Monday, July 30, 2007

Anent SCROODUS Chief Justice Roberts' Fall...

(Wherein I reinforce the impression of my intemperate-ness--or is it intemperance?)

I heard about Roberts' inexplicable fall, and thought "With ANY luck, it's symptomatic of a fell disease, which he will bravely resist, and to which he will tragically succumb, some time in early-to-mid 2009.

Sunday, July 29, 2007

A Thoughtful Reply to My Allegedly Intemperate "Impeachment" Post

LittleBrother said...
Four years after the revolution,
And the old king's execution,
Four years after, I remember how
Those courtiers took their final bow.

String up every aristocrat
Out with the priests: Let them live on their fat
Four years after we started fighting
Marat keeps on with his writing
Four years after the Bastille fell
He still recalls the old battle yell
Down with all of the ruling class
Throw all the generals out on their arse...
Mi hermano mayor, I admire your willingness to be a canary in this hellish deathtrap of a coal mine-- the apocalyptic New Amerikan Empire. But I see the reaction you inspire, perhaps especially the kind and sincere cautions, as more of a sign of the times than a refutation on the merits of your comments.

I'm probably looking for cats to comb, as my Sicilian grandmother used to put it, in the bilious backwash of the Ward Churchill and Norman Finklestein Ox-Bow Incidents. But when I read your putatively incendiary remarks, I take it as a dispassionate analysis, presenting the perfectly valid hypothesis that if a government deliberately eschews or vitiates mechanisms explicitly incorporated in its constitution to peacefully forestall or mediate conflict and crisis, that such government is perforce inviting anarchy and violence to fill the vacuum. I don't think a fair reading supports a conclusion that Woody is particularly advocating, much less encouraging, revolutionary mayhem. He's just pointing out the bifurcated trends resulting from the criminal administration's systematic annihilation of legal restraints and respect for law over power.

This may be a jeremiad of sorts, but it's hardly incendiary or inflammatory in its own right. But the people shushing you for your own good seem to feel that blogs, and you, simply can't risk presenting provocative comments in reasonable expectation of a fair reading and discussion. Anything "borderline" or hyperbolic or edgy should either be cleaned up ("self-policed") or tactfully suppressed.

The issue of the Homeland Security Nazg├╗l being ready to fuck up your shit, and the shit of the blogger you visit, on the slightest pretext is in my view problematic at best. It's not a question of whether this threat is real; it's a question of what it means to acquiesce to fear of persecution.

In recent weeks, I'm becoming more and more aware of a Nice-Nellie middle coalescing in mainstream blog sites. That twit Joan Walsh at Salon.com, and Arianna Huffington's trash-tabloid-skin "Huffington Post" are going back and forth about how comments should be controlled by the host.

There seems to be a depressing consensus that it is OK, and in accordance with ephemeral dogma about The Blogging Community and standards of decency, for sites to censor and moderate comments in order to weed out those perceived as mean-spirited or advocating violence or other illegal acts.

The practical consequence of this inanity on HuffPo, for example, is that some automated screening software, or perhaps a low-paid flack scanning a million incoming comments, will make a quick call to zap or not to zap. Smaller one-person bloggers are more capricious and arbitrary in banning and censoring, unapologetically exercising the Harsh Parent dogma of My House, My Say Who Lives Here. Yet bloggers often seem to resent having to discuss their editorial choices and methods, and in my view sites like HuffPo and Salon are trying to disingenuously have it both ways: encourage spontaneous comments, provided they are spontaneously in accordance with ambiguous Comment Policy rules. I doubt that they tangle themselves much in the sophisticated dynamics of free expression controlled by seemingly-benevolent cat-and-mouse methods composed of lethal paradoxical injunctions. One musn't be a "purist", after all.

For all of the nascent hope that the criminal regime is tottering and in free fall, it's painfully obvious that The Fear has settled like a fog onto the Bloglands.

I'm sorry that you're being marginalized and locked in the closet for your own good by the ostensible progressive blogging community. Although it provides more than my MDR for irony.

(Ed. Note: Thank you, Hermanito, for your patience, intelligence and understanding. What deTocqueville said 170 years ago still seems to apply: ""In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them."I should say, also, that--except for our mutual membership in the family of 'man'--we are not related.)

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Impeachment

Is constitutionally designed to be the POLITICAL remedy to punish POLITICAL crimes. Especially those subversions of the Constitution which redound to the POLITICAL benefit of the malefactors in High Places.
At least that’s seems to have been how Madison and the others present at the Founding regrded it: "If [the President] be himself a party to the guilt[,] he can be impeached and prosecuted."- (THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 626; Max Farrand ed., 1911) (reprinting James Madison’s notes).
The Pukes totally misused the process when they attacked Clinton; but they did it primarily to REMOVE impeachment as a viable remedy for the corruptions of power: to neutralize it in advance of the Fascist Coup they had already planned (as well as 'payback' for Nixon).
This presents the country with a difficult choice, if we wish to preserve our form of government: We can, through out legislature, bring impeachment; or we can rise in open rebellion, drag the criminal, corrupt fuckers into the streets, toss a coupla ropes over the streetlight poles on Penn. Ave, and pull a Mussolini on their fascist asses.
That's right, boyos, you got two choices--two choices, only two: impeachment or the guillotine.
Choose, you criminal fux! CHOOSE: Step aside or get it in the fucking neck!

(Addendum: A post substantially similar to this was deemed 'too' something--inciteful (pardon the pun)?--to be permitted to be read on Corrente. Not bitching, just sayin'.)

Drunk Astronauts? Sheeeit! The ONLY Way

you'd get me on one of those things would be cata-fuukin-tonic on gin-and-fuukin-tonic....

I'd hafta be Totally. Ripped. To. The. TITS!

No other possible way...

We Have Exteriorized Our Nervous System

Leonard Shlain is a very interesting dude.
In this latest book, he shows how human evolution changed completely when women discovered they could deny men sex:
Leonard Shlain is a medical doctor with a passion for evolutionary biology. His unique and intriguing views present new theories about many of the mysteries of human culture, from the genesis of patriarchy and misogyny to the role of female sexuality in human evolution. He explains, "When you read about a culture where they marry twelve-year-old girls off to old men, or practice honor killings, or female genital mutilation, or chastity belts, or any of these weird practices, what it's really about is that the men have been trying for the last hundred and fifty thousand years to regain the power they so emphatically lost when women gained veto power over sex."
In this provocative dialogue, Shlain outlines his perspective on how the unique features of human biology, sexuality and behavior impacted the evolution of our species. He suggests that the interplay between women's developing awareness of the risks of childbirth and her male counterparts' insatiable desire for sex led to a host of modern human traits including our awareness of time and mortality, the creation of art, and ultimately the patriarchal cultures we know today.
You can listen free through July 31

Friday, July 27, 2007

The Djinn's Outta the Bottle. Whom Do You Trust With The Power?

