Jack & Jill Politics

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/10/radio-caller-t...

"A BAT SHIT CRAZY caller to the Michelangelo Signorile radio show says he is organizing a military coup with 200 people intended to bring down Obama, rid the country of homosexuals, and bring back slavery."

While he's at it, tell him to come clean up some of these neighborhoods that would make his army look like paintball squads...

As I listened to the tape, I was hopeing the station got a trace done on the caller. This nut needs to be tracked.

EVENING OPEN THREAD IS UP

So, where is the head heifer and her heifferettes to groan and keen over the death of Derrion? Probably out stocking up on Kente cloth to out-black each other with.

Another mother with a broken heart..and a whole community of mothers in the pews on Sunday, practicing the fine art of getting in the spirit without breaking an ankle. You better learn how to drop just right, so your girdle don't show. You better learn how to stoke your anger, cultivate your petty jealousies...skank it up real good for black Jesus.

....while your children watch.

I don't get the black church. I was raised Catholic but would sometimes attend services at historically black churches with friends and whatnot growing up. I don't get it. Black folks stay in the church. Next to the evangelical nutjobs, no other group can even come close to us as far as church attendance comes. Yet we have so many damn issues!

Church is fellowship and entertainment... also a projection of our worst characteristics onto a god...where they are made "white as snow"...and become acceptable.

It is the place you go when you want to hide from yourself.

Apparently, hiding from ourselves will not resolve our "issues"...

If i could i'd have offer you a dinner at a japanese restaurant, i love anything japanese.

Very well put!


It is the place you go when you want to hide from yourself.

Apparently, hiding from ourselves will not resolve our "issues"...


I say ART is digging inside ourselves, Never hiding from ourselves.
Rappers do NOT know what is it To be Real!

My wife ask me What differentiates Right wingers ( to her, like me The Right fights for Europeanization, some call it white ) to "Black Revolutionaries"/Black Church; I said, i do not get it (she likes riddles, you know). Then she said that both worship the same "GOD" but follows different messiah.
I said like Muslims and Christians, same Jewish's "GOD" and follow different prophets?
She smiled.
I think she is Right.

Our messiah is the "flyest beat"..

Guess who's back

Back again

Debbie Downer's back

Tell a friend

Guess who's back
Guess who's back
Guess who's back
Guess who's back
Guess who's back
Guess who's back
Guess who's back

Downer?

I am always cheerful. And, I am not "back"... I didn't leave...I was absent for a couple days, which is not unusual.

Wanna try for a 3rd strike?

You still here?

Conservatives re-writing the Bible because it's too "liberal":

Lo and behold, the Bible has gotten too liberal, according to a group of conservatives. And it needs a little editing.

That's the inspiration behind the Conservative Bible Project, which seeks to take the text back to its supposed right-wing roots.

Yes, even scripture is not orthodox enough for the modern conservative. Not that it's the fault of the author(s), exactly. The group cites a few reasons why the Bible is too progressive: "Lack of precision in the original language ... lack of precision in modern language" and "translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one."

So how can the Bible be conservatized? The group has proposed a Wikipedia-like group editing project. Some of the ideas would only bring the translation closer to the original. But others would fundamentally change the text.

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Among the words to be eliminated: "government." A conservative columnist at Beliefnet described the effort as "just crazy ... like what you'd get if you crossed the Jesus Seminar with the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/conser...

a book of biblical euphemisms?!

They need to G-T-F-O-H

I saw this headline on some webpage, and didn't read beyond it because I thought it was a joke. I should have known better.

For the brainiacs,mathematicians and the science geeks this is for you
The end of Dark Matter?
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0903/0903.2...
If anyone can break it down for the the rest of us in layman's terms.

Searching through the unknown is all I can get. Something about trying to detect unseen matter that may have influence on visible matter...like a "spirit" or "holy ghost" with science.

Just curious, expecting somebody to fire up the Hadron Collider again?

Naw,I read the link and the way it was written I had no idea what they were talking about.I was hoping someone with a background in science could enlighten me or anyone who was interested.

The vast right-wing conspiracy is back
Some of Bill Clinton's most unhinged foes are flinging wild charges at Obama. This time, they're better organized

By Joe Conason


Oct. 5, 2009 | Wearily familiar as he is with the "vast right-wing conspiracy," Bill Clinton says the network that sought to destroy him and his wife, Hillary, remains malignant as ever, yet lacks the might of a decade ago. "It's not as strong as it was, because America's changed," he told David Gregory on "Meet the Press." "But it's as virulent as it was."

Whether Clinton is correct about the current condition of his old adversaries can best be measured by the passage or wreckage of healthcare reform and the outcome of next year's congressional midterm elections -- the same early milestones that marked the beginning of Clinton's tumultuous White House tenure. Perhaps Barack Obama will be saved by political demography and decent intentions, as the former president tried to assure Gregory; perhaps he and his administration will prove less vulnerable to intrigue and propaganda and less flawed than their predecessors.

