The Truth Hurts

Bush signed the Torture Bill into law today.

Just to review for the upcoming elections, here are the Senate Democrats that voted for this bill

Thomas Carper
Tim Johnson
Mary Landrieu
Frank Lautenberg
Joseph Lieberman
Robert Menéndez
Bill Nelson
Ben Nelson
Mark Pryor
Jay Rockefeller
Kenneth Salazar
Debbie Stabenow

Please, if they represent your state and are up for reelection, vote these motherfuckers out.

The only Republican who voted "No" was Lincoln Chaffee. Also Olympia Snowe didn't vote at all. Please vote out any Republican candidate up for reelection.

Here are the House Democrats who voted "Yes"

Robert Andrews
John Barrow
Melissa Bean
Sanford Bishop
Dan Boren
Leonard Boswell
Allen Boyd
Sherrod Brown
Ben Chandler
Bud Cramer
Henry Cuellar
Artur Davis
Lincoln Davis
Chet Edwards
Bob Etheridge
Harold Ford
Bart Gordon
Stephanie Herseth
Brian Higgins
Tim Holden
Jim Marshall
Jim Matheson
Mike McIntyre
Dennis Moore
Collin Peterson
Earl Pomeroy
Mike Ross
John Salazar
David Scott
John Spratt
John Tanner
Gene Taylor

Please do your country a favor and vote out these motherfuckers too if they are up for it in November.

These are the Republicans in the House who voted "No"

Roscoe Bartlett
Wayne Gilchrest
Walter Jones
Steven LaTourette
James Leach
Jerry Moran
Ron Paul

I found this posted on one of the Nation's blog's comment sections. I have no opinion on it at the moment, I am just posting this now so I remember it later if it happens.

"

I R A N

W A R

P L A N

R E V E A L E D

S I N K I N G

O F

U S S

E N T E R P R I S E

I M M I N E N T

Updated Saturday, September 30, 2006 3:04 PM EDT

IRAN WAR PLAN EXPOSED!

PREPARE FOR THE SINKING OF A U.S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER – The USS Enterprise - CVN-65!

The existence of a hideous plan to sacrifice a U.S. Aircraft Carrier as a pretext for war with Iran is presently being uncovered!

The Hal Turner Show has been told that within the next five (5) weeks, the United States will "suffer" a missile attack upon the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, presently on patrol near the Persian Gulf. This attack will appear to be from numerous "Silkworm" and/or "Sunburn" missiles which will sink the vessel and kill most of the 5,000 crew onboard.

The "attack" will be blamed on Iran and thus provide the Bush Administration with an excuse to go to war with that nation.

The Hal Turner Show has learned that the missiles used to attack the USS Enterprise will not be fired from or by Iran, but rather will be a "false flag operation" made to LOOK as though Iran carried out the attack!

The USS Enterprise is the worlds first nuclear powered aircraft carrier. It was Commissioned in 1961 and is due to be decommissioned in 2014 or 2015. The ship was selected to be the "victim" of this "attack" due to its age.

THOSE PLANNING THE ATTACK ARE INSIDE THE U.S. AND ISRAELI GOVERNMENTS and view the loss of the Enterprise crew as a necessary sacrifice to induce Americans to support war against Iran. Put bluntly, the ship and crew are to be cannon fodder.

I am being fed more information and expect to be able to name names as to who is behind this plan. Check back often. LIBERTY REDUX | Homepage | 10.01.06 - 10:09 am

Found on Rawstory message board "

On the question do you favor (1) allowing the President to define torture, (2) strip the court of judicial review via habeas corpus (even though the constitution does not allow you to except in cases of invasion or Rebellion), and (3) allowing the President to jail American citizens arbitrarily and without court review?

Spineless Democrats saying Aye:

Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)
Joe Lieberman (Conn.)

History will not absolve you.


Throw. Them. All. Out.

War changes everything. It's first victim is Liberty. It's second, Profit.

I haven't posted in quite some time. I'm just checking in to say that I, along with many others, was right about Bush and Iraq. That it was a manufactured crisis, that the administration was dishonest in it's justification, and that invading that country would do nothing other than realize the Project For A New American Century's wet dream of seizing control of Iraq's natural resources as a geo politcal leverage. It's about money but it was also about power and strategic advantage. In any case it was never about WMD.

I was right, a couple of childhood friends along with most of the country were wrong, and I'm still waiting for their apologies.

Iran is next, I am sure of it. As we draw closer to the fall elections, do not be surprised if we are completely engaged in military operations in Iran, or at the very least talking a lot about the "threat" they pose. Again, it's not really about their weapons, it's about their efforts to peg the Euro to the oil market in an effort to undermine the dominance US Dollars hold on that market.

I'm conflicted over this because I don't want the US economy to tank, yet I am sick and fucking tired of the lies and the dismantling of the New Deal and the Bill Of Rights. The arrogance, incompetance and dishonesty of this administration is breathtaking. Just ask the 2400+ dead American soldiers.

Apparantly, I'm a fallen Jedi. Cool with me. See you tomorrow!

You scored as Anakin Skywalker. Anakin Skywalker 72% Yoda 69% Darth Vader 67% General Grievous 64% Mace Windu 56% Obi Wan Kenobi 56% Chewbacca 50% Clone Trooper 47% Padme Amidala 42% R2-D2 36% C-3PO 28% Emperor Palpatine 22% Which Revenge of the Sith Character are you? created with QuizFarm.com

I'm sorry about this poor woman's medical condition and the pain suffered by her family. It is a tragedy.

But as far as the bigger national picture is concerned, I believe it's time to stop calling our free spending President and his deficit loving Republican supporters "Conservatives". That word is no longer accurate when they pass legislation such as this.

We need to start calling them what they have become - "Liberals".

Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. As you said, "in the eyes of God, marriage is based between a man and a woman."

I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is
my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I
morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though Lev. 19 expressly
forbids this. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot! Is it
really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev. 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

On October 4th, 2004 President Bush was in Iowa to sign the Tax Relief Act (scroll down the page) where he introduced Mike Hintz and his family. Hintz, a First Assembly of God youth pastor, said that the tax cuts have given him additional money for health care.

Hintz went on to say that, "the American people are starting to see what kind of leader President Bush is. People know where he stands. Where we are in this world, with not just the war on terror, but with the war with our culture that's going on, I think we need a man that is going to be in the White House like President Bush, that's going to stand by what he believes. Everybody that I've talked to are saying that things are going to start going his way."

Quite the endorsement from your typical small town, God fearing, nuclear family.

Yesterday, December 7th, 2004, Rev. Mike Hintz turned himself into the police for having an affair with a 17-year-old woman in the church youth group this spring. Hintz had been fired on October 30th, 2004 immediately after church officals heard the allegations.

Yep, that's some endorsement from the good pastor. How do you think the Republicans would react if something like this had happened with Kerry? Or with any Democrat for that matter?

Bush and his supporters sure do have a monopoly on values. They can keep them, I have my own set.

We're really very sorry everybody, maybe next time.

Some of us — hopefully most of us — are trying to understand and appreciate the effect our recent election will have on you, the citizens of the rest of the world. As our so-called leaders redouble their efforts to screw you over, please remember that some of us — hopefully most of us — are truly, truly sorry. And we'll say we're sorry, even on the behalf of the ones who aren't.

Get Your War On



CHIN UP.
We're smarter than those motherfuckers.
We can learn more quickly than those motherfuckers.
We can be more ruthless than those motherfuckers.
We can be some six-million-dollar motherfuckers ourselves.

Chin up.
We're more American than those motherfuckers.
We're more responsible than those motherfuckers.
We're more compassionate than those motherfuckers.
Hell, our atheists are more Christian than their Bible-thumpin' motherfuckers.

There's an election in two years.
There's nothing we can't do.

