12 ridiculous things Ann Coulter has said

Gawker.com brings up some of the most idiotic things the super conservative pundit Ann Coulter, author of "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," has said.

1. "Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."

2. "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

3. "It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 -- except Goldwater in '64 -- the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."

4. "Liberals attack their country and then go into diarrhea panic if anyone criticizes them ..."

5. "Then there are the 22 million Americans on food stamps. And of course there are the 39 million greedy geezers collecting Social Security. The greatest generation rewarded itself with a pretty big meal."

6. "Being nice to people is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity (as opposed to other religions whose tenets are more along the lines of 'kill everyone who doesn't smell bad and doesn't answer to the name Mohammed')".

7. "[Canadians] better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent."

8. "Kerry warned Americans not to 'overhype this election' -- and if there's one guy who's good at calming down excited voters, it's John Kerry. Apparently, word didn't get out to the Iraqis, who were dancing and singing in the streets. (Isn't it great to see Muslims celebrating something other than the slaughter of Americans?)"

9. "I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."

10. "[North Korea] is a major threat. I just think it would be fun to nuke them and have it be a warning to the rest of the world."

11. "I think our motto should be, post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"

12. "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

10 Liberal Values

Geoffrey R. Stone is the Harry Kalven, Jr. Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. He has written ten Liberal Values which he states as a "list is not exhaustive." Stone also says' his "goal is not to end discussion, but to invite debate." Read the following and see if there is anything you would modify or change.

1. Liberals believe individuals should doubt their own truths and consider fairly and open-mindedly the truths of others.

2. Liberals believe individuals should be tolerant and respectful of difference.

3. Liberals believe individuals have both a right and a responsibility to participate in public debate.

4. Liberals believe "we the people" are the governors and not the subjects of government, and that government must treat each person with that in mind.

5. Liberals believe government must respect and affirmatively safeguard the liberty, equality and dignity of each individual.

6. Liberals believe government has a fundamental responsibility to help those who are less fortunate.

7. Liberals believe government should never act on the basis of sectarian faith.

8. Liberals believe courts have a special responsibility to protect individual liberties.

9. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, for without such protection liberalism is impossible.

10. Liberals believe government must protect the safety and security of the people, without unnecessarily sacrificing constitutional values.

Read about these in more detail at The Huffington Post

Pentagon in Myspace spreading propaganda

Social networking websites are just the latest place the military is trying to catch the attention of the next crop of potential recruits.

MySpace has become a magnet for those that want, for one reason or another, to draw the attention of young people. Colleges, products, movies, and fast-food are just some.
Early this August, the site hit over 100 million profiles. "Even including those corporate-sponsored sites and fictional pages, that's still a whole lot of would-be friends." So it's nt a mystery why, with 80% of MySpace users reporting they're over 18 years old, the military has expanded to Myspace in the search for fresh-faced recruits who might be thrown into the Afghan and Iraqi breaches.

In February 2006, the Marine Corps launched its MySpace profile. A thoroughly predictable page, it boasts a streaming video that might best be termed boot-camp-on-speed -- complete with clips of a stereotypical drill instructor barking out commands and a bullet-cam speeding toward a target on the rifle range. The site even offers downloadable desktop wallpapers, mainly Marine Corps "anchor and globe" emblems or photos of World War II vintage Marines. Conspicuously, there isn't a modern image in sight in any way evocative of the war in Iraq (deployment pressure from which recently caused the Corps to announce that it would force reservists to return involuntarily to duty due to a lack of volunteers).

In early November, the Army has scheduled to launch a profile, according to Louise W. Eaton, the service's advertising media and web chief. MySpace proved impossible to contact on their work with the military, refusing to respond to multiple messages.