Over the last seven years, the Bush regime has arrogated to itself, and otherwise claimed extravagant, unprecedented powers and privileges in the accumulation and application of power. Evidently, from evidence available, they will NOT scale back the ever-expanding scope of their exercise of power through the last 17 months still remaining to them.

This got me wondering:

Does anyone think that, should they actually win election, ANY of the Democratic candidates would foreswear the appropriation and application of those powers as their own, were they still available to them; would relinquish them; would abandon them?

If so, who; and what about that one inspires your confidence in this regard?

And if you, as I, do not trust any of 'em with that kind of power, what are we citizens supposed to do to prevent them from passing to the next Regime, Puke of Dem?

(Cross-posted with My Left Wing)

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Some Kinda Sovereignty!

There were pieces on NPR last evening and this, on the fates of Native women raped--usually by non-Native men, who are ignored and/or forgotten because of 'jurisdictional' differences nad disputes. By and large, it is an unpunished crime.

Got me thinking: Why, I wondered, are Indian police forbidden--they are--by Federal law to arrest/detain non-Indians for crimes on Indian land of which said non-Indians are accused?? And why are Indian courts forbidden--they are--by the same Federal laws from executing justice in such cases?

Me? I think it has mainly to do with the racist requirement to keep the natives down. It would never do if the savages were to begin to think of themselves as qualified to judge white folks. Ya never know where something like that might lead.

Left Behind -- Max Blumenthal at Christians United for Israel's annual Washington-Israel Summit.

These are some crazy, sick, twisted, dangerous, scary motherfuckers.

I'd not be averse to helping 'em along to their own lil individual raptures; let Pastor Hagee lead the way.


Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour
(from huffpost and Vimeo.)
I REALLY envy Max, cuz he's been 86'd from places I've never even been--though I HAVE been 86'd--multiple times--from BOTH Eschaton AND the Cantina bar at La Fonda in Santa Fe.
Top THAT, Maxie, ol' pal!!!

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Seeing's Bee-leaving?


(Left: AMERICAN Bumblebee; Right: EUROPEAN Honeybee: Whose bee-side bee YOU on?)
There is a very learned, fascinating, unorthodox, and plausible disquisition, with references, on the apparent decline and fall of (European) honeybee culture as agents of USer corporate, agricultural hegemony posted by 'bringiton' over at Corrente.
As with so much in the 'natural' world, evidently there is both more and less to the declining populations of (european) honey bees than may bee immediately obvious. You prob'ly noticed ours are fuzzy, and much cuter. They don't make wax or honey, though. In fact, none of the over 4000 indigenous species of bees makes honey or wax.
I did NOT know that!
Still, there have also been serious declines in native pollenators, too.

Fight Roverian Cancer!


Doncha wish: Two members of the American People's Auto-Immune System expel the cancer from the White House...

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Bush's Dementia Explained: I Guess If I Had A Buncha These Things Growing Outta MY Ass

...I might act a bit deranged, too. Wiping would be a dangerous act.

But seriously folks...This was my favorite headline of the entire event:

President's polyps benign
Mark Silva | Tribune national correspondent

If Silva's correct, and the polyps are benign, they may well be the only things about the entire Bushevik coup d'etat that is not malignant. Somebody oughta put 'em in a jar, and sell 'em on ebay. I heard he named 'em all "Turdblossom," in Rover's honor.

A Message for Sen. Leahy -- Reposted Today When The Questions COULD Be Asked

On the matter of the US Attorneys, I've got just a couple of really simple questions: If the 8 or nine who were fired were fired in effect--as it now appears--for insufficient loyalty to the Bushevik/GOP political agenda, and for inattention to the bare, base political needs of partisan operations on the ground,

WHY THE FUCK WEREN'T THE OTHER 85 OR SO FIRED, TOO? Were the eight or nine who got canned the ONLY ones with ANY integrity? If you're one of the others, how does it feel to wake up, and go to work, knowing you're sufficiently, reliably corrupt a party hack that Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove say your job IS NOT in jeopardy? I'd hang myself with a bed-sheet, before I'd live like that.

And then ya gotta ask: WHAT THE FUCK WERE THE OTHER UN-FIRED US ATTYs DOING SO THEY DIDN'T GET AXED? TO WHAT DID THEY HAVE TO AGREE TO, TO STAY OFF THAT LIST? Who'd they have to fuck up for the Party bigwigs, and how badly?

And finally: AND WHY THE FUCK HAS NOBODY ON ANY FUCKING CONGRESSIONAL HEARING PANEL ASKED ANY OF THESE INCREDIBLY FUCKING SIMPLE QUESTIONS?????

Monday, July 23, 2007

I Have A Pit-bull, Budreaux

I sent the following message to the NFL today, through PETA:
Mr. Roger Goodell
Commissioner, National Football League

Dear Sir:
Like many other citixens and animal lovers, I was appalled to learn recently of the vicious dog abuse and thoughtless slaughter of animals by Atlanta Falcon QB Michael Vick and his thuggish associates. Officials found 70 dogs on his Surry County, Virginia, property along with paraphernalia commonly associated with dogfighting. I hope that you take Vick's indictment seriously.

Animal abuse is a reliable precursor event indicating a predilection towards thoughtless brutality by the abuser that may not be--and rearely is--restricted to animals, but in fact finds expression in abuse of any weaker creatures and persons.

Your office, sir, MUST suspend the vicious sadist Vick immediately and indefinitely, preferably permanently. Show the world that the NFL has a no-tolerance policy when it comes to cruelty to animals by football players, evewn its stars. I, for one, shall NEVER attend another NFL function of ANY kind, nor shall I ever again watch ANY NFL game, of any kind, as long as the vicious, sadistic, gangster/thug Vick wears ANY NFL uniform.

Although I could be placated if the Falcon management treated Vick in his losses on the gridiron with the same casual. cavalier violence as he visited upon the innocent dogs who lost in the pit: to wit, dousing him, then attaching electrodes to his genitals and juicing the miserable excuse for a human being til he screamed, vomited and passed out.

