Top Ten Signs The Government Is Spying On You
10. Post office wall has several photos of you sleeping
9. Your houseplant occasionally sneezes
8. Domino's keeps delivering to unmarked van parked across the street
7. Birthday card from your mom has several words blacked out
6. You get nominated for "Outstanding Lead Performance in an NSA Surveillance Video"
5. Your dishwasher functions are "Wash," "Rinse" and "Record"
4. Local news only reporting things that happen in your living room
3. Every time you say goodbye on the phone, you hear a strange voice say, "Roger that, Chico"
2. You googled a recipe for humus and the FBI raided your house
1. Suddenly discover there's an antenna bolted to your ass
Friday, June 23, 2006
Another Fun Bush Quiz...Quotes!
Laugh or cry, I did a little of both...
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushismsquiz.htm?lastQuestion=14&answers=3&submit=Next+Question+%3E%3E&ccount=5
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushismsquiz.htm?lastQuestion=14&answers=3&submit=Next+Question+%3E%3E&ccount=5
How Loyal are You to Bush? Take the Quiz
Quote:
Your score is 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. You hate Bush with a writhing passion. You think he is an idiot, a liar, and a warmonger who has been an utterly incompetent, miserable failure of a president. Nothing would give you greater pleasure than seeing him impeached and run out of the White House, except maybe seeing him dragged away in handcuffs.
I can't imagine what one question I was forgiving of him on!
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushgames/
Your score is 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. You hate Bush with a writhing passion. You think he is an idiot, a liar, and a warmonger who has been an utterly incompetent, miserable failure of a president. Nothing would give you greater pleasure than seeing him impeached and run out of the White House, except maybe seeing him dragged away in handcuffs.
I can't imagine what one question I was forgiving of him on!
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushgames/
Have Fun with Dress-Me-Up Bush
http://www.eneaies.com/satira/bush_dressup/bush_dressup.htm
Use caution, artist's rendering is anatomically generous with the S.C.R.O.T.U.S....some things you just can't "unsee".
Many thanks to reader Eliza for contributing this fun fun thing, and please keep them coming!!!
Use caution, artist's rendering is anatomically generous with the S.C.R.O.T.U.S....some things you just can't "unsee".
Many thanks to reader Eliza for contributing this fun fun thing, and please keep them coming!!!
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Dick Cheney: The Dark Side
This PBS Frontline edition is available for ONLINE viewing today, Thursday June 22, at 5pm Eastern time.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
Be sure to take the time to watch this excellent study on our national intelligence.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
Be sure to take the time to watch this excellent study on our national intelligence.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Who said it? Coulter or Hitler...take the quiz!
What a fabulous quiz this is..... be sure to share your score with me!
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jac3he/GiveUpQuiz/gradequiz.php
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jac3he/GiveUpQuiz/gradequiz.php
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
My Favorite New Children's Book
My girls really love reading this book, the oldest and second take turns reading it to the younger ones. I think it peeves my conservative husband, which makes it an even better book. I really recommend this to all my readers....http://littledemocrats.net/
Occupation in Iraq by Thom Hartmann
There is no longer a war against Iraq.
It ended in May of 2003, when George W. Bush stood below a "Mission Accomplished" sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and correctly declared that we had "victoriously" defeated the Iraqi army and overthrown their government.
Our military machine is tremendously good at fighting wars - blowing up infrastructure, killing opposing armies, and toppling governments. We did that successfully in Iraq, in a matter of a few weeks. We destroyed their army, wiped out their air defenses, devastated their Republican Guard, seized their capitol, arrested their leaders, and took control of their government. We won the war. It's over.
What we have now is an occupation of Iraq.
The occupation began when the war ended, and continues to this day. According to our own Pentagon estimates, at least ninety five percent of those attacking our soldiers are Iraqi civilians who view themselves as anti-occupation fighters. And last week both the Defense Minister and the Vice President of Iraq asked us for a specific date on which the occupation would end.
