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.
Friday, April 29, 2005
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
