Diary Of A Lunatic Liberal

That Took Longer Than I Expected...

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:55:00 +0000

So Newt Gingrich, who for a short time there experienced close to double digits over his Republican competitors (due, in a large part, to a $10,000 bet and 2 choices, I mean 2 things, I mean 3 things...?) has finally leveled the playing field again by opening his mouth. Newt is now enjoying a 1 percent bump in the polls (down from 10% last week (or yesterday, i can't keep track)) because he let us in on his tax plan which, kind of like Herman Cain before him, is complete lunacy.

According to the Tax Policy Center if current tax policy stays in place -- and the Bush-era tax cuts are retained -- Gingrich's plan would add about $850 billion to the deficit in 2015 alone, according to the report. If the current tax law remains in place -- and the Bush cuts expire after next year -- the jump in the deficit for 2015 would be $1.3 trillion.
Gingrich would allow people to choose whether to keep the current tax system or file a 15 percent flat tax. Corporations would pay a 12.5 percent rate. Under the current tax law scenario, if the Bush tax cuts expire, the richest Americans would see taxes drop by about 38 percent, or more than $750,000.

Now, 9-9-9 it ain't, but it still sounds like crap to me (and voters too, apparently, as Ron Paul has become the not Mitt of the moment)

German Bund Market or Tinfoil Hats?

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:44:00 +0000

The German central bank, the Deutsche Bundesbank, held a public 6 billion Euro,10-Yr bond auction last week and failed to sell more than 35% of the bonds, raising just 3.9 billion euros. The sale "prompted concerns the debt crisis was even beginning to threaten Berlin on Wednesday, with the Bundesbank forced to buy large amounts of the bonds to ensure the auction did not fail.

The next day, Larry Hatheway, chief economist at UBS said that, seeing as the Eurozone is on the brink of collapse that one might consider investing in precious metals to hedge against the possibility of disaster:

"I suppose there might be some assets worthy of consideration—precious metals, for example. But other metals would make wise investments, too. Among them tinned goods and small calibre weapons."

He said it, not me...

Why Are Banks So Bad With Money?

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:09:00 +0000

Bloomberg news has just published a piece on how U.S. Banks made off like bandits using discounted federal loans to the tune of nearly 13 Billion in profits in 2008. It also states that, combined, U.S. banks needed close to $1.2 trillion dollars in a single day, during the same year, to remain solvent. I'll say it again so you can see that I'm not joking and that it wasn't a typo: ahem- $1.2 trillion dollars, just to stay solvent, in a single day!
Now that's all good and done with, except the fact that Standard and Poor's just downgraded 37 global banks credit ratings, including BofA, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley (according to 0-Hedge). Also, Bank of America is hovering at $5/share today, trading at 60% below its 52-week high.
That mattress is looking incredibly attractive as an investment option right now...

American Airlines flies into the sunset...

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 21:51:00 +0000

So, great news for Jet Blue. Not do great news for the rest of us.
From CBS news:

AMR Corp. and AMR Eagle Holding Corp. says they filed voluntary petitions to reorganize.

Hard enough during an economic downturn to find jobs when there's competition, but when businesses start closing their doors, what's a pilot to do (or a thrower, or a steward or a sky-cap....)? Now, times are tough, but, can we really blamed this on the economy? Methinks not:

American lost $868 million during the first nine months of this year, and was the only major U.S. airline to lose money last year.

How is it that the icon of American capitalism is going under? The symbol of U.S. freedom is being deep-sixed, not because of poor management decisions, no... Must be the Unions:

American has been unable to reach a new cost-saving contract with its pilots. It has been trying to upgrade its aging fleet of planes, and has not merged with another carrier, like many of its competitors.

Can't blame us, blame the little guy.

The Death of a Movement?

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:44:00 +0000

Occupy Wall Street was served a harsh blow this morning when the NYPD, in full riot gear, evicted the temporary residents of Liberty Square. One of the more notable victims of the raid was the Occupants' Library and their cache of over 5,000 books. The Library tent was razed and closer to 5,500 books were tossed into a dumpster (their fate, as yet, is still unknown). #OWS Librarians, according to Cory Doctorow, were live-tweeting the whole raid

“NYPD destroying american cultural history, they’re destroying the documents, the books, the artwork of an event in our nation’s history … Right now, the NYPD are throwing over 5,000 books from our library into a dumpster. Will they burn them? … Call 311 or 212-639-9675 now and ask why Mayor Bloomberg is throwing the 5,554 books from our library into a dumpster.”

So the hard question becomes: is this the end of a movement or will this become the call to arms that saves #OWS. In ten years, when the Occupants have had their say, we all have universal healthcare, the rich aren't so rich and the poor aren't so poor; when wall-street isn't running the world and, instead, we are, will historians say, this day and the cry of "REMEMBER THE LIBRARY!" is what changed it all? Maybe... Probably not, but it does sound too cool for words.

What? No Stills and Young?

