A Conservative Liberal

I intend to write here what I think and what I learn. Most of what I write here will be about politics.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Why are less people going to Church?

Less people are going to Church in America because we have still not completely healed from the counter culture movement of the 60's.

I'm not blaming the counter culture alone though.

No, mainline Churches were ruled for the most part by old white men who confused the Vietnam War with WWIII and as a result acted like they had during WWII reacting with outrage to any who opposed the war.

This broke the heart of many a good person and sinister elements did what they could then and now to keep people away from God (any God).

In the next ten years if Mainline Protestant Churches do what's right they will again find people drawn to their faith.

If they don't.........I hope they are remembered more for Rev. Cecil Williams than for Pat Robertson. Funny thing is I don't even agree with the Rev. Williams on the issue that he is most famous for.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007



Monday, March 19, 2007

Good and bad seen at the anti-Iraq war rally and march.

9/11 truthers not only being there but having a table
the fair trade table
the sustainability speaker
the idiots that came poorly dressed or dressed like retards
people who brought their kids or dogs
the a.n.s.w.e.r. jerks (though there were only about three)
poorly conceived signs
universal healthcare Flyers

Pax Christi
fellowship international (Christian organization)
A local Pastor of a mainstream church as a speaker
the mayor as a speaker
independently organized local veterans for peace having a table
no ranting about Israel, gays, revolution, or the offspring of socialism by speakers or signs
well-organized march
lots of compassion for veterans
the guy that brought Butcher paper and pens to make signs for people on the spot

the Green party having a table
selling stuff
naïveness or weirdness of some of the people
the Die in instead of a candlelight vigil
musicians bringing instruments

I guess the good outweighs the bad.

In my opinion the best part of the rally (attended by hundreds) was seeing over 50 veterans sign a poster declaring that Bush screwed up this war.

We also had dozens and dozens of people give us a thumbs up or peace signs as they drove by and only a few who showed their dislike for us.

And this in a red county.

Sunday, March 11, 2007


Overcoming antagonistic atheism to recast the image of humanism: in keeping with the policy of the Humanist to accommodate the diverse cultural, social, political, and philosophical viewpoints of its readers, this occasional feature allows for the expression of alternative, dissenting, or opposing views on issues of importance to Humanists and the Humanist movement


The Current Collective membership of American Atheists, the American Humanist Association, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation is less than 25,000 members. That number includes people like me who are members of more than one of these organizations. In 2003 the total annual revenue generated by American Atheists, the American Humanist Association, the Institute for Humanist Studies, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation was less than $3 million. Compare that figure with the $8 million brought in by the Traditional Family Values Coalition that same year, the more than $15 million Jerry Falwell Ministries earned, or the more than $100 million brought in by Focus on the Family. So what's my point? Humanists need more than good ideas and great intellect to compete with the behemoth of the religious right for the interest and attention of the American public. With the exception of money, what the Humanist movement needs more than anything is a positive, uplifting message and the highest quality of public relations as can be afforded. The last thing the movement needs is more bad publicity, which it unfortunately never ceases to elicit. Who is to blame for Humanism's image problem? The media? The religious right? Yes, but they're only half the answer. The other half is that too many atheists see the freethought and Humanist movement as a revolution, an oppurtunity to wage war on religion. As a result, an epidemic of antipathy has battered an otherwise inspiring veneer. Many outsiders--both nonbelievers and believers--who might otherwise find a naturalistic, secular perspective or philosophy of life worth exploring, see the fanciful crusade of many atheists to "save" humanity from the "scourge" of religion in the same light they view religious fanatics who zealously seek converts. As scholar and atheist Dylan Evans writes: "There seems to be a widespread tendency among people of all creeds and none to think the world would be a better place if everyone agreed with them." Evans goes on to add that, just as religious fundamentalists do, secular fundamentalists "seem to want to convert the whole world to their own point of view." As one leader in the freethought community (who spoke on condition of anonymity) pointed out to me, "Our biggest problem in the Humanist movement ... is keeping atheists who just want to complain about people of faith out of our organization.... They join and then get upset that we aren't focused on bashing religion." Alister McGrath, author and professor of historical theology at Oxford University, writes that "atheism spawns organizations; it does not create community ... the community thus created seems to be based solely on distaste for religion." While such observations overlook the positive aspects of Humanism and the affirmative work of such organizations as the American Humanist Association, McGrath nonetheless diagnoses the movement's most serious internal malady, identifying the contagion that has spread throughout the larger freethought community and must be inoculated from within.


Perpetuating the caricature of the misanthropic atheist, several writers not only spew vitriol in the face of believers but also actively advocate the use of ridicule and slander in dealing with them. In the preface of his book Atheism: A Reader, S. T. Joshi writes: "Even ridicule of religion is an entirely valid enterprise" Complementing this notion, Eddie Tabash, in an article on the American Atheists website, writes that the future of Humanism relies on its members' ability to bash the beliefs of others: "Establishing the social acceptability of ridiculing the absurdities of religious claims is an integral part of gaining acceptance for secular humanism." Dr. Timothy Shortell provides another example. Not long after becoming chair of Brooklyn College's Department of Sociology, Shortell fueled the ire of religionists toward nonbelievers by writing an online article entitled "Religion and Morality: A Contradiction Explained." I first learned of the article through a report by the Christian news service Agape Press, which reported that the atheist professor had therein described religious people as "moral retards" and had said, "Christians claim theirs is a faith based on love, but they'll just as soon kill you." Reading this, I decided to investigate the article, expecting to find that Shortell had been misquoted or his comments had been taken out of context. But I was wrong. The article was, to my mind, a tirade of irrational generalizations brimming with fodder for religious fundamentalists. One quotation will suffice.

Shortell writes:

On a personal level, religiosity is merely annoying--likebad taste. This immaturity represents asignificant social problem, however, because religiousadherents fail to recognize their limitations.So, in the name of their faith, these moral retardsare running around pointing fingers and doing realharm to others. One only has to read the newspaperto see the results of their handiwork. They discriminate,exclude and belittle. They make a virtueof closed-mindedness and virulent ignorance.They are an ugly, violent lot.

