US Headlines
Michael Steel announced today that SpongeBob will be the new symbol of the GOP.
Steele indicated the Republican national Convention (RNC) had been aware they were losing the younger voters and wanted to instill conservative values in children at the earliest a possible age. Steele believed that the characters in SpongeBob would show children the type of role models they need to follow when they grew up. SpongeBob is show that is seeped in family values, even if most of characters act a bit gay and none of them are married.
Eugene H. Krabs, the Owner of Krusty Krab Restaurant is the employer of SpongeBob and Squidward. He is known for being extremely cheap, but cares a lot about SpongeBob's welfare. Eugene is the perfect example of the small businessman that these children will eventually work for.
Squidward Tentacles is another conservative role model. He is the cashier at Krusty Krab Restaurant. He is a boring and selfish squid like most Republicans, His hobby is playing his clarinet which he's terrible at. He thinks SpongeBob and Patrick are annoying because they are constantly pestering him. He provides the typical drama that occurs between Democrats like Patrick and Republicans like Squidward.
SpongeBob is, of course, he star of the show. He works at the Krusty Krab restaurant with Squidward. SpongeBob enjoys jellyfishing at Jellyfish Fields with his best friend Patrick the Starfish. He's always happy. SpongeBob is the type of worker that US corporations are looking for. Someone who is good natured, very naive, who works hard and is very productive. SpongeBob's crabby paddies are legendary and they make Eugene H. Krabs a lot of money. SpongeBob is the independent that Republicans are always trying to win over.
Patrick Star is an unemployed Star Fish and a typical client of the Democratic welfare state. Patrick enjoys doing everything that SpongeBob does. He is the dumbest creature under the sea. Although he is a Democrat, he is a also a great friend to SpongeBob. Patrick spend a good part of his day doing nothing and sleeping under a large rock.
Sandy Cheeks is a lesbian squirrel who's very athletic. She's a land creature who need a pressurized suit to live under the water and plays a lot of extreme sports. Both she and SpongeBob love Karate.
Gary is a Super Genius/Pet who is SpongeBob's pet sea snail who meows like a cat. He may look dumb, but he might be smarter than the rest of Bikini Bottom. He keeps cool under pressure and has a solution for every problem. He is the SpongeBob equivalent of Karl Rove.
Plankton is the Owner of Chum Bucket Restaurant that competes with the Krusty Krab. It has very few patrons and Plankton is always trying to steal the secret recipe for the Krusty Krab's crabbie patties. Plankton provides a free enterprise antagonist who the protagonists, Mr. Krab and SpongeBob, must contend.
Jellyfish spend most of their day making jelly and represent the electorate. Lately the Republicans have been getting stung a lot by these jelly fish. Jellyfish roam around in groups making jelly and stinging anything that gets in their way. There are different kinds of jellyfish including standard, queen, king, albino, and prehistoric ones. SpongeBob and Patrick enjoy jelly-fishing. Republicans want to control the jellyfish just like SpongeBob and Patrick do.
Steele is confident that Sponge Bob will bring independent and Reagan Democrats back to the Democratic party. Steele said that SpongeBob is a metaphor for American family values. He can't wait until the new PR campaign starts.
Saturday, May 02, 2009
Lifting the Bush-era veil of secrecy
On US torture, we need to find out what happened - and why
Patrick Leahy
THE OBAMA administration's decision to release more Bush-era memoranda, which sought to rationalize torture, shows that President Obama is following through on his promise to ban torture and to provide transparency to our government. The Bush-Cheney administration not only broke the law, it shattered the public trust and undermined America's reputation around the world.
After withdrawing the so-called Bybee "torture memo," the Bush-Cheney administration secretly reinstated the torture policy. While repeatedly claiming that the United States did not torture, the Bush-Cheney administration secretly authorized techniques that included waterboarding - up to 183 times in one case. This was not an "abstract legal theory," or "hypothetical," as Alberto Gonzales dismissively described in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. These were specific techniques, authorized by high-ranking US government officials and used on real people. We have prosecuted people for these kinds of acts against Americans, and condemned other nations for sanctioning these methods.
The techniques are wrong and their supposed legal rationale is just as bad. The idea that the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel would be used to contort our laws on subjects as serious as torture is appalling. The rationalization of these memos showed a willingness to ignore legal requirements as long as there is no clear mechanism of enforcement. These memoranda seem calculated to provide legal cover - a legal free pass - for these unlawful policies. The Justice Department was apparently being used to immunize government officials to conduct torture by defining it down and building in legal loopholes.
