We'll never claim to be fair and balanced, just honest and trustworthy
November 11, 2007
BLOG WORLD REPORT TO LAUNCH MAJOR BLOG EXPOsé

Bloggers to go on the Record
From the Editor of the Blog World Report

Did that headline get your attention?  A little misleading, but it grabs you!  In reality, at the end of the year, I will be posting a special edition of the Blog World Report that will get into where many of your favorite bloggers are coming from.  I'm asking all bloggers who read this (in addition to those who should be expecting an email or a comment from me about this) to submit some information.

I want to know their top ten favorite albums (CDs) from the past 50 years and their top ten favorite films.  In addition, I want to know why those choices were made.  If you can only think of five or three or one, that's fine too.  A little preview, my favorite album is "Revolver" from the Beatles (natch).

This special edition will be posted on Dec. 31, 2007 or January 1, 2008, but I need time to prepare, so the sooner you make your submissions, the better.

Drop me an email with your picks and put "Top Ten" in the subject line.

I firmly believe that your favorite music and films say a lot about you.  I want to thank everyone in advance for their cooperation in this project.

A VERY HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ONE OF MY FAVORITE BLOGGERS, FRAN from
FRAN I AM

A Blowvember to Remember
From Blogenfreude for Agitprop

Bob Allen GUILTY of attempted toilet sex.  Only ten days into Blowvember and we've already got a winner!  Unless ...

 

Best TV Commercial. Ever.
From Alan J. Porter's Journal

Know a blog that deserves to be featured on the Blog World Report?  Contact Robert.

Sorry, but you need flash to view this video

'I feared I'd end up dead in the woods like Dr Kelly,' says biological warfare expert who criticised Britain and U.S.
From Human for Carbon Paper

" An EU expert on biological warfare has told how she fears ending up 'dead in the woods' like scientist Dr David Kelly after an alleged campaign of intimidation by members of MI6 and the CIA."

Not like the CIA would ever do such a thing. Would they?

Sen. Jim Inhofe Needs Help - And No I Am Not Joking
From Cliff Schecter

This man is obviously taking the paranoid side of the conservative mind to the extreme. Just watch this. He says Anderson Cooper has been "threatening" him. Cooper is completely baffled by this of course, because, um, it never happened.

Then he also says that more members of the Congress would "tell the truth" about climate change, but they would be subjected to this. Subjected to what? FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Tucker Carlson and other corporate-controlled conservatives giving you more air time?

Right. Just like it's pro-choicers who plant bombs and gay rights activists who blow up the Atlanta Olympics...oh, that's right....

Well, when state Sen. Andrew Rice sends your loony ass packing in 2008, you can get all the help you need Senator.

Banoffee Pie
From Sumo for Sumo Merriment

This pie, an easy blend of toffee with bananas, made its debut at The Hungry Monk, a pub in England, in 1972.

Ingredients:

2 cups canned sweetened condensed milk (21 oz)
1 (9-inch) round of refrigerated pie dough (from 15-oz package) or your favorite pie crust recipe
3 large bananas
1 1/2 cups chilled heavy cream
1 tablespoon packed light brown sugar

Special equipment: a 9-inch pie plate (preferably deep dish)

Directions:Put oven rack in middle position and preheat oven to 425°F.

Pour condensed milk into pie plate and stir in a generous pinch of salt. Cover pie plate with foil and crimp foil tightly around rim. Put in a roasting pan, then add enough boiling-hot water to reach halfway up side of pie plate, making sure that foil is above water. Bake, refilling pan to halfway with water about every 40 minutes, until milk is thick and a deep golden caramel color, about 2 hours. Remove pie plate from water bath and transfer toffee to a bowl, then chill toffee, uncovered, until it is cold, about 1 hour.

While toffee is chilling, clean pie plate and bake pie crust in it according to package instructions. Cool pie crust completely in pan on a rack, about 20 minutes.

Spread toffee evenly in crust, and chill, uncovered, 15 minutes.

Cut bananas into 1/4-inch-thick slices and pile over toffee.

Beat cream with brown sugar in a clean bowl with an electric mixer until it just holds soft peaks, then mound over top of pie.

Note:
• Toffee can be chilled up to 2 days (cover after 1 hour).
• Toffee-filled crust can be chilled up to 3 hours.

Bill Hicks on 12 Years of Reagan and Bush
From Station Agent for Ice Station Tango

I'm watching Bill Hicks Live: Satirist, Social Critic, Stand-up Comedian. Hicks had a line he would tell Christians offended by his act--"Forgive me."

