In a word...Sad.
I just went to the Montgomery Advertiser's website, and they have a new online poll up.
It asks the question:
"Which is more important to the War on Terror?"
A. The capture of Saddam Hussein
or
B. Finding weapons of mass destruction.
Of course, I voted "finding weapons of mass destruction." After all, that was the main reason we went over there....or at least that's what the Bush administration would have us believe. They don't seem to like the insinuation that oil and Bush's oil buddies at Halliburton had more reasons to go to war.
Speaking of WMD's, where are they? We've found empty cannisters and cylinders and other items that possibly could be used for weapons, but still no actual proof of weapons.
As of 1:43 am CST, that poll on the Montgomery Advertiser's web site had over 60% of the votes saying that capturing Saddam Hussein was more important than finding weapons of mass destruction. Why? OK, Saddam was a horrible person. He killed so many people that we'll probably never know the exact numbers, but when it comes to the War on Terror, what exactly can he do without those WMD's that everyone was talking about.
Presidential Candidate update:
Today, Democratic Presidential Candidate Howard Dean made a bold statement about the capture of Saddam. He said that America is no safer now than before his capture. We know that our troops are not safer. The day of his capture there were two suicide bombings in Baghdad. How many American troops are going to die before we let the free Iraqi's rule their own country?
Dean has been against the war from the beginning. He said that he is glad Saddam is out of power. The Iraqi people are safer now, but the safety of Americans remains unchanged by this situation.
More info:
Montgomery Advertiser: poll and Saddam coverage
Howard Dean for America
12.15.2003
Saddam says, "A picture is worth a thousand words"
If you do not know by now, Saddam Hussein has officially been captured by US troops. A huge victory for the Bush administration, we now have in our custody the man who did not attack America on 9/11. Now if Bush could just find that pesky Osama guy (spelled Usama if you're watching Fox News Channel).
In the weeks before the war began, as you probably recall, there were many countries against our persistence to start a war. The country that stood out the most in its opposition was France. Of couse, many members of the "liberal media" - like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, turned against France through harsh words and boycotts. (On a sidenote: I find it interesting and a bit humorous that so many people call the media "liberal" when the most famous news personalities are conservative Bush-supporting Republicans - Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Neil Cavuto, etc.)
Many people wondered why France was so adamant in its opposition to war. Then I began seeing this picture popping up in many news sources and all over the internet:
Click Here To See Pic
It's a picture of French President Jacques Chirac standing with Saddam Hussein and two scientists...and it was taken some time in the 1970's. Hey, a picture of them together in the 70's must mean that they have very strong ties in 2003. Yeah, OK.
If that's the case, then you might find this picture interesting. The "liberal media" didn't make this picture quite as popular:
Click Here To See Pic
There, you see Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. Note that this picture was taken in December of 1983, close to a decade after the infamous Saddam/Chirac picture.
Here is a picture from the web site whitehouse.org that is a humorous, a better word would probably be satirical, explanation of Saddam's biological and chemical weapons:
Click Here To See Pic
Yes, Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons....and the United States has known about this for many, many years - long before this war.
How does the US know he had these biological and chemical agents?
Because we sold them to him
The United States has a long history of dealings with Saddam Hussein, and there have been many US corporations who have sold chemical and biological agents to Saddam with full US government approval. The US even continued its dealings with Saddam after he gassed his own people...although Sean Hannity thinks we went to war to free 50 million people....yeah, cause that's just what we do, huh?
Want more information?
Read here for facts and links to other sources
Here is a list of American companies who helped Saddam
US had key role in Iraq buildup
In the weeks before the war began, as you probably recall, there were many countries against our persistence to start a war. The country that stood out the most in its opposition was France. Of couse, many members of the "liberal media" - like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, turned against France through harsh words and boycotts. (On a sidenote: I find it interesting and a bit humorous that so many people call the media "liberal" when the most famous news personalities are conservative Bush-supporting Republicans - Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Michael Reagan, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Neil Cavuto, etc.)
Many people wondered why France was so adamant in its opposition to war. Then I began seeing this picture popping up in many news sources and all over the internet:
Click Here To See Pic
It's a picture of French President Jacques Chirac standing with Saddam Hussein and two scientists...and it was taken some time in the 1970's. Hey, a picture of them together in the 70's must mean that they have very strong ties in 2003. Yeah, OK.
If that's the case, then you might find this picture interesting. The "liberal media" didn't make this picture quite as popular:
Click Here To See Pic
There, you see Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. Note that this picture was taken in December of 1983, close to a decade after the infamous Saddam/Chirac picture.
Here is a picture from the web site whitehouse.org that is a humorous, a better word would probably be satirical, explanation of Saddam's biological and chemical weapons:
Click Here To See Pic
Yes, Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons....and the United States has known about this for many, many years - long before this war.
How does the US know he had these biological and chemical agents?
Because we sold them to him
The United States has a long history of dealings with Saddam Hussein, and there have been many US corporations who have sold chemical and biological agents to Saddam with full US government approval. The US even continued its dealings with Saddam after he gassed his own people...although Sean Hannity thinks we went to war to free 50 million people....yeah, cause that's just what we do, huh?
Want more information?
Read here for facts and links to other sources
Here is a list of American companies who helped Saddam
US had key role in Iraq buildup
12.11.2003
What Moore do you want?
Dear Former Chief Justice Roy Moore,
You are the former chief justice for one reason: you deliberately disobeyed a federal court order. That's it. You did not lose your job because you believe in the ten commandments. You did not lose your job because you acknowledge God.
While many people see you as a great man who stands for his beliefs, there are those of us who see you as a man who loves publicity. That's all. You want to further advance your political career, so you rely on the press to get your name out to the public.
You and your followers spread your propoganda to the masses, making Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and all of Fox News repeat the same mantra about the secularization of America. America, according to the Constitution, cannot establish a religion - so therefore America is a secular country. I know you disagree because you stand firm on your belief that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
Read your history books - the people who first came to this country came to have the freedom of religion. They were sick of having to follow the rules of the Church of England. So they came to America for freedom, and then many explorers and settlers came to the country in the spirit of exploration and religion. With these new settlers came diseases, and violence, and bloodshed, and death to the natives of this land. The "Indians" became slaves in many cases, and were slaughtered because they were considered "savages".
Slaughtering innocent people because you disagree with their way of life? Is this one of our Judeo-Christian values?
More Info:
Moore's fight to keep the job he chose to lose
You are the former chief justice for one reason: you deliberately disobeyed a federal court order. That's it. You did not lose your job because you believe in the ten commandments. You did not lose your job because you acknowledge God.
While many people see you as a great man who stands for his beliefs, there are those of us who see you as a man who loves publicity. That's all. You want to further advance your political career, so you rely on the press to get your name out to the public.
You and your followers spread your propoganda to the masses, making Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and all of Fox News repeat the same mantra about the secularization of America. America, according to the Constitution, cannot establish a religion - so therefore America is a secular country. I know you disagree because you stand firm on your belief that America was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
Read your history books - the people who first came to this country came to have the freedom of religion. They were sick of having to follow the rules of the Church of England. So they came to America for freedom, and then many explorers and settlers came to the country in the spirit of exploration and religion. With these new settlers came diseases, and violence, and bloodshed, and death to the natives of this land. The "Indians" became slaves in many cases, and were slaughtered because they were considered "savages".
Slaughtering innocent people because you disagree with their way of life? Is this one of our Judeo-Christian values?
More Info:
Moore's fight to keep the job he chose to lose
11.24.2003
Hannity and Colmes...Fair and Balanced...or is just the Sean Hannity Show?
FAIR.org (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) has a great article about Fox News Channel's hit show "Hannity and Colmes". The article, written by Steve Rendall, debates the actual "balance" of the show.
He speaks of how the show was originally "Hannity and Liberal-to-be-determined" because Hannity was hired for the show before they ever even auditioned a liberal.
Fox news president Roger Ailes suggests that "Hannity and Colmes" is a very balanced show because it features both sides of the argument - you have the conservative (Sean Hannity) and the liberal (Alan Colmes).
Many people on both sides of the political spectrum argue that the show is not as balanced as Fox News would have you believe.
Sean Hannity is very aggressive, especially when compared to his co-host, who tends to be milder and closer to a "moderate" than a "liberal".
