Rep. Foley resigns over e-mails to male page

Gotta love those Republicans. This reminds me of the spliner vs log in the eye leason.

”Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., resigned from Congress on Friday, effective immediately, in the wake of questions about e-mails he wrote a former teenage male page...”

“…Foley, who represents an area around Palm Beach County, e-mailed the page in August 2005. The page had worked for Alexander and Foley asked him how he was doing after Hurricane Katrina and what he wanted for his birthday. The congressman also asked the boy to send a photo of himself, according to excerpts of the e-mails that were originally released by ABC News...”

“…According to the [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington website] posting, the boy e-mailed a colleague in Alexander's office about Foley's e-mails, saying, "This freaked me out." On the request for a photo, the boy repeated the word "sick" 13 times...”

I think this is more evidence why gays should not be repressed. The repressed ones always turn out to be conservative Republican pedophiles. Frankly, they give homosexuals a bad name. And what is it with these ugly gay male Republicans anyway? Aren't there any cute ones?

President Clinton Grows a Spine

So Clinton has a bit of an edge to him with his recent out-Foxing of Fox News reporter Chris Wallace. Well, I’ll be, a Democrat actually has the ability to stand up against the machine. Wonders never cease.

This bit made the rounds on most media outlets including MSNBC. I found the following on their "politics" message board.

Interesting commentary.

MSNBC - Politics - Thread 96512:
jcpetz
Message #43
09/24/06 02:05 PM

To Bush supporters: how do you respond to Clinton's statement that Bush did nothing to get bin Laden his first 8mo in office? Where was Bush in the days leading up to 9/11? I'll tell you where - In Crawford chopping wood. That is an indisputable fact. The incoming Bush admin told outgoing NSA Sandy Berger 'you guys give this bin Laden fellow too much credit'. That is also indisputable. Berger told incoming Condi Rice 'you'll need to be on bin Laden 24/7'. But Rice had a cold war mentality and like her boss believed only nation-sponsored terrorism was a real concern. Since Al-Qaeda did not fit that definition they were not their top concern; Iran, N. Korea, and Iraq were. Again, those are the indisputable facts; any other interpretation is revisionist history. As Clinton suggested, read Richard Clarke's book. BTW - Clarke does not let Clinton off the hook in his book. He believes Clinton could have done more. But the question stands - why was Clarke demoted? We all know the answer - because his top concerns were not the administrations. Bush made missile defense top priority his first 8mo in office. A lot of good missiles did to stop bin Laden."

Falwell calls comment ‘tongue-in-cheek’

So Rev. Jerry Falwell has followed his heart again I see.

“I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate,” Falwell said at a breakfast session Friday in Washington. “I hope she’s the candidate, because nothing will energize my (constituency) like Hillary Clinton,” he said. “If Lucifer ran, he wouldn’t.”

With followers of Christ acting like this, who needs Satan? What is even scarier is that no so-called religious leader there raised concern about the comments.

"Falwell told the AP that he did not intend to demonize the former first lady. “That was totally tongue-in-cheek and everyone in the building knew that and everyone laughed,” Falwell said."

I wonder if the "tongue-in-cheek" alibi would work if El Presidente Bush commented in jest about nuking the Middle East back to the Stone Age because of all those crazy Muslims running around there. “It’s just a harmless joke! Get over it! Of course we will only use conventional weapons to bomb them back to that Age.”

Letter to the Editor - The Seattle Times

Letters to the editor

The unholy spirit

In no way am I a religious man; agnostic perhaps, but not religious. The following statements aren't biased by religious affiliation in any way:

In regard to Muslims around the world expressing outrage at remarks made by the pope, I say if you can't get over the fact that many, many people see your religion as not only governed by the sword, but as represented (and taken over) by a bunch of psychotic zealots with no regard for life and certainly no foundation in reality, then y'all have more problems than I had initially envisioned.

I'm not a fan of Christianity either (see gay marriage, pro-lifers, an equally foundation-less base in reality, and that whole Inquisition thing), but I don't remember the last time I heard of one of them (or a Hindu, or Buddhist, etc.) strapping a bomb to themselves with the intent of blowing up innocent children.

You don't get special treatment just because you think your way is right, and certainly not when it comes to me chastising you for your distorted perception of your religion.

You don't like many people's views of you? Stop it at the source (see above zealots).

— Derek Einhaus, Seattle

Now I have to say that I agree 90% with Derek. I found myself falling into the old "they are just misunderstood" line, but really, as with most religions, Muslims are just as wrong. However, the comment about non-Muslims not “strapping a bomb to themselves with the intent of blowing up innocent children” is not entirely accurate.

First, I doubt the Muslim zealot’s intent is to specifically blow up children (no more than it’s our military’s intent to blow up children in the Iraq). Second, while Christians are much more chicken where it comes to laying down their life for their god, they still blow things up; they just don’t stick around for the explosion. Anyone remember the abortion clinic bombings, the Oklahoma City bombing?

