
Read more here, here and here.
A desultory Blog. Like we're sitting around the diner schmoozing, it's a little bit 'o dis and a little bit 'o dat
The opinions expressed in this blog are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of any group or invidual
Powered by ScribeFire.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Powered by ScribeFire.
After the initial shock of the report, it then becomes obvious that
it's a hoax. To start with, the site's URL is http://www.cnnheadlienews.com (note the headlie instead of headline). CNN's url is cnn.com and the url for its sister network, Headline News, is http://www.cnn.com/HLN/.
Anti-immigrant websites picked up on the story and ran it as fact (follow this url). Before realizing it was a hoax, the author of the site "Americanandproud" declared, "I am going to wait until all the facts are in, but it appears the first major shot of the next Mexican/American war has just been fired."
A domain name search for "cnnheadlienews" shows the site is
registered to a company with a Nashville, Tennessee address called Bleachboy Heavy Manufacturing Concern. The website associated with Bleachboy, BBoy.net, is a homepage that cycles through four different logos. There's no other information on the site except for a warning on sweatshop products, a note that says "thank you for the traffic," and the ever-banal phrase, "spring is in the air."
Powered by ScribeFire.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Year-long treatment at Toronto hospital
The Vietnamese boy first came to Canada in June after workers with the Ontario charity noticed him at an orphanage north of Hanoi during a trip.Hoang Son Pham hopes that doctors can remove his facial tumour, which is caused by a buildup of blood vessels.Hoang Son Pham hopes that doctors can remove his facial tumour, which is caused by a buildup of blood vessels. Vietnamese doctors lacked the expertise and technical equipment to treat the boy's tumour, which is caused by a buildup of blood vessels and is slowly ballooning over his mouth. So the group brought him to Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children to be assessed for treatment.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Powered by ScribeFire.
On Iraq, he's in no rush to talk about bringing troops home. "Right now we need to make every effort to make sure that we don't get run out of there with our tails between our legs," Thompson said.
"Most of the 'Bad Newz Kennels' operations and gambling monies were provided by Vick," the official summary of facts said. Gambling wins were generally split among co-conspirators Tony Taylor, Quanis Phillips and sometimes Purnell Peace, it continued.
"Vick did not gamble by placing side bets on any of the fights. Vick did not receive any of the proceeds from the purses that were won by 'Bad Newz Kennels.' "
White House press secretary Tony Snow will step down from his position soon, sources said Friday.
When contacted by CNN about his possible departure, Snow said, "I'm not making any announcement."
Snow told conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday that "financial reasons" may prevent him for serving the remainder of his boss's presidency.
"I'm not going to be able to go the distance, but that's primarily for financial reasons." Snow said. "I've told people when my money runs out, then I've got to go."
According to The Washington Post, Snow makes $168,000 as the White House spokesman.
CNN has previously reported that Chief of Staff Josh Bolten told senior White House staffers that unless they could commit to staying until President Bush leaves office in January 2009, they should leave by Labor Day.
Snow, 52, had been treated for colon cancer in 2005. In March, during surgery to remove a growth from his abdomen, doctors discovered that the cancer had returned and spread to his liver.
Five weeks later, Snow returned to the White House podium and continued to work as the president's chief spokesman as he underwent chemotherapy. In recent interviews, he indicated that his health situation had stabilized.
Before coming to the White House in April 2006, Snow had worked for the Fox News Channel and hosted his own nationally syndicated radio show.
He took a significant pay cut to take the job of press secretary and has talked publicly in the past about the financial sacrifices, as well as his passion for the post.
I guess Rush Limbaugh gets a separate audience with The Decider. And where was MichaelFor the second year in a row, President Bush called some of his closest radio friends to the White House for an off-the-record briefing and discussion.
Mark Levin and Sean Hannity of WABC (770 AM) were among the 10 conservative talk-radio hosts who met with Bush in the West Wing yesterday, according to Talkers magazine.
The others were Glenn Beck, Neal Boortz, Hugh Hewitt, Scott Hennen, Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, Lars Larsen and Janet Parshall.