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:20:00 +0000

Some rights reserved by DoctorTongs

What is happening to Occupy Wall Street? Are they becoming legitimate or are they becoming even more marginal than before. David Crosby and Graham Nash have said that they will be playing down at Zucotti Park for the protesters but, does that help or does that hurt the OWS movement? The question is: is this the beginning of a revolution or is this the the start of an iHeartRadio concert?

Some Good News For Obama

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 22:02:00 +0000

“The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems.” -Judge Laurence Silberman, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan(!)
So, as many of you may know, I, being a lifelong Catholic, despise Pat Robertson. For those of you who haven't followed his years of abuse of the word of God (he's blamed both earthquakes and tsunamis on homosexuals, among other things), that may seem a bit odd. For the rest of you, break out the noisemakers!
A lawsuit brought by the American Center for Law and Justice, a legal group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson claims that Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 violates the religious freedom of those Americans who choose not to have insurance because they rely on God to protect them from harm. HOWEVER, an appeals court has upheld the constitutionality of the bill stating that "Congress" has "the power to pass the requirement to ensure that all Americans can have health care coverage, even if it infringes on individual liberty."
So, if you're keeping score, that's Pat Robertson: 0 and, who the hell cares!
The fight isn't over yet, though, as there's one more level to the appeals process as the Plaintiffs in the case (listed as the Thomas More Center, et. al.) have yet to decide on whether to bring the case to a full court of appeals or petition the U.S. Supreme Court Directly (no appeals court Judge has of yet ruled on any aspect of the health care law as Constitutional or otherwise).
Here is the full brief from the case:
Thomas More Law Center, et. al. v. Barack Obama, et. al.

On the Docket

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 21:39:00 +0000

We have a Supreme Court double-whammy for you guys this week! Aren't we a peach?!
The Supreme Court, today, is hearing arguments in the case of The United States v. Antoine Jones. There's a lot of technical jargon, mumbo-jumbo, and oxford commas in the brief so I'll simplify:
Antoine Jones was convicted in 2008 of drug-trafficking and sentenced to life. This sentence was later overturned by Washington D.C.'s 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year after it was decided by the justices that he was tracked illegally by the police, who used a GPS tracking device they had placed on his Jeep to follow him.
Now, the action in question here is not the actual use of a GPS tracking device in the surveillance of a suspected criminal, but the use of said device without a warrant (which the police in question did not obtain before attaching said device to Mr. Jones's Jeep). Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked the government attorney arguing the case if it would “not be a search if you put a GPS device on all of our cars, monitored out movements for a month?” referring not to common criminals, but, in this case, to nine justices currently seated on the Supreme Court. When the attorney who was posed that decidedly pointed question answered in the affirmative, that troubled more than one of those enrobed before them. “If you win,” said Justice Stephen G. Breyer, “ it sounds like ‘1984,’ ”
While the justices showed their grave concern for the possibility of forming a police-state under the watchful eye of "Big Brother," they haven't yet ruled in favor or against Mr. Jones. I'm not overstating the case when I say that, at stake here is nothing less than every American Citizen's fourth amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. We'll be keeping an eye on this one for you.

Janet Napolitano (Ms. Janet, If Ur Nasty...)

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 21:59:00 +0000

Yesterday my brother-in-law was deported. He had been living in the United States for the past seven years, never bothered anyone, is college educated and worked in a skilled job. He paid taxes, contributed to Social Security and had no criminal record. Until he was deported, of course. He was working with a crew in Michigan a few months ago and the guy who was driving was a little too close to the guy in front of him and they were pulled over. In Michigan, apparently it isn't beyond the bounds of law to require everyone, in a vehicle that has been stopped because of a traffic violation, to provide identification without just cause. So, after the police officer stopped the car, they saw that my brother-in-law's ID was expired, ran it, and took him in.
What's so frustrating about this whole thing is, if this happened next month, he probably would have been allowed to file for a change of status instead of being deported and barred from entry for ten years. Next month, according to "Click on Detroit," the Obama administration will begin reviewing approximately 300,000 pending deportation cases. The new policy will begin to prioritize deportation cases, pending, on whether the person being deported poses a risk to national security or public safety. My brother-in-law always posed a risk to my personal sanity, but, never to my knowledge, did he pose a risk to public safety.

If You Believe That One, There's This Bridge I Wanna Sell You...

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:12:00 +0000

So, this one also has nothing to do with anything, I just think its incredible and I'm telling everyone.
According to ABC News, "Two Pennsylvania brothers have been charged with stealing a bridge and selling it piecemeal to a scrap yard."
I know! Why didn't I think of that!

iPhone 4S sells 4 million units in 3 days

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:01:00 +0000

iPhone by William Hook


So, this has nothing to do with anything, but Apple has just released its sales figures for the iPhone 4S and, apparently, during the worst recession this country has ever seen since the "Great Depression," more than 10 percent of the current population of the United States of America can afford to shell out $200 to over $600 for what has been billed as an minor upgrade to their previous model, the iPhone 4.

The "Other Side" of the "Story" (?)