In this clip he talks about coming out of the wilderness of 12 years of Reagan and G.H.W. Bush.

Changing the Weather
From Ron Chusid for Liberal Values

Here’s an idea for responding to climate change which I suspect is a long way away from yielding practical responses but which I suspect we should keep our eyes on. Science has a story on geoengineering:

Top climate scientists have cautiously endorsed the need to study schemes to reverse global warming that involve directly tinkering with Earth’s climate. Their position on geoengineering, which will likely be controversial, was staked out at an invitation-only meeting that ended here today. It’s based on a growing concern about the rapid pace of global change and continued anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.

“In this room, we’ve reached a remarkable consensus that there should be research on this,” said climate modeler Chris Bretherton of the University of Washington, Seattle, during a morning session today. Phil Rasch, a modeler with the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, underscored the point. “We’re not saying that there should be geoengineering, we’re saying there should be research regarding geoengineering.” No formal statement was released at the meeting, which was organized by Harvard University and the University of Calgary, but few of the 50 scientists objected to the idea.

The field of geoengineering has long been big on ideas but short on respect. Some of the approaches that researchers have dreamed up include launching fleets of space-based shades to dim the sunlight hitting Earth or altering the albedo of the ocean with light-colored reflectors. Perhaps the best-known idea is to pump aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect of volcanoes. But there’s been scant support from mainstream scientists, many of whom fear that even mentioning the g-word could derail discussion of carbon-emissions cuts. Others worry that technological tinkering might backfire. “I just accepted on faith as an environmental scientist that this had to be a bad idea,” said Harvard’s Scot Martin, who said he was reluctantly coming around.

Finding solutions to complex problems often does involve looking in a variety of directions, including those which initially do not appear the most promising. Bradford Plumer reviews some of the potential obstacles to this approach:

The best overviews I’ve seen on this issue are this Boston Globe article and this Wilson Quarterly piece. But just to pile on: It’s worth noting that no one has yet come up with an even halfway plausible geo-engineering plan. The most promising idea to date—injecting sulfuric dust into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight—suffered a blow after two University of Colorado scientists pointed out that it could wreak havoc on global rainfall patterns. More research would be fantastic, but it’d be insane for the world to sit around and wait for geo-engineering to save us, only to discover that, 20 years hence, none of these wacky plans have made it past the bong-cloud stage, and we’re still on our present, carbon-belching energy path.

There’s also the question of who would control the weather. Cloud-seeding in the United States has led to all sorts of lawsuits from farmers complaining about stolen rain. Chinese cities experimenting with this stuff have been warring over “cloud theft.” The U.S. Air Force has drafted a report, “Weather as a Force Multiplier,” discussing ways to use weather-modification as a weapon. If someone does come up with a way to cool the earth—say, giant space mirrors—there would be all sorts of tricky debates about who decides how it’s used. It’s hard to imagine that the international talks over that would be any less difficult than reaching an agreement on reducing carbon emissions.

Trivia
From The Fat Lady Sings

Coffee1 A Cup ‘a’ Joe

The expression “a cup of Joe” meaning ‘a cup of coffee’ is no longer in common use. For people of my generation, however, it was a colloquialism that had been around, seemingly, forever. Our offering today is a bit of trivia -- the origin of the expression “a cup of Joe”.

From the beginning, the U.S. Navy issued each sailor a daily ration of distilled spirits. At that time, it was common practice and formed an official part of life afloat. In 1806 the Navy tried to replace rum (which was imported) with whiskey but rum was generally preferred. Subsequently, beer was offered as an alternative; and later, a cash payment in lieu of the daily spirit ration for those who did not imbibe.

The beginning of the nineteenth century saw the stirrings of temperance activities due to a great increase in the consumption of alcoholic beverages. It was no surprise therefore, when in 1862, Congress ruled that “the spirit ration in the Navy of the United States shall forever cease.” While the law abolished alcohol for the enlisted men, it did not however, apply to officers. Then on July 1st, 1914 (six years before Prohibition) the then Secretary of the Navy, Josephus Daniels, issued General Order 99, which strictly prohibited “the use or introduction for drinking purposes of alcoholic liquors on board any naval vessel, or within any navy yard or station”. This led to a cup of coffee being referred to as “a cup of Joe”, immortalizing the author of the ban, Josephus Daniels.

Sunday Funnies
From BAC Yikes!

