Daily Archives: April 11, 2007

Today at the Rapture

The Rapture Index fell by one point today. I could be wrong but doesn’t this sound a bit political?

43 Climate:
Record cold temps put the freeze on global warming hype.

Hype? a site that attempts to predict the rapture is bitching about HYPE?
oh, well…let’s check the category info:

43. Climate

(Mat. 24:7) Jesus foretold of an increase in the severity of weather
events as a sign of the end times. The extremities of nature are
difficult to measure. Any activity that goes beyond normal weather
patterns should be taken into consideration, that is, whether God
has a warning behind it.

I try to avoid using the term “sic” even when commenting on the Rapture Index guy’s writing. “Sic” is a little rude, a little elitist, and above all, not many people know what it means anymore. So I’ll just drop a little WTF?, you all know what that means.

I wonder if the Rapture Index guy reads my blog? if so, Mr. RIG, you can learn more about the global warming hype by clicking on “2007 Climate Change Report” in the “references” list in the far righthand column.

I haven’t been commenting on the status of “Liberalism” and “Satanism” categories. I hope you all realize that’s because a) Democrats are going to control Congress for the next couple years, so that won’t change; and b) these Satanic attacks on farm animals just keep on coming. It seems to be the thing to do in the UK:

TWO 14-year-old boys have been questioned by police after rocks and a shovel were thrown at pets at a NSW school farm, killing a duck and injuring two pigs.

The attack on the animals loved by students of Brisbane Water Secondary College’s campus at Umina occurred on March 5.

A police spokesman said the boys had been interviewed by police and legal proceedings were pending.

A spokesman for the NSW Education Department said one pig suffered leg injuries and another had cuts on its face.

He described the incident as “completely unacceptable behaviour”.

The devil is behind this, no question.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under George W. Bush: is he really THAT bad?, global warming/environment, Humor, Outdoors, religion, Satanic attacks on farm animals

FBI not given resources to fight white collar crime

Wouldn’t want to irritate those big donors.

Leave a comment

Filed under George W. Bush: is he really THAT bad?, Politics

Rudy Giuliani: “Gee, our old LaSalle ran great…those were the days..”

He sounds like a Bush, for sure.

And kind of like a Bunker.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Securing the 91 votes for the Iraq oil law: US deaths up to almost 5 a day.

Iraqi casualties may be down a little, but US casualties are definitely up. Is that a success or a failure? With the spinmeisters, everything and anything can indicate success: more casualties suggest the “last throes,” while fewer casualties mean we’re “winning.”

Let’s take a look at what victory REALLY means to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney:

Circle June 30 on your calendar. That is the day the Iraqi parliament goes home. If by that date, the duly-constituted parliament has not passed the “oil law,” George W. Bush’s fine “adventure-in-Iraq-by-surrogates” will have officially failed.

For roughly the past year, certainly, it’s been all about the oil law. A military victory was impossible, that had become clear. But the oil was still there for the taking. That’s what the Iraq Study Group was concerned about, that’s what Bush is about, and certainly that is what his patrons, the multinational oil giants, are about. The “multis” in fact wrote the law, which has been approved by the Iraqi cabinet and is pending in the legislative body.

Bush and the ISG, of course, bill the oil law as crucial because it would set terms for division of the oil revenue among the various regions of Iraq, which are widely disparate in resources. According to the Bush line, such a contract would make everybody more loving. or something.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. The terms of the oil law would grant to three US-UK (coincidentally, the occupiers of Iraq) -based multis a virtual Draculean sucking of Iraqi oil, with guaranteed profits far in excess of any in the Middle East, or possibly the world, and in fact giving them seats on the Iraqi National Oil Board.

Now, how to get this past the parliament.

In the US it would be easy, right? we all know how that works. The industry writes the energy policy, slather on the treats, huddle with the vice president in secret, campaign contributions, golf outings, dinners, whores, limos, condos, yachts, high-paying jobs for spouses. Some voice vote gets taken at 3am on a Saturday, and the corruption is approved by 51%. Maybe some day, some guy like Abramoff gets caught for his excesses, spends a few months in the slam, then gets pardoned. There is no real responsibility in the process.

Not so in Iraq. In the first place, a 2/3 majority is needed.

And, a lot of people there watch what the parliament does.

In Iraq, if you fuck with the country, or maybe even with a small part of it, they kill you. If you are a collaborator, they kill you. By drilling holes in your head with 19.2 volt rechargeable Mikita drill/drivers.

