« February 2007 | Main | April 2007 »
March 29, 2007
Feinstein quits committee under war-profiteer cloud
Dated: March 28, 2007
SOURCE: World Net Daily
Report documents military contracts for firms owned by senator's husband
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has abruptly walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report linked her votes to the financial well-being of her husband's companies, which received billions of dollars worth of military construction contracts she approved.
For the full article, click here.
Posted by andrewanissi at 08:52 AM | Comments (0)
March 28, 2007
Eastman celebrates music of Steve Reich
by Stuart Low
Dated: March 28, 2007
SOURCE: The Democrat and Chronicle
| If you go What: Concert for Steve Reich's 70th birthday by Musica Nova and conductor Brad Lubman. When: 8 p.m. Saturday, March 31. Where: Kilbourn Hall, 26 Gibbs St. Cost: Free! Call: (585) 274-1110. |
His many fans find his tonal experiments hypnotic, energizing and unfailingly inventive. His detractors would rather hear a chorus of jackhammers drilling slightly out-of-synch on the Troup Howell Bridge.
Perhaps the dispute is a little dated. Minimalism — which Reich helped to launch in the 1960s — has seen many transformations in the music of Reich and fellow composers Philip Glass and John Adams. As Reich celebrates his 70th birthday, it's an ideal time to rummage through his arsenal of styles.
Saturday, the Eastman School of Music will join the worldwide festivities with a concert of his music at Kilbourn Hall.
For the full article, click here.
Posted by andrewanissi at 12:06 PM | Comments (0)
March 27, 2007
Model Letter for Lawyers Representing Defendants in RIAA Cases
Dated: March 27, 2007
The following is a letter sent early this morning (1AM in California) by an attorney representing a defendant of an RIAA copyright infringement action, to Plaintiff's counsel. After receiving this stern, angry letter, the RIAA dropped their case. -ed.
Dear Mr. Kerr,
Thank you for your letter of March 23, 2007 received in my office today. I did not receive a copy of the letter by PDF although that method of delivery was shown on the letter.
Incorrect Venue and Emotional Distress
The lawsuit filed by your office and your letter arrive at a particularly inappropriate time in Barry and Cathy Merchant's life. Mrs. Merchant left my office after our first meeting to attend to ill father in Colorado. She and Barry Merchant left my office today to attend his funeral. You should advise your clients that they are facing a "thin skull plaintiff" either on a Rule 11 sanctions motion or (upon favorable termination) in a malicious prosecution action. The emotional distress inflicted by your clients' litigation -- filed in Sacramento rather than the Fresno Branch of the Eastern District Court where my clients' live in violation of the Rules of Court -- has been extreme.
Your client should carefully consider whether it has probable cause to proceed at this point. Mr. Merchant's hard drive is available for immediate, carefully supervised inspection by your client; a carbon copy of the drive has been made by technicians to insure that the evidence is well backed-up.
At the time of inspection, we will expect your clients to be prepared to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The pleadings may be e-filed from my office the same day. Although dismissal will not avoid your clients' exposure to attorneys' fees under the Copyright Act, it will certainly mitigate damages to Mr. and Mrs. Merchant and the possibility of escalating the issues by counter-claim on federal grounds that have been successfully pleaded in other states as well as on pendant California claims that have, thus far, tempered your clients' California zeal for litigating in this state.
Continue reading "Model Letter for Lawyers Representing Defendants in RIAA Cases"
Posted by andrewanissi at 10:57 PM | Comments (0)
German patent court finds in DSS' favor
By Mike Dickinson
Dated: March 27, 2007
SOURCE: Rochester Business Journal
The German Federal Patent Court on Tuesday ruled a Perinton firm’s patent is valid in Germany, Document Security Systems Inc. said. The company contends the patent ruling affects all euro notes in circulation.
The judgment was the outcome of a one-day hearing held Tuesday. It comes a day after the company lost a similar case in England.
The patent was infringed, DSS alleges, by the European Central Bank during the cash changeover to the euro in January 2002. On this basis, DSS contends all euro notes in circulation infringe on its patent and with its lawsuit seeks royalties for past infringements.