What Obama should anticipate -- indeed, what he is already encountering -- is a cascade of slurs, threats and rhetorical violence that reanimates all of the worst themes of the bad old days. That wave will inevitably damage the president and his hopes for change, even if the majority of Americans is less receptive to right-wing messages than they once were. The greasy machinery once used to grind Clinton down has grown larger and more sophisticated by orders of magnitude, from Fox News Channel (which did not exist during his first term) to all of the conservative digital outlets that enable echoing and organizing on a truly vast scale.
The negative mythologizing of Obama bears a remarkable resemblance in tone and style if not precisely in content to the attacks on Clinton. "It's like when they accused me of murder, and all that stuff they did," said the former president -- presumably a reference to the wilder fantasies circulated in conservative publications about Obama, from the forged Kenyan birth certificates to the president's supposed plans to inflict corruption, homosexual radicals and Muslim jihad on innocent Americans. While some of the current themes mimic those deployed against Clinton, there are generational differences and the obvious fact that Obama is not just notionally "the first black president." That status evokes a special animus on the far right, of course -- although Clinton at least had earned the lifelong hatred of his most dedicated enemy, "Justice Jim" Johnson of Arkansas, for fighting segregation and racism in Arkansas.

Back when videotapes still had to be circulated by mail order, the Clinton-hunters did a brisk business with "The Clinton Chronicles," a "documentary" alleging that as governor of Arkansas he oversaw an enormous, unchecked racketeering enterprise that encompassed international bank fraud, cocaine smuggling and multiple murders, facilitated by a kind of backwoods dictatorship. Nothing resembling that remarkable work of extremist art, once promoted by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, has appeared so far in the crusade against Obama -- but that doesn't mean nothing is in the works. Many of the same organizations and operatives behind the original Clinton smears are still active and some have amassed considerable wealth and influence over the intervening decade.

The signs of a resurgent right-wing smear industry, and the role that would be played by the old VRWC in the Obama era, first became clear toward the end of last year's historic election. Suddenly in the final months of the campaign, long after conservatives had despaired of another Swift-boat triumph, a curious outfit called the National Republican Trust PAC emerged from the shadows with two exceptionally nasty independent commercials -- and millions of dollars to spend airing them. Between the end of September and Election Day, the mysterious NRT PAC raised and spent enough money to qualify as the single largest non-party purchaser of airtime in the 2008 election.

Using a photo of Mohammed Atta, the first NRT ad connected Obama to the 9/11 hijackers with the false claim that he wanted to permit illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses. FactCheck.org described that ad as "one of the sleaziest false TV ads of the campaign." The second ad attempted to remind voters about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor at the Chicago church where the Obama family worshiped, whose black nationalist sermons caused them to break with him during the presidential campaign. The script criticized Obama for failing to protest Wright's sermons sooner and warned that the Democrat was "too radical" and "too risky."

These blunt instruments of political warfare were less interesting than their creators. The executive director of NRT PAC, responsible for the production of those ads, was Scott Wheeler -- who had worked, years before, on the making of "The Clinton Chronicles," according to reporter Murray Waas. Behind Wheeler was the mastermind of the NRT PAC and one of the central figures in the anti-Clinton network of the '90s: Christopher Ruddy.

Now editor and publisher of Newsmax, the enormously successful right-wing magazine and Web site, Ruddy was the journalist who spun the most fanciful theories about the death of Clinton White House lawyer Vince Foster. Working at the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, owned by billionaire and avowed Clinton foe Richard Mellon Scaife, Ruddy popularized the canard that Foster had not committed suicide, as determined by five official investigations, but more likely had been murdered -- possibly to cover up corruption in the Whitewater land deal or because of an illicit affair with Hillary Rodham Clinton or both.

Beyond spreading paranoia about the Foster tragedy, Ruddy and Scaife both played central roles in the distribution of nearly half a million copies of "The Clinton Chronicles" and other covert machinations against the Clinton White House –- most notably the "Arkansas Project," a $2.4 million scheme to dig up or invent crimes by the president and first lady, with assistance from several unsavory characters, including die-hard segregationist Jim Johnson, a couple of private detectives and a bait-shop owner.

Ten years later, life has changed for Ruddy and Scaife. They're partners in Newsmax, based in West Palm Beach, Fla., and now the largest conservative publication in the country, both online and off. With 130,000 print subscribers its circulation is nearly twice as large as the Weekly Standard, and with nearly 4 million unique monthly visitors to Newsmax.com, it is larger than the Drudge Report. According to Forbes, which profiled Newsmax last spring, the low-budget site and its affiliates brought in nearly $30 million last year. More important than its profits is its sway over conservative readers.

