LEFT is RIGHT

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:34:00 +0000

FRIDAY F U N

Escapa! and Asteriod-Fight (tiny, fun games)
Things not To Do When Calling Customer Service
Can't afford a PDA? Try the PocketMod
Top 10 Coolest Backyard Inventions of 2008
13 Things Your Waiter Won't Tell You

The following is actually true, but still worthy of Friday Fun:

Bits and Pieces for the Week of July 13 - 19

noreply@blogger.com (Seven of Six) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:18:00 +0000

Highly respected political cartoonist Daryl Cagle explains why the current New Yorker Magazine cover of Barack and Michelle Obama was not a good cartoon. (Mike)

The ultimate absurdity: Terrorist watch list now exceeds 1,000,000 (Mike)

The 61 Flip - Flops of John McLame, so far this election year. (7 of 6)

One Oklahoma church's solution to attracting teenagers: promise to give away a semiautomatic assault rifle. (Mike)

The headline reads, "Pre-service crimes often go uncited when vets claim PTSD". Sorry, once the military enlists this man or woman they have just bought all his former history, medical and criminal. Now, the V.A. is going to try and get out of paying claims for these individuals because they were not model citizens. They were good enough to fight for the country, yet somehow don't deserve medical treatment or benefits? (7 of 6)

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:16:00 +0000

Here's a primer on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from FinancialSense.com:

"....The United States economy is in the early phase of its worst housing price collapse since the 1930’s. No end is in sight. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as private stock companies, have gone to excesses in leveraging their risk, most as many private banks did. The financial market bought the bonds of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they bet that the two were “Too Big To Fail,” i.e. that in a crisis the Government, that is the US taxpayer, would be forced to step in and bail them out.

"The two, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, either own or guarantee about half of the $12 trillion in outstanding US home mortgage loans, or about $6 trillion. To put that number into perspective, the entire 27 member states of the European Union in 2006 had an annual GDP of slightly more than $12 trillion, so $6 trillion would be half the GDP of the combined European Union economies, and almost three times the GDP of the Federal Republic of Germany.

"In addition to their home mortgage loans, Fannie Mae has another $831 in outstanding corporate bonds and Freddie Mac has $644 billion in corporate bonds.

"Freddie Mac owes $5.2 billion more than its assets today are worth meaning under current US “fair value” accounting rules, it is insolvent. Fair value of Fannie Mae assets has dropped 66% to $12 billion and may as well go negative next quarter. As the home prices continue to fall across America, and corporate bankruptcies spread, the size of the negative values of the two will explode.

"On July 14, symbolically the anniversary of Bastille Day, US Treasury Secretary Paulson, former chairman of the powerful Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs, stood on the steps of the US Treasury building in Washington, a clear attempt to add psychological gravitas, and announced that the Bush Administration would submit a bill proposal to Congress to make taxpayer guarantee of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae explicit. In effect, in the present crisis it will mean nationalization of the $6 trillion agencies.

"The bailout by Paulson was accompanied by a statement by Bernanke that the Fed stood ready to pump unlimited liquidity into the two companies.

"The Federal Reserve is rapidly becoming the world’s largest financial garbage dump as for months it has agreed to accept banks’ Asset Backed Securities including sub-prime real estate bonds as collateral in return for US Treasury bond purchases. Now it agrees to add potentially $6 trillion in GSE real estate debt to that.

"However, the disaster in the two private companies was obvious as far back as 2003 when grave accounting abuses in the two companies were made public. In 2003 then President of the St. Louis Federal Reserve, William Poole publicly called for the US Government to cut its implied guarantee of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae claiming then that the two lacked capital to weather severe financial crisis. Poole, whose warnings were dismissed by then Fed Chairman Greenspan, called repeatedly in 2006 and again in 2007 for Congress to repeal their charters and avoid the predictable taxpayer cost of a huge bailout

"As financial investors warn the Paulson bailout is not a bailout of the US economy but a direct bailout of his Wall Street financial cronies. What until recently had been the largest bank in terms of loans outstanding, Citigroup in New York, has been forced to raise billions in capital from Sovereign Wealth Funds in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to remain in business. In its May announcement, Citigroup’s new Chairman Vikram Pandit announced plans to reduce the bank’s $2.2 billion balance sheet of liabilities. However, he never mentioned an added $1.1 trillion in Citigroup “off balance sheet” liabilities which include some of the highest risk deals in the US real estate and securitization era it so strongly backed. The Financial Accounting Standards Board in Connecticut, the official body defining bank accounting rules is demanding tighter disclosure standards. Analysts fear Citigroup could face devastating new losses as a result with value of liabilities exceeding the bank’s $90 billion market value. In December 2006 prior to the onset of the Tsunami crisis, Citigroup had a market value of more than $270 billion."