My views on Sean Hannity:
First of all, I disagree with Sean Hannity most of the time. He has said many things on the show that just go against what I believe this country should be about...
...and God forbid you bring up something about the 2000 election where the man in the White House did not get the most votes. Hannity will look at you, as he does any guest who brings this up, and say "Get over it." (For the record, Alan Colmes will usually agree that it is time to move on when it comes to that subject, but not all Americans can just "get over" the fact that the Commander-in-Chief was appointed by the Supreme Court instead of elected by the voters.)
Sean Hannity is not a bad guy. Really, he's not. I think he tries his best to be good, and maybe he's truly saying and doing what he thinks is right. He seems to be proud of his country, and very supportive of anything labeled "American".
Hannity's problem is that he has two very distinct sides to his personality. On his radio and television shows, he comes across as this aggressive, ultra-right-wing-conservative bulldog, who's ready to pounce on anyone who shows one drop of what he considers "unpatriotic" blood.
Opposite his "bulldog" side is his "lost-puppy-dog" side. There is a large part of Hannity that acts like a little, lost puppy dog, who's willing to just blindly follow our President, no matter what half-truth is told, or what war he gets us into, or which one of his CEO buddies just screwed his employees out of pensions and healthcare. In a way, you almost want to feel sorry for Mr. Hannity.
Like I said, Hannity is not a bad guy, he just seems a little lost sometimes, but luckily, he has his good friends Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham to stand up for him.
Speaking of Hannity and Colmes, tonight's episode was great! Of all the episodes I've seen, I have never seen a guest just get up and walk away like one did tonight. I don't remember the guy's name, but the entire time he was on the show (which could have been longer had he stayed), he was yelling at Colmes, and then at Hannity about Michael Jackson.
He was attempting to argue that the only reason Michael Jackson was brought up on charges was because he's black. He argued that Jackson's bail was set at $3 Million, while some murderer's bails (he mentioned Robert Blake for one) were set at only $1 Million. He said it was because of modern-day racism, and that they are targeting Jackson because he's black. He then challenged anyone who could explain the bail discrepancy.
Colmes said he would agree that maybe they went after Jackson because of his celebrity status, and maybe it would be a good mark on the prosecutor's record, but there is no basis for race.
Of course, the yelling-guy did not listen and continued to ask why the bail was different.
When Hannity started saying the same thing to him, he stood up, took his microphone off, and walked away. His mouth was moving and he was still yelling something as he left.
OK, I have a question:
When is the last time you can remember Michael Jackson being black?
more info:
FAIR.org's article about Hannity and Colmes
The Hannity and Colmes homepage
He speaks of how the show was originally "Hannity and Liberal-to-be-determined" because Hannity was hired for the show before they ever even auditioned a liberal.
Fox news president Roger Ailes suggests that "Hannity and Colmes" is a very balanced show because it features both sides of the argument - you have the conservative (Sean Hannity) and the liberal (Alan Colmes).
Many people on both sides of the political spectrum argue that the show is not as balanced as Fox News would have you believe.
Sean Hannity is very aggressive, especially when compared to his co-host, who tends to be milder and closer to a "moderate" than a "liberal".
My views on Sean Hannity:
First of all, I disagree with Sean Hannity most of the time. He has said many things on the show that just go against what I believe this country should be about...
...and God forbid you bring up something about the 2000 election where the man in the White House did not get the most votes. Hannity will look at you, as he does any guest who brings this up, and say "Get over it." (For the record, Alan Colmes will usually agree that it is time to move on when it comes to that subject, but not all Americans can just "get over" the fact that the Commander-in-Chief was appointed by the Supreme Court instead of elected by the voters.)
Sean Hannity is not a bad guy. Really, he's not. I think he tries his best to be good, and maybe he's truly saying and doing what he thinks is right. He seems to be proud of his country, and very supportive of anything labeled "American".
Hannity's problem is that he has two very distinct sides to his personality. On his radio and television shows, he comes across as this aggressive, ultra-right-wing-conservative bulldog, who's ready to pounce on anyone who shows one drop of what he considers "unpatriotic" blood.
Opposite his "bulldog" side is his "lost-puppy-dog" side. There is a large part of Hannity that acts like a little, lost puppy dog, who's willing to just blindly follow our President, no matter what half-truth is told, or what war he gets us into, or which one of his CEO buddies just screwed his employees out of pensions and healthcare. In a way, you almost want to feel sorry for Mr. Hannity.
Like I said, Hannity is not a bad guy, he just seems a little lost sometimes, but luckily, he has his good friends Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham to stand up for him.
Speaking of Hannity and Colmes, tonight's episode was great! Of all the episodes I've seen, I have never seen a guest just get up and walk away like one did tonight. I don't remember the guy's name, but the entire time he was on the show (which could have been longer had he stayed), he was yelling at Colmes, and then at Hannity about Michael Jackson.
He was attempting to argue that the only reason Michael Jackson was brought up on charges was because he's black. He argued that Jackson's bail was set at $3 Million, while some murderer's bails (he mentioned Robert Blake for one) were set at only $1 Million. He said it was because of modern-day racism, and that they are targeting Jackson because he's black. He then challenged anyone who could explain the bail discrepancy.
Colmes said he would agree that maybe they went after Jackson because of his celebrity status, and maybe it would be a good mark on the prosecutor's record, but there is no basis for race.
Of course, the yelling-guy did not listen and continued to ask why the bail was different.
When Hannity started saying the same thing to him, he stood up, took his microphone off, and walked away. His mouth was moving and he was still yelling something as he left.
OK, I have a question:
When is the last time you can remember Michael Jackson being black?
more info:
FAIR.org's article about Hannity and Colmes
The Hannity and Colmes homepage
11.20.2003
Did your vote count: How Florida 2000 could become US 2004 and beyond...
In the year 2000, America saw disaster. This disaster came in the form of a "hanging chad" - when our voting rights got tossed out the window like yesterday's trash.
Yes, it was a sad time in this country's history - the choice came down to two candidates - George W. Bush and Al Gore. Was this really a choice for the country? It was Dumb vs. Dumber - and from that so-called "election", America got its first Supreme-Court-Appointed President - a man we've all come to know as "Dubya".
In most elections, the person with the most votes wins, but Florida changed all that in 2000. But with the next presidential election less than a year away, can we be sure that history won't repeat itself?
The question is: Will your vote count?
October 2002: Congress passed the HAVA - the Help America Vote Act. This act was supposed to solve the problem by getting rid of the punch card ballots. This act is getting most states to implement new touch-screen voting machines, which is definitely a step up from the punch-card ballots...........or is it?
Because of the rush to pass HAVA, a key element was left out: "voter verifiable paper receipt".
With touch-screen voting machines, there is no paper trail. So what if the machine does not record your vote accurately? What if the software has a bug? What if your vote doesn't count?
New Jersey Representative Rush Holt has this to say: "Imagine, it's Election Day 2004. You enter your polling place and go to cast your vote on a brand new touch screen voting machine. The screen says your vote has been counted. As you exit the voting booth, however, you begin to wonder. How do I know if the machine actually recorded my vote? The fact is, you don't."
These new machines would not be a problem if there was a "voter verifiable audit trail". With this audit trail, there would be a permanent record of the vote in which the voter could verify that the machine counted his or her vote correctly. Also, this would be a wise thing to have in the case of a recount. Without this paper trail, any "recount" would just be another print out of the wrong vote.
Contact your congressmen and tell them to support the Voter Confidence Bill HR2239.
Here are some facts from VerifiedVoting.org:
*Computer experts say today's voting machines are prone to errors and vulnerable to fraud.
*Even thorough testing can't reveal malicious programs that could subvert an election.
*Courts have ruled that secret software can be used to record and count our votes.
*Defective hardware and bugs in software could decide who wins an election.
*Many election officials don't realize the risks inherent in using electronic voting machines.
*Manual recounts will be impossible in districts that don't allow voters to inspect a paper record of their votes.
