Friday, July 28, 2006
Thursday, July 27, 2006
UPDATE: News 25 has the story now.
"I feel deceived," said Celia Ramsey, who sold the land to the Peace House. She talked to News Channel 25 exclusively on the matter. "I would have never sold it to Sheehan. Nobody wants them here."
The Ramsey's claim Fonseca told them he was an evacuee from Hurricane Katrina.
Also, it's being called Sheehanistan. I love it.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
A jury found Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity in the drowning deaths of her young children in the bathtub of their suburban home.
Yates will be committed to a state mental hospital, with periodic hearings before a judge to determine whether she should be released. If convicted, she would have faced life in prison.
I've never understood the "insanity" plea. Why does an "insane" person get to aviod the consequences of thier actions? It was never in dispute that she actually drowned her kids, so how, exactly, is she not guilty? Shouldn't she be GUILTY by reason of insanity? This really bothers me. As long as you are insane (or can act that way) you can literally get away with murder. The system is broke, and it needs a fixin'.
Monday, July 24, 2006
I have a long list of favorite patriotic movies, including "Victory at Sea," "Yankee Doodle Dandy" and "Sands of Iwo Jima," but Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" is right up there with the best of them. It is one of the greatest pro-American, pro-family, pro-faith, pro-male, flag-waving, God Bless America films you will ever see.
It still boggles the mind that Oliver Stone made this, but I'll give it a shot. Seriously, read the whole thing.
July 19, 2006
TORONTO -- Muslim Canadians, as Muslims elsewhere in Western societies, have felt increasingly besieged for some time now, both from outside their community and from within.
This sense of isolation, of being misrepresented and misunderstood, will inevitably deepen as the full story of the arrests of 17 Toronto-area Muslims on terrorism charges unfolds.
But whose fault is this? Let us, Muslims, be brutally honest.
We have inherited a culture of denial, of too often refusing to acknowledge our own responsibility for the widespread malaise that has left most of the Arab-Muslim countries in economic, political, and social despair.
Read the whole thing.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Sorry, that whole thing just smacks of hypocrisy. If there's "nothing wrong with being gay", why does she have to devote an entire section of her magazine to make sure people know she's not gay? Aren't we supposed to not care if she's gay, to overlook or look past it? She's supposed to be sooooo tolerant, but don't you dare even THINK she might be one of those icky gay people. You'll get a lawsuit slapped on you so fast you wouldn't believe it. I've never been a fan of Oprah's, I've always thought her entire persona was a giant (pun only partially intended), walking double-standard.
Just bugs me. And Juan. (He's back, BTW, and he doesn't like Oprah. He likes Carlos Mencia. Finally something we agree on...)
Friday, July 14, 2006
I've gotta fevah, and the only prescription is MORE RUMSFELD!!!
Eatin' terrorists like a zombie horde.
Well, stupid git that I am, posted the wrong video on my earlier post about Snow Patrol's Run. While all three of those vids are very good, the one I meant to post was this one (above). If you want, you can click on the "play" button and watch here. I really wish the sound and video quality was better, because the visuals are BREATHTAKING. The video is from the Final Fantasy VII and VIII games, which are fantastic! Anyway, have a look-see, if you care (I'm probably the only one.) Cheers!
Some selected one from the list:
1) Jamie Foxx
2) Oprah Winfrey
3) Michael Jackson
4) Star Jones
5) Terry Nichols
6) Donald Trump
7) Kenneth Lay
8) Geraldo Rivera
9) Al Sharpton
10) Ron Artest
13) Tom Cruise
18) Jesse Jackson
19) Jacques Chirac
21) Kim Il Sung
24) Britney Spears
26) Benito Mussolini
27) Barbara Walters
28) Richard Reid
32) Charles Manson
38) Bryant Gumbel
41) Louis Farrakhan
42) Paris Hilton
45) Josef Stalin
46) Muqtada Al-Sadr
47) Barbra Streisand
48) John Allen Muhammad
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Israel bombs main road between Beirut and Damascus.
Israeli town of Haifa hit by rockets, possibly launched by IRANIAN forces.
IF that's the case, Iran just answered the question about what we do with them.
Iran warns of "fierce response" if Israel attacks Syria (one of the terrorists' main bases).
More to come...
