Saturday, May 26, 2007

Boo-Hoo Boehner

Talk about looking like an emotional wreck - Someone get John Boehner his Prozac, he's losing it again.

ThinkProgress has the video of Boehner's most recent weeping episode.


May 24, 2007 marked the second time John Boehner (R-OH) cried in public while addressing the Iraq War. The first time John lost control over his emotions was back in February.

So this is supposed to be the tough guy Conservative with the perfect tan?

Hmph. It appears the man has the emotional frailty of a thirteen year old girl in love. Only Boehner's love is not for a junior high sweetheart, it is a love for the GOP, it a love for the war that he fears may end without a clear Republican victory. That is what John Boehner weeps for.

Boehner even invoked the memory of 9/11 in his wet display of emotion, saying

“After 3,000 of our fellow citizens died at the hands of these terrorists, when are we going to stand up and take them on? When are we going to defeat them?”

These terrorist? These terrorist? Meaning the Iraqi's we are fighting in Iraq? Is John Boehner getting his brown people mixed up again?

Because I don't remember any Iraqi's being involved in 9/11. What I do remember was that most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabians with box cutters who allegedly trained in Afghanistan.

Attacking Iraq and trying to connect it to 9/11 takes no less of a stretch of the imagination than attacking China and trying to blame it for Pearl Harbor, rather than Japan.

After all this time John Boehner is either that ignorant about who attacked us on September 11, 2001 or he is that deceitful that he is going to try to continue to connect Iraq to 9/11 even though there is absolutely no evidence to suggest such a thing.

You know what I honestly think about this apparent display of emotion?

Boo-hoo Boehner is not crying for the lost integrity of America, he is crying for the lost integrity of the Republican Party.

Boo-hoo Boehner is not weeping for the loss of over 3,000 civilians and over 3,000 soldiers in this Orwellian "war on terror", he is weeping for the loss his political party will face if they are not able to preform magic tricks in the next couple of months in Iraq.

That's what I think John Boehner is really crying about. Either that or he's got a needle he is jamming in his hand to draw tears.

Even if Boehner's emotion was genuine, which I doubt it was, that calls into question his emotional stability.

Question : What's wrong with the picture of a grown Congressman crying as he proclaims he didn't come to Congress to be a Congressman?
Answer : Everything.

Boehner and his Republican colleagues like to accuse the Democrats of "waving the white flag to al Qaeda", but what kind of message does anyone think al Qaeda is sent when a grown Republican Congressman is weeping on the house floor half a decade after 9/11 while he is talking about Iraq?

I bet the weeping Republican is very intimidating to al Qaeda. Did I write intimidating? Oops, I actually meant to write encouraging.

Friday, May 25, 2007

Lazy Links

- Bush Administration To ‘Skim Off Border Patrol Agents’ For Duty In Iraq
- Report: Cheney aide clearing path to bomb Iran
- Sadr appears, Basra militia leader killed
- Aid From U.S., Allies Arrives in Lebanon
- Lawmakers predict shift in war policy
- Continuing airstrikes, Israel hits at Hamas
- IAEA inspects Iran nuclear center
- Talking to Iran — or Talking War?
- Congress' Iraq vote sets up big fight this fall
- Gates: Press Is Not the Enemy
- Warnings of Chaos Ignored
- Liberty Univ. student brings explosives to Falwell Funeral
- Chaos, uncertainty follow Lebanon's 'double refugees'
- Edwards offers support plan for troops
- Reagan On Giuliani: "I Think He's Crazy"
- Leahy, Specter To Rove’s Lawyer: Turn Over The ‘Lost’ RNC Emails


Do the Democrats believe that they were elected to the majority to continue to submit to the demands of George W. Bush and the Republican Party?

Do the Democrats believe that they were elected to the majority in order to protect the Status Quo?

Yesterdays vote was monumental because it proves to the American people which Democrats actually want to end the war and which Democrats say they want to end the war just to get elected.

I congratulate the Democrats who voted against the bill, who will be attacked as "not supporting the troops". Hogwash. Supporting the troops is getting them out of a civil war that has zero connections to September 11 and zero to do with real freedom and Democracy.

To the other Democrats I say "Where is your integrity? Where are your convictions? Do you actually believe cooperating with Bush is going to do you or America any good?