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:46:00 +0000

The people at the "Occupy Wall Street" rallies (or as I will continue to call them until they disappear, the "Occupants") have a problem similar to the early days of the Tea-Party Movement ("Tea-Partiers" (?)): There isn't a coherent message.
Without a party-line, the inevitable racist morons show up and attempt to ruin it for everyone:

I can't say that anyone in these clips actually represent the OWS movement. In fact, I can't say that these people actually exist. This news item was broken by "NewsBusters," a notoriously anti-liberal, conservative news organization run by the Media Research Center, founded by L Brent Bozell. This doesn't mean that this video isn't 100% authentic. That it isn't accompanied by anything that proves the level of involvement of those videotaped makes me doubt its authenticity.

OCT15 CITIBANK ARRESTS

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 18:12:00 +0000

I'm ~~probably~~ definitely not the first person that has published this, so ~~maybe~~ probably, this is the fortieth time you've seen it. For those of you who don't know about this, yesterday at about 2 PM, protestors who were, supposedly queuing up inside Citibank to close out their accounts (in protest of Citibank's policies) were locked inside and detained against their will. Near the end of the video, a woman standing outside the building tells some people that she was inside and she is a customer. This "causes" what the video identifies as a "plain-clothes police person" to pick up the female "customer" and physically place her back into the branch to be detained against her will until "police officers" arrive. There are, of course, many problems with both this story and, of course, the very logic behind the explanation.

Firstly: the "Occupants" (what I have taken to calling "Occupy Wall-Street Protestors.") were detained without being read their Miranda rights for the better part of three hours. This would seem to lend credence to the belief that those being held in the bank were held unlawfully by a private entity, Citibank or the employees thereof, and would make Citibank and/or the immediate employees responsible guilty of unlawful seizure and kidnapping.

Citibank, of course, can't be a party to such legal shenanigans /tomfoolery so, in a statement release the next day, Citibank levied all blame squarely on the "Occupants" and the NYPD. In the press release, Citibank stated that protestors were causing an intolerable ruckus (I'm paraphrasing here) and the branch called 911. "The Police asked the branch staff to close the branch until the protesters could be removed." This would make the NYPD the bad guys and make Citibank the victim, especially since only "one person asked to close an account and was accommodated," according to the release.

Again, these protestors were not actually arrested until hours later so, the complete lack of "Mirandization" by the supposed "Police force" that "requested" the branch to close the doors until the protestors could be safely removed, accounts to an unlawful seizure, this time by the NYPD.

As for the woman who was kidnapped by the man in the hooded sweatshirt outside the branch (yes kidnapped and no I'm not being facetious): if he was a police officer, as he did not read her a Miranda warning and did not inform her that she was under arrest, he withheld her liberty through unlawful seizure. If he was not a police officer, which is pretty certain as there were no police onsite at the time, then he is guilty of kidnapping.

Now, to the "Occupants:" Really? You can't say that the whole of you were just peacefully queuing up inside to close out your accounts in protest and then release a video of the whole of you not being orderly and not just queuing up to close out your accounts in protest:

That's just crazy talk.

Raining Revolution

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:38:00 +0000

Joaquin Phoenix at the 'Two Lovers'

Screening In New York City

(Image By Flynet.com Via Zimbio.com)
When someone says "survivalist" or "militia," I think its not too far out of line to say that the vast majority of us picture crazy, gun-toting nut jobs looking to secede from the American Union in order to form the "United States of Bob." It may be unfair to think it, but with our history (Waco, Oklahoma City, Ruby Ridge, etc.), who could really blame us.
The problem is, this country was built by survivalist, gun-nut minutemen who believed that if a government became too powerful then it was up to the people to destroy it. I said that and our "forefathers" meant it. Its right there in the third line of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." This was their justification for secession from the British Empire. Now, I'm not saying that we should rise up against the government and take them down. However, I'm not sure I can find a reason why would it be so crazy that anyone would say such a thing? If the government is failing us and/or oppressing its people (which, I am of the opinion, the United States is doing neither) why would it be crazy to take up arms against them?
With the way the economy is today, it might not be surprising that many of the people you know and you work with are survivalists. Survivalism, according to Wikipedia (repository of all "truth" on the internets), is a movement of individuals or groups who are actively preparing for future possible disruptions in local, regional, national, or international social or political order. While this is a step beyond Bear Grylls, most people couldn't say that an ounce of preparation isn't worth a pound of MREs (or something like that). A few months ago, while we were working on replacing a router for one of our clients said to me: "John Locke, one of our founding fathers, said 'A well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny.'"
That stopped me in my tracks for two reasons: First, I could have sworn that Thomas Jefferson said that, not John Locke and B) here was a man that I knew who was a professional installer, has a good job, 401K, college fund for his kid, a mortgage and a wife who had the same (the new-ish American dream) starting a conversation with me about guns and butter (I told him I had heard the quote, who I attributed it to and that I believe in the second amendment and then backed away slowly).
I have another group of friends, one a teacher at a prestigious university and the other a counselor for a different university who fall far short of fomenting political unrest. They "know" its coming, they just think it'll start on wall street.
Gold, a solid indicator on the strength of our economy, has in the past 10 years risen in price from $272 per ounce to a high, recently, of $1889 per ounce. Gas has gone above the $3.50 per gallon, never to return again to pre-Iraq War levels even as oil prices finally start to retreat below 2008 levels. And food prices are fluctuating wildly as investors hedge their losses on real estate by speculating on the price of grain. I'm not an expert, but, if this isn't the "verge" of an economic collapse, when will we actually be standing over the precipice, staring into the void? (dramatic, I know. It's dramatic stuff people!!!)