Chin up.
Because it's on, motherfuckers.
It is on.

I've written here before about how American political history has been all about money. That's as true today as it was 200 years ago. Americans are simply consumers. We're feeding on ourselves and the world around us. The people who run this country do so with money. Economic control.

I am making a call to all reasonable and thinking people to slow down as much of their spending and consumption as possible. Stop purchasing with your credit, eliminate your debt as quickly as possible and free yourselves from the slavery of American capitalism. Don't buy what you don't need. We're owned by Wall Street. Free yourselves of your posessions and you free yourself from economic enslavement and tyrrany.

It's hard work, so be sure to stay the course.

No, not the hardcore band from Texas, though they rock. I mean it's the day that we, as American Citizens, get a chance to take part in the illusion that we have a say in our politics, and vote for the electors of our states who will vote for President on our behalf.

To paraphrase last week's South Park, we finally get to choose between the douche and the turd.

I'm torn between voting my conscience or voting for the lesser of two evils or not voting at all. Yes I'm extremely political, but I feel totally separated from the democratic process. It seems as if our whole system is designed to disenfranchise people. There will be thousands of disruptions today all across the country, all with the intent of further separating the governed from the government.

Basically, not much will change today, other than no more Presidential ads, and one or the other of two members from the same fraternity from the same college, one of two white men with the same backgrounds and wealth, will be the new President.

That's our choice. Coke or Pepsi. Dr. Pepper or Mr. Pibb. 7 Up or Sprite. McDonalds or Burger King. Republican or Democrat. Dunkin Donuts or Krispy Kreme. Bud or Miller. One of two fraternity brothers from Yale. Either way, we elect Skull And Bones. One faction or the other of the Business Party.

Democrats care slightly more about people and Republicans care slightly more about property. Both are in the pockets of business interests. Neither act out the will of regular people.

How do we take control of a country and a government that was created for a monied elite? Created so that businessmen may pursue business without interference from government or the governed? How did corporations become more important and have more rights than people? How do "We, the People" finally seize control of our futures from the ruling class?

Don't forget to vote today for either the douche or the turd. God Bless America.

WASHINGTON, DC—Military and political strategists agreed Monday that President Bush's re-election campaign has been executed with greater precision than the war in Iraq. "Judging from the initial misrepresentation of intelligence data and the ongoing crisis in Najaf, I assumed the president didn't know his ass from his elbow," said Col. Dale Henderson, a military advisor during the Reagan Administration. "But on the campaign trail, he's proven himself a master of long-term planning and unflinching determination. How else can you explain his strength in the polls given this economy?" Henderson said he regrets having characterized Bush's handling of the war as "incompetent," now that he knows the president's mind was simply otherwise occupied.




http://www.theonion.com/index.php?pre=1

So just to clarify, I don't give a flying fuck about the Vietnam War and who went and who didn't. There's like three current fucking wars to worry about RIGHT NOW. Just get me some health insurance you DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS!

Aren't convinced that George W. Bush and the people he represent want to curtail freedoms and bring government into your homes? Why not actually read the official Republican Party Platform instead of paying attention to the carefully crafted televised perception management being used to distract concerned citizens from their policies?

You see, they say one thing - no child left behind, uniters not dividers, etc - but practice something else entirely.

Seriously. Wake the fuck up America. At this point supporting Bush and his reactionary idealogues means you

-Support making abortion a crime

-Support creating the first and only Constitutional amendment other than Prohibition to REDUCE rights instead of increasing them

-Support a larger Federal government

-Support reducing freedom of speech, movement and the press

-Support a war without end, to be paid for by raising local taxes, your children's earnings, your social security and medicare benefits, your public roads, your public schools, your power grids, your police and fire departments, etc, etc, et fucking cetera


Freedom requires constant struggle. That means holding leaders responsible for their failed policies. I never thought that at any time in my life I would actually support a Democrat for President, but this is not the year for liberal ideals, it's the year for practicality. The Democrats sold out their base over the past 40 years and a victory for Kerry does not mean we rest. If we elect in the Democrats we stay on their asses permanently. Understand? Just because they get in, doesn't mean we make it easy for them. The current situation is the result of apathy and inaction, from the people and especially from the Democrats. You want freedom? Then take responsibility. Know the issues, know the candidates. Don't just watch the network coverage. Words mean nothing, actions everything.


We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us to fight and die for the country you live in and the rights you enjoy. Don't allow that struggle to be for nothing. Don't allow a small group of rich men to decide what women can do with their bodies, decide if you can get a good public education, a working infrastructure and a social saftey net or not. Guess what options they will pick?

Seriously, WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!!!

I've written here about the new American fascism and would like to bring back a quote I'm fond of along with another example of how we're headed that way.

"When a government seeks to paint any opposition as unpatriotic and any dissent as treason, when it uses its allies in industry and the media to hound skeptics and blacklist celebrities, when it attempts to paint legitimate questions of policy as either a vote for America or a vote for dictatorship, that's not freedom any more.

That's fascism."



fas-cism (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.


Look around. What do you see?

I'm simply horrified. Wouldn't delaying the election in order to minimize any disruption of the democratic process in the event of a terrorist attack disrupt the democractic process? Just like going into Iraq was a good way to increase the enlistment of Islamic terrorists. The actions of our leaders only makes the situation worse. War is peace. Questions are a burden unto others. Suspension of liberty is freedom. We really do live in a version of Orwell's nightmarish world.

What gets to me the most about this is the man who requested this power is a George W. Bush appointee. They will stop at nothing to undermine what little power the governed have over it's government. Bush must be stopped.

There is only one type of scenario that I would accept. I don't want to appear callous, but if say, New York is again the victim of a terrorist attack ON ELECTION DAY, then only New York should be postponing any election and the rest of us can wait while they take time to cast their votes. But a total suspension of national elections will mean whatever illusion you had of freedom is gone.

Are we to allow the administration to use this fear of the unknown to completely destroy our say in who is in power? When would the elections resume? When we're over it? When would that be? Who makes that decision? Who or what would stop the executive from declaring Martial Law and suspending the Constitution? The Republican controlled Congress? Ha!

Be outraged. If this goes through and is implemented it will be the worst thing to ever happen to American Liberty. No jokes, no exagerations. Nothing would be the same and the America we know will be lost.

Are you willing to let that happen?

Take a look at the website for George W. Bush. What do you see?

The most prominent features are attacks on John Kerry. They take up more than half the page. I count at least six attacks on Kerry on the front page alone. Lots of pretty pictures and bold-print links to TV ads that play on your emotions while offering you nothing of substance. A spiffy animated GIF asks you to volunteer for the campaign.

The links to his policies are scrunched in at the top, and not the first things you notice. Seven entries: Economy, Compassion, Health Care, Education, Homeland Security, National Security, and Environment. First, off, "compassion" is not a policy. So strike that. And what's the difference [from a semantic standpoint] between "Homeland Security" and "National Security"? So strike one of those. That leaves five broad categories of policies at your immediate command.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let's look at John Kerry's site. What do you notice? Well, first off, there's no mention of Bush. Not one. There is one link to a TV ad, but it's disguised in a picture in small letters on its upper right corner. The first thing you notice is the box on the right which links to Kerry's plans and policies. And no animated GIFs.

There are nine categories: economy & jobs, foreign policy, education, homeland security, college affordability, Iraq plan for peace, health care, energy/environment, and veterans.

Take a look for yourselves and ask which of these candidates respects your intelligence. A friend saved screenshots of how they looked as of this writing, so this posting makes sense later. Bush.Kerry.

According to Friday's USA Today, 11 of Bush's 18 TV spots up till now have been attacks on Kerry. Of Kerry's 21 ads thus far, only 5 have attacked Bush.

As Kerry said a few months ago, "This President doesn't have a record to run on, but a record to run from."