Newsmax is a muscular media presence with influence across the right from Rush Limbaugh and all his radio imitators to Fox News Channel and beyond. Ruddy was among the most insistent endorsers of the Obama birth certificate myth, playing much the same role he once did during the Vince Foster affair. He has assiduously promoted the "tea party" movement and the "socialism" meme. When Newsmax published an essay by an obscure former newsman that seemed to urge a military coup against Obama last week (and then removed it), the reverberations were felt across the political spectrum. Every day the site blasts forth a barrage of supposed Obama scandals and embarrassments to be amplified by Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the panoply of talk radio and cable megaphones, knowing that by sheer volume, some of it will stick.

Combining the propaganda power of Newsmax with the spending power of the NRT PAC, the once-laughable Ruddy could become a formidable player in the 2010 midterm elections -– and the fate of the Obama administration.

As Clinton himself pointed out, the same forces that wanted to defeat and destroy his administration have predictably mobilized against Obama. For the moment, however, those forces cannot muster the same kind of concerted attack that almost brought Clinton down. They may still have Scaife's money but they have no independent counsel, like the partisan zealot Kenneth Starr. They have no scandal-mongering allies in the mainstream media, like the late William Safire of the New York Times. They have no congressional majority, and nobody like Newt Gingrich to build and lead one -- at least not yet.

Yet while the Republican right struggles for credibility, leaving Obama with breathing space, he and his aides ought to reconsider their scornful and high-handed attitude toward the progressive wing of their own party. They might just lose the Democratic majority next year and find themselves facing the sharp end of a series of congressional investigations or worse. If and when that happens, as Clinton could remind them, the progressives will be their only reliable allies.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/10/05...

This is one remarkable young man!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/10/05/mala...

My Friend's status message on Facebook:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Decl. of Independence. You know t...he writer of these lines at the time owned 100 slaves. Coincedence?

He has a point. . .

Hmmm, looks like the Chamber of Commerce is having some issues

There has recently been a “business backlash” against the Chamber of Commerce over its refusal to accept the science of global warming and lobbying against climate change legislation. The New York Times reports today that the latest company to join this backlash is Apple, which wrote in a letter to the Chamber that it has been “frustrating” that the business federation has been fighting efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions:

“We strongly object to the chamber’s recent comments opposing the E.P.A.’s effort to limit greenhouse gases,” wrote Catherine A. Novelli, the vice-president of worldwide government affairs at Apple, in a letter dated today and addressed to Thomas J. Donohue, president and chief executive of the chamber. Click here to read the letter.

“Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the chamber at odds with us in this effort,” Ms. Novelli continued.

Apple’s resignation was effective immediately, the letter said. The move comes a few weeks after Apple expanded the environmental disclosures on its products.

Apple joins Pacific Gas & Energy, Public Service Company of New Mexico, and Exelon in an ever-growing list of companies who are leaving the Chamber over its ideological opposition to any serious action over climate change.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/05/apple-quits...

LOL, I Love Family Guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp1IXkWLZew

too bad it comes on at the same time as Desperate Housewives, but good thing full episodes are on Hulu

McDonnell ads in Virginia-untrue and illegal?
by achamblee
Share this on Twitter - McDonnell ads in Virginia-untrue and illegal? Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:37:31 PM PDT
Bob McDonnell's latest ads against Creigh Deeds includes a parade of female state employees who claim he must not be a sexist boss because he didn't fire them for being female. Well, he didn't hire them, either.

achamblee's diary :: :: Present or past public employees are not allowed to use their position to advance a partisian campaign. So what does this ad say about McDonnell's ethics?

Virginia state law prohibits using a public office to advance a partisian campaign.

The Hatch Act prohibits organizations receiving federal funds - probably the state attorney general's office- from being used to advance a partisian campaign.

Who is investigating this improper use of a public office?
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/5/789...

I remember I was coming from an Obama rally during my externship at the AG's office, and I wasn't even allowed to wear my Obama button in the building (even though I was an unpaid employee, and we have a Democratic AG), so I can't imagine if people are using their state positions in ads. SMH.

FTC: BLOGGERS MUST DISCLOSE PAID REVIEWS

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33177160/ns/technol...

*Queen of Comedy Mo’Nique is going where no African American woman has gone before – the host desk of a late-night talk show.

“The Mo’Nique Show” premieres tonight on BET with first guest, Mo’s good friend and fellow comedic actor Steve Harvey. Yes, it’s another first for blacks and black women specifically. But how did it happen?

Mo’Nique makes history as first black female late-night host.

I'm going to give her a fair shot but sense some coonin and buffonning on the horizon.

I'll probably watch her when Jon and Stephen are on vacation. So what's going to happen to Wendy Willams' show?