As anyone knowledgeable about history can show, such assertions dismiss the important contributions of deeply religious social justice leaders like the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter. While one is certainly free to criticize specific zealots like Pat Robertson, organizations like Focus on the Family, or movements like the religious right, broad and inexact condemnation of all Christians or believers is irrational at best and intolerant at worst. But some atheists are now arguing that believers are incapable of rationality and that we should no longer exalt the principle of tolerance. In his essay, 'An Atheist Manifesto" author and philosopher Sam Harris argues that "the incompatibility of reason and faith has been a self-evident feature of human cognition and public discourse for centuries." Harris goes on to declare "interfaith dialogue" and "mutual tolerance" futile. The only way to banish religious warfare, he writes, is to eradicate "the dogma of faith." Renowned atheist biologist and 1996 Humanist of the Year Richard Dawkins recently went so far as to denounce a progressive Christian, the Right Reverend Richard Harries, forty-first Bishop of Oxford, for betraying reason. Harries appeared in a film by Dawkins in which Harries outlined his opposition to creationism. After their conversation, Dawkins accuses him of betraying reason "just because I was religious," wrote Harries later. Responding to Dawkins' criticism, Harries penned a column, "Science does not challenge my faith--it strengthens it" in the April 16, 2006, Observer. In it he points out the irony that those like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris actually advance the agenda of Christian fundamentalists:

Indeed, the leader of the American creationistshas apparently written to Dawkins to say that theydaily thank God for him. The reason is simple.Dawkins argues that evolution inevitably impliesatheism. That's what we believe, say the creationistsin effect, therefore evolution shouldn't be taught inschools or, if it is, only with creationism taught aswell. Creationism and atheistic fundamentalismprop one another up. Each would collapse withoutthe other.

Looking back to December 2005 we can find a good example of how antagonistic atheism helps to prop up Christian fundamentalism. As most will recall, the religious right charged that secularists had declared war on Christmas. Pundits on the right were particularly upset with the decision of political leaders in Boston, Massachusetts, to name the city's annual Christmas tree a "holiday" tree. They also objected to retailers' use of slogans like "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." Most Americans rightly dismissed such rhetoric as silly. But Beyond Belief Media, the group responsible for the film The God Who Wasn't There, made the victimization fantasy a reality by actually declaring "war on Christmas." In a December 5 press release, BBM's president, Brian Flemming, stated: "Christian conservatives complain nonstop about the 'War on Christmas; but there really isn't any such war." He went on to explain that his group chose to wage a real war on Christmas in order "to demonstrate what it would look like if Jesus' birthday were truly attacked."

Flemming's comments were in direct contradiction to those of Joseph Conn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who rebuked the religious right's propaganda. "There is no war on Christmas," Conn said. "This is in large part a publicity stunt and a fundraising maneuver by Jerry Falwell." The Reverend Barry Lynn also observed that "Jerry Falwell has found that this war on Christmas is a very good, healthy, fundraising mechanism." But at the start of December, during the war on Christmas controversy, a group of college students at the University of Texas at San Antonio made headlines with their "smut for smut" event, in which they gave away pornography in exchange for religious literature.

While these kinds of cute spectacles succeed in garnering media exposure, they never fail to play into the religious right's hands by casting atheists in a misanthropic light. The portrait of atheist organizations as hate groups and atheists as people tirelessly plotting to ruin religion, or just plain antagonize believers, simply feeds the paranoia of the 64 percent of Americans (as determined by the Anti-Defamation League in October 2005) who believe religion is under attack. Despite the fact that the so-called threat to religion is a mostly nonexistent ruse, it's hard to ignore the likelihood that the antireligious rhetoric of many atheist pundits fuels the religious right's persecution propaganda and helps fill its coffers.

In addition to being strategically unpalatable, antagonistically ridiculing the beliefs of others is seen by many, including within the Humanist movement, as a form of prejudice. Jennifer Hancock, executive director for the Humanists of Florida Association, says:

[Ridicule] is offensive. It is a form of religious bigotry.When I hear someone say Catholics are stupid,they are talking about people I love and careabout, who are definitely not stupid. Plus, if it happensto someone's face, exactly how are you goingto have a good conversation with someone youjust told was stupid. I am an atheist, but that is mypersonal belief. I don't understand why people believe,and truth be told, belief doesn't make senseto me. But I know from my friends and familymembers that, as wacky as their belief is to me, myunbelief is just as wacky to them. So, the key is toaccept that people really do believe what they saythey do, and this is a matter of basic respect.

However, some atheists contend that tactics like those used by the smut for smut organizers are precisely what is needed. R. Senatore of the Broward Atheists (Florida), in responding to my Humanist Network News article, "Atheists Making Falwell's (X-mas) Dreams Come True," which critiques Flemming's war on Christmas and the smut action, writes that it is "time we atheists took off the gloves and brought the fight to the whackos who pray to walls and make policy for the country." Pointing to a recent incident where a Christian woman took offense to his freethinker shirt, Senatore writes:

We can no longer sit at the sidelines lest we 'insultor rile' the good people who are screwing up ourworld. I do not believe that we need to skulk intothe corner; I believe we need to shout that we arethe answer to religion and its foolhardy teachings!

Unfortunately, such attitudes will continue to thwart Humanists in their efforts to make necessary gains in terms of expanding association and membership, forming alliances, and acquiring clout in the community. If we don't look to our commonalities instead of relying on simplistic, dichotomist-style thinking, our treasured U.S. Constitution may be gone before we know it. The truth is that not all Christians feel threatened by freethinkers, and many of them--including the Christian Alliance for Progress, are working alongside Humanists to create a better, more rational world.


The dilemma, however, remains: how do Humanists respond to fundamentalism's charges and how can a positive image of the Humanist lifestance be promoted. If not via angry, antipathetic activism, then what?

Well, a handful of innovative freethinkers have proffered an antidote for this antagonism, an antidote that isn't only more tolerant but much more effective. Earlier this year atheist Hemant Mehta organized a brilliant action which, due to the nature of its openness and good-natured spirit, unintentionally increased dialogue rather than squelching it. Mehta, now known around the nation as the "eBay atheist" decided to auction off his time, pledging to attend church for at least one hour for every ten dollars the highest bidder paid. By the time the bidding ended, forty-one bids had been placed and eBay item number 5660982226 had sold for $504. Winning bidder Jim Henderson, a liberal evangelical seeking to reinvent evangelism, asked Mehta to attend nine church services and write two pieces for his website www.OfftheMap.com.

As part of the deal, Mehta pledged to "go willingly and with an open mind" and to "respectfully participate in services, speak to priests, volunteer with the church if possible, do my best to learn about the religious beliefs of the churchgoers, and make conversation with anyone who is willing to talk. (Though I do reserve the right to ask the person questions about the faith.)"