Bush met with five hosts last fall, including Boortz, Hannity and Medved, Talkers noted, "to discuss issues and gauge the conservative talk-radio audience's feelings about issues and policies."
None of the hosts told their audiences about the meeting prior to its occurrence.
Nine hosts had their picture taken outside the White House - all except Hannity, who Talkers said arrived separately.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007 11:17 PM
Within 10 Minutes I Was in a Bed
From: Al
Date: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 8:51 AM
To: mmflint@aol.com
Subject: Hospital Care in Canada
Hello Mr. Moore,
Great job as always with Sicko! It was very interesting to see the way your health care system operates. I have many friends that live in the US, and it makes me sad knowing they may end up in a situation like the ones shown in your movie. I had always presumed that if you had health insurance in the US, you were covered. I didn’t know about all the red tape that comes with it.
I would like to share a story about the health care system in Canada. Please know that this is not a criticism on your system, but a clarification on our system. While my story isn’t as drastic as some of the others on the site, it does point out the incredible care that I received.
Blogged with Flock
Blogged with Flock
During the 1980s, 13% of Americans age 40 to 50 spent at least one year below the poverty line; by the 1990s, 36% did.
Since 2000, the number of Americans living below the poverty line at any one time has steadily risen. Now 13% of all Americans—37 million—are officially poor.
Among households worth less than $13,500, their average net worth in 2001 was $0. By 2004, it was down to –$1,400.
Bush’s tax cuts (extended until 2010) save those earning between $20,000 and $30,000 an average of $10 a year, while those earning $1 million are saved $42,700.
In 2002, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) compared those who point out statistics such as the one above to Adolf Hitler.
~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~
Not that it matters at this point, but this is what the Howard Dean "scream" sounded like from the audience.
"The number of Americans who have downloaded a podcast rose only slightly in 2007 despite growing awareness of the media format, a study published this week found.
Only 13 per cent of those polled had 'ever' downloaded an audio podcast, up from 11 per cent last year, according to the findings Edison Media Research presented to the Corporate Podcasting Summit in London on Monday.
First podcasts started in summer 2004Podcasting is a relatively new phenomenon that started in late summer 2004. Among digital audio formats, podcasts are unique in that they can be downloaded automatically using software capable of reading feed formats such as RSS (Really Simple Syndication).
Within six months of its inception, programs available through podcasting grew from about three dozen to well over 3,500.
While early podcasters typically distributed syndicated audio files and radio shows, podcasters now routinely deliver many kinds of digital multimedia content, including video, images and text."
The rapid escalation of electronic communication options and the frequent inappropriate and indiscriminate use of those options have combined to produce horror stories regarding job terminations that we have all heard about and shaken our heads over. We all know stories of folks getting fired via e-mail or through a voice-mail message left on a home or cell phone answering machine. We can't fathom the gutless and impersonal nature of such terminations. We can't fathom it -- yet we're about to do one better. We're going to fire someone publicly -- in print -- right here, right now...
Ann Coulter is not a “real” employee of the Chronicle. She isn't a freelancer or even an independent contractor. If she were an employee and referred to another human being as a “faggot,” her employment would be short-lived. As it is, the acerbic Coulter is a syndicated columnist whose material is distributed through Universal Press Syndicate. Universal President and Editor Lee Salem has responded to Coulter's remarks by saying, “She is not an employee, and we have no legal power to ‘fire' her.”
That's a lot like the Chronicle saying, “She didn't say it in one of the columns we ran, so it isn't our problem.” Wrong. It is our problem, and not dealing with it is a cop-out.
So yesterday we called Universal Press Syndicate and “fired” Coulter. What she said was wrong and hurtful and stepped way beyond the line of human decency, much less political commentary.
Sam Seder pokes holes in the Conservative spin on the Libby verdict.
Read more
CLEARFIELD, Pa. — The newest addition to the menu at Denny's Beer Barrel Pub is one meaty monstrosity of a burger.