DSS needed to win in only one national court for its patent to be considered valid, which could affect the movement and use of euro bank notes, company officials report.
DSS stock (AMEX: DMC) soared, climbing more than 28 percent to $11 a share at midday.
For the full article, click here.
Posted by andrewanissi at 04:22 PM | Comments (0)
March 23, 2007
Rep. Ron Paul on War, Peace, and the News Media
by Michael Shank
Dated: March 23, 2007
SOURCE: Antiwar.com
Michael Shank: You've said that "It's nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel." During wartime this is often the case. How can one work to counter this tendency to claim that those who question or work to stop a war are unpatriotic?
Rep. Ron Paul: It's very difficult because the executive branch, and particularly the president, always has the bully pulpit. He can say it over and over and over again, and it's always heard: "If you don't vote for the money and you don't support the policy, you don't support the troops." And that's not true because if you're spending money to support a policy that puts the troops in harm's way, performing a task that's unachievable, then you're doing everything in the world to hurt the troops. You're doing everything you can to undermine the rule of law because it's an undeclared illegal war and it's very detrimental economically. So to argue that you're unpatriotic because you don't support the troops, because you don't support the policy, is a canard, it's just not true.
Even the strong opponents to the war, in the Congress here, are intimidated by that. Not so much that they believe it, but they're intimidated, they say "when I go home the people are going to say that I'm unpatriotic and I don't support the troops and I don't support national defense and I might lose my congressional seat." As political pragmatists they back away from doing what I'm quite sure a lot of them would know would be the right thing to do. And that is to change the policy and de-fund the war.
Shank: And what role does the media play in reinforcing the idea that opposition to the war is unpatriotic?
Paul: They repeat everything the president says and they don't ask tough questions. They would very rarely give those of us that have opposed the war from the very beginning any credibility. For very special reasons, I think, they aren't interested in having an anti-war policy. They have other reasons for wanting us to be there and they're not hesitant at all to continue that policy and they don't want their policy undermined.
Shank: For political or economic reasons?
Paul: There are a lot [of reasons]. There is something to the old saying about the military industrial complex and the banking system and that some countries in the Middle East like us to be there. It's not only Israel. Saudi Arabia likes us to prop them up. We've been doing that for a long, long time. There's a lot of special interest there and a lot of people who are deceived into believing that we couldn't drive our cars if we weren't over there, because we wouldn't have the oil supply protected. They don't realize that since we've been there the price of oil has tripled. It isn't very practical.
Shank: In a House floor speech you noted the "misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion" in Iraq. In perhaps the world's most free democracy, where free speech prevails, how does misinformation like this go unchallenged?
Paul: Fortunately it always gets challenged; the unfortunate thing is that it's always very late. We're getting to the bottom of the truth. People spoke out in elections. Now there's a different party in charge. There are going to be more investigations. But the real tragedy is that a lot of people die in the meantime. We finally found out that the Gulf of Tonkin was all fudged, and yet we lost 60,000 men. Now we have the misinformation, that's a generous term, about getting us involved in Iraq. We've lost a lot of people, and literally hundreds of thousands are applying for disability. And it goes on and on.
To me, it is a real tragedy. The media, if they're not in conspiracy to promote war, they're not doing a very good job by asking questions. And nobody knows what their intent really is. Sometimes the media and big industry are very often the same company.
Intellectually, if you want to stay strictly on an intellectual level, our society has been engrained with the attitude that we have a moral obligation to intervene. Some people don't think in terms of non-intervention versus intervention. The debate here in Washington is always: we intervene this way, this way, or that way, with whom and how far and how long. It's always the technicalities of intervention. But we're never taught in school what our traditions have been and what the founders advised and what the constitution allows. Even the UN charter talks more about peace; they don't even authorize war in the UN charter. And we ignore that too.
There's a lot of ignorance out there, and a lot of it is perpetuated in our universities. Except today we're getting a broader education through the Internet. More people are understanding some of our views. So I think in spite of all the pessimism, we're much better off today than we were 20 years ago when our voices were not heard at all. Today, our voices are being heard a lot easier because of the Internet.