I guess it's time to use part of my stimulus check to by a larger bed. I'll need a bigger mattress under which I'll hide my money that I'll be taking out of my soon-to-go-bankrupt S&L.

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:29:00 +0000

The Washington Post had an online Q & A with Jane Mayer, author of The Dark Side, a new book about many of the Bush Administration's illegal torture and FISA activities. When asked (by a New Yorker) about the willingness of so many Democratic Senators and members of Congress to go along with Bush, her answer was as follows:

New York, N.Y.: In your interview with Harper's yesterday, you said that[sic] this about why war crimes prosecutions are unlikely: "An additional complicating factor is that key members of Congress sanctioned this program, so many of those who might ordinarily be counted on to lead the charge are themselves compromised." What did you mean by that? Who specifically is compromised " who might ordinarily be counted on to lead the charge are themselves compromised" -- Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Jay Rockefeller? -- and how are they "compromised"?

Jane Mayer: The ranking members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees were briefed dozens of times about the CIA's interrogation and detention program over the past seven years - so any member who has held one of those posts has arguably been complicit. Some say they tried to object, internally. But either because of the threat of violating national security, or, because of the fear of the political price of dissent, these figures in both parties would find it very hard at this point to point the finger at the White House, without also implicating themselves.

That makes so much sense. Now we know why the FISA bill was passed last week.

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:29:00 +0000

FRIDAY F U N

Here's a "gas" map of the U.S. You can zoom in and find the gasoline prices at service stations in any neighborhood. Very fancy!
Here's another gas chart. You can choose your city and time span (up to 6 years) and see what the price of gasoline has been doing.
Say goodbye to the gigabyte (hilarious cartoon by Hitachi)
Exciting, new developments in predicting earthquakes
Here's an entertaining video that shows you how to properly set up and decorate your workspace.
Darth Vader in the Death Star cafeteria
How to translate girl-speak

"The Foundation of the Housing Market has Begun to Collapse"

noreply@blogger.com (Seven of Six) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:10:00 +0000

Here's a few paragraphs to go with Mike's commentary on the economy, from Numerian at the Agonist:

There are two really devastating events, outside of another foolhardy war, that could push the U.S. economy into a depression. The first is a dramatic increase in defaults on consumer credit card, auto, and home equity loans from prime customers, and the second is a collapse of the government sponsored enterprises that support the housing market. This week the first suggestions have begun to appear in the market that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are insolvent.

Since at least 2005 a number of commentators here at the Agonist have been mentioning this possibility as an important step in the collapse of the economy as the debt bubble is deflated. Back then, very few economic observers were willing to suggest such a thing, but one of them was Fed Governor William Poole. He laid out the egregious decline in credit standards that was feeding the housing bubble, and he laid blame in part on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This week he stated the obvious: from an accounting standpoint, Freddie Mac is now insolvent, and Fannie Mae will be so by the end of next quarter. This means if you put a price on all their assets, there is not enough cash left over after liquidation to pay off all their liabilities. These are no longer going concerns.

The stock prices of both companies tanked. Fannie Mae, the bigger of the two companies, had been trading near $70 a share this time last year. It has been steadily falling since then as the housing crisis has worsened, and today it plunged nearly 14% and closed at $13.20.

Naturally, executives at these companies rushed to assert that they were healthy and sound, and one even mentioned that William Poole has for a long time been a critic of the company (kill the messenger, even though he has been right for years). Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, said the regulators for these companies assured him that they were well-capitalized. The market paid no attention. Government assurances about “well-capitalized” financial firms has lost virtually any credibility since Bear Stearns.

One of the things we’ve often mentioned here is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been allowed to operate on the flimsiest amounts of capital – 2% of assets compared to 8% of assets for commercial banks. This leniency is coming home to roost. Fannie Mae has something like $30 billion in available capital to cover any losses, yet it owns hundreds of billions of mortgages on its balance sheet, and has guaranteed the performance of trillions of dollars more. This is really the point Poole is making: even a modest percentage of losses on such a huge portfolio would wipe out $30 billion in capital...

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:03:00 +0000

Daily Kos publisher Markos Moulitsas Zúniga talks about the political price Obama will pay for his awful vote for the FISA bill this week (excerpt):

"...He or his advisors (or both) decided that they'd rather capitulate on the issue than face GOP attack ads claiming Obama is weak on national security. They let fear of political attacks (that are inevitable anyway) override respect for the Constitution and even his prior promises to the American people. The press insists on calling it a "move to the center", but really, it was a move borne out of fear. It wasn't an ideological decision (i.e. a "move to the center"), but a tactical one. It was a strategic retreat.