Sincerely Yours
Woody, Budreaux's 'dad'

In The Latest News: W A S F

We Are SOOOOOOO Fucked!
Dunno if ya noticed this last week:
A presidential Executive Order issued on July 17th, repeals with the stroke of a pen the right to dissent and/or to oppose the Pentagon's military agenda in Iraq.
The Executive Order entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq" provides the President with the authority to confiscate the assets of "certain persons" who oppose the US led war in Iraq:
"I have issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people."
In substance, under this executive order, opposing the war becomes an illegal act. The executive order combined with the existing anti-terrorist legislation is eventually intended to be used against the anti-war and civil rights movements. It can be used to seize the assets of antiwar groups in America as well as block the property and activities of non-governmental humanitarian organizations providing relief in Iraq, seizing the assets of alternative media involved in a reporting the truth regarding the US-led war, etc.

Couple this with the provisions of NSPD 51:
NSPD 51 grants unprecedented powers to the Presidency and the Department of Homeland Security, overriding the foundations of Constitutional government. It allows the sitting president to declare a “national emergency” without Congressional approval. The implementation of NSPD 51 would lead to the de facto closing down of the Legislature and the militarization of justice and law enforcement. (For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Bush Directive for a "Catastrophic Emergency" in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran? June 2007)

With the tools for the imposition of martial law and suppression of dissent in place, the next 'terror attack' will bring about the final revocation of the Constitutional form of government in the USofA.

And, of course, you understand: No subsequent Administration/Regime will happily or readily relinquish these powers.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

'Scuse Me? Hello? I STILL Gotta Coupla Incredibly Fucking SIMPLE Questions About Firing The US Attorneys?

If the 8 or nine who were fired were fired in effect--as it now appears--for insufficient loyalty to the Bushevik/GOP political agenda, and for inattention to the bare, base political needs of partisan operations on the ground,

WHAT THE FUCK WERE THE OTHER 85 OR SO DOING SO THEY DIDN"T GET FIRED? TO WHAT DID THEY HAVE TO AGREE TO, TO STAY OFF THAT LIST? Who'd they have to fuck up for the Party bigwigs, and how badly? How does it feel to wake up, and go to work, knowing you're sufficiently corrupt a party hack that Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove say your jobs NOT in jeopardy? I'd hang myself with a bed-sheet, before I'd live like that.

WHY THE FUCK WEREN'T THE SLEAZY SONZABITCHES FIRED, TOO? Were the eight or nine the ONLY ones with ANY integrity?

AND WHY THE FUCK HAS NOBODY ON ANY FUCKING CONGRESSIONAL HEARING PANEL ASKED ANY OF THESE INCREDIBLY FUCKING SIMPLE QUESTIONS?????

Family Values, New Mexico Style

I bet you think that it's only the fundamental values crowds in the deep south, and the remotest middle-west that get to have all the fun with young, impressionable boys and girls.
Welcome to Aztec, where the deep south MEETS the remote middle-west, in beautiful NORTHERN NEW MEXICO!!!
From the foremost "If-it-bleeds" news source in the state:
Former Church Employee Accused Of Sex With Minor
AZTEC, N.M. -- The San Juan County Sheriff's Department took a former Aztec church employee into custody and accuse him of having a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old girl.

Deputies took Wendel Nix into custody and said he was a youth pastor. But church officials said that is not the case. "Basically, he scheduled bus routes to pick up children and come into the church," said Barry Quinn, a pastor at the Bible Baptist church where Nix worked.

One teen who spoke with Action 7 News said she stopped going to the church because of comments that Nix would make. "They said sometimes that he was like, he'd ask them, what size their bra was," said Lori Ramsay, who claims she stopped going to the church because of Nix.

"I'm completely surprised by that," Quinn said. "Had I been aware of any such conduct by Mr. Nix or any other church volunteer or paid staff, we would've taken quick and stern action."

Nix is being held at the San Juan Detention Center. He's charged with criminal sexual penetration and criminal sexual contact of a minor. His bond is set at $300,000.

Pretty little town, Aztec. There's an ancient pueblo ruin (Anasazi) right in the middle of town.

Friday, July 20, 2007

You'd Hafta Conclude Their Lives Just Aren't Worth As Much As A Human's Is

Below, I speculated on the gustatory likelihood of ANY USer trooper EVER doing really HARD time for killing Iraqis in Iraq.
Read'em and weep!:

A military jury at Camp Pendleton has spared a Marine of prison time for kidnapping and conspiring to murder an Iraqi man who was killed as troops hunted in vain for a suspected insurgent.Cpl. Trent Thomas was sentenced Friday morning to a bad-conduct discharge and reduced pay. A military jury of three officers and six enlisted Marines deliberated for less than an hour before returning their decision.Thomas, a 25-year-old father of two, faced a maximum sentence of life in prison without parole. He was convicted Wednesday of kidnapping and conspiracy to murder an Iraqi man after a botched attempt to capture a suspected insurgent in the village of Hamdania in April 2006.

No prison: just loss of pay, rank and benefits, and a BCD (Bad Conduct Discharge).
Not a even a 'Dishonorable' discharge. Bad conduct? WTF? Yeah cold-bloodedly killing a non-combatant is fucking AWFUL conduct.
But I guess there's no 'Fucking Awful Conduct Discharge,' unfortunately.

Re: Our Max Beards The Young, GOP Lions

There was a long, thoughtful discussion today on Digby about Max Blumenthal's most recent, most courageous, most revelatory foray into the innards of the beast, the College Republicans annual meeting. Many commentors remarked upon their perception that those portrayed in the film were 'morons' or otherwise intellectually deprives.
I said:
I don't think they're stupid at all. It assuages the ego to think of them in that way, but it is--imho--wrong.
These are the scions of self-interest, wealth, privilege, and power.
They are utterly unscrupulous, vicious, vindictive,, and vain.
They know exactly where their interests lie, and will baulk at nothing to achieve them--except perhaps offering themselves to discomfort or danger.
You may deny it, it may nauseate you, it may offend you. But unless you are naturally of their class, they own you.
Go to war?
They are already there, and you/we are the enemy, in exactly the same way that the workers are known and regarded as the 'enemy' by their bosses...

Thursday, July 19, 2007

If ANY Murkin GI Is EVER Convicted of Capital Murder

for killing any Iraqi in Iraq, I'll eat one of my (embarrassingly expansive collection of) hats.

Two US Soldiers Charged With Murder in Iraq
Megan Greenwell of The Washington Post reports, "Two US soldiers have been charged with murdering an Iraqi last month near the northern city of Kirkuk."


Addendum: Today, it was announced that another soldier charged with premeditated murder, but convicted only of lomewhat lesser charges, would re reduced in rank, and pay, and get a "Bad Conduct Discharge." Not a minute of prison. I think a BCD is appealable, after a certain term.