Spreading Hypocrisy
From RickB for Ten Percent

Yes you read that right, we profess invading and killing to spread democracy, but it’s just Hypocracy baby. Case in point Iraq- I remember Blair extremely smugly saying several times that as ‘we’ were there by invitation of the ‘democratically’ elected govt (puppet administration as installed per any invasion and I think he whimsically fancied that this ‘invitation’ somehow traveled back in time and invited us to invade in the first place) thus he shrugged his wee little shoulders, any disagreement with our forces being their should be taken up with the Iraqis -apparently begging us to be there- nothing to do with me guv. Thus Blair glided on with the aspect of someone who had just slam dunked (oh the intelligence!) the questioner and their evil anti war impertinence AND the responsibility was not his, no blood on his hands, this is a humanitarian mission mate, you want us out, why you’re as bad as Saddam! You hate democracy, the UN says it’s legal, you democracy hater, h8tr, h8tr, ner ner nerner ner!

Except…when the parliament want a say in the occupation and ending it, puppet Maliki, the US, the UK using the UN security council cut the parliament out so no embarrassing actual democracy interrupts the occupation. Spreading hypocracy-

The United Nations Security Council, with support from the British and American delegations, is poised to cut the Iraqi parliament out of one of the most significant decisions the young government will make: when foreign troops will depart. It’s an ugly and unconstitutional move, designed solely to avoid asking an Iraqi legislature for a blank check for an endless military occupation that it’s in no mood to give, and it will make a mockery of Iraq’s nascent democracy.

In 2006, Maliki’s office requested the renewal of the U.N. mandate without consulting the legislature, a process that many lawmakers maintained was a violation of Iraqi law.

In June, we reported that the parliament had passed a binding resolution that would force Maliki to go to the parliament and give Iraqi lawmakers an opportunity to block the extension of the mandate. It was signed by the majority of the 275-seat legislature, then sent to the president. According to the Iraqi constitution, the president had 15 days to veto it by sending it back to the parliament; otherwise it automatically became a ratified law. The 15 days passed without a veto and the resolution became the law of the land in mid-June 2007.

Something happened, however, between the passage of that law and the latest report by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. According to Moon’s latest report to the Security Council (PDF), dated Oct. 15, the law that had been passed by the duly elected legislature of Iraq became nothing more than a “nonbinding resolution”

One might have believed that the disconnect was a simple mistake, if not for the fact that members of the Iraqi parliament, still fuming over being cut out of the process the year before, sent a letter to the U.N.’s special envoy for Iraq back in April clarifying the situation in very clear terms.

According to sources within the Iraqi delegation to the United Nations, the letter, signed by 144 MPs –more than half of Iraq’s legislators — was received in good order by the special envoy, Ashraf Qazi, but never distributed to the Security Council members, as is required under the U.N. resolution that governs the mandate. The parliament, and indeed the majority of the Iraqi population, had been cleanly excised from the legislative process.

This U.N. mandate issue is not occurring in a vacuum. When it comes to the nascent Iraqi government, supporters of the occupation have long had their cake and eaten it too. On the one hand, they deny that the U.S.-led military force is an occupying army at all, maintaining that all those foreign troops are there at the “request” of the Iraqi government. That’s an important legal nicety — occupying forces have a host of responsibilities under international law and acknowledging the reality of the occupation would result in more legal responsibilities for the administration to ignore. At the same time, when the only people who all those purple-fingered Iraqi voters actually elected to office try to attach some conditions to the U.N. mandate, demand a timetable for withdrawal or come out against privatizing Iraq’s natural resources, then somehow the legislature magically disappears and the hopes and aspirations of its constituents are discarded as if they never existed.    

A New Message From the Ministry of Truth
From Polishifter for Pissed on Politics

Privacy no longer means privacy. That is, privacy is now no longer equated with anonymity. If you want someone to blame I suppose you can blame the kids who routinely put all their personal information on Facebook and Myspace for all to see leaving the authorities to say "well, they have no guarantee of anonymity, why should you?"

But the reality is that it’s all of our faults. We have raised several generations now that do not grasp what The Constitution is or the Bill of Rights. They do not know the history America was founded upon. They’ve been told for the past 7 years that if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. They’ve been told that torture is just enhanced interrogation techniques. They’ve been told we have to fight them over there so they won’t come here. They’ve been told prisoners of war are ‘enemy combatants’.

I never thought I would see the day when Americans would gladly give up their freedom but apparently I was wrong.

1984 is here. It was just 23 years late. The all powerful all knowing government will protect us and our information...as long as you agreee to voluntarily give it up to them...