The militarization of MySpace is just the latest Pentagon effort to occupy a new realm that will put the military product in front of ever more young eyes. The role of "friendly" MySpace.com, taking a desperate military's money to target their hordes of young friends searching for popularity online, is troubling. Full article via AlterNet

Stop funding the war

Rep. Jim McGovern is currently serving his fifth term in the House from the 3rd Congressional District of Massachusetts. He has introduced H.R. 4232, which would end funding for the use of ground troops in Iraq and US occupation of Iraq. Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) has been working and organizing support for HR 4232, including circulating an online petition that has garnered more than 25,000 signatures. PDA urges everyone to sign the petition, and to ask your Congressional member to co-sponsor the bill. Rep. McGovern was interviewed on Wednesday, Oct. 4, by PDA National Board Member William Rivers Pitt, read the interview here.

Static: Media Manipulation and Fabrication

I just picked up this new book, Static by Amy Goodman and David Goodman, and it looks pretty good from most of the reviews. Amy Goodman is the host of the popular Democracy Now! radio show, which I listen to daily and also recommend to anyone looking for premium and unparalleled journalism.

"In Static, the brother-sister team of Amy Goodman and investigative journalist David Goodman once again take on government liars, corporate profiteers, and the media that has acted as their megaphone. They expose how the Bush administration has manipulated and fabricated news and how the corporate media has worked hand in glove with the powerful to deceive the public. The Goodmans cut through the spin and static to offer the truth about war, torture, and government control of the media. Mixing investigative reporting and interviews, Static presents voices of dissidents, activists, and others who are too often frozen out of official debate, to shed new light on urgent issues of war and peace. Ultimately, Static is a hopeful, fighting rallying call for people to take back our government, our media,and our world." BuzzFlash

Latest News Stories

Here are some links to the latest news topics, situations and developments:

In the U.S.:
Universities give student info to banks
Congress to Blow $20 Mil in Taxpayer Money on War 'Victory' Party

Iran:
Iran invites people to tour it's nuclear facilities
US Gives Iran Until the End of the Week to Suspend Enrichment

North Korea:
Nations confront North Korea about nuclear test
N.Korea calls for U.S. troop pullout in S. Korea

House approves warrantless wiretapping

The House of Representatives has just approved the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, a bill that would legitimize warrantless electronic surveillance of people within the US who are suspected of having "foreign intelligence information."

HR 5825 authorizes the President to conduct electronic surveillance without a court order for up to a year. The only requirements are that the surveillance is meant to acquire the "contents of communications of foreign powers" and that the Attorney General follows certain safeguard procedures. In order to authorize this type of surveillance, all that the president has to do is have his Attorney General certify in writing that the surveillance meets legal criteria.

The government also requires Internet service providers and other telecommunications companies to assist with any valid request for such surveillance—and they must protect the secrecy of the request. The government agrees to compensate providers for their time and equipment. If companies object to surveillance on a particular target, they are allowed to challenge the legality of the directive before the secret FISA court, where a judge is required to rule on the merit of the directive within 24 hours of being assigned the case.

The Senate has a competing bill in the works which differs significantly from the House version, so the shape of the legislation won't become clear until the bills are hammered out in committee. If what emerges bears any resemblance to the House bill, however, the judiciary will be all but removed from oversight of this kind of surveillance. Congress will be the only group receiving even limited information about how the surveillance is being used—will they have the political will to call out any abuses that might arise?

Via Ars Technica and NY TImes

Which cover is not like the others?

One reason why are we are misinformed Americans. Which one of these Newsweek covers is not like the others? Hmmm. I thought the Bush Administration's disinformation campagain was enough.

"Check out Newsweek's cover story this week. Actually, Newsweek has a different cover for each region of the world they publish in. If you go to the Newsweek International Edition home page, you can see the listings of the various covers for this week. Check them out and see if the one for the US doesn't stand out a little bit." Via AmericaBlog

War plans? Is an attack on Iran imminent?

By Dave Lindorff, The Nation

As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible US military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.

As Time writes in its cover story, "What Would War Look Like?," evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed--but until now largely theoretical--prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."