Hey Guys!!!

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:14:00 +0000

Revving up the keyboard. I'll be posting for at least the next few months. Sorry I haven't called or written... I know, I'm not the good son. I'll make it up to you.
Promise

Barack Obama Forms Exploratory Committee

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:36:00 +0000

(Full Text And Video)
...The decisions that have been made in Washington these past six years, and the problems that have been ignored, have put our country in a precarious place. Our economy is changing rapidly, and that means profound changes for working people. Many of you have shared with me your stories about skyrocketing health care bills, the pensions you've lost and your struggles to pay for college for your kids. Our continued dependence on oil has put our security and our very planet at risk. And we're still mired in a tragic and costly war that should have never been waged.
But challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics. America's faced big problems before. But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions.
And that's what we have to change first.
We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans.
This won't happen by itself. A change in our politics can only come from you; from people across our country who believe there's a better way and are willing to work for it.
Years ago, as a community organizer in Chicago, I learned that meaningful change always begins at the grassroots, and that engaged citizens working together can accomplish extraordinary things.
So even in the midst of the enormous challenges we face today, I have great faith and hope about the future - because I believe in you.
And that's why I wanted to tell you first that I'll be filing papers today to create a presidential exploratory committee. For the next several weeks, I am going to talk with people from around the country, listening and learning more about the challenges we face as a nation, the opportunities that lie before us, and the role that a presidential campaign might play in bringing our country together. And on February 10th, at the end of these decisions and in my home state of Illinois, I'll share my plans with my friends, neighbors and fellow Americans.
In the meantime, I want to thank all of you for your time, your suggestions, your encouragement and your prayers. And I look forward to continuing our conversation in the weeks and months to come.

Sincerely,

U.S. Senator Barack Obama

Beyond The Bounds Of The Law, As Usual

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:26:00 +0000

Firstly, sorry about the time between posts guys. Unlike Atrios and Joshua, I have a full time job and my "blog" does nothing to supplement my income. Anyway, enough with the "woe-is-me's" and "theya-culpas." It appears "President" Bush has been breaking the law (and not just by spying on and wiretapping us). A thorough investigation of two public laws pressed into service by the Bush Congress reveals he has broken two of his own laws and without the help of signing statements(this time). Those two laws would be Public Law 107-40, the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan and Public Law 107-243, the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. I'll explain: Firstly, I am not now, nor was I ever against military action in Afghanistan. Far from it; I considered joining the Marines (to my friends: I was skinnier then. Seriously). However, inasmuch as what Public Law 107-40 actually authorizes, it is laser accurate and very precise. It reads as such:

SEC. 2.(a) <> In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Note the italics: "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001," meaning precisely that. Public Law 107-40 applies only to nations, organizations, or persons who were responsible in any way shape or form for the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. To apply this law to any other resource is illegal, and "President" Bush has used said law to justify illegal detention of U.S. citizens, to justify eavesdropping on us and to justify stealing as many of our liberties as he sees fit.
Now, as for P.L. 107-243, that is a contract that was entered into under false pretenses so, as I see it, it should be void on it's very face. While reading, remember that while "whereas" can mean "on the contrary," in legal documents, as a preamble, "whereas" means "on the condition of":

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

So, before we go any further, if this entire law is dependent on these three statements being true, then the whole of the document is false. I'm pretty sure that's the Law of Modus Tollens in logic (not to say that anything this administration does is logical or lawful). Now, beyond that, there is another conditional placed within P.L. 107-243. that reads as such:

SEC. 3.(b)(2): ...acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

In plain English: Action in Iraq cannot detract from the pursuit of those responsible for the attacks on 9/11. End of point: Go get 'em Senator Biden (that is one type of "Joe-mentum" I'm willing to get behind!)!

What's The Worst That Could Happen?

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:54:00 +0000

(Update 01/10/07-- After I started writing this post, speculation made way for fact and Georgie-Porgie announced plans to "surge" 21,150 troops to Iraq (why such an obscure number? Most "experts" believe that 21,150 is all the troops we have left. Comforting, no?) and Joe-Mentos (the fresh-maker, he ain't) quickly stepped up and kissed his ass:
"Tonight, the president did not take the easy path, but he took the correct and courageous course. We are engaged in a world-wide struggle against Islamist extremism, and Iraq is now the central front. It is a dangerous illusion to believe that we can depart Iraq and the inevitable killing fields and terrorist violence will not follow us in retreat -- even to our own shores," Lieberman said in a statement.)

Okay guys, this on is a little long-winded and winding but, I'll get to the point by the end. The video above (from C-Span via Crooks and Liars) is of a very "bi-partisan" Joe Lieberman breaking bread with John McCain over the Captain McChimpy's "brilliant" idea of a "troop surge" (first set of quotes is in the ironic sense and the second is in the "he is so full of bullsh*t" sense).