The distinction between "war" and "occupation" is politically critical for 2006 because wars can be won or lost, but occupations most honorably end by redeployments.
We won World War II and it carried Roosevelt to great political heights. We lost the Vietnam War and it politically destroyed Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jerry Ford. And as we fought to a draw in Korea, it so wounded Harry S. Truman politically that he didn't have a strong enough base of support to run for re-election against Dwight D. Eisenhower.
American's don't like to lose or draw at a war. Even people who oppose wars find it uncomfortable, at some level, to lose, and Republican strategists are using this psychological reality for political gain. When wars are won - even when they're totally illegal and undeclared wars, like Reagan's adventure in Grenada - it tends to create a national good feeling.
On the other hand, when arguably just wars, or at least legally defensible "police action" wars, like Korea, are not won, they wound the national psyche. And losing a war - like the German loss of WWI - can be so devastating psychologically to a citizenry that it sets up a nation for strongman dictatorship to "restore the national honor."
On the other hand, an "occupation" is something that logically should one day end, and, if it's an expensive occupation in lives or money, will find popular support to end as soon as possible.
The various colonial powers of Europe ended their occupations of most of Africa, for example, and there was no national emotional pain associated with it. Churchill's withdrawal from Uganda increased his popularity with Brits.
While Americans hate to lose wars, we're generally pleased to wrap up occupations. We had no problem with ending our occupation of The Philippines, numerous South Pacific islands, and the redeployment of our troops stationed in nations conquered in World War II (Japan and Germany) from broad-based "occupation" to locally based "assistance." (Although we still have troops in Japan and Germany, neither country has been functionally "occupied" by us since the late 1940s and the "legal" occupation of both ended shortly thereafter. It should also be remembered that not a single American life was lost because of hostile fire in either brief post-war occupation.)
If Democrats can succeed over the next three months in making it clear to average Americans that the "War In Iraq" ended in 2003, and that we're now engaged in an "Occupation Of Iraq," then Democratic suggestions to end or greatly diminish the occupation will take on a resonance and cogency that will both help them in an election year, and help to bring our soldiers to safety and Iraq to stability.
On the other hand, if Democrats are perceived as pushing for America to "lose the war in Iraq," they will be vilified and damned by Republicans and many swing voters, and could thus lose big in 2006.
The "War" is over. The Occupation has now lasted 3 years and one month - far longer than necessary.
Here's a "for example" scenario - fictitious at this moment - of how Democrats should play it out:
[Tim Russert]: So, Senator Reid, what do you think of this most recent news from the War In Iraq?
[Senator Reid]: The war ended in May of 2003, Tim. Our military did their usual brilliant job, and we defeated Saddam's army. The Occupation Of Iraq, however, isn't going so well, in large part because the Bush Administration has totally botched the job, leading to the death of thousands of our soldiers, and dragging our nation into disrepute around the world. I'd like to see us greatly scale down the current Occupation of Iraq, redeploy our Occupation Forces to nearby nations in case we're needed by the new Iraqi government, and get our brave young men and women out of harm's way. Occupations have a nasty way of fomenting civil wars, you know, and we don't want this one to go any further than it has.
[Tim Russert]: But isn't the War In Iraq part of the Global War On Terror?
[Senator Reid]: Our Occupation Of Iraq is encouraging more Muslims around the world to eye us suspiciously. Some may even be inspired by our Occupation of this Islamic nation to take up arms or unconventional weapons against us, perhaps even here at home, just as Osama Bin Laden said he hit us on 9/11 because we were occupying part of his homeland, Saudia Arabia, at the Prince Sultan Air Force Base, where Bush Senior first put troops in 1991 to project force into Kuwait and enforce the Iraqi no-fly zone. The Bush policy of an unending Occupation Of Iraq is increasing the danger that people will use the tactic of terror against us and our allies, and, just like George W. Bush wisely redeployed our troops from Saudi Arabia, we should begin right now to redeploy our troops who are occupying Iraq.
[Tim Russert]: But the War...