The apparent predetermined outcome of these legal memos raises the question of where the demand for this outcome and for approving these policies arose. Press accounts indicate that these were not the results of requests from CIA officers on the ground and in the field, but arose through pressure from senior administration officials in Washington.
I have fought for years for access to these documents. When the Bush-Cheney administration stonewalled, I worked to have the Senate Judiciary Committee issue a subpoena for them. Under the Obama administration, the veil of secrecy is finally being lifted.
Unfortunately, former top Bush administration officials continue to use fear tactics to resist the Obama administration's effort to restore America's standing in the word. To see a former attorney general refer to our treaties, statutes, and the Constitution as matters of "political fashion" is to return to the discredited days when White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales called the Geneva Convention "quaint." Arguing that revealing the withdrawn memoranda gives terrorists a leg up is a red herring that has been too often used by the past administration.
The former vice president has tried to stir up a side debate about whether torture is effective. Steven Kleinman, Ali Soufan, and other highly experienced, professional interrogators have spoken out repeatedly about the fact that these coercive techniques do not work. The FBI's experience and techniques have resulted in acquiring credible intelligence from dangerous terrorists without resorting to torture.
In the past, President Bush proclaimed that Abu Zubaydah gave vital intelligence only after being subjected to "alternative techniques." He also said, contrary to the report of the International Red Cross, that we did not torture and then later admitted that we had waterboarded detainees more than 260 times. News reports that cite administration officials with knowledge of the Zubaydah interrogation state that none of the information Zubaydah provided foiled a single terrorism plot. In fact, these officials state that the best information he provided was produced from non-coercive techniques used by FBI agents before he was waterboarded.
I still believe my proposal for a Commission of Inquiry remains the best way to move forward with a comprehensive, nonpartisan, independent review of what happened. Torture was and is against the law. Condoning it puts the men and women who bravely serve in our own armed forces at risk. It disregards the values that make this country great. Torture is illegal, immoral, and wrong. That is why Obama ended these practices.
Let us reaffirm our guiding principles as a nation by joining together to come to a shared understanding of what happened and why. The risk of failing to learn from our mistakes is that they will be repeated.
Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Patrick Leahy
THE OBAMA administration's decision to release more Bush-era memoranda, which sought to rationalize torture, shows that President Obama is following through on his promise to ban torture and to provide transparency to our government. The Bush-Cheney administration not only broke the law, it shattered the public trust and undermined America's reputation around the world.
After withdrawing the so-called Bybee "torture memo," the Bush-Cheney administration secretly reinstated the torture policy. While repeatedly claiming that the United States did not torture, the Bush-Cheney administration secretly authorized techniques that included waterboarding - up to 183 times in one case. This was not an "abstract legal theory," or "hypothetical," as Alberto Gonzales dismissively described in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. These were specific techniques, authorized by high-ranking US government officials and used on real people. We have prosecuted people for these kinds of acts against Americans, and condemned other nations for sanctioning these methods.
The techniques are wrong and their supposed legal rationale is just as bad. The idea that the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel would be used to contort our laws on subjects as serious as torture is appalling. The rationalization of these memos showed a willingness to ignore legal requirements as long as there is no clear mechanism of enforcement. These memoranda seem calculated to provide legal cover - a legal free pass - for these unlawful policies. The Justice Department was apparently being used to immunize government officials to conduct torture by defining it down and building in legal loopholes.
The apparent predetermined outcome of these legal memos raises the question of where the demand for this outcome and for approving these policies arose. Press accounts indicate that these were not the results of requests from CIA officers on the ground and in the field, but arose through pressure from senior administration officials in Washington.
I have fought for years for access to these documents. When the Bush-Cheney administration stonewalled, I worked to have the Senate Judiciary Committee issue a subpoena for them. Under the Obama administration, the veil of secrecy is finally being lifted.
Unfortunately, former top Bush administration officials continue to use fear tactics to resist the Obama administration's effort to restore America's standing in the word. To see a former attorney general refer to our treaties, statutes, and the Constitution as matters of "political fashion" is to return to the discredited days when White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales called the Geneva Convention "quaint." Arguing that revealing the withdrawn memoranda gives terrorists a leg up is a red herring that has been too often used by the past administration.
The former vice president has tried to stir up a side debate about whether torture is effective. Steven Kleinman, Ali Soufan, and other highly experienced, professional interrogators have spoken out repeatedly about the fact that these coercive techniques do not work. The FBI's experience and techniques have resulted in acquiring credible intelligence from dangerous terrorists without resorting to torture.