Take action. Let's not let the Supreme Court pick our president again. Let's make our vote count.
visit these sites for more info:
Verified Voting
Stop Bush in 2004
Bush Recall
Misleader
Yes, it was a sad time in this country's history - the choice came down to two candidates - George W. Bush and Al Gore. Was this really a choice for the country? It was Dumb vs. Dumber - and from that so-called "election", America got its first Supreme-Court-Appointed President - a man we've all come to know as "Dubya".
In most elections, the person with the most votes wins, but Florida changed all that in 2000. But with the next presidential election less than a year away, can we be sure that history won't repeat itself?
The question is: Will your vote count?
October 2002: Congress passed the HAVA - the Help America Vote Act. This act was supposed to solve the problem by getting rid of the punch card ballots. This act is getting most states to implement new touch-screen voting machines, which is definitely a step up from the punch-card ballots...........or is it?
Because of the rush to pass HAVA, a key element was left out: "voter verifiable paper receipt".
With touch-screen voting machines, there is no paper trail. So what if the machine does not record your vote accurately? What if the software has a bug? What if your vote doesn't count?
New Jersey Representative Rush Holt has this to say: "Imagine, it's Election Day 2004. You enter your polling place and go to cast your vote on a brand new touch screen voting machine. The screen says your vote has been counted. As you exit the voting booth, however, you begin to wonder. How do I know if the machine actually recorded my vote? The fact is, you don't."
These new machines would not be a problem if there was a "voter verifiable audit trail". With this audit trail, there would be a permanent record of the vote in which the voter could verify that the machine counted his or her vote correctly. Also, this would be a wise thing to have in the case of a recount. Without this paper trail, any "recount" would just be another print out of the wrong vote.
Contact your congressmen and tell them to support the Voter Confidence Bill HR2239.
Here are some facts from VerifiedVoting.org:
*Computer experts say today's voting machines are prone to errors and vulnerable to fraud.
*Even thorough testing can't reveal malicious programs that could subvert an election.
*Courts have ruled that secret software can be used to record and count our votes.
*Defective hardware and bugs in software could decide who wins an election.
*Many election officials don't realize the risks inherent in using electronic voting machines.
*Manual recounts will be impossible in districts that don't allow voters to inspect a paper record of their votes.
Take action. Let's not let the Supreme Court pick our president again. Let's make our vote count.
visit these sites for more info:
Verified Voting
Stop Bush in 2004
Bush Recall
Misleader
11.17.2003
No More Moore
If you have not already heard, Alabama's Chief Justice is now Alabama's Former Chief Justice.
That's right, Roy Moore has been fired - not for his stance on the 10 Commandments, but for his failure to comply with a federal court order. It seems that a lot of people seem to get those two things confused.
Fact 1: He was not fired for putting the monument inside the building.
Fact 2: He was fired for his deliberate disobedience of a federal court order.
Those are two separate things, so let's keep the facts straight.
Now that Moore's not in office, maybe we can let this whole thing go and focus on some more pressing issues right now - like maybe keeping people employed during this "budget crisis" - which many groups still consider to be nonexistent.
Maybe if Congress would give up that high-as-hell raise that they get every year, some of their constituents could stay employed.
Fire the Liars.
That's right, Roy Moore has been fired - not for his stance on the 10 Commandments, but for his failure to comply with a federal court order. It seems that a lot of people seem to get those two things confused.
Fact 1: He was not fired for putting the monument inside the building.
Fact 2: He was fired for his deliberate disobedience of a federal court order.
Those are two separate things, so let's keep the facts straight.
Now that Moore's not in office, maybe we can let this whole thing go and focus on some more pressing issues right now - like maybe keeping people employed during this "budget crisis" - which many groups still consider to be nonexistent.
Maybe if Congress would give up that high-as-hell raise that they get every year, some of their constituents could stay employed.
Fire the Liars.
11.07.2003
All of a sudden, Roy Moore is worried about the Alabama tax payers.....Stop the Press!!!
If you haven't already heard, the US Supreme Court has said it will not hear Roy Moore's 10 Commandments case. No begging and pleading could change their minds, and Judge Myron Thompson's order will stand.
Moore has bigger issues though, as he is being brought up on an ethics violation for his deliberate disobedience to Judge Thompson's order. He is set to stand trial on November 12.
Moore's opponents (well, the opponents who sued him over the monument) are now asking for $832,000 in fees from the federal judge.
In an interview with the Associated Press, Moore expressed concerns about the state's declining revenues and high legal costs for other cases. He said, "I imagine the state would have to pay for it."
Moore is contesting the request, which he considers "outrageous", and also notes that one of the plaintiffs in the case, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, have raised money for their fight against the monument.
Wow, Roy Moore really cares about the taxpayers of this state....it almost brings a tear to my eye....boo (expletive) hoo. Moore didn't seem too concerned about the taxpayers when it was reported that he might have to pay a fine for every day he violated the federal court order to remove the 5,300 pound rock.
Then, he was suspended WITH pay. In other words, he got a paid vacation out of this, during which time he traveled across the US, speaking at every stop to further his cause (and maybe even his ego). So, the taxpayers have now paid for his traveling expenses and his speaking engagements by allowing him to continue to receive a paycheck while he's suspended.
If Moore cared about the state and the taxpayers, he wouldn't have violated the court order, and if he had any respect for his "cause", he wouldn't have put that monument there in the middle of the night anyway. Why the middle of the night? Did he know he was wrong? Was he ashamed? Did he forsee this happening?
How many reasons is Alabama going to give Hollywood to joke on this state? Hey Jay Leno, get out your notepad - Alabama's at it again! Howard Dean, maybe that confederate flag comment didn't shove your foot as far into your mouth as you thought!
Oh, and as far as stupidity goes, you'll love this!
Roy Moore thinks he is being "silenced" and has not had a proper forum to explain his actions. He said, "These officials don't want you to know why I didn't move it."
If multiple press conferences are not considered a "proper forum", then I really don't know what is! Wait! Maybe a proper forum would be his various TV appearances - you know - the ones where he is the guest speaker at a televised church service. Or maybe the proper forum is every stop he made during his "suspension" - well let's just call it a vacation like it really is.
Bill O'Reilly would be so proud - this would have to be the most ridiculous item of the week.
More Info:
State may pay for fight
No one is trying to muzzle Moore
Moore has bigger issues though, as he is being brought up on an ethics violation for his deliberate disobedience to Judge Thompson's order. He is set to stand trial on November 12.
Moore's opponents (well, the opponents who sued him over the monument) are now asking for $832,000 in fees from the federal judge.
In an interview with the Associated Press, Moore expressed concerns about the state's declining revenues and high legal costs for other cases. He said, "I imagine the state would have to pay for it."
Moore is contesting the request, which he considers "outrageous", and also notes that one of the plaintiffs in the case, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, have raised money for their fight against the monument.
Wow, Roy Moore really cares about the taxpayers of this state....it almost brings a tear to my eye....boo (expletive) hoo. Moore didn't seem too concerned about the taxpayers when it was reported that he might have to pay a fine for every day he violated the federal court order to remove the 5,300 pound rock.
Then, he was suspended WITH pay. In other words, he got a paid vacation out of this, during which time he traveled across the US, speaking at every stop to further his cause (and maybe even his ego). So, the taxpayers have now paid for his traveling expenses and his speaking engagements by allowing him to continue to receive a paycheck while he's suspended.
If Moore cared about the state and the taxpayers, he wouldn't have violated the court order, and if he had any respect for his "cause", he wouldn't have put that monument there in the middle of the night anyway. Why the middle of the night? Did he know he was wrong? Was he ashamed? Did he forsee this happening?
How many reasons is Alabama going to give Hollywood to joke on this state? Hey Jay Leno, get out your notepad - Alabama's at it again! Howard Dean, maybe that confederate flag comment didn't shove your foot as far into your mouth as you thought!
Oh, and as far as stupidity goes, you'll love this!
Roy Moore thinks he is being "silenced" and has not had a proper forum to explain his actions. He said, "These officials don't want you to know why I didn't move it."
If multiple press conferences are not considered a "proper forum", then I really don't know what is! Wait! Maybe a proper forum would be his various TV appearances - you know - the ones where he is the guest speaker at a televised church service. Or maybe the proper forum is every stop he made during his "suspension" - well let's just call it a vacation like it really is.
Bill O'Reilly would be so proud - this would have to be the most ridiculous item of the week.
