Give Peeps a Chance

They even had a BoratPeep - with the ugly green sling-like Speedo-ish swimsuit, hair on the chest (of the bunny Peep). I will probably put it up on our other website later.

Now it's lunch-time so I can peruse and review and participate with the Kerry-Gingrich debate. I appreciate all the work Rick Albertson did with this and will check out the John Kerry site as well.

Here is something from the Congressman who represents this area north of Seattle and he's a pretty cool guy and very environmentally-minded.

-----------

Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA) has co-authored the book "Apollo's Fire: Igniting America's Clean Energy Economy" with Bracken Hendricks, due to be released in September. We want to make sure that you see the following message inviting you to submit your stories about how you, your company, or your community are contributing to the clean energy economy.

The folks at http://www.apollosfire.net will publish stories on their site. Top stories submitted by April 15, 2007 will also be published in a special chapter of the book!

Show your support for a clean energy environment and your commitment to ensuring that our children have a bright future. Submit a story today!

Call your members of Congress now toll free at 800-828-0498,
800-459-1887 or 800-614-2803 to tell them it's time to END THE OCCUPATION OF
IRAQ.

ACTION PAGE: http://www.millionphonemarch.com/end_iraq_occupation.php

With possibly one exception, the rest of our would be presidents of the
United States would be hard pressed to put together a functional
backbone of an Iraq policy. Instead of triangulating speeches, posturing and
jockeying for position, they should be bravely stepping forward without
equivocation to call for an immediate end to the occupation of Iraq.
Who of them will speak out, even as we ourselves need to keep speaking
out now?

Isn't there some middle ground of a choice between an out of control
dictator and a flock of well financed chickens (of both parties)? Who
will lead where the American people have already arrived? Will it be the
candidate who declared they are losing their patience, but not quite
for another year and a half until they can get elected themselves? Or
will it be the candidate who was the first declare legislative surrender
and predict that the Democrats would cave in, again, on a time line for
disengagement in the new supplemental war profiteering bill? Or will
somebody else FINALLY get it? Who will take the lead, and not just try
to take political advantage? Whoever it is WILL be the next president
of the United States.

Today in Iraq tens of THOUSANDS of their people marched in just one
city demanding that we end the occupation.

Yes, it's an occupation. It stopped being a war when Bush declared
victory four years ago. A spokesman for Bush's National Security Council
gave the spin that the massive demonstration was wonderful evidence
that the Iraqi people can now "freely gather and express their opinions".
One would suppose in his mind it is even more wonderful to be able to
completely ignore what they were saying because we're pointing guns at
their heads. It is so much like the way they ignore the laws of our own
U.S., what lingering attorney general Gonzalez once called the
"opinions" of Congress.

The flimsy pretense that any of this was for the glorious benefit of
the Iraqi people is in utter shreds. For those still arguing for burying
our heads even deeper in the sand it's all about us now. They say we
can't leave because WE can't afford to lose, because WE need to have
access to all that oil. Who will admit we have already lost, when 90% of
the Iraqi people hate us for being the unwelcome occupiers we have
become? There are no smiles for us there anymore, let alone any flowers.
Who will tell the truth to the American people that the Iraqis already
know so grimly, that from the beginning this was all about stealing
their oil and absolutely nothing else?

Would anybody like to venture a guess now much energy independence for
America we could have purchased with an investment of a trillion
dollars, the projected committed cost already and climbing of the colossal
Iraq misadventure? We could have been swimming in biofuel by now.
That's assuming we had a strategically shrewd chief executive in the first
place. Is there any doubt left that the longer we persist in this
senseless carnage the worse it is going to get? Is there any doubt that the
Iraqis will get their country back? Will they have to finally chase us
out, or will we leave with some slight grace remaining?

Bush accuses Congress of telling the generals how to run the war, and
most of our Senators

I read the analysis and all the comments here:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/10/gingrich-kerry-inhofe/
and also at FOX News, where they expressed surprise that Kerry & Gingrich were not at each other's throats like on Hardball or something but actually debated about serious issues (at which point the Fox reporters' eyes glazed over with incomprehension).

Anyone who breathes O2 should realize that the environment needs protection and global warming is real. The conservative bugaboo seems to be an irrational fear of any regulation of corporations whatsoever.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070410/ap_on_go_co/fired_prosecutors

House panel subpoenas Gonzales documents

The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed new documents Tuesday from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as part of its investigation into the firings of federal prosecutors, with the panel chairman saying he had run out of patience.

"We have been patient in allowing the department to work through its concerns regarding the sensitive nature of some of these materials," Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., wrote Gonzales in a letter accompanying the subpoena. "Unfortunately, the department has not indicated any meaningful willingness to find a way to meet our legitimate needs.,"

"At this point further delay in receiving these materials will not serve any constructive purpose," Conyers said. He characterized the subpoena as a last resort after weeks of negotiations with Justice over documents and e-mails the committee wants.

The Justice Department did not have an immediate comment.

{More on link.}

Privatized War
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041007E.shtml
Yves Eudes studies some of the players in the booming private military market: "Migration towards the private sector is a fundamental tendency: 'During my last tour in Iraq, there were 40 new recruits in my unit. Since then, we've all left the Army, and today, 35 work for military companies. On top of that, the government is paying for my training here as a form of reintegration into the job market.'"

Dean Baker | The IMF: A Sandbox to Play In
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041007A.shtml
Dean Baker discusses the rise and fall of the IMF: "The basic story is that the IMF overplayed its hand. In a series of financial crises, beginning with the East Asian financial crisis in 1997, the IMF sought to impose excessively harsh conditions."

Juan Cole | How to Get out of Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041007D.shtml
Professor Juan Cole says the current strategy in Iraq will not work: "Bush is profoundly in error to think that continued US military occupation can forestall further warfare."

Went to http://www.johnkerry.com and read ALL the comments from botton to top, and looking forward to seeing the archived C-span footage later!

Also, there are Virtual Town Meetings courtesy of MoveOn tonight at various house parties - not too late to sign up.

& got email from Wes Clark via DCCC about urging Bush NOT to veto the Iraq bill (he will, though)

& from DFA about global warming & related.

Glad to see all the activism out there even if having to peruse in a hurry.