Both of the above statements are ridiculous and make the speaker sound stupid, so stop using them as arguments for or against. For one thing, Hitler was elected.

I love that the left finally has someone who gets under people's skin. I didn't write the following but it expresses perfectly how I feel about the movie -

It's funny that a filmmaker has been portrayed by the right as the worst villain in America, considering that the persecution of filmmakers, artists, writers, and intellectuals has been a hallmark of fascist (and communist!) regimes throughout history.

You'd think they would just disagree and drop it. All they're doing is confirming our worst suspicions.

It's been awhile so here's some light reading. Speaking of light, you know how in physics it's been determined that light is both a particle and a wave? It has a dual existence. Same thing with Republicans in America.

It’s hard to be a Republican in 2004 because you somehow believe...

1. Jesus loves you and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U. N. resolutions against Iraq.

3. "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.

4. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

5. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.

8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

9. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

10. HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.

11. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

12. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

13. It is okay that the Bush family has done $millions of business with the Bin Laden family.

14. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

16. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

17. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's Harken Oil stock trades are none of our business.

18. You support states' rights, which mean Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.

19. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '60s is irrelevant.

20. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.



I'll be here all week. Thank you and goodnight.

The fact is, once you start treating prisoners as if they are guilty, before any due process and with the use of torture, you become the moral equivalent of jihadists who would kill ALL Americans for their "crimes" against Allah.

Does everybody understand that simple concept now?


Beyond that, the Bush administration considers this type of treatment as legal and appropiate not just in a military context, but in a domestic one as well, ie, subjecting Americans to the same type of torture when being held by domestic police forces.

The possibilies for abuse become infinite. Imagine being arrested for a minor offense that can happen to almost anyone, such as DUI, and having your head submerged in a toilet because you had become "uncooperative" in the eyes of the police.

Does everybody now understand how this affects us all and why it's such a big deal?

Good.

Why is this nation allowing itself to fall into the very trap the founders tried to avoid by writing in the separation of Church and State? This is a secular nation and for good reason. Just because our current currency says "In God We Trust" does not mean that we are a religious nation with a religious government, or that our laws come from a "higher power". The founders clearly understood the danger of intertwining Church and State and the Evangelicals who are attempting to hijack our country would have you believe that this separation is "bigotry" or that it "persecutes" them. Bull fucking shit. It's security for the health of our nation.

So, who are you going to believe? George W. Bush? A devout Christian with a fundamentalist agenda?

"The United States is a Christian nation founded upon Christian principles and beliefs."


or George Washington?

"The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."

Every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."



or Thomas Jefferson:

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his Father, in the womb of a virgin will be classified with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."

“...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”



or Thomas Paine:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind."



or John Adams:

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and... foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."

“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”



or Benjamin Franklin:

"I believe in one God, Creator of the universe.... That the most acceptable service we can render Him is doing good to His other children.... As to Jesus ... I have ... some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble."

“My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.”

"When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."



or James Madison:

“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....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 laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”



or Patrick Henry:

"That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience."

If only this administration understood history as much as it claimed to understand the "word of god" we wouldn't have to be fighting this battle 228 years later.

It is war and that's why there are the Geneva Conventions. Because war is by definition a total absence of law, there needed to be guidelines set that all countries would abide by. Do they always? No. But by having those guidelines in place it becomes possible to prosecute people for war crimes and scream out in outrage when they're not followed.

I heard a story today about a German soldier who was going off to fight in WWII. His father told him that if all is lost then to surrender to Americans because in WWI Americans developed a reputation of treating their prisoners well. Whereas if they were fighting the Soviets they would fight to the death because the Soviets didn't treat POW's so well.

Now that's been destroyed and America has lost whatever shred of moral high ground it once held. And people like Senator McCain know, from his experience as a POW, that this is bad, very, very bad for our troops. If you support our soldiers, regardless of how you feel about the administration, you would be outraged by the abuses too.

Fuck Limbaugh, fuck Inhofe, fuck the Evangelical Christians who support Bush and holy war for Israel, fuck all the pathetic apologists and utopians who cling to this war while denying the practical facts on the ground.

Of course you all remember last Friday's broadcast of Nightline when Ted Koppel read all the names of the US soldiers killed in Iraq? You don't?

Oh yeah, that's because Sinclair Broadcasting group wouldn't allow it's affiliates to air the program claiming it was partisan propaganda. Well they should know, because according to the Center for American Progress Sinclair has been pushing it's own political agenda.

SINCLAIR REQUIRES JOURNALISTS TO READ PRO-BUSH STATEMENTS: In September 2001, Sinclair Broadcasting required its affiliates to air messages "conveying full support" for the Bush administration. At a Baltimore affiliate, WBFF "officials required news and sports anchors, even a weather forecaster, to read the messages, "which included statements such as "[the station] wants you to know that we stand 100% behind our President." Several WBFF staffers objected on the grounds that reading the statements would "erode their reputations as objective journalists" because it made them appear to be "endorsing specific government actions."

SINCLAIR REFUSES TO AIR AD HIGHLIGHTING 2003 BUSH ERROR: In July 2003, Sinclair Broadcasting refused to allow WMSN TV – its FOX affiliate in Madison, WI – to air a DNC advertisement that featured a clip of President Bush making the false claim "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" in his 2003 State of the Union Address. Three other Madison stations, including ABC, NBC and CBS, readily agreed to air the ad. The Madison CBS affiliate, WISC, said the advertisement was "no worse than any other political ad."

SINCLAIR PRODUCES CENTRALIZED RIGHT-WING CONTENT FOR 'LOCAL STATIONS': In a controversial business practice, Sinclair Broadcasting has fired much of the staff for the local affiliates it owns, instead producing content for its local stations from a central facility outside Baltimore which it then airs on "local" news broadcasts. The centralized content features nightly commentary by Sinclair corporate communications chief Mark Hyman. Hyman regularly refers to the French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys," the so-called liberal media as the "hate-America crowd," and progressives as "the lonely left" On one recent commentary, Hyman called members of Congress who voted against a recent resolution affirming the righteousness of the Iraq war "unpatriotic politicians who hate our military."

SINCLAIR AIRS FAKE NEWS BROADCASTS PRODUCED BY BUSH ADMINISTRATION: In March, it was discovered that the Bush Administration was producing "television news stories, written and paid for by the government, which have the appearance of legitimate news segments delivered by independent reporters," and distributing them to local newscasts as a way of promoting administration policies – including its ill-conceived Medicare prescription drug law. On the broadcasts, a public relations professional named Karen Ryan pretended to be a reporter. Among the stations which aired the administration propaganda as news: WPGH in Pittsburgh "the Sinclair Broadcasting station that fired much of its news staff in favor of feeds from a centralized newsroom in Baltimore."

SINCLAIR EXECUTIVES MAJOR BUSH CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS: Sinclair executives have contributed more than $16,500 to President Bush since 2000. This year, Sinclair CEO David Smith gave President Bush the maximum $2000 contribution. Before soft money contributions became illegal, Sinclair Broadcasting gave more than $130,000 to the president's political allies but no money to his opponents.

Watch this Documentary. The first few sentences are in Dutch but the translation is below the video window. This is the kind of stuff you won't see talked about in the American media. It would also probably qualify as "conspiricy" theory by many. It's not. This is serious stuff but it's not a conspirircy theory and you would come across as dumb for dismissing it as such. What it describes is the close relationships between American government, American business and world politics.

One possible reason why some do dismiss it as conspiricy is because these types of relationships have ALWAYS existed in this country so people don't find anything new or disturbing about them. It's what the American government was designed for - to allow people to pursue business without interference from, and possibly with the aid of, the US government.