Definition changing for people's privacy

By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - As Congress debates new rules for government eavesdropping, a top intelligence official says it is time that people in the United States changed their definition of privacy.

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people's private communications and financial information.
Kerr's comments come as Congress is taking a second look at the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
#
Millions of people in this country — particularly young people — already have surrendered anonymity to social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook, and to Internet commerce. These sites reveal to the public, government and corporations what was once closely guarded information, like personal statistics and credit card numbers.

"Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one size fits all," said Kerr, 68. "Protecting anonymity isn't a fight that can be won. Anyone that's typed in their name on Google understands that."

"Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public safety," Kerr said. "I think all of us have to really take stock of what we already are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity, but (also) what safeguards we want in place to be sure that giving that doesn't empty our bank account or do something equally bad elsewhere."

Kurt Opsahl, a senior staff lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group that defends online free speech, privacy and intellectual property rights, said Kerr's argument ignores both privacy laws and American history.

"Anonymity has been important since the Federalist Papers were written under pseudonyms," Opsahl said. "The government has tremendous power: the police power, the ability to arrest, to detain, to take away rights. Tying together that someone has spoken out on an issue with their identity is a far more dangerous thing if it is the government that is trying to tie it together."

Opsahl also said Kerr ignores the distinction between sacrificing protection from an intrusive government and voluntarily disclosing information in exchange for a service.

"There is something fundamentally different from the government having information about you than private parties," he said. "We shouldn't have to give people the choice between taking advantage of modern communication tools and sacrificing their privacy."

"It's just another 'trust us, we're the government,'" he said.

[emph. added]

Full Article Here

Feinstein-Lieberman: Bad News for Democrats
From Steve Ralls for The Bilerico Project

Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman and his west coast counterpart, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, are becoming bad news for progressive-leaning Democrats. With a slim majority in the Senate, Democrats had already been governing "by the skin of Joe Lieberman's teeth," as Senate candidate Al Franken recently said in a fundraising letter. But now, Feinstein seems to be ideologically aligning with Lieberman to force through Republican initiatives that the American people clearly rejected when changing the party power in Congress.

First, Senator Feinstein cast the deciding committee vote in moving forward the nomination of anti-gay judge Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then, she helped to ensure confirmation of Attorney General nominee Michael "Don't Know Nothin' 'Bout no Waterboardin'" Mukasey to head the federal government's top law enforcement agency. And now Feinstein has signaled she will again jump ship and join Republicans in granting immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the Bush administration spy on American citizens.

All of this begs the question of "what next?" when it comes to Feinstein and Lieberman's run to the right. It also underscores the need for a larger Democratic majority in Congress to help balance out rogue party members who align with Republicans on the wrong side of important issues. And it might also be enough to make you wonder, as Wonkette did on Friday, whether "next time Dianne Feinstein runs for something, maybe vote for someone else."

Now, I understand the importance of keep Feinstein's seat in Democratic hands. We know, for purposes of control of Congress, that party identiifcation is important, even if it is an identity not always in alignment with the party itself, or the party's constituents. It is, after all, because of conservative Democrats that the party now holds the majority in the House . . . most of the Dems' gains were in Republican leaning districts, where they won by running right of center candidates.

But how much are we willing to sacrifice principles and good votes in order to see a Democrat - any Democrat - hold onto a seat? It's a question that has the potential to create a significant fracture between the party and it's progressive-leaning base of traditional supporters.

The first such fracture happened in Lieberman's race for re-election. A majority of Connecticut Democrats, fed up with the Senator's hawkish views on issues like the war in Iraq, refused him the party's nomination, and Lieberman was forced to run as an Independent. That, in turn, fractured both the Republican and Democratic bases, and gave him enough votes to defeat the Democratic nominee. In turn, Lieberman agreed to caucus with the Democrats, ensuring their very fragile majoirty. And that, in turn, gave him great influence in the Democratic party .... whose voters had already rejected his agenda.

Now, the Democrats depend on Lieberman to hold onto their 1-vote majority in the Senate. Lieberman, however, has ran so far to the right that he's now being rumored as a Vice Presidential candidate for the GOP in 2008. (It seems likely that a Democratic challenger to Feinstein would have an easier in time in the more progressive state of California, where she'd likely flop if she attempted to run as an Independent herself.)

As a result, Feinstein-Liberman is increasingly meaning bad news for Democrats and Democratic voters.