SOMEONE will have to tell me about it, because I have no intention of watching.

Mo'nique is a terrible comedian and a poor representative as the first anything black. Her entire routine and fame has been based on berating thin women in the most brutal fashion - yet it has become obvious that she has decided to lose weight herself recently.

The fact that it's on BET lends little credibility to the show. These are the same people who brought us Baldwin Hills, College Hill and that nightmare show with Keisha Coles's family - not to mention the soft porn music videos that rotate the channel daily. BET loves to caricature blacks in the most buffoonish and degrading ways- clearly giving Mo Nique a show is a continuation of this tradition.

LMAO!!!

To be fair, I listened to her radio show when it was on sometimes, and it really wasn't that bad

For the sake of the image of African Americans, I hope it isn't that bad.

But tell us how you really feel, dthomas.

LOL

Can I Toot My Own Horn?
by BooMan
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/10/5/15...

Read this and tell me honestly if it wasn't something you read here first...

Despite months of outward ambivalence about creating a government health insurance plan, the Obama White House has launched a behind-the-scenes campaign to get divided Senate Democrats to take up some version of the idea for a final vote in the coming weeks.
President Obama has cited a preference for the so-called public option. But faced with intense criticism over the summer, he strategically expressed openness to health cooperatives and other ways to offer consumers potentially more affordable alternatives to private health plans.
In the last week, however, senior administration officials have been holding private meetings almost daily at the Capitol with senior Democratic staff to discuss ways to include a version of the public plan in the healthcare bill that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to bring to the Senate floor this month, according to senior Democratic congressional aides.

I take criticism from some of my blogging colleagues and readers for being some kind of apologist for the administration. What I am actually attempting to do is tell you the truth. If I thought the administration was caving on health care reform with a public option, I would have told you that. If I though their strategy was boneheaded and wouldn't work, I would have criticized it. Their actions made perfect sense to me because they followed the only path I could see to success. This is like trying to thread a needle, and the battle isn't won. But, what I called "creative ambiguity" and the L.A. Times calls "strategically expressed openness," was the only option they had.

From Essence Magazine's online blog "Obama Watch" :

Minority-Owned Radio Stations: A Dying Breed?

By Cynthia Gordy on October 5, 2009

It's back to the healthcare grind in Washington this week, starting with a speech by President Barack Obama on the urgency of health reform this morning, and the Senate Finance Committee's vote on its health care bill tomorrow.

Though health care is a legislative hot topic right now, there are other discussions happening on the Hill. I recently talked to Congressman Edolphus "Ed" Towns of New York, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on his investigation into the mysterious ratings decline of minority-owned radio stations. Specifically, he's taking a closer look at the newest tracking system used by Arbitron, Inc., which collects data on radio listenership (similar to the TV viewership data collection done by Nielsen Media Research).

Since Arbitron started monitoring radio audiences with a device called the Portable People Meter in New York, minority broadcasters have seen an average drop of 40-60 percent in their ratings.

"That to me just doesn't make any sense," says Towns. "The method in which people are selected to carry the meters needs to be changed. In New York City, 26 percent of the population is Black, and Hispanics are 27 percent, but of the 1,000 people carrying the meters are only a small percentage are Blacks and Hispanics."

Towns explained that, rather than secure a listening audience that reflects the ethnicity of a district, Arbitron makes phone calls at random, asking individuals to participate. "That's not good for African-Americans because a lot of us don't have landlines in our homes anymore," says Towns. "We just use cell phones, so that method eliminates a lot of people from participating in the program."

When advertising determines whether or not radio stations stay in business, the current Arbitron method threatens the future of minority-owned stations--which are already a rare breed, comprising just 7.7 percent of full-power radio stations. "If they have no listeners, according what this gauge is saying, then they can't afford to charge as much to their advertisers," says Towns. "And if something's not done very quickly, there will be no minority-owned stations at all. We cannot sit back and allow all these stations to go out. I will not allow it to happen on my watch."

Since the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's investigation began, preliminary findings have confirmed problems with acquiring minority listeners across the country. The findings also show that Arbitron is basing its ratings off of these unrepresentative sample audiences. Towns says the committee will continue to make this a priority until they are satisfied with a new ratings system.

How is the Black radio station (or stations) in your hometown faring these days?

http://blogs.essence.com/obamawatch/2009/10/min...

Ratings problems with Arbitron has been handled in the same way as other problems within POC communities, long after irreparable damage is done, then, there is an investigation.

you speak the truth

Truer words have never been spoken, morphus.

Attorney Orly Taitz, the “birther” lawyer under threat of sanctions by U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit, filed a motion Friday asking the judge to recuse himself because of personal contacts and financial stakes he may have with President Barack Obama’s administration.