As for the moral or ethical questions behind it, people involved in organizations such as the Carlyle group don't believe in any moral law other than the law of the jungle which states that only the strongest survive. Responsibility to society doesn't even enter into their worldview. How can one argue ethics with people who don't hold any? Responsibility to society is not an American value. It's every man for himself.

Another aspect is the American way of doing buisiness. These types of questions aren't asked and these types of documantaries aren't shown because they are supposedly none of our business. Business and commerce come before people in this country.

Once you understand all of this about Americans, you won't get so frustrated when Americans act like the sheep that they are. Passive consumers are what we raise, not concerned, inquisitive, active and responsible citizens.

Founded and forgotten in Chicago...

Hundreds of thousands of American workers, increasingly determined to resist subjugation to capitalist power, poured into a fledgling labor organization, the Knights of Labor. Beginning on May 1, 1886, they took to the
streets to demand universal adoption of the 8-hour day. Chicago was the center of the movement. Workers there had been agitating for an 8-hour day for months, and on the eve of May 1, 50,000 were already on strike. 30,000 more swelled their ranks the next day, bringing most of Chicago manufacturing to a standstill.

Fears of violent class conflict gripped the city. No violence occurred on May 1 — a Saturday — or May 2. But on Monday, May 3, a fight involving hundreds broke out at McCormick Reaper between locked-out unionists and non-unionist workers McCormick hired to replace them. The Chicago police, swollen in numbers and heavily armed, quickly moved in with clubs and guns to restore order. They left four unionists dead and many others wounded.

Angered by the deadly force of the police, a group of anarchists, led by August Spies and Albert Parsons, called on workers to arm themselves and participate in a massive protest demonstration in Haymarket Square on Tuesday evening, May 4. The demonstration appeared to be a complete bust, with only 3,000 assembling. But near the end of the evening, an individual, whose identity is still in dispute (possibly a police agent provocateur), threw a bomb that
killed seven police and injured 67 others.

Hysterical city and state government officials rounded up eight anarchists, tried them for murder, and sentenced them to death.

On 11 November 1887, four, including Parsons and Spies, were executed. All of the executed advocated armed struggle and violence as revolutionary methods, but their prosecutors found no evidence that any had actually thrown the Haymarket bomb. They died for their words — not their deeds.

250,000 people lined Chicago's street during Parson's funeral procession to express their outrage at this gross miscarriage of justice.

For radicals and trade unionists everywhere, Haymarket became a symbol of the stark inequality and injustice of capitalist society. The May 1886 Chicago events figured prominently in the decision of the founding congress of the
Second International (Paris, 1889) to make May 1, 1890 a demonstration of the solidarity and power of the international working class movement. May Day has been a celebration ever since.

So give thanks to the thousands of socialists, anarchists, and workers who died so that you only have to work 8 hours instead of 12-14 each day.

**********************************************************

The above came from a post I saw on another site and I just want to add that Parsons, whose family came to America on the Mayflower, fled to Wisconsin but voluntarily came back to face trial because he reasoned this was America, he was innocent, and a trial would find him innocent. When selecting a jury for the trial each potential juror was asked if they would find these men innocent or guilty. One man stated that he would need to hear all the evidence first before passing judgement. He was rejected as a juror and came to work the next day to find that he had been fired.

After Parsons and the others were sentenced there was a huge national and local public outcry. Their sentences would have been reduced if all of the major merchants of Chicago, the men who really ran the town, agreed to grant them clemency. All but one, Marshall Field, agreed. Because of Field's hatred of anarchists, who hated unions and labor organizations of any kind, these innocent men died for their political beliefs.

Floor Statement of Sen. Daschle on the Abuse of Government Power


Mr. President, last week I spoke about the White House's reaction to Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9-11 Commission. I am compelled to rise again today, because the people around the President are systematically abusing the powers and prerogatives of government.

We all need to reflect seriously on what's going on. Not in anger and not in partisanship, but in keeping with our responsibilities as Senators and with an abiding respect for the fundamental values of our democracy.

Richard Clarke did something extraordinary when he testified before the 9-11 Commission last week. He didn't try to escape blame, as so many routinely do. Instead, he accepted his share of responsibility and offered his perceptions about what happened in the months and years leading up to September 11.

We can and should debate the facts and interpretations Clarke has offered. But there can be no doubt that he has risked enormous damage to his reputation and professional future to hold both himself and our government accountable.

The retaliation from those around the President has been fierce. Mr. Clarke's personal motives have been questioned and his honesty challenged. He has even been accused, right here on the Senate floor, of perjury. Not one shred of proof was given, but that wasn't the point. The point was to have the perjury accusation on television and in the newspapers. The point was to damage Mr. Clarke in any way possible.

This is wrong–and it's not the first time it's happened.

When Senator McCain ran for President, the Bush campaign smeared him and his family with vicious, false attacks. When Max Cleland ran for reelection to this Senate, his patriotism was attacked. He was accused of not caring about protecting our nation -- a man who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, accused of being indifferent to America's national security. That was such an ugly lie, it's still hard to fathom almost two years later.

There are some things that simply ought not be done – even in politics. Too many people around the President seem not to understand that, and that line has been crossed. When Ambassador Joe Wilson told the truth about the Administration's misleading claims about Iraq, Niger, and uranium, the people around the President didn't respond with facts. Instead, they publicly disclosed that Ambassador Wilson's wife was a deep-cover CIA agent. In doing so, they undermined America's national security and put politics first. They also may well have put the lives of Ambassador Wilson's wife, and her sources, in danger.

When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill revealed that the White House was thinking about an Iraq War in its first weeks in office, his former colleagues in the Bush Administration ridiculed him from morning to night, and even subjected him to a fruitless federal investigation.

When Larry Lindsay, one of President Bush's former top economic advisors, and General Eric Shinseki, the former Army Chief of Staff, spoke honestly about the amount of money and the number of troops the war would demand, they learned the hard way that the White House doesn't tolerate candor.

This is not "politics as usual." In nearly all of these cases, it's not Democrats who are being attacked.

Senator McCain and Secretary O'Neill are prominent Republicans, and Richard Clarke, Larry Lindsay, Joe Wilson, and Eric Shinseki all worked for Republican Administrations.

The common denominator is that these government officials said things the White House didn't want said.

The response from those around the President was retribution and character assassination -- a 21st Century twist to the strategy of "shooting the messenger."

If it takes intimidation to keep inconvenient facts from the American people, the people around the President don't hesitate. Richard Foster, the chief actuary for Medicare, found that out. He was told he'd be fired if he told the truth about the cost of the Administration's prescription drug plan.

This is no way to run a government.

The White House and its supporters should not be using the power of government to try to conceal facts from the American people or to reshape history in an effort to portray themselves in the best light.

They should not be threatening the reputations and livelihoods of people simply for asking – or answering – questions. They should seek to put all information about past decisions on the table for evaluation so that the best possible decisions can be made for the nation's future.

In Mr. Clarke's case, clear and troubling double standards are being applied.

Last year, when the Administration was being criticized for the President's misleading statement about Niger and uranium, the White House unexpectedly declassified portions of the National Intelligence Estimate. When the Administration wants to bolster its public case, there is little that appears too sensitive to be declassified.

Now, people around the President want to release parts of Mr. Clarke's earlier testimony in 2002. According to news reports, the CIA is already working on declassifying that testimony – at the Administration's request.

And last week several documents were declassified literally overnight, not in an effort to provide information on a pressing policy matter to the American people, but in an apparent effort to discredit a public servant who gave 30 years of service to his American government.

I'll support declassifying Mr. Clarke's testimony before the Joint Inquiry, but the Administration shouldn't be selective. Consistent with our need to protect sources and methods, we should declassify his entire testimony.