The Democrats just made a monumental mistake, their approval ratings will likely take a dip after backing down to Bush and the Republicans which the majority of the American people have grown to despise.


Some Democrats will say "Well, if we had voted 'no' we would have been called unpatriotic" and so on and so forth.

The reality is, no matter what way the Democrats would have voted, the Republicans already had ready made ammunition to use against them. It would not matter which way Democrats vote, Republicans have an angle to attack it from :

If Democrats vote "no" they will be accused of being unpatriotic, not supporting the troops, waving the flag to al-Qaeda, etc.
If Democrats vote "yes" the Republicans can in turn say Democrats did not even try to do what they said they would do, which was end the war. Therefore, Democrats don't do what they say they will do so why vote for them anyway?

So if the other Democrats had any brains or integrity they should have just bit the bullet like the brave Democrats who voted "no" did.

I admit that I originally thought that the Democrats should let Bush have a bill without time-lines.

But after witnessing the spoiled brat Bush dig his heels in and refuse to sign two bills, one which the time-lines could have been waived I realized that it is high time for the Democrats to put an end to this shit and fight back, see how the other side likes it.

But what happened? The Democrats backed down, or I should say the majority of Democrats backed down to the evilness that can only have power if they continue to allow it to have power.

Word of advice to the Democrats : Stop acting like the minority and stop treating the Bush GOP like they are the majority. You have the upper hand - you just have to figure out how to play it to your advantage.

The majority of the American people are thoroughly fed up and disgusted with the Bush Administration and the war, now is not the time to back down.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Killing In The Name Of Falwell

A 19 year old Liberty University student was arrested for having "napalm like" bombs" he planned on using against a group of protesters who had gathered near the funeral service of Jerry Falwell.

ABC Reports :

"Campbell County authorities arrested a Liberty University student for having several homemade bombs in his car.

The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from disrupting the funeral service."

Authorities say that the chemicals would have produced a slow burn and would not have been very destructive, but I am willing to bet that's not what the guy who made them was thinking.

Let's hope this is an isolated burst of Christian radicalism driven by the loss of one of their misguided and revered leaders.

I can only imagine what the headlines would have been though if it had been a "Secular Leftist" who was caught with any kind of bomb at Jerry Falwell's funeral.


Max Blumenthal, blogging for Huffington Post offers some insight into the would-be bomber in "Diary of a Christian Terrorist"

"Visitors to Mark David Uhl's Myspace page will quickly learn that Uhl is a student at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, that he is a devoted Christian, that his name means "Mighty Warrior"
Uhl was an a devout evangelical Christian who advocated religious violence in the name of American nationalism. Uhl's blog, featured on his Myspace page, offers a window into the political underpinnings of his bomb plot.

In one post, Uhl implores Christians to die on the battlefield for "Uncle Sam." He justifies his call to arms by quoting several Biblical passages and reminding his readers that the "gift of God" is eternal life." Read full blog at Huffington Post.

Lazy Links

- Former Gonzales aide admits "crossing the line"
- Nine U.S. soldiers killed in five Iraq attacks
- Refugees flee Lebanon camp
- Abbas, Haniyeh try to work out new cease-fire deal
- Amnesty International Releases 2007 Report, 2006 Bad Year For Human Rights
- Pope acknowledges colonial injustice in Americas
- Iran hikes gasoline prices 25 percent
- Democrats Blink, Angering Antiwar Ranks
- McCain and Romney's War of Words
- Bird Flu Virus Samples Must Be Shared, Officials Say
- Bush: Bin Laden Ordered 2005 Strikes
- Iran expanding uranium enrichment program, U.N. says

Spinning The "Islamist" Polls And Why It's Damaging

Remember the good old days when the Liberal Media was, well, Liberal?

Yesterday I commented that CNN's Heidi Collins reported on a poll that showed an overwhelming majority of Muslims living in the US as not only having strong work ethics, but also being opposed the suicide bombings.

78% believe that suicide bombings are NOT justified.
8% believed that suicide bombings ARE justified.
15% of young Muslims believe that suicide bombings are justified.

At any rate and any age suicide bombings are a massively unpopular idea amongst a very clear majority of Muslims living in America.

But CNN, perhaps sensing the wrath of the Patriotism Police has repeatedly spun this poll - which should make Muslims look better, into something which is making Muslims look worse.

This morning CNN's Kiran Chetry jumped on the poll spinning bandwagon.