Land was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush.

Taitz represented Army Capt. Connie Rhodes when she filed a Sept. 4 complaint arguing Rhodes shouldn’t be deployed to Iraq because Obama couldn’t legitimately hold office. Land not only ruled against Rhodes, but ordered Taitz to explain why he should not fine her $10,000 for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit.

On Friday, Taitz asked for an extension to respond to that order, but also asked that Land recuse himself from the case. In her motion for recusal, Taitz:

* States Land may have improperly been in contact with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

* States that Land’s ownership of stock in Microsoft and Comcast could give the judge a financial stake in the outcome.

* Likens her plight to that of the late civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall in the 1940s and ’50s.

Orly Taitz asks Land to recuse himself

oily taters

Don't get me wrong I'm all about the 1st Amendment but some of these people need to punched in their face. They can just say sacrilegious crap and hide behind the Constitution.

she's going to be checked into a funny farm

* Likens her plight to that of the late civil rights icon Thurgood Marshall in the 1940s and ’50s.

-spits out drink-

The fuck?

Thurgood is spinning and about to rise from his grave at that one.

I'm sorry - if EVER there was a person who should be taken post-haste to the nearest nut farm, it's Oily Tatertotz. Why isn't this whack job in a straight-jacket making legal arguments to asylum walls?

I say it again use the alien and sedition acts and deport her ass asap

dj, not only do I agree, but I'll help the heifer pack while shouting 'get your shit, get out, and don't bring your stupid, raggedy, insane, punch-drunk, foolish ass back here for the rest of this life and all of the next two'.

Her hair always needs a retouch on those brunette roots.

Whazzzzzuuupp JJP fam?

Been gone for a minute, just wanted to say I'm alive. Just busy studying for a test, and trying to find a new apartment, and trying to find a damn hairstylist who can do something with my natural do.

Doesn't seem like I missed much though. Same big three being discussed: healthcare, economy, afghanistan.

Anyway, gotta get back to studying.

See ya'll on the flip side.

study hard and get that grade!

*sigh*

WASHINGTON — The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama is not considering a strategy for Afghanistan that would withdraw U.S. troops from the eroding war there.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that walking away isn't a viable option to deal with a war that is about to enter its ninth year.

"I don't think we have the option to leave. That's quite clear," Gibbs said.

The debate over whether to send as many as 40,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan is a major element of a strategy overhaul that senior administration policy advisers will consider this week as they gather for top-level meetings on the evolving direction of the war.

Obama has invited a bipartisan group of congressional leaders to the White House on Tuesday to confer about the war. He said the administration would brief leaders from both parties and key committee chairmen and would seek their opinions.

"They're an important part of this and the president wants to hear from them," Gibbs said.


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/white-...

So we can't leave, and we don't know what the definition of "success" is. What the hell.

We destroyed the Taliban in 3 weeks. What got us into trouble is this nation building crap. When you put all your eggs into Karzai where he calls all shots it will always be a losing situation. The way you "win" this thing is you CUT OFF funding for the Taliban. The poppy fields where over 80% of the world's heroin comes from. You give those farmers an ultimatum," If you fund the taliban we will burn ALL OF Your CROP." We have turned a blind eye to the poppy fields because "that was the only way farmers could make money and we wanted them to be on our side". Ironic, considering the asinine government policy towards drugs in the US? But back on topic These fanatics don't live in vacuum they are buying arms and ammunition from somewhere. Whomever is supplying them NEEDS to put on NOTICE. IF YOU AID THE TALIBAN IT IS ACT OF WAR AND YOU DO YOU SO AT YOUR OWN PERIL. Ensure that there cannot be any infrastructure that aids in planning and developing terrorist attacks. If there is any speck of Taliban building or moving weapons put some laser guided weapons on the site and obliterate the whole area. The Afghanis cannot rule themselves they haven't for thousands of years. So let them live how they want. Bring most of troops home. Keep of force about 15,000 including some Special Ops and UAV(unmaned aerial vehicles) to stop their ability to operate. Last but least. THE MISSION SHOULD BE TO STOP AND/OR SEVERELY INHIBIT THE TALIBAN'S ABILITY TO PLAN OR GIVE SANCTUARY TO SOMEONE TO PLAN TERRORIST ATTACKS. That's it.

NOT NATION BUILDING
NOT CHANGING HEARTS AND MINDS
NONE OF THAT OTHER CRAP BUSH MADE UP

I'm sorry for rant I know guys that been there 6 times and I'm pissed off.

Besides, we are getting beyond the point.

Al Qaeda and the shade or self of bin Laden is in that nebulous zone between Pakistan and Afghanistan. But mainly in Pakistan.