Here there is also an all-school walkout on April 18 and a bunch of Impeach activities April 28.

Well, back to work!

April 14 National Day of Climate Action

Southern California Running Low on Servants

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003659959_servant10.html

Here is the Glenn Beck pile o' bile I referenced earlier on a prior thread, where his nauseating sarcasm slamming Al Gore and global warming are on display... have sickbag at the ready...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJkPybzPSLo&mode=related&search=

Be sure to thank CNN for their contribution to the stupidity of this nation.

Posted by: monkey at April 10, 2007 07:09 PM

And that sack of dung Beckie Boy was interviewing said there hadn't been any warming in many years.

What rock has he been hiding under? In the state I live in, we've had the warmest averages on record (and individual record-setting temps some days, winter especially) for the last six or seven years since records started to be kept about 150 years ago. To upset the apple cart, we had a near-blizzard a week ago, more snow is expected tonight/tomorrow, we're having below average temps so far this month, and April is not usually when we get much for snow (altho I did see it snow in late May in 1965, but that was north of here and it melted almost immediately). Worse, we've had so little snow for the last few winters that we're technically in a drought situation as far as the earth is concerned. We'll need some nice soaking May showers if the farmers are going to have any kind of decent crops this year, because at least three of the last four winters have had so little snow and during the springs and summers we haven't had that much rain (no soakers, at least, that seep deep into the ground)

But to say there's been no warming for the last few years is just flat WRONG. I hope that character lives in a coastal city that will be underwater when the icebergs and glaciers at the poles melt....

Posted by: not my president at April 10, 2007 07:01 PM

You just have to love the display of wealth here in SoCal. The streets are overflowing with BMW 7-series, Bentleys, Maseratis, and other obscenely expensive cars. It's amazing when I travel to a more "normal" town, and have trouble finding BMWs - even the pedestrian 3-series - on the streets.

Much of this is due to the cash-based businesses catering to/hiring illegals; they always underreport their incomes, often reporting a loss even when they made six-figure or seven-figure incomes in real life. And even though they evade their fair share of taxes, they DARE to complain about the high tax burden. (And they make sure to vote Republican, one reason why the Dems are irrelevant in SoCal.)

The worst of them all are in the numerous Koreatowns around here, the worst example being Forever 21 clothing company.

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20070410/cx_nq_uc/nq20070410
Non Sequitur: Cruising With Mr. Status Quo...

Here is the Glenn Beck pile o' bile I referenced earlier on a prior thread, where his nauseating sarcasm slamming Al Gore and global warming are on display... have sickbag at the ready...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJkPybzPSLo&mode=related&search=

Be sure to thank CNN for their contribution to the stupidity of this nation.

Posted by: monkey at April 10, 2007 07:09 PM

@@@@@@@

I have to say that Gore really left himself wide open to this criticism. Gore has, apparently, an absurdly large mansion AND a large guest house. Both of these generate a huge monthly electric bill. I have heard the Gore people try to spin this enormous electric bill as being "good" because Gore is "buying" "green" electricity. I'm sorry that does not work for me.

(There is also the accusation that Gore own lots of stocks in oil companies - I don't know how true this accusation is).

What Gore has done to bring attention to the problem of global warming is great and wonderful - now all he has to do is practice what he preaches...

Ralpheh
I read the square footage on the homes and it's par with other politicians. How big is where you live, compared to your income? They hadn't switched to the program where part of your energy comes from wind farms. I haven't yet either. & he does not own lots of oil stocks. Proportionate to my income, I probably own more than he does. He used to have a zinc mine on his property and got some money from it but it closed in 2003. Some of it is family property.

This reminds me of when Kerry was lambasted for having too many homes, and Edwards had one about the same size down the street.

This is Freeper bullshit. Is Gore supposed to walk around with a bowl and sackcloth like Ghandi before anyone will listen to him? Are Kerry and Edwards supposed to travel by mule so they won't use petroleum with airfare?

Get real!

I was looking at Think Progress:

Gore signed up for 100% Green Power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels and using compact flourescent bulbs and other energy saving technology. He purchases carbon offsets to offset the family's carbon footprint.

Do not trust the right wing press.

This is Freeper bullshit. Is Gore supposed to walk around with a bowl and sackcloth like Ghandi before anyone will listen to him? Are Kerry and Edwards supposed to travel by mule so they won't use petroleum with airfare?

Get real!

Posted by: not my president at April 10, 2007 11:28 PM

Good point!

By the same token, even though I've just criticized some BMW owners in my last comment, I feel that driving a luxury car of my own does not make me any less of a progressive, or any more of a greedy Republican wannabe. (And I am hardly alone here at DCP driving a luxury car.)

It's your reasoning behind using the luxuries/other resources that really says a lot about you, not just the mere act of indulging in the luxuries.

And as for the carbon blueprint, I clocked 35 MPG on my luxury car last week - the same number a cheap Korean shoebox car struggles to get. I'd need a hybrid or a diesel to beat this figure, and I'll look at those choices for my next car.

Our two countries are a similar land mass and yet the population those land masses sustain is vastly different, with only 20 million permanent residents here. The 20 million are of all races, creeds, colour, culture that is evident in the wider world.

Australia, as well as being the driest continent on the planet, is in the grips of the worst over-all drought on record. South eastern Queensland has just begun Level 5 water restrictions, which include maximum 4 minute showers (recommended); gardens watered 3 times a week with buckets only; no cars washed - only the windows and with a bucket, not a hose. There are rules about in ground pools. SEQueensland is home to the very popular Gold Coast tourist destination.

Down here in Tasmania we are also in the midst of drought, but we don't have water restrictions at all yet. Once the forestry vandals, Gunns, chop all our old growth trees down and use up our water supply for their gigantic toxic Pulp Mill it will be a different story. So, I'm preparing for what's to come, by using as little water as possible for daily needs. It's awkward, it's a nuisance, but I need to do what I can in my small world, in order that my surrounds "do no harm". And that's the message I got from the Gingrich/Kerry debate. Whatever I am thinking of doing, I should "do no harm". It's a good motto. An easy one. And doctors shouldn't be the only ones who make such a pledge. It's relevant to all.