In the past, President Bush proclaimed that Abu Zubaydah gave vital intelligence only after being subjected to "alternative techniques." He also said, contrary to the report of the International Red Cross, that we did not torture and then later admitted that we had waterboarded detainees more than 260 times. News reports that cite administration officials with knowledge of the Zubaydah interrogation state that none of the information Zubaydah provided foiled a single terrorism plot. In fact, these officials state that the best information he provided was produced from non-coercive techniques used by FBI agents before he was waterboarded.
I still believe my proposal for a Commission of Inquiry remains the best way to move forward with a comprehensive, nonpartisan, independent review of what happened. Torture was and is against the law. Condoning it puts the men and women who bravely serve in our own armed forces at risk. It disregards the values that make this country great. Torture is illegal, immoral, and wrong. That is why Obama ended these practices.
Let us reaffirm our guiding principles as a nation by joining together to come to a shared understanding of what happened and why. The risk of failing to learn from our mistakes is that they will be repeated.
Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Porn Star Considers Bid Against U.S. Senator Linked to Sex Ring
FoxNews
Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana is facing a potentially risque challenge next year. Porn star Stormy Daniels is considering running for the Republican's seat in 2010.
Daniels, the star of such films as "Operating Desert Stormy," launches a "listening tour" across the state next week, to "meet with Louisiana men and women and listen to the issues and concerns they struggle with every day."
Daniels is not affiliated with a political party, but her listening tour will focus on the economy, working women and child protection.
Fans have been wooing the 29-year-old to run for office by launching the Web site, www.draftstormy.com, which calls the 2010 race an "opportunity to start with a clean slate, to elect a representative that we can be proud of, who will work tirelessly, and who will challenge the status quo."
The site features the clever slogan: It's the economy, sexy.
Vitter is no stranger to the sex industry. Vitter confessed in 2007 to "a very serious sin in my past," referring to his link to the so-called D.C. Madam.
Vitter's telephone number appeared on the old phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates, the prostitution ring run in the nation's capital by Deborah Jeane Palfrey.
"Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling," Vitter said at the time of the revelation. "Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there, with God and them."
A Harvard graduate and Rhodes scholar, Vitter, 46, was elected to his current office in 2004, becoming the first Republican from Louisiana elected to the Senate since Reconstruction.............
Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana is facing a potentially risque challenge next year. Porn star Stormy Daniels is considering running for the Republican's seat in 2010.
Daniels, the star of such films as "Operating Desert Stormy," launches a "listening tour" across the state next week, to "meet with Louisiana men and women and listen to the issues and concerns they struggle with every day."
Daniels is not affiliated with a political party, but her listening tour will focus on the economy, working women and child protection.
Fans have been wooing the 29-year-old to run for office by launching the Web site, www.draftstormy.com, which calls the 2010 race an "opportunity to start with a clean slate, to elect a representative that we can be proud of, who will work tirelessly, and who will challenge the status quo."
The site features the clever slogan: It's the economy, sexy.
Vitter is no stranger to the sex industry. Vitter confessed in 2007 to "a very serious sin in my past," referring to his link to the so-called D.C. Madam.
Vitter's telephone number appeared on the old phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates, the prostitution ring run in the nation's capital by Deborah Jeane Palfrey.
"Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling," Vitter said at the time of the revelation. "Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there, with God and them."
A Harvard graduate and Rhodes scholar, Vitter, 46, was elected to his current office in 2004, becoming the first Republican from Louisiana elected to the Senate since Reconstruction.............
Friday, May 01, 2009
Catholics Are Perverted and Sick
What kind of a sick person whispers their sexual secrets through a tiny window in a wooden box to an old man wearing a skirt? Why... a Catholic, of course!
Fordham Law Class Collects Personal Info About Scalia; Supreme Ct. Justice Is Steamed
ABA Journal
Last year, when law professor Joel Reidenberg wanted to show his Fordham University class how readily private information is available on the Internet, he assigned a group project. It was collecting personal information from the Web about himself.
This year, after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made public comments that seemingly may have questioned the need for more protection of private information, Reidenberg assigned the same project. Except this time Scalia was the subject, the prof explains to the ABA Journal in a telephone interview.
His class turned in a 15-page dossier that included not only Scalia's home address, home phone number and home value, but his food and movie preferences, his wife's personal e-mail address and photos of his grandchildren, reports Above the Law.
And, as Scalia himself made clear in a statement to Above the Law, he isn't happy about the invasion of his privacy:
"Professor Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any," the justice says, among other comments.
A Supreme Court spokeswoman confirmed to the ABA Journal in an e-mail that the Scalia blast to ATL "is accurately attributed to Justice Scalia."
