u235

LONDON (AP) -- A British performance artist has eaten part of a corgi -- the breed of dog that is the favorite pet of Queen Elizabeth II -- to protest the alleged mistreatment of animals by the royal family.

I wish I had some uniquely defining statement to make, but really it's hard to top the reality of the quote.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration said Tuesday it will fight to keep meatpackers from testing all their animals for mad cow disease .

Why?

Because it would be too expensive...

The Agriculture Department tests less than 1 percent of slaughtered cows for the disease, which can be fatal to humans who eat tainted beef. But Kansas-based Creekstone Farms Premium Beef wants to test all of its cows.

Larger meat companies feared that move because, if Creekstone tested its meat and advertised it as safe, they might have to perform the expensive test, too.

The Agriculture Department regulates the test and argued that widespread testing could lead to a false positive that would harm the meat industry.

In plain english - if all cows were tested some would turn up positive. And our government would rather have a few mad cows go through then have the meat industry suffer from people buying less meat because they were cautious.

"Our" in this case is clearly not the public, since to this administration income is much more valuable than health and safety.

Hey bitch, this is a message to you:

If you don't like Harry Potter, then don't read it. Further if you think it's a bad influence on your children, then use your own parental authority to deprive them while you can. But to think you can force an entire school system to remove the books because you have the retarded idea that a work of fiction can influence a child regarding witchcraft, well, clearly you never should have reproduced in the first place.

Better yet, why not get a good grasp of the english language yourself before you try and convince others that you're not just an attention-grabbing, bible whore?

''I maybe need a whole new case from the ground up,'' Mallory said. The woman, who said two of her four children attend public schools in the county, was not represented by an attorney at the hearing.
[...]
At Tuesday's hearing, Mallory argued in part that witchcraft is a religion practiced by some people and, therefore, the books should be banned because reading them in school violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

No retard, you don't need a new case, you need a new hobby - one that insulates intelligent, thinking people from douche bags like yourself.

One has to wonder why exactly the vice president is so afraid of the public knowing who he talks to and who comes to visit. Logs detailing the comings and goings of visitors to the vice president were destroyed. And there's no coincidence that the visitor log for vice president's residence was secretly added to the list of documents protected as "presidential records" at exactly the same time the whole Abramoff scandal broke, but the question remains... what's there to hide?

Apparently something important, embarrassing or illegal enough not to want people to know.

So the public elected him, but we're not entitled to know what he actually does.

It's illegal to advertise a service and then drum up trade. An example of this is the popup ads that used to claim a computer was infected and then offer to sell anti-virus wares. So how exactly is this different from what Bush has done in Iraq?

In essence by provoking an unfriendly territory through invasion he has ensured that there is ample opportunity to train, not just our own troops, but scores of "terrorists". And it's working. Militants are coming to Iraq to train, and then leaving to export their skills to Jordan, Syria, Indonesia, a myriad of muslim countries around the world many of whom are (at best) neutral to us.

It's charming how Cheney and his lackeys like to claim that they have "prevented" terrorist activities on American soil through the reduction and decimation of privacy. What remains to be seen is just how their legacy of "safety" continues now that chaos has been systematically supported through their "war on terror".

I wonder how many Americans are regretting their vote for the president that was "stupid, like me." There's a reason why we need educated, literate, intelligent people as doctors, lawyers and engineers. And there's a reason why we need them as our statesmen, as history continues to prove. You wouldn't put your health in the hands of a less than capable doctor, why would you put your country in the hands of a deficient politician?

I was reading an article when I was struck by a peculiarity of semantics:

"Elsewhere in Diyala, a U.S. soldier was killed when an explosion hit his vehicle and a second soldier was killed in an explosion in Baghdad, the military said. The deaths brought the number of troops killed this month to at least 102, putting May on pace to become the deadliest month for Americans here in more than 2 1/2 years."

Hit by... "an explosion"?

I don't get it. How do you get hit by a detonation? By the shockwave perhaps? By materials thrown into the air when they fragmented due to the explosive force? I'm still puzzled by the phraseology.

My assessment of the jargon is that the press has been instructed to avoid the use of the words: bomb, IED, mortar or grenade. By saying someone was "hit by an explosion" you avoid touching sensitive spots that the public now twitches from in mental-reflex.

Soon I'm sure we'll be seeing substitutes for "death", "killing", and "combat"...

Unless of course that's what they've been using "liberation", "freedom", and "success" to mean all this time.

You're an embarassment to yourself and all humans in general. Please find a quiet spot, curl up and wait to die.

Thank you.

Top Ten Chuck Norris Facts

1. Guns don't kill people. Chuck Norris kills People.
2. There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.
3. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
4. The chief export of Chuck Norris is Pain.
5. There is no chin under Chuck Norris' Beard. There is only another fist.
6. Chuck Norris has two speeds. Walk, and Kill.
7. The leading causes of death in the United States are: a. Heart Disease b. Chuck Norris c. Cancer
8. Chuck Norris drives an ice cream truck covered in human skulls.
9. Chuck Norris is my Homeboy.
10. Chuck Norris doesn't go hunting.... CHUCK NORRIS GOES KILLING

reproduced here from www.chucknorrisfacts.com

You're a criminal. You've been nailed for a crime. But before you accept judgement you demand (not insist) that all records declare you innocent. While it doesn't erase the fact that you're in the situation because you were caught red handed, you want to give the authorities the finger by making -them- recant the charges.