All of this, however, also argues for an increased focus on electing a few more Democrats in the next election. By turning over solidly Republican seats to candidates like Franken, Jeanne Shaheen and Mark Warner, we can get a more comfortable cushion. Their election could mean dwindling influence for Senators like Feinstein and Lieberman and a more secure voting bloc for Democrats in the Senate.

Both Lieberman and Feinstein are considered safe votes on LGBT issues in Congress, but the confirmation of federal judges and attorney general nominees impacts our community, too. (And don't forget that some of the surveillance Feinstein now wants immunity for also targeted us as well.)

If we want to make real progress on issues like these, we need to work to mitigate the influence of the Feinstein-Liberman wing of the Senate and give more seats in 2008 to Democratic candidates who will dare to stand up and vote the right way.

Veteran's Day
From Betmo for Life's Journey


Veteran's Day

Anti-war Vets allowed to march in some Parades ...
From Dusty for It's My Right to Be Left of the Center

Article reprinted from CommonDreams.org. Illustration from DarkWraith

Anti-War Veterans In Veterans Day Parade Jeered, Cheered
by Valerie Richardson

DENVER - Antiwar veterans passed out leaflets and carried signs opposing the war in Iraq yesterday after winning a last-minute right to march in this city's annual Veterans Day parade.About 50 marchers displayed peace signs and banners with messages like "Iraq is Just Vietnam in the Desert," "Bring Our Troops Home Where They Belong," and "Bush Lies."

They were greeted with bursts of applause by some parade-watchers and shouts of criticism by others.

"Go find another parade!" yelled one man.

"Leave your politics at home! This is about veterans, not politics," shouted Alex Cuellar, who attended the event with his wife and two young children.
He called the eleventh-hour decision to include the antiwar veterans groups in the parade "disgraceful."

"This is supposed to be for the veterans. It's not about whether the war was right. The soldiers don't choose the war," said Mr. Cuellar.

The United Veterans Council of Denver had excluded the antiwar groups, citing complaints about disruptions during last year's parade, until the city brokered a deal Friday afternoon allowing Veterans for Peace and Iraq Veterans Against the War to participate.

"We're happy to be included," said Frank Bessinger, founder of the Denver chapter of Veterans for Peace. "We've asked everyone to keep it respectful. Our intent has never been to disrupt or offend."

As the marchers passed the reviewing stand, a few parade-watchers asked why they hadn't displayed an American flag. The marchers carried organizational flags but not the Stars and Stripes.

"They weren't carrying an American flag and a couple of the veterans standing nearby asked why they weren't, but they didn't say anything," said Jerry Hageman, president of the United Veterans Council of Denver.

Otherwise, Mr. Hageman said, the event was a success. "It went off real well. They [antiwar veterans] did what they said they were going to do," he said.

In last year's parade, one antiwar marcher shouted at Sen. Ken Salazar, Colorado Democrat, as they passed the reviewing stand. The marchers also chanted antiwar slogans, resulting in complaints from some parade-watchers.

Mr. Hageman said the antiwar groups were excluded because the city's rules expressly forbid "politicking and soliciting" by marchers. But city officials agreed to allow the organizations to march after they promised not to "embarrass the city," said Mr. Bessinger.

Marchers didn't chant this year, but they did hand out copies of an article criticizing the war in Iraq, cards printed with the Bill of Rights, and postcards that said "Funding the War is Killing Our Troops."

The parade featured about 3,000 marchers, with the antiwar veterans bringing up the rear. "We're kind of like Santa Claus, coming at the end," said Mr. Bessinger.

Denver wasn't the only municipality wrestling with how to handle antiwar groups. In Boston, Veterans Day organizers struck a deal with Veterans for Peace that allows them to march at the end of the parade. In Long Beach, antiwar veterans were banned from marching in the city's parade after organizers said they wanted to keep politics out of the event. Long Beach City Attorney Bob Shannon backed parade organizers despite complaints from the groups.

Allow me to take this time to congratulate Montana Netroots on one year of existence.

I would like to ask all of my readers to drop by their site and give them some nice words of encouragement.

"No one earns! As much as Burns!"
From By Ken Levine

INT. MR. BURNS' OFFICE – DAY

SMITHERS ENTERS TO FIND MR. BURNS AT HIS DESK.

SMITHERS: You rang for me, sir?

BURNS: Smithers! What is that infernal racket outside?

SMITHERS: There’s a big rally. The writers are striking.

BURNS: Writers?! I have writers?

SMITHERS: Yes, sir. Remember you bought that network and studio so you’d get invited to David Geffen’s Passover Seder?