Like all retreats, this one came with a price. Much of his veneer as a transformational politician has faded. He's a gifted and inspirational politician, no doubt about that, and he will make a great president. But at the end of the day, he's a politician, with all the triangulating goodness that's become a hallmark of our presidential candidates. That has cost him some intensity of support, some bad headlines, a new avenue of attack for Republicans (even though McCain didn't even bother showing up for the vote)..."

Yes, Obama really is just another run-of-the-mill Washington politician. If you are still running into rabid Obama supporters, then you can be assured that they aren't paying any attention to what he's actually doing and saying these days. Obama will be an improvement over Bush, but come January 2009 the new Obama Presidency will just continue business-as-usual. The Democrats blew it this year when they didn't select John Edwards as the nominee.

Bits and Pieces for the Week of July 6 - 12

noreply@blogger.com (Seven of Six) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:27:00 +0000

I did not know you Melanie Mattson, please RIP. "An original Daily Kos regular, she was the publisher of Just A Bump in the Beltway, one of the first wave of political blogs. She was also one of the founders of the FluWiki, a comprehensive resource for those studying pandemic flu, and a contributor at Effect Measure." The kindred spirit of those that did know you and the loss of my friend Lurch this year makes it a reminder we bloggers must remain in contact. (7 of 6)

Tom Engelhardt explains why an Israeli or U.S. attack on Iran is unlikely. (Mike)

Yes, there is at least one true statesman left in American politics! "Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) will make the text of his article of impeachment against President Bush, which will hit the floor Thursday, public tonight." (7 of 6)

Hear Ye, Hear Ye.... Read all about it. The Democratic U.S. Senate is in the process of trashing another section of the U.S. Constitution and the rights of U.S. citizens. Unfuckingbelievable! (Mike)

"Zoriah Miller, a photojournalist and blogger embedded with U.S. Marines in Iraq..." has been tossed! For guess what? That's right, publishing pictures of a war zone. More specifically, a dead Marine. Remember, this is supposed to be a "sanitized war!" (7 of 6)

"In a break with tradition, Barack Obama will accept the Democratic presidential nomination at Invesco Field at Mile High, a 76,000-seat stadium, rather than at the site of the party's national convention across town." (7 of 6)

It is way past time for a straight jacket and rubber room for Joe Lieberman! Jeez, when will the weak-ass Democrats kick this man to the curb? (7 of 6)

Fidel Castro declares FARC has "cruel methods of kidnapping and holding prisoners in the jungle". I wonder what he thinks of the prisoners in GITMO? (7 of 6)

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:47:00 +0000

How's the economy doing these days? Here are some links to articles taken from Dollar Collapse:

Good-bye middle class – MSNBC
It's all over but the dating for U.S. recession – Bloomberg
Confessions of a former inflationist – Mish
Consumer spending slide killing Madison Avenue – New York Post
A change in bank control – Institutional Risk Analyst
Hedge funds fell 0.75% in first half, worst performance in two decades – Bloomberg
Estimates from credit losses now up to $1.6 trillion– Nouriel Roubini

This kind of news is getting reported every day now.

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 18:08:00 +0000

The Relevance of Being Shot Down
Bill Press 7/3/2008

It's only July, but already we know the rules of this year's presidential campaign. Actually, they're the same rules that apply every election: You can say anything you want about the Democratic candidate, but you have to treat the Republican candidate with kid gloves.

In 2000, for example, you could accuse Al Gore of taking bribes from China, but you could not question George Bush's use of cocaine. In 2004, it was fine to smear John Kerry's war record, but forbidden to wonder why George Bush never showed up for National Guard duty.

Here we go again. In 2008, it's OK to suggest, as conservative bloggers do daily, that Barack Obama is a gay, American-hating, chain-smoking Muslim. But not OK to suggest that just because John McCain was shot down and spent six years in the Hanoi Hilton does not, in itself, qualify him to be president. Unfortunately, Gen. Wesley Clark learned that lesson the hard way.

Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," Clark began by praising McCain's military service, calling him a "hero" for the courage he showed as a prisoner of war. However, Clark correctly pointed out, donning the uniform alone does not make the wearer presidential timber. In choosing a president, what's important is the judgment that a candidate has shown and his experience in making executive decisions.

Host Bob Schieffer persisted. Didn't his being shot down give McCain an advantage over Obama? Whereupon General Clark gave his now-famous answer: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Ironically, Clark didn't say anything John McCain hadn't already said himself. I've heard him, several times, entertain audiences with the same self-deprecating, joke: "It doesn't take a lot of talent to get shot down. I was able to intercept a surface-to-air missile with my own airplane."