3 generals spurn war ‘czar’ post
Bush seeks overseer for Iraq, Afghanistan

washingtonpost.com
By Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks
Updated: 1 hour, 51 minutes ago

The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

-snip-

The White House has not publicly disclosed its interest in creating the position, hoping to find someone President Bush can anoint and announce for the post all at once. Officials said they are still considering options for how to reorganize the White House's management of the two conflicts. If they cannot find a person suited for the sort of specially empowered office they envision, they said, they may have to retain the current structure.

The administration's interest in the idea stems from long-standing concern over the coordination of civilian and military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan by different parts of the U.S. government. The Defense and State departments have long struggled over their roles and responsibilities in Iraq, with the White House often forced to referee.

The highest-ranking White House official responsible exclusively for the wars is deputy national security adviser Meghan O'Sullivan, who reports to national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and does not have power to issue orders to agencies. O'Sullivan plans to step down soon, giving the White House the opportunity to rethink how it organizes the war effort.

Assistant to the president title
Unlike O'Sullivan, the new czar would report directly to Bush and to Hadley and would have the title of assistant to the president, just as Hadley and the other highest-ranking White House officials have, the sources said. The new czar would also have "tasking authority," or the power to issue directions, over other agencies, they said.

To fill such a role, the White House is searching for someone with enough stature and confidence to deal directly with heavyweight administration figures such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Besides Sheehan, sources said, the White House or intermediaries have sounded out retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and retired Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, who also said they are not interested. Ralston declined to comment; Keane confirmed he declined the offer, adding: "It was discussed weeks ago."

Kurt Campbell, a Clinton administration Pentagon official who heads the Center for a New American Security, said the difficulty in finding someone to take the job shows that Bush has exhausted his ability to sign up top people to help salvage a disastrous war. "Who's sitting on the bench?" he asked. "Who is there to turn to? And who would want to take the job?"

All three generals who declined the job have been to varying degrees administration insiders. Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff, was one of the primary proponents of sending more troops to Iraq and presented Bush with his plan for a major force increase during an Oval Office meeting in December. The president adopted the concept in January, although he did not dispatch as many troops as Keane proposed.

Ralston, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was named by Rice last August to serve as her special envoy for countering the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, a group designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Sheehan, a 35-year Marine, served on the Defense Policy Board advising the Pentagon early in the Bush administration and at one point was reportedly considered by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He now works as an executive at Bechtel Corp. developing oil projects in the Middle East.

In an interview yesterday, Sheehan said that Hadley contacted him and they discussed the job for two weeks but that he was dubious from the start. "I've never agreed on the basis of the war, and I'm still skeptical," Sheehan said. "Not only did we not plan properly for the war, we grossly underestimated the effect of sanctions and Saddam Hussein on the Iraqi people."

‘Residue of the Cheney view’
In the course of the discussions, Sheehan said, he called around to get a better feel for the administration landscape.

"There's the residue of the Cheney view -- 'We're going to win, al-Qaeda's there' -- that justifies anything we did," he said. "And then there's the pragmatist view -- how the hell do we get out of Dodge and survive? Unfortunately, the people with the former view are still in the positions of most influence." Sheehan said he wrote a note March 27 declining interest.

Gordon Johndroe, a National Security Council spokesman, would not discuss contacts with candidates but confirmed that officials are considering a newly empowered czar.

"The White House is looking at a number of options on how to structure the Iraq and Afghanistan office in light of Meghan O'Sullivan's departure and the completion of both the Iraq and Afghanistan strategic reviews," he said. He added that "No decisions have been made" and "a list of candidates has not been narrowed down."

The idea of someone overseeing the wars has been promoted to the White House by several outside advisers. "It would be definitely a good idea," said Frederick W. Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Hope they do it, and hope they do it soon. And I hope they pick the right guy. It's a real problem that we don't have a single individual back here who is really capable of coordinating the effort."

Other variations are under consideration. House Democrats have put a provision in their version of a war spending bill that would designate a coordinator to oversee all assistance to Iraq. That person, who would report directly to the president, would require Senate confirmation; the White House said it opposes the proposal because Rice already has an aid coordinator.

Some administration critics said the ideas miss the point. "An individual can't fix a failed policy," said Carlos Pascual, former State Department coordinator of Iraq reconstruction, who is now a vice president at the Brookings Institution. "So the key thing is to figure out where the policy is wrong."

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18026723/

Posted by monkey at April 11, 2007 06:58 AM

One person couldn't possibly oversee two such totally different conflicts, amongst such vastly different cultures, in completely diverse environmental circumstances. About the only similarity for the two is that a neighbour is supposedly instrumental in "arming the enemy". Pakistan in Afghanistan and Iran in Iraq.

One problem was just highlighted on tonight's SBS DATELINE, by an Australian journalist travelling in a helicopter in northern Afghanistan, with Australian Special Service troops to a US outpost where they are to carry out offensives against the Taliban. The journalist commented on the poorer quality of American equipment and armory. The soldier said, "Yes. We're much better armored than the Americans." He looked extremely grateful about that. What the heck is that all about? Surely the man who sent these people to kill or be killed ensured that they have the best and safest in both armour as well as arms.

Military spending to retain troops skyrockets
$1 billion spent on bonuses for soldiers, Marines balloons

WASHINGTON (AP) - The struggle to entice Army soldiers and Marines to stay in the military, after four years of war in Iraq, has ballooned into a $1 billion campaign, with bonuses soaring nearly sixfold since 2003.

The size and number of bonuses have grown as officials scrambled to meet the steady demand for troops on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan and reverse sporadic shortfalls in the number of National Guard and Reserve soldiers willing to sign on for multiple tours.

Besides underscoring the extraordinary steps the Pentagon must take to maintain fighting forces, the rise in costs for re-enlistment incentives is putting strains on the defense budget, already strapped by the massive costs of waging war and equipping and caring for a modern military.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bonuses can range from a few thousand dollars to as much as $150,000 for very senior special forces soldiers who re-enlist for six years. All told, the Army and Marines spent $1.03 billion for re-enlistment payments last year, compared with $174 million in 2003, the year the war in Iraq began.

‘War is expensive’
The Associated Press compiled and analyzed the budget figures from the military services for this story.

“War is expensive,” said Col. Mike Jones, who oversees retention issues for the National Guard. “Winning a war, however, is less expensive than losing one.”