Again, the majority of Muslims who did not approve of suicide bombings were ignored and the minority of Muslims who did approve of such attacks was highlighted.

Polls are taken to find out what a majority of people think, not what a minority of people think.

I bet there are at least 8% of whites who still think hanging African Americans is acceptable and wishes slavery was still permissible.

I bet 15% of young people think that school shootings are acceptable and justified.

The point is a minority of people are always going to be off balance, no matter what country you are from. I believe that about 30% of any given population is off balance in whatever way is unique to them.

That's why it's important to look at what the majority of people are saying, because there is always going to be crackpots that think that Timothy McVeigh was a hero or the Anarchist Cookbook is the best piece of "literature" ever.

The majority of Muslims in America are saying that suicide bombings are not justified. That majority is being insulted every time their numbers are ignored to focus on the 8% of nutcases who believe the bombings are justified.

It's just another example of biased and unfair reporting.

Why not report on the good and obvious news? 78% of Muslims in the US do not condone this type of violence. I believe this indicates the "martyr jihad-jihad" ideology is a regional and political problem in the middle east, and not a problem within the religion itself.

Because of the violence and extremism in Iraq and other scattered regions of the Middle East there is a perception that every single Muslim is an "Islamist". I think this is a mistake that not only isolates us from the moderate Muslims but also weakens the moderate Muslims and empowers the extremist.

So as long as were willing to lump all these people together regardless of what they believe or how they act, rail about all the negative while ignoring their positive accomplishments and the progression they do make, then how are we encouraging anyone to be more Democratic?

When you are in control and people are "good" you should reward them with praise and incentives, that way they are inclined to continue the "good" behavior.

But when you are in control and people are "good" and you instead start looking for something bad to highlight you are not giving the people any incentive to repeat the "good" behavior". It's really that simple.

Or, as Benjamin Franklin said :

"If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect."

All of this, of course, only persuades me to buy a TV card for my PC, that way I can post video in the future, I can't always rely on someone else having the video of something I want to post.

And it reminds me to remind everyone else who hasn't seen "Buying The War" yet to watch it soon.


Thankfully not everyone is spinning the poll, but some people are getting hysterical over it. Let's compare and contrast some headlines.

From the corner where they are spinning so much they are dizzy and that must explain their incoherence :

'Troubling' views on suicide bombings - From the SF Chronicle which cited a hate group leader as expert in an article two days ago.

THIS TINY LUNATIC FRINGE ADDS UP TO A BIG THREAT - From the irrational and yellow stained New York Post, no elaboration needed.

Check out how the transparently biased Jerusalem Post has padded the numbers by 10% with the headline "25% of Muslim teens: Suicide bombs OK"

Now, let's look at some of the more rational reactions to the poll :

Survey: US Muslims Assimilated, Opposed to Extremism

Survey of US Muslims shows moderate views

Muslims content with lives in US

Muslim survey overall points to tranquil lives

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Spinning the Polls About The "Islamist"

OK, so I was just watching CNN, and Heidi Collins was reporting on a recent poll that asked Muslims in America how they felt about a number of things.

The majority of Muslims polled were born outside the US and believed in American work ethics.

When asked about suicide bombings a very clear majority - 78% said the bombings were not justified, just 8% believed that the bombings were justified. A graphic on the screen displayed the poll results.

But when Collins reported on the poll she only stated the number of the minority of Muslims who believed suicide bombings were justified and ignored the clear majority who believed the bombings were not justified.

Yet another example of manipulating or ignoring the facts.

I will update this post as soon as I can get a transcript and/or video.

Words Have Meaning

I'm not a linguist, I am not an expert at framing debate. I am a 25 year old who is not a formal writer but a blogger, and not a very good one at that.

But I understand something about vocabulary and the way words can be manipulated to give false impressions.

The recent use of vocabulary by the Mainstream Media, Political Pundits and the Politicians seems quite abusive of the normal boundaries of language.

The way words are being manipulated recently seems to be something new, but maybe it's not.

"The Patriot Act" is not patriotic, it expands the powers of the government therefore the act is unpatriotic.

"Prisoners of War" become "enemy combatants".

The wording is just a clever way to strip human beings, however bad they may or may not be, of the rights laid forth in the Geneva Convention.

"Torture" becomes "interrogation techniques".