Wasn't the original plan to get bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda? We're really ass-backwards over there. McChrystal is nuts for saying if we don't get them there, they're going to come over here again. This is Bushista behavior. He's going to suck us into another 'Nam. Hell, beef up security over here and get the hell out of there. Put pressure on Pakistan to engage Al Qaeda and find out whether the guy is still alive or not.

Good points, Guns3000.

we need to get the phuck outta there like yesterday

The only reason why we are still in Afghanistan is b/c the Pakistanis have nuclear weapons and everyone is scared that if we leave AQ or the Taliban are going to take over Pakistan and get access to their nuclear arsenal. If we caught Bin Laden, this would help us to get out of dodge but this is going to have to be done carefully. too much is at stake (the nuclear arsenal in Pakistan), AQ and Taliban using Afghanistan as a launching pad to do more terror attacks if we leave.

Not catching Bin Laden in Tora Bora was dereliction of duty since we could have said Mission Accomplished and not be a complete joke. Actually focusing on Afg/Pak instead of Iraq in the first place would have been even better. Afghanistan needs a Marshall Plan to even be a feasible state and we can't do that now. Ah, eight wasted years.

bush should have stayed in Afghanistan to begin with once we went in. he and is cronies decided Iraq would be a "cakewalk" which I suspect was strictly for oil. I agree that our focus should have been Afg/Pak.

bush left President Obama nothing but a big pile of turds to defume.

AQ was really close, like 60 miles, to Pakistan's capital like around February or March. The Pakistani Army beat them back.

I agree about the scare about Pakistan having nukes and the possibility that AQ could get their hands on them. My feeling is we have little to worry about Iran with Ah-mah-dinner-jacket; the real prize is Pakistan, which is still unstable and their security force compromised.

the President has been clear about his strategy for Afghanistan. It hasn't helped that Kharzi has gone to lining his pockets and stealing elections. The casulaties are in response to making sure the elections took place. The ground war has to now adapt to nation building. From a military point of view it means pushing the Taliban/AQ into the even more remoter parts of the mountains by filling the cup. I mean here think of containing Taliban/AQ by putting them in a cup with Pakistani troops on one side and the US/Nato on the other.
I see mcChrystal receiving 50 -605 of the troops, a reorganized air arm- more gunships, helicopters and drone's and less Air force fighter/bombers and more civilian money to operate in the plains and fertile farmland.

The military's purpose is to kill people and destroy things, This is an unconsitutional war. just like everyone since WW II. The the congress declares war on a soverign nation then we go at it at 100 mph and do the duty. But playing around pickin our nose gets people killed.
Why do we always pick on the weak countries but not the ones that
really are involved in covert nation meddling????
Iraq- was nothing but a dictator that couldn't hurt a neighbor.
Afgan's-I country with no real functioning government.
Real Threats
N. Korea - launched missles at Japan, human right violations.
Iran, Russia and China.....they seem to be continuously destabling the second and thrid world. It seems they are the threat not afganastan or Iraq.
My solution to the problem:
Pull out of Iraq, Afgan. We can't be involved in protectionism, its not about the cost or the friends aboard, its about law and the consitution. If the congress lays out the evidence and by a majority of representative vote in favor of the declaration then off to war we go, with the country behind the effort. otherwise stay off of foriegn intanglements.

Wait a second? I could of swore someone told me we live in a post racial society? SMH

G-T-F-O-H with this shyt.

WTF...ain't this 'bout a .....this bitch needs to be disbarred IMMEDIATELY.

I can't believe this mess.

Today's Conversation Housing Options In A Tough Market http://bit.ly/18le5S

Black Hair and the Confessional: Many people are quite anxious to see Chris Rocks new documentary on hair. What I found interesting when he was on Oprah, was the fact that women were encouraged to tell their “hair stories.” It sort of smacked as a form of confessional. If we are not performing Blackness, we are confessing to it. Hair is political because Black female bodies are devalued. It is said that hair is a woman’s crowning beauty and in a world where Whiteness is held up at epitome of beauty, where does this leave Black women?

Why is it necessary for Black women to confess our beauty secrets to the world, as though we are committing some form of deception? If you wore a weave or hair pieces, you gotta own it. If you burned your roots out with a relaxer, the world has to learn about it. If your ears have permanent scars from the hot comb and you can still hear the sizzle of your hair being fried, you gotta tell the world about it.

People are just fascinated about our everyday lives. I saw a clip where some woman said someone was spending $5,000 on some hair thing (I missed what it was). Ummm, I complain when I have to spend $55 to get a perm or $85 to get highlights, there's no way I'd spend anywhere near $1,000 or more. Some of those stories are exaggerated. I wonder how many regular everyday Black women he interviewed vs super rich ones.