It is true that the troops are in an utterly, relentlessly, uncompromisingly, untenably bad position: a moment's hesitation in the wrong situation could cost you your life, and those of your buddies. And after all, if the haji you grease ain't the right one, well the mofo's prob'ly related. Being the occupier of a hostile land's just about the toughest job you can order a soldier to do. Under much less--arguably, only artificial--stress, the Milgram and Zimbardo experiments showed the limits of any 'civilized' human aversion to inflict pain.

I do understand. Unfortunately, it seems to me, too few 'volunteers' do, before it's too late.

Re: The Dog-Killer, Michael Vick

Two of his major endorsement deals are with Nike and Rawlings.
If you really want to get into his vicious, sadistic grill, the best thing is to write to these guys and tell 'em that you'll never again purchase any products from them as long asa the vicious, brutal dog-butcher is endorsing them. I have also writen to the NFL, promising not to watch another game on the Tube, or ever again to attend a game as long as Vick is on the active player list.

Nike: http://niketown.nike.com/niketown/info/privacy.jsp?item=privacy
there's also a snail-mail address
Rawlings: www.rawlings.com There's a snail mail address there too.
Finally, the NFL: http://www.nfl.com/help/emailtech

Write 'em and give 'em hell! And FUCK MICHAEL VICK!!!!

But don't expect it to achieve much, especially at Nike.

The Disasterous Consequences of Bushivism

My friends over at Cabdrollery have up a piece from the LA Times on the consequences to the Middle East/West Asia in consequence of the complete fucking over of Iraq by the Busheviki.
And he and they are right: it is difficult to imagine a more disasterous history. As many as 25% of the Iraqi population is effectively displaced, either by emigration or internal displacement, and it is not going to get much better anytime soon.
But it doesn't stop there.
Because, in fact, neither the USofA nor the rest of the world will EVER undo the damages done by the Busheviks over their 8-year (so far) reign.
For all practical purposes, the USofA will NEVER be rid of the malign influences loosed upon the electorate or the consequences thereof. Young fascisti Alito and Roberts will be fucking things up from the bench of the SCROODUS for 2 or three decades, at least; the thousands of political appointees who've been surreptitiously installed in career positions will live and continue to screw things up inside govt for fucking generations. No subsequent regime will gladly relinquish the powers the Busheviki have arrogated to themselves.

It is the same in the rest of the world, in particular in the Middle East, where the West MUST remain a visible presence in order to control the exploitation of the region's resources. There's a pretty good chance that this was the Neo-Con/Zionist/PNAC plan all along. It is by no means impossible or unthinkable that the fascist Neo-Con/Zionist/PNAC cabal advocated and advanced the current, militaristic USer course in the region because they understood that USer presence and military activity would, indeed, eventually lead to mortal, regional strife, in the course of which the armed Muslim factions would reduce one another to chaotic impotence, in the aftermath of which the West could move in and recolonize the resources...

And this says nothing at all about the consequences of the Busheviki's unwillingness to take the climate crisis seriously, probably past the point of no return, I am glad 1) I never reproduced and 2) I've only gotta live another 15 or so years in the chaos and anarchy that will almost inevitably ensue.

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Max Blumenthal Beards The Cowardly Lions In Their Moonie Dens

He takes a camera to the Annual Meeting of the College Republicans.
Like shooting fish in a barrel, of course.
Listen for Tom Delay's description of how preventing abortions would have stopped immigration.
Then watch while a prognathous-jawed, ridged-eye-browed future storm-trooper escorts Max from the hall.
The blonde asswipe would put one hand on me, and dropped to the floor with my knee embedded in his groin. Kicked his nuts so high into his body cavity, he'da had an orgasm swallowing his milk.
That kinda injury'll keep him outta the military, I garntee...

Bind Michael Vick Inside a Dog-Fight Ring, Smear His Genitalia With Blood and Gravy, And Loose The Starving Dogs

That goddamn, scum-sucking, sadistic, barbarian motherfucker. I wanna hear that motherfucker screaming in pain, like the dogs he torments for sport.
The rotten piece of shit got indicted for running dog- and cock-fighting rings, animal abuse, crossing state-lines in pursuit in a criminal enterprise. If convicted of all the charges, Vick and the others - Purnell A. Peace, 35, of Virginia Beach; Quanis L. Phillips, 28, of Atlanta; and Tony Taylor, 34, of Hampton - could face up to six years in prison, $350,000 in fines and restitution.
Michael Vick is "innocent" til proven guilty. Okay. Mike Vick makes a LOT of money. He makes a LOT MORE money for white people, so he likely won't spend an hour in jail.
But suspend the motherfucker, until the trial; he doesn't play a single motherfucking minute.
And hold him in a fucking kennel, on the side-lines, cuz he's worse than a rabid skunk.
Though, personally, I like the idea that, when the Falcons lose, the team should douse the abusive, sadistic shitheel in water and attach electrodes to his genitals, and crank up the juice, like he did with dogs that 'lost' fights.
Or better yet, just put a fucking gun to his fucking head and shoot the motherfucking son-of-a-bitch for a sick, pathetic loser who takes pleasure in the pain he inflicts on dumb animals.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

It's A Bargain: The Immigrants Bring in Leprosy, Take Home HIV! What's Not To Like? (/snark)

Mexican Migrants Carry HIV Home
Marc Lacey of The New York Times reports:
"AIDS is spreading quickly in rural Mexican states with the highest migration rates to the United States, researchers say. The greatest risk of contracting AIDS that rural Mexican women face is in having sex with their migrant husbands, a new study found, a problem that is compounded by their husbands' refusal to use condoms."
This'll make LouDobbs very happy.

Monday, July 16, 2007

W T F is WRONG with the gutless, feckless, useless, worthless DUMBOCRAPS?

LA Times reports today (via TruthOut.Org--support 'em!) that the chickenshit Dems, now in the majority, will not release a report on the mal- and misfeasance of members of the House Intelligence Committee, the unit that Randy "Duke" Cunningham used to funnel contracts to favored businesses in return for bribes:

Cunningham Report Portrays Entangled Panel
By Greg Miller, The Los Angeles Times, Monday 16 July 2007

Washington - An internal investigation that the House Intelligence Committee has refused to make public portrays the panel as embarrassingly entangled in the Randy "Duke" Cunningham bribery scandal.

The report, a declassified version of which was obtained by the Los Angeles Times, describes the committee as a dysfunctional entity that served as a crossroads for almost every major figure in the ongoing criminal probe by the Justice Department.