But for his comment, Clark was not only condemned by the McCain campaign, he was thrown under the bus by his own candidate. Why? Clark did nothing wrong. He merely told the truth. Yes, we honor every man and woman who wears the uniform. We especially honor those who are shot down and taken prisoner. But that doesn't mean they're all qualified to be president.

Again, what counts is judgment. How much judgment did John McCain show when he suggested it would be OK for American forces to remain in Iraq another 100 years? When he opposed the latest version of the GI Bill? When he supported the CIA's continued use of waterboarding? When he condemned the Supreme Court's granting prisoners at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their confinement in civilian court "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country" Some former fighter pilots might have shown better judgment on those issues. This one did not.

The way Gen. Clark was treated was unfair. But what's more unfair is the double standard applied to Democratic and Republican candidates. Why is John McCain's military service out of bounds in 2008, when it was considered perfectly fair to challenge John Kerry's war credentials in 2004, or Max Cleland's in 2002?

And notice this big difference. In 2004, the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" didn't stop at Kerry's readiness to be president. They called him a phony. They questioned the very authenticity of Kerry's service in Vietnam and the medals he was awarded. They suggested he was somewhere else, and never wounded. It was all a pack of lies. Gen. Clark, by contrast, never challenged -- indeed, he praised -- McCain's service in Vietnam. He merely questioned its relevance to the Oval Office. Big difference. Clark's criticism is legitimate. The Swift Boat attacks were not.

But this is not the only double standard we've seen regarding the Swift Boat veterans. To his credit, John McCain condemned their tactics in 2004. To his total discredit, he has embraced them in 2008. McCain has named Bud Day, one of the most vitriolic Swift Boaters against John Kerry, to his campaign "Truth Squad." And, according to USA Today, so far McCain has accepted almost $70,000 in campaign contributions from Swift Boat associates. Whatever moral outrage he felt toward them four years ago disappeared once he needed them as his own attack dogs.

And of course the Republican response would be, "If Obama can't take this kind of b.s. then he's not strong enough to be president."

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 12:22:00 +0000

FRIDAY F U N

The moral of this video: in a bar, choose your beer brand wisely.
AccuTunes is a new internet radio that has a great selection of stations.
Several common events, but in super-slow-motion.
Unpublished historical photos from National Geographic
If you are an Office 2007 user, Micorsoft has set up a new web site where users upload their own videos that explain some of the features of the various 2007 programs (i.e. Excel, Word, PowerPoint, etc.). I've already picked up some useful info.

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:02:00 +0000

We all saw this coming years ago, but most of us looked the other way because we are a live-in-the-present society. I saw it 6 years ago and bought a Prius. Now I say "good riddance" to an economic dinosaur. I have fond memories of riding in the back seat of my dad's impeccably kept '58 Buick Special and then '62 Cadillac, but I'll have much fonder memories of driving my fun, gas-sipping Prius.

GENERAL MELTDOWN
By PAUL THARP
July 3, 2008 --

Bloated by years of gas-guzzler greed, General Motors has collapsed almost overnight from a driving force into a virtually broke loser facing bankruptcy.

GM shares skidded yesterday into the single digits, a 54-year low, banishing the one-time No. 1 automaker towards the bottom ranks of America's corporate pecking order.
Shares tumbled 15 percent to $9.98, with 75 percent of their value already wiped out in the past year. Even towel purveyor Bed Bath & Beyond and motorcycle-maker Harley-Davidson now enjoy richer market values than GM. "It's become a single-digit midget," said Peter Schiff, president of Euro-Pacific Capital. "It's now 1/25 the size of Toyota's market value. The question now is who will go into bankruptcy first, GM or Ford?"

More Wall Street analysts piled onto GM's woes yesterday with Merrill Lynch declaring one of the grimmest outlooks yet. It said GM needs to raise as much as $15 billion in coming months to avoid parking the cash-strapped company in bankruptcy court. "Bankruptcy is not impossible if the market continues to deteriorate, said Merrill analyst John Murphy. He downgraded the anemic stock from a "buy" to "underperform" - projecting it would hit $7 a share.

GM's problems began more than a decade ago, analysts say, when it couldn't beat back Japan's popular economical cars, and threw its might into making highly profitable gas hogs - pickups and SUVs. For years, the plan worked and earned record profits for GM while gas was under $2 a gallon. But the plan got totaled when gas soared over $3 a gallon just as debt-laden consumers began avoiding showrooms. "GM got itself into its mess," said Schiff. GM's finance arm, GMAC, made matters worse by loaning too much money to customers to buy its vehicles. GM dug its own hole by giving 6- and 7-year loans to people to buy cars they couldn't afford. The loans even exceed the warranties," said Schiff, adding that borrowers are defaulting at record levels on financed cars.