The Beer Barrel Main Event Charity Burger weighs in at 123 pounds. The sizable sandwich features an 80-pound beef patty, along with a pound each of lettuce, ketchup, relish, mustard and mayonnaise, 160 slices of cheese, up to five onions and 12 tomatoes.
"They hurled anything they could find -- rocks, bricks, even Baum's barbecue grill -- and pounded the 49-year-old with a pipe and with the baseball bat he kept at his campsite for protection.
Ihrcke smeared his own feces on Baum's face before cutting him with a knife "to see if he was alive," Moore said."
![]()
Forty-nine-year-old Rex Baum, seen in 2003, was an alcoholic and homeless but worked at a gas station and did odd jobs around Milwaukee.
After destroying Baum's camp, the boys left the homeless man -- head wedged in his own grill -- under a piece of plastic where they hoped the "animals would eat" him.
Then, Moore says, they took off to grab a bite at McDonald's.
"It's disturbing to know that young people would literally kick someone when they're already down on their luck," said Michael Stoops, the executive director of the Washington-based National Coalition for the Homeless. "We recognize that this isn't every teenager, but for some this passes as amusement."
Police called to a Long Island man's house discovered the mummified remains of the resident, dead for more than a year, sitting in front of a blaring television set.The 70-year-old Hampton Bays, New York, resident, identified as Vincenzo Ricardo, appeared to have died of natural causes. Police said on Saturday his body was discovered on Thursday when they went to the house to investigate a report of a burst water pipe.
Where do I get an electric company like that? My bills are $500 a month and if you miss a payment and they don't hear from you, you're in the dark.
A bill introduced to the US House of Representatives would require ISPs to record all users' surfing activity, IM conversations and email traffic indefinitely.
The bill, dubbed the Safety Act by sponsor Lamar Smith, a republican congressman from Texas, would impose fines and a prison term of one year on ISPs which failed to keep full records.
Read more.Avis customers will be reminded at the time of rental that the service is not to be used by the driver while operating the vehicle. The service is intended to be used by passengers or when the vehicle is parked.
At the rally, 12-year-old Moriah Arnold stood on her toes to reach the microphone and tell the crowd: "Now we know our leaders either lied to us or hid the truth. Because of our actions, the rest of the world sees us as a bully and a liar."The sixth-grader from Harvard, Mass., organized a petition drive at her school against the war that has killed more than 3,000 U.S. service-members, including seven whose deaths were reported Saturday.
Since they tested the Civil Defense siren every Wednesday at noon, what if the Russians dropped the bomb at lunch time?
Congress is helpless only out of choice
Several decades back, the psychologist Martin Seligman developed his theory of "learned helplessness". Subjected to repeated punishment, animals and humans come to believe they have no control over what happens to them, whether they actually do or not. In Seligman's original experiment, dogs given repeated electrical shocks would prostrate themselves and whine, even when escaping the abuse lay within their power.
As with canines, so with congressional Democrats. In theory, they now control a co-equal branch of government. In practice, they are so traumatised by years of mistreatment at the hands of a contemptuous executive that they continue to cower and simper whenever master waves a stick in their direction. This phenomenon is at its most pitiable when it comes to Congress's powers over national security, terrorism and the war in Iraq.
Last Sunday, Senator Joseph Biden, the Democrats' dean of foreign policy, was asked on Meet the Press what he intended to do when President George W. Bush announced his plan to send additional American troops to Iraq. "There's not much I can do about it," Mr Biden shot back. "Not much anybody can do about it. He's commander-in-chief."
This has been the attitude of most of Mr Biden's colleagues. Nearly all of them think that the war in Iraq is a losing proposition, which Mr Bush's pending escalation will make worse. Most favour gradually reducing the number of Americans deployed in Iraq. Yet they are behaving for the most like dazed onlookers at the scene of a disaster. At best, they are willing to consider expressing their disapproval of Mr Bush through a non-binding resolution, also known as "talking to the hand".