[Senator Reid]: Tim, Tim, Tim! The war is over! George W. Bush declared victory himself, in May of 2003, when our brave soldiers seized control of Iraq. That's the definition of the end of a war, as anybody who's ever served in the military can tell you. Unfortunately, our Occupation Of Iraq since the end of the war, using a small military force and a lot of Halliburton, hasn't worked. We should take Halliburton's billions and give them to the Iraqis so they can rebuild their own nation, the way we helped Europeans rebuild after World War Two. And go from being an occupying power to being an ally of Iraq and the Iraqi people, like we did with Japan and Germany.
[Tim Russert (bewildered)]: I can't call it a war anymore? We have to change our NBC "War In Iraq" banners and graphics?
[Senator Reid (patting Russert's hand)]: Yes, Tim. The war is over. It's now an occupation, and has been for three years. And like all occupations, it's best to wrap it up so Iraq can get on with their business. I'm sure your graphics people can come up with some new logos that say "Occupation Of Iraq." It'll be a nice project for them, maybe even earn them some much-needed overtime pay. The "War In Iraq" graphics are getting a bit stale, don't you think? After all, soon we'll be able to say that we fought World War II in less time than we've been in Iraq. Wars are usually short, but occupations - particularly when they're done stupidly - can be hellish.
[Tim Russert (brightening)]: Ah, so! Now I get it! I even wrote about wars and occupations in my book about my dad. Thanks for coming on the program today and clarifying this for us.
If the Democrats don't shift the discussion from "war" to "occupation," the Republicans will succeed in painting them as being "in favor of losing a war," which will destroy their electoral possibilities.
Instead, every time a Republican or a member of the press uses the Rove slogan "War in Iraq," Democrats need to correct them by saying, "You mean the Occupation of Iraq..."
Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the Air America Radio network and Sirius. http://www.thomhartmann.com/ He's also a former marketing and communications senior executive, NLP Trainer, and consultant to government agencies and companies including many in the Fortune 500. His most recent books include "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," "What Would Jefferson Do?" and "Ultimate Sacrifice." His next book, due out this autumn, is "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It."
It ended in May of 2003, when George W. Bush stood below a "Mission Accomplished" sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and correctly declared that we had "victoriously" defeated the Iraqi army and overthrown their government.
Our military machine is tremendously good at fighting wars - blowing up infrastructure, killing opposing armies, and toppling governments. We did that successfully in Iraq, in a matter of a few weeks. We destroyed their army, wiped out their air defenses, devastated their Republican Guard, seized their capitol, arrested their leaders, and took control of their government. We won the war. It's over.
What we have now is an occupation of Iraq.
The occupation began when the war ended, and continues to this day. According to our own Pentagon estimates, at least ninety five percent of those attacking our soldiers are Iraqi civilians who view themselves as anti-occupation fighters. And last week both the Defense Minister and the Vice President of Iraq asked us for a specific date on which the occupation would end.
The distinction between "war" and "occupation" is politically critical for 2006 because wars can be won or lost, but occupations most honorably end by redeployments.
We won World War II and it carried Roosevelt to great political heights. We lost the Vietnam War and it politically destroyed Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jerry Ford. And as we fought to a draw in Korea, it so wounded Harry S. Truman politically that he didn't have a strong enough base of support to run for re-election against Dwight D. Eisenhower.
American's don't like to lose or draw at a war. Even people who oppose wars find it uncomfortable, at some level, to lose, and Republican strategists are using this psychological reality for political gain. When wars are won - even when they're totally illegal and undeclared wars, like Reagan's adventure in Grenada - it tends to create a national good feeling.
On the other hand, when arguably just wars, or at least legally defensible "police action" wars, like Korea, are not won, they wound the national psyche. And losing a war - like the German loss of WWI - can be so devastating psychologically to a citizenry that it sets up a nation for strongman dictatorship to "restore the national honor."
On the other hand, an "occupation" is something that logically should one day end, and, if it's an expensive occupation in lives or money, will find popular support to end as soon as possible.