The soaring budget for re-enlistment bonuses — particularly for the Guard and Reserves, which have seen the most dramatic cost increases — has prompted some observers to question whether the country can still afford its volunteer force.

“I believe the whole issue of the affordability of the volunteer force is something we need to look at,” said Arnold Punaro, who heads an independent panel established by Congress to study the National Guard and Reserves.

The higher bonuses come as support for the war continues to wane both in Congress and with the American public. That decline is fueling concerns that more soldiers will leave the military under pressure from families who fear the rising death toll and are weary of the lengthy and repeated overseas deployments. The Iraq war has claimed the lives of at least 3,280 U.S. troops to date.

Incentives for Army Guard and Reserve members combined have skyrocketed from about $27 million in 2003 to more than $335 million in 2006.

The active Army, meanwhile, poured more than $600 million into these payments last year, a six-fold increase from $98 million in 2003. The Army gave two out of every three soldiers who re-enlisted a bonus last year, compared to less than two in 10 who received one during 2003.

Those who don’t get bonuses are generally in jobs that are not in high demand or are not in war zones. For example, certain artillery crewmembers who re-enlisted outside Afghanistan or Iraq would receive no bonus, said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty.

Bonuses for Marines have nearly doubled, from about $50 million in 2003 to nearly $90 million in 2006.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18053235/

Money well spent??????

Democrats turn up heat on Gonzales

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors

Good article, except the writers seem to not understand the whole thing. They say, "It all adds up to relentless pressure on an administration that for six years of Bush's tenure operated with virtually no oversight from the Republican-controlled Congress.

No longer.

Democrats don't have — or apparently need — evidence of wrongdoing to shake Gonzales' hold on his job or challenge the White House's defense of its internal deliberations."

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraqi Cabinet ministers allied to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr threatened Wednesday to quit the government to protest the prime minister’s lack of support for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal.

Such a pullout by the very bloc that put Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in office could collapse his already perilously weak government. The threat comes two months into a U.S. effort to pacify Baghdad in order to give al-Maliki’s government room to function.

Meanwhile, bodies lay scattered across two central Baghdad neighborhoods after a raging battle left 20 suspected insurgents and four Iraqi soldiers dead, and 16 U.S. soldiers wounded, witnesses and officials said.

The fighting Tuesday in Fadhil and Sheik Omar, two Sunni enclaves, was the most intense since a massive push to pacify the capital began two months ago.

‘We are serious about withdrawing’
Al-Sadr’s political committee issued a statement a day after al-Maliki rejected an immediate U.S. troop withdrawal.

“We see no need for a withdrawal timetable. We are working as fast as we can,” al-Maliki told reporters during his four-day trip to Japan, where he signed loan agreements for redevelopment projects in Iraq.

“To demand the departure of the troops is a democratic right and a right we respect. What governs the departure at the end of the day is how confident we are in the handover process,” he said, adding that “achievements on the ground” would dictate how long American troops remain.

Al-Maliki spoke a day after tens of thousands of Iraqis took to the streets of two Shiite holy cities, on al-Sadr’s orders, to protest the U.S. presence in their country. The rally marked the fourth anniversary of Baghdad’s conquer by American forces.

“The Sadrist movement strongly rejects the statements of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in which he stood by the continued presence of occupation forces despite the will of the Iraqi people,” said the statement, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press.

“The Sadrist movement is studying the option of withdrawing from the Iraqi government — a government that has not fulfilled its promises to the people,” it said.

“We are serious about withdrawing,” it added.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18052800/

Goin' well, eh Sen McCain?

Ralpheh
I read the square footage on the homes and it's par with other politicians. How big is where you live, compared to your income? They hadn't switched to the program where part of your energy comes from wind farms. I haven't yet either. & he does not own lots of oil stocks. Proportionate to my i

@@@@@

When I heard that Gore had a monthly electric bill of $20,000, I couldn't believe it so I called both the Nashville power company and the Nashville newspaper which ran the first article.

The reports from the rightwing ARE ACCURATE (for once) - Gore has a huge mansion (problem #1) and it uses a huge amount of electricity (problem #2). In essence, Gore has an enormous "carbon footprint".

The Great Irony is that Bush's "ranch" is More Energy Efficient than Gore's mansion.

Locally, I am working on global climate protection for my city. Many people, here, despise Al Gore greatly. As a matter of fact, if Gore's name is attached to something (like global warming), people dismiss it completely. With this information about Gore's electric bills, I will hear this info for the next 5 years at least... "Gore is causing, single-handedly, global warming with his energy guzzling mansion." It is now legend and legendary..., unfortunately...

That's cuz people in this country are thick.

I think the issue about modeling good environmental behavior is important, and I too have looked into Al Gore's situation (as well as JK/THK's).

For those of us who live in old houses, getting "green" is a huge problem and challenge. We live in a historic neighborhood and every change has to go through an incredibly arcane and time-sucking process. Our heating bill is appalling, IMO, and we will have to begin to spend thousands of dollars we don't have to make a dent in the bills. Still, we have been discussing it, and we know that in the future we will be making modifications. Don't hold us to it yet though. In the end, we know we have to model the changes we want to see around us.

Al Gore and the Kerrys live in old houses that were inherited--so their issues are incrementally greater. The houses are more than structures, they are family history, with all the ensuing emotional attachments. Not only that, they were built decades ago, and to do the kinds of upgrades we will have to do for our own small rowhouse at their scale will cost millions, not thousands.

What Gore and others have done is to purchase carbon offsets in the form of trees planted and investment in alternative energy development, for the greater good.

No one would say (including them) that this is a perfect solution. But it all helps. There are many ways to be the changes, and at least Al and JK are working hard every day on evolving us all to a more sustainable lifestyle.

We all do what we can with what we have. Personally, I'd feel better about a conversation about what each of us IS doing to help. None of us will make the grade, achieving a negative carbon footprint; at least none of us who live in cities or urban regions. But each of us can share something we have done to be the change.

No need to get defensive or to attack--just a need to get going and to do what works.

Gore and Kerry are popular here in the Pacific NW. They also are the rightful Presidents, had it not been for the stealing and disenfranchising of votes.