And to make sure that the American people have access to the full record as they consider this question, we should also declassify his January 25 memo to Dr. Rice, the September 4, 2001 National Security Directive dealing with terrorism, Dr. Rice's testimony to the 9-11 Commission, the still-classified 28 pages from the House-Senate inquiry relating to Saudi Arabia, and a list of the dates and topics of all National Security Council meetings before September 4, 2001.

I hope this new interest in openness will also include the Vice President's Energy and Terrorism Task Forces. While much, if not all, of what these task forces discussed was unclassified, their proceedings have not been shared with the public.

There also seems to be a double standard when it comes to investigations.

In recent days leading congressional Republicans are now calling for an investigation into Mr. Clarke. As I mentioned earlier, Secretary O'Neill was also subjected to an investigation. Clarke and O'Neill sought legal and classification review of any information in their books before they were published.

Nonetheless, our colleagues tell us these two should be investigated, at the same time there has been no Senate investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity as a deep cover CIA agent; no thorough investigation into whether leading Administration officials misrepresented the intelligence regarding threats posed by Iraq; no Senate hearings into the threat the chief Medicare Actuary faced for trying to do his job; and no Senate investigation into the reports of continued overcharging by Halliburton for its work in Iraq.

There is a clear double standard when it comes to investigating or releasing information, and that's just is not right. The American people deserve more from their leaders.

We're seeing it again now in the shifting reasons the White House has given for Dr. Rice's refusal to testify under oath and publicly before the 9-11 Commission.

The people around the President first said it would be unprecedented for Dr. Rice to testify. But thanks to the Congressional Research Service, we now know that previous sitting National Security Advisors have testified before Congress.

Now the people around the President are saying that Dr. Rice can't testify because it would violate an important constitutional principle: the separation of powers.

We will soon face this debate again when it comes time for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to meet with the 9-11 Commission. I believe they should lift the limitations they have placed on their cooperation with the Commission and be willing to appear before the entire Commission for as much time as the Commission deems productive.

The all-out assault on Richard Clarke has gone on for more than a week now. Mr. Clarke has been accused of "profiteering" and possible perjury. It is time for this to stop.

The Commission should declassify Mr. Clarke's earlier testimony. All of it. Not just the parts the White House wants. And Dr. Rice should testify before the 9-11 Commission, and she should be under oath and in public.

The American people deserve to know the truth -- the full truth -- about what happened in the years and months leading up to September 11.

Senator McCain, Senator Cleland, Secretary O'Neill, Ambassador Wilson, General Shinseki, Richard Foster, Richard Clarke, Larry Lindsay ... when will the character assassination, retribution, and intimidation end?

When will we say enough is enough?

The September 11 families – and our entire country – deserve better. Our democracy depends on it. And our nation's future security depends on it.

##

*"No, they are not Fascists, look up the word. Stalin was a fascist, Hitler was a fascist, Bush is not a fascist." *


"fas-cism (fash'iz'em) n. A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism."


Political systems like Fascism can have many flavors. Hitler was different than Mussolini for example. Soviet Communism was not Marxism and was different than Chinese and Cuban style Coummunism. British Socialism is different from Swedish Socialism. American Democracy is different than ancient Greek Democracy. In fact, we don't have a Democracy at all but rather a representitive Federal Republic of States.

We are heading towards Fascism at an alarming rate, and to think it can't or isn't happening displays a total lack of understanding of political science, the subtle nuances of current events and the infinite corruptability of human nature. Freedom is something that we have to constantly fight for and protect, and that doesn't mean war with other countries, that means keeping an eye on the ones we elect into power. War, by the way, especially perpetual war such as the one we are committed to now, is an important tool of Fascism. It helps to control the population through fear so that the leaders can be seen as powerful protective father figures who ask their people to temporarily sacrifce some freedom in the name of security. Sound familiar? Read 1984 and you will get more of what that means.

We essentially have ONE party in this country. Sure they differ on some issues but the difference is more like Coke versus Pepsi than say Coke versus Milk. The Republicans, through seemingly "legal" processes have aggressively consolidated power over the last few years. Questionable voting practices, questionable electronic voting machines, constant gerrymandering throughout state legislatures and creating a situation to knock out the Democratic governor of California are just some examples.

The point is, sometimes real politics don't match the official definitions. However, just because it doesn't perfectly fit a definition, doesn't mean it doesn't fit the term. Bush is a fascist, but he's an AMERICAN Fascist, which is a new and different form of Fascism. If it smells like Fascism, sounds like Fascism and looks like Fascism, it's most likely Fascism. That is an ugly and abused word to be sure. However, in the current American political climate, it is the only appropiate word to describe just what the fuck is happening in this country.



*Maybe we're a bit imperialistic, but even that's a tough argument because invading Iraq didn't really give the US any more power than it already had unless you make the point that it probably scared straight a few of the other local dictators.*



Actually it gives us powerful leverage against the economies of Europe and Asia. It gives us a military presence in the most valuble region of the world. It in fact gives the US quite a lot of power. It's not about getting oil into the US, we don't get that much from the Middle East, it's about controlling and setting the prices on the oil sold to other nations. Get it? Economic power.



* If you want to talk about sacrificing a little freedom talk to the Japanese-American citizens who were incarcerated during WWII by Roosevelt, and then please explain to me why the Patriot Act is worse than that, other than because it was enacted by an administration that you don't like. If you don't like it don't vote for them, I didn't vote them in and I won't vote for them the second time around, but I'm not going to cry fascism until I feel the immenent threat of physical violence unless I adhere to the ideology of the ruling party and I hate to burst your bubble but that's not going to happen. If you think it is then you're free to leave, but you better leave now because once the fascists take over you won't be able to leave without getting shot.*



First of all don't give me the love it or leave it bullshit. If I didn't love it, I wouldn't be so passionate about what is going on. If I didn't love it, I wouldn't be trying to shake you by the collar and scream "do you realize what the fuck is going on!?!". If I didn't love it I wouldn't be trying to protect it from the most corrupt administration since Hoover by expressing my views and taking political action. So fuck off with that line.

FDR has nothing to do with what is going on now nor do the Japanese internment camps discredit or have any relevence to my opinion.

You are missing the point. Bush is not the dictator, the group he represents is, and the Fascism we are experiencing is a NEW BREED of Fascism. One protected by public relations and perception management and good old American apathy and short attention spans. Look at the actions, don't listen to the rhetoric, because the action is where the reality is revealed. Words mean nothing, actions everything.

As far as the Patriot Act goes read Silencing Political Dissent by Nancy Chang. She breaks the act down section by section to explain how and why the PA corrupts our civil liberties. Peaceful political protesters have been arrested as "terrorists" brandishing "weapons" by holding homemade signs. The act provides law enforcement with a lot of leniency in the way they conduct their work. They can now go into your house without presenting you a warrant until 30 days AFTER the fact. That's just one example. Declaring American citizens "enemy combatants" in order to hold them indefinitely without legal counsel is another.

As far as definitions go, the Fascism definition holds up except for, as you pointed out, the "dictatorship" aspect. What I presented to you was that it is not a single dictatorship but a GROUP dictatorship, which is, as I said, the new American Fascism.

If you don't agree, fine. You're still allowed to disagree in this country as long as it's the "liberals" you disagree with. Critisize the president as Joeseph Wilson did over the summer or O'Neil recently did, and you're in for trouble.



*There you go, a dictatorship that meets absolutely none of the criteria for being a dictatorship....

Why don't you just come on out and admit that the only criteria you have for labeling bush a fascist is that you don't like him...

I notice that you don't repeat endlessly that any *other* politicians are liars... During clintons reign, did you do that to him too? Hmmm, I thought not...*



Read the definition of Fascism, acknowledge that politics and business in this country are already intermixed and have been for a long time, in fact are the foundation of American government, and go after someone else. I label Bush a Fascist because that is what I think he is and what he represents. Was the Soviet Union a single dictatorship, or was it a group dictatorship?