Mehta's project resulted in a flood of print and radio media attention, not to mention a rise in public interest. Numerous newspapers, including the Wall Street Journal and the Village Voice, ran headlines like "On eBay, an Atheist Puts His Own Soul on the Auction Block" But rather than fueling outrage, most of the stories brimmed with humility and openness, and were accessible to anyone of any faith. Mehta's provocative but respectful action cleared the brush of good-versus-evil rhetoric, leaving a space for rational dialogue.

In a recent interview, Mehta told me he finds negative attitudes and actions, such as the smut for smut campaign, counterproductive. Instead, Mehta has found better models:

The reason that the eBay thing worked so well isbecause I think it was a form of positive atheism.It was kind of putting a friendly face out thereabout it. I actually gave examples, you know whenyou look at Julia Sweeney's one woman show, LettingGo of God, when you look at Lori LipmanBrown from the Secular Coalition for America,they've put a really friendly face about atheists outthere--that they're not out to attack anyone, theyjust want it to be respected and people to knowwhere they're coming from. I think that's what Itried to model myself after, in terms of how to putthis thing out there.

While Mehta visited various churches, atheist Robert Jensen joined one. Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said he joined St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin as a political act of moral solidarity. In his AlterNet article, "Why I Am a Christian (Sort Of)," Jensen wrote that his joining affirmed that he: "(1) endorsed the core principles in Christ's teaching; (2) intended to work to deepen my understanding and practice of the universal love at the heart of those principles; and (3) pledged to be a responsible member of the church and the larger community."

Some might think it odd and counterproductive for an atheist to seriously join a church. Had Jensen politely shed his views to join St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, I might agree. Instead, Jensen joined as an avowed atheist, sending a powerful signal to progressive and moderate Christians around the nation: Humanists and Christians have shared and continue to share a number of basic moral values--specifically a love of peace and justice. From whence each derives these values may be different, but the fundamental ethic of the neighbor, of love, is something progressives of all belief systems cherish.

Furthermore, Jensen sees his joining as an opportunity to tear down the walls of religious division. Answering the proverbial question, "Won't expansive conceptions of faith eventually make the term Christian meaningless?" his response is an honest and encouraging "Yes." Jensen says,

The same process could go on in other religionsas well. Christianity could do its part to help usherin a period of human history in which peoplestopped obsessing about how to mark the boundariesof a faith group and instead committed to livingthose values more fully."

Jensen also asks Christians to consider the potentially nonreligious, universal message Jesus has to offer by asking:

What if the Bible is more realistically read symbolicallyand not literally? What if that's the caseeven to the point of seeing Christ's claim to beingthe son of God as simply a way of conveying fundamentalmoral principles? What if the resurrectionis metaphor? What if God is just the name wegive to the mystery that is beyond our ability tocomprehend through reason?"

He believes that, with "such a conception of faith, a real ecumenical spirit and practice is possible."

The work of atheist biology professor Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, is perhaps the most important and successful in achieving positive results for Humanism while responding to the religious right. A longtime opponent of the teaching of creationism in public schools, in 2004 Zimmerman organized the Clergy Letter Project in which a large number of clergy signed a letter aimed at pressuring the school board of Grantsburg, Wisconsin, to rescind its alteration of the science curriculum, which had given "various models/theories"--essentially creationism--equal footing alongside evolution in public school classrooms. The following year, with the explosion of the creation-evolution controversy in Dover, Pennsylvania, Zimmerman decided to take the project national. He said he felt compelled to get further involved in the debate after hearing fundamentalist ministers claim on television that Americans had to choose their faith over evolution. Several months later a new version of his clergy letter, which calls on school boards to uphold evolution and a credible science curriculum, had been signed by more than 10,000 clergy from a variety of denominations across the United States.

Despite his tremendously successful effort, however, Zimmerman complains that the media paid little attention. "When we hit our goal of 10,000 signatures i thought we would get a lot of coverage," he said. "No one cared. I could not generate almost any interest.... I was kind of blown away by that" What angered him the most was that, while his project was ignored by the media, the religious right's mini-crusade to protect the environment received ubiquitous media coverage.

At the same time we gathered those [signatures]the religious right, the evangelicals had a lettersigned by, I think it was seventy-eight members ofthe pretty far right, coming out in favor of doingsomething about Global Warming. The New YorkTimes had a front page story on it and it kind ofpissed me off. These are seventy-eight guys and Ihad 10,000.

Eventually Zimmerman thought up a second phase to his campaign. He decided to launch Evolution Sunday, a national holiday to be celebrated in churches, commemorating the birthday of Charles Darwin. As proof of progressive Christians' commitment to reason and science, more than four hundred congregations across the United States celebrated the holiday on February 12, 2006. The event succeeded in making headlines across the nation. Zimmerman, who says he's been an atheist for four decades, told me that the only way to protect quality science education in the United States is to work with rationalists within the religious community. "If we don't work with those in the religious community whose values we share, even if we don't share their faith, we will lose," he said. "I think it's just that simple." But, angered by Zimmerman's work, some atheists have accused him of betraying secular humanism and promoting religion. To these critics he responds,

I'm not promoting religion; I'm just making surethat the people who happen to be religious canhave good information and can make rationalchoices. My job isn't to proselytize for atheism. Idon't think we gain anything or I don't gain anythingby doing that.

Moreover, Zimmerman says his support for freethought requires him to respect the rights of others to believe as they wish, so long as their beliefs don't infringe on his rights as a citizen.

Humanists are faced with a choice between two models best revealed by the juxtaposition of Zimmerman and Dawkins. Both biologists hold a profound understanding and respect for science. Both value their atheist viewpoint. But it seems that only one is willing to fully and civilly cooperate with believers in the interests of society, desperately in need of a unified progressive movement.

While Zimmerman recognizes Dawkins as "an incredibly bright articulate man" he believes Dawkins views his atheism as "part and parcel of his science."

It's part-and-parcel of his beliefs. And he's welcometo his beliefs and he's welcome to criticize anybodyhe wants. But he's done more damage than help inmany ways because of the vituperative quality ofhis comments.


In her August 10, 2005, article "Religion and the Left" Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel writes:

I believe that one of the key issues facing the left... is whether all of us--secular, spiritual, and religiousalike--can treat one another with the humanity,honesty, respect and grace we all need anddeserve.... Can we unite to challenge the religiousright through a new politics of the religious left?

