If you're wondering what the hell I was talking about with Sumner Redstone coming after me, check out this article for a clue...
LA Times: "Assassin Game Is A Hit, Man"
In the meantime, I think I was a little paranoid at the time. A newsvan was parked outside my apartment and, really, who wouldn't think they were anything but assassins?
(if you're asked to log in to read the article, try:
login: latimesspam@morons.org
password: bugmenot
or click here for other options)
Friday, March 17, 2006
Comforting News If You're Considering Cutting Off Your Own Penis To Use As A Weapon
Dr. Greg Bales, associate professor of urology at the University of Chicago, said severed penises are uncommon but surgery usually works. "As long as the penis is placed on ice and reattached within a few hours, the success is usually pretty good," Bales said.
Phew!
Although if it was MY penis it would have been an effective weapon and taken out an entire SWAT team, unlike this guy who was easily subdued with a tazer gun:
Chicago Sun Times: Man severs own penis, throws it at officers
PS: Check out the URL for this entry:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-ouch17.html
Phew!
Although if it was MY penis it would have been an effective weapon and taken out an entire SWAT team, unlike this guy who was easily subdued with a tazer gun:
Chicago Sun Times: Man severs own penis, throws it at officers
PS: Check out the URL for this entry:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-ouch17.html
Monday, March 13, 2006
Too Little, Too Late
My biggest problem with the US invading Iraq, isn't that we shouldn't have never ousted Sadaam, but that deceiving the public about the threat of WMDs was the wrong way to go. I know my right wing readers will say we weren't lied to, and more on this in a bit, but first I was to stress that I think Sadaam did need to be kicked out, and personally I would back removing almost any dictator or government that engages in genocide. Had we been honest about our reasons for removing Sadaam, it may have been a tougher sell to US citizens and some international allies, but I think our integrity would still remain, and our mission in Iraq would be going much smoother as a result. Most of the time, the Bush Admin has to defend itself against accused lies, instead of merely being an aggressor.
My personal story about supporting the war on Iraq. Like many, I was on the fence whether we should invade or not. There were countless reasons to remove Sadaam, even though many of the accused atrocities had happened long before 2003. But the moment it became about WMDs, and the UN was sending in inspectors who kept coming back saying they were not finding any evidence, I was skeptical... why make it rest on WMDs if an international investigation couldn't determine if they didn't exist? I was encouraged by the like of Colin Powell, who I respected and trusted. When he presented evidence that WMDs were being hidden around Iraq, I was open to the idea. But after studying the issue rigorously, online, on TV, and in print, only one thing eventually made me change my mind.
My Uncle Skip.
A few months prior to invasion I was visiting Toledo and having dinner with him and my brother and sisters. The topic came up about the sketchy intelligence that substantiated the existance of WMDs, and I asked Skip what he thought. His reply was along the lines of, "The President and his staff wouldn't go to war unless they were absolutely sure there were WMDs, and they probably have a lot more intelligence supporting this than what they're revealing to the public."
And with that, I was pro-war.
Now, I kick myself. There was no additional good info. The intel was all bad. Maybe this is why they say you shouldn't argue religion and politics with family...
(and the part that burns me is that the same right wingers who blame the bad intelligence on Clinton's handling of our spy agencies are the same right wingers who cling to hope that the intel wasn't bad, but just that the WMDs were moved...)
So, back to my main point, which is best spelled out by a New York Times article... (remember, the same pansy New York Times that was pro-war and was spreading the same bad WMD intelligence that the right wingers still believe)
A Bush Alarm: Urging U.S. to Shun Isolationism
excerpts:
My personal story about supporting the war on Iraq. Like many, I was on the fence whether we should invade or not. There were countless reasons to remove Sadaam, even though many of the accused atrocities had happened long before 2003. But the moment it became about WMDs, and the UN was sending in inspectors who kept coming back saying they were not finding any evidence, I was skeptical... why make it rest on WMDs if an international investigation couldn't determine if they didn't exist? I was encouraged by the like of Colin Powell, who I respected and trusted. When he presented evidence that WMDs were being hidden around Iraq, I was open to the idea. But after studying the issue rigorously, online, on TV, and in print, only one thing eventually made me change my mind.
My Uncle Skip.