Clinton was a liar and I was no fan of his nor was I a member of this site back then so no, I didn't go around these message boards labeling him a liar, but he was a liar just the same. Why do all the Bush supporters always bring up Clinton? As if I identify with a slick snake oil salesman from Arkansas. Puh lease. Most politicians are liars but that doesn't make it ok. True patriots defend the Constitution and are critical of government no matter who holds office.

I already stated there is barely any difference between the two parties in this country and will expand it further to say that their only real function is to serve big business. Because, as I said, business is what America's laws were created for. To be able to pursue business without the interference of the government.

So again, the defintion of Fascism, it is a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, characterized by belligerent nationalism. Using that what I interpret going on right now is a road to Fascism. I didn't say it was here, or that it holds total power, what I said was we are heading that way. So watch out.

A man and a woman were sitting beside each other in the first class section of the plane. The woman sneezed, took out a tissue, gently wiped her nose and then shuddered quite violently for 10 or 15 seconds.
The man went back to his reading. A few minutes later, the woman sneezed again, took a tissue, gently wiped her nose and shuddered quite violently as before.
The man was becoming more and more curious about the shuddering. A few more minutes passed and the woman sneezed one more time. Again she took a tissue, gently wiped her nose and shuddered violently. The man couldn't restrain his curiosity.
He turned to the woman and said, "You've sneezed three times, wiped your nose with a tissue, then shuddered violently! Are you all right?"
"I'm sorry if I disturbed you," the woman replied, "I have a rare condition; when I sneeze, I have an orgasm."
The man was a little embarrassed but even more curious and said, "I've never heard of that before. What are you taking for it?"
The woman looked at him and said, "Pepper."

Wow, it only took Bush 360 words before he brought up September 11th. That man has less shame than Ozzy.

Well, let's see, the Republican candidate is of course the incumbant President and he's a lying sack of shit who I wouldn't piss on if he were on fire. He wants to bring us back to the way he thinks America was before FDR and the New Deal. He's bankrupting the country so that there isn't any money for social services or internal improvements. Your children will be paying off his debt. He has destroyed what little good faith there was left in the world towards America with his cowboy foreign policy and total disregard for treaties, international law and alliances built up and worked on over the last 60 years (though he's not the first!). His administration has used a national tragedy to create a culture of fear through which they can maintain control. This perpetual War on Terror, like the perpetual War on Drugs, is a folly and a farce. The real disgusting aspect is that people are and will continue to die for this farce. Perception magnagement is more important than policy or substance. Don't even get me started on his bullshit Mars plan.

The Democratic candidates are all very similar in that they all supported the President in his illegal wars and destruction of our civil liberties, will say what they have to to have a chance at the White House, and are more interested in attacking each other's character instead of standing together to attack the President, his policies, and his character. Kucinich and Sharpton were the only ones that stood out as being radically different, but of course they don't have a chance in hell.

The Democrats are spineless worms, with no message and no direction. They bow to big business just as much as the Republicans. Money is what rules this country. It's what local and national politics is all about, who controls the money, who decides what to do with that money. It's what American society is built on. We are a materialistic culture. Money, money, money.

Dean is very angry and all that but he's a centrist like Clinton was, not a left wing loony. One of his only saving graces is that he was not in the federal legislature when the Patriot Act and the Presidents war powers were voted for, so he can claim he was always against those things. He's also fiscally responsible in that as Governor of Vermont he balanced the budget. Though his critics will cry "at what cost?!?". Of course, you can't help but cut certain expenditures when you're trying to have a balanced budget so that's not a real criticism. That's nitpicking.

Current propulsion for even getting to other parts of the solar system are very limited. A trip to Mars for example would be between 4-9 months depending on the time of launch. The outer planets would take years to reach.
Telescopes like that offer us glimpses into regions of space that humans may never reach. When looking that far out into the cosmos, we are looking backwards in time, or so goes the current theory. Soon we should be able to see far back enough to the big bang.
The Hubble was troubled from the start.

-President Bush has taken that first step in making us explorers again.-


No he has taken the first step in election year propaganda and distraction from other issues like the economy and foreign policy. It won't happen under Bush. His father promised the same thing back in 1989. Anyone old enough to remember that?

Here's a line from a song that was popular way back then, "don't believe the hype"

Bush will never seriosuly commit the United States to a manned mission to either the Moon or Mars. The whole conversation is distraction from what's wrong with American domestic and foreign policy as well as empty election year rhetoric.

I'm not against manned exploration at all, nor do I trvialize what has been done. But I don't think anyone should take this idea seriously because I don't believe the administration does. Just more fucking lies from the mouth of George W. Bush.

Don't be distracted.



- I wonder how much of the vitriol directed at President Bush’s Mars initiative, is because it’s President Bush’s Mars initiative.-


None at all. It's a flawed plan and will be tremendously expensive. The Moon base aspect is totally unnecessary and wasteful. It comes at the start of an election year and people see it for what it is, propaganda and distraction. It doesn't matter who's in the White House.
If FDR had initiated it, I would think it's not worth it. When Bush Sr proposed something similar in 1989 it was finally killed because the price tag was $400 Billion.
It has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with PRACTICALITY.



-This may be true, but it takes a vastly *different* type of energy.
The fact is that the types of engines that will take us to Mars aren't capable of getting us out of the Earths Gravity. The types of engines that can get us out of Earths Gravity are too heavy to get us to Mars efficiently.
Using both is possible, but designing the vehicle to operate well in both the takeoff environment *and* the interplanetary environment is a huge complication.-



I am also talking about the money spent in constructing a Moon base just to get there. I am thinking of it in terms of cost anaylisis. How much money has to be invested for both plans (from the Moon vs from the Earth) and how much return on each investment. If the science we get back is the same no matter how we get there, and the Moon base aspect is much more expensive, then it's not practical to do it that way. For example, you not only have to constantly supply the Martian astronauts, but the Lunar ones as well. In the 50's and 60's Von Braun wanted to build a space station that would then be a lauching pad to Mars. It was ultimately rejected partly due to the price and inpracticality of launching to a space platform, then on to Mars. It really is a wasteful step and NASA I'm sure already knows that.
Read Zubrins The Case For Mars for more on the rocket energy required. I'm too fuzzy on the details right now (I'm at work) to get into the fuel efficiency aspect of the debate.



-You may be right, but the folks at NASA *are the ones saying that we need a launch point in space*, and no offense, but I'll take their opinion over yours in this matter.
The plan as I've read it is that you build the space station/moon base, then construct the interplanetary vehicle *in orbit* and launch from there. The reason being that it really is ridiculously impractical to get a vehicle designed to go to mars out of the earths gravity in the traditional way.

I shouldn't have to mention that decisions made in the 50's and 60's might not still make sense today. Technology has progressed *just a little bit* since then. Your desktop computer is many magnitudes more powerful then even the biggest mainframe or supercomputer was then.-



I would like to see your source for why it is more impractical to launch to Mars from Earth versus from a platform or Moon base. My source for my position is The Case For Mars by Robert Zubrin. Also This New Ocean, though I forget the authors name. Go buy them or check them out from a library. If you want an interesting history on Apollo, try A Man On The Moon by Howard Chaiken. (sp?)

NASA will say whatever they have to to get more funding of any kind IMHO. That includes claiming Bush's idea is solid. I haven't read that NASA likes the idea, so maybe point me to an article or NASA press release if you would be so kind. I believe it's possible but I would just like to see that for myself

As I said the problem has been looked at before and rejected by NASA, honestly. Sure the technology has improved but the basic rocket science is still the same. We still use launch vehicles designed from back then. The space shuttle is an example.

Maybe join marssociety.org and read their papers on solutions to these problems and others. This is a group that has devoted themselves to solving them. They have a lot of interesting ideas including eventually building a "cycler" that would perpetually orbit between Earth and Mars. We would just launch to it and hitch a ride.