In fact, congressional Democrats have the power to stop the war any day they want. Rejecting additional funding, which 12 senators voted to do in 2003, is merely the most dramatic and least politically attractive of their options. Congress can pass a law that says the president cannot send more troops. It can limit the length of military tours of duty. It can legislate a deadline for withdrawal. A few anti-war types are, in fact, proposing such drastic measures. But such voices remain a small, if vocal, minority.
Congress learnt to be helpless by standing aside as successive presidents asserted that the war power belongs to them alone. That is not what the constitution says. Article one, which gives the legislative branch the sole power to declare war, also puts it in charge of creating, funding and regulating the armed forces. But every president since Harry Truman has taken the position that it is unreasonable for permission to be required from Congress in advance of military action.
Congress's frustration with being brushed aside boiled over during Vietnam, resulting in the passage of the 1973 war powers resolution. All presidents since Richard Nixon have maintained that this law - which creates a 60-day period after the onset of hostilities for presidents either to get congressional approval or withdraw troops - is an unconstitutional infringement of their article two power as commander-in-chief. Both Presidents Bush asserted that they needed no congressional authorisation for their Gulf wars - and Congress, in both cases, chose to avoid a showdown by handing them authorisation anyhow. This has left unsettled the question of whether a president can in fact go to war over Congress's objection.
But Congress's power to terminate a war is even clearer than its power to forbid one in the first place. A provision of the war powers resolution states specifically that the president must remove forces when Congress so orders. Faced with military deployments they disliked in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, Republican lawmakers did not hesitate to invoke this authority during the Clinton years.
Perhaps the most striking example was the military intervention in Somalia. In 1993, the House of Representatives passed an amendment saying US forces could remain there only one more year. Two subsequent defence appropriations bills cut off funding for the deployment. Congress also drew limits around how US personnel and bases could be used.
When they say they are incapable of stopping Mr Bush's plan, what congressional Democrats really mean is that they are afraid to oppose it. With only 17 per cent of respondents supporting the "surge", according to a recent ABC-Washington Post poll, it is hard to see how voting against more troops would be an act of political suicide. But after years of being called weak, unsupportive of the troops and unpatriotic, flinching at conservative threats has become a Pavlovian Democratic response. Earlier this week, Tony Snow, White House spokesman, said the war in Iraq remained necessary because Americans "don't want another September 11". It is hard to imagine anyone being taken in by this non-sequitur, yet many still are. By feigning helplessness, Democrats also leave the onus for whatever happens next in Iraq on Mr Bush.
There are plausible arguments for supporting a surge and some good ones for rejecting a precipitous pullout. But Democrats who argue for withdrawal and fail to act on their convictions have no leg to stand on. By abdicating their constitutional role, they feed the executive monster Mr Bush has created. If they are serious about ending the war, Democrats must quit yelping and bite back.
Published: January 11 2007 02:00 | Last updated: January 11 2007 02:00
By Jacob Weisberg. The writer is editor of Slate.com
Dear Mr. President:
The start of the new Congress brings us opportunities to work together on the critical issues confronting our country. No issue is more important than finding an end to the war in Iraq. December was the deadliest month of the war in over two years, pushing U.S. fatality figures over the 3,000 mark.
The American people demonstrated in the November elections that they do not believe your current Iraq policy will lead to success and that we need a change in direction for the sake of our troops and the Iraqi people. We understand that you are completing your post-election consultations on Iraq and are preparing to make a major address on your Iraq strategy to the American people next week.
Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.
Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution.
Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.
In a recent appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, General John Abizaid, our top commander for Iraq and the region, said the following when asked about whether he thought more troops would contribute to our chances for success in Iraq:
"I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future."
Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.
Our troops and the American people have already sacrificed a great deal for the future of Iraq. After nearly four years of combat, tens of thousands of U.S. casualties, and over $300 billion dollars, it is time to bring the war to a close. We, therefore, strongly encourage you to reject any plans that call for our getting our troops any deeper into Iraq. We want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future but, like many of our senior military leaders, we do not believe that adding more U.S. combat troops contributes to success.
We appreciate you taking these views into consideration.
Sincerely,
Harry Reid, Majority Leader
Nancy Pelosi, Speaker
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/05/dems.letter/index.html