"The US car market is dead. It makes cars no one wants to buy, and people are too broke to pay for them if it they do buy," said Schiff.

Analysts say bankruptcy could be helpful to GM's future. In bankruptcy, GM would be able to eliminate common stock obligations, and seek to seriously alter its expensive labor agreements. "I don't see any investors stepping up to the plate right now to buy into GM. I think they'll wait to buy assets out of bankruptcy court," said Schiff.

GM's other option is to sell more shares to raise new capital, seriously diluting its already widely held stock. The automaker has "sufficient liquidity and financial flexibility to meet its 2008 funding requirements," said GM spokeswoman Renee Rashid-Merem in an e-mail. The company may consider "reducing structural costs, selling non-core assets, and retiming or eliminating other capital spending," she said.

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:31:00 +0000

Bush is very close to launching a military strike against Iran.

Please watch this short video to see what your president

is planning to destroy.

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 18:20:00 +0000

Of all the current international events and situations, this is the one we should most closely monitor:

Israel May Attack Iran, Pentagon Official Tells ABC (Update2)

By Ladane Nasseri and Thomas Penny

July 1 (Bloomberg) -- Israel is increasingly likely to attack Iranian nuclear facilities this year, a U.S. Defense Department official told ABC News. Iran's government dismissed as propaganda the ABC report on the unidentified Pentagon official's comments. Israeli government officials declined to comment on the report.

In the U.S., Pentagon spokesmen Bryan Whitman declined to address the report. ``I don't comment for Israel,'' he said. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said he had ``no information that would substantiate'' the ABC report and criticized the official for not speaking publicly.

An Israeli strike might be triggered by the production of enough enriched uranium at Iran's Natanz nuclear plant to make a bomb, ABC cited the official as saying. A second possible trigger would be the delivery of a Russian SA-20 air-defense system, the installation of which would make an Israeli attack more difficult, the U.S. official told ABC.

Oil rose on concern any conflict would cut supplies from OPEC's second-largest producer. Crude oil for August delivery increased as much as $2.95, or 2.1 percent, to $142.95 a barrel in electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Former Israeli Air Force General Isaac Ben-Israel, now a lawmaker in Israel's ruling Kadima party, told Germany's Spiegel that his nation is ``prepared'' for an attack if diplomacy and United Nations sanctions fail to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon. Ben-Israel helped plan Israel's 1981 strike on an Iraqi nuclear reactor, the magazine said.

Before Bush Leaves.

A strike on Natanz would only temporarily damage Iran's nuclear program and could spark a wave of attacks on U.S. interests, ABC said in yesterday's report, citing unidentified Pentagon officials. The U.S. and many of its allies have accused Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran insists its production of enriched uranium is intended to produce electricity and is legal under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The Israeli government may want an attack to take place before President George W. Bush leaves office, Ephraim Kam, deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said today in a telephone interview.

``There is no doubt that such an operation is being considered, but it's not going to happen tomorrow,'' Kam said. ``We still have some time. The Bush administration may be more sympathetic to an Israeli operation against Iran than whoever the next president may be, so it could happen before the end of the year.''

Israeli Maneuvers

More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighter planes took part in maneuvers over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece during the first week of June, the New York Times reported on June 20. Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, was in Israel last weekend for meetings with Israeli military leaders, ABC said.
Israeli Defense Ministry spokesman Shlomo Dror, in a telephone interview from Tel Aviv, declined to comment today on the ABC report.

International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors made more than 14 visits to Natanz over the last year, the Vienna-based UN organization said last month. The IAEA said Iran hadn't taken any steps toward making the highly enriched uranium necessary for a bomb and had stockpiled about 150 kilograms (330 pounds) of lower-grade enriched uranium suitable for power plants.

"Iran certainly wouldn't be able to produce enough uranium at Natanz for a bomb,'' British American Security Information Council Co-Director Paul Ingram said today in a telephone interview from London. ``It would be impossible under the current safeguards arrangements to reconfigure the facility to produce highly enriched uranium.''

It takes around 25 kilograms of 90 percent enriched uranium- 235 isotopes to build a bomb. Iran currently has enough uranium to produce less than 4 kilograms of the material, Ingram said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Ladane Nasseri in Tehran at lnasseri@bloomberg.net; Thomas Penny in London tpenny@bloomberg.net. Last Updated: July 1, 2008 10:47 EDT

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:05:00 +0000

This is scheduled for tomorrow and Friday (click for larger image):

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:37:00 +0000

I came across this bit of information on Glenn Greenwald's website today:

From a FoxNews poll
In other words, folks, the Republicans are happier with our DEMOCRATIC Congress than are Democrats! Until our elected Democratic Congressmembers and Senators stop capitulating to the MINORITY Republican party, it will continue to be like the 2006 election never happened. I thought the stolen 2000 election was surreal, but this DEMOCRATIC congress really takes the cake.