Shank: In one of your speeches, titled "Don't Do It, Mr. President", you urged the president to not bomb Iran. Why are you so against a military invasion of Iran?
Paul: Because I'm against military activity in almost every circumstance when war isn't declared. I recognize there are a few times our president could act but I think I pointed out in one of my speeches that I can't remember a time that the president was required to act, i.e. that it was so necessary: the tanks were landing, there was a landing on our beach, the missiles were flying. It's never happened.
The president has the authority to repel an invasion or an attack. But going into Iran doesn't make any sense whatsoever. It's going to expand the war, spread the war, and probably close down the Straits of Hormuz. We don't have the authority nationally or internationally. It's just the most foolish thing I could conceive of. And yet it looks like there's bipartisan consensus that we can't take anything off the table. We can't even take off the table that we might use a nuclear first strike to go after Iran. They don't even have a weapon and our CIA says they probably can't get one for 10 years. And even if they did have one, what are they going to do with it? Are they going to attack us? They wouldn't do that.
Yet at the same time we stood up against the Soviet system. They probably had 30,000 nuclear warheads and they had the capability of launching missiles at us. We didn't have to have a nuclear war to finally win the cold war. We talked to them and there were negotiations.
Their system was a failed system, and it failed. The Iranian [system] will fail too if we just leave them alone. They can never become a power capable of attacking us. They don't have an air force, they don't have a navy. It's an unbelievable, hysterical reaction on our part to become so frightened that we have to attack people like Saddam Hussein. It just bewilders me how people can fall into a trap of believing these stories that are put out and that the media propagates.
For the full article, click here.
Posted by andrewanissi at 05:34 PM | Comments (0)
March 21, 2007
Don't Do It, Mr. President
by HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
Dated: February 6, 2007
SOURCE: Ron Paul's Speeches and Statements
Don't Do It, Mr. President
It’s a bad idea.
There’s no need for it.
There’s great danger in doing it.
America is against it, and Congress should be.
The United Nations is against it.
The Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, and the Pakistanis are against it.
The whole world is against it.
Our allies are against it.
Our enemies are against it.
The Arabs are against it.
The Europeans are against it.
The Muslims are against it.
We don’t need to do this.
The threat is overblown.
The plan is an hysterical reaction to a problem that does not yet exist.
Hysteria is never a good basis for foreign policy.
Don’t we ever learn?
Have we already forgotten Iraq?
The plan defies common sense.
If it’s carried out, the Middle East, and possibly the world, will explode.
Oil will soar to over $100 a barrel, and gasoline will be over $5 a gallon.
Despite what some think, it won’t serve the interests of Israel.
Besides-- it’s illegal.
It’s unconstitutional.
And you have no moral authority to do it.
We don’t need it.
We don’t want it.
So, Mr. President, don’t do it.
Don’t bomb Iran!
The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: if you don’t have a nuke, we’ll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we’ll leave you alone. In fact, we’ll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?
Posted by andrewanissi at 01:41 PM | Comments (0)
March 20, 2007
Is 2008 The Year Conservatives Abandon The GOP?
by Chuck Baldwin
Constitution Party 2004 Vice-Presidential Candidate
It is no hyperbole to say that conservatives throughout America are extremely disappointed and disillusioned with the national Republican Party. This discouragement is only deepened as they peruse the field of prominent candidates being trotted out as "frontrunners."
It appears that conservatives will be asked to choose between the chameleon Mitt Romney, the pro-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens John McCain, and philanderers Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. A few conservatives seem slightly excited that former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson is mulling entrance into the presidential race. However, a closer inspection of his voting record finds him to be just another globalist neocon, who would do little to change things in Washington, D.C. For example, Americans for Better Immigration gives him a puny career grade of "C."
The Republican Party’s unwillingness to advance a genuine conservative has left millions of grassroots Republicans on the verge of leaving the GOP. For example, a poll at the recent CPAC meeting found the "overwhelming majority of conservatives displeased with the leadership of the Republican Party, and most conservatives scowl at the thought of having to vote for Rudoph Giuliani, John McCain, or Mitt Romney."