BURNS: I thought there’d be girls!

SMITHERS: I’m working on that Playboy Mansion invite but so far they’ll only let you go during the day.

BURNS: Drat! And now I’m stuck entertaining the worthless masses?

SMITHERS: If it’s any consolation, sir, no one is watching since you made Ann Coulter your nightly news anchor.

BURNS: Excellent. (THEN) Well, all this noise is distracting. I’m trying to do this morning’s “Tangle Towns”.

SMITHERS: They won’t be quiet, sir. I’ve asked.

BURNS: Then have them killed! I’m doing “Tangle Towns” for godsakes!

SMITHERS: Uh, we really can’t do that.

BURNS: I own nuclear power plants. Can’t we just respond with a small loaded missile?

SMITHERS: Unfortunately, sir, it would wipe out the entire population of the city.

BURNS: Still! It would send a message.

SMITHERS: We could perhaps negotiate with them?

BURNS: What?! When I could let them suffer, lose their saving and homes instead? What good is busting the anti-trust laws if I can’t squash the defenseless?

SMITHERS: Well, the strike will put a dent in the network and studio profits.

BURNS: Is Korea still buying my Plutonium?

SMITHERS: Yes.

BURNS: Then who cares if America doesn’t get its precious “TV shows”? It’s time someone invented some alternate form of entertainment whose patent we can steal anyway.

SMITHERS: We’re looking into the internet.

BURNS: The internet? Yes. I’ve heard good things. Can’t I just buy that?

SMITHERS: The internet is a worldwide system of computer networks that allows users to send and receive information from other computers. It’s interconnected around the globe.

BURNS: So you’re saying I have to wait three years.

SMITHERS: More like four but yes. It’s this internet that is the sticking point in this writers strike.

BURNS: They can’t have it! It’s mine!

SMITHERS: No, they don’t want it all, sir. Just a tiny piece. They believe that when they write something that we make huge profits from they deserve a small compensation.

BURNS: What?! Ridiculous!! This is the twisted handiwork of Homer Simpson, isn’t it? It’s just the sort of harebrained idea he would hatch. Imagine, writers thinking they have rights to their creation! Don’t we have individual nuclear missiles?

SMITHERS: No, sir.

BURNS: Well, what can we do to shut them up?!

SMITHERS: Nothing. They’re a feisty bunch. We’ve tried scare tactics, we’ve threatened to sue, gotten them to the negotiating table under false pretenses, used the media – which we own – to offer a distorted view to the public. And still they come, in seemingly larger numbers.

BURNS: Fine. Then hand me my airhorn.

SMITHERS DOES. BURNS GOES TO THE WINDOW. A LONG BEAT, THEN:

BURNS: Well open it you idiot.

SMITHERS: Sorry, sir.

SMITHERS OPENS THE WINDOW. BURNS TURNS ON THE AIRHORN, AND BEGINS ADDRESSING THE CROWD.

BURNS: Attention, writers. I will never give in. I don’t need you! Any of you! Do you understand! I don’t need writers! And I never will! Ever! Ever ever ever! (BEAT) Listen, while I have your attention – can anyone tell me a town in Wisconsin that has an ‘n’ an ‘m’ and five ‘o’s?

Food for thought ...
From Karen for Namaste'

The facts ma'am, just the facts!
From Der Parson for Der Parson's Rant

I don't know if anyone seen this story run in the NY times about Hillary's waitress tipping ordeal.

I could care less about the tipping, I've forgotten to tip once or twice in my life. (I never forgot to tip a stripper, but that's another story).
Here is part of what the waitress had to say, (from the NY times story).
Ms. Esterday said she did not understand what all the commotion was about.
“You people are really nuts,” she told a reporter during a phone interview. “There’s kids dying in the war, the price of oil right now — there’s better things in this world to be thinking about than who served Hillary Clinton at Maid-Rite and who got a tip and who didn’t get a tip.”
I thought this was interesting though,

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign on Thursday introduced a Web site dedicated exclusively to the instantaneous rebuttal of charges or news reports it deems offensive or wrong.

The web site is "The Fact Hub". Don't go there looking for a unbiased view of Hillary. If the top banner doesn't give it away "The Fact Hub : The Straight Scoop On Election '08 From The Hillary Clinton Campaign", at the bottom of the page it says "Paid for by Hillary Clinton for President". A few entries I read through didn't really seem to shed any light on things. It looked like more spin to me.
Here is there rebuttal for the tipping story, the NY times story seems to have a little different version.