More Info:
State may pay for fight
No one is trying to muzzle Moore
11.04.2003
11.02.2003
Some newspaper quotes just make you wonder....
Here's a quote from the Montgomery Advertiser in the Sunday, November 2 edition, from an article called "Water Crossing":
"'In the next decade, Montgomery will not only be a regional hub for business and entertainment, it will also serve as a central supply for water and sewer,' said Buddy Morgan, general manager of the Montgomery Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board."
OK, I've got 2 questions:
1. Since when did Montgomery ever become a regional hub for entertainment?
2. What does Mr. Morgan consider "entertainment"?
Just wondering.....
"'In the next decade, Montgomery will not only be a regional hub for business and entertainment, it will also serve as a central supply for water and sewer,' said Buddy Morgan, general manager of the Montgomery Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board."
OK, I've got 2 questions:
1. Since when did Montgomery ever become a regional hub for entertainment?
2. What does Mr. Morgan consider "entertainment"?
Just wondering.....
11.01.2003
A letter to Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, and Terry Everett - Alabama's Congressmen
Dear Congressmen,
I recently read in the Montgomery Advertiser that some
of Roy Moore's supporters are attempting to petition
you to impeach Judge Myron Thompson because of his
ruling against Moore's 10 Commandments display.
As a constituent, I sincerely hope that you would not
consider that option.
Alabama has many more important issues to worry about
than a 5,300 pound rock. This state is in a huge
budget crisis, schools are closing, people are losing
jobs, and it's a shame that people are putting that
kind of effort to support a piece of granite rather
than supporting the actual people of this state.
If you would like to read the article, it can be found
online at this address:
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryAlabamaJUDGE01W.htm
Sincerely,
Joshua Carples
* * * * * * * * * *
Take action:
Email Senator Jeff Sessions
Email Senator Richard Shelby
Email Congressman Terry Everett
Find your state senators
Find your Congressmen
Read the Montgomery Advertiser Article
I recently read in the Montgomery Advertiser that some
of Roy Moore's supporters are attempting to petition
you to impeach Judge Myron Thompson because of his
ruling against Moore's 10 Commandments display.
As a constituent, I sincerely hope that you would not
consider that option.
Alabama has many more important issues to worry about
than a 5,300 pound rock. This state is in a huge
budget crisis, schools are closing, people are losing
jobs, and it's a shame that people are putting that
kind of effort to support a piece of granite rather
than supporting the actual people of this state.
If you would like to read the article, it can be found
online at this address:
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryAlabamaJUDGE01W.htm
Sincerely,
Joshua Carples
* * * * * * * * * *
Take action:
Email Senator Jeff Sessions
Email Senator Richard Shelby
Email Congressman Terry Everett
Find your state senators
Find your Congressmen
Read the Montgomery Advertiser Article
10.31.2003
Paul Hill: How one man's ignorance taints the reputation of many...
Every argument has two sides, and the 30-year-old abortion controversy seems to be a never-ending battle of Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice.
Most people on both sides of the issue come across as rational, peace-loving people, but in any large group, there will always be that one person who lives on the other side of town from "Rationality".
Paul Hill is an example of this. If you don't recognize the name, the story goes: In 1994, Paul Hill, a radical Pro-Lifer, killed an abortion doctor and his bodyguard by shooting them with a shotgun. He was recently executed by the State of Florida.
Paul Hill, a walking contradiction. How do you kill two people and still call yourself "Pro-Life"?!
Now that Paul Hill is gone, there are those who feel that the next extremist will be a man by the name of Dan Holman, who resides in the State of Iowa.
Holman was in Gainsville, Florida the night of Hill's execution, showing his support and admiration of Hill and his actions. Holman said to the New York Times, "Some day, I hope I will have the courage to be as much a man as he was"; and to the Orlando Sentinel, he said, "I haven't killed anyone yet, but I believe they deserve to die."
An abortion clinic in Iowa recently obtained temporary restraining orders against Holman and his wife, Donna, because of their weekly protests. Holman has been seen videotaping the employees of the clinic and harassing clients and staff.
To the Associated Press, he said that his heart "leaps for joy every time one of them gets popped." He says that he would not murder for his cause, but, at the same time, he advocates murder and hopes to "have the courage to be as much a man as [Hill] was."
Message to Dan and Donna Holman: You're not "Pro-Life" if you advocate murder.
Message to Eli Lilly and Company: Please send the Holmans a lifetime supply of Prozac.
More info:
Court restricts anti-abortion activist
Prozac
Prozac Truth - What Eli Lilly doesn't want you to know
Most people on both sides of the issue come across as rational, peace-loving people, but in any large group, there will always be that one person who lives on the other side of town from "Rationality".
Paul Hill is an example of this. If you don't recognize the name, the story goes: In 1994, Paul Hill, a radical Pro-Lifer, killed an abortion doctor and his bodyguard by shooting them with a shotgun. He was recently executed by the State of Florida.
Paul Hill, a walking contradiction. How do you kill two people and still call yourself "Pro-Life"?!
Now that Paul Hill is gone, there are those who feel that the next extremist will be a man by the name of Dan Holman, who resides in the State of Iowa.
Holman was in Gainsville, Florida the night of Hill's execution, showing his support and admiration of Hill and his actions. Holman said to the New York Times, "Some day, I hope I will have the courage to be as much a man as he was"; and to the Orlando Sentinel, he said, "I haven't killed anyone yet, but I believe they deserve to die."
An abortion clinic in Iowa recently obtained temporary restraining orders against Holman and his wife, Donna, because of their weekly protests. Holman has been seen videotaping the employees of the clinic and harassing clients and staff.
To the Associated Press, he said that his heart "leaps for joy every time one of them gets popped." He says that he would not murder for his cause, but, at the same time, he advocates murder and hopes to "have the courage to be as much a man as [Hill] was."
Message to Dan and Donna Holman: You're not "Pro-Life" if you advocate murder.
Message to Eli Lilly and Company: Please send the Holmans a lifetime supply of Prozac.
More info:
Court restricts anti-abortion activist
Prozac
Prozac Truth - What Eli Lilly doesn't want you to know
10.29.2003
Coming Soon to a theater near Iraq: "Indiana Boykin and the Last Crusade"
Is the "War on Terror" a modern-day crusade? It depends on who you ask.
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush gave a speech in which he announced the "War on Terror" and compared this war to a Holy Crusade. Remember the Crusades from that history class you took years ago? You know, that period of time where "Christians" attempted to force their religion on the rest of the world, killing anyone who did not convert to Christianity.
Since that speech, the Bush administration has desperately tried to get rid of the "Crusade" mentality.
Lt. General William G. Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense, made headlines recently due to some things he said while speaking at a church about war.
There he was, dressed up in full military uniform, standing in a church talking about how this battle against Islamic militants was really a Christian battle against Satan. He also referred to a time in 1993 when we got Somali warlord Mohammed Atta, a Muslim, by saying he knew we would win because "our God is bigger than yours." He also said that the Somalian worshipped an "idol", not a "real god."
Is this Freedom of Speech?
Yes and No.
Boykin has the freedom to say whatever he wants to say. That is one of the things that makes America great - The First Amendment, but while he is in that military uniform, he acts and speaks as a General, not a civilian.
Do these statements damage the image of the US military?
Yes.
The US went into two primarily Islamic countries - Afghanistan and Iraq. If we want the people of these countries to be on the side of freedom and democracy, it's best not to insult their religion.
By phone, Boykin told NBC that he has respect for Muslims and that the extremists are "not true followers of Islam."
What's important to realize is that every religion has its share of extremists:
There are "Christians" who shoot abortion doctors. Does that mean all Christians are murderers?
There are "Muslims" who fly planes into buildings. Does that mean all Muslims are terrorists?
If people would actually educate themselves on various religions, rather than regurgitate biased propaganda, they would realize that there are many similarities among Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. All three of these religions, in their truest form, are peaceful - until an extremist perverts it into violence in order to mask some ulterior motive.
More info:
"As If the 'Crusade' Speech Wasn't Enough"
Bush's views on Boykin's speech (on page 2 of the article)
Other web pages about Boykin
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush gave a speech in which he announced the "War on Terror" and compared this war to a Holy Crusade. Remember the Crusades from that history class you took years ago? You know, that period of time where "Christians" attempted to force their religion on the rest of the world, killing anyone who did not convert to Christianity.