Question : Would they be called "interrogation techniques" if someone practiced them on an American soldier? I bet it would be called "torture" so it must be "torture".

"Islamic Militants" or "Islamic Extremist" becomes "Islamist"

Islamist is a slur in my eyes, it's a way to try to tie the Islamic militancy directly to all Islamic people and that don't fly in my book.

If your good at manipulating language you can almost manipulate reality.

Abraham Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

George W. Bush said "You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."

Lazy Links

- UN Troops Sold Weapons To Militia They Were Sent To Disarm
- Journalists urge Maliki to stop limiting the media
- Islamic Militants offer truce on third day of Lebanon battles
- The Simpsons v. the media
- Report: US missile data leaked in Japan
- Giuliani's 9/11 Stories Contradicted By His Emergency Management Chief
- Britain demands handover of Russian polonium suspect
- Palestinians: Israel attacks Hamas camps
- Lebanese army, militants resume fight
- Car bombing in Baghdad market kills 25, injures 60
- Troops mass in Pakistan mosque faceoff
- Large blast hits Lebanese capital
- Death toll angers Afghan government
- Timeline dropped from war funding bill
- Carter eases back on criticism of Bush
- Padilla trial draws little fanfare
- Rove Given "One Last" Chance To Testify Before Subpoena

Monday, May 21, 2007

Gingrich Reaffirms His Radical Reverence For The Right

Gingrich Cites ‘Opportunity’ To ‘Convert All Of America’ To Fundamentalism

Who's Really Irreverent, Reckless And Unfortunate?

Jimmy Carter may have been a bad president but he tried to be a good man who exhibited fairness and honesty that is unmatched by any other former Presidents who are still living.

Indeed, although I can tolerate Jimmy Carter's simple countryman demeanor I would be likely to vote him to be one of the least successful Democratic Presidents of all time.

But as far as I know it is two Republicans, Nixon and Bush, who are still competing to be the most unsuccessful and corruption driven President's of all time.

With that written I note that recently Jimmy Carter commented that the Bush Administration was the worst Administration in American history.

Well, of course the White House fired back, calling Jimmy Carter "irreverent" and his comments "sad", "reckless" and "unfortunate".

But I challenge the White House or anyone else for that matter to find a more counterproductive and disastrous Administration in American history than the Bush Administration.

I disagree with the opportunistic soothsayers who believe that history will vindicate the Bush Administration and see President Bush as tackling Islamic extremism.

History will be leveled against the Bush Administration in a way that will likely make today's Conservative political commentators look deceitful or deluded.

The vision of history will not be tainted by the fresh emotional memories of 9/11, but based on the cold hard facts.

A President elected under controversy.

9/11, a terrorist attack that could have been prevented if the Bush Administration had heeded the warnings.

The Iraq War, preemptive invasion based on fabricated and fraudulent intelligence.

Guantanamo, a torture haven that symbolizes what is wrong with American Democracy.

Abramoff. Signing statements. Katrina. Scooter Libby. The Attorney General scandal. Illegal spying. Ashcroft in the hospital.

The impact of George W. Bush is much more significant and much more negative than any other President in recent history.

President Bush has gone far beyond the actions of Nixon and the only reason he is still in the White House is because the 109th and 110th Congress refuse to hold him accountable for his actions.

In the future historians will no longer look to Richard Nixon as being the prime example of great rises to power that were destroyed by their own scandal, corruption and overall lawlessness, it will be President George W. Bush.

Maybe Carter has become irreverent and sad in his own respects.

But it is the Bush Administration that is so wracked with failure and corruption that it is they who have become the very definition of reckless and unfortunate.

Lazy Links

- DOJ Accused Of Using Voter Fraud Investigations To Suppress Minority Vote
- Guiliani Slips To Third In Iowa Polls
- Gunbattles rage around Lebanon refugee camp
- Clinton wants pre-K for all 4-year-olds
- Lebanese army battles militants, 8 civilians dead
- Lebanon media see Syria behind violence
- 25 killed in southern Afghanistan
- Turks Rally Again for Secular Government
- Iraqi Shiite leader diagnosed with lung cancer
- Specter sees Gonzales quitting
- Richardson to officially launch campaign
- Off-duty NYPD cops accused of drug ring involvement
- Bible spared "indecent" classification
- Dr. Laura son linked to lurid Web page