The document describes breakdowns in leadership and controls that it says allowed Cunningham - the former congressman (R-Rancho Santa Fe) who began an eight-year prison term last year for taking bribes and evading taxes - to use his House position to steer millions of dollars to corrupt contractors.

When the committee's investigation was completed last year, the Republican-controlled panel would not release the results; now that the committee is controlled by Democrats, it still will not release the findings.

The report provides the most detailed account to date of how former CIA Executive Director Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo, whose indictment on charges of defrauding the government was recently expanded, allegedly used committee connections to advance his career at the agency.

And the report sheds new light on the roles of senior committee aides, including retired CIA case officer Brant Bassett, who had ties to Cunningham and Foggo as well as to contractors accused of paying the congressman millions of dollars.

Overall, the document provides a penetrating look into how the committee itself became central to the scandal, describing an atmosphere in which senior aides were deeply troubled by Cunningham's actions but nevertheless complied with his requests out of fear.

But the report and committee members' ongoing disagreement over whether it should be released also reflect the political currents still swirling around the scandal.

For all its finger-pointing at staffers, the document fails to address whether other committee members were aware of Cunningham's abuses or were culpable. For instance, the report avoids any scrutiny of former Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), who was chairman of the panel when Cunningham's most egregious abuses occurred. Goss went on to serve as CIA director, from September 2004 to May 2006.

Democrats complained bitterly a year ago when Republicans blocked release of a declassified version of the final report. But two weeks ago, several Democrats joined Republicans to block the report's release only to other members of Congress. Five Democrats objected to keeping the report secret.

Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), who assumed leadership of the committee after Democrats won control of Congress last fall, said some Democratic members were reluctant to release a document that singled out staff members for criticism.

"My view was that the report was an internal review, principally of staff activity, and that the full report - with all of the names of staff - was not intended for dissemination beyond the committee," Reyes said. "The important thing is that the committee took the review seriously and incorporated changes" designed to prevent future abuses.

Congressional sources said Reyes and other Democrats had initially voted to let other members of Congress see the document, but reversed course after a fierce protest by the panel's ranking GOP member, Peter Hoekstra of Michigan.

"They are so nervous about this report being out," said one congressional official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Members oppose putting this thing out because you read this and the natural question is: 'Did you know this, and what did you do about it?' I don't think any members wanted that scrutiny."


Who will watch the watchers?
Not the gutless, chickenshit, corrupt, feckless Dumbo-fucking-crats, that's fer sher.

The "Founders" Weren't Christians

A pal sent me these ruminations on what some of our more prominent founding fathers thought about "Christianity": (Mainly, they were agin it.)

JOHN ADAMS
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"--in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

JAMES MADISON
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
and
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
--both quotes from his 'Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments'

THOMAS JEFFERSON
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god."
--letter to Peter Carr, 1787
plus
"You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."
--letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 1819

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."
--from his essay, "Toleration"

Also, a Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:
"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers"
--from Priestley's Autobiography

THOMAS PAINE
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."
and:
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church."
--from Paine's book, "The Age of Reason"

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Is an "All-Volunteer" Military Entitled To Our Sympathy If They Suffer Trauma Upon The Commission Of War-Crimes?


Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor (and Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court) might not think so:

“We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.”

“If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” - Nuremberg Tribunal

Those last are words you will NEVER hear spoken by the vile, fascist motherfuckers in the Bushevik regime. Can you say 'Torture', Prof. Yoo, you reeking, hypocritical piece of shit?

Saturday, July 14, 2007

"I Believe..."

In his speech to the carefully vetted crowd in Cleveland last week, the Chimp muttered "Ah bleeve" SEVENTY-FUCKING-FIVE times.
I believe I'll get another drink: By Marty Kaplan @ Huffpost, Thursday.
AP

"I wouldn't ask a mother or a dad -- I wouldn't put their son in harm's way if I didn't believe this was necessary for the security of the United States and the peace of the world. I strongly believe it, and I strongly believe we'll prevail. And I strongly believe that democracy will trump totalitarianism every time. That's what I believe. And those are the belief systems on which I'm making decisions that I believe will yield the peace."

-- George W. Bush, Cleveland, July 10, 2007
Who gives a flying fig for what you believe, Mr. President? You believed trading Sammy Sosa to the White Sox was a good move. You believed Saddam was making nukes from Nigerien yellowcake. You believed Senators of both parties would acclaim Harriet Miers as a "superb choice" for the Supreme Court," an American of "unwavering devotion to the Constitution and laws of our country." You said you had faith in General Casey (until you fired him). You keep telling us you have faith in Alberto Gonzales. We know you believe in a Higher Power, Mr. Bush -- hey, if AA works for you, you go, guy -- but why should any American mother or dad let you put their son in harm's way just because you "strongly believe" that his being wasted by a roadside IED in an Islamic civil war makes the world more peaceful and the United States more secure?
There's an old saying: "Bleeve" in one hand, and shit in the other, and sniff to discover which hand gets stinky.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

The Gutless, Feckless, Useless, Worthless, Chickenshit Dumbocraps Should Not Approve Another Single Bushevik Nominee For Any-FUCKING-Thing

And ESPECIALLY, they should not seat another Bushit judicial appointment, to ANY Court, for ANY reason, ANY time.
Asshole Arlen Specter's apparently got his panties all knotted up because the Dems are threatening to bottle up the nomination of yet ANOTHER racist, sexist, red-neck, Mississippi cracker asshole, Leslie Southwick, the the 5th Circuit.
What the nation does NOT need is yet another racist, sexist, red-neck, Mississippi cracker asshole on ANY Court ANYWHERE in the goddamn, fucking Country, EVER AGAIN!
Fuck Arlen Specter. I awake every morning with the fervent wish that his prostate will soon finally consume him.

Dr. Death...Er, I Mean Sec. Chertoff's Got A "Gut-Feeling"


Chertoff's gut is telling him Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, and the ghost of Suleiman, the Magnificent, or anyway, some REALLY SCARY ARAB is gonna attack the US "this summer."

This is, on the face of it, far less intelligence--the reliability of it remains to be seen--than was provided to the Busheviks in the Aug. 11, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing which declared Bin Laden was planning an attack, and which the Chimp & minions dismissed with the cavalier admonition that the CIA had "covered their asses."

It also happens to come at a time when the Chimp & minions' fortunes, politically, are at an historically, disastrously low ebb. Those fortunes would be materially assisted on the event of another attack in the US, especially if it were bloody and serious enough to allow the Chimp to invoke the emergency powers he arrogated unto himself a couple of months ago--emergency powers to suspend the Constitution, for example, or revoke habeas corp...oh, yeah, they've already done that...