From Crooks and Liars:
Lieberman:…that there be some kind of attempt to resolve this pivotal moment with a compromise among factions in American politics and in the American Congress rather than doing what is right and has the highest prospect of succeeding in Iraq—in other words this moment cries out for the kind of courageous leadership that does what can succeed and win in Iraq—not what will command the largest number of political supporters in Congress….we need to support the President as he goes forward, hopefully with exactly that kind of new initiative in Iraq.

From Rolling Stone:
In words that should trouble any Democrats counting Lieberman in their camp, Lieberman was praising Bush as a “great leader” for bucking American opinion, as expressed in the 2006 election, in his determination to double down in Iraq. Lieberman then said something incredible:
Even those opposed to the surge, he said, “ought to at least let us try it.”

The worst that could happen is an exponential increase in U.S. casualties in a war that is no longer ours to fight (if you ask me)
Also, if you ask me, the most quotable of quotables in Lieberman's soliloquy would be right near the end where he said: "...It would be an extreme action during a time of war to, for instance, attempt to block the funding for the increase in troops that the President and the military think are necessary." Lieberman has, for sure, not been paying attention to his 20th Century history. As a matter of fact, Congress not only has the right to exercise control and restraint on military deployment, it has the job to do so. A job that they were only too happy to do with Democrats in office:
October 1994. P.L. 103-423 – A joint resolution regarding U.S. Policy Toward Haiti. Congress supported a “prompt and orderly withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces from Haiti as soon as possible.”
July 2000. P.L. 106-246 – Military Construction Appropriations and For Other Purposes – Personnel Ceiling in Colombia: “no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act (including funds described in subsection (c)) may be available for— (A) the assignment of any United States military personnel for temporary or permanent duty in Colombia in connection with support of Plan Colombia if that assignment would cause the number of United States military personnel so assigned in Colombia to exceed 500; or (B) the employment of any United States individual civilian retained as a contractor in Colombia if that employment would cause the total number of United States individual civilian contractors employed in Colombia in support of Plan Colombia who are funded by Federal funds to exceed 300.”
November 1993. P.L. 103-139. The Congress limited the use of funding in Somalia for operations of U.S. military personnel only until March 31, 1994, permitting expenditure of funds for the mission thereafter only if the president sought and Congress provided specific authorization.
September 1994. P.L. 103-335. The Congress declared “no funds provided in this Act are available for United States military participation to continue Operations Restore Hope in or around Rwanda after October 7, 1994, except for any action that is necessary to protect the lives of United States citizens.”
June 1998. P.L. 105-85 – Defense Authorization Bill. The Congress prohibited funding for Bosnia “after June 30, 1998, unless the President, not later than May 15, 1998, and after consultation with the bipartisan leadership of the two Houses of Congress, transmits to Congress a certification— (1) that the continued presence of United States ground combat forces, after June 30, 1998, in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is required in order to meet the national security interests of the United States; and (2) that after June 30, 1998, it will remain United States policy that United States ground forces will not serve as, or be used as, civil police in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.”

Willard Scott Denies Global Warming

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 05:32:00 +0000

This is just insane:

From the January 2 edition of NBC's Today:

SCOTT: Well, listen are you a globing -- a global-warming fan? Do you believe in global warming?
VIEIRA: I'm not a fan. No. No, sir.
SCOTT: Well --
VIEIRA: But I -- something's going on, 'cause it's warm here.
SCOTT: Well, now, wait a minute -- that's it; it's warm here. From Savannah [Georgia] all the way up to Boston, we're having unheard-of warm weather, but ask the folks out in Denver and Colorado --
VIEIRA: That's so.
SCOTT: -- the coldest winter they've had in years. So it all depends on which side of the Mississippi you're hanging your hat.

Okay, so what, exactly, would you say is the most stunning part about that? Would you say that it's Willard coming out against global warming or Meredith Vieira (who's being paid on and upwards of a billion or so dollars a year to host that crack-pot show) agreeing with him?
Either way, my Mother is a certifiable genius and, seemingly just to throw it in my face, she posited this theory on the insane snowstorms in the midwest: the snow wouldn't be possible, except for warmer temperatures. Yes, I said it is snowing so much, not in spite of, but because of warmer temperatures (Bear with me, I feel some science coming on). Now, most people know that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius). Most people also understand that it is much colder at 30,000 or so feet (where clouds usually form). What most people do not either know or understand is once a cloud reaches a certain temperature (between -30 and -40 C (-22 and -40 F)) it will not snow. So, seeing as the average January surface temperature in Denver has, historically been 10 degrees lower than it is this year (-4C to 0C (24F-32F) vs. -.5C to 4.4C (31F-40F)), that could, in effect, account for the drastic increase in snowfall.
Go back to birthdays Scott. Leave the weather to my Mom.
(Celsius to Fahrenheit converter, Average winter temperatures, Colorado)

Pat Robertson Says God Told Him Of 2007 Mass Terror Attack

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 03:42:00 +0000

Blogger is having issues right now, so here is a little evil for you to gnaw on while I am figuring it out.