Given the United States' disastrous direction in such areas of concern as torture, inadequate health care, hate crimes, persecution of gays, military spending, poverty, rampant misogyny, and war, we must answer her with an emphatic "Yes!" It's time for Humanists to turn to the wisdom of the Enlightenment once again, recognizing the truth in the words of Voltaire:

It would be the height of folly to pretend to bringall men to have the same thoughts in metaphysics.It would be easier to subdue the whole universe byarms than to subdue all the minds in a single city.

Or as Dylan Evans puts it:

The world contains a dazzling variety of conflictingand irreconcilable worldviews, and this isprobably a permanent feature of human existence.The idea that all rational beings will eventuallyconverge on the same point of view, even thoughthey begin from radically different starting points,is a hopelessly naive view that only holds good intoy worlds such as that of Bayesian epistemology.

Those who defend the crusade to "cure humanity of the pestilence of belief" speak the language of fanaticism and merely invert the argument of religious fundamentalists. Just as we would defend atheism against those who point to its misuses, such as by the former Soviet Union, Christians too argue that particularly vicious Christian rulers have violated the spirit of their faith for crooked gains. One would do well to recall that the lesson of the Enlightenment wasn't that the enemy of reason is belief in God. It's that fanaticism, be it religious or secular, is the bane of humankind and the true enemy of rational minds.

For freethought organizations to charge ahead with potent, positive, and new media campaigns, the challenge is to abandon the kind of atheism Evans calls "old and tired." We need to reproach the arrogant atheists for what New Republic writer Alan Wolfe describes as "the shrillness of their tone, their thinly disguised contempt for people they can barely understand, and their conviction (you might even call it religious) that they always have been and always will be on the right side of history." In short, we would do well to assail and distance ourselves from any form of fundamentalism, even if it's secular fundamentalism.

The sooner Humanists recognize that spiteful antics and attitudes of superiority sadly mirror the presumptive, all-knowing mentality of the religious right and undermine the efforts of organizations like the American Humanist Association, the sooner we can move to grow a vast, vibrant Humanist movement.

Jeff Nail regularly contributes to the Humanist, Toward Freedom, and IMPACT press. His essay, "A New Vision for Freethought: Reaching Out to Friends in Faithful Places," appears in the current issue of the journal, Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism. Copies of his recent AHA talk, "Why Humanists Should and Must Befriend the Progressive Faithful" can be purchased at www.intelliquestmedia.com.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Every Day More Veterans Object to Bush's War

Hard Hitters
The VoteVets.org activist group is pulling no punches in its vocal attacks on President Bush and supporters of his Iraq policies.

By Daren Briscoe
Updated: 12:58 p.m. PT Feb 12, 2007
Feb. 12, 2007 - Among the racy and obnoxious Super Bowl ads selling everything from beer to insurance, at least one commercial interruption had a more serious intention. VoteVets.org, a political action group affiliated with a coalition of left-leaning organizations including MoveOn.org, ran an ad (only in certain markets) where Iraq war veterans, including an amputee, spoke out against President Bush’s “surge.” NEWSWEEK’s Daren Briscoe recently spoke to VoteVets cofounder Jon Soltz, who served as a captain during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and also trained soldiers for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: What is VoteVets.org?
Jon Soltz: We’re a pro-military group that’s concerned about things that affect the military at the lowest levels. We’re for destroying Al Qaeda and the people that attacked this country on September 11. We’re not an antiwar group at all—it makes me go ballistic when I hear people say that. But you can’t be for the troops and for the president when he talks about continuing a failed strategy with another surge. That’s not supporting the troops.

What is your group trying to accomplish?
During the last election cycle, we worked to provide infrastructure and support for candidates who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan, like Patrick Murphy and Tammy Duckworth, and we feel like we played a big role in sending a message to the president that he was on the wrong track with the war. Now we’re part of a massive lobbying effort targeting key Republican senators who want to tell you that they don’t support the escalation, but who don’t want to allow a debate on it to happen. If Congress wants to support the troops, the first step is to get a nonbinding resolution from a bipartisan majority that sends a clear message to the president that his strategy is not working. Continuing a failed strategy with another surge, that’s not supporting the troops.

Does your position about the war describe the way you felt when you went to Iraq, or is it something that developed during your time there?
When I went to Iraq I drank all the Kool-Aid. I still remember thinking about what we were going to do when we found all these weapons of mass destruction. We thought we were going over there to fight the people that attacked this country. Then, when you start seeing things for yourself, when you start hearing things like the president saying, “Bring it on,” it dawns on you that you haven’t been told...

to read the rest:


Monday, February 05, 2007

Movie trailer Music



Wednesday, January 31, 2007

I still don't like Jackson

A neo-Jacksonian in our midst
In our opinion

Meet the antidote to 30 years of conservatives' smears about their ideological opponents.

Watch him as he speaks truth to power, speaking up for the vast middle of America.

Listen to him speak following the president's State of the Union speech last Tuesday. He compares today's gulf between rich and poor to the early 1900s when “robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth” while “dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.”

Consider how this Democratic senator's call to level the playing field hearkens to the Jacksonian era, when its namesake, Andrew Jackson, put power in the hands of the people during the first half of the 19th century. He's talking about the people, not about the markets. Tend to those folks in the middle and the bottom, he says, and let the top 1 percent fend for itself.

Label Sen. James Webb, D-Va., a neo-Jacksonian.

Watch as his star shines brightly in coming years.

Understand how he threatens three decades of conservative PR about Democrats.

Agree that Webb is no peacenik, no dovish Democrat. He went to Annapolis, served in 'Nam and has a son serving in Iraq. During the campaign with George Allen, Webb wore his boy's combat boots on the stump. Oh, and he's the former secretary of the Navy under Reagan.

Recognize his roots. He's Scots-Irish, through and through. He even wrote a book — “Born Fighting” — about the Scots-Irish in America and how they are an overlooked ethnic group with tremendous influence over U.S. culture.

Look at the red hair. Hear that Southern accent with the soft Virginia lilt.

Recall that Webb let it be known he wanted to “punch” George W. Bush after a recent discussion that turned red-hot when the president reportedly tried to tick off the junior senator from Virginia. That's where we get the “neo.” A real Jacksonian in Webb's boots would have challenged Bush to a duel or at the least carried through on his urge to throw a punch.