Well, anyway, I suspect Chertoff's gut feeling arises from inside knowledge of the kind that permitted the Busheviks, and especially Cheney and the PNACabal, to so placidly await the impending AlQaeda attacks of IX/XI and essentially do nothing about them except to hope they wouldn't be toooo bad.

I have always suspected the regime--Cheney, since his brief was intelligence--knew just about everything about the AlQaeda plans except (I'll be charitable) the exact date and the targeted flight numbers. They withheld this information, and refused to act upon it for purely political reasons: they feared harming the airline & travel industry which 1) was a major source of campaign donations and 2) was teetering so precariously on the edges of financial instability that precautions necessary to protect the flights (and their passengers) would have flipped the balance. Instituting the security measures now in place through the TSA, before the attacks of IX/XI would have spooked the traveling public to drive them away from air-travel.

And insisting on installing hijacker-proof cabin doors on the flight deck--which would have stymied the attackers--was something the industry had resisted ferociously for decades, on the grounds of their being too weighty...Or something.

So they waited for their "Pearl Harbor moment." And sprang into long-contemplated action when it occurred. And the rest, as they say, is history.

(Late Flash: I recently learned that the guy in the skeletor suit (as opposed to the REAL one at HSA in DC) in real life is the dad of my incredible masseuse. Waddayano?)

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

This Is Only A Dilemma Cuz Many--If Not MOST--Dems Actually Support The ICORP, Opposing Only The 'Management' Of It

Iraq Study Group Plan Puts Democrats in Defense-Bill Bind
From TruthOut.Org (to which I send a small, monthly donation)

Elana Schor and Manu Raju of The Hill report, "A bipartisan proposal to implement the Iraq Study Group's recommendations is gaining momentum among Senate Republicans, but is putting Democrats in a tough position with an anti-war base that wants the chamber to take a much harder line during this month's Iraq war debate."

Death From The Skies


If/when the USer/Bushevik regime deems it politically expedient to start to reduce the number of 'boots on the ground' in Iraq, one may safely anticipate that this will NOT reduce the amount of havoc and mayhem delivered upon the innocent Iraqis. It will merely change the source of the devastation, from the Abrams, Bradleys, and HumVees in thir streets to A-10s and F-16s in their skies.

In this respect, the Busheviks will be repeating the plans of the Nixon cabal, which withdrew ground troops from 'Nam in '73, but kept up a constant, bloody, murderous campaign of air attacks up until the very last day of the USer presence there, in April, '75.

That pattern is likely to be repeated in Iraq, as ground operations are incrementally superceded by air attacks against 'insurgent' targets. Air strikes in Iraq are daily occurrences, but are almost never reported. Meanwhile, because--no matter what the military propagandists say--air-fired ordinance is not appreciably more accurate, and surely no less deadly, there are frequent instances of what the military likes to call 'collateral damage': deaths and injuries caused incidentally to the targeting of 'real' objects.

Tom Engelhart provides the meaty details in this recent TomGram. I got it off Truthdig.com, Robert Sheerer's vital blog.

FYI: The following block of text accompanies the photo at the top of this column:
The Haj Musheen Abdul Aziz Az-Kubaysi mosque complex in Fallujah was the sight of an intense and deadly battle in the initial days of the seige of Fallujah. Marines were searching the city for those responsible for the murder and mutilation of four American contractors. Heavy resistance was encountered in this neighborhood and gunfire and RPG's were observed coming from the mosque comlex. Permission was granted to assault the mosque, no longer protected by The Law of Land Warfare, and a laser guided bomb was directed to the eastern wall. The 500 lb. bomb took the wall out, the Marines stormed the compound, and all enemy forces were killed.
It is worth noting that the person 'responsible' for the deaths of the four mercenaries killed that day in fallujah--the proximal casus belli for the all-out assault on the place in 2004--was a venal, profit-driven company man from Blackwater Inc., who sent the patrol into Fallujah without normal precautions and with an under-manned vehicle in the first place.

"Robbery!"

Iraqi Oil Workers Union Founder Calls US-Backed Oil Law Is "Robbery"

In the wake of the Iraqi cabinet's approval of part of a controversial oil law, Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviews Faleh Abood Umara, general secretary of the Federation of Oil Unions and a founding member of the oil workers union in and Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein, president of the Electrical Utility Workers Union and the first woman to head a national union in Iraq.
"Robbery" defined:
Article 111 of the Iraqi Constitution...states that the oil and gas of Iraq are owned by the Iraqi people and they have the right to control it. But when you look into the details of the law, many of the articles of the law actually conflict with this preamble of the law, the most important point of which is the issue of the production-sharing agreements, which allows the international oil companies, especially the American ones, to exploit the oil fields without our knowledge of what they are actually doing with it. And they take about 50% of the production as their share, which we think it’s an obvious robbery of the Iraqi oil...We also object to the procedure by which these companies are given the contracts for exploiting the oil, because it allows the granting of the contracts with the aid of foreign advisers. We demanded that it’s actually the Iraqi experts that need to be consulted with regards to the granting of the contracts.
Yup, it's robbery. And the passage of it will be the only measure of 'success' USers may EVER see in consequence of the ICORP of Iraq.

Monday, July 9, 2007

Run, Cindy, Run!!!

From TruthOut.Org (I support 'em w/a small monthly donation)
Cindy Sheehan said she will run as an independent against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 if Pelosi does not file articles of impeachment against Bush by July 23. "I think all politicians should be held accountable. Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership. We hired them to bring an end to the war," reports Angela K. Brown of the Associated Press.


This is how it's s'pozed to work, innit? You think your representative ain't representing you, so you run against 'em.
Pelosi is WAAAAAAY too close to the Oiligarchs and Pollutocrats; taking the I-word off the table is/was unconscionable.

Run, Cindy, Run. I'll send ya a coupla sheckels, and so will thousands of others...

Sunday, July 8, 2007

NYTimes Editorial Calls For Iraq Withdrawal

The "Money Quote":
"President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have used demagoguery and fear to quell Americans' demands for an end to this war. They say withdrawing will create bloodshed and chaos and encourage terrorists. Actually, all of that has already happened - the result of this unnecessary invasion and the incompetent management of this war. It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit."

