Politics
The SS Eyman Is Sinking...
Thursday, June 08 2006 | Permalink
Not many days I get to wake up to a headline like this:
Eyman Fails To Deliver
Honorable mention to Neil Modie for the awesome article that he somehow got the editors to let through.
Eyman Fails To Deliver
Honorable mention to Neil Modie for the awesome article that he somehow got the editors to let through.
|
Time for riots at home, too!
Tuesday, February 07 2006 | Permalink
From the AP:
"Despite the sacrifices called for in education, Amtrak, community development and local law enforcement grants, health research, and many other programs frozen or cut under his plan, Bush's $2.77 trillion blueprint forecasts a record $423 billion deficit for the current year and improves upon that figure in 2007 largely by lowballing cost estimates for the war in Iraq."
"Despite the sacrifices called for in education, Amtrak, community development and local law enforcement grants, health research, and many other programs frozen or cut under his plan, Bush's $2.77 trillion blueprint forecasts a record $423 billion deficit for the current year and improves upon that figure in 2007 largely by lowballing cost estimates for the war in Iraq."
Divine Justice
Wednesday, January 18 2006 | Permalink
You gotta love this, taken from CNN yesterday about the execution of Clarence Allen, the 76 year old man killed Monday night in California:
" Having suffered a heart attack back in September, Allen had asked prison authorities to let him die if he went into cardiac arrest before his execution, a request prison officials said they would not honor.
"At no point are we not going to value the sanctity of life," said prison spokesman Vernell Crittendon. "We would resuscitate him," then execute him. "
" Having suffered a heart attack back in September, Allen had asked prison authorities to let him die if he went into cardiac arrest before his execution, a request prison officials said they would not honor.
"At no point are we not going to value the sanctity of life," said prison spokesman Vernell Crittendon. "We would resuscitate him," then execute him. "
Today's Press Briefing
Thursday, January 05 2006 | Permalink
Man, I know everyone loves it when I do this, but check this interchange out, from todays White House Press Briefing:
Q When the President went to the Pentagon today, did he ask about the dropping of a bomb on a home, killing nine children and grandchildren, and so forth? I mean, is this how we go after the rebels?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President talked about the update that he received at the Pentagon earlier today. And let me just back up, because, first of all, as I understand it from the military in Iraq, they have put out a statement saying they are looking at the facts surrounding this matter. Second of all, our military goes out of the way to avoid civilian casualties. They target the enemy. They target the terrorists and the Saddam loyalists who are seeking to kill innocent civilians and disrupt the transition to democracy. In terms of this individual matter, it's something that's being looked into in terms of the facts surrounding it.
Q Why did they do that --
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's an accurate characterization, first of all. The military has put out --
Q They didn't find any so-called terrorists.
MR. McCLELLAN: The military has put out additional information and you need to look at what they've said. It's still being looked into. I encourage you to wait until the facts are learned.
Q How can you justify killing children and grandchildren at home?
MR. McCLELLAN: Look at what took place in Iraq last month; successful elections, where you had nearly 70 percent of the voters turn out --
Q That has nothing to do with my question.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and if you look at the pictures from that election, the Iraqi people are determined to live in freedom. They want to chart their own future. And the President talked about that earlier today. And it's --
Q -- bomb innocent families.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- the terrorists and Saddam loyalists who are going out killing innocent civilians. We saw that again today, with some suicide attacks on a funeral procession of Iraqi civilians.
Q So why are we there --
MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree strongly with your characterization of our military. They go out of the way to target the enemy --
Q I didn't say they did --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, your implication is certainly that.
Q In this case, there have been several --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's your implication. No, that's your implication. Our military --
Q That's not my implication. I'm telling you what --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- uses technology to target the enemy and avoid civilian casualties.
Q When the President went to the Pentagon today, did he ask about the dropping of a bomb on a home, killing nine children and grandchildren, and so forth? I mean, is this how we go after the rebels?
MR. McCLELLAN: The President talked about the update that he received at the Pentagon earlier today. And let me just back up, because, first of all, as I understand it from the military in Iraq, they have put out a statement saying they are looking at the facts surrounding this matter. Second of all, our military goes out of the way to avoid civilian casualties. They target the enemy. They target the terrorists and the Saddam loyalists who are seeking to kill innocent civilians and disrupt the transition to democracy. In terms of this individual matter, it's something that's being looked into in terms of the facts surrounding it.