Appreciate how conservatives have successfully created the impression that folks like Jim Webb (or our own Calhoun County Commissioner Eli Henderson) don't exist. Meaning this deception pretends that there are not Democrats who love their country, are willing to serve it and long for strong national leadership that does believe in catering exclusively to the nation's elite. Under their caricature you are either a patriotic, Christian, gun-loving, tax-cut loving, war-hungry Republican or you are an effete, Volvo-driving, tax-and-spending, latte-sipping pacifist.

Salute Jim Webb and his potential neo-Jacksonian movement and reckon how it endangers the right's sleight of hand.

About our editorial page Address letters to Speak Out, The Anniston Star, P.O. Box 189

Saturday, January 27, 2007

Charming Republicans want to kill Webb

Roger D. writes: Saturday, January, 27, 2007 10:42 PM
blanket party
I think the senator should stay real close to any light switch when in a room of many of us vets. After this speech, he may not have a friend in the conservative ranks. Yes, a blanket can be taken past security.
Giving in to the enemy now will guarantee them coming over with their homicide vests and then what? Call out the guard? No, they’re to be kept safe on their post. Who does that leave to protect us? It's kinda like killing fire ants before they get on the banana boats rather then in our yards.


Thursday, January 25, 2007

Best blog I've read in a while.


Monday, January 22, 2007

Pastors need to get the word out about the Bush library


HIGHLAND PARK – Though Highland Park United Methodist Church sits at the doorstep of a debate, the Rev. Mark Craig's Sunday sermon belied all the attention.

Instead of speaking about the controversy over a President George Bush presidential library being built at nearby Southern Methodist University, Mr. Craig reassured his flock that God will carry the faithful through life's figurative valleys.

Mr. Craig is an SMU trustee and senior minister at the church to which Mr. Bush and wife, Laura, belong. Mr. Bush said last week that he's "leaning heavily" toward choosing SMU as the site for his library.

Critics worry about a public policy institute that would promote the Bush administration's goals. Some faculty members have said they have concerns about SMU being affiliated with an unpopular president who has led an unpopular war in Iraq. And Thursday, a small group of United Methodist bishops and ministers launched a national petition drive asking the school to withdraw from negotiations for the library.

Several Methodists who attended Sunday's services offered their opinions.

"He's going to have to put it somewhere, so why not here? I'm not a big Bush fan, but it would be another draw for people to come to the campus," said Larry Gebhardt, who sings in the church choir. "It needs to be something people are going to use. The value is in its use.

Gary Morris, a retired Marine Corps officer, said he's "very much for it."

"I'm a major George W. Bush fan. The man is an outstanding leader," Mr. Morris said as he walked to the 11 a.m. service. "Anywhere [the library goes] is wonderful for the community. It's good for the economy."

Is this guy insane, lying, or in his 80's?

Eric Appel and his fiancee, Heather Johnson, said they disagree with the decision to house the library at SMU. They said it could have done bigger things for Baylor University in Waco, a finalist along with SMU, Texas Tech University and the University of Dallas.

"Dallas already has some great things," Ms. Johnson said. "It would have been nice to give a smaller place some of the limelight."

Elsewhere Sunday, five Methodist ministers contacted said they didn't mention the issue in their sermon. They said they were either in the middle of a series of sermons or found the matter irrelevant to their congregations.

Understandable since Most people in Church don't want to hear about politicians.

The Rev. David N. Mosser at First United Methodist Church of Arlington said he considered talking about it, but instead intends to cover it in a newsletter article.

It had better take up an entire page.

" It's a situation where people are mixing the church and politics in something that should be historical. I really think it would add a lot of value in the long run to an institution like SMU, which is in many ways Methodist in name only," he said.

Bush will be remembered by Methodists the way Nixon is remembered by Quakers.

Pastor Van Lazaroff of First United Methodist Church Cedar Hill said he talked about it in Sunday school.

"It's a class that wanted to talk about what Methodists believe. One of [those beliefs] is tolerance," he said. "We do have different opinions, but we can agree to disagree."

He said he doesn't expect to use the matter as a sermon point.

"It's not something I would get involved in," he said.

I feel sorry for that guy.

John Heatherly is a lay leader of First UMC in Commerce, Texas, and a delegate to the North Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church.

He's for the library and thinks its opponents, especially those behind the online petition started last week, don't represent the church's mainstream.

"They represent a very far left, liberal agenda," he said.

And you sir represent Mars and not Jesus.

The Rev. Andrew Weaver is one of the organizers of the online petition at protectsmu.org Mr. Weaver called the war in Iraq "immoral and unjust" and referred to the documented torture of foreign prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as a policy that is "utterly unacceptable."

"We have found this man [President Bush] has brought great disgrace to this country and to the Methodism he says he holds," Mr. Weaver said. "There's passion about this. The passion has to do with the good name of Methodism."

Now that sounds like a man of God.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Oliver North says Bush plan 'eerily like Vietnam escalation'


:lol: Bush is so screwed!

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

ES Gerald R. Ford is not forgotten.

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. -- Andrew Guy wasn't planning to do much more than hang out with friends during his winter break from school. The death of a president changed all that.

Next Tuesday, 15-year-old Andrew will join hundreds of other area Boy Scouts to honor one of their own -- Gerald R. Ford -- who throughout his 93 years never forgot the positive impact scouting had on his life.

According to a funeral plan in which Ford himself had a hand, Boy Scouts will line the route leading to the museum that bears the president's name. They will stand in solemn tribute to a man who epitomized the high values of scouting.

Details still were being sketched out as to the exact role the Scouts will play. What is known is that more than 1,000 Eagle Scouts will be invited to line the route that Ford's casket takes to the Gerald R. Ford Museum.

Another contingent of Scouts -- Eagle and otherwise -- will rotate as part of a color guard inside the museum when Ford's body lies in public repose for a 24-hour period next Tuesday and Wednesday.

``The family has asked that Eagle Scouts line the pathway to the museum," said Michael Sulgrove, executive director of the Gerald R. Ford Council of the Boy Scouts of America. The council represents nearly 30,000 Scouts in 12 Michigan counties.

``We hope to start sending out e-mails and letters as soon as we have the full information," said Sulgrove, who emphasized that participating Scouts will be in full uniform, no matter their age.

``We're selling uniforms hot and heavy here," said Sulgrove, noting the general plan to involve Scouts in Ford's funeral has been known for more than a year.

Andrew Guy is part of Troop 215 -- the same that Ford belonged to when he made Eagle in 1927 -- and whose Scoutmaster is Andrew's father, Gregory.