A few months prior to invasion I was visiting Toledo and having dinner with him and my brother and sisters. The topic came up about the sketchy intelligence that substantiated the existance of WMDs, and I asked Skip what he thought. His reply was along the lines of, "The President and his staff wouldn't go to war unless they were absolutely sure there were WMDs, and they probably have a lot more intelligence supporting this than what they're revealing to the public."
And with that, I was pro-war.
Now, I kick myself. There was no additional good info. The intel was all bad. Maybe this is why they say you shouldn't argue religion and politics with family...
(and the part that burns me is that the same right wingers who blame the bad intelligence on Clinton's handling of our spy agencies are the same right wingers who cling to hope that the intel wasn't bad, but just that the WMDs were moved...)
So, back to my main point, which is best spelled out by a New York Times article... (remember, the same pansy New York Times that was pro-war and was spreading the same bad WMD intelligence that the right wingers still believe)
A Bush Alarm: Urging U.S. to Shun Isolationism
excerpts:
The president who made pre-emption and going it alone the watchwords of his first term is quietly turning in a new direction, warning at every opportunity of the dangers of turning the nation inward and isolationist, and making the case for international engagement on issues from national security to global economics...
...To his critics, the internationalist approach is too little too late — the price Mr. Bush has paid for a foreign policy that seemed relentlessly focused on building defensive walls and hunting enemies. A search of the White House Web site confirms that Mr. Bush, who in the days before he took office kept the take-no-prisoners speeches of Teddy Roosevelt on a table at his ranch, made little mention of "globalization" for much of his first five years in office, even when European leaders brought it up.
Asked once, several years ago, about his aversion to the topic, one of his senior aides said Mr. Bush associated the word with "mushy Clintonianism."
"It ranks up there with 'nation-building,' " he added...
Bryan Adams: Loved by Islam
Here's one strike against Dubai and the UAE: they're genuinely excited by an upcoming concert by Bryan Adams. A Canadian.However, I find it pretty damned telling that not only is this concert apparently selling out a Dubai stadium, but the sponsors include Virgin Megastores, the Hard Rock Cafe, and Hallmark greeting cards.
I know that the main stream media and especially the right wing blogs won't point this out, but the UAE is pretty damned Westernized, and not the hotbed of terrorist activity many would lead one to believe.
For further updates on whats happening in the UAE from a locals point of view, check in on Metroblogging Dubai now and again...
Monday, March 06, 2006
BarCamp?
I visited an interesting internet/computer convention/fest/thingy called BarCamp on Saturday night, mostly because I heard a bunch of reputable bloggers would be attending. It was also put together in part by Sean Bonner from blogging.la, and I thought it might be great material for my first vlog.
The concept and execution for BarCamp is fascinating, and the subject of the video I made about it you can find here. In short, a bunch of programmers, web designers, bloggers, and others with an interest in internet communications simply decide to meet up for a couple days and whip together a conference from the inside out. Anyone can present on whatever they want. And the whole thing is free.
I met Marc Brown, who created Buzznet (the site where I host my photos in my sidebar) and he made a great observation that BarCamp is a great way to show that Silicon Valley isn't the only center of the internets. In fact, also in attendance were folks who created such sites as Deviant Art, Weblogs, Inc., Technorati, Boing Boing, and more. The concentration of genius in the room was overwhelming. If only I was seeking a career in the field it would have been a networking bonanza. Nonetheless, as a mere "blogfucker" it was a very cool experience.
My video is far from ideal - lights were very, very low at the warehouse, and I arrived after the majority of attendees had left. Still, I think it at least partly answers what BarCamp is all about.
The concept and execution for BarCamp is fascinating, and the subject of the video I made about it you can find here. In short, a bunch of programmers, web designers, bloggers, and others with an interest in internet communications simply decide to meet up for a couple days and whip together a conference from the inside out. Anyone can present on whatever they want. And the whole thing is free.
I met Marc Brown, who created Buzznet (the site where I host my photos in my sidebar) and he made a great observation that BarCamp is a great way to show that Silicon Valley isn't the only center of the internets. In fact, also in attendance were folks who created such sites as Deviant Art, Weblogs, Inc., Technorati, Boing Boing, and more. The concentration of genius in the room was overwhelming. If only I was seeking a career in the field it would have been a networking bonanza. Nonetheless, as a mere "blogfucker" it was a very cool experience.