I am not one to do the rightwing's work for them or an apologist for the left either, but do stop at giving Karl Rove and his cronies ideas over the internet.

Until I see that we are all living communally, telecommuting, eating organic, etc. I will appreciate the work of Gore and other environmentalists without repeating all the dirt that those seeking to discredit them can come up with.

OK, using the logic Gore is being held to.. Edwards worked a shift at a nursing home. To really "walk the walk," he'd have to take a job there. No?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18053707/

Meanwhile, speaking of waste of energy, billions are wasted in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention people) - and I don't justify the Afghanistan war on the basis of 9/11, like some do. I protested it. The correct response was not "Who can we bomb now?" and the Russian generals warned us.

Kerry & Gingrich Shed Light Not Heat on Environment Debate
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003661692_warmdebate11.html

Also, Kerry spoke today on Senate floor re endorsement of stem cell research - press release too long to post here. Watching for newspaper accounts.

Yes, we have a planet to save, but, remember, this issue of changing to other forms of energy so we are not so reliant on foreign oil comes around every single election cycle, then we don't hear about it again until the next one.

It's big business, baby. I can do my part by not using aerosol products, recycling my plastic, etc. We can each do something to help. But can we lick it without world scale big business changing in big ways? I don't think so.

tsp,
Totally agree that the big guns have to stop shooting bullets too. I think we all need to stop pointing fingers and start pointing the way.

Thanks for the Kery-Ginrich article link, nmp. There's been a pretty wide range of reactions to the debate on the blogs and in the MSM, but almost all of them comment (sometimes snarkily, sometimes angrily) on how Gingrich seemed to agree with Kerry's principles even while disagreeing with the particulars. (Newt *really* pissed off the far-righties by going over to the light side, as it were.) There's a sampling of the various reports on the JK blog, including a snippet from that same McClatchy papers piece:

http://blog.johnkerry.com/2007/04/kerrygingrich_debate_builds_bu.html

can't we all just get along,
Otter

LEXINGTON, Va. - Republican presidential contender John McCain on Wednesday called the four-year Iraq conflict "necessary and just" and accused anti-war Democrats, including their leading White House candidates, of recklessness.

Struggling to reinvigorate his troubled campaign, McCain reiterated his long-time criticism that President Bush initially went to war without a plan to succeed. But he also backed the commander in chief's recent troop increase and said he is right to veto legislation that places conditions on the war.

"In Iraq, only our enemies were cheering" when House Democrats enthusiastically passed legislation setting a timetable for a troop withdrawal, the Arizona Republican said in prepared remarks of a speech to cadets at the Virginia Military Institute.

"A defeat for the United States is a cause for mourning, not celebrating," he added.

Staking his candidacy on the war's outcome, McCain planted himself firmly on the side of the president he hopes to succeed and the three out of every four Republicans who view the war as a worthy cause.

-snip-

Addressing cadets at the military college, he cast himself as the most qualified Republican candidate to counter Democratic calls for withdrawal.

He ignored his GOP rivals, all of whom support the president on the war but none of whom has McCain's military experience or has been as closely aligned with the conflict as the senator. Instead, McCain assailed Democrats in Congress, including "their leading candidates for president."

Iraq war 'necessary and just'
McCain said the Democrats' pullout policy was politically expedient but strategically disastrous. He accused them of acting in "giddy anticipation of the next election."

"Lets put aside for a moment the small politics of the day," he said. "The judgment of history should be the approval we seek, not the temporary favor of the latest public opinion poll."

Calling the war "necessary and just," McCain said those like him who support Bush's troop increase chose the "hard road" but "right road."

"Democrats, who deny our soldiers the means to prevent an American defeat, have chosen another road," he said, referring to the standoff between Democrats in control of Congress and Bush over war funding. "It may appear to be the easier course of action, but it is a much more reckless one, and it does them no credit even if it gives them an advantage in the next election."

The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll showed that a majority of Americans say going to war in Iraq was a mistake and half call it a hopeless cause. But among Republicans, roughly three in four say the United States made the right decision in going to war and call the cause worthy.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18053614/

Thanks for the Kery-Ginrich article link, nmp. There's been a pretty wide range of reactions to the debate on the blogs and in the MSM, but almost all of them comment (sometimes snarkily, sometimes angrily) on how Gingrich seemed to agree with Kerry's principles even while disagreeing with the particulars. (Newt *really* pissed off the far-righties by going over to the light side, as it were.) There's a sampling of the various reports on the JK blog, including a snippet from that same McClatchy papers piece:

http://blog.johnkerry.com/2007/04/kerrygingrich_debate_builds_bu.html

can't we all just get along,
Otter

Breaking News: Gates: All active-duty Army tours in Iraq extending from 12 to 15 months

Army tours in Iraq to be extended, Gates says
Pentagon to prolong time from 12 to 15 months to bolster troop buildup

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon will lengthen tours of duty for all active-duty Army units in Iraq to 15 months from the current 12 months as the military struggles to supply enough troops for the conflict, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday.

Gates announced the decision Wednesday afternoon, saying the policy was meant “to provide better clarity, predictability and sustainability” of the U.S. military readiness. The secretary said Iraq deployments would be for “not more than 15 months” and that soldiers will return home to home station “for not less than 12 months.”

“This policy is a difficult but necessary interim step" until a return to 12- month deployments, Gates said.

It is the latest move by the Pentagon to cope with the strains of fighting two wars simultaneously and maintaining a higher troop level in Iraq as part of President Bush’s revised strategy for stabilizing Baghdad.

Officials on Monday said some 13,000 National Guard troops were receiving orders alerting them to prepare for possible deployment to Iraq — meaning a second tour for several thousand of them.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18059112/

No letup... insight?

International Red Cross & Red Crescent say Civilian Suffering in Iraq is Unbearable
http://voanews.com/english/2007-04-11-voa48.cfm

Other articles say that both Shiite radicals and Sunni insurgents are using Iranian made weapons. Of course they are - we killed the deterrent (Saddam) and opened the borders he had sealed. Going into Iraq caused the problem and going into Iran will only make it worse.

Meanwhile John McCain says anyone who opposes the war is cheering for the enemy and 3 of 4 Republicans support the war, but no one sane does, in US or elsewhere.