Now that’s accountability (not that I approve of it, don’t get me wrong).

That is why many of the legislators have actually left the country, bag and baggage.

Back to the “surge,” which is really all about “security in Baghdad” so the government can “do its job.” Now, to you and me, that should mean, getting sewer systems, power, potable water, garbage pickup, training the police and soldiers, etc, etc.

No.

To Bush/Baker/multis, “do its job” means PASS THE OIL LAW. Really, it needs only 2/3 of 138 (a quorum of the 275 members) to pass. That is 91 votes. After that, who gives a shit what the Iraqis do to each other?

Of course, Petraeus thinks he has been called upon to win. And he’s going for it; but he’s really just a new lipsticker. His real goal, whether he knows it or not, is to get the Iraqi legislators to dare to vote for the oil law.

If the oil law is passed, Bush wins. The war is a success. As awful as it sounds. US troops will gradually be withdrawn into positions which guard the oil fields and pipelines.

If the oil law is not passed, Bush goes to Plan B. A naked grab. Of course, there will some sort of fig leaf put over the hairy genital organ. But it will be colonial business as usual. He and Blair will stand up and announce that “for the good of the Iraqi people,….” blah blah..”, it is imperative that we settle the issue of division of oil revenues…blah…which will then lead to economic recovery, blah blah, peace, etc.

Who knows, the Democrats will probably go along with it.

Basically, they will abrogate “suspend” the constitution and install a puppet dictator, and he will issue an “executive order” which “temporarily” ie 15 years enacts the oil law. He may or may not try to force some kind of approval through the UN.

US forces will gradually withdraw to guard the oil, as above.

So while Petraeus is providing the muscle, you can bet that Bush’s (and the multis’) legal geniuses are hard at work figuring out things like “what is a quorum,” recess appointments, “executive orders”, parliamentary maneuvers, intimidation, bribes, witness protection programs, no-fly lists and the whole nine yards of ways to make the oil law “official.” They are looking at Karl Rove’s voter suppression playbook. Those who are opposed to the oil law will be “discouraged” from showing up….perhaps warrants will be issued for parking tickets, etc. All they need is 138 to show up and 91 to vote aye. That is 33% of the elected legislators.

So we have about 80 days to watch the occupiers try to ram this down the throat of the occupied. We already know that the oil field workers are opposing it. They have some muscle, in more ways than one. Certainly al Sadr’s parliamentary bloc is going to oppose it. That’s the main reason he is being targeted.

Watch the news closely for parliamentary/political moves/developments. Watch for some way of changing the 2/3 requirement to a simple majority. Watch for Bush starting to talk “…or else…” about the oil law. It will be there in his speeches.

The countdown starts today. 80 days and counting.

1 Comment

Filed under Bill Kristol: is he smarter than you?, Condoleezza Rice: tell me again, what is her job?, Dick Cheney: Hannibal Lector in disguise?, George W. Bush: is he really THAT bad?, Iraq, Middle East

Glenn Greenwald on the anthrax scare and ABC’s coverage

Seriously, people, if you don’t read Glenn Greenwald everyday, you are depriving yourself.

Today he follows up on the ABC/anthrax story.  The link isn’t working but go to Salon.com and read his piece today.

Contrary to the impression Ross created on November 1, the White House insisted from the beginning that ABC’s report was wrong. And, from start to finish, it was wrong — as Schneider now admits (“our original report was indeed wrong“). But neither Ross nor ABC ever told its viewers that its story was wrong, and still — to this day — they have not done so. If anything, Ross insinuated (falsely) that the White House provided confirmation that the story was accurate.

This is the real point here: For five straight days, ABC — on virtually every one of its news programs, and out of the mouths of virtually every one of its media stars — breathlessly told the country that there was compelling evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the anthrax attacks (at the same time they were claiming that there were “confirmed” reports of a meeting between Mohammad Atta and Iraqi intelligence officials). They repeatedly led their viewers to believe that there was compelling, if not dispositive, evidence that Saddam Hussein and Iraq engineered the anthrax attacks on this country.

That was a major, major story with untold consequences on how Americans thought, and on how some Americans still think. And that story turned out to be completely wrong. Yet ABC never told its viewers what happened or acknowledged any wrongdoing.

Leave a comment

Filed under blogging, Iraq, media

Vintage Alfonso Soriano: putz on the field, at bat, and in the clubhouse

link

I really hate to keep piling on the poor guy, but this piece in the Chicago Sun-Times just so aptly describes AS.