But close, critical reading reveals, they STILL do not eschew or renounce their initial, unrestrained, enthusiastic advocacy for the ICORP of Iraq. They complain only that the invasion was "unnecessary;" not that it was immoral--by the best of soi-disant Murkin "principles"--illegal, and a criminal act of international, historical proportions and consequences.
And they complain the management of the ICORP was "incompetent," implying that had it been 'competently' managed, they'd still support it. The "If-I-Knew-Then" defense is empty posturing, since "what-they-know-now was evident to any but the sold-out acolytes of the status-quo-ante "then," as much as ever it is today.

With media allies like these, one does not need opponents.

The Dem Leadership Does NOT Oppose The ICORP of Iraq

I seriously doubt that, were the USers (thought to be) "winning" the ICORP of Iraq, Mr. Reid or any other Congresscritters, regardless of party, would be opposing it.

This, despite the 'winning' or 'losing' of it does NOTHING to change the fundamental criminality, immorality, or illegality of it.

The Democrats objections are nothing more than tactical quibbles. They don't oppose the ICORP, per se; only that USers seem to be 'losing' it. Indeed, were it going 'better,' they'd all be its happy sponsors, instead of its putatively 'unwilling' abettors.

The Old Sarge, Stan Goff, gets off a couple of well-placed rounds on the subject, in a post yestiddy on HuffPost.

Friday, July 6, 2007

Sadr Rejects Iraq's Puppet Regime's "Oil Law" (Revised, @ 12:38 MDT)

Said law, the passage and adoption of which would retroactively (and economically) 'justify' (to the war-mongering CorpoRat/PNAC/Zionist cabal) the Bushevik ICORP in Iraq, dissolves any pre-ICORP energy contracts in favor of contracts negotiated since the ICORP with British and USer multi-nationals, and puts the Iraqi economy in the caring hand of those self-same multinationals for the next 20 years.
However, as Agence France Presse (AFP) reported July 5. '07:
Followers of Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr on Thursday joined a growing chorus of Sunni Arab, Kurdish and Shiite opposition to a draft oil law backed by Washington. (Ed: the last two words contain the key to understanding both the reason for the anth opposition to, the measure.)
His opposition, apparently motivated by anger at the idea of US and British oil firms snapping up contracts after their countries invaded Iraq, promises to feed a fierce debate but will not necessarily derail the legislation...(Ed: Funny that they can virtually admit to the venal purposes of this horror, and in the next breath, assert that this won't 'necessarily' influence the outcome. Any wonder that the Iraqis regard maliki as a pupper?)
...Sadr's supporters said they would not support any law that would allow firms "whose governments are occupying Iraq" -- a reference to the United States, Britain and their coalition allies -- to sign Iraqi oil deals. (Ed: Well, fucking DUH! It only makes sense to the invaders to fucking reward them for the murder of a couple hundred thousand of your countryfolks and co-religionists!)
"The most serious problem with the law is the production-sharing agreements, which we categorically reject," said Nassar al-Rubaie, spokesman for Sadr's 32-member parliamentary bloc.
Such agreements, which provide for foreign oil companies to share investment and profits with the state, would "undermine Iraq's sovereignty in the short run and will strip it of its sovereignty in the long run", he added. (Ed: The agreements COMPEL the State to split the profits about 80-20 in favor of the fucking cartels, for the next fucking 20 years, fer chrissake!)
The Kurdish Regional Government, on the other hand, has demanded that the new oil law accommodate contracts it has already signed with foreign companies to exploit oil in northern Iraq.

Unfortunately for the Kurds, it was, at least in part, to invalidate and terminate those agreements that Cheney's Energy Panel met in 2001 and agreed on the necessity of starting the ICORP in Iraq. Not enough of the Cheney 'energy elect' were on the lists of those preferred by the Iraqis to develop and exploit the Iraqi oil reserves.
Btw: The legislation is an amazing document, surprising, astonishing in it the clarity with which it lays out as it so clearly does the real reasons for, and the villains in, the murderous, criminal, cynical ICORP of Iraq.
(Ed Note: The revisions are the editorial remarks inserted into the AFP piece in italics. I doubt they'll mind much in Paris.)

Nobody's Business But The Turks'

How soon will Turkey unleash its army on the Kurds of northern Iraq?
Very soon according to a veteran observer of the region, Jacques Couvas, writing at the blog AntiWar dot com. A matter of mere weeks, probably.
And that is NOT good news for peace, stability, freedom, or justice in the region.
But, of course, all those things have already been mortally bitten in the ass by the Busheviks and their insane, illegal, immoral ICORP* of Iraq.
ANKARA - The button of the stopwatch counting down the invasion of northern Iraq by the Turkish army was probably pressed on Tuesday, at an impromptu meeting between Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The two men have, in theory, scheduled meetings on Thursdays, which are often not maintained, as they do not see politically eye-to-eye. The surprise meeting on Tuesday has sparked speculation that the assault is near. Cynics, however, say this is just another coup de theatre, which aims at shaking from the shoulders the United States and Iraq, who are clearly opposed to military action against the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) on Iraqi soil.

False alarms have been almost a routine since the beginning of this year, when the general staff of the armed forces energetically requested the government's approval to move into northern Iraq in large numbers in order to avenge the weekly casualties by the army in eastern Turkey, caused by PKK armed militants stationed in refugee camps and villages in Iraq.

The Turkish army has been drawing plans since last year for a "total cleanup" of that region, but the government has avoided responding clearly. A wait-and-see strategy has prevailed within the Justice and Development Party (AKP), the ruling political formation.

Other events this week corroborate the growing belief that the incursion is near. The U.S. ambassador to Ankara on Monday had to publicly reject in dismay allegations by the Turkish press that his government has been selling weapons to PKK members. The United States, as well as the EU and Turkey, consider this organization a terrorist one.
If the Turks take on the PKK inside Iraq, there will be no reason for the Iraqi Kurds to fore-swear returning the favor and 'protecting' Turkish Kurds from the genocide which the Turks so plainly wish to inflict upon them.

Thursday, July 5, 2007

Of Southern Trees & Their Fruits: Follow-Up

If you be's black in Jena, LA, you best bettah keep thet broad, flat nose clean, knee-grow!

Last week I posted on the racially charged situation in Jena, Louisiana, an 85% White/cracker-asshole community (3000 whites, 350 blacks) up in the piney woods around Alexandria, where black students who questioned the propriety of there being a "WHITES-ONLY" shade tree on campus, were met the next school day with nooses hung in the tree by white students protecting their racial privilege. Three white students were suspended for three days for this egregious act of racial terror.

Resentment apparently festered. In December, one of the three was met by several of the black students whom they'd sought to terrorize and who, understandably, took exception to the threats and beat the shit outta the cowardly little racist shit: kicked his in-bred, red-neck, racist ass into the middle of the next semester.