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:26:00 +0000

"...The extent of Americans' ignorance is underestimated. Only two in five know we have three branches of government and can name them. Only one in five know there are 100 US senators. And five years into the war in Iraq only one in seven can find Iraq on a map. Someone once said--the author is in dispute--that war is God's way of teaching Americans geography. It's a great line, but rather optimistic. A majority of Americans still haven't bothered to take a look at the map of the country where we have been bombing and killing people since 1991..."

- - - Rick Shenkman, George Mason University

Bits and Pieces for the Weeks of June 1 - 28

noreply@blogger.com (Seven of Six) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:39:00 +0000

Sometimes it's easy to forget that our nation is still brimming with millions of racist, war-mongering imbeciles and that both we and they still have the constitutional right to print such trash. (Mike)

A Minneapolis District Court judge is trying to arrange for George Bush's arrest when he comes to town for the Republican convention. Well, good luck with that, I guess... (Mike)

I won't claim to understand every bit of this scenario, but it appears that the current econimic and market conditions are headed over a cliff. (Mike)

Are the stock and debt markets on the verge of crashing? Read two predictions here and here. (Mike)

MSNBC actually has an impeachment poll! You know what to do... (Mike)

Here are two subjects I never thought I'd see in the same headline: California Foreclosures Linked To West Nile Virus (Mike)

The classic sign that we're in a recession: increased Spam sales (Mike)

Say goodbye to these gorgeous gas-guzzlers. Most of them likely won't be for sale in a couple of years. (Mike)

Bush is negotiating a secret deal with Iraq that will undercut a Democratic White House's attempt to bring the war/occupation to an end in 2009. Fortunately the Iraqis "surprisingly" want U.S. troops out as part of the deal. (Mike)

If you have any ongoing financial concerns or savings with Downey Savings, you may want to seriously consider going elsewhere. It looks like Downey is close to total collapse. (Mike)

Such a deal! Buy one home, get one free. At least, if you can deal with the free one occasionally burning down. (Mike)

Wow. Over one million homes are currently in forclosure in the U.S. There's now a great buyers' market out there! Too bad Bush & Co. have financially fucked over so many Americans that there aren't enough buyers any more. (Mike)

This is really important and will take only a few minutes of your time. (Mike)

An unplanned benefit of same-sex marriages becoming legal in California (Mike)

OK, what's the caveat? "Australia ends combat mission in Iraq" Here it is: "But the Australians said several hundred other troops will remain in Iraq to act as security and headquarters liaisons and to guard diplomats. Australia also will leave behind two maritime surveillance aircraft and a warship to help patrol oil platforms in the Gulf." Oh, and a side note; one more American soldier died in Iraq. (7 of 6)

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 19:23:00 +0000

If you enjoyed Matt Harding's "Dance" video from a couple of years ago, where he danced a ditty at various locations around the world, then you're going to laugh (and maybe cry) at his newest one:

Where the Hell is Matt? (2008) from Matthew Harding on Vimeo.
Matt's outtakes video is pretty funny, too.

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:17:00 +0000

Hands down, my all-time favorite comedian...

R.I.P. George Carlin

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:51:00 +0000

Sit back and relax with one of the greatest guitar pieces of all time...

John Williams - Concierto de Aranjuez 2nd Movement

FOLKS, WE'VE BEEN SCREWED AGAIN BY THE DEMOCRATS!!

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:12:00 +0000

Well, surprise, surprise! The Democratic Congress has once again sold the nation up the river!

We modeled it after the very successful Little Big Horn Compromise

Posted by John Murrell on June 20th, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Congress is now in the process of enshrining into law the precept that the president has the power to secretly grant dispensation giving entities permission to break the laws of the land along with protection from any liability under the “just following orders” defense, and if that doesn’t take the edge off your Independence Day celebration, I don’t know what will.

After holding out for months against a new wiretapping bill that, among other things, would effectively grant the big telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for unquestioningly cooperating with years of illegal government spying, the congressional Democrats finally signed off on what they’re calling a compromise, which is true only in the same sense that a bug compromises with a speeding semi. All that barking and they rolled over like puppies. “I think the White House got a better deal than they even they had hoped to get,” said Sen. Christopher Bond, the Missouri Republican who led the negotiations. The House easily passed the bill today, and it’s expected to cruise through the Senate next week.