I'm using a laptop, not a desktop.



-Isn't Mars basically just like winter in Minneapolis without a music scene?-


No, winter in Minneapolis is colder



-I know how much you guys like to bash bush and all, and I hate to interrupt that, but you *do know* that this has been on NASA's drawing board for years now right, and has pretty much nothing to do with bush (other than he obviously gave the go ahead).
They've had a plan filed for going to Mars in the year 2018 for at least three years now, if not more.-



They've actually had a plan since the 1950's. After Apollo 20 the next step was a space station and Moon base in the 70's and a manned mission to Mars in the 80's. It was all part of Von Braun's vision. Neither a space station nor a Moon base are necessary to go to Mars of course, as it would cost less to simply launch from Earth when adding in the costs of building and maintaining these bases.

Apollo was finally killed at 17 by Nixon and the space station degenerated into Skylab which was made from spare Apollo parts. Focus shifted to the shuttle and near Earth missions.

So you're correct, all Bush has to do with it is using it for election propaganda

While visiting England, George Bush is invited to tea with the Queen. He asks her what her leadership philosophy is. She says that it is to surround herself with intelligent people.

Bush asks how she knows if they're intelligent.

"I do so by asking them the right questions," says the Queen. "Allow me to demonstrate."

Bush watches as the Queen phones Tony Blair and says, "Mr. Prime Minister, please answer this question: your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or sister. Who is it?"

Tony Blair responds, "It's me, ma'am."

"Correct. Thank you and good-bye, sir," says the Queen. She hangs up and says, "Did you get that, Mr. Bush?"

Bush nods: "Yes ma'am. Thanks a lot. I'll definitely be using that!"

Bush, upon returning to Washington, decides he'd better put the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the test. Bush summons Jesse Helms to the White House and says, "Senator Helms, I wonder if you can answer a question for me."

"Why, of course, sir. What's on your mind?"

Bush poses the question: "Uhh, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"

Helms hems and haws and finally asks, "Can I think about it and get back to you?"

Bush agrees, and Helms leaves. He immediately calls a meeting of other senior Republican senators, and they puzzle over the question for several hours, but nobody can come up with an answer. Finally, in desperation, Helms calls Colin Powell at the State Department and explains his problem.

"Now lookee here, son, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"

Powell answers immediately, "It's me, of course."

Much relieved, Helms rushes back to the White House, finds George Bush, and exclaims, "I know the answer, sir! I know who it is! It's Colin Powell!"

And Bush replies in disgust, "Wrong, you dumb shit, it's Tony Blair!

Oil, oil and more oil. We will all see, in our lifetimes, the last and most brutal conflicts over the dwindling supply of the world's oil. Within 25 years it will almost all be gone. Within 50 we better be onto another source of energy, preferably renewable, or we're all fucked.
Actually, we're all fucked anyway.

Finally some very, very rich private citizens are putting their money where their mouth is. Don't be that excited though, Soros is still a major prick.

Wow, the administration sure is serious about supporting our troops, both in the current conflict and those of previous conflicts.

Past Work Experience

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.

I produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; the company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.

With my father's help and name, I was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments as Governor

I changed pollution laws in favor of the power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union.

I replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in America.

I cut taxes and bankrupted Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any Governor in American history.

I became U.S. President after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes with the help of major Enron money and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court.


Accomplishments as President

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I entered my office with the strongest economy in U.S. history and have turned every single economic category downward -- all in less than two years.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most resented country in the world, possibly the largest failure of diplomacy in World history.

I am the first president in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal
record.

I set the the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one year period.

I am supporting development of a "Tactical Bunker Buster" nuke, a WMD.

I am getting our troops killed, under the lie of Saddam's procurement of Yellow Cake Nuke WMD components, then blaming the lie on our British friends.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. president.

In my first year in office over 2-million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any president in U.S. history.

I set the record for least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

I signed more laws and executive orders effectively amending or ignoring the Constitution than any president in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history and refused to use national reserves as past presidents have done.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in war time.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people) shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.

I've dissolved more international treaties than any president in U.S. history.

I've made my presidency the most secretive and unaccountable of any in U.S. history.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any
administration in U.S. history.

My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I am the first president in U.S. history to have almost all 50 states of the Union simultaneously suffer massive financial crisis.


I presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in history.


I am the first president in U.S. history to order a pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation, and I did so against the will of the United Nations and the world community.

I created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.


I set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in history.

I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I am the first president in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Elections Monitoring Board.


I removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in U.S. history.

I rendered the entire United Nations viewpoints irrelevant.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. "prisoners of war"
(detainees) and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.


I am the first president in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.


My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation) presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history. My political party used the Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the
U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I am first president in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am the first U.S. president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the U.S. than by their immediate neighbor, North Korea.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.


I set an all-time record for the number of administration appointees who violated U.S. law by not selling their huge personal investments in corporations bidding for U.S. contracts.

I failed to fulfill my pledge to capture Osama Bin Laden, dead or alive.

I failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the U.S. Capitol Building. Even after 18 months I have no leads and no credible suspects.

In the past 18 months following the World Trade Center attack I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.

I removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any president in U.S. history.

In a little over two years, I created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided since the Civil War.



Records and References:
I have at least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine. My Texas driving record has been erased and is not available.

I was AWOL from the National Guard.

I refuse to take a drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.

All records of my tenure as Governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed, and unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into insider trading or bankrupt
companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review.

Please consider my experience when voting in 2004. ~



Protest is Patriotism.



 

How cool is this?

This article describes a potential solution to the Israeli/Palenstinian conflict.

It's been a week since I posted. I'm sure that both of you have been wondering where I am. Here's an interesting little article about the current situation in Iraq and the arrogance of the Secretary of Defense. It draws comparisons between the current conflict and Vietnam. Don't get me wrong, they're not exactly the same conflict and the losses were much greater back then. But the similarities are interesting nonetheless.

Statements made by President Bush yesterday seem to contradict a government warning that was also issued yesterday. This contradiction seems similar to the recent Rumsfeld memo in which the Defense Secretary contradicts his public statements in regard to the situation in Iraq.
Add to that the rosy spin painted by Vice President Cheney and we get a glimpse of the dishonest and cynical people who run this country.

Holy fucking shit. When will it finally be decided that enough is enough?
Most people in that region want peace and an end to the conflict. Their right wing and stubborn leaders just keep getting closer to what they really want, which is total and complete destruction of their enemy.
Doesn't our government look pretty morally bankrupt by failing to effectively intervene? What stupid and destructive monkey behavior.

Why won't this administration cooperate with an investigation into the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001? It's rhetoric is one of cooperation and concern, but it's actions are obstruction and delay.
How are we defending our "homeland" properly if the administration is obstructing efforts to find out what really happened so that we can prevent it from happening again?

As some people are aware the 2000 presidential election, especially in Florida, was plagued with controversy. Again in some states in 2002 there were more questions raised, although the media barely covered any of it.
At the heart of the controversy are electronic voting machines manufactured by a company called Diebold. Their machine's reputation so far is dubious. A group of students at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania are doing their best to keep the public informed about this possible threat to our democracy.
I think it's great how convenient technology can be for some aspects of our lives, but as long as we vote, I want a receipt for my vote. Events in this country have been pretty strange these past few years and if there is only one thing that I believe in, it's the infinite corruptability of human nature.
Be aware, and be outraged.