In fact, the displeasure of grassroots conservatives with the GOP manifested itself in the creation of the Conservative Exodus Project (CEP), which was formed immediately following the recent CPAC meeting. According to organizers, CEP "is a vehicle for conservatives to leave the GOP if a real conservative presidential candidate is not chosen in 2008." Members pledge either to not vote, or to vote third party (e.g. Constitution Party).
CEP adherents use a fivefold litmus test to reveal a "real conservative." 1) He must oppose the "third-world invasion of the United States and reject amnesty and any path to citizenship for illegals." 2) He must "oppose free trade, the support of which has become an ideological suicide pact." 3) He must be a "moral candidate, critical of secularism, who embodies the virtues of the Christian Western tradition." 4) He must oppose the "illegal neocon war in Iraq." 5) He must "wish to see big government reduced in size-in all three branches-and for many offices and functions to be returned to the states, where they Constitutionally belong."
Proponents of the CEP make the following commitment: "Unless the above criteria are met, we pledge to stay home or vote third-party in 2008."
To which I say, Hallelujah! Not to the staying home part, but to the voting third-party part.
It is past time for conservatives to admit that the national Republican Party has crossed the point of no return and has no intention of nominating a genuine conservative for president. The GOP has become nothing more than a big-government, no-borders, war party. If true conservatives are going to have a voice in Washington politics, it will have to come through an independent party.
That is not to say that there are not genuine conservatives in the GOP presidential race. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas embodies everything the CEP is looking for. Beyond that, if he should miraculously win the nomination, he would, no doubt, receive broad support in the general election. He would solidify the conservative base of the GOP and would be very popular among independents, libertarians, and even conservative Democrats.
The problem is, the GOP leadership, including the money-machine, refuses to support the independent-minded Ron Paul. They want another puppet to carry out the marching orders of their CFR cronies. However, if rank and file Republicans, and if Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and other leaders of the Religious Right, would support Ron Paul, the globalist elitists within the GOP could be defeated.
Absent a Ron Paul nomination, true conservatives will have nowhere to go next year, except to a third party. In fact, it is my prayer that if Paul does not obtain the Republican nomination, he would lead the exodus to the Constitution Party.
It is time for conservatives to do more than hold their noses and vote for the "lesser of two evils." It is time for them to vote their principles and their conscience. It is time to only support genuine conservatives, even if that means such candidates can only be found in a third party.
It’s too late for business-as-usual. We need a revolution! And thanks to the wisdom, sagacity, and foresight of America’s Founding Fathers, we have a system in place whereby the American people can change their government anytime they choose to do so. I pray 2008 will be the year they choose to do so.
To learn more about the Conservative Exodus Project, go to http://www.conservativeexodusproject.com/
To learn more about the Constitution Party, go to http://www.constitutionparty.com
Posted by andrewanissi at 11:51 PM | Comments (0)
Ron Paul and the naked Pajamas Media
Dated: March 19, 2007
WND Exclusive Commentary Ron Paul and the naked Pajamas Media
Posted: March 19, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
I was not asked to be a part of Pajamas Media. That was just as well, as I would have declined to participate for three reasons. The first was that I regarded it as a stupid business plan, about as well-conceived as the idea of selling dog food over the Internet. While there is some genuine demand for news and opinion, the supply approaches that post-scarcity vision of which neo-Marxian economists happily dream.
The second reason was the much-publicized involvement of various individuals I neither like nor respect. That's completely subjective, of course, but is closely connected to the third reason, which is not. This third reason was that it was clear from the start that many of those involved with Pajamas Media saw the mainstream media as a club to which they hoped to be admitted, not an unnecessary evil better disrupted and left for dead on the roadside of technological advancement.
(Column continues below)
The chief role of the media in modern American society is to act as an intellectual gatekeeper, determining which thoughts are to be deemed permissible and which are not. To give one of many possible examples, it is considered unacceptable to doubt the verity of the Holocaust or global warming, lest one be labeled a ''denier,'' whereas identical doubts about other, equally well-established facts merely causes one to be described as a ''skeptic.''