My video is far from ideal - lights were very, very low at the warehouse, and I arrived after the majority of attendees had left. Still, I think it at least partly answers what BarCamp is all about.
Monday, February 27, 2006
By the way...
I'm actually blogging frequently, but not here...
Keep an eye on blogging.la where I've been posting at least once every other day. (Its largely Los Angeles themed posts, so my out of town readers might be bored... )
Keep an eye on blogging.la where I've been posting at least once every other day. (Its largely Los Angeles themed posts, so my out of town readers might be bored... )
My theory gets a boost on Drudge Report
So, yeah... my theory that Cheney will quit or get dumped by the Bush Admin so Condi RIce can become VP was given a little more credibility after the Drudge Report linked to this article:
Insight Magazine: Cheney seen retiring after midterm elections
A few months ago I was out of town when I got a call from someone I'd hired on another event. An attendee at one of the events had a heart attack and died. I received this call within two hours of the incident as a casual heads up. In turn, I called the heads of our company.
18 hours to report to your boss, the President of United States, that you shot someone seems ridiculous. So ridiculous, I'm not certain if this is accurate. But if it is, anyone who doubts that the Cheney camp wasn't discussing how to spin the incident and likely cover-up portions of it are removed from the reality of not just politics, but the world. Cheney isn't an idiot, nor is he clumsy. The time gap in reporting this to the press or the President was not a mistake or lapse in judgement. Maybe the incident happened exactly as he's claimed... but his actions following the incident would lead me to believe he didn't want his staff or anyone to reveal details to anyone for a reason.
In the meantime, Bush needs a fall guy to blame everything that is tainting his Presidency, from Plame-gate to Halliburton ties and now this shooting. A vp slot filled by a single black woman, and one with qualifications to boot, could keep the GOP in the White House solidly for another four years, if not longer.
Insight Magazine: Cheney seen retiring after midterm elections
Senior GOP sources envision the retirement of Mr. Cheney in 2007, months after the congressional elections. The sources said Mr. Cheney would be persuaded to step down as he becomes an increasing political liability to President Bush.
The sources reported a growing rift between the president and vice president as well as their staffs. They cited Mr. Cheney's failure to immediately tell the president of the accidental shooting of the vice president's hunting colleague earlier this month. The White House didn't learn of the incident until 18 hours later.
A few months ago I was out of town when I got a call from someone I'd hired on another event. An attendee at one of the events had a heart attack and died. I received this call within two hours of the incident as a casual heads up. In turn, I called the heads of our company.
18 hours to report to your boss, the President of United States, that you shot someone seems ridiculous. So ridiculous, I'm not certain if this is accurate. But if it is, anyone who doubts that the Cheney camp wasn't discussing how to spin the incident and likely cover-up portions of it are removed from the reality of not just politics, but the world. Cheney isn't an idiot, nor is he clumsy. The time gap in reporting this to the press or the President was not a mistake or lapse in judgement. Maybe the incident happened exactly as he's claimed... but his actions following the incident would lead me to believe he didn't want his staff or anyone to reveal details to anyone for a reason.
In the meantime, Bush needs a fall guy to blame everything that is tainting his Presidency, from Plame-gate to Halliburton ties and now this shooting. A vp slot filled by a single black woman, and one with qualifications to boot, could keep the GOP in the White House solidly for another four years, if not longer.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Interview with former cop, current hunter, Republican, fellow Markland, on the whole Cheney shooting
In press lingo, the Cheney shooting story certainly has legs. Not so much over the actual shooting than the VP's office repeated delays on informing the public, and perhaps even the White House, of critical details. This, of course, raises many questions and suspicions, and highlights the concerns that people opposed to the Bush Admin have been saying all along: its secretive to a fault. Why did the news of Cheney shooting a fellow hunter take more than 24 hours to reach the press, and certainly hours before even the President knew? What was the VPs office frantically trying to spin or cover up? Was Cheney under the influence of alcohol? Was their discussion of having someone else take fault for the shooting? And why was their another extended delay in reporting that the shooting victim, lawyer Harry M. Whittington? At worst, if Cheney was found to have been negligent, or under the influence of alcohol at the time of the shooting, he could be charged with manslaughter if Whittington dies as a result.