I'm at the point now where I think I'm going to let my perm grow out, I haven't had one since Graduation (mostly because I can't afford to use that money), but I think I'd rather let the perm grow out and just get it flat ironed when I want it straight. The great thing about being a Black woman is there is SO MUCH we can do with our hair.

You are black. I would have never guessed. (giggles)

LOLZ

To me where the fascination comes from is the point.

There was something very cringe-worthy about Tyra letting Larry King feel up her scalp then Oprah lets Chris Rock do it too. I mean what the hell was up with that?

Reminds me of the time my father told me that whites would rub his head as he sold newspapers.

Yeccch!

Once a young kid (a friend's nephew) rubbed my head looking for horns. I thought he just was amazed at how thick my hair was but no - it turned out he was just trying to see if what he'd heard about Jews was true. One of the weirder moments of my life.

Hmm, I agree with Krugman (I don't always agree with him):

The Politics of Spite
By PAUL KRUGMAN

There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.

“Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.

So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.

To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.

Now, it’s understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.

But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.

The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.

Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.

But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern?

The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.

Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.

The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.

The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.

It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05kru...

(emphasis is mine)

D., you need to get your people in check. Conservatives are losing they damn minds. LOL

Muzikal, this is Krugman at his finest especially at the part you highlighted. The fact that the Repubs are the ones defending Medicare (supposedly) in the health care fight is so cynical. They've been trying to defund it for 30 years and now b/c O wants to change the payment delivery in Medicare, they are acting silly. I remember when David Frum was on CNN talking about Sarah Palin and the death panels and he was just gobsmacked and angry in a very passive aggressive way that the Repubs were trying to scare older people about Medicare when they're the one's that have been trying to reign in entitlements for years and this is what O wants to do, make reasonable choices now so there aren't any real severe cuts later. The best way to reign in costs is putting as much people in the system as possible and having a public health insurance option. Every other country who does this has lower costs and better outcomes.

It's a good short term strategy the Repubs are engaging in to scare older people but what are they going to do when the Medicare trust fund runs out in 2017? Social Security is going to run out even sooner? Are they going to raise taxes to pay for their "new favorite entitlement"? or are they going to try to get rid of waste which O wants to do? And this is at the heart of the problem I have with Republicans, they want to play games and engage in like Krugman says, "a cynical, ends-justify-the-means" approach. They don't want to govern well or reasonably, they just want to win.

Hmm, Looks like Barney Frank is making sense again:

Frank said the administration should remove troops from Iraq in six months instead of the end of 2011 and redirect the savings to create jobs.

"The thing to do now would be to withdraw the tens of billions we’re putting into Iraq and reprogram that into job creation efforts in the U.S.," Frank said.

Funds from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program should be loaned to Americans without jobs and at risk of losing their homes, Frank said today in a telephone interview. Frank has said the program will be extended beyond its December expiration for foreclosure relief and to help community banks.

"We have a new wave of foreclosures coming not from people who got loans that they shouldn’t have gotten, but people who got loans that they clearly could afford but prolonged unemployment has put them in a tough situation," said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat.

Although now I'm starting to think that even if we DO get out of Iraq, whatever money that we may have saved will then go to Afghanistan. But I saw something today where the Progressive Democrats are thinking about barring the funding of a troop surge in Afghanistan (we all know that's never going to happen).

Nearly two dozen House liberals have signed onto a bill introduced this past week that would prohibit an increase of troops in Afghanistan.

A bill introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) on Thursday would bar funding to increase the troop level in Afghanistan beyond its current level.

Lee and 21 lawmakers -- largely from the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus -- introduced the bill, H.R. 3699 on Thursday.

The legislation comes as President Barack Obama and leaders in Congress weigh a request from Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of troops in Afghanistan, for as many as 40,000 new troops to bolster the eight-year-long military engagement in the region.

“History tells us that there will not be a military-first solution to the situation in Afghanistan," Lee told the Redding News Review. “Open-ended military intervention in Afghanistan is not in our national security interest and will only continue to give resonance to insurgent recruiters painting pictures of foreign occupation to a new generation."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/new...

Bernie is grandstanding. He knows this can't happen in 6 months for a multiple of reasons.

Then he's either a fool or has no concept of how the military pays for things. Or, quite possibly, both.

By what twisted logic does he believe a faster withdrawal will cost less than the phased one in place now?

How does the military pay for things? (not snark)

Short version: money for future operations is allocated long before it's actually spent.

The '10 defense appropriations bill includes the costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan...which would include the cost of the withdrawal from Iraq through FY-11. Once the bill becomes law, that money becomes DoD's. They can shift it around between different funds (operations and maintenance-O&M-is the one that pays for warfighting and upkeep). There's a time period to give any realized savings back, but those savings are often shifted to a different fund.

So basically they'd have to stop funding the war? Perhaps that's what he meant, instead of passing another appropriations bill, don't pass it and use that money to create jobs here.