This Man Makes My Head Hurt.

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:49:00 +0000

This man, as some of you might know, is Hal Turner, host of the political talk show "The Hal Turner Show" (broadcast in NYC on Wed. 9p-11p). On his website (which was just recently attacked with a DDOS attack so loading might be slow), when you get to the first page you see headlines like "BUSH CLAIMS RIGHT TO OPEN AMERICANS' MAIL WITHOUT SEARCH WARRANT;
IT IS LONG OVERDUE TO "REMOVE" THIS MAN FROM OFFICE; I ADVOCATE THE REMOVAL OF GEORGE WALKER BUSH FROM THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE," and right next to it on the same page "SAVAGE SPIC FORCES WOMAN INTO CAR WITH MACHETE; RAPES HER. BROAD DAYLIGHT CRIME IN THIRD-WORLD CESSPOOL FLORIDA." You probably see my confusion.
Prior to the mid-term election, Mr. Turner suggested that if those Congresspersons that have wronged America were voted back into office then they might have to be assassinated. His exact words:

" October 27, 2006 -- As the November 7 Election approaches, I decided to write a few lines to my fellow Americans about the state of our nation and the ugliness that may have to occur if the people who caused these problems are re-elected: They may have to be assassinated."

Now, what exactly does Mr. Turner have a problem with? His list:

"1) Limited our freedom of political speech...
2) Killing of 655,000 innocent people...
3) Congress doesn't read the Bills they pass!...
4) Elected Officials Simply Ignore Our Will...
5) Deliberate Fraud...
6) They've broken the nation's financial back...
7) Passed the "USA PATRIOT ACT" and the "Military Commissions Act of 2006"...
8) Take YOUR land and sell it to someone else for higher taxes!...
8) Boating, Hunting and Fishing in "navigable waterways" ruled ILLEGAL!...
9) Talking about AMNESTY for ILLEGAL Aliens...."

Here comes the headache. Mr. Turner is an admitted anti-Semitic white supremacist, and, with the exception of numbers 9 and 8 (the second number 8), I agree with him (not on the actual assassination tip, but his frustrations seem very legitimate).
Now, here comes the second headache. It appears he has set a timetable for those "suggested" assassinations:

"Members of The United States House of Representatives or United States Senate who try to grant any form of Amnesty to millions of illegal aliens are hereby notified they may as well paint a bulls-eye target on themselves. Our Bullets don't care about their sovereign power," he wrote.
"This seems to be 'it' folks. I'm going to do what I have to do to protect my nation from its government. I know where all of my New Jersey Congressmen and Senators live. Do you know where yours live? If not, you better find out before January so you can scope out their neighborhoods and prepare yourselves," he said.
"Those of you who, for years, have said you're 'gonna do this' or 'gonna do that' when the time comes; are about to face ugly reality. In January, 'the time' will come. In January the entire world will find out if you're real or just a bigmouth coward," he said.
Turner also declined a suggestion to post a list of addresses and provide maps "so people can protest at their homes" by saying, "Once I publish such a list, they would undoubtedly feel the need and take steps to secure themselves. If we forewarn them by publicly publishing a list, we lose the element of surprise."

I'm so confused. Since when has the calling for an assassination of a publicly elected official been made legal? Isn't it treason or inciting violence or something? And hasn't he made his intention to murder his own elected officials pretty clear? "I'm going to do what I have to do to protect my nation from its government. I know where all of my New Jersey Congressmen and Senators live." All I'm saying is if Jose Padilla can be held on suspicion of nothing for three years, we can hold this redneck, bigoted bastard for saying he's going to kill Congress.

Starbucks Day of Action

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 04:19:00 +0000

Okay, this post is a little late (as the event happened on Dec. 16th of 2006) however, there are some new events to report.
The above video was posted in conjunction with Oxfam Charity's "Starbucks Day Of Action" to protest Starbucks' alleged dirty dealings in a trademark dispute with Ethiopia's Sidamo region. Starbucks, to their credit, has forgone the traditional "press-release-that-no-one-reads" format for dealing with Oxfam's allegation and in turn has released their own "YouTube" video. Here's the scoop:

Starbucks, Ethiopia, and the Coffee Branding Wars

By Joshua Gallu

Fine coffee beans may be Ethiopia's most precious natural resource. But Starbucks is standing in the way of the country's efforts to trademark its gourmet product. The row is escalating.