Recording music is often a challenge of doing the most amount of work within the shortest amount of time. The demand is that the work be done well and immediately, if not sooner. This is usually due to not only time being in short supply, but energy and patience as well.
Drummers are often the most competent of studio musicians. They generally know much more about their instruments and the sounds they produce than any other member of a band.
Most musicians play one note at a time on one instrument and generally leave the maintenance of their instruments to professionals in that field.
In contrast, a drummer plays eight or more instruments, many of which they have rebuilt or modified several times, and six of which change their sound every time the drummer changes rooms. This makes it necessary to retune and play the drums differently for each gig. Because of this, drummers become expert at generating nearly any sound they want from their kits. Good drummers will listen to the first playback, do some light retuning, make adjustments in performance, and then by the next playback, have a sound they like.
All the engineer really needs to do is give the drummer a setup that produces a fair picture of what the kit sounds like, sit back, and let the expert do the work.
Eight of anything besides drums would be called a section, and a form of section micing is appropriate on a drum kit. While single or stereo micing isn’t usually acceptable for contemporary work, the opposite extreme of overmicing a kit to the extent of removing all perspective is even worse. It takes the control of the sound away from the drummer and also creates numerous phase problems.
A little bleed on a drum set is a good thing. A little, that is, not a lot. The two mics sometimes used a couple of feet above a drum kit not only pick up everything else in the studio during a live session, they are also very dangerous in terms of phase cancellation. They can be adjusted to prevent cancellation, but that takes time and still leaves one with the stray pickup problem. What’s recommended then is to use the least amount of mics to get the job done. This follows Occam’s razor, which means that the simplest of two or more competing theories is always preferable. In other words, keep it simple, stupid.
The object is to reproduce the sound of a drum kit as quickly, simply, and as faithfully as possible. If a good sound is to be modified by signal processors, great, but it’s incredibly time consuming to save a bad sound through processing.
No two drummers set up a kit exactly alike, and there are variations on the number and size of the instruments, so a basic setup can’t be absolute. However, with judicious adjustments in mic positions and the addition of a mic here and there for the drummer who brings everything, the following will yield a very good representation of the sound, allow for balancing in about thirty seconds, and encourage the drummer to make performance changes to get exactly what is intended from the playback. I learned this technique from legendary mixer Malcolm Chisholm and would like to share it here.
A kick drum is usually miced inside the drum case by a large dynamic placed an inch or two off one side of the case and pointed more at the case then the drumhead. Used in this manner the mic acts as a PZM, picking up the sound traveling along the case edge and exhibiting little or no proximity effect. Dynamics are generally used because they will stand up under the extreme sound pressure levels inside the drum, their patterns are tight enough to sidestep the phase maze inside the case, and their slow transient response discriminates against the snapping attack sound generated by some kick drum heads.
For a floor tom, the choice would again be a large dynamic, placed an inch off the head at the outside and pointed toward the middle of the drum kit.
The snare and hat are often a problem. Mics usually do a poor job of picking up the hat, and using two mics puts them so close to each other as to make phase cancellation inevitable. A solution is available in the form of tiny condenser mics known as lavaliers. They work very well when used for both the snare and hat partly due to their omnidirectional pickup pattern and partly because the pickup element is very small and much faster than other mics. The lav is hooked to the side of the snare under the hat.
Finally, for the rack toms, any small condensers that fit over them will work. Placement is two to three inches off the center side of the tom head pointed down at about thirty degrees and toward the ride or crash cymbal. This placement allows a trick solution to micing these two instruments. A reasonably quick mic looking at the tom sees the big cymbals reflected off the head and again acts like a PZM. The cymbals may come through a little weak, but the drummer can correct that by hitting them harder.
Most of the panning with this technique should be obvious, but since there are no dedicated mics on the big cymbals, a trick is used that requires a small explanation. The main pickup for each big cymbal is a bounce off the head of the closest tom, but there is also a bit of bleed on the floor tom and snare/hat mics. This bleed on mics panned to the outside of the kit pulls the cymbals towards them, and with a small 10khz boost on the floor tom mic, results in their appearance about halfway between the rack toms and the floor tom and snare/hat. For lack of a better term, this may be called “phantom” panning.
With practice, these techniques will yield a simple and satisfying drum sound, especially when needed in a hurry.

Equalization is a powerful weapon. Only to be used for defense and handled with respect and caution. Or else it becomes very dangerous to the one that wields it and those around them. It is another of the mysterious voodoo arts within the craft of recording. It’s something that can be abused and overused. Some don’t know how much or when to use it. We know frequencies are divided into lows, low mids, high mids and highs, but how helpful is that in terms of music? How and when should one use eq?
Too much equalization causes frequencies to be pulled out of phase, potentially harming a mix, making it uncomfortable to listen to. Therefore, a good general rule when using it is to have no more than 12 dB of added eq across an entire mix. Keep it simple.
I think that if you’re somehow not happy with the sounds you are getting, you change the variables at the source as opposed to “fixing” it later with eq or other processes. This means trying different mic positions, different mics, different mic pres, changing drum heads, changing amps, switching instruments, or repositioning the source in the room, before using eq. So to have no more than 12 dB of added eq with that approach isn’t difficult in practice and keeps you confined to finding the right sound before committing it to tape. Obviously, there are certain special effects that one will try to achieve using eq. That is a special application and is not being discussed here. What I’m suggesting is not to use eq as a crutch when getting sounds, but rather a subtle solution to problems encountered during mixing.
Try eq by panning. Try moving a signal around in the stereo field before applying eq. Often, something that is difficult to hear in one area of a stereo image will clearly emerge when moved to another area.
The idea of subtracting as opposed to adding is a valuable lesson. If something needs more highs, try subtracting lows before adding highs, and vice versa. It can mean the difference between a clear and enjoyable mix and one that’s overloaded with harmonic distortion and fatiguing to listen to. I would like to share with you the terminology used by legendary mixer Malcolm Chisholm, to describe frequencies as related to music. The frequencies given are general starting points and are to be thought of as a range, not absolute values. These are subjective terms, so you may apply your own.
They may be used with either shelf or notch type eq’s. It’s up to you to decide which type is to be utilized. Shelving eq will affect everything from the center frequency and beyond. Notch or peak eq will affect only the center frequency chosen plus a few dB of frequencies on either side depending on the Q value or bandwidth of the filter.
Let’s start at the bottom with 30hz, or “balls”. Need more of that weight of the kick? Add some “balls” to it. 80hz is the “rumble” of a sound. At 100hz you get into the “useless” range.
At 200hz is where you start adding or taking away the “warmth” of a signal. I sometimes add it for lack of an audible proximity effect. At 700hz you’ll find “bass presence”. Not hearing enough of the bass? Instead of raising the level, try adding some 700hz to it and see how it feels after that.
As we get into the upper ranges we should consider that humans hear and respond best to frequencies between 1-5khz. The reasons are simple. A newborn baby cries at around 3khz. We also speak and sing within that range. Evolution has tuned our brains to hear best at those frequencies.
Let’s move onto 1khz, or “level”. Not hearing a track well enough? Instead of raising the fader and bringing up all the frequency content, try adding a little 1khz. Or cut a little 1khz to bring a signal down in level. With 3khz you have “presence”. Keeping in mind the idea about the frequencies of human speech, if a vocal is too present or not present enough, try adding or subtracting some 3khz.
My favorite term is for 5khz. This is known as “poison”. A little 5khz sounds wonderful but too much will kill you, so use caution. It’s a magical frequency that mixers often abuse. I once was talking with a mastering engineer and joked that when my clients can’t really afford mastering, I’ll just squash the hell out of everything and add a lot of 5k. He just stared at me and said, “oh, you’re one of those”. So beware of 5khz. It sounds good, but it’s poison, like a drug, and people will look down on you.
Finally at 8khz and up we get to “brilliance”. I think the term “brilliance” is self-explanatory. It’s the shine or the sparkle of something.
Hopefully this has helped some people to get a better idea of EQ and that in using this knowledge they will remain cautious and respectful of this weapon being wielded. It’s ok to keep it simple and to be frugal in the processing of sounds.