On the weekend there came the news that a black youth, who was one of six charged with replying physically to racist taunts of White racist rat-fucker students and kicking a little racist ass, was convicted of assault (sentencing set for July 31) by (soo-prahs, soo-prahs) an all-white jury, before a white judge, after prosecutors lowered the charges from attempted murder. Said a friend of the convicted teen's family:"The best thing, if you're black in this town, is to stay out of the system, because once they get you, you're done for. You're not getting out." Blacks constitute only just over 10% of the population of LaSalle Parish, where Jena is situated, making the seating of black jurors improbable at best.

I bet ya never imagined that could still happen in color-blind (the SCROTUS sez so) Murka, now didja?
A longer account of the situation, the circumstances, and the probable outcomes is presented by MSNBC here.

It's Now Official: Everybody In Gaza Is Hamas

And, therefore, for the murderous gunsels of the IDF, fair game:

By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 39 minutes ago

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Israeli troops crossed into the Gaza Strip, killing eight Hamas militants in a fierce gunbattle Thursday that drew in Israeli aircraft, tanks and bulldozers.


Israel said its troops were on a routine foray against Palestinian rocket squads when they came under fire from the militants about half a mile inside the Gaza Strip. Hamas said its fighters surprised an Israeli undercover unit.

Witnesses reported a heavy exchange of fire as Israeli tanks and bulldozers moved in, backed by air power.

As soldiers took up positions on rooftops, militants fought back by laying mines and firing small arms and mortars.

Two mortars landed on the Israeli side of the Erez crossing, which has been closed to most traffic since Hamas wrested control of Gaza last month, the army said. No one was hurt.

Hospital officials said six militants were killed in the clash. All belonged to Hamas, the group said, adding that the dead included its central Gaza field commander.

Two more Hamas militants were killed later Thursday in Israeli missile strikes targeting the same area, the army and hospital officials said. The fighting erupted near the Bureij refugee camp in central Gaza Strip, a site of frequent clashes between Palestinian gunmen and the Israeli army.

Elsewhere along Gaza's northern border with Israel, Hamas officials said some 15 tanks and three bulldozers had moved into Palestinian farms and were leveling the land. The army said it had no such vehicles in the area.

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

It's the End of the Web As We Know It --

FTC ABANDONS "NET NEUTRALITY"
Some things just don't get undone. So no corporate toady in Congress, after gutting 'Net neutrality', and bestowing extremely valuable communications monopolies on powerful media corporations in '07, is gonna turn around two years, later, after the '08 "election" and unshit the Web.
Nagahapun; aribuddy knows it.
So it pains me now to have been, once again, right.
But there it is.
In case you haven't been paying attention (this WILL be on the test): I have predicted long and loud and at some risk to my reputation as a 'serious fellow', since before 2004, that the Web was too fucking democratizing, too fucking empowering, to be permitted for too long to flout itself in the faces of the CorpoRats who'd spent the previous 80 years, trillions of dollars, and thousands of lives to corner the market in mediated reality.
It was unrealistic, I argued, to imagine that, with the stakes so high, the rewards so rich, the power so complete, that the folks who'd spent the previous 80 years cornering every kind of media they could by which to enslave the populace would just walk away from the WEB. They would, I assured anyone who listened, move heaven and earth to ensure their continued dominance over the means and instruments by which Murkins could imagine themselves.
And further, I argued that the ways of the Web we have all grown used to would probably NOT come to the '08 election in the same form as it came into the '04 and '06 election cycles.
Indeed, with the unexpected losses for the GOP, in a way, the successes of '06 sealed our fates.

Vide:
Iain Thomson, vnunet.com 02 Jul 2007

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has decided to abandon net neutrality and allow telecoms companies to charge websites for access.

The FTC said in a report that, despite popular support for net neutrality, it was minded to let the market sort out the issue.

This means that the organisation will not stand in the way of companies using differential pricing to make sure that some websites can be viewed more quickly than others. The report also counsels against net neutrality legislation.

"This report recommends that policy makers proceed with caution in the evolving dynamic industry of broadband internet access, which is generally moving towards more, not less, competition," FTC chairman Deborah Platt Majoras wrote.

"In the absence of significant market failure, or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area."

The report has caused outrage in the online community. Many are worried that any abandonment of net neutrality will harm competition, since it will allow big companies to outspend start-ups.

"Mostly the FTC suggests ways that the telephone and cable companies could have new ways to make money from content and applications providers," said Art Brodsky, of internet advocacy group Public Knowledge.

"Or lower-income subscribers could be charged lower prices, subsidised by 'prioritization revenues' much as supported email services now provide free email accounts. Nowhere is there discussion of what the consumer gets out of the deal."

Just in time to stem the popular tide.
I know I never imagined it...
Have I mentioned? Turn your radios to WASF, Radio We Are SOOOO Fucked, whereEVER you are...
While you still can...

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

Missile Defense System Stand-Off

If, as the Busheviks proclaim, the real and true purpose of placing elements of a missile defense system in Europe is to forestall or defend it against attack from the south or southeast, then the Russians' offer to turn over the big radar station in Azerbajan to the task should be satisfactory, as Azerbajan is directly in line with the direction from which the threat is said to originate.

It therefore follows that the only other, serious, plausible reason for the Busheviks to refuse the offer is if their aim of putting missile defenses in Europe is NOT to preserve Europe against aggression from west Asia, but it is precisely what the Russians fear: to contain the Russians.

Or am I missing something?

Monday, July 2, 2007

The Marginalization of "SiCKo"

It's happening everywhere in the SCUM (the SoCalledUnbiasedMedia) these days.
No less a light than NPR devoted about 25 minutes (combined) of their two signature shows, Morning Edition and All Things Considered) to dissing the film and Moore.
Because, of course, Michael Moore's fat.
However, one NPR critic, David Edelstein (Day-To-Day)says:
Moore argues that Americans take dead-end jobs for insurance and stay because employers have them over a barrel. He says transform health care, and you'll remake society. History suggests the health-care industry will pay through the nose to ensure that the system never changes. But after Sicko, how can Americans let politicians feed them sugar pills?

One of the indefatigables at TruthOut.Org, Dean Baker, has a a piece up on TO discussing the 'let's kill Michael Moore' phenomenon:
"The pundits are working overtime trying to defuse the message from "SiCKO," Michael Moore's new film. They are trying to convince the public that the United States could not possibly do what every other rich country (and even some not so rich countries) have managed to do: guarantee their people decent health care."

Rock On, TruthOut. (I contribute a small amount, monthly, to sustain their efforts.)