``For our troop and the boys," Gregory Guy said of the eight young men in his charge, "this is once in a lifetime."


Four hundred uniformed Eagle Scouts from around the country gathered in Grand Rapids Tuesday afternoon to pay tribute to one of their own.

Boy Scouts from ages 60 to 16 lined Pearl Street to say goodbye to former President Gerald R. Ford, himself an Eagle Scout, as they waited for the motorcade to pass en route to the Gerald R. Ford Museum.

"It's kind of a significant opportunity for the boys to pay tribute to the president," said Clare South, 60, of Holland, an Eagle Scout and committee chairman for Zeeland's Troop 24.

Ford became an Eagle Scout in 1927, and he upheld its principles in office, said Michael Sulgrove, Scout executive for the Gerald R. Ford Regional Council of the Boy Scouts of America in Grand Rapids.

"In all the eulogies, they keep talking about how the country was in a state of chaos and turmoil and how providential it was that Jerry Ford was such a man of character. Where do you think he learned that character? ... I think of the 12 parts of the Scout law," Sulgrove said.

He said the number of Eagle Scouts who could take part in the tribute had to be limited to 400 because of security concerns, otherwise, "we'd have had far more."

They came from Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana and elsewhere, Sulgrove said.

"We've got guys who got their Eagle Scout 50 years ago out there and guys who got their Eagle Scout a week ago," he said.

Scouting was an important part of Ford's life, and Sulgrove said the Ford family insisted on having Scouts at each of the ceremonies honoring the past president -- from California to Washington to Grand Rapids.

Ford was the first Eagle Scout to become an American president.

"Being from Michigan, he's Michigan's president; it was only right to come down," said Jamie Callahan, a 35-year-old Eagle Scout from Traverse City who was among the throngs of people standing outside the museum Tuesday afternoon.

"The words that come to mind, for me, when I think of President Ford: He's a servant leader," he said.



Sunday, December 24, 2006


Happy B. day Christ.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

After Baker has done for the GOP

He dares to disagree with them and he's branded a surrender monkey.


That's cold.

Friday, October 27, 2006

The help that never came


Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Time Mag

Monday, Aug. 7, 2006
Courting a New Coalition

The least known but one of the most eagerly courted, screening committees for the next G.O.P. presidential nominee met recently in Colorado Springs, Colo., amid the panoramic opulence of the Broadmoor Hotel and Resort. The four-day meeting of affluent Evangelicals was billed as a "summer family retreat," and the kids rode ponies and played water sports while their folks chewed over immigration and gay marriage. The political group, called Legacy, aims for mystique: it has received no media attention and is unknown even on the Web. Yet all the marquee '08 Republican candidates have spoken to Legacy or met with its founders, having come to regard the group as a prime audience in these early days of raising money and trying to conjure momentum. "If you're running for President," said a close associate of President George W. Bush's, "it is the place to go." One of the group's first projects: supplying cash and ground troops to help South Dakota's John Thune beat Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle in 2004. Thune, a presidential prospect, electrified the Broadmoor audience, which also heard from Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn of Texas.

Legacy was started by two Dallas businessmen: Ray Washburne, a real estate and Tex-Mex-restaurant baron, and George Seay III, founder of the Seay Stewardship & Investment Co. and grandson of former Texas Governor Bill Clements. Its members are mostly young--in their 30s and 40s--and wealthy, through entrepreneurship, inheritance or both. They are Christians concerned with social justice, in the mold of Rick Warren of Purpose Driven Life fame, and practice their faith without, as a Broadmoor attendee put it, "quoting Leviticus"--a reference to the harder-edged rhetoric at other gatherings of social conservatives.

Organizers declined to be interviewed, saying they want to continue working below the radar. Cornyn tells TIME that the founders "have been beneficiaries of the political activity of their parents, and want to step up now that they're the next generation in line." Legacy, he says, fills "a vacuum between national organizations and political activists who are grandparents."

Speakers at the retreat in late July, which drew 165 families, included Matt Daniels of the Alliance for Marriage, and an immigration panel featured tax-cut leader Grover Norquist and Hugh Hewitt, a conservative radio host and blogger. Reflecting Legacy's aim for social impact, Gary Haugen of International Justice Mission talked about heading the U.N. genocide investigation in Rwanda. Audience members rose to describe a trip they had taken there. The weekend ended in the Cheyenne Lodge with a family worship service led by Mark Brewer of California's Bel Air Presbyterian Church. He was Ronald Reagan's last pastor, now ministering to a group hungry to amplify Reagan's spirit.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Arab fundies attacked America on 9/11


American fundies are attacking us now

And the Greenies are helping them

Someones opinion


Tuesday, July 18, 2006

he he


Wednesday, July 12, 2006


Man Uses Chip to Control Robot With Thoughts
Sign In to E-Mail This Print Reprints Save

Published: July 12, 2006
A paralyzed man with a small sensor implanted in his brain was able to control a computer, a television and a robot using only his thoughts, scientists reported today.

Skip to next paragraph
Neuronal Ensemble Control of Prosthetic Devices by a Human with Tetraplegia (Nature)
Video From Nature
Seven Films Showing Matt Nagle Controlling Electronic Devices Using ThoughtThe development offers hope that in the future, people with spinal cord injuries, Lou Gehrig’s disease or other ailments that impair movement might be able to better communicate with or control their world.

“If your brain can do it, we can tap into it,’’ said John P. Donoghue, a professor at Brown University who led the development of the system and was the senior author of a report published today in the journal Nature.

In separate experiments, the first person to receive the implant, Matthew Nagle, was able to move a cursor, open e-mail, play a simple video game called Pong and draw a crude circle on the screen. He could change the channel or volume of a television set, move a robot arm somewhat, and open and close a prosthetic hand.

Although his cursor control was sometimes wobbly, the basic movements were not hard to learn. “I pretty much had that mastered in four days,’’ Mr. Nagle, now 26, said in a telephone interview from the New England Sinai Hospital and Rehabilitation Center in Stoughton, Mass., where he lives. He said the implant did not cause any pain.

A former high school football star in Weymouth, Mass., Mr. Nagle was paralyzed below the shoulders after being stabbed in the neck during a melee at a beach in July 2001. He said he was not involved in starting the brawl and didn’t even know what sparked it. The man who stabbed him is now serving ten years in prison, he said.

There have been some tests of a simpler sensor implant in people, as well as tests of systems using electrodes outside the scalp. And Mr. Nagle has spoken about his experiences before.

