Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
It's going to be a long summer in the Bronx. Heh, indeed.
And speaking of things holy, The Chosen One is really playing to his potential n'est pas? The whole team has contributed very effectively throughout the playoffs save Larry Hughes.
Great play from Daniel Gibson last night.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Sony entertainment centres
Now she speaks about diseases
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
It occurred to me earlier this evening after I had seen another report on the missing soldiers in Iraq that your govmint is playing with our collective emotions yet again.
Remember how in Silence of the Lambs the female Senator whose girl had been abducted was praised by Hannibal Lecter for using and reusing the name of her daughter in her televised pleas for mercy? How that by repeatedly using her name she humanized the girl to her killer so that he might have pity?
The Cheney administration is pulling the same stunt using these three dudes as cloying bait to make us forget that dozens of other soldiers and Iraqi citizens have been maimed or killed while we're "searching" for these three lost...little...lambs.
Are these guys more important or special that the last 3 guys that died in Iraq? And if so, why?
Listen, in the movie the girl survives her captivity by Jaime Gumm, (beautifully played by Ted Levine I might add), and is rescued by the ever resilient Jodie Foster. However, in reality, the lambs do get slaughtered and no one ever comes to their aid until it's too late.
Truly, I mean these brave guys no ill respect. But they're being played for pawns just like Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman have been previously marketed to us.
These are shameful feckin' bastards running our country. Shameful.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
The argument has always been that all politicians are hypocrites, cheats and liars. No doubt true. The difference however between us and them is that they moralize and scold the rest of the world for transgressions they see as harmful while acting out and projecting acts of depravity FAR more offensive than say, a consensual tete a tete with a grown women named Monica.
If the GOP still has 25% support in this country there remains only one conclusion...25% of your neighbors, co-workers, friends and fellow motorists are fucking insane.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Christopher Hitchens is a smug asshole. He is however, damn funny and terribly eurdite on nearly all things political, cultural and religious.
In case you haven't seen it, check out his chat with dreamboat Anderson Cooper from yesterday's broadcast of 360.
Westboro Baptist Church
(WBC Chronicles - Since 1955)
3701 SW 12th St. Topeka, Kansas 66604 785-273-0325 GodHatesFags.com
Tuesday, May 15,2007
WBC to picket the funeral of Rev. Jerry Falwell - at
Thomas Road Baptist Church, Lynchburg, Virginia -
in religious protest and warning:
Ergo, God hates Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, and all such Arminian heretic preachers - from fundamentalist evangelicals to openly gay Episcopalians and pedophile Catholics - all of whom have created the Satanic Sodomite Zeitgeist wherein America has irreversibly gone the way of Sodom.
There is little doubt that Falwell split Hell wide open the instant he died. The evidence is compelling, overwhelming, and irrefragable. To wit:
1 Falwell was a true Calvinistic Baptist when he was a young preacher in Springfield, Missouri; and sold his soul to Free-Willism (Arminianism) for lucre.
2. Falwell bitterly and viciously attacked WBC because of WBC9s faithful Bible preaching - thereby committing the unpardonable sin - otherwise known as the sin gainst the Holy Ghost.
3. Falwell warmly praised Christ-rejecting Jews, pedophile-condoning Catholics, money-grubbing compromisers, practicing fags like Mel White, and backsliders like Billy Graham and Robert Schuler, Etc. All for lucre - making him guilty of their sins.
When I'm out walking I strut my stuff yeah I'm so strung out
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
May. 16, 2007 Eight years ago the Rev. Jerry Falwell warned parents that BBC children's television star Tinky Winky was a hidden symbol of homosexuality. Falwell died Tuesday at 73, and the world wanted to talk to Tinky Winky.
"They're calling again, again, again," he said by phone from his home in Islington, in London. A spokesman said the former "Teletubbies" costar got more than 100 calls from reporters in the hour following news of Falwell's death.
"Oh dear, it's easy to say the wrong thing here," he said. "Tinky Winky sad whenever someone dies, but ..." He left it hanging there.
In a 1999 article in his National Liberty Journal headlined "Tinky Winky Comes Out of the Closet," Falwell pointed out that Winky could be taken as representing gays.
"He is purple -- the gay pride color, and his antenna is shaped like a triangle -- the gay pride symbol," Falwell wrote. "The character, whose voice is that of a boy, has been found carrying a red purse in many episodes and has become a favorite character among gay groups worldwide."
In the resulting media firestorm, gay-rights activists called for Winky to come out while Christian groups demanded the BBC fire him so that he couldn't, in Falwell's words, "role-model the gay lifestyle."
"It was traumatizing, really," says Winky, who now owns a holistic healing center and makes occasional appearances on British TV. "I'm a very private Teletubby. I just wanted to get away, go over the hills and far away. But when you're 7 feet tall and purple with an antenna on your head and a TV screen in your belly, where are you going to go?"
Winky says he tried to contact Falwell after the article came out, but the evangelist wouldn't take his calls. "I wanted to know why he didn't talk to me first," Winky says. "It's not like I'm hard to reach. Have the pinwheel call me. But really I just wanted to clap him on the head with Tinky Winky bag."
The star never has clarified his sexual orientation, insisting on his privacy and denying rumors over the years that he had affairs with two of his costars on the 1997-2001 show, the male Dipsy and the female Po.
"We love each other very much," he says. "Big hug. But it's not like that. It was a kids show, know what I mean? And this Falwell guy and his followers wanted to turn us into something else. We weren't modeling a gay lifestyle and we weren't trying to corrupt anyone's kids. We were just kids ourselves, really. Give us a little Tubby toast or custard and a film of some kids washing clothes or something, that's all we needed. We didn't give a shit about modeling a lifestyle."