I think I have to give someone credit though, this is a great idea. If your running a campaign in these days for blogs and Youtube video, you need to have a place to answer your critics or get the spin out after your caught tapping your foot in a airport restroom. I think some local Fort Wayne politician's could have used such a site. Especially with some of the blowhards (on the left and right) around our local scene, sometimes the guy defending you does more damage then the attack would have. At least this way you or "your people" have control of the spin. On the The Fact Hub they have a rebuttal to something Obama said about Hillary not having a plan for Social Security. The rebuttal the quotes and such they have try to spin it as her having a answer, but the way I read it, Obama was right, she does the ol' tap dance around the issue, but never gives a direct answer. I guess at least they are seeing the threat and trying to get a spin out there, hopefully people can make up their own mind. I would say if you going to "The Fact Hub : the straight scoop on election '08 from The Hillary Clinton campaign", your already sailing on the HMS Hillary in the kool-aid seas. On "The Fact Hub" they have a link to another site called "HillaryHub.com", it's just a list of links to news stories blogs about Hillary, another pretty good idea. Both sites have RSS feeds, so if your running a "I love Hillary" blog you can get the kool-aid hooked right up to your veins.

If you really want to do some fact checking, I found these websites, FactCheck.org (added their RSS feed to the right side under the WP Issue tracker). They are nonpartisan and nonprofit, and seem to be credible source to check up what the candidates are saying, they also run FactCheckED.org it is aimed at high school students, sort of a answer to Wikipedia and the possibilities incorrect or just plain false information.
This site, PolitiFact seems ok, but looks likes it's part of a newspaper's website so may not be completly "fair and balanced". Same as the Washington Post Issue Tracker on the right side, it might lean a little.

Suitcase Nukes: Another Fantasy, like Saddam’s WMD
From Christopher for From the Left

One of the neoconservatives favorite fear tactics is alerting Americans to the dangers of suitcase nukes. Even FEMA includes (dis)information about them on the Bush White House web page.

But government experts and intelligence officials say such a threat gets vastly more attention than it deserves. These officials said a true suitcase nuke would be highly complex to produce, require significant upkeep and cost a small fortune.

Counterproliferation authorities do not completely rule out the possibility that these portable devices once existed. But they do not think the threat remains.

“The suitcase nuke is an exciting topic that really lends itself to movies,” said Vahid Majidi, the assistant director of the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate. “No one has been able to truly identify the existence of these devices.”

OOPS! Navy Demonstrates Crawford Competence!
From TomCat for Politics Plus

11oops-submarine When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed.

At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.

That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

11oops-kitty hawk The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon.

The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines.

And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.

According to the Nato source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and Nato naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines.

It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.

Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard".

The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels... [emphasis added]

Inserted from <The Daily Mail>

Bush has become so successful at weeding out the competent top level officers from our military, perhaps we should not be surprised when the ones he has favored with top command demonstrate his level of competence.  Thanks to Bush and the GOP, now $1 trillion in debt to the Chinese is not the only thing they can hold over our heads.


BLOG RECOMMENDATION

If you are a Beatles fan, make sure you drop by these two blogs.  First up The Walrus Speaks - it's not just Beatles, but it does contain their spirit.  Also, check out Alan J. Porter's Blog, Blog Me Do.

SF Oil Spill
From Demeur

Oil spills and Lawyers

This article just irritates the hell out of me. A little background. On Wed. Nov 7 around 8:30 a cargo ship ran into the Bay bridge in San Fransisco. 58000 gallons of bunker fuel were spilled. I've worked with bunker oil in the past and I must say it's not one of my favorite hazardous materials to deal with. Bunker oil is a thick heavy oil that's used as fuel for the ships engines. They use it because it's cheap and it's the bottom of the barrel when oil is processed. Unlike the nice clean oil you put in your car bunker oil smells bad and when you get on your hands and clothing it doesn't come off easily. Even still it's not to be feared and requires little training to be delt with properly. My first oil spill involved about fifteen minutes of training while we loaded the equipment (oil pads, booms and sweeps) necessary for the clean up. The really important issue was getting there asap. Bunker oil will float on water for a while but after a time it sinks to the bottom. It's said that for any given spill the most that can be recovered is about 10 to 15%. The rest sinks or spreads out contaminating the beaches and of course the wildlife.
It would have been easy to have a clean up plan where volunteers could have worked in teams under the direction of an environmental company and haz mat workers. But now 5 days later the damage is far greater than it should have been. It will take decades for the bay to repair itself from the damage done. One method is to use an oil eating bacteria, but as it is referred to in the business as 'spray and pray', well you get the idea.