According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21. The Eisenhower had been in port at the Naval Station Norfolk for several years for refurbishing and refueling of its nuclear reactor; it had not been scheduled to depart for a new duty station until at least a month later, and possibly not till next spring. Family members, before the orders, had moved into the area and had until then expected to be with their sailor-spouses and parents in Virginia for some time yet. First word of the early dispatch of the "Ike Strike" group to the Persian Gulf region came from several angry officers on the ships involved, who contacted antiwar critics like retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress.

"This is very serious," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA threat-assessment analyst who got early word of the Navy officers' complaints about the sudden deployment orders. (McGovern, a twenty-seven-year veteran of the CIA, resigned in 2002 in protest over what he said were Bush Administration pressures to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq. He and other intelligence agency critics have formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.)

Continue reading.

War in Iraq worsens terror, period.

An enlightening and well written article by Mark Mazzetti of The New York Times, which talks about how the war in Iraq has most definitely worsened the terror threat, Mazzetti writes:

"The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document." - NY Times

Many people have been agreeing about the fact that terror is worse as a direct result of the "War on Terror" - it's like taking a small wound and contining to irritate and scratch it. It's going to get worse.

"The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official." - NY Times

In an article, "The Phony War" by Robert Dreyfuss of Rolling Stone magazine, Dreyfuss brings up 5 main points about the "War on Terror" and what is wrong with it. In his third point of his article, "The Threat Has Gone Viral", he writes:

"By failing to "smoke out" bin Laden as promised, the president has given hope to a new generation of freelance terrorist cells, Islamist copycats and Al Qaeda wanna-be's. "We let them get away," says a retired CIA station chief. "We took a relatively centralized organization and turned it into a generalized virus. Before Afghanistan, we were facing somewhat of a unified threat. We now have the equivalent of a phantom that we're fighting."

The National Intelligence Council agrees: "The [National Intelligence Estimate] concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of 'self-generating' cells." - NY Times

The war in Iraq has ultimately made the terrorism worse in many aspects. The terror net is now larger than ever and has spawned radicalist groups who have anger fueled by the Bush Administration's war and imperial ambitions.

The New York Times via Impolitical (Thanks!)

$70 billion more for Iraq/Afghanistan

Congress approved another $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan -- which should last til spring:

"House-Senate negotiators Thursday approved a new $70 billion infusion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as they wrapped up talks on a $447 billion Pentagon funding bill.

The additional war funds would bring the total approved by Congress for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since Sept. 11, 2001, to more than $500 billion, with another installment likely to come next spring."

But those funds probably don't take in to account the deteriorating situation in both countries. There will not be a reduction in U.S. forces in Iraq and NATO is beggging for more resources in Afghanistan.

Congress allocates this money because there are U.S. soldiers in harms way and they want to show support for the troops. Unfortunately, that means giving Bush a blank check when he has no plan in either country. He's too busy politicking about terror to deal with the real terror threats. Bush shows the ultimate disrepect for American soldiers by keeping them in war zones without an end game in sight.

Reuters does a daily update on the realities of what's happening on the ground in Iraq. Might help if someone at the White House took a peek at these updates every now and then:

Military and Civilian deaths and Security Developments in Iraq*

According to current estimates, the cost of the Iraq War could exceed $700 billion. In current dollars, the Vietnam War cost U.S. taxpayers $600 billion. The bill also provides for a 2.2 percent pay increase for the military as President Bush requested in his February budget. Via Yahoo News

*Via AmericaBlog

U.N. expert: Iraq torture may be worse

Torture in Iraq may be worse now than it was under Saddam Hussein, with militias, terrorist groups and government forces disregarding rules on the humane treatment of prisoners, the U.N. anti-torture chief said Thursday.

Manfred Nowak, the U.N. special investigator on torture, made the remarks as he was presenting a report on detainee conditions at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay as well as to brief the U.N. Human Rights Council, the global body's top rights watchdog, on torture worldwide.

Reports from Iraq indicate that torture "is totally out of hand," he said. "The situation is so bad many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of Saddam Hussein." Full article.

And it's only going to get worse.