Think you know what's in your coffee cup? It used to be simple: ground coffee beans and water. Now though, your average robusto has given way to a grande double non-fat latte with a shot of vanilla syrup. The 20 cent cup of mud has turned into a $4 coffee experience.
Still, even as coffee has gone upscale, the barista whipping forth your drink still works with coffee beans. How they find their way from plantations to your mug is a quintessential tale of globalization, complete with giant wealthy corporations, poor local farmers and conflicts over who is entitled to what.
The most recent dispute in this economic food chain involves Starbucks and the Ethiopian government. The giant coffee franchise opposes Ethiopia's efforts to trademark the names of its most famous coffee regions Sidamo, Yirgacheffe and Harar. Starbucks, after all, is already using those names to sell coffee for top dollars across the globe. A clear case of a developing country defending itself against rapacious Western business interests, right? Oxfam, the UK-based development agency, thinks so. It is championing Ethiopia's move and has embarked on a massive media campaign accusing Starbucks of keeping the small farmer under its thumb.
"Harar and Sidamo have sold in coffee shops for up to $24 and $26 per pound," Seth Petchers from Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Farmers who grow these specialty coffees get as little as $.60 to $1.10 per pound.... We want to work to find a win-win solution." Oxfam estimates that over time Ethiopia's coffee industry would benefit from an additional $88 million annually were the trade marking plan to go through.
Ethiopian names "generic"
Starbucks, though, insists that it is not trying to deny Ethiopian farmers their legitimate coffee profits. Alain Poncelet, Starbucks' head of Green Coffee Purchasing, told SPIEGEL ONLINE that his company is all for Ethiopia "protecting its regional names." Just not through trademark. Starbucks favors a geographic certification model -- similar to Jamaican Blue Mountain Coffee, Florida Orange Juice and Napa Valley Wines -- which guarantees a point of origin and standard of quality.
So which model is best? Your answer to that question likely depends on which end of the supply chain you're on.
Ethiopia's efforts to protect the "Sidamo" name actually began way back in March 2005. But the country's application to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) went nowhere for the next 15 months. Starbucks, as it turns out, had already applied to trademark an expression that included the word "sidamo."
In June 2006, the giant coffee distributor withdrew its application and took a different approach to get its way. According to Oxfam, Starbucks leaned on the National Coffee Association (NCA) to help block Ethiopia's bid. And it worked. In refusing Ethiopia its trademark, the USPTO cited a position directly from the NCA letter of protest: The names Ethiopia wanted to trademark, it argued, were "generic."
Ethiopia has until December to appeal the USPTO's decision -- a move the country will likely make -- and the government, with the help of Oxfam, is trying to get the NCA and Starbucks to stop blocking the trademark process.

Happy New Year's Everyone!

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 04:45:00 +0000

And I do mean everyone (Second to last BS post guys, I swear!). It appears that Times Square isn't the hottest spot in the universe for New Years. Next year, I'm dropping the ball at Chicago's O'Hare Airport:

In the sky! A bird? A plane? A ... UFO?
Video: UFO over O'Hare Airport?

It sounds like a tired joke--but a group of airline employees insist they are in earnest, and they are upset that neither their bosses nor the government will take them seriously.
A flying saucerlike object hovered low over O'Hare International Airport for several minutes before bolting through thick clouds with such intense energy that it left an eerie hole in overcast skies, said some United Airlines employees who observed the phenomenon.
Was it an alien spaceship? A weather balloon lost in the airspace over the world's second-busiest airport? A top-secret military craft? Or simply a reflection from lights that played a trick on the eyes?
Officials at United professed no knowledge of the Nov. 7 event--which was reported to the airline by as many as a dozen of its own workers--when the Tribune started asking questions recently. But the Federal Aviation Administration said its air traffic control tower at O'Hare did receive a call from a United supervisor asking if controllers had spotted a mysterious elliptical-shaped craft sitting motionless over Concourse C of the United terminal.
No controllers saw the object, and a preliminary check of radar found nothing out of the ordinary, FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory said.
The FAA is not conducting a further investigation, Cory said. The theory is the sighting was caused by a "weather phenomenon," she said.
The UFO report has sparked some chuckles among controllers in O'Hare tower.
"To fly 7 million light years to O'Hare and then have to turn around and go home because your gate was occupied is simply unacceptable," said O'Hare controller and union official Craig Burzych.
Some of the witnesses, interviewed by the Tribune, said they are upset that neither the government nor the airline is probing the incident.
Whatever the object was, it could have interfered with O'Hare's radar and other equipment, and even created a collision risk, they said.
The Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (the term that extraterrestrial-watchers nowadays prefer over Unidentified Flying Object) was first seen by a United ramp worker who was directing back a United plane at Gate C17, according to an account the worker provided to the National UFO Reporting Center.
The sighting occurred during daylight, about 4:30 p.m., just before sunset.
All the witnesses said the object was dark gray and well defined in the overcast skies. They said the craft, estimated by different accounts to be 6 feet to 24 feet in diameter, did not display any lights.
Some said it looked like a rotating Frisbee, while others said it did not appear to be spinning. All agreed the object made no noise and it was at a fixed position in the sky, just below the 1,900-foot cloud deck, until shooting off into the clouds.
Witnesses (were) shaken by sighting
"I tend to be scientific by nature, and I don't understand why aliens would hover over a busy airport," said a United mechanic who was in the cockpit of a Boeing 777 that he was taxiing to a maintenance hangar when he observed the metallic-looking object above Gate C17.
"But I know that what I saw and what a lot of other people saw stood out very clearly, and it definitely was not an [Earth] aircraft," the mechanic said.
One United employee appeared emotionally shaken by the sighting and "experienced some religious issues" over it, one co-worker said.
A United manager said he ran outside his office in Concourse B after hearing the report about the sighting on an internal airline radio frequency.
"I stood outside in the gate area not knowing what to think, just trying to figure out what it was," he said. "I knew no one would make a false call like that. But if somebody was bouncing a weather balloon or something else over O'Hare, we had to stop it because it was in very close proximity to our flight operations."