Since that speech, the Bush administration has desperately tried to get rid of the "Crusade" mentality.
Lt. General William G. Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense, made headlines recently due to some things he said while speaking at a church about war.
There he was, dressed up in full military uniform, standing in a church talking about how this battle against Islamic militants was really a Christian battle against Satan. He also referred to a time in 1993 when we got Somali warlord Mohammed Atta, a Muslim, by saying he knew we would win because "our God is bigger than yours." He also said that the Somalian worshipped an "idol", not a "real god."
Is this Freedom of Speech?
Yes and No.
Boykin has the freedom to say whatever he wants to say. That is one of the things that makes America great - The First Amendment, but while he is in that military uniform, he acts and speaks as a General, not a civilian.
Do these statements damage the image of the US military?
Yes.
The US went into two primarily Islamic countries - Afghanistan and Iraq. If we want the people of these countries to be on the side of freedom and democracy, it's best not to insult their religion.
By phone, Boykin told NBC that he has respect for Muslims and that the extremists are "not true followers of Islam."
What's important to realize is that every religion has its share of extremists:
There are "Christians" who shoot abortion doctors. Does that mean all Christians are murderers?
There are "Muslims" who fly planes into buildings. Does that mean all Muslims are terrorists?
If people would actually educate themselves on various religions, rather than regurgitate biased propaganda, they would realize that there are many similarities among Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. All three of these religions, in their truest form, are peaceful - until an extremist perverts it into violence in order to mask some ulterior motive.
More info:
"As If the 'Crusade' Speech Wasn't Enough"
Bush's views on Boykin's speech (on page 2 of the article)
Other web pages about Boykin
10.28.2003
Tommy Chong's Not-So-Nice Dreams
If you have not already heard, Tommy Chong of "Cheech and Chong" fame is currently serving a 9-month sentence for selling drug paraphernalia over the internet.
He was arrested under the DEA's "Operation Pipe Dreams", an effort put into effect by Attorney General John Ashcroft and DEA Administrator John B. Brown.
"With the advent of the Internet, the illegal drug paraphernalia industry has exploded," Ashcroft said.
Tommy Chong pleaded guilty and got sentenced to 9 months in jail.
A bit ridiculous? Definitely.
Is it possible that Chong got a heavier sentence because of who he is? Most likely. After all, the DEA sees Chong as nothing more than a man who has made his living off of drug comedy, so they made him the "example".
Is this justice? No.
Here are some statistics:
According to the 2003 budget for the United States Department of Justice, it will cost taxpayers $25,327 to care for each inmate for one year. (That's $18,995.25 for 9 months.)
....And keep in mind that Tommy Chong was not arrested or convicted of drug possession or possession with intent to distribute - he was just selling glass pipes and other "paraphernalia".
What questions should we be asking?
1. How much are we paying in taxes to punish these minor offenders?
2. Could that money be better spent on other things (you know, like all that "terror" stuff we keep hearing about)?
3. What is the real reason Marijuana is considered "illegal"? (Could it be that it's a weed that can grow anywhere and cannot be regulated by the government? What?! The government gets no money?!)
4. Is selling a glass pipe equal to selling actual drugs? (DEA Administrator Brown thinks so.)
5. Will these pipes stop the use of empty coke bottles and empty honey bears? (seriously doubtful).
6. What's the point?
The US government should free Tommy Chong and issue a public apology to him.
....And for the record, I don't use marijuana. I am just an American who loves freedom, hates "Big Brother" government, and despises government waste.
More info:
Free Tommy Chong!
US Department of Justice Budget
Operation Pipe Dreams
NORML
Interesting arrest statistics
He was arrested under the DEA's "Operation Pipe Dreams", an effort put into effect by Attorney General John Ashcroft and DEA Administrator John B. Brown.
"With the advent of the Internet, the illegal drug paraphernalia industry has exploded," Ashcroft said.
Tommy Chong pleaded guilty and got sentenced to 9 months in jail.
A bit ridiculous? Definitely.
Is it possible that Chong got a heavier sentence because of who he is? Most likely. After all, the DEA sees Chong as nothing more than a man who has made his living off of drug comedy, so they made him the "example".
Is this justice? No.
Here are some statistics:
According to the 2003 budget for the United States Department of Justice, it will cost taxpayers $25,327 to care for each inmate for one year. (That's $18,995.25 for 9 months.)
....And keep in mind that Tommy Chong was not arrested or convicted of drug possession or possession with intent to distribute - he was just selling glass pipes and other "paraphernalia".
What questions should we be asking?
1. How much are we paying in taxes to punish these minor offenders?
2. Could that money be better spent on other things (you know, like all that "terror" stuff we keep hearing about)?
3. What is the real reason Marijuana is considered "illegal"? (Could it be that it's a weed that can grow anywhere and cannot be regulated by the government? What?! The government gets no money?!)
4. Is selling a glass pipe equal to selling actual drugs? (DEA Administrator Brown thinks so.)
5. Will these pipes stop the use of empty coke bottles and empty honey bears? (seriously doubtful).
6. What's the point?
The US government should free Tommy Chong and issue a public apology to him.
....And for the record, I don't use marijuana. I am just an American who loves freedom, hates "Big Brother" government, and despises government waste.
More info:
Free Tommy Chong!
US Department of Justice Budget
Operation Pipe Dreams
NORML
Interesting arrest statistics
10.26.2003
Case for war an "overstatement"....we don't like the word "lie"
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is currently preparing a report which is somewhat critical of certain "Intelligence" officials. It's critical of them for "overstating" the case against Saddam Hussein, including the subjects of weapons of mass destruction and terrorist links.
An overstatement is an exaggeration, but is an exaggeration a lie? Maybe that depends on motive.
What motive would members of the Bush administration have to "overstate" the case for going to war against Iraq?
Let's examine the possibilities......
1. Distraction: We went into Afghanistan searching for Osama bin Laden, who still has not been found. A man who's supposed to be on dialysis is traveling from cave to cave, pausing just long enough to give interviews, videotapes, and audio tapes to the nearest reporters, but we still can't find this guy. Since we can't find Osama, let's go after public enemy #2 - Saddam Hussein.
2. Presidency: There are currently nine democrats attempting to send Bush back to his Crawford ranch in Texas. Dubya has to do everything he can to appear competent in his "war on terror" if he wants to keep his job.
3. Vendetta: Dubya wanted Saddam out of power because "that's the guy that tried to kill [his] daddy" (referencing the gulf war of the early 90's).
4. 9/11: The American people still don't have the whole story of what really happened on the infamous 9/11. For example, "What are the odds that all the "black box" flight recorders were damaged beyond use?" and "Why were none of the attacking planes intercepted? It is reported that planes are routinely intercepted if they deviate from their flight path and contact can't be made." (Questions from the The Wisdom Fund web site).
Also....If 15 of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia, why was Afghanistan the first place we went in the "war on terror"? Oil?
These statements are not written to attack the President by calling him a liar or attacking his personal character, but WE ARE NOT GETTING THE WHOLE STORY, and it's time for us to demand the truth.
More info:
Inquiry Faults Intelligence on Iraq
What Really Happened on September 11 Remains a Mystery. (Was the Pentagon really hit by a plane? A must-read)
Unanswered Questions about 9/11
An overstatement is an exaggeration, but is an exaggeration a lie? Maybe that depends on motive.
What motive would members of the Bush administration have to "overstate" the case for going to war against Iraq?
Let's examine the possibilities......
1. Distraction: We went into Afghanistan searching for Osama bin Laden, who still has not been found. A man who's supposed to be on dialysis is traveling from cave to cave, pausing just long enough to give interviews, videotapes, and audio tapes to the nearest reporters, but we still can't find this guy. Since we can't find Osama, let's go after public enemy #2 - Saddam Hussein.
2. Presidency: There are currently nine democrats attempting to send Bush back to his Crawford ranch in Texas. Dubya has to do everything he can to appear competent in his "war on terror" if he wants to keep his job.