That's Wolfowitz in a nutshell.

Of course the question remains why a criminal has the leverage to demand such an outrageous deal in the first place. The answer is, that he has big friends who will use their power, not in the name of honesty or justice, but to demonstrate "loyalty".

You know America has a crappy enough reputation as it is, both nationally and internationally. Why the fuck are we allowing our government to support assholes, liars and nepotists against truth and justice?

My take on it is, because that's the kind of people who are in the current administration, and they want to make sure that when it's their turn they'll get the same defense.

Fuck you Wolfowitz. It's probably more than you got from you're "Girlfriend".

If there is any victory to be had in this unpopular war, it's allocated to the marketing strategist that equated money to support. Time and again the line has been used that to shut of or even limit funding for the war is to be unsupportive of the "men and women who are laying their lives on the line in a foreign land."

Ok, it's time to call bullshit on that.

Why is money support? How does funding a "war" ensure that those men and women don't give their lives and their health unnecessarily? The fact is - it doesn't. Just as the military was sending soldiers out without body armor (which costs money), just as the new Stryker APC doesn't protect against roadside bombs (Strykers cost money), in reality money is not the answer.

If you're still having a hard time grasping why giving the current administration unlimited access to funds is NOT the same as protecting our service men and women, consider this: When a heroin addict needs a fix, are you supporting them by giving them money? Or are you better supporting them by helping them get over their addiction?

This war has been an addiction, for the little man at the top who likes to play soldiers with real lives. Giving him the freedom to feed his addiction is not supporting our troops. Honestly supporting them means protecting them, only committing them when really necessary, and giving them hope by telling them when they can come home for good.

A soldier is really being supported when he gets to return to his or her family in one piece. And statistically, the sooner that happens, the better.

Ok so I encountered a new term today "babymoon". From the article I gathered that it's for first-time couples who want to enjoy their remaining moments as a duo before becoming a trio (or more). The article went on to describe the joys of a "spontaneous babymoon" given to one wife by her husband. While I was reading this all I could think of was some woman in Africa or South America or India hauling herself off the field she was tending to give birth and then rest long enough to recover and get back to work.

I'm not sure where the idea that pregnant women and their spouses need to spend a buttload of money just prior to having a baby (where you will be spending a buttload of money to cover hospital expenses, diapers, bottles, car seats... you know actual necessities) came from, but clearly the pre-natal industry has found a potential gold mine.

"A babymoon is not only about pampering, but about slowing down enough to savor the pregnancy," Ms. Perlman said . "It helps mom keep in touch with her sensuality, with her body, and to embrace the change that is happening in her life."

Wtf.

Ok first, "slowing down enough to savor the pregnancy". Correct me here, but most women who are pregnant are pretty slowed down as it is. You don't see 8 month pregnant women turboing from place to place in a frenzy. From my observation it's more along the lines of: heave yourself up from a seat, waddle over to next activity, sit down and perform activity, rest.

And savor? Savor what? The additional 40 lbs you're carrying around? Having a small animal stomp your internal organs as it tries to get comfortable within your abdomen? Or maybe they're referring to hemorrhoids? Or the fact that you can't take any cold or allergy medication other than Tylenol and Sudafed?

Next, "it helps mom keep in touch with her sensuality". Roflmao. No comment. Moving right along.

Finally, "and to embrace the change that is happening in her life". As opposed to what? Rejecting it?

It makes a lot of sense that the only people who would buy into the concept of a "babymoon" are newb parents. Once you've been through the "miracle" you realize what a lot of hype and nonsense all that crap is. Of course it rather has to be that way or humans would be more loathe to reproduce.

Hmmm... maybe that's not such a bad thing.

They did a DNA analysis on a "certified" relic of Jesus and found out that his Y chromosome didn't match his X?

... and we found out to whom the Y really did match?

I guess that enough time has elapsed that bits of information describing the current administration's early workings are leaking out. The latest fervor on what seemed to be a deceased issue, that of the patently illegal e-tapping of american's phones and email, has reached a new low. The news has described how administration officials tried to coerce (and that's using a nice word) the attorney general into renewing the NSA program by trying to force him to sign it while he was extremely sick. To be more descriptive, Ashcroft was in the hospital when the president himself called his wife telling her that he was sending people to his hospital room even though she had said he was too ill to have visitors.

Now that's a nice boss eh?

Regardless of the abusive tactics, Ashcroft refused to sign the document even when he was essentially too sick to move. You have to give the man credit, he clearly was made of some stern stuff. He was even able to lift his head from the pillow and tell them why he still wouldn't sign it.

When the deputy AG, who was witness to this, refused to be browbeaten into signing our president stepped in. In effect he decided that he had the authority to enable the program to continue, regardless.

Nice eh? Laws? What laws?