In response, Reidenberg tells the ABA Journal that the information gathered by his class about Scalia was all "publicly available, for free," and wasn't posted on the Internet by the class or otherwise further publicized. He views the dossier-gathering about a public figure as a legitimate classroom exercise intended to spark discussion about privacy law, and says he and the class didn't intend to offend Scalia.
The availability of such information on the Web makes it possible for the government to conduct surveillance that otherwise would be much more difficult or even impossible to pursue through court orders and other official mechanisms, Reidenberg contends. And aggregation of various bits of information also can lead to more troubling use of the compiled information, he says.
"When there are so few privacy protections for secondary use of personal information, that information can be used in many troubling ways," he writes in an e-mail to the ABA Journal. "A class assignment that illustrates this point is not one of them. Indeed, the very fact that Justice Scalia found it objectionable and felt compelled to comment underscores the value and legitimacy of the exercise."
An ABA Journal request for comment from Scalia, routed through the court's media information office, has not been returned.
Last year, when law professor Joel Reidenberg wanted to show his Fordham University class how readily private information is available on the Internet, he assigned a group project. It was collecting personal information from the Web about himself.
This year, after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made public comments that seemingly may have questioned the need for more protection of private information, Reidenberg assigned the same project. Except this time Scalia was the subject, the prof explains to the ABA Journal in a telephone interview.
His class turned in a 15-page dossier that included not only Scalia's home address, home phone number and home value, but his food and movie preferences, his wife's personal e-mail address and photos of his grandchildren, reports Above the Law.
And, as Scalia himself made clear in a statement to Above the Law, he isn't happy about the invasion of his privacy:
"Professor Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any," the justice says, among other comments.
A Supreme Court spokeswoman confirmed to the ABA Journal in an e-mail that the Scalia blast to ATL "is accurately attributed to Justice Scalia."
In response, Reidenberg tells the ABA Journal that the information gathered by his class about Scalia was all "publicly available, for free," and wasn't posted on the Internet by the class or otherwise further publicized. He views the dossier-gathering about a public figure as a legitimate classroom exercise intended to spark discussion about privacy law, and says he and the class didn't intend to offend Scalia.
The availability of such information on the Web makes it possible for the government to conduct surveillance that otherwise would be much more difficult or even impossible to pursue through court orders and other official mechanisms, Reidenberg contends. And aggregation of various bits of information also can lead to more troubling use of the compiled information, he says.
"When there are so few privacy protections for secondary use of personal information, that information can be used in many troubling ways," he writes in an e-mail to the ABA Journal. "A class assignment that illustrates this point is not one of them. Indeed, the very fact that Justice Scalia found it objectionable and felt compelled to comment underscores the value and legitimacy of the exercise."
An ABA Journal request for comment from Scalia, routed through the court's media information office, has not been returned.
How Republicans Can Build a Big-Tent Party
The Wall Street Journal - JIM DEMINT It's the Democrats who won't tolerate a diversity of views.
Sen. Arlen Specter's defection to the Democratic Party this week is no reason for Republicans to cheer. But his reason for leaving -- he faced an unwinnable primary election next year -- is no cause for soul searching. There is a question Republicans do need to ask: What is it that binds our party together?
In the wake of two successive electoral defeats and the likelihood of a 60-vote Democrat majority in the Senate, what does it even mean to be a Republican today? Moderate Republicans are right to remind conservatives that they cannot build a center-right coalition without the center part. And conservatives are right to remind moderates that Republicans only succeed when we rally around clear principles.
The real mistake is that Republicans became more concerned with staying in D.C. than reforming it.......
Media Matters Daily Summary 05-01-09
Ingraham uses doctored video to smear Gore
On the May 1 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, during a segment suggesting that former Vice President Al Gore has profited from his advocacy of renewable energy and climate change mitigation, guest host Laura Ingraham presented clips of Gore's April 24 congressional testimony that had been edited to remove his statements that he donates the money he makes from his climate-related work to a non-profit organization.read more
On the May 1 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, during a segment suggesting that former Vice President Al Gore has profited from his advocacy of renewable energy and climate change mitigation, guest host Laura Ingraham presented clips of Gore's April 24 congressional testimony that had been edited to remove his statements that he donates the money he makes from his climate-related work to a non-profit organization.read more
Coulter's credibility rating drops even further with repetition of Obama approval falsehood
Echoing other conservative media figures' claims about Gallup polls, Ann Coulter falsely claimed President Obama is "actually the second least popular president, 100 days in, we've had in 40 years." In fact, Gallup itself recently reported that, by two different measures, Obama's approval rating is the second highest of any president since 1969. Read More
Liasson repeats tired Obama earmark falsehood on NPR
Mara Liasson falsely claimed that President Obama "vowed to eliminate" earmarks. In fact, Obama promised to reform the earmark process and cut wasteful spending, not "eliminate" earmarks altogether. Read More
Fox News' Angle continues to use false comparison to downplay harsh interrogations
Jim Angle again falsely compared the harsh techniques used in CIA interrogations of detainees to U.S. military training exercises. In fact, officials familiar with both dispute the comparison. Read More
Buchanan repeated false dichotomy between judicial activism and conservatism
Discussing David Souter's reported plan to retire from the Supreme Court, Pat Buchanan repeated the myth that conservative judges are by definition not activists. Read More
Does CNN's Tucker realize UAW's "straight payback" includes loss of COLA, bonuses, dental?