3. Vendetta: Dubya wanted Saddam out of power because "that's the guy that tried to kill [his] daddy" (referencing the gulf war of the early 90's).
4. 9/11: The American people still don't have the whole story of what really happened on the infamous 9/11. For example, "What are the odds that all the "black box" flight recorders were damaged beyond use?" and "Why were none of the attacking planes intercepted? It is reported that planes are routinely intercepted if they deviate from their flight path and contact can't be made." (Questions from the The Wisdom Fund web site).
Also....If 15 of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia, why was Afghanistan the first place we went in the "war on terror"? Oil?
These statements are not written to attack the President by calling him a liar or attacking his personal character, but WE ARE NOT GETTING THE WHOLE STORY, and it's time for us to demand the truth.
More info:
Inquiry Faults Intelligence on Iraq
What Really Happened on September 11 Remains a Mystery. (Was the Pentagon really hit by a plane? A must-read)
Unanswered Questions about 9/11
10.23.2003
Bush 41 leaves oily residue at retirement party....Bin Laden not in attendance (this time)
George Bush, Sr. (former president and long-time friend of the Bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia) has officially retired from his senior advisory position at the Carlyle Group. He has been the senior advisor for Carlyle's Asia Advisory Board since 1999.
The Carlyle Group has always been known for its high-level positions being held by former politicians - the roster includes former secretary of state James Baker, former conservative British Prime Minister John Major, and Ronald Reagan's former defense secretary Frank Carlucci....
...and let's not forget prominent members of the Bin Laden family....What?! You mean, the "Liberal" media didn't mention this?!
Yes, the Texas-Bin Laden connection began in the mid 70's, and that connection was confirmed in 1995 through the Bin Laden's $2 Million investment into the Carlyle Group. Now, understand that Osama (or "Usama" if you're watching the Fox News Channel) was not part of this venture - it was just his half-brother (among other close family members).
Soon after the 9/11 attacks, Carlyle and the Bin Ladens severed ties (even though the Bin Ladens involved with Carlyle always said that they considered Osama the "black sheep" of the family).
It makes me wonder if this long-time friendship between the Bush's and Bin Laden's is the reason that private Saudi Arabian jet was the only plane allowed to fly directly after 9/11....What? The "Liberal" media didn't report that either?!
It's not a rumor anymore - former White House officials have confirmed that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, you know, when ALL airspace in the U.S. was restricted, private Saudi Arabian jets flew around the country and gathered up about 140 high-ranking Saudi's (including some Bin Laden relatives), and took them out of the country.
The Bush administration sanctioned the flight of these aircraft against some FBI and CIA protests. Some federal agents have said that they did not have adequate time to interview or interrogate the "passengers".
It's too bad the "Liberal Media" didn't report these stories, but how "Liberal" can the media be when the majority of news is told by Conservatives such as Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingraham?
More info?
Bush 41's retirement from Carlyle
The History of Bush, Bin Laden, and Carlyle
The Bin Laden Great Escape post 9/11
Unanswered Questions about 9/11
What really happened to Flight 93 - "Let's Roll"?
The Carlyle Group has always been known for its high-level positions being held by former politicians - the roster includes former secretary of state James Baker, former conservative British Prime Minister John Major, and Ronald Reagan's former defense secretary Frank Carlucci....
...and let's not forget prominent members of the Bin Laden family....What?! You mean, the "Liberal" media didn't mention this?!
Yes, the Texas-Bin Laden connection began in the mid 70's, and that connection was confirmed in 1995 through the Bin Laden's $2 Million investment into the Carlyle Group. Now, understand that Osama (or "Usama" if you're watching the Fox News Channel) was not part of this venture - it was just his half-brother (among other close family members).
Soon after the 9/11 attacks, Carlyle and the Bin Ladens severed ties (even though the Bin Ladens involved with Carlyle always said that they considered Osama the "black sheep" of the family).
It makes me wonder if this long-time friendship between the Bush's and Bin Laden's is the reason that private Saudi Arabian jet was the only plane allowed to fly directly after 9/11....What? The "Liberal" media didn't report that either?!
It's not a rumor anymore - former White House officials have confirmed that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, you know, when ALL airspace in the U.S. was restricted, private Saudi Arabian jets flew around the country and gathered up about 140 high-ranking Saudi's (including some Bin Laden relatives), and took them out of the country.
The Bush administration sanctioned the flight of these aircraft against some FBI and CIA protests. Some federal agents have said that they did not have adequate time to interview or interrogate the "passengers".
It's too bad the "Liberal Media" didn't report these stories, but how "Liberal" can the media be when the majority of news is told by Conservatives such as Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Laura Ingraham?
More info?
Bush 41's retirement from Carlyle
The History of Bush, Bin Laden, and Carlyle
The Bin Laden Great Escape post 9/11
Unanswered Questions about 9/11
What really happened to Flight 93 - "Let's Roll"?
10.17.2003
"Airline safety" + a cigarette lighter = Bush's color-coded "War on Terrorism"
Friday, October 17, 2003 on FoxNews.com:
"WASHINGTON - Authorities were searching every commercial airplane in the United States on Friday after someone left three suspicious bags filled with claylike material, bleach and boxcutters on two Southwest Airlines flights, U.S. officials told Fox News."
The person who left the bags also left a note citing his (or her) concern about airline security.
(click HERE for the fox news story.)
So, what specific items are banned from planes?
In an online bonus chapter from Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men", Moore has a list of banned items, including:
No guns. (Obviously)
No knives. (Ditto)
No boxcutters. (Certainly now justified)
No toenail clippers. (What?)
No knitting needles. (Huh?)
No crotchet hooks. (Now, wait a minute!)
No sewing needles.
No mace.
No leaf blowers. (OK, now it's personal)
No corkscrews.
No letter openers.
No dry ice.
What would a terrorist do could he not knit a sweater or blow leaves from the aile of the plane?
Maybe....hhmmmm.....I dunno........attempt to set his shoes on fire?
Cigarette lighters and matches are (still) not banned from airlines! But why?
Does the name "Richard Reid" mean anything?
Moore asks the obvious:
1. "If all smoking is prohibited on all flights, then why does ANYONE need their lighters and matches at 30,000 feet ?"
2. "And why is the one device that has been used to try and blow up a plane since 9-11 NOT on the banned list?"
According to Moore, the original FAA list of banned materials had the butane lighters on it, but that item was removed before the list was approved by the White House.
So, Bill O'Reilly asks in his new book "Who's Looking Out For You?", It is safe to assume that it's not George W. Bush's administration. Apparently, the tobacco industry lobbied the Bush administration to take the lighters (and matches) off the list because their customers (addicts) are desperate to smoke as soon as they get off the plane.
So, if there really is a daily terrorist threat that has been color-coded "yellow / elevated" (well, sometimes, it goes up to "orange / high"), why would the Bush administration put so many people's lives in danger by allowing matches and lighters on a plane? Could the Bush administration be implanting fear into the minds of Americans in order to scare us into giving up some of our Constitutional freedoms (read up on the "Patriot Act")?
Here's to fear and another yellow day!
Links:
Read the additional chapter from Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" here
Get information on the USA Patriot Act here
Get Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" and his new book "Dude, Where's My Country" here
Get Bill O'Reilly's book "Who's Looking Out For You?" here
Click here for "What Terrorist Threat Colors Mean"
"WASHINGTON - Authorities were searching every commercial airplane in the United States on Friday after someone left three suspicious bags filled with claylike material, bleach and boxcutters on two Southwest Airlines flights, U.S. officials told Fox News."
The person who left the bags also left a note citing his (or her) concern about airline security.
(click HERE for the fox news story.)
So, what specific items are banned from planes?
In an online bonus chapter from Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men", Moore has a list of banned items, including:
No guns. (Obviously)
No knives. (Ditto)
No boxcutters. (Certainly now justified)
No toenail clippers. (What?)
No knitting needles. (Huh?)
No crotchet hooks. (Now, wait a minute!)
No sewing needles.
No mace.
No leaf blowers. (OK, now it's personal)
No corkscrews.
No letter openers.
No dry ice.
What would a terrorist do could he not knit a sweater or blow leaves from the aile of the plane?
Maybe....hhmmmm.....I dunno........attempt to set his shoes on fire?