In in the after word to this nasty little story, the antagonists in question claim that they "saved countless lives" through their noble actions. Uh right yeah, the same way my little cousin prevents rain on a sunny day by doing their "sunny-day dance".

Like the title says: Easy to claim, hard to prove.

Oh, and one of the two goons that tried to harass an ailing man into signing a document against his will? Yeah, that's right - the poster-boy for truth and justice: Gonzales.

My only comment is...

Thank god.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lawmakers want the government to upgrade safety standards for dangerous ''blind zones'' in new vehicles, to reduce the chances of children being backed over by large sport utility vehicles and trucks.

Any fucking twat that drives an SUV just to get her groceries and pick up her kids deserves what she gets if you ask me.

Actually, no, it's not what we want, and somehow even with sagging sales the American automotive industry keeps pushing crap at consumers.

In an 'oh so witty' response to the presidential candidates call for better fuel economy the car manufacturers insisted that it wasn't something the public was truly interested in. The quote ran something along the lines of "well what Americans want to buy is bigger engines, more towing power and greater seating capacity." Well I suppose the logic here is that if one out of the three statements might be true, then they all might be true.

Still, at over $3 a gallon they're thinking we want less fuel efficient cars? And what about the statement of "towing power". Towing what? There are multitudes of US residents sitting around lamenting the fact that their current vehicle isn't buff enough to tow... their boats? their campers? their trailers with matching snowmobiles? I dunno personally, I don't have any of the above, nor, for that matter, do any of my friends.

At some point you might think that common sense could prevail. After all, if the American car manufacturers really made cars the public wanted, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, they might be able to sell a few?

Waiting for a plane isn't terribly much fun if you're a standard passenger. Without the plush lounge, free snacks and lavish bar, the majority of cattle just do our best to be comfortable from one awkward cramped location to the next. Most gate-side waiting areas are pretty scrofulous, with the seats at a minimal level of comfort that probably just barely passes above the standard for "inhumane". Physical accommodations aside, there's the additional pleasure of the amalgam of humanity with which we share space. Depending on the location of the airport and the destination of the flight your fellow passengers can range from:

- Sullen and dour with a 15% chance of openly hostile (Chicago O'Hare, 5am)
- Aloof and snobbish (LAX, 8pm)
- Dazed and oblivious (NY LaGuardia, 5pm)
- Tired and semi-congenial (Boston Logan, 2:30pm)

While those are general categories and there are plenty of gradations in between, the "cell-phone psycho" can be a source of either great public amusement or public exasperation. I was in Logan at 2:30 one afternoon when just such an individual was around, and her overly loud, overly animated, overly lengthy cell-phone monologue was causing consternation amongst the other passengers ("My God, do you know she's been on that phone now for over two hours?" the pale but pudgy woman next to me observed. "Really? I wonder what brand of phone that is, must have a hella good battery," I replied.)

Ignorant to the irritated looks around her, this woman was alternatively howling with laughter, exclaiming emphatically or just flat out chattering with the rapid-fire cadence of an AK-47 with the trigger pinned. And loudly. No one for fifteen meters wasn't aware of her topic of conversation, nor her expressed opinion.

Now I'm not the most social individual, but I do have a certain sense of when my behavior might be annoying to the people around me. One might suppose that if she were to look around she would see the reddish glint in the expression of most of her fellow passengers that could signify a transition from loathing to venomous contempt. Apparently, lacking a healthy sense of self-preservation or simply not caring was a higher priority than pissing off an entire plane full of passengers.

As we eventually boarded, I could hear the muted murmurings within the queue of travelers. My thoughts were that most were either overjoyed to be locked in a metal tube without access to phone service for the next six hours or, more likely, considering how long a delay it might cause to stuff the woman into the jet nacelle as it was warming up.

My money would be on the latter.

I admit I'm a bit astonished by this one. Apparently yet another collateral issue in this war is the status of child custody. When a divorced parent is called to service they often look to their former spouse to care for their child while they are serving half the world away. These are supposed to be temporary arrangements where things are returned to their original state when their tour of duty is over.

But that's not happening.

What is happening is that service members, men and women, who were originally granted primary custody of their child are returning to find their children are now deemed "better off" with the other parent. Why? Because that's where they've been for the last however-many months. Courts have been finalizing these "temporary" arrangements as being in the "best interest" of the child, and even when the law reminds family judges that service people are protected from lawsuits while they are serving, courts are pushing back saying that the interest of the child supercedes all.

So the net result is that service people are at risk of losing access to their children, and perhaps even any access to their children at all if they have a vindictive former spouse. What is to stop an "Ex" from claiming that the service member is now an unfit parent because of the experience of service in a war zone? What if the service member is injured?

It's nice how the hawks like to portray this war as something that America needs to "win". Every time someone says "hey we need to end this" they're called defeatist or unpatriotic. The problem is those people aren't the ones who are really making the sacrifices. If those people are so dedicated to supporting the troops, perhaps they need to ensure our service people are guaranteed a return to the children they left behind. Or maybe those people need to explain to the Mom who no longer has her child at home why this "war" was more important than her family...