But the paper in Nature is the first peer-reviewed publication of an experiment using a more sophisticated implant in a human.

The paper helps “shift the notion of such ‘implantable neuromotor prosthetics’ from science fiction towards reality,’’ Stephen H. Scott of Queen’s University in Canada wrote in a commentary in the journal.

The implant system, known as the BrainGate, is being developed by Cyberkinetics Neurotechnology Systems of Foxborough, Mass. The company is now testing the system in three other people whose names have not been released — one with a spinal cord injury, one who had a brain-stem stroke and one with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.

Timothy R. Surgenor, the president of the company, said Cyberkinetics hoped to have an implant approved for use as early as 2008 or 2009. Mr. Donoghue of Brown is a cofounder of the company and its chief scientist. Some of the authors of the research paper work for the company, while others work at Massachusetts General Hospital and other medical or academic institutions.

The sensor measures 4 millimeters — about one sixth of an inch — on a side and contains 100 tiny electrodes. The device was implanted in the area of Mr. Nagle’s motor cortex that is responsible for arm movement, and was connected to a pedestal that protruded from the top of his skull.

When the device was to be used, technicians connected the pedestal to a computer with a cable. So Mr. Nagle was directly wired to a computer, somewhat like a character in the “Matrix” movies.

Mr. Nagle would then imagine moving his arm to hit various targets, as technicians calibrated the machine, a process that took about half an hour each time. The implanted sensor eavesdropped on the electrical signals emitted by nearby neurons as they controlled the imaginary arm movement.

Scientists said the study was important because it showed that the neurons in Mr. Nagle’s motor cortex were still active, years after they had any role to play in physically moving his arms.

Cursor control was not very smooth. In a task where the goal was to guide the cursor from the center of the screen to a target on the perimeter, Mr. Nagle hit the target about 73 to 95 percent of the time. When he did, it took an average of 2.5 seconds, though sometimes much longer. The second patient tested with the implant had worse control than Mr. Nagle, the paper said.

By contrast, healthy people moving the cursor by hand can hit the target almost every time and in only one second.

Dr. Jonathan R. Wolpaw, a researcher at the New York State Department of Health in Albany, said the BrainGate performance did not appear to be substantially better than a non-invasive system he is developing using electroencephalography, in which electrodes are placed outside the scalp.

“If you are going to have something implanted into your brain, you’d probably want it to be a lot better,’’ he said.

Dr. Donoghue and other proponents of the implants say they have the potential to be a lot better, because they are much closer to the relevant neurons. The scalp electrodes get signals from millions of neurons all over the brain.

One way to improve implant performance was suggested by another paper in the same edition of Nature. In a study involving monkeys, Krishna V. Shenoy and colleagues at Stanford University eavesdropped not on the neurons controlling arm movement but on those expressing the intention to move.

“Instead of sliding the cursor out to the target, we can just predict which target would be hit, and the cursor simply leaps there,’’ said Mr. Shenoy, an assistant professor of electrical engineering and neurosciences.

He said a patient using the system could do the equivalent of typing 15 words a minute, about four times the speed of the other devices.

Other obstacles must be overcome before brain implants become practical. The ability of the electrodes to detect brain signals begins to deteriorate after several months, for reasons that are not fully understood. Also, ideally, the implant would transmit signals out of the brain wirelessly, doing away with the permanent hole in the head and the accompanying risk of infection.

Mr. Nagle, meanwhile, had his implant removed after a bit more than a year, so he could undergo another operation that allowed him to breathe without a ventilator. He can control a computer with voice commands, so he does not really need the brain implant. But he said he was happy he volunteered for the experiment.

“It gave a lot of people hope,’’ he said.

Monday, July 10, 2006



Friday, July 07, 2006

Worth watching+



Wednesday, July 05, 2006

July 5th (the day the founders woke up with a hangover)

Marines To Return Service Medals To Bush In Protest
Interestingly enough the focus of this article is only returning the Medal he deems political.

Ken Lay, Enron bastard, is dead of a heart attack
(I consider puting on a tinfoil hat)

Limbaugh won't face charges for Viagra bust
Doesn't matter he's still a self described conservative and a supposed Christian who's not married and got caught with Viagra coming back from a third world Nation and while that's not a crime it proves he's was looking to have sex with someone who wasn't his wife and there for is not a Conservative Christian.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

Operation crap-in-pants is underway.


ProtestWarrior Forum Index » Liberty Forum » Breaking News!!! SC rules Bush Admin. overstepped authority Goto page 1, 2 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
Breaking News!!! SC rules Bush Admin. overstepped authority
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:22 am

Location: Apopka, Fl
Age: 35
Gender: Male

Ruling that Military tribunals for terrorists are illegal.

It's just hitting the wires right now. I have no link yet, but will post one when I find it...

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:24 am

James Bond
Joined: 19 Nov 2004
Total posts: 12608
Location: 43° 31′ 48″ S 172° 37′ 13″ E
Age: 22
Gender: Male

CNN: The Supreme Court rules President Bush overstepped his authority with military war crimes trials for foreigners held at Guantanamo Bay in a case involving a former driver for Osama bin Laden.

Re: Breaking News!!!! SC rules against administration in fa
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:24 am

Location: Apopka, Fl
Age: 35
Gender: Male

Swordsman wrote:
of Al Quada!

It's just hitting the wires right now. I have no link yet, but will post one when I find it...

Here's the first link, more in a few minutes...


Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay War-Crimes Trials
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:26 am

Location: Apopka, Fl
Age: 35
Gender: Male

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion, which said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.

The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a body guard and driver for Usama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.

Two years ago, the court rejected Bush's claim to have the authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers. In this followup case, the justices focused solely on the issue of trials for some of the men


Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:27 am

Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Total posts: 1011
Location: NYC/DC/Ireland
Gender: Male



Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:28 am

Location: Apopka, Fl
Age: 35
Gender: Male

Associated Press Writer


The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti- terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.

The case focused on Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who worked as a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden. Hamdan, 36, has spent four years in the U.S. prison in Cuba. He faces a single count of conspiring against U.S. citizens from 1996 to November 2001.

Two years ago, the court rejected Bush's claim to have the authority to seize and detain terrorism suspects and indefinitely deny them access to courts or lawyers. In this followup case, the justices focused solely on the issue of trials for some of the men.

The vote was split 5-3, with moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court's liberal members in ruling against the Bush administration. Chief Justice John Roberts, named to the lead the court last September by Bush, was sidelined in the case because as an appeals court judge he had backed the government over Hamdan.