Cigarette lighters and matches are (still) not banned from airlines! But why?
Does the name "Richard Reid" mean anything?
Moore asks the obvious:
1. "If all smoking is prohibited on all flights, then why does ANYONE need their lighters and matches at 30,000 feet ?"
2. "And why is the one device that has been used to try and blow up a plane since 9-11 NOT on the banned list?"
According to Moore, the original FAA list of banned materials had the butane lighters on it, but that item was removed before the list was approved by the White House.
So, Bill O'Reilly asks in his new book "Who's Looking Out For You?", It is safe to assume that it's not George W. Bush's administration. Apparently, the tobacco industry lobbied the Bush administration to take the lighters (and matches) off the list because their customers (addicts) are desperate to smoke as soon as they get off the plane.
So, if there really is a daily terrorist threat that has been color-coded "yellow / elevated" (well, sometimes, it goes up to "orange / high"), why would the Bush administration put so many people's lives in danger by allowing matches and lighters on a plane? Could the Bush administration be implanting fear into the minds of Americans in order to scare us into giving up some of our Constitutional freedoms (read up on the "Patriot Act")?
Here's to fear and another yellow day!
Links:
Read the additional chapter from Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" here
Get information on the USA Patriot Act here
Get Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" and his new book "Dude, Where's My Country" here
Get Bill O'Reilly's book "Who's Looking Out For You?" here
Click here for "What Terrorist Threat Colors Mean"
10.13.2003
October 14, 2003 - Voter Guide
For election information, including who's running in what district, go to this web site: http://www.capcityfreepress.com/election
Go Vote.
Go Vote.
Some protesters support 9 of the 10 Commandments...It's that pesky little "thou shalt not kill" one that's so damn confusing.
Acting Chief Justice Gorman Houston of the Alabama Supreme Court has experienced death threats as a result of following a federal court order to remove a 5,300 pound monument of the Ten Commandments out of public view.
Most of the monument's supporters are peaceful protesters who truly believe that they are doing the right thing, but in every large group of people, you're going to find a couple who have crossed the "Stupid" line. Houston, a deeply religious man who has a prayer bench in his office, taught Sunday school for 30 years and is the father of a United Methodist minister. Even though he has such strong beliefs, he has still endured death threats and name calling from some of the extremists (a.k.a. "crazies") of the group.
How can you support the Ten Commandments with death threats?
Ever heard of "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?
This entire event is occurring because churches have failed the people. If the Church was doing its job, people would not have this burning need for government to affirm their faith.
And what about the suspended Roy Moore? He was a former lawyer - how can he not see that his argument is not valid according to law?
In his press conferences, he says "Can the state acknowledge God?"
And the federal court said......No.
The First Amendment gives the freedom of religion to individuals, not the state. If Moore had said "Can I acknowledge God?" I believe he would have had more of an argument, but he seems to be a lot more worried about his political agenda than his individual freedoms.
Anticipating death threats..........over and out.
For more info, try these links:
Montgomery Advertiser: "Justice in Spotlight"
Montgomery Advertiser: "Threats to Judges Cannot be Ignored"
Montgomery Advertiser: "The Ten Commandments Case" (archive)
Spirit of Montgomery
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Most of the monument's supporters are peaceful protesters who truly believe that they are doing the right thing, but in every large group of people, you're going to find a couple who have crossed the "Stupid" line. Houston, a deeply religious man who has a prayer bench in his office, taught Sunday school for 30 years and is the father of a United Methodist minister. Even though he has such strong beliefs, he has still endured death threats and name calling from some of the extremists (a.k.a. "crazies") of the group.
How can you support the Ten Commandments with death threats?
Ever heard of "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?
This entire event is occurring because churches have failed the people. If the Church was doing its job, people would not have this burning need for government to affirm their faith.
And what about the suspended Roy Moore? He was a former lawyer - how can he not see that his argument is not valid according to law?
In his press conferences, he says "Can the state acknowledge God?"
And the federal court said......No.
The First Amendment gives the freedom of religion to individuals, not the state. If Moore had said "Can I acknowledge God?" I believe he would have had more of an argument, but he seems to be a lot more worried about his political agenda than his individual freedoms.
Anticipating death threats..........over and out.
For more info, try these links:
Montgomery Advertiser: "Justice in Spotlight"
Montgomery Advertiser: "Threats to Judges Cannot be Ignored"
Montgomery Advertiser: "The Ten Commandments Case" (archive)
Spirit of Montgomery
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
10.12.2003
European man gets lost... doesn't stop to ask for directions... Happy Columbus Day.
Monday, October 13, 2003 - Another holiday for many. The day a man named Christopher Columbus "discovered" America.
The question remains:
How do you discover a land that already has inhabitants?
That's a lot like someone "discovering" your car stereo. "I have searched long and hard...and here it is...I have found it...a car stereo...CD with AM/FM radio and detachable faceplate...and I see no one else around...I claim this car stereo in the name of Spain!"
I'm sure the Native Americans (or Indians, as Columbus called them) wish they could call the police regarding the theft of their land.
Well, let's examine what the "Indians" got in return for their land:
-smallpox
-vererial disease
-genocide
-slavery
...and eventually...
-McDonald's
-Wal Mart
-George W. Bush
When Columbus landed, what could that first conversation have been? According to Mickey Z. of Alternet.org, it might have gone a little something like this:
COLUMBUS: Red man, we want your land and everything on it.
INDIAN: Okay, muscular paleface, but what will you offer in return?
COLUMBUS: Venereal disease, smallpox, the destruction of your culture, genocide, Christianity, and a really bad image in John Wayne flicks.
INDIAN: Can you toss in a few casinos?
COLUMBUS: Sure, but you'll have to wait about 500 years.
INDIAN: Okay, Chris, you've got a deal.
Happy Columbus Day!
(Here is a link to the actual Alternet.org article titled "Not All Italians Love Columbus")
The question remains:
How do you discover a land that already has inhabitants?
That's a lot like someone "discovering" your car stereo. "I have searched long and hard...and here it is...I have found it...a car stereo...CD with AM/FM radio and detachable faceplate...and I see no one else around...I claim this car stereo in the name of Spain!"
I'm sure the Native Americans (or Indians, as Columbus called them) wish they could call the police regarding the theft of their land.
Well, let's examine what the "Indians" got in return for their land:
-smallpox
-vererial disease
-genocide
-slavery
...and eventually...
-McDonald's
-Wal Mart
-George W. Bush
When Columbus landed, what could that first conversation have been? According to Mickey Z. of Alternet.org, it might have gone a little something like this:
COLUMBUS: Red man, we want your land and everything on it.
INDIAN: Okay, muscular paleface, but what will you offer in return?
COLUMBUS: Venereal disease, smallpox, the destruction of your culture, genocide, Christianity, and a really bad image in John Wayne flicks.
INDIAN: Can you toss in a few casinos?
COLUMBUS: Sure, but you'll have to wait about 500 years.
INDIAN: Okay, Chris, you've got a deal.
Happy Columbus Day!
(Here is a link to the actual Alternet.org article titled "Not All Italians Love Columbus")
10.10.2003
The Montgomery Advertiser: Fair and Balanced?
I always thought that individuals had opinions, but today I've learned that an entire newspaper can also have an opinion, too.
In the "Opinion" section of the Montgomery Advertiser today, there is an editorial about Mayor Bright's term of office titled "Bright's record justifies return". The article ends with this statement: "...the Montgomery Advertiser recommends the re-election of Bobby Bright as mayor in the city election Tuesday."
The person who wrote the article is....well....hhhmmmm.....let me go back to their web site and check.....it says "Editorial". Does that mean the editor wrote it...or maybe one of the assistant editors...or maybe the metro editor?
OK, there seems to be no specific name for the article, but let's look at that last statement again: "the Montgomery Advertiser recommends the re-election of Bobby Bright as mayor in the city election Tuesday."
"The Montgomery Advertiser recommends", not "I" recommend, but an entire newspaper with hundreds of employees recommends.
Am I to believe that every employee of the entire newspaper thinks, acts, and votes the same way?
I think that newspapers should present the facts, issues, and interviews, and let the people decide for themselves which candidate to vote for. But it seems only the Fox news channel actually claims to be "Fair and Balanced".