Hillary Bushwhacked Herself
From Kathy in Blacksburg for DemocracyUpsideDown

It's true that the Republicans have set a very low standard for manipulation, fake news, and gamesmanship. But that doesn't mean our side should stoop that low. But never underestimate the ability of our side to match the Bush standard for fake news. It seems Hillary planted questions in her audience. And she now admits as much.

One would hope that she'd be confident that she really does have a "plan" (much talked about, but little explicated by her). It would be nice if she'd spend more time informing citizens about her plans for us and less time staging herself. Or is everything boiling down to those staged homes in a real estate open house?

At least she did admit to what she did this time. Too bad she can't admit her bad judgment on more than one occasion, especially in supporting the Iraq war and allowing Rupert Murdoch to fund raise for her. One can hope. More importantly, we need evidence that Hillary isn't so retro that she's trapped in 1990s thinking, muscular uber-hawkishness, needless war, worthless incrementalism on health care, and off-shoring or US jobs. One can hope, indeed.

I drink alone, with nobody else.
From Randal Graves for L'ennui mélodieux

Wanna join me?

Why mess with a good thing? Figuring I might as well maintain the theme of drunkenness and sobriety - although after reading this, you might want to reach for the nearest bottle of something to help you induce even more vomiting - I present you with a veritable smorgasbord of bad news. The Cleveland Plain Dealer recently commissioned a poll in my not-so-great state on the 2008 election, the economy, Iraq, the standard fare. So step on up to the buffet and sample some of the choicest cuts.

"Mmm....polling...."

The results merely offer further proof that I’m not insane - shut up - when I say I don’t like the Democrats chances next fall. And this is a state that swept the likes of the Evil Ken Doll - "Sure Whitey, I'll gladly help sell out my own race for some of those juicy cracker bucks!" - and other assorted vermin out last year while still approving of our Democratic governor. For example:

Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?
40% approve, 54% disapprove.

Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq?
36% approve, 62% disapprove.

A little bit less vitriol than the national average, but that’s to be expected in this state where a majority outside the major metropolitan areas tends to embrace wingnuttery. However, the following questions and answers show what a hard-to-kill behemoth cognitive dissonance truly is:

Which of the following positions comes closer to your view on Iraq?
We need to leave Iraq as quickly as possible and let the chips fall where they may, 32%
We need to maintain a military presence in Iraq until there is a stable political situation, 60%

Granted, like most questions in nearly every poll, these are poorly worded, and offer the usual black vs. white, Manichean worldview held by simpletons and Republicans - wait, I repeat myself - but there it is. And to show what a tolerant, forward-thinking people we are in the Buckeye state, there‘s this. All standard disclaimers apply:

Which one of the following comes closer to your view on the issue of immigration?
The U.S. should welcome immigrants no matter how they got there and offer them a way to become citizens, 14%
The U.S. needs to strictly control who enters the country and deport people who come here illegally, 81%

Try these choice issues where Democrats have traditionally been stronger. They're very tasty. ‘Not sure’ answers were omitted:

Which of the two major parties do you trust more to handle the following issues?
Social Security, Medicare - Democrats 41%, Republicans 36%
Health care - Democrats 45%, Republicans 38%
Improving the economy - Democrats 43%, Republicans 39%
Education - Democrats 45%, Republicans 39%

Notice anything odd?

And now for some areas where Republicans have, as the Beltway-approved CW goes, been the stronger party since before Saint Ronnie defeated communism all by himself. Unarmed. With one hand tied behind his back. Blindfolded. Let’s see how successful the Democrats have been at breaking that narrative of flaming dog shit:

Immigration - Democrats 35%, Republicans 40%
Federal Spending - Democrats 42%, Republicans 38%
Taxes - Democrats 40%, Republicans 42%
War in Iraq - Democrats 41%, Republicans 43%
Preventing terrorism - Democrats 30%, Republicans 50%

Oops.

And now, in lieu of completely drowning you in abject misery, I offer this glimmer of hope:

Would you consider voting for....?
Dennis Kucinich 32%
Hillary Clinton 45%
Mitt Romney 51%
John Edwards 52%
Fred Thompson 54%
John McCain 56%
Barack Obama 56%
Rudy! Giuliani 57%

Sorry America - and the world - my state still matters and it remains fucking stupid.

Click here to comment on this Blog World Report