Thursday's ruling overturned that decision.


Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:28 am

Three Storms
Joined: 19 Jul 2004
Total posts: 8999
Location: Outer Heaven
Gender: Male

Great. Now the Supreme Court is aiding terrorists.

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:29 am

Joined: 14 Apr 2003
Total posts: 10643
Gender: Unknown

One More Nail In The Coffin.

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:35 am

Location: Apopka, Fl
Age: 35
Gender: Male

I'm really not happy with this ruling. FOXNEWS was just commenting that Justice Roberts recused himself, so he played no part in hearing the arguments, because he ruled in favor back when this was in the district court before his confirmation.

I really want to hear the justification as to why a terrorist who is *not* a professional soldier of any nation/state, who doesn't wear a uniform, or conform to the standards of combat as per the Geneva Conventions should receive the same benifits that real POW's do - Al Queda & the Taliban fighters sure as hell don't offer us the same considerations!!!

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:42 am

Joined: 04 Nov 2004
Total posts: 4979
Location: Heaven Hempstead, aboard the USS United Kingdom
Age: 22
Gender: Unknown

Oh noes, having to give people a fair trial based on real evidence and not circumstance or hearsay. What a blow for liberty and democracy...

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:45 am

Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Total posts: 14150
Location: Mortar PLT/HHC/1 BN/124 INF
Gender: Male

prolific8 wrote:
Oh noes, having to give people a fair trial based on real evidence and not circumstance or hearsay. What a blow for liberty and democracy...

This is a war.

While I will assert the president should--out of respect to the constitution--abide by the SCOTUS decision I am curious to know whether they believe all people over the entire world are entitled to the full privileges of the US citizens they are trying to kill.

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:45 am

Joined: 07 Apr 2003
Total posts: 6782
Location: Austin
Age: 33
Gender: Female

prolific8 wrote:
Oh noes, having to give people a fair trial based on real evidence and not circumstance or hearsay. What a blow for liberty and democracy...

We should follow the Geneva convention, then.....

Line them up and shoot.

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:46 am

Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Total posts: 1725
Gender: Unknown

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE -- A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on war crimes tribunals being held at Guantanamo navy base will have little effect on the detention camp that holds 450 foreign captives, the camp commander said.

"I don't think there's any direct outcome on our detention operation," Rear Adm. Harry Harris, the prison commander, said in an interview this week.

The high court upheld Thursday a Guantanamo defendant's challenge to President Bush's power to create the military tribunals to try suspected al Qaeda conspirators and Taliban supporters after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Harris said he would build a second courtroom if the tribunals are allowed to proceed but little else would change because the court was not asked to rule on Guantanamo itself, a prison camp that human rights groups, the United Nations and foreign governments have sharply criticized.

The tribunals have also come under fire from lawyers, who say they are rigged to ensure conviction and offer none of the basic guarantees and rights granted suspects in the U.S. justice system or to which formal prisoners of war would be entitled.

Ten detainees at Guantanamo have been charged before the tribunals, and prosecutors have said they will charge as many as 25 more if the court rules in favor of the commissions.

"If they rule against the government I don't see how that's going to affect us. From my perspective I think the impact will be negligible," Harris told Reuters.

About 120 other prisoners at the base in have been cleared for release, or transfer to their homelands where Washington expects them to remain in detention.

Faced with growing international condemnation of the camp after three prisoners committed suicide on June 10, President Bush has said he would like to empty the detention center.

But the director of interrogations at Guantanamo said many of the rest could be held a very long time because U.S. officials will not release those whom they are convinced have the connections, training and means to carry out attacks.

"Nobody wants to be the first person to allow the next 9/11 to happen," said interrogations chief Paul Rester. "Emptying this place is not my goal."


Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:46 am

Location: Virginia (Minnesota pureblood)
Age: 24
Gender: Male

MrSnuggleBunny wrote:
prolific8 wrote:
Oh noes, having to give people a fair trial based on real evidence and not circumstance or hearsay. What a blow for liberty and democracy...

This is a war.

While I will assert the president should--out of respect to the constitution--abide by the SCOTUS decision I am curious to know whether they believe all people over the entire world are entitled to the full privileges of the US citizens they are trying to kill.

and whether they understand that the people being held at Gitmo are illegal combatants and therefore, essentially, have zero rights.

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:47 am

Joined: 20 Jul 2004
Total posts: 3099
Location: Kicking some Jahadist Butt
Age: 28
Gender: Male

SC stated today that Terrorists have no rights and should be shot on sight!!!

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

second wind

This is a good question

It's not this bad (yet)

This photo released by the United States Marine Corps shows Staff Sgt. Raymond Plouhar, 30, of Lake Orion, Mich., handing candy to students at the Al Nabatiya Elementary School on May 9, 2006 in Iraq. Plouhar, who appeared in Michael Moore's acclaimed documentary 'Fahrenheit 9/11' died Monday, June 26, 2006, of wounds suffered while conducting combat operations in the Al Anbar province of Iraq, the Defense Department announced Tuesday. (Photo/US Marine Corps, Cpl. Mark Sixbey)

Desite appearing vile in Fahrenheit 9/11 Plouhar had also gave a kidney to an uncle who was in need. So he wasn't all bad.

BTW speaking of wind..

I'm tempted to say God missed.


Tuesday, June 27, 2006

I may have found the world's cutest blog.


Monday, June 26, 2006

Monday's blog

Dear there's a Republican at the door.




Like someone else said

"I'm curious, Just exactly what gang is it that wears
bandannas with peace signs, happy faces and flowers
all over them and just what the fuck is their agenda?"

Say what you will about Mr Buffett but this sounds very nice of him.

Conservatives are angry at the UMC

This Church in particular for offering deserters sanctuary is going to need liberals to donate money to replace the conservative dollars that are going to be withheld.


I'm not sure what to think of these people

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

New stuff

Do note that at the top of the quiz it reads
"For this quiz I've replaced some of Hitler's pro-Aryan and anti-Semitic language with the words, "America", "Democrat", "liberal", and "the liberal media" to make the Coulter quotes a little more difficult to spot."

The Hitler vs. Coulter Quiz can you tell the difference?

Problem with quiz
"Liberals are always wrapping their comically irrelevant charges in a haze of lies"

either the quiz is inaccurate or Coulter is quoting hitler.

Troops agree with Murtha's fusteration

Tuesday, June 20, 2006