Friday, December 28, 2007



DEN said...

Mark Fiore LMAO!

DEN said...

Right now Funny is down 2 to 1 to sad, how dare they make me feel like shit! I resent them for that. I don't need stinking depressing crap so stow it World!

DEN said...

Guess this means Christmas is over:

BETHLEHEM, West Bank — Robed Greek Orthodox and Armenian priests went at each other with brooms and stones inside the Church of the Nativity on Thursday as long-standing rivalries erupted in violence during holiday cleaning.

The basilica, built over the grotto in Bethlehem where Christians believe Jesus was born, is administered jointly by Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic authorities. Any perceived encroachment on one group's turf can set off vicious feuds.

On Thursday, dozens of priests and cleaners came to the fortress-like church to scrub and sweep the floors, walls and rafters ahead of the Armenian and Orthodox Christmas, celebrated in the first week of January. Thousands of tourists visited the church this week for Christmas celebrations.

But the cleanup turned ugly after some of the Orthodox faithful stepped inside the Armenian church's section, touching off a scuffle between about 50 Greek Orthodox and 30 Armenians.

Palestinian police, armed with batons and shields, quickly formed a human cordon to separate the two sides so the cleaning could continue, then ordered an Associated Press photographer out of the church.

Four people, some with blood running from their faces, were slightly wounded.

Getting 'stoned' the hard way.
What ever happened to lead by example anyway?

micki said...

In the spirit of the season, I will give credit where it is due: Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were spot on to point out in the "debates" and in their campaign rhetoric that Pakistan is a bigger problem (for the U.S.) than Iran, not only because of its nuclear status but for its instability, etc.

Also, in the spirit of the season, I say Obama's kneecapper, David Axelrod, is out-of-line for his comments on the Bhutto assassination as they pertain to Hillary Clinton.

Axelrod seemed to suggest Clinton is somewhat responsible for Bhutto's assassination. The assassination will "call into issue ... who's made the right judgments," Axelrod told reporters.

"Obviously, one of the reasons that Pakistan is in the distress that it's in is because al-Qaida is resurgent, has become more powerful within that country, and that's a consequence of us taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq. That's a serious difference between these candidates, and I'm sure that people will take that into consideration ... [Clinton] was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaida, who may have been players in this event today, so that's a judgment she'll have to defend," Axelrod said.

Did Axelrod yammer like that because a new poll (damn! those polls!) shows Hillary narrowly squeaking ahead of Obama in Iowa?

Whatever...his remark was pretty damned crass and not helpful. Besides, what about Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and John Edwards? If Axelrod said that becuse of her "war vote?"

I guess it's de rigueur to only pick on front runners?

micki said...

David Axelrod should read Hillary's EXACT words about her so-called war vote

Gerald said...

Before I link an article, I want to say that Axelrod is a good reason why I cannot vote for Obama. Obama is a zit face senator with one year of experience who is deep in a smear campaign.

I cannot vote for Edwards because he lets his wife do his dirty work.

Fool Me Once

Carey said...

Well, it's not really over. The nice things happen after Christmas when people relax. But you're so right, "funny is down 2 to 1." Couldn't wake up with happiness this morn, not with the memory of yesterday.

That and the grandpa dog I babysit has acquired an uncontrollable bladder and shitter. All over the place, all the time. It's worse than four puppies.

What are you going to do, though? Old age brings the worst things. It's such an unfair process that way.

Note: I have some trouble and slowness with the computer. I'll have to check it. Be back later.

Yes, Micki and Den. It's time. Christmas is definitely over in that regard. The heat is on.

Next Thursday, can you believe it?

Gerald said...

Let us pray the neo-con prayer... War without end...Amen.

Gerald said...

Yes, I am angry

Gerald said...

America's #1 Law

DEN said...

A note for Firefox users, I had to remove several bad cookies the other day that had infiltrated my computer and cause a small flag to appear on a normally vertical cursor line.

Those cookies begin with: .a., followed by a legitimate site name like this:

First copy paste the name in the 'exceptions' window and choose block, then delete them from the cookie list.

nasty keyloggers!

Gerald said...

Stop Everything

Gerald said...

How to Erode and Destroy Democracy

DEN said...

If Bhutto was concerned about being killed, why was she sticking up through a sunroof in and un-armored vehicle?

This whole thing stinks to high heaven!

Why are we financing both sides of this so-called 'war on terror' to keep it alive? Pakistan IS the major sponsor of psycho-terrorists period. The military industrial complex is the other side.

Feeding both sides pays big money to the war profiteers, like that is not obvious.


carey said...

Okay, finally I have a moment.


Trying to read logic, motive, purpose, all those things into the campaign rhetoric is futile. You know that, I have to tell myself all the time. It's all going to make you mad.

It's like Christmas, we know it has it's drawbacks. Every year they arrive right on schedule, those drawbacks. Like the overwringing of emotions, the expectations, all of that. Madison Avenue doesn't help with all the psychological manipulation going on at Christmas.