Tinky Winky sounds angry. The wounds are still raw.
"I'm just practicing my craft, working for the kids, and all at once the tabloids are everywhere on me," he says. "I couldn't even go out. Was it a gay club? Was I talking to a woman? It was bollocks."
Winky chuckles. "I must say, though," he says, "without getting into too many details, we had a girl in the group who ran around this kids show yelling, 'Cooter! Cooter!' And I'm the gay one? Do me a favor."
Through a spokeswoman, Po declined to comment for this article.
Winky says the Teletubbies stay in touch, and he remains friends with both Dipsy, who owns a nightclub in West London where Winky is often seen, and Po. Winky says he and Laa-Laa never really got along during the show's run, but, "We're fine now. We've come to appreciate each other."
Asked about Falwell's death, Winky turns serious and chooses his words carefully. "I'm not going to pretend I'm sadder than I am," he says. "There were late nights during the dark times when I wished to hear news like this. I'd be lying if I denied that. I don't feel that way anymore. I like to think I've grown over the years, gotten past all that pain.
"But at the end of the day, I'm not terribly sad, and I think a lot of people feel the same way. Jerry Falwell was a divisive person, a hateful person, and what I've tried to be all about, in the Teletubbies days and since then, has been love. I've got to keep it that way. I don't want anybody feeling good about it when it's my time for Tubby bye-bye."
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Monday, May 14, 2007
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Friday, May 11, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
At its essence, Clinton is saying that the Bush Administration tricked her into voting for the war resolution. “I Was Duped” is hardly an inspiring slogan, and in Hillary’s case it’s a thoroughly disingenuous one as well. She wasn’t duped. She was playing the polls, and at the time she concluded that a vote for war was the smart bet.
Take a look at Clinton’s October 10, 2002, floor speech in which she authorized the use of force against Iraq. She didn’t just side with the Bush Administration, she more or less endorsed its entire case for war:
Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program . . .
If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
While acknowledging that there was no evidence to tie Saddam to the September 11 attacks, she said he had “given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,” and went on to say:
This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make–any vote that may lead to war should be hard–but I cast it with conviction. Over eleven years have passed since the U.N. called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret . . . A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein–this is your last chance–disarm or be disarmed.
“I Was Duped” is hardly an inspiring slogan and in Hillary’s case it’s a thoroughly disingenuous one as well.
Dick Cheney could hardly have put it better. Now compare Clinton’s remarks with those made by other prominent Democrats during the runup to war. Even if they believed that Saddam had WMDs, many of Clinton’s Democratic colleagues opposed the war and challenged the administration’s case for an invasion. Take Al Gore during a September 23, 2002 speech in San Francisco:
The resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. Here’s why I say that; we know that he has stored away secret supplies of biological weapons and chemical weapons throughout his country. As yet, we have no evidence, however, that he has shared any of those weapons with terrorist groups. If the administration has evidence that he has, please present it, because that would change the way we all look at this thing.
Senator Edward Kennedy’s speech in Washington on September 27 rejected just about every argument tossed out by President Bush.
Information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. I have heard no persuasive evidence that Saddam is on the threshold of acquiring the nuclear weapons he has sought for more than 20 years. And the administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda or any other terrorist organization. As General Joseph Hoar, the former Commander of Central Command told the members of the Armed Services Committee, a case has not been made to connect Al Qaeda and Iraq . . . To the contrary, there is no clear and convincing pattern of Iraqi relations with either Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
When Hillary cast her “yes” vote “with conviction” a few weeks later, Kennedy and 22 other Democratic senators (and a majority of Democrats in the House) rejected the use-of-force resolution.
The resolution now before the Senate leaves the door open to act alone, even absent an imminent threat. It surrenders to the President authority which the Constitution explicitly reserves for the Congress . . . Many respected and knowledgeable people–former senior military officers and diplomats among them–have expressed strong reservations about this resolution. They agree that if there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein is planning to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or one of our allies, the American people and the Congress would overwhelmingly support the use of American military power to stop him. But they have not seen that evidence, and neither have I. We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof, but the administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumption based on speculation. This is not the way a great nation goes to war.
Then there was Robert Byrd, who unsuccessfully tried to mount a filibuster against the resolution, which he described as “the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again”:
The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States.
Byrd rejected the administration’s arguments about Saddam posing an imminent WMD threat and noted that no one “has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack.” He also said that any overthrow of the Iraqi regime “would require a long term occupation,” and that this “kind of nation-building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother, even one with the full might and power of the world’s last remaining superpower behind her.”
So here are some questions for Hillary:
Other Democrats knew. Why didn’t you?
Why did you trust President Bush more than you trusted top figures in your own party?
Did you, in fact, vote for the war resolution on the basis of polling numbers and political calculations about an expected future run for the presidency?
And finally, if you won’t vote your conscience on questions of war and peace, when will you?
The answer to that last question is “never.” A recent Washington Post story on Mark Penn, Clinton’s pollster, described him as taking “taking increasing control” of her presidential campaign. “Armed with voluminous data that he collects through his private polling firm, Penn has become involved in virtually every move Clinton makes, with the result that the campaign reflects the chief strategist as much as the candidate,” the Post said. “If Clinton seems cautious, it may be because Penn has made caution a science, repeatedly testing issues to determine which ones are safe and widely agreed upon.”
Friday, May 04, 2007