Those 40 or so lawsuits filed against the telecoms by groups or individuals who think the Bush administration illegally monitored their calls and e-mails will now be subjected to a ritual of dismissal. Under the bill, a federal district court will review certifications from the attorney general attesting that the telecoms received presidential orders telling them wiretaps were needed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. As Glenn Greenwald puts it, “So all the Attorney General has to do is recite those magic words — the President requested this eavesdropping and did it in order to save us from the Terrorists — and the minute he utters those words, the courts are required to dismiss the lawsuits against the telecoms, no matter how illegal their behavior was.” A confident House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said flatly, “The lawsuits will be dismissed.”

Further, the attorney general’s office can classify the documentation it submits as secret. “So basically,” writes Greenwald, “one day in the near future, we’re all going to learn that one of our federal courts dismissed all of the lawsuits against the telecoms. But we’re never going to be able to know why the lawsuits were dismissed or what documents were given by the Government to force the court to dismiss the lawsuits. Not only won’t we, the public, know that, neither will the plaintiffs’ lawyers. Nobody will know except the Judge and the Government because it will all be shrouded in compelled secrecy, and the Judge will be barred by this law from describing or even referencing the grounds for dismissal in any way. Freedom is on the march.”

The clearest insight into what the administration expects of its citizens came from Bond: “I’m not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I’m sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do.” We didn’t swallow that reasoning at Nuremberg, and we shouldn’t here.

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:30:00 +0000

FRIDAY F U N

Practice your parking skills.
Unusually high quality online flash game: Robokill
"The event was planned and advertised weeks ago: At the new Fairhope Museum of History, officials would open a city safe that had been abandoned and unused since 1971. What would be inside? Nothing? Old city records?" See the video below and find out...

Safe closed since '71 opened

http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=8,0,0,0" id="movie1213981532988">

Testimony of Marjorie Cohn

noreply@blogger.com (Seven of Six) — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:09:00 +0000

Has anybody been following the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on GITMO and other torture schemes by the bu$h administration? I go to Balkinization for frequent updates. The comment sections are great.
Here's a little gem I picked up:

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
House Judiciary Committee
May 6, 2008
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C.
From the Department of Justice to Guantánamo Bay:
Administration Lawyers and Administration Interrogation Rules

"What does torture have in common with genocide, slavery, and wars of aggression? They are all jus cogens. Jus cogens is Latin for 'higher law' or 'compelling law.' This means that no country can ever pass a law that allows torture. There can be no immunity from criminal liability for violation of a jus cogens prohibition.

The United States has always prohibited the use of torture in our Constitution, laws, executive statements and judicial decisions. We have ratified three treaties that all outlaw torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. When the United States ratifies a treaty, it becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, says, 'No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture.'

Whether someone is a POW or not, he must always be treated humanely; there are no gaps in the Geneva Conventions. He must be protected against torture, mutilation, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment under, Common Article 3. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's argument that Common Article 3 doesn't cover the prisoners at Guantánamo. Justice Kennedy wrote that violations of Common Article 3 are war crimes.

We have federal laws that criminalize torture.

The War Crimes Act punishes any grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, as well as any violation of Common Article 3. That includes torture, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and inhuman, humiliating or degrading treatment.

The Torture Statute provides for life in prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies, for anyone who commits, attempts, or conspires to commit torture outside the United States."

The U.S. Army Field Manual's provisions governing intelligence interrogations prohibit the "use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind." Brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion, including the use of drugs, are also prohibited.

Military personnel who mistreat prisoners can be prosecuted by court-martial under
provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These include conspiracy, cruelty and maltreatment, murder, manslaughter, maiming, sodomy, and assault. - (Continue reading) Marjorie Cohn President, National Lawyers Guild Professor, Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Wireless Telephone Laws FAQs

noreply@blogger.com (Mike) — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:37:00 +0000

I've been eagerly anticipating this new driving-with-cell-phone law for a while. It starts in two weeks. Here are some of the facts about it from the CHP website in case you live here in California or will be visiting:

Two new laws dealing with the use of wireless telephones while driving go into effect July 1, 2008. Below is a list of Frequently Asked Questions concerning these new laws.