Another letter of interest:

What you loose on Earth

Referencing "Rare personal apology from Pope over words that offended Muslims" [page one, Sept. 18], it is ironic that the pope didn't quote the Byzantines regarding the absolute savagery with which the Western Crusaders (sent to war by Pope Innocent III) treated Byzantine citizens (fellow Christians!) and their cities during the Fourth Crusade in 1204:

"Indecency was perpetrated ... They slaughtered the new-born, killed matrons, stripped elder women and outraged older ladies. They tortured the monks, thrashing and rending their bodies with whips. Mortal blood was spilled on holy altars, and on each, many were dragged like sheep and beheaded, and on the holy tombs, the wretched slew the innocent." — Nicholas Mesaites, witness to the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders.

Isn't it time we stopped using religion as justification for our political actions? There is more than enough blame to go around. And that President Bush even mentioned a new "crusade" in the Middle East is an absolute outrage!

— Scott Zema, Woodinville

Yeah, funny how everyone loves to conveniently forget the past. And, as the old saying goes, those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. I think our Fool-in-Chief is the poster child for that leason.

Bill O'Reilly: The 9/11 Movie and the Torture Allegations

Oh, now here’s some fun; let’s all poke needles in our eyes and rip our hair out (it’d be less painful than watching or reading the fake spin that our friends at Faux News have to offer). Of course I’m a masochist by going to Fox News and even more of one when I read what Billy boy has to say. But in the end, it proves quite entertaining to see how small these extremists are when it comes to their refusal to admit they are wrong and that the truth lies in the opposite direction from which they are facing.

I submit, for your torture, Bill’s Sunday article. Items in red are my comments.

----------------------------

The 9/11 Movie and the Torture Allegations
Sunday, September 10, 2006
By Bill O'Reilly

Many "Factor" viewers have pointed out that few Democrats had any problems with the distortions in Michael Moore's propaganda film or the outrageous TV movie about the Reagans, which CBS ultimately declined to air. But some on the left are now outraged over distortions in ABC's upcoming movie about 9/11.

That is called partisanship.

----------------------------

Are you really that dense Bill? The difference between the ABC’s propaganda 9/11 movie and Moore’s anti-Bush propaganda film is that ABC/Disney is offering theirs for free with little commercial interruption to the entire population of the US (well, at least those with access to TVs) while to see Moore’s (which Disney refused to distribute), you had to fork out cash to see it in a movie theatre, thus reaching a much smaller audience.

As for The Regans, the key here is that it never aired on free TV (so using this as an example is just as absurd as using Fahrenheit 911). Once again, this movie reached far fewer people than the free 9/11 Movie. It’s all about money Bill. If you give something for free and sweeten the deal with the promise of few commercial interruptions, you are definitely going much farther and reaching many more people than those who would require people to pay for it.

In full disclosure, I don’t care for Michael Moore and his antics anymore than the typical Republican. I find that he is tacky and out to make a buck just like our friend Bill here.

Bill continues…

----------------------------

But since you can't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, fair minded Americans should realize that if a film uses real people like Madeline Albright, for example, an actor plays her, then there is a responsibility to treat those real people honestly. So I applaud ABC if it edits out any fictional words attributed to real people, no matter who they are.

Now I'm not going to watch the movie, because I lived 9/11. I'm still living it. And I don't need Hollywood to tell me about it. I don't object to the movie if it's honest, but it's not for me.

----------------------------

Kudos to Bill, there is a very slight glimmer of hope that he is actually pulling his head out and trying to see the light. Let’s repeat his statement; ”… you can't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior….” Amen to that. I wish that more people would actually understand and practice this little piece of wisdom. But too many just love to counter the “Bush is a bad president” comments with “Clinton got a BJ and lied about it under oath.”

I think we need to let Bill talk some more; I sense he is getting a little antsy (he seems to have a hard time listening to others with opposing view points)…

----------------------------

I do, however, really object to real life people putting us all in danger. And that's what's going on over this torture issue.

The editorial director of CBSnews.com, Dick Meyer, writes: "'I've said to people we don't torture. And we don't.' That's what President Bush told Katie Couric yesterday. The president's statement here is beyond doublespeak and above spin. It's untrue. We've been lied to and we are still being lied to by the president."

Meyer fails to provide evidence of this charge. What's he talking about? Is keeping people awake for long periods of time torture? Has the USA gouged anybody's eyes out?

----------------------------

Bill, Bill, Bill, you were doing so well there for a second. But now you digress into your little sad world of delusions again. The USA might not have gouged anyone's eyes out but they have killed many.

----------------------------

Meyer would not appear on "The Factor" to explain. Thus, I can only conclude that he is an irresponsible partisan who should not be running any responsible news organization's website. We'll have more on this story, coming up.

----------------------------

Hmmm… I’ve watched “The Factor” and know how Bill allows people with opposing views to ”explain” their views. Bill, interrupts, chides, talks down to, and never allows anyone from the other camp to make their point. While on the other hand, he carries on a literal love fest with those who share his views allowing them more talk time and a friendlier atmosphere. This is his idea of “fair and balanced.”