With regards to politics, the rule applies to the concept of ''electability.'' Electability has nothing to do with whether a candidate is actually considered electable based on any rational grounds such as his achievements, electoral record or appeal to the voting public, but rather how acceptable he is to the gatekeepers. Thus, a comedian, a lisping, thrice-married man holding political positions diametrically opposed to his nominal party's or a confirmed satanist serving time for child rape and murder will all be described as being more ''electable'' than a popular congressman without a hint of scandal whose best-known political cause is supported by 80 percent of the American public.
''Electable'' in this context merely means ''acceptable.''
As I wrote nearly two years ago, it is the Democratic faction's turn to take over the White House, which is why the ruling party's other faction is, according to the rules of the great game, staunchly determined to nominate a wildly unelectable individual in the Bob Dole mode. It doesn't matter if it's Giuliani and his speech impediment, McCain and his speech-banning impediment or Romney and his sacred underwear impediment, none of these men have a ghost of a chance of beating any Democratic candidate for president, let alone the Lizard Queen and her scorched-earth political destruction machine. Ironically, that's precisely what makes them ''electable'' for the purposes of the nomination.
Conservative Republicans understand this on some level, which is why so many are depressed about polls showing that the lisper has a lead on the speech banner. (No one ever took the Mormon seriously, except those who get overexcited about executive hair. Our presidential selection process would be about as genuinely democratic and would definitely be more fun if we simply had Romney and Edwards stage a Zoolanderesque hair-off for the White House.)
And the truth is that there are alternatives, genuine alternatives to the three-part multiple choice quiz, but the mainstream media is, as always, doing its best to prevent anyone from considering them. And in their best freshmen-at-the-frat-house fashion, Pajamas Media is playing precisely the same game, as evidenced by their 2008 Pajamas Media Presidential Straw Poll.
The eighth week of the PAJAMAS MEDIA PRESIDENTIAL STRAW POLL has officially begun. Bill Richardson and Rudy Giuliani were again winners in the seventh week with over 70,000 votes now cast. Barack Obama and Newt Gingrich (undeclared) were runners-up on the Democratic and Republican sides respectively.
What the headline fails to mention is that in the Feb. 19 Pajamas Media poll, Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and now a declared candidate for the Republican nomination, roundly defeated Rudy Giuliani, 43.1 percent to 20.1 percent. Moreover, he did so by winning more votes, 1,769, than Giuliani subsequently did in winning the Mar. 4 (1,431) and Mar. 11 polls (1,158).
The innocent observer might wonder how Ron Paul could slip so much in three weeks that Giuliani could surpass him with fewer votes, or that a disgraced adulterer and non-candidate for president like Newt Gingrich could claim second place. Did his actual declaration of his candidacy on Mar. 11somehow inspire a backlash against him? No, the truth is much more simple.
Because they didn't like the results, Pajamas Media simply dropped Ron Paul from the poll, while retaining the likes of George Pataki, Tommy Thompson and other no-hopers who aren't even running for president!
Pajamas Media has thus declared Rep. Ron Paul to be unelectable on the basis of his demonstrated respect for the United States Constitution, his allegiance to Republican ideals and his commitment to human liberty. This speaks rather better of Ron Paul than it does of Pajamas Media and their naked ambition to tell the American people what they are and are not permitted to think.
Posted by andrewanissi at 11:47 PM | Comments (0)
March 18, 2007
A Note To Homos
This week, General Pace pointed out that homosexuality is wrong. People practicing homosexuality, predictably, demanded an apology. Unfortunately, General Pace, while not apologizing, still retreated, saying that he should not have spoken about his moral views, but should instead have stuck to the subject of military policy.
This was a mistake. General Pace should absolutely voice and advocate his views of what is right and wrong, and there is no reason for him to have to hide it. Furthermore, General Pace should have demanded an apology from homosexuals, for having perveted and twisted American culture and society.
This is a note to all the homosexuals out there. First of all, there is really no such thing as a "homosexual," there are only people who commit homosexual acts, just as there are people who use drugs or commit murder.