Trying to gain some insight into this story I contacted my Uncle Skip Markland, retired Toledo policeman and a State of Ohio Certified Hunter Safety Instructor. He's also a diehard Republican. While some good points, he did actually inadvertently call me a moron.
I'm not certain I agree that they were thinking about claiming someone else did it, but one never knows. Unfortunately, this is what you will be reading in some left-wing moronic blog site.
Like mine.
Besides that, though, he offers some great common sense perspective on the issue, and put me in my place with my stereotyping of hunters. Here's some extended excerpts:
To blame anyone other than the VP is inappropriate. One thing that aggravates me is the stance of our political spokepersons when they claim that it "isn't all that serious" and that it "happens all the time". The Hell it ain't serious and it does not happen all of the time. Factually , hunting accidents are very rare with only a few incidents in each state per year so compared with all of the time that sportsmen spend in the woods hunting, a hunting accident is a very rare occurrence. That's why hunting is one of the least dangerous outdoor activities compared to many others including tennis and bicycling. When they say it isn't a serious incident, what they are saying is that the victim's wounds are not life threatening. It's only sheer luck that the man wasn't killed and I suppose it would take that for the Washington spin meisters to consider it serious.
On the delayed public notification:
From my history as a public servant, it is a very serious and newsworthy incident. I believe they would have been better served to release the information immediately. Accidents happen and our VP obviously did not do this on purpose. I think they made a serious mistake by delaying the press release and added to their PR problems on this one. There was nothing to hide and it isn't something that's going to go away. Do a press release and let the political chips fall where they may. It would have been in the headlines for a couple days and everyone would have forgotten it by the next month, except David Lettermen and Jay Leno but that's their job.
On hunting mistakes:
Keep one thing in mind. . . although we can all criticize the other hunter who makes a mistake, it can happen to the best hunter out there including me or you if you ever take up the sport. None of us are immune from making mistakes as hard as we try to avoid them. In hunting, one of the biggest problems that can lead to accidents is "tunnel vision". You are focusing so hard on making the good shot that you ignore everything else. This shooting is a classic example of that. I have even found myself guilty of this but fortunately I have never shot anyone or come close. It just happens so I do sympathize with the VP and any other hunter who causes such an accident. I have seen many interviews with hunters who have shot someone accidentally and these were truly unfortunate accidents. The hunters were good and safe hunters for the most part but made a tragic and very regretable mistake. (That's why hunting accidents are generally not prosecuted as crimes as I have heard some of our liberal media morons suggesting be done today)
Isn't it the norm for hunters to go hunting carrying a cooler and a couple six packs? Isn't it likely Cheney was drinking, if not drunk, when he shot Whittington?
It is possible but let me say this. You, in suggesting this, are accepting a common stereotype and myth that all hunters are drunk or have been drinking every time they go afield. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many hunters drink. Many hunters do not drink. The ratio of drinkers vs. non-drinkers is nothing different that the general population. However, very few hunters go into the field after or while they are drinking alcohol. So when you ask "How many hunters go quail hunting without some beer?" My response is "very few." Although I and many of my hunting friends enjoy our beer, we do not go into the field after we have been drinking. Do some hunters go into the field after they have been drinking? Of course. It certainly happens but once again they are certainly in the minority. And yes, they are the morons that create and advance these unwarranted stereotypes. So, we will never know if the VP had been drinking or they were trying to cover up his involvement unless someone comes forward or other evidence proves it.
In closing:
By the way, I went grouse hunting last Friday and never had a beer all day. Imagine that!! I did not shoot anyone either.
Now for the next theory to add to my left wing moronic web site: will this result on Bush asking Cheney to resign so Condoleeza Rice can become the Vice President, and thus possibly cement the Republican hold of the White House for another term?
Trying to gain some insight into this story I contacted my Uncle Skip Markland, retired Toledo policeman and a State of Ohio Certified Hunter Safety Instructor. He's also a diehard Republican. While some good points, he did actually inadvertently call me a moron.
I'm not certain I agree that they were thinking about claiming someone else did it, but one never knows. Unfortunately, this is what you will be reading in some left-wing moronic blog site.