Marquis gave up three quick runs on four consecutive one-out hits, including Luke Scott’s two-run double over the head of $136 million center fielder Alfonso Soriano after Soriano initially broke in on the ball.

Whether Soriano could have caught the sharp line drive with a perfect route was debatable.

”Maybe if I had a better jump, who knows?” he said.

But the hard crosswinds gave him an early lesson in playing center at Wrigley. In the seventh, Soriano broke back a step and got a late start on a high fly that the wind held up, and it dropped into shallow right-center for a hit.

”It’s very tough to play center field here, but I have to make the adjustment,” Soriano said….

And Soriano, the prized offseason addition, is 1-for-7 with a bloop single the last two games, dropping his average to a chilly .200.

”It’s not time to worry,” said Soriano, who said he’s feeling comfortable at the plate. ”I’m more worried about the team because I know sooner or later I’m going to get out of the little slump that I’m in now. I’m more worried about the team because we’re better than that.”

You might find your locker full of shaving creme, a-hole.

Seriously, the old “swirling winds” excuse is as something that gets dusted off every year for AS, no matter where he’s playing. He’s not a centerfielder. In fact, he’s not a fielder. He has no defensive position.

As I previously suggested, the Cubs would be MUCH better if Pinella would just bite the bullet and put Soriano in left field and bat him 5th or 6th. That really makes the team better. If they had done that from the beginning, AS would have a few RBIs, the Cubs would have scored more runs, and everybody would be sort of satisfied. By trying to make AS into a couple of things he really isn’t, they have exposed him totally for what he is: a fast runner who can hit bad pitching a long way, and has a high opinion of himself.

You can put lipstick on him, but that is what he is. It is bad enough that the Cubs management paid him 136 million dollars. But now they are totally misusing him. That is even worse. Before long, they aren’t even gonna be able to unload him, like every other team has, at the earliest opportunity.

When the boobirds get after him, he’ll have a meltdown.

Leave a comment

Filed under baseball

The US and Iran: Elliot Abrams’ sandbox; Bolton’s antics, credibility

From a dailyKos poster; her letter was published in Financial Times:

Cackling disdain from Bolton induces gasps all around

By Donna Anton

From Ms Donna J. Anton.

Sir, Having encountered John Bolton last month when I was an audience member on the BBC’s Question Time Iraq special, I find his fear-mongering insulting both in person (albeit by satellite hook-up from Washington) and in print (“How Iran probed, found weakness and won a triumph”, April 9).

Possibly this is due to his general belligerence: during the taping his cackling disdain for fellow panellists and audience members who disagreed with him induced gasps all around (inaudible to viewers).

Or possibly it is due to the fact that he continues to beat the drums of the “we must get them before they get us” propaganda that helped the Bush-Blair alliance wage an unprovoked, premeditated, ultimately disastrous war on Iraq.

That night Mr Bolton continued to assert that getting rid of Saddam Hussein alone justified the action the coalition took: “We’ve eliminated a horrendous dictator who was a threat to the peace and security of the Middle East and beyond,” he said, “one of the world’s pre-eminent threats and a person who used weapons of mass destruction against Iran and against his own people.” This in spite of the fact that United Nations inspectors were only months away from concluding that WMD in Iraq didn’t exist (“It would not take years, nor weeks, but months,” Hans Blix had told the UN Security Council two weeks before the invasion).

Saddam Hussein was a terrible dictator who had nothing to do with al-Qaeda or 9/11. Exaggeration of his might and influence led to motives that led to an unwinnable war, one in which my son has been fighting with the US Marines for the past seven months.

I am therefore disinclined to accept any of Mr Bolton’s opinions on Iran, having tired of dealing with warring politicians dominated by Texas oilmen crying “wolf!” (or is it Wolfowitz ?) in the Middle East, particularly as it is my own flesh and blood on the line.

If the prickly Mr Bolton isn’t up to fostering the kind of diplomacy that Tehran can deal with, then let’s find someone who can.

Enough war. Enough loss of blood and treasure. Enough.

Donna J. Anton,

Hayle, Cornwall TR27 5AF

Leave a comment

Filed under Bill Kristol: is he smarter than you?, Condoleezza Rice: tell me again, what is her job?, Dick Cheney: Hannibal Lector in disguise?, George W. Bush: is he really THAT bad?, Iran, Iraq, John McCain for president of Del Boca Vista, Middle East, Politics