The campaigns are the same way. Now, we're in the dirty, icky part. I don't like this part either, really. I don't see what good comes of it at times. It is supposed to be a democracy. Yeah, right. But that's how it was setup. Inevitably, you'll have this mess occuring at the peak moments. That's human nature. Especially when money's so wrapped up in it.

It does throw into relief human behavior at its worst.

carey said...


That's just it. Pakistan is so filthy messy. Talk about throwing up your hands.

It's the worst of the worst elements.

carey said...

The main problem with this whole development is that proper punishment will not be doled out where it belongs. I mean Bhutto fingered the guy.

Dodd's right, though. There's a little problem with nukes.

That this happened in conflict with our domestic happenings is unpleasant. The discussion of this most serious development is becoming tainted by pedantic, expedient nonsensicals.

Downright wrong that is. That's what's upsetting. This is a really big problem for the entire world. Not parochial politics.

carey said...

One thing that is rather upsetting. Bhutto exuded optimism in her step just before she was offed. She apparently was quite confident about the upcoming Pakistani elections.

Oh, that's so sad.

carey said...

This might not come out smoothly but here goes.

This murder has hit women hard. It's not about Bhutto being a woman per se. Mind you, I'm speaking for myself here, but I think it's universal.

A man, lots of them, "his minions", told a woman to stop what she was doing or else. And he made good on it.

This type of event is strewn throughout history. There is a difference when it's just between two men. There's always that tension between the sexes over domination. It is an added element.

So when women heard the threats, we knew exactly what Musharaff meant. That is what is so disturbing. This assasination is abhorrent with many layers.

Okay, I gotta go. Grandpa doggie's just issued a massively odorous fart.

DEN said...

Men rule the Muslim world period.

The concept is retarded at best, this is the 21st Century for us, but still the 1st for them, non-progression defined.

All men and women are human beings and as such require equality among them.

Idiots are not gender specific, thats another story.

micki said...

The Legal Ironies of Regime Change:
Iraq Recovers Its Sovereign Immunity, and Former U.S. POWs, Former Hostages, and September 11 Victims' Families Lose Out

This article, I believe, illuminates (in part) why bu$h has declared he'll veto the Pentagon bill.
Sovereign nations are usually immune from lawsuits in U.S. courts. An exception is made for state sponsors of terrorism and Iraq was designated such a nation in 1990.

After bu$h started his illegal War of Choice on Iraq in 2003, however, the GOP Congress passed a law and Bush issued a decree stating that Iraq was exempt from such lawsuits.

Bu$h to Veto Pentagon Funds over Iraq Provision

Why didn't bu$h know about this provision until now? The timing of this veto announcement makes it look like the Decider-in-Chief ain't the decider at all -- he jumps for the Iraqi government and dick cheney's oilionnaires.

January 20, 2009 can't come soon enough. If we live to see it.

micki said...

I heard a Pakistani-American on the radio, who lives in Seattle and is active in local cultural/political events, say that one reason Bhutto was assassinated is because she's a woman. Period.

micki said...

REMEMBER THIS: 350 parts per million -- James Hansen

micki said...

The inconvenient truth is that climate change is #12 on the Democratic candidates' list of issues and #15 on the Repugs' list


David B. Benson said...

Micki --- That's an upper limit!

Too high.

Think 315 ppm!

(Actually, in an e-mail I proposed 315 ppm to Dr. Hansen. He later stated that to save the arctic, carbon dioxide had to come down to between 300 and 350 ppm. I don't know how much my e-mail influnced him. And I suspect he'll be stated a lower upper limit in the near future...)

micki said...

He does listen.

I wasn't suggesting that 350 was the "sweet number" -- I just lifted that from the author's headline.

David B. Benson said...

stating, not stated. Duhh.

And yes, he promptly e-mailed back a very thoughtfull reply, at about 10:30pm EST.

micki said...

Juan Cole wonders if bush has a Plan B for Pakistan:

In order to get through this crisis, Bush must insist that the Pakistani Supreme Court, summarily dismissed and placed under house arrest by Musharraf, be reinstated. The PPP must be allowed to elect a successor to Ms. Bhutto without the interference of the military.

Early elections must be held, and the country must return to civilian rule. Pakistan's population is, contrary to the impression of many pundits in the United States, mostly moderate and uninterested in the Taliban form of Islam. But if the United States and "democracy" become associated in their minds with military dictatorship, arbitrary dismissal of judges, and political instability, they may turn to other kinds of politics, far less favorable to the United States.

Musharraf may hope that the Pakistani military will stand with him even if the vast majority of people turn against him. It is a forlorn hope, and a dangerous one, as the shah of Iran discovered in 1978-79.

micki said...

Dr. B, that's great that you have Dr. Hansen's ear.

Keep us posted when he makes his change on the parts per million, in case we miss it. Seriously.