Q Why did they do that --
MR. McCLELLAN: I don't think that's an accurate characterization, first of all. The military has put out --
Q They didn't find any so-called terrorists.
MR. McCLELLAN: The military has put out additional information and you need to look at what they've said. It's still being looked into. I encourage you to wait until the facts are learned.
Q How can you justify killing children and grandchildren at home?
MR. McCLELLAN: Look at what took place in Iraq last month; successful elections, where you had nearly 70 percent of the voters turn out --
Q That has nothing to do with my question.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- and if you look at the pictures from that election, the Iraqi people are determined to live in freedom. They want to chart their own future. And the President talked about that earlier today. And it's --
Q -- bomb innocent families.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- the terrorists and Saddam loyalists who are going out killing innocent civilians. We saw that again today, with some suicide attacks on a funeral procession of Iraqi civilians.
Q So why are we there --
MR. McCLELLAN: I disagree strongly with your characterization of our military. They go out of the way to target the enemy --
Q I didn't say they did --
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, your implication is certainly that.
Q In this case, there have been several --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's your implication. No, that's your implication. Our military --
Q That's not my implication. I'm telling you what --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- uses technology to target the enemy and avoid civilian casualties.
Did you notice?
Tuesday, December 13 2005 | Permalink
The two things in the news today that got me excited were:
First, the Supreme Court will review the Texas redistricting plan implemented in the wake of the Texas Chain-saw Massacre. While I'm pleased as a plum that there will be investigation into this particular event, what I'm really looking forward to is gerrymandering getting some ink in the press. I'm creating a filtered section right now in my Google News (right next to my filter for the word "impeach", which incidentally has been pretty quite for the last few weeks), so here's hoping for a fun spring.
While I was thinking about districting, I decided I'd take a stab at Iraq. I think I did alright:
By my math, that's four Shiite seats, three Kurdish seats, one Sunni seat, and one seat which will be cause for everlasting armed conflict.
Which leads to this week's contest: Whoever can take the map here:
and "arrange" it to give the Sunnis no seats at all wins a prize! The two rules are: You must make contiguous districts, and you must have at least 5 seats (nice try to everyone whose answer was "Just hold federal elections!".) Hey everyone, institutionalized oppression is fun!
Which segues nicely into the next the next bit of news from the day. Bush was asked today how many Iraqis the US believes have been killed since the 2003 invasion. The usual answer ("dar, we don't do body-counts, yeee haw!) was surprisingly not used, and instead Bush answered "30,000 more or less". To my knowledge, that's the first time we've heard anything like a number of Iraqi casualties from the White House (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Well, those guys can write off the media and "the internets" as much as they like, but we know where they get their figures now. But that's not really the point. The point is that, for some reason, this is okay with most Americans, and Bush throwing this number out is barely getting any print. Good thing we're not racists in this country.
First, the Supreme Court will review the Texas redistricting plan implemented in the wake of the Texas Chain-saw Massacre. While I'm pleased as a plum that there will be investigation into this particular event, what I'm really looking forward to is gerrymandering getting some ink in the press. I'm creating a filtered section right now in my Google News (right next to my filter for the word "impeach", which incidentally has been pretty quite for the last few weeks), so here's hoping for a fun spring.
While I was thinking about districting, I decided I'd take a stab at Iraq. I think I did alright:
By my math, that's four Shiite seats, three Kurdish seats, one Sunni seat, and one seat which will be cause for everlasting armed conflict.
Which leads to this week's contest: Whoever can take the map here:
and "arrange" it to give the Sunnis no seats at all wins a prize! The two rules are: You must make contiguous districts, and you must have at least 5 seats (nice try to everyone whose answer was "Just hold federal elections!".) Hey everyone, institutionalized oppression is fun!
Which segues nicely into the next the next bit of news from the day. Bush was asked today how many Iraqis the US believes have been killed since the 2003 invasion. The usual answer ("dar, we don't do body-counts, yeee haw!) was surprisingly not used, and instead Bush answered "30,000 more or less". To my knowledge, that's the first time we've heard anything like a number of Iraqi casualties from the White House (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Well, those guys can write off the media and "the internets" as much as they like, but we know where they get their figures now. But that's not really the point. The point is that, for some reason, this is okay with most Americans, and Bush throwing this number out is barely getting any print. Good thing we're not racists in this country.