You grew up in a decadent culture which has failed to instill you with hope, glory, purpose, or identity, and your will, having been weakened by confusion, has become a slave to your basest bodily desires. You’re a pervert, and rather than admitting that sordid truth to yourself, you cling to a more neutral sounding label, and then proceed to aid in advocating that label’s place in society, thus contributing to further decadence of culture. For some of you, it’s an act of pure weakness, and for others its an act of rebellion against a civilization to which you feel that you do not belong. But when you act like this, you truly don’t belong and the rest of us don’t want you.
Posted by andrewanissi at 05:32 PM | Comments (0)
March 15, 2007
Wild Greenwich Village Shootout Leaves Two Volunteer NYPD Cops Dead
Dated: March 14, 2007
SOURCE: NY1
Two NYPD auxiliary police officers were shot and killed by a heavily-armed gunman in a volley of gunfire on the streets of Greenwich Village around nine o'clock Wednesday night, after the suspect had fatally shot a restaurant employee.
Investigators say the volunteer officers – Nicholas Pekearo and Yevgeniy 'Eugene' Marshalik – as well as responding officers from the sixth precinct began chasing the suspect after he fired 15 shots at an employee at De Marco's pizzeria on West Houston Street near Macdougal, killing 35-year-old Alfredo Romaro.
The suspect, identified as 32-year-old David Gavin, took off running down several streets that were crowded with people. As armed officers from the sixth precinct closed in, the unarmed auxiliary officers caught up with Gavin at Sullivan Street, where witnesses say he walked across the street and shot the unarmed uniformed men.
"The policemen were over there standing in the middle of the street like this, with sparks flying and everything. It was crazy,” said a witness.
Police then chased Gavin to Bleecker where they killed him in a gun battle that sent bullets flying a block away.
For the full article, click here.
Posted by andrewanissi at 05:15 PM | Comments (0)
March 13, 2007
More Resolutions
National Convention of Spiritualists
SOURCE: The Rochester Daily Union and Advertiser
Dated: August 28, 1868
At the morning session yesterday, a further report was made upon the Platform of the Spiritualists as follows:
Resolved, That the hearty and intelligent conviction of these truths with a realization of spirit communion tends...
1st. To enkindle lofty desires and spiritual aspirations, an effect opposing to that of a groveling materialism, which limits existence to the present life.
2d. To deliver from painful fears of death and dread of imaginary evils consequent thereupon, as well as to prevent inordinate sorrow and mourning for deceased friends.
3d. To give a rational and inviting conception of the after-life to those who use the present worthily.
Continue reading "More Resolutions"
Posted by andrewanissi at 09:26 PM | Comments (0)
Resolutions on Spiritualism
National Convention of Spiritualists
SOURCE: The Rochester Daily Union and Advertiser
Dated: August 27, 1868.
This body continues its sessions at Corinthian Hall with a large attendance. At the afternoon session of yesterday the hall was two-thirds filled, and no considerable portion were spectators.
After a song from Mr. Beals and an invocation from Miss Pierce [Pease?], a rule was adopted restricting delegates to ten minute speeches.
Mr. Dunn reported that the Finance Committee had collected $158, and that the balance required—some $40—would be forthcoming:
The following resolution was adopted:
Resolved, That we sympathize with the friends of spiritualism in all parts of the country where they are so far isolated as not to be able to form local or State societies, and that a committee of five persons of each sex be appointed to take into consideration the general subject, and report at a future sitting of this Convention what in their judgment will be the best means of affording relief.
The Chair named the following as such committee:
Carpenter, of Massachusetts; Rehn, of Pennsylvania; Wheeler, of Ohio; J. H. White, of Michigan; Stone, of Wisconsin; and Mrs. Doty, Mrs. Child, Mrs. Burtis, Mrs. Lowrie, and Mrs. Anderson.
Mr. Kilgore, from the Committee on Resolutions, submitted the following:
Resolved, That the rights of minorities are in no wise compromised by the action of majorities, and therefore all resolutions of this Convention embodying declarations of principles or purposes are to be interpreted as the responsible opinions of those only who vote in the affirmative.
Resolved, That spiritualism teaches:
1. That man has a spiritual nature as well as a corporeal; in other words, that the real man is a spirit, which spirit has an organized form, composed of sublimated material, with parts and organs corresponding to those of the corporeal body.