I would guess that Mr. Meyer would not want to waste his time appearing on a show that is, to use Bill’s own words, “irresponsible and partisan.” However, because Meyer does not appear on Bill’s show, he starts with his name calling; now that is real professional of you Bill. Somehow, I think “responsible” is a word Bill is not familiar with.

----------------------------

Now ironically, The Wall Street Journal answered Meyer today, even though its editorial writers hadn't seen his inflammatory column.

The Journal puts forth: "The demagogues alleging senseless 'torture' at 'secret' overseas prisons have now gotten a proper replay. It appears a substantial number of plots were foiled because of the CIA interrogation program. They included attacks not only in the U.S. but on targets such as a U.S. Marine camp in [Africa] and the U.S. consulate in Karachi [Pakistan]. Mr. Bush said that information from the [interrogation] program played a role in the arrest of 'nearly every' senior Al Qaeda member in U.S. custody."

Now the Bush haters simply will not accept that, but the fact is that the USA has captured a number of terror killers. And tough interrogation is the reason why.

As "Talking Points" stated earlier this week, the accused London terrorists targeting American jetliners were rounded up after Pakistani interrogators chatted with a captured al Qaeda guy over there. I'm sure the questioning was gentle.

----------------------------

One has to love the Bush apologists and their self delusions about how perfect and infallible America is. Arrogance will definitely be our downfall. Since Bill is inept at research, I’ll list a few sites he can go to for his evidence of secret overseas prisons and torture. A simple Google search reveals:

• An article in the Washington Post from last year.
• ACLU has much to say on the subject
• From the New Yorker
• Factcheck has some interesting details as well.
• And there’s plenty more.

If the US was not using unconstitutional practices of torture and imprisonment, why would they need to have all these secret prisons? Why would they even need Guantanamo? …they could just use existing prisons on American soil. Oh, but wait, that would mean that they would be required to give these prisoners their day in court. As for torture, we all know what happened at Abu Ghraib but I’m sure Bill will write that off as just a few fraternity brothers hazing their Iraqi pledges.

----------------------------

This comes down to wanting to protect lies. I am tired of guys like Meyer accusing this nation of torture. Put up some evidence if you have it, sir. If you not, go down to a New York City fire station and see what happens to you.

And that's the Memo.

----------------------------

Me thinks Bill doth protest too much. It does come "down to wanting to protect lies." Unfortunately, it is the lies of our government that people like Bill want to protect. Their precious Republican party has been corrupted by power and instead of trying to free it from its death spiral, they just hold lock step repeating the lies hoping one day they will come true. It would be unconscionable for someone to actually stand up and oppose the party direction from within; "stay the course" (until you fall over that cliff up ahead).

A bunch of Lemming fools they are!

Clinton Aides Rip 9/11 Film

One would think that in this allegedly Christian nation of ours, there would be great condemnation of propaganda and all things false and misleading. Where are these so-called Christians now? Why don’t they stand up and speak out (like their namesake) against the establishment? Why do they allow Republicans (since they currently control all three branches of government) to go unchecked?

Now ABC has a new propaganda film out dramatizing the events that lead up to 9/11. The key here is that there are known inaccuracies in the film yet ABC refuses to correct them stating that it is a dramatization and not a documentary. The media and every politician (Republicans have definitely mastered this better than Democrats) knows that even though you place a disclaimer on something, a vast majority of the lemming population (otherwise known as U.S. citizens) will believe it as fact. I’ll remind those with long-term memory problems of Bush’s inference that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 even though there was not. Even today, many still believe it as truth even though Bush has since stated to the contrary? If you repeat something enough times, it will be hailed as the truth even though it is not.

It is too bad that these Christians feel that they need to follow the teachings of Rove instead of Christ. They just love to jump on the hypocritical, judgmental, anti-Christ bandwagon. Instead of standing up for truth and worship their god, they stand up for only the church of the Republican; anything to further their hate-filled agenda.

There will be no reward for them as they are already lost and have no desire to find the path to enlightenment. They live in the past and do not grow. And like anything that is stagnant, they will only breed disease and suffering.


Update (5:23pm): Some interesting discussions on the MSNBC Message board about the article.

Mobile blogging

Posting from my cellphone is pretty easy. In addition, this is a picture I took with my new camera cellphone.

Pirates of the Caribbean

OK, so for once I think I'll rave about something instead of ranting all the time. I recently purchased the soundtrack to the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. I've got to say that there are some good tracks on it.

As with most movie soundtracks, there are about three main melodies that are repeated throughout the score. However, Klaus Badelt (the composer) arranged some with pretty unique counter beats. On top of that, he's all over the place with the meter. Of course, my music career ended when I finished college so my ear is not as trained as it used to be (in other words, I’m easily impressed).

Anyway, if you are so inclined, watch the movie (great movie by the way) and pay attention to the music; if you like, get the CD.