Slate's 2006 Bill Of Wrongs

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:42:00 +0000

Two awesome things were released today. First (and funniest) would be the Darwin Awards for 2006 (the number one story is about a guy who effectively disassembled an RPG with a sledgehammer). But, more importantly, would be the Slate.com 2006 "Bill of Wrongs," the most egregious of civil rights abuses for the year (I'm just giving you the top four to conserve space):
(PS-Links are mine. Be sure to click on John Ashcroft (It's how I will always remember him ;-)

4. Extraordinary Rendition
So, when does it start to become ordinary rendition? This government program has us FedEx-ing unindicted terror suspects abroad for interrogation/torture. Khalid El-Masri, a German citizen, was shipped off to Afghanistan for such treatment and then released without charges, based on some government confusion about his name. Heh heh. Canadian citizen Maher Arar claims he was tortured in Syria for a year, released without charges, and cleared by a Canadian commission. Attempts to vindicate the rights of such men? You'd need to circle back to the state-secrets doctrine, above.

3. Abuse of Jose Padilla
First, he was, according to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, "exploring a plan to build and explode a radiological dispersion device, or 'dirty bomb,' in the United States." Then, he was planning to blow up apartments. Then he was just part of a vague terror conspiracy to commit jihad in Bosnia and Chechnya. Always, he was a U.S. citizen. After three and a half years, in which he was denied the most basic legal rights, it has now emerged that Padilla was either outright tortured or near-tortured. According to a recent motion, during Padilla's years of almost complete isolation, he was treated by the U.S. government to sensory and sleep deprivation, extreme cold, stress positions, threats of execution, and drugging with truth serum. Experts say he is too mentally damaged to stand trial. The Bush administration supported his motion for a mental competency assessment, in hopes that will help prevent his torture claims from ever coming to trial, or, as Yale Law School's inimitable Jack Balkin put it: "You can't believe Padilla when he says we tortured him because he's crazy from all the things we did to him."

2. The Military Commissions Act of 2006
This was the so-called compromise legislation that gave President Bush even more power than he initially had to detain and try so-called enemy combatants. He was generously handed the authority to define for himself the parameters of interrogation and torture and the responsibility to report upon it, since he'd been so good at that. What we allegedly did to Jose Padilla was once a dirty national secret. The MCA made it the law.

1. Hubris
Whenever the courts push back against the administration's unsupportable constitutional ideas—ideas about "inherent powers" and a "unitary executive" or the silliness of the Geneva Conventions or the limitless sweep of presidential powers during wartime—the Bush response is to repeat the same chorus louder: Every detainee is the worst of the worst; every action taken is legal, necessary, and secret. No mistakes, no apologies. No nuance, no regrets. This legal and intellectual intractability can create the illusion that we are standing on the same constitutional ground we stood upon in 2001, even as that ground is sliding away under our feet.

Saddam Hussein Executed!

noreply@blogger.com (mswozniak ) — Sat, 30 Dec 2006 04:23:00 +0000

Story by BBC News, Middle East:

Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been executed by hanging at an unspecified location in Baghdad, for crimes against humanity.
Iraqi TV said the execution took place just before 0600 local time (0300GMT).
The news was confirmed to the BBC by the Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister, Labeed Abawi.
Two co-defendants, Saddam Hussein's half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti and former Iraqi chief judge Awad Hamed al-Bandar, were also executed.
Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by an Iraqi court on 5 November after a year-long trial over the 1982 killings of 148 Shias in the town of Dujail.
"Criminal Saddam was hanged to death," state-run Iraqiya television announced, as patriotic music and images of national monuments were broadcast.
A scrolling headline read: "Saddam's execution marks the end of a dark period of Iraq's history."
The TV station said Saddam Hussein's half-brother and the former chief justice of the Revolutionary Court were also hanged.
Other Arab TV stations aired live footage of the sunrise over Baghdad's Firdous Square, where US Marines pulled down a statue of Saddam Hussein, after he was deposed in April 2003.

'Turning a page'

US troops and Iraqi security forces are on high alert for any violent backlash. The US State Department has urged all its embassies to increase security.
The BBC's Peter Greste in Baghdad says Shias have generally welcomed Saddam Hussein's passing and hailed the execution as justice for the suffering endured under his leadership.
But Saddam's own Sunni tribesman were angered by his treatment in the past and they may well protest once more, our correspondent adds.
The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says the Bush administration will see the act as turning a page in Iraq - a demonstration that Iraq has a sovereign and democratic government.
A US statement is expected. However, the Bush administration will be keen to portray the execution as a matter purely for the Iraqi government and its court system, our correspondent says.

Later, a look at how the U.S. took part in Saddam's crimes! (Hint: why do you think we were so sure he had weapons of mass destruction?)