Global Warming Impacts Appearing Around the Globe
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=D8CBF798-E7F2-99DF-31662C07F7D8F070&chanID=sa003

a sober lunch I'm having ..

Posted by: not the president at April 11, 2007 03:45 PM

You can't convince me that 1 in 4 Republicans is sane...

Thanks for the Kery-Ginrich article link, nmp. There's been a pretty wide range of reactions to the debate on the blogs and in the MSM, but almost all of them comment (sometimes snarkily, sometimes angrily) on how Gingrich seemed to agree with Kerry's principles even while disagreeing with the particulars. (Newt *really* pissed off the far-righties by going over to the light side, as it were.) There's a sampling of the various reports on the JK blog, including a snippet from that same McClatchy papers piece:

http://blog.johnkerry.com/2007/04/kerrygingrich_debate_builds_bu.html

can't we all just get along,
Otter

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2007/04/11/poll/index.html

--------------

Is cutting off war funding political suicide?

We've been taking it on faith that, when push comes to shove, congressional Democrats will have to cave in on the "emergency" supplemental funding for Iraq. They can -- and they should -- fight hard with the president over the conditions that should be placed on his funding request, but in the end they'll have to give him the funds he needs for the troops already in the field.

That's what we thought, anyway. But as Greg Sargent notes today, a new Los Angeles Times poll suggests that withholding funds for the war isn't quite the "third rail" of American politics that we assumed it was.

The Times' pollsters asked respondents what Congress should do if the president vetoes, as he says he will, the "emergency" supplemental spending bill with a withdrawal timeline attached. Forty-three percent of the respondents said Congress should respond by approving what the president would call a "clean" bill -- which is to say, funding for the war without any verbiage about when it should end. But slightly more, 45 percent, said that Congress should stand by its guns and refuse to approve any more war funding until the president agrees to "accept conditions for withdrawal."

Now, 45 percent does not a majority make, but the poll should give Democrats in Congress confidence that cutting off funding for the war isn't the political impossibility a lot of us might have thought it was. And there's something else interesting in the Times' numbers: Twenty-one percent of Republicans say Congress shouldn't send Bush more money for the war until he buys into a withdrawal.

-------------

stick a spine in it,
Otter

Gore and Kerry are popular here in the Pacific NW. They also are the rightful Presidents, had it not been for the stealing and disenfranchising of votes.

Posted by: not my president at April 11, 2007 11:33 AM

I'm gonna have to disagree with you, on Kerry. (And it's a rare day when I disagree with you.)

W won with a 3 million vote margin in 2004. Cheating alone does NOT explain that margin. I honestly think W would've won even if he fought fair and square.

(I can also go on and on about what Kerry's campaign did right and wrong, but I don't want to beat a dead horse on that topic.)

In addition, they say that Kerry won California. Given that SoCal, including/especially its immigrant communities, went overwhelmingly for W (there still are tons of W ovals and Latino "VIVA BUSH" stickers here), and that SoCal is 2/3 of the state's population, I don't believe it either.

Ally
Consider Ohio - that alone.

They go by the electoral vote. After Florida and Ohio were called, it didn't matter what happened on the west coast.

Re Gore and Kerry being popular in the PNW I mean with respect to the environment. There were plenty of people who favored Kucinich or Dean til the bitter end.

People have become even MORE educated about the environmental positons of Gore & Kerry (& others) in the period AFTER 2004.

California is blue as far as I know, but not the part you live in. Pelosi's district especially. LA is the biggest urban area but you can't write off SF. San Diego is pretty conservative, as far as I know.

You don't believe Kerry won California - SoCal may be 2/3 of the state's population. About half of Americans don't bother to vote - wouldn't that be true in California?

If California is really going red, then we had better forget about ever having anything but Republicans in the future. There are so many electoral votes. I know that's Romney's strategy - turn CA red. & you have a red Gov & Reagan was from there as well. So who knows.

Maybe global warming will cause Southern CA to drop into the ocean. Find the book "The Late Great State of California" - it's about 30 years old and prescient.

Posted by: Ally McRepuke at April 11, 2007 04:17 PM

LOL...Looks like I'm going to disagree with you too.

I know people in Iowa, Ohio, and N.M. who believe that there were enough voter suppression and cheating that those electoral votes went red instead of blue.

The cheating didn't just happen in Ohio or you might be right. The cheating occurred all across this country in both red states and blue ones.

The fact remains that had every person been allowed to vote who was able and willing to vote, then Kerry would have won.

If you have to cheat in even one state, then it isn't winning. It's stealing. And it's a bloodless coup.

And that ticks me off more than anything. because Terry McAuliffe had 4 years to get on every single news programs and fight for real voting. Instead, what did he do to protect our voting rights after the 2000 theft?

Karen,

You are correct, we each need to do something as well as point the way instead of pointing blame.

I have to admit I like my products sealed with plastic to ensure their freshness and to ensure they haven't been tampered with.

I don't know how I could help much, but do need educated on the topic of what I can do personally to stop global warming.

Oh...and I want to add...

In 2004, I did a lot of research about the November elections, and I recall seeing an article that spoke specifically about where the HAVA Chairpeople were on the day of the election.

Instead of being present in one of the 'swing states,' they spent the day in places like New Jersey, New York, etc...And they never once crossed into Ohio or Florida or any of the other swing states.

But golly-gee... they were keeping America safe from those Democratic voters in the solidly Blue States!

Kerry Says Pentagon 15-Month Troop Extension Hurts Families and Won't Solve Iraq's Civil War

WASHINGTON D.C. - Senator John Kerry issued the following statement today after the Pentagon announced that it will lengthen tours of duty for all active-duty Army units in Iraq from 12 months to 15 months.

"This Administration keeps asking our troops for more - do more without the right equipment, spend more time on deployment even as our generals say there is no military solution to the war in Iraq. Now the President is asking families to wait 15 months to see their loved ones instead of 12 months. This is the latest sign that the Bush Administration continues to overextend our military to the breaking point. Extending the tour of duty of our National Guard will not solve Iraq's deadly civil war, it only exposes our volunteer Army to more danger. To top it all off, the President has the nerve to suggest that the Congress is putting our brave troops in jeopardy by demanding a better policy, when it's this Administration that sends them back into a civil war with no end in sight."