They'd have to write it out of the appropriations bill-which then means back to supplementals.

You can't just pull the plug on defense spending...just like you can't just pull the plug on funding for any other government agency. Obviously, some money has to be spent somewhere to pay for the withdrawal.

has nothing to do with politics but I simply love this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1-jUA-hnLE

Thanks, Val. That was adorable. Such great harmony.

However....I was cracking up a little bit because the little cutie cute to the left was like..ummm, can I just go outside an play? Then in the end she just fell over - probably to fall asleep.

Sent it to my mother.

She was out, wasn't she? She didn't have a part. Was so good just sitting there and two minutes was finally too long.

That's a sweet song. I've never heard it. And they had (have) great harmony.

Here's the little one...... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCuwAOo_Bhg

That was sweet...

They just showed a picture of the new Supreme Court. Justice Sotomayer was standing behind Thomas, Scalia and Roberts. In my mind I saw her do a Jennifer Gardner in the KIngdom on them.
I'm not saying it's right but I'd understand.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA

Here's a pic of the new line-up for SCOTUS.

Now - explain that 'Jennifer Gardner in the Kingdom' moment. You're talking about the movie with Jamie Foxx right?

Looking at the picture, I wondered when she was going to bang their sleazy heads together.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...

You want her to do a three stooges number. I like it, I like it.

In the Kingdom, the FBI crew has one of thiers snatched on a hghway ambush. they jack a car and go tearing after their man. They end up in an apartment building that is used by the Islamic extremist. the building is honeycombed by kicked thru walls, ceilings, ladders etc. As they search Gardeners character is attacked by a massive extremist while she tries to untie the kidnapped member. Its a brawl and she finally gets out her knife and stabs the guy in the brain. he's down

Its a brawl and she finally gets out her knife and stabs the guy in the brain. he's down

Well, damn!! I guess so...

I saw the movie. There was a lot of, um, action - blow 'em up, kill 'em kinda stuff - and I still don't remember the part with JG. I do remember the big desert SUV circling the wagons kicking up dirt & dust; my Jetta won't do it.

At any rate my money is on Sotomayor.

Obama's Not Going to Escalate
by BooMan
Sun Sep 27th, 2009 at 01:27:16 AM EST

It appears that the administration is mainly working with the Washington Post in their effort to prep the country for a scale-down of our effort in Afghanistan. That is not to say that the Post is supportive of a scale-down. If anything, the case is the opposite. But, tonight, the Post has another article by Bob Woodward based on an interview with National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones. They have a front-page article on the source of Taliban funding (something I've been wondering about for years) by Craig Whitlock. They have an editorial advising us to go all-in or all-out by Rajiv Chandrasekaran. And they have a piece by Walter Pincus on the Taliban's successful communications strategy.
Whatever the specific intent of any of these articles, the cumulative effect is to convey a sense of an overwhelmingly daunting and hopeless challenge. And, I believe, that is what Obama wants to convey because his objective now is to gently announce that we are abandoning our nation-building effort in Afghanistan and that we will not be giving General McChrystal another 40,000 troops for a massive counterinsurgency program. This will contradict his campaign rhetoric and even some of his moves from the winter and spring. But talking tough on Afghanistan was always partly a way of compensating for being critical of military efforts in Iraq. He didn't want to look unwilling to fight against terrorists anywhere in the world. But that doesn't mean that he bought into the absurd 'war-on-terrorism' rhetoric of the Bush administration. With the failed elections in Afghanistan removing any semblance of legitimacy for Karzai's government, there is no reason to invest more in his success. That's the exact same mistake we made in Vietnam, and it cost us dearly in every way that counts.

The trick is largely political, but it's also a matter of policy. We don't want to invest money and lives in a lost cause, but that doesn't mean that we don't need a strategy for Afghanistan. We have NATO partners who have sacrificed greatly there. What do they want to do? What kind of aid and support are they willing to provide going forward? What kind of government is there going to be and how do we relate to it? What does the Pakistani government have to say? I think we need to talk to China, Russia, and India about Afghanistan, too, and see what they're willing to do to help a central government maintain and expand stability.

What we shouldn't do is more of the same. It's becoming clear that Obama has already reached that conclusion. But now he has to sell it. And there are a lot of hawks in this country who are going to try to make him look weak and cowardly for doing something smart.
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/9/27/12...

I'd like to know what NATO allies he is talking about, outside the Brits and Canadians

The French has taken the fight to the taliban,the Germans and Dutch not so much.Maybe if we didnt go into Iraq we could have had all of NATO behind us.

You mean the Legion Etrangere?

I dont know the order of battle, meaning the units which are involved,but if its the Foreign legion then my hats off to them.You want to send your elite units that are trained in mountain and guerrilla warfare.