Read the Montgomery Advertiser's endorsement editorial here: http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryOpinionedbright1010web.htm
In the "Opinion" section of the Montgomery Advertiser today, there is an editorial about Mayor Bright's term of office titled "Bright's record justifies return". The article ends with this statement: "...the Montgomery Advertiser recommends the re-election of Bobby Bright as mayor in the city election Tuesday."
The person who wrote the article is....well....hhhmmmm.....let me go back to their web site and check.....it says "Editorial". Does that mean the editor wrote it...or maybe one of the assistant editors...or maybe the metro editor?
OK, there seems to be no specific name for the article, but let's look at that last statement again: "the Montgomery Advertiser recommends the re-election of Bobby Bright as mayor in the city election Tuesday."
"The Montgomery Advertiser recommends", not "I" recommend, but an entire newspaper with hundreds of employees recommends.
Am I to believe that every employee of the entire newspaper thinks, acts, and votes the same way?
I think that newspapers should present the facts, issues, and interviews, and let the people decide for themselves which candidate to vote for. But it seems only the Fox news channel actually claims to be "Fair and Balanced".
Read the Montgomery Advertiser's endorsement editorial here: http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryOpinionedbright1010web.htm
10.07.2003
Scott Simmons for Mayor?
Recently, I stopped by the "Simmons for Mayor" headquarters to ask the candidate a few questions regarding his views on certain aspects of the city and politics. With the election just about a week away, Mr. Simmons was in and out of meetings, but still took time to greet me. His campaign coordinator/manager, a lady by the name of Suzelle Josey, took time to answer the questions below.
(Please note that I did not have a tape recorder with me, so most of the answers are paraphrased...And, Mrs. Josey, if you read this and something is incorrect, please email me at jcvox@yahoo.com to let me know...Thanks.)
1. How do you feel about the county's decision to raise sales tax to 10%?
Our tax money is being mismanaged and the sales tax increase should have been voted on by the people.
2. What would you do to convince them to lower it?
Once the city's finances improve through managing tax money efficiently, it will put pressure on the county to lower the sales tax.
3. Are you for or against an occupational tax?
Against it. Mayor Bright has said that he wants to raise property taxes, but if that fails, the occupational tax would be back on the table. We believe the money is there and neither needs to happen.
4. The Montgomery Advertiser said that former mayor Emory Folmar endorses you. Do you see that as positive, negative, or neutral?
There were and are many people who do not like Emory Folmar, but when he was mayor, one thing he did do was keep the city financially in the black. He was good with finances, and he endorsed Simmons because he believes Simmons will handle the city's finances well. That is where the similarity ends.
5. In this struggling economy, what could/would you do to create jobs?
Tourism. Montgomery is rich in history. The average tourist spends about $100 daily. That money would be spent in local restaurants and shops. More tourism = more $$$ = more businesses = more jobs.
6. What was your view on Amendment One (The Riley Tax plan)?
Amendment One did not have enough Accountability.
7. How will the rejection of Amendment One affect the city?
It won't.
8. How do you feel about the new stadium?
We have paid too much for not enough.
9. Could there be a better way to spend that money?
Education.
10. Do you support Chief Justice Roy Moore's stand on the 10 Commandments?
Mr. Simmons is a Christian and supports the 10 Commandments.
(The answer to number 10 does not state nor imply whether or not Simmons agrees with Moore's defiance of Judge Thompson's order....and the reason for question number 4 is because I can't stand Emory Folmar. Under the 22-year reign of Folmar, political corruption was at an all-time high and the Montgomery Police Department could do no wrong -- no matter how many people were beaten.)
Be sure to check out www.SimmonsForMayor.com for more information.
Here is some interesting information that is printed in his brochure:
*During the last four years, Montgomery's budget has risen by over $40 Million dollars.
*During the last four years, Montgomery's debt has increased by over 300 percent.
*During the last four years, Montgomery's citizens have had taxes and fees increased 5 times.
*The current administration has gone on record in favor of additional tax increases.
*During the last four years, crime has increased by 14%.
*Between 2000 and 2002, Montgomery's population DECREASED by over 4600 people.
October 14 - Get out and vote.
(Please note that I did not have a tape recorder with me, so most of the answers are paraphrased...And, Mrs. Josey, if you read this and something is incorrect, please email me at jcvox@yahoo.com to let me know...Thanks.)
1. How do you feel about the county's decision to raise sales tax to 10%?
Our tax money is being mismanaged and the sales tax increase should have been voted on by the people.
2. What would you do to convince them to lower it?
Once the city's finances improve through managing tax money efficiently, it will put pressure on the county to lower the sales tax.
3. Are you for or against an occupational tax?
Against it. Mayor Bright has said that he wants to raise property taxes, but if that fails, the occupational tax would be back on the table. We believe the money is there and neither needs to happen.
4. The Montgomery Advertiser said that former mayor Emory Folmar endorses you. Do you see that as positive, negative, or neutral?
There were and are many people who do not like Emory Folmar, but when he was mayor, one thing he did do was keep the city financially in the black. He was good with finances, and he endorsed Simmons because he believes Simmons will handle the city's finances well. That is where the similarity ends.
5. In this struggling economy, what could/would you do to create jobs?
Tourism. Montgomery is rich in history. The average tourist spends about $100 daily. That money would be spent in local restaurants and shops. More tourism = more $$$ = more businesses = more jobs.
6. What was your view on Amendment One (The Riley Tax plan)?
Amendment One did not have enough Accountability.
7. How will the rejection of Amendment One affect the city?
It won't.
8. How do you feel about the new stadium?
We have paid too much for not enough.
9. Could there be a better way to spend that money?
Education.
10. Do you support Chief Justice Roy Moore's stand on the 10 Commandments?
Mr. Simmons is a Christian and supports the 10 Commandments.
(The answer to number 10 does not state nor imply whether or not Simmons agrees with Moore's defiance of Judge Thompson's order....and the reason for question number 4 is because I can't stand Emory Folmar. Under the 22-year reign of Folmar, political corruption was at an all-time high and the Montgomery Police Department could do no wrong -- no matter how many people were beaten.)
Be sure to check out www.SimmonsForMayor.com for more information.
Here is some interesting information that is printed in his brochure:
*During the last four years, Montgomery's budget has risen by over $40 Million dollars.
*During the last four years, Montgomery's debt has increased by over 300 percent.
*During the last four years, Montgomery's citizens have had taxes and fees increased 5 times.
*The current administration has gone on record in favor of additional tax increases.
*During the last four years, crime has increased by 14%.
*Between 2000 and 2002, Montgomery's population DECREASED by over 4600 people.
October 14 - Get out and vote.
10.01.2003
Montgomery finally moves into the latter part of the 20th Century...
Maybe the 21st Century is still too far away for Montgomery, Alabama, but at least you can now officially buy draft beer in the local bars.
Draft beer, while common in most civilized areas, had been reserved (by law) for the "prestigious" bars lucky enough to be located in historic buildings, or was only available on the Air Force Base.
Now, as of 12:01 a.m. October 1, 2003, Draft beer is legal - but that's not all! We now have......(drum roll)........SUNDAY SALES!
Now, the people of Montgomery do not have to drive all the way to Shorter to buy alcohol on Sunday. Finally, the Montgomery City Council has done something besides raise our taxes. If they could just get rid of that unreasonably-high 10% sales tax that the County Commission is currently raping us with......
Draft beer, while common in most civilized areas, had been reserved (by law) for the "prestigious" bars lucky enough to be located in historic buildings, or was only available on the Air Force Base.
Now, as of 12:01 a.m. October 1, 2003, Draft beer is legal - but that's not all! We now have......(drum roll)........SUNDAY SALES!
Now, the people of Montgomery do not have to drive all the way to Shorter to buy alcohol on Sunday. Finally, the Montgomery City Council has done something besides raise our taxes. If they could just get rid of that unreasonably-high 10% sales tax that the County Commission is currently raping us with......
9.30.2003
Welcome
Welcome to the all-new "News" section of JoshCarples.com.
This "blog" seems to be a quicker and easier way to post current news and keep up with archives.
Enjoy.
This "blog" seems to be a quicker and easier way to post current news and keep up with archives.
Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)