(headed for the newspapers, I hope ..)

Posted by: sparrow at April 11, 2007 05:44 PM

That's the current problem with the Dems - they need to cover swing state battlegrounds, or go on the offensive in Republican territory, instead of just defending perfectly safe Democratic territory.

They say that the best defense is a good offense, and the Republicans know it well. That's how they won much of the immigrant (especially Protestant Latino) and Catholic votes in '04. Don't let a Democratic victory in '06, and the current Republican disarray, fool us into complacency - the Republicans are still well capable of backstabbing the progressives and staging victories right and left.

If California is really going red, then we had better forget about ever having anything but Republicans in the future. There are so many electoral votes. I know that's Romney's strategy - turn CA red. & you have a red Gov & Reagan was from there as well. So who knows.

Maybe global warming will cause Southern CA to drop into the ocean. Find the book "The Late Great State of California" - it's about 30 years old and prescient.

Posted by: not my president at April 11, 2007 04:59 PM

California WAS a red state in the past, until the Republicans botched the immigration issue and lost Latino and Asian votes. W's social conservatism, and the state-level Republican outreach toward minority voters, reversed that somewhat. Today's California Republican Party depends heavily on Korean and Vietnamese immigrants who have risen through the ranks.

And as I've already said, they've painted themselves as the party of minority entrepreneurship, and the Dems as the party that rewards single black welfare queens with Cadillacs. Somehow, the Republicans portray themselves to be pro-nativist (through all the tough talk on border security) and pro-immigrant at the same time, successfully.

In Orange County, the Dems and labor unions spent heavily on their favorite county supervisor candidate, but their campaign was pathetic, and the Republicans and their Vietnamese buddies prevailed by a landslide. And statewide, there was Phil Angelides, whose gubernatorial campaign never reached me (while the Governator campaigned very hard for my vote).

Actually, give us a few tens of millions of years, and SoCal will slide past San Francisco, and wash out right into the ocean. At least that's what the geologists have said. I can already hear Otter complain "that's too long a wait!" I'll definitely look out for the book you recommended.

Ally
"Late Great State of California" was about the Reagan governorship and kind of sci-fi and CA did fall in & the geography of the area was changed. It's a good read. I want to find it again.

So the parties actually pit the races against each other, more or less. Sick. First America took slaves from Africa and kept them down once they weren't technically slaves. Then America brings in a bunch of immigrants, often from poor countries, and convinces them about the American Dream. Yes, I believe it. I've seen it.

Same strategy, more or less, is getting workers to vote against unions and to make their bosses richer.

I did hear W going on in Hispanic areas about the "ownership society" and all that. Too bad he didn't explain that the subprime mortgages were going to cause mass foreclosures once he was in. That's real "ownership" ..

STUDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG U. PROTEST CHENEY AS SPEAKER

BYU Campus Protests Dick Cheney Speech
By Debbie Hummel
The Associated Press

Monday 02 April 2007

Provo, Utah - Some students and faculty on one of the nation's most conservative campuses want Brigham Young University to withdraw an invitation for Vice President Dick Cheney to speak at commencement later this month.

Critics at the school question whether Cheney sets a good example for graduates, citing his promotion of faulty intelligence before the Iraq war and his role in the CIA leak scandal.

The private university, which is owned by the Mormon church, has "a heavy emphasis on personal honesty and integrity in all we do," said Warner Woodworth, a professor at BYU's business school.

"Cheney just doesn't measure up," he said.

Woodworth is helping organize an online petition asking that the school rescind its invitation to the vice president. In its first week, the petition collected more than 2,300 signatures, mostly from people describing themselves as students, alumni or members of the church.

The display of dissent is rare for a university that has been voted the nation's most "stone-cold sober" school nine years in a row in the annual Princeton Review of party schools.

Students at BYU adhere to a strict honor code that forbids everything from drinking coffee to wearing shorts or short skirts. The school's 30,000 students seldom even stray from campus sidewalks, leaving its lawns pristine.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you, on Kerry. (And it's a rare day when I disagree with you.)

W won with a 3 million vote margin in 2004. Cheating alone does NOT explain that margin. I honestly think W would've won even if he fought fair and square.

(I can also go on and on about what Kerry's campaign did right and wrong, but I don't want to beat a dead horse on that topic.)

@@@@@

I have to say that Kerry was not popular at all in Michigan (which has paper ballots in almost all counties). Kerry lost in my county which Gore had won in 2000 and Clinton had won in 1996. Kerry barely eked out a victory in Michigan. Most people were really voting against Bush and not for Kerry - that was true in my case and true of most the anti-war folks and the Dean/Kucinich supporters.

Kerry was not popular among the veterans or the military - especially after the purple bandaids and the Jane Fonda blitz... It didn't help that Kerry ignored this side of state either.. while both Bush and Cheney visited several times.

Posted by: Ralpheh at April 11, 2007 07:57 PM

Ralph,

Don't over-generalize Kerry's popularity in all of Michigan with one brush stroke.

And to be fair, any democratic candidate would have not fared very well on the Western side of the state as well as the northern side. It's fairly well known that the metro-Detroit, Ann Arbor, and Lansing can swing the vote. That's why these areas are mostly represented by Democrats in the state legislature, yet the national candidates always have to move towards the Republican ideology to get any votes.

In MI-09, the district was swarmed with "Schwarz is a LIBERAL" when he voted for Bush's agenda 90% of the time. That in itself proof that someone like Dean or Kucinich would face an even tougher uphill battle.

Also, regarding your comment about the veterans in the military, once again, can you at least not generalize it to be the whole state? Because in my area I have seen tons of "Veteran for Kerry" bumper stickers. I still see them even now.

Ralpheh
I understand all that - but blame alot of my countrymen as much or more than Kerry or his campaign. I did not meet many who were informed about the candidates in general - many had preconceived ideas that were inaccurate and only knew what they saw in negative ads or the biased media; knew nothing of the voting records. I didn't agree with Kerry on everything either but he had a 90% agreement on voting record with Ted Kennedy & both domestic & foreign policy experience. I didn't agree on trade, Israel or Iraq but enough to feel he'd be a big improvement over what we had, so to support and work for him. I also didn't agree with quite a few things about Clinton and Gore but voted for them - wish I'd worked more for them if only AGAINST the Republicans instead of FOR the Democrats. What matters is what we end up with.