CNN's Bill Tucker reported that "some economists" say the Chrysler restructuring deal is a "straight payback" to the UAW from the Obama administration. But Tucker did not note any of the numerous concessions the union has reportedly made as part of a related deal. Read More
Fox News ignored GOP's obstruction of Kagan's 1999 appeals court nomination
On Fox News, the American Center for Law and Justice's Jay Sekulow dismissed the possible nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court by stating that she "does not have any judicial experience." However, neither Sekulow nor co-host Megyn Kelly noted that Republicans blocked Kagan's nomination to a U.S. Court of Appeals seat in 1999. Read More
Flashback: Media conservatives denounced judicial filibusters
Media Matters for America has compiled examples of conservative commentators denouncing the use of filibusters to block President Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court or lower courts, including commentators who claimed or suggested that such filibusters violated the Constitution. Read More
Ann Coulter scheduled to have "soapbox" on Larry King Live
CNN host Larry King announced that Ann Coulter will once again appear on his show. In the past, CNN's Howard Kurtz has questioned why television news networks continue to host Coulter in light of her history of inflammatory commentary. Read More
Abu Ghraib Guards Say Memos Show They Were Scapegoats
Washington Post
When the photos of detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq surfaced in 2004, U.S. officials portrayed Army Pvt. Charles A. Graner Jr. as the ringleader of a few low-ranking "bad apples" who illegally put naked Iraqi detainees in painful positions, shackled them to cell doors with women's underwear on their heads and menaced them with military dogs.
Now, the recent release of Justice Department memos authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques has given Graner and other soldiers new reason to argue that they were made scapegoats for policies approved at high levels. They also contend that the government's refusal to acknowledge those polices when Graner and others were tried undermined their legal defenses.
Graner remains locked up at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., about halfway through a 10-year prison sentence for detainee abuse, assault and dereliction of duty. His lawyer said this week that he is drafting appeals arguments centered largely on the revelations in the memos and a newly released congressional investigation into the interrogation practices.
President George W. Bush "was so disappointed in what happened, yet the whole time he knew what was going on," said Graner, answering questions through his wife, Megan, who also worked at Abu Ghraib. He is the only one of about a dozen soldiers tried for abuses at the prison who remains incarcerated.
Graner and other defendants -- including Lynndie R. England, who was photographed holding a naked detainee by a leash -- were blocked by military judges from calling senior U.S. officials to the stand at their trials in 2004 and 2005. The government would not acknowledge any policy or procedure that could have led to what the world saw in the photographs...............
When the photos of detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq surfaced in 2004, U.S. officials portrayed Army Pvt. Charles A. Graner Jr. as the ringleader of a few low-ranking "bad apples" who illegally put naked Iraqi detainees in painful positions, shackled them to cell doors with women's underwear on their heads and menaced them with military dogs.
Now, the recent release of Justice Department memos authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques has given Graner and other soldiers new reason to argue that they were made scapegoats for policies approved at high levels. They also contend that the government's refusal to acknowledge those polices when Graner and others were tried undermined their legal defenses.
Graner remains locked up at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., about halfway through a 10-year prison sentence for detainee abuse, assault and dereliction of duty. His lawyer said this week that he is drafting appeals arguments centered largely on the revelations in the memos and a newly released congressional investigation into the interrogation practices.
President George W. Bush "was so disappointed in what happened, yet the whole time he knew what was going on," said Graner, answering questions through his wife, Megan, who also worked at Abu Ghraib. He is the only one of about a dozen soldiers tried for abuses at the prison who remains incarcerated.
Graner and other defendants -- including Lynndie R. England, who was photographed holding a naked detainee by a leash -- were blocked by military judges from calling senior U.S. officials to the stand at their trials in 2004 and 2005. The government would not acknowledge any policy or procedure that could have led to what the world saw in the photographs...............
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)