Like mine.
Besides that, though, he offers some great common sense perspective on the issue, and put me in my place with my stereotyping of hunters. Here's some extended excerpts:
To blame anyone other than the VP is inappropriate. One thing that aggravates me is the stance of our political spokepersons when they claim that it "isn't all that serious" and that it "happens all the time". The Hell it ain't serious and it does not happen all of the time. Factually , hunting accidents are very rare with only a few incidents in each state per year so compared with all of the time that sportsmen spend in the woods hunting, a hunting accident is a very rare occurrence. That's why hunting is one of the least dangerous outdoor activities compared to many others including tennis and bicycling. When they say it isn't a serious incident, what they are saying is that the victim's wounds are not life threatening. It's only sheer luck that the man wasn't killed and I suppose it would take that for the Washington spin meisters to consider it serious.
On the delayed public notification:
From my history as a public servant, it is a very serious and newsworthy incident. I believe they would have been better served to release the information immediately. Accidents happen and our VP obviously did not do this on purpose. I think they made a serious mistake by delaying the press release and added to their PR problems on this one. There was nothing to hide and it isn't something that's going to go away. Do a press release and let the political chips fall where they may. It would have been in the headlines for a couple days and everyone would have forgotten it by the next month, except David Lettermen and Jay Leno but that's their job.
On hunting mistakes:
Keep one thing in mind. . . although we can all criticize the other hunter who makes a mistake, it can happen to the best hunter out there including me or you if you ever take up the sport. None of us are immune from making mistakes as hard as we try to avoid them. In hunting, one of the biggest problems that can lead to accidents is "tunnel vision". You are focusing so hard on making the good shot that you ignore everything else. This shooting is a classic example of that. I have even found myself guilty of this but fortunately I have never shot anyone or come close. It just happens so I do sympathize with the VP and any other hunter who causes such an accident. I have seen many interviews with hunters who have shot someone accidentally and these were truly unfortunate accidents. The hunters were good and safe hunters for the most part but made a tragic and very regretable mistake. (That's why hunting accidents are generally not prosecuted as crimes as I have heard some of our liberal media morons suggesting be done today)
Isn't it the norm for hunters to go hunting carrying a cooler and a couple six packs? Isn't it likely Cheney was drinking, if not drunk, when he shot Whittington?
It is possible but let me say this. You, in suggesting this, are accepting a common stereotype and myth that all hunters are drunk or have been drinking every time they go afield. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many hunters drink. Many hunters do not drink. The ratio of drinkers vs. non-drinkers is nothing different that the general population. However, very few hunters go into the field after or while they are drinking alcohol. So when you ask "How many hunters go quail hunting without some beer?" My response is "very few." Although I and many of my hunting friends enjoy our beer, we do not go into the field after we have been drinking. Do some hunters go into the field after they have been drinking? Of course. It certainly happens but once again they are certainly in the minority. And yes, they are the morons that create and advance these unwarranted stereotypes. So, we will never know if the VP had been drinking or they were trying to cover up his involvement unless someone comes forward or other evidence proves it.
In closing:
By the way, I went grouse hunting last Friday and never had a beer all day. Imagine that!! I did not shoot anyone either.
Now for the next theory to add to my left wing moronic web site: will this result on Bush asking Cheney to resign so Condoleeza Rice can become the Vice President, and thus possibly cement the Republican hold of the White House for another term?
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Dick Cheney Blows Cap In Attorney's Ass (or face and neck)
I know how horrific it is to laugh at someone else's misery, but I can't quit chuckling at Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of attorney Harry Whittington.
As a Constitutionalist (the political party I just made up, I think) I believe in the right to bear arms. And I have no problem with hunting at all.
But Cheney and the NRA Republicans who talk about how safe a sport hunting is, and that firearms are perfectly fine in trained hands, are going to have a hard time attacking gun control lobbyists after this.
As a Constitutionalist (the political party I just made up, I think) I believe in the right to bear arms. And I have no problem with hunting at all.
But Cheney and the NRA Republicans who talk about how safe a sport hunting is, and that firearms are perfectly fine in trained hands, are going to have a hard time attacking gun control lobbyists after this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