"In place of "Land for Peace," the Israeli political activist and columnist Yael Amishav (who happens to be married to my father) suggests a new concept of "Land for Terror." For each terror attack across the border, Israel will seize more land --- establishing a publicly declared ratio of acres-per-casualties. The seizures must be firm, decisive and immediate-- and long term, if not permanent. "The Land for Terror" concept guarantees negative consequences for outrageous behavior. If Palestinian leaders refuse to rein in the terrorist mass murderers, then they will see their little empire (established by Oslo) begin to shrink, piece by piece. It's not a pretty concept, or an easy one to enforce. But "Land for Terror" makes more logical sense than "Land for Peace." -- Michael Medved
It looks like Israel is on the brink of going to full war against hezbollah and hamas, and the nations that harbor them. It's about time. Ace had some good thoughts on this yesterday:
Muslim nations wax poetic about "sovereignty" when action is taken against them, but "sovereignty" isn't all rights. It also encompasses responsibilities. Such as not allowing your land to be used as a safe-haven for psychopathic paramilitary groups.
Either you're permitting the paramilitaries to operate on your soil, in which case you are engaged in an act of war yourself, or else you can't police your land to stop such paramilities, in which case you don't really have "sovereignty" over your land at all and can't really complain if, say, Israeli invades. If other armed groups are using your land as a murder-playground, hey, you really can't complain if one more group of armed men comes in, can you?
The US faced "indpendently operating" troops making violence on it from Mexico, and we responded by invading Mexico. The "Punitive Invasion," it was called, back when people were ballsy enough to use the proper words for things.
I personally have been amazed at Israel's restraint up to this point. At some ppoint, though, you have to actually stand up to the bullies and say "No more." It's time for Israel to do something "Punitive".
Hezbollah is trying to move the kidnapped Israeli soldiers to Iran, and if that happens, this become a regional, if not world, war.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
You heard me. Smoothies. And ice cream. Kinda defeats the purpose of a fast, doesn't it?
Stand amazed at her dedication to "bringing the troops home."
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.
But this service isn't going to go through the interent and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.
Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?
Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.
So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.
We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discrimnate against those people [...]
The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time. [?]
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.
It's a series of tubes.
And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
Like in the drive-thru at the bank.
I'm so glad the people that make important decisions in the government are so well informed. Makes me sleep better at night. I'm reminded of Billy Madison:
Mr. Stevens, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Other supporters, including [Sean 'Baghdad'] Penn, [Susan 'What Career'] Sarandon, novelist Alice Walker and actor[?] Danny [Who?] Glover will join a 'rolling" fast, a relay in which 2,700 activists pledge to refuse food for at least 24 hours, and then hand over to a comrade.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
A little background first: I have recently become a YOOOOGE Snow Patrol fan, mainly because of the season finale of ER, where they played Snow Patrol's "Open Your Eyes" at the end of the episode, and it was extremely powerful and moving. If you haven't seen it, check it out here (youtube.com).
Well, I then checked out thier recent album Eyes Open online and it was incredible. So I bought it. Then one day I was browsing YouTube for the ER clip, and come across some AMVs (anime music videos, which can be EXTREMELY cool, if done right, sucky if not), and there were a few that featured Snow Patrol Run. If you're interested here's a couple of the better ones. And the official video. Anyway, I got that album as well, and it's fantastic.
Anyway, this song is incredible. "Pop" songs rarely (in fact prior to this, NEVER) ellicit an emotional response from me. Well, this song did. It went beyond just being a very well written and performed song, the lyrics are amazing. Interestingly, in an interview with the artist, he said this song was about family. Here's an excerpt of that interview:
..back to new single Run with lyrics like ''Light up, light up, as if you have a choice, even if you cannot hear my voice, I'll be right beside you dear.'' A love/break-up song maybe? Gary explained: ''It's really about family. It's wanting to protect them from all the people in the world that want to destroy. It's about running away and keeping them safe not about fighting which perpetuates the violent cycle. It's a hopeful song.''
...It is, says Lightbody, “a song about family, and wanting to protect them from all the bad things in the world. It’s an apocalyptic song. Can we go somewhere safe when everything goes mad? The opening line, ‘I’ll sing it one more time for you’, is about singing my kid to sleep. I don’t have a kid, but I hope I do one day”.
Now that I've been married a while, and we're starting to talk about starting a family, this song really hits a spot in me that is hard to describe. To me it's about being there, being your family's hero, and I guess that's the best any husband and/or father can do, right? I don't know if this makes any sense at all, but I just wanted to try to share my reaction.
Anyway, give the song a listen and tell me what you think. Cheers!
Monday, July 03, 2006
Somebody is going down for this. 66% of the public think the Times (or the Al-Qaeda Intelligence Service, AQIS for short), should be prosecuted for divulging the classified financial monitoring program the CIA had set up. I have to agree.
The Times is engaging a ridiculous double-speak to try to defend themselves, essentially saying that Al-Qaeda knew we were monitoring them. Well, if that's the case, shouldn't we have known about it as well? And if everyone knew about it, what was it SUCH A SCOOP that the NYT broke the story?