Until we have a fair system, we're screwed.

By the way, I just learned that Rove is coming here Saturday. Ideas?!

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041107E.shtml
Robert Fisk writes: "Divide and rule. A new counter-insurgency strategy to carve
up the city into sealed areas. The tactic failed in Vietnam. So what chance does it have in
Iraq?"

Speaking of "walking the walk," this reporter has lived in the middle east for about 3 decades.

Did you see this part?

It now appears that the US military intends to place as many as five mechanised brigades - comprising about 40,000 men - south and east of Baghdad, at least three of them positioned between the capital and the Iranian border. This would present Iran with a powerful - and potentially aggressive - American military force close to its border in the event of a US or Israeli military strike against its nuclear facilities later this year.

Bipartisan Stem Cell Bill Passed in the Senate!
http://www.webmd.com/news/20070411/senate-passes-new-stem-cell-bill

Please let Senator Bob Casey's office know that we are disgusted with his vote today against stem cell research. Since it will probably fail a Senate override by his one vote, he should know how disingenuous it is to link stem cell research with abortion and what his one vote will mean to the millions of famalies with Alzheimers, ALS,and Parkinsons. The Republican bill is a total sham and I am ashamed of each and every Democratic Senator who fell into that trap and supported the alternative bill.
His toll free number is(866) 461-9159

So I was celebrating too soon, Bubba?

Figures.

Also, regarding your comment about the veterans in the military, once again, can you at least not generalize it to be the whole state? Because in my area I have seen tons of "Veteran for Kerry" bumper stickers. I still see them even now.

Posted by: sparrow at April 11, 2007 08:06 PM

@@@@@

I am not over-generalizing about Michigan. The Democrats did not pick-up a significant share of the independent vote here in 2004 (that is why my county which had gone Democrat in 1996 and 2000 went Republican - this I blame on the top of the ticket, John Kerry). Likewise Kerry's win in Michigan was unimpressive for a blue-state, high unemployment, blue-collar and dominated (politically) by the unions.

With Kerry NOT at the top of the ticket in 2006, Democrats in Michigan picked up seats in the state House and the state Senate, taking control of the House. Amazingly, in my county, we picked up a seat on the county commission when it was generally thought we would lose 2 seats or even 3. These are in areas that voted for Bush.

Posted by: Ralpheh at April 11, 2007 09:48 PM

I wouldn't blame Kerry himself. 2006 was a much better year to be a Democrat than 2004, when the Republicans had the "moral issues" card and the Dems never had a great counter to that.

Same strategy, more or less, is getting workers to vote against unions and to make their bosses richer.

Posted by: not my president at April 11, 2007 07:04 PM

Here in Koreatown, unions are Communist fronts, and state-level labor compliance bureaus (i.e. Employment Development Department, which collects state payroll taxes and runs the unemployment programs) are the tool of lazy blacks and Latinos who want the good life without the hard work.

There is a reason why virtually all hotels in Koreatown have 99 or less rooms; at 100 rooms, they have to sign a collective agreement with the powerful hotel workers' union, and they want none of that. BTW, the hotel workers' union is one of the few success stories in organized labor these days, because it capitalized on the Latino immigrant population.

Again, the brilliance of Republicans - especially Nixon, Reagan, and W - is in bringing in only immigrants who fit their tainted ideologies, and pit them against hardworking Americans/other immigrants.

See my new graphic of Conservative Talk Show Pundits by clicking on my name

notmypresident: Harry Reid said today he has 66 votes in the Senate, needs 67 to override veto and 30 more House votes to override. Stalling stem cell research for 8 years and denying hope for those afflicting is perhaps the most dispicable act by this Administration. I know how upset most are with his war policies, but to us babyboomers who see our parents deteorating with ailments, with potential cures being delayed by decades by his insanity, it is a disgrace how little regard this Adminsitrationreally has for Life. When even Senator Orrin Hatch supports this bill that Bush vows to veto, it should send a clear message to this Adminsitration which side of history he stands with. That should be clearly visible in his Presidential Library as one of his crowning accomplishments; here was a man who stood in the way of scientific discoveries to cure the afflicted, for 8 long years.

Last night on an Oz comedy show which I don't watch (I found this in today's Brisbane Times), there was a segment about Hilary Clinton.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2007/04/12/1175971220516.html?from=top5

CNN QuickVote

Which phrase best describes your view of stem cell research?

Morally wrong 13% 4627 votes

Vital 87% 30593 votes

Total: 35220 votes

Tears for a man without a country...

So long to a great human.

"I wanted all things to seem to make some sense so we could all be happy, yes, instead of tense. And I made up lies, so they all fit nice, and I made this sad world a paradise."

Kurt Vonnegut, 1922 - 2007

Bomb blast in the cafeteria of Parliament in Baghdad.

Yes Mme D. Slaughterhouse 5 was the first I read of Vonnegut's books. I was hooked from the first page.

"I will say anything to be funny, often in the most horrible situations," Vonnegut, whose watery, heavy-lidded eyes and unruly hair made him seem to be in existential pain, once told a gathering of psychiatrists.

My kinda guy.

Jay Deshmukh - AFP
Iraqi Parliament Building bombing in the cafeteria just after lunch time.
At least 2 parliamentarians killed and at least 10 injured.
One of the dead is a Sunni MP.

Posted by: woz at April 12, 2007 08:37 AM

See, this is what pisses me off (among other things) about the surge strategy, and the "gotta get em before they get us here" philoshophy, and that "they", the terrorists, will just wait out a timeline, blah blah blah.

What the Cabal fails to grasp, is that "they" are flush with volunteers to cause mayhem anytime, anywhere, and that THEY will choose when and where, and THEY are WAY more patient than anyone wants to give THEM credit for.

Continuing to thumb your coke-riddled nose at world opinion while depleting all of OUR country's economic, diplomatic and military resources is hardly a strategy for success in defending the nation, LONG TERM, against inevitable attacks by an enemy who can and will wait for the right moment to drop a fly in the ointment.

What an absolute klusterf*ck.