Q: When do the new wireless telephone laws take effect?
A: The new laws take effect July 1, 2008
Q: What is the difference between the two laws?
A: The first law prohibits all drivers from using a handheld wireless telephone while operating a motor vehicle. (Vehicle Code (VC) §23123). Motorists 18 and over may use a hands-free device. The second law prohibits drivers under the age of 18 from using a wireless telephone or a hands-free device while operating a motor vehicle (VC §23124).
Q: What if I need to use my telephone during an emergency, and I do not have a hands- free device?
A: The law allows a driver to use a wireless telephone to make emergency calls to a law enforcement agency, a medical provider, the fire department, or other emergency services agency.
Q: What are the fines if I’m convicted?
A: The base fine for the FIRST offense is $20 and $50 for subsequent convictions. According to the Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule, with the addition of penalty assessments, a first offense is $76 and a second offense is $190.
Q: Will I receive a point on my drivers license if I’m convicted for a violation of the wireless telephone law?
A: NO. The violation is a reportable offense: however, DMV will not assign a violation point.
Q: Will the conviction appear on my driving record?
A: Yes, but the violation point will not be added.
Q: Will there be a grace period when motorists will only get a warning?
A: NO. The law becomes in effect on July 1, 2008. Whether a citation is issued is always at the discretion of the officer based upon his or her determination of the most appropriate remedy for the situation.
Q: Are passengers affected by this law?
A: No. This law only applies to the person driving a motor vehicle.
Q: Do these laws apply to out-of-state drivers whose home states do not have such laws?
A: Yes
Q: Can I be pulled over by a law enforcement officer for using my handheld wireless telephone?
A: YES. A law enforcement officer can pull you over just for this infraction.
Q: What if my phone has a push-to-talk feature, can I use that?
A: No. The law does provide an exception for those operating a commercial motor truck or truck tractor (excluding pickups), implements of husbandry, farm vehicle or tow truck, to use a two-way radio operated by a "push-to-talk" feature. However, a push-to-talk feature attached to a hands-free ear piece or other hands-free device is acceptable.
Q: What other exceptions are there?
A: Operators of an authorized emergency vehicle during the course of employment are exempt as are those motorists operating a vehicle on private property.

DRIVERS 18 AND OVER - Drivers 18 and over will be allowed to use a hands-free device to talk on their wireless telephone while driving. The following FAQs apply to those motorists 18 and over.
Q: Does the new "hands-free" law prohibit you from dialing a wireless telephone while driving or just talking on it?
A: The new law does not prohibit dialing, but drivers are strongly urged not to dial while driving.
Q: Will it be legal to use a Blue Tooth or other earpiece?
A: Yes, however you cannot have BOTH ears covered.
Q: Does the new hands-free law allow you to use the speaker phone function of your wireless telephone while driving?
A: Yes.
Q: Does the new "hands-free" law allow drivers 18 and over to text page while driving?
A: The law does not specifically prohibit that, but an officer can pull over and issue a citation to a driver of any age if, in the officer’s opinion, the driver was distracted and not operating the vehicle safely. Text paging while driving is unsafe at any speed and is strongly discouraged.

DRIVERS UNDER 18
Q: Am I allowed to use my wireless telephone hands free?
A: NO. Drivers under the age of 18 may not use a wireless telephone, pager, laptop or any other electronic communication or mobile services device to speak or text while driving in any manner, even hands free. EXCEPTION: Permitted in emergency situations to call police, fire or medical authorities. (VC §23124).
Q: Why is the law stricter for provisional drivers?
A: Statistics show that teen drivers are more likely than older drivers to be involved in crashes because they lack driving experience and tend to take greater risks. Teen drivers are vulnerable to driving distractions such as talking with passengers, eating or drinking, and talking or texting on wireless phones, which increase the chance of getting involved in serious vehicle crashes.
Q: Can my parents give me permission to allow me to use my wireless telephone while driving?
A: NO. The only exception is an emergency situation that requires you to call a law enforcement agency, a health care provider, the fire department or other emergency agency entity.
Q: Does the law apply to me if I’m an emancipated minor?
A: Yes. The restriction applies to all licensed drivers who are under the age of 18.
Q: If I have my parent(s) or someone age 25 years or older in the car with me, may I use my wireless telephone while driving?
A: NO. You may only use your wireless telephone in an emergency situation.
Q: Will the restriction appear on my provisional license?
A: No
Q: May I use the hands-free feature while driving if my car has the feature built in?
A: NO. The law prohibits anyone under the age of 18 from using any type of wireless device while driving, except in an emergency situation.
Q: Can a law enforcement officer stop me for using my hands-free device while driving?
A: No. For drivers under the age of 18, this is considered a SECONDARY violation meaning that a law enforcement officer may cite you for using a hands-free wireless phone if you were pulled over for another violation. However, the prohibition against using a handheld wireless telephone while driving is a PRIMARY violation for which a law enforcement officer can pull you over.

I have a Blackberry 8830, so I'll be able to use the speakerphone function... woohoo. I sure hope the CHP enforces this as strongly as they promise. I can't tell you how infuriating it is to be following a car/SUV/van that's driving erratically, only to find out as I pass that the driver is chattering away on their cell phone, practically oblivious to their surroundings.