2. That man, as a spirit, is immortal. Being found to survive that change called physical death, it may be reasonably supposed that he will survive all future vicissitudes.
3. That there is a spiritual world, or state, with its substantial realities, objective as well as subjective.
Continue reading "Resolutions on Spiritualism"
Posted by andrewanissi at 09:24 PM | Comments (0)
Fun Bot
Perry Bible Fellowship
by Nicholas Gurewitch
Posted by andrewanissi at 04:14 PM | Comments (0)
Mario Too
Perry Bible Fellowship
by Nicholas Gurewitch
Posted by andrewanissi at 03:51 PM | Comments (0)
March 11, 2007
The Scandal at Walter Reed
By Hon. Congressman Ron Paul
Before the U.S. House of Representatives
Dated: March 7, 2007
SOURCE: Ron Paul's Speeches and Statements
The scandal at Walter Reed is not an isolated incident. It is directly related to our foreign policy of interventionism.
There is a pressing need to reassess our now widely accepted role as the world’s lone superpower. If we don’t, we are destined to reduce our nation to something far less powerful.
It has always been politically popular for politicians to promise they will keep us out of foreign wars, especially before World War I. That hasn’t changed, even though many in Washington today don’t understand it.
Likewise it has been popular to advocate ending prolonged and painful conflicts like the wars in Korea and Vietnam, and now Iraq.
In 2000, it was quite popular to condemn nation building and reject the policy of policing the world, in the wake of our involvement in Kosovo and Somalia. We were promised a more humble foreign policy.
Nobody wins elections by promising to take us to war. But once elected, many politicians greatly exaggerate the threat posed by a potential enemy-- and the people too often carelessly accept the dubious reasons given to justify wars. Opposition arises only when the true costs are felt here at home.
A foreign policy of interventionism costs so much money that we’re forced to close military bases in the U.S., even as we’re building them overseas. Interventionism is never good fiscal policy.
Interventionism symbolizes an attitude of looking outward, toward empire, while diminishing the importance of maintaining a constitutional republic.
We close bases here at home-- some want to close Walter Reed-- while building bases in Arab and Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia. We worry about foreign borders while ignoring our own. We build permanent outposts in Muslim holy lands, occupy territory, and prop up puppet governments. This motivates suicide terrorism against us.
Our policies naturally lead to resentment, which in turn leads to prolonged wars and increased casualties. We spend billions in Iraq, while bases like Walter Reed fall into disrepair. This undermines our ability to care for the thousands of wounded soldiers we should have anticipated, despite the rosy predictions that we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq.
Now comes the outrage.
Now Congress holds hearings.
Now comes the wringing of hands. Yes, better late than never.
For the full article, click here.
Posted by andrewanissi at 02:35 PM | Comments (0)
March 06, 2007
FILM: Bridge To Terabithia
by Jack Garner
Dated: February 16, 2007
SOURCE: The Democrat & Chronicle
 |
For the full article, click here.
This is the kind of film that Hollywood almost never makes anymore. A real positive kind of movie. -ed.
Posted by andrewanissi at 10:33 AM | Comments (0)
Persian Gulf of Tonkin Incident
by Leon Hadar
Dated: February 26, 2007
SOURCE: The American Conservative
The Iraq War has produced many, sometimes contradictory, historical analogies, ranging from Munich to the fall of Saigon, as pundits highlight their dubious relevance to Mesopotamia.
Following President Bush’s Jan. 11 speech on U.S. policy in Iraq, in which he accused Tehran of meddling and threatened to “interrupt” the flow of support to Iraqi insurgents, Sen. Chuck Hagel added a new analogy: Nixon’s decision to expand the war in Vietnam into Cambodia as part of a strategy to “interrupt” the flow of support to those other insurgents, the National Liberation Front, from sanctuaries along Cambodia’s eastern border.
“[O]nce you get to hot pursuit, no one can say we won’t engage across border,” Hagel told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. “Some of us remember 1970 and Cambodia, and our government lied to us and said we didn’t cross the border,” he said. “When you set in motion the kind of policy the president is talking about here, it is very, very dangerous.”
For the full article, click here.
Posted by andrewanissi at 10:29 AM | Comments (0)