written contract and inticed the CIA enough to verbally agree to lifetime payments!
So of course the Court isn't going to touch this with a ten-foot pole. Scalia even says "frivolous" because of the total lack of a cause of action. If this was a boxing match, the Court just KO'd the 9th Circuit and bit off their ear. I mean, it's like the Court is mad and is bonking the 9th Circuit and firmly pointing to what should be obvious.
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion, that says a lot about his character considering his health issue and recouperation... or maybe it's indicative of how much fun it is to be Chief Justice.
At least we American's are consistent. Continuing a track record that includes notorious negotiations/contracts with native Americans and even its own war veterans, the U.S. government once again has decided to disregard its obligations. The CIA paid money to this couple in exchange for spying. Apparently, the couple had some good stuff because the CIA/U.S. promised to pay them for the rest of their lives.
So one day the guy is running short on money because he lost his job (merger casualty), and decides to see if he can get those payments back since there was an agreement with regard to salary vs amount of CIA contribution. Oh let's not forget the CIA put restrictions on the types of employment he's allowed to hold.
The CIA apprently said in a letter that the money wasn't available anymore, and that the money already paid was sufficient for the services rendered, paraphrasing. The CIA also knows that there is no obligation to pay anymore thanks to an old, but still very good law, case following the conclusion of the Civil War. Basically, that case said that contracts the government makes with a spy are not reviewable because the essence of the contract is secret and public policy forbids hearing a trial where secret squirrel stuff would inevitably be disclosed.
I might be wrong here, but I think the plaintiffs were saying that a trial on the contractual merits would not inevitably disclose secrets, in simple form. But come on, secrets are the essence of this contract, national secrets, secrets so secret that it precluded a written contract and inticed the CIA enough to verbally agree to lifetime payments!
So of course the Court isn't going to touch this with a ten-foot pole. Scalia even says "frivolous" because of the total lack of a cause of action. If this was a boxing match, the Court just KO'd the 9th Circuit and bit off their ear. I mean, it's like the Court is mad and is bonking the 9th Circuit and firmly pointing to what should be obvious.
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion, that says a lot about his character considering his health issue and recouperation... or maybe it's indicative of how much fun it is to be Chief Justice.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Juvenile Death Penalty Axed
US News Article | Reuters.com
I believe the death penalty, in general, is an option that may be exercised when it matches the crime. Indeed, sometimes there are criminals who probably deserve a lot worse than mere death by lethal injection. And if someone happens to be less than 18 years old, the judge or jury should still be able to have the option of having a deserving person permanently removed. In this particular case, linked below, I believe the jury probably did have sufficient basis for imposing the death on the guy because it was deliberate, depraved, and one would be hard pressed to find a redeeming value in someone who expresses a desire to commit a homocide, go through with it, and then brag about it.
But that doesn't matter. What does matter to the Court, however, is America's evolving standard of decency as demonstrated by a plurality of the death penalty states exempting juveniles from the death penalty, diminished culpability since people with fewer than 18 years of life probably haven't done a cost-benefit analysis of a crime to its consequences, and a juvenile's susceptibility to surrounding influences/peer pressure/bad home.
I'll go along with the evolving decency argument, but keep the "bad home" excuse away. There are plenty of people who come from a bad home environment that don't kill people for the fun of it. You might as well say that juveniles are mentally retarded/incapacitated and therefore there's precedent/law to not sentence such people to death. Yeah, I think I'd rather go with that than the bad home environment excuse.
The prior case regarding juvenile death penalty that went before this case was Stanford. The Court said in that particular case that Stanford (the juvenile) could go ahead and be executed even though he was a juvenile at the time. Interestingly, Stanford was not put to death, but instead the governor of the state, Ketucky I think, commuted the death sentence and gave him life without parole. In fact, only 3 states in the last ten years have put a juvenile to death.
So, it looks like this isn't really so shocking after all. If anything, this is simply putting the ink on the paper that juveniles aren't to receive the death penalty and showing that America has become more decent since 1989, at least on this issue.
Background of the case.
And here's the opinion.
I believe the death penalty, in general, is an option that may be exercised when it matches the crime. Indeed, sometimes there are criminals who probably deserve a lot worse than mere death by lethal injection. And if someone happens to be less than 18 years old, the judge or jury should still be able to have the option of having a deserving person permanently removed. In this particular case, linked below, I believe the jury probably did have sufficient basis for imposing the death on the guy because it was deliberate, depraved, and one would be hard pressed to find a redeeming value in someone who expresses a desire to commit a homocide, go through with it, and then brag about it.
But that doesn't matter. What does matter to the Court, however, is America's evolving standard of decency as demonstrated by a plurality of the death penalty states exempting juveniles from the death penalty, diminished culpability since people with fewer than 18 years of life probably haven't done a cost-benefit analysis of a crime to its consequences, and a juvenile's susceptibility to surrounding influences/peer pressure/bad home.
I'll go along with the evolving decency argument, but keep the "bad home" excuse away. There are plenty of people who come from a bad home environment that don't kill people for the fun of it. You might as well say that juveniles are mentally retarded/incapacitated and therefore there's precedent/law to not sentence such people to death. Yeah, I think I'd rather go with that than the bad home environment excuse.
The prior case regarding juvenile death penalty that went before this case was Stanford. The Court said in that particular case that Stanford (the juvenile) could go ahead and be executed even though he was a juvenile at the time. Interestingly, Stanford was not put to death, but instead the governor of the state, Ketucky I think, commuted the death sentence and gave him life without parole. In fact, only 3 states in the last ten years have put a juvenile to death.
So, it looks like this isn't really so shocking after all. If anything, this is simply putting the ink on the paper that juveniles aren't to receive the death penalty and showing that America has become more decent since 1989, at least on this issue.
Background of the case.
And here's the opinion.
Herald Sun: Michael Jackson branded a predator [02mar05]
Herald Sun: Michael Jackson branded a predator [02mar05]
Wow, new revelation for me... he has a middle name, and it's "Joe." Well that, and now I'm reading that he apparently wanted a 3-way with the two brothers. I'm surprised the defense doesn't claim that estrogen made him do it, referring of course to reports he took that to keep his voice high. Should be an amusing trial, especially since Jackson often claims weird behavior as being pure or natural.
Wow, new revelation for me... he has a middle name, and it's "Joe." Well that, and now I'm reading that he apparently wanted a 3-way with the two brothers. I'm surprised the defense doesn't claim that estrogen made him do it, referring of course to reports he took that to keep his voice high. Should be an amusing trial, especially since Jackson often claims weird behavior as being pure or natural.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