The various colonial powers of Europe ended their occupations of most of Africa, for example, and there was no national emotional pain associated with it. Churchill's withdrawal from Uganda increased his popularity with Brits.
While Americans hate to lose wars, we're generally pleased to wrap up occupations. We had no problem with ending our occupation of The Philippines, numerous South Pacific islands, and the redeployment of our troops stationed in nations conquered in World War II (Japan and Germany) from broad-based "occupation" to locally based "assistance." (Although we still have troops in Japan and Germany, neither country has been functionally "occupied" by us since the late 1940s and the "legal" occupation of both ended shortly thereafter. It should also be remembered that not a single American life was lost because of hostile fire in either brief post-war occupation.)
If Democrats can succeed over the next three months in making it clear to average Americans that the "War In Iraq" ended in 2003, and that we're now engaged in an "Occupation Of Iraq," then Democratic suggestions to end or greatly diminish the occupation will take on a resonance and cogency that will both help them in an election year, and help to bring our soldiers to safety and Iraq to stability.
On the other hand, if Democrats are perceived as pushing for America to "lose the war in Iraq," they will be vilified and damned by Republicans and many swing voters, and could thus lose big in 2006.
The "War" is over. The Occupation has now lasted 3 years and one month - far longer than necessary.
Here's a "for example" scenario - fictitious at this moment - of how Democrats should play it out:
[Tim Russert]: So, Senator Reid, what do you think of this most recent news from the War In Iraq?
[Senator Reid]: The war ended in May of 2003, Tim. Our military did their usual brilliant job, and we defeated Saddam's army. The Occupation Of Iraq, however, isn't going so well, in large part because the Bush Administration has totally botched the job, leading to the death of thousands of our soldiers, and dragging our nation into disrepute around the world. I'd like to see us greatly scale down the current Occupation of Iraq, redeploy our Occupation Forces to nearby nations in case we're needed by the new Iraqi government, and get our brave young men and women out of harm's way. Occupations have a nasty way of fomenting civil wars, you know, and we don't want this one to go any further than it has.
[Tim Russert]: But isn't the War In Iraq part of the Global War On Terror?
[Senator Reid]: Our Occupation Of Iraq is encouraging more Muslims around the world to eye us suspiciously. Some may even be inspired by our Occupation of this Islamic nation to take up arms or unconventional weapons against us, perhaps even here at home, just as Osama Bin Laden said he hit us on 9/11 because we were occupying part of his homeland, Saudia Arabia, at the Prince Sultan Air Force Base, where Bush Senior first put troops in 1991 to project force into Kuwait and enforce the Iraqi no-fly zone. The Bush policy of an unending Occupation Of Iraq is increasing the danger that people will use the tactic of terror against us and our allies, and, just like George W. Bush wisely redeployed our troops from Saudi Arabia, we should begin right now to redeploy our troops who are occupying Iraq.
[Tim Russert]: But the War...
[Senator Reid]: Tim, Tim, Tim! The war is over! George W. Bush declared victory himself, in May of 2003, when our brave soldiers seized control of Iraq. That's the definition of the end of a war, as anybody who's ever served in the military can tell you. Unfortunately, our Occupation Of Iraq since the end of the war, using a small military force and a lot of Halliburton, hasn't worked. We should take Halliburton's billions and give them to the Iraqis so they can rebuild their own nation, the way we helped Europeans rebuild after World War Two. And go from being an occupying power to being an ally of Iraq and the Iraqi people, like we did with Japan and Germany.
[Tim Russert (bewildered)]: I can't call it a war anymore? We have to change our NBC "War In Iraq" banners and graphics?
[Senator Reid (patting Russert's hand)]: Yes, Tim. The war is over. It's now an occupation, and has been for three years. And like all occupations, it's best to wrap it up so Iraq can get on with their business. I'm sure your graphics people can come up with some new logos that say "Occupation Of Iraq." It'll be a nice project for them, maybe even earn them some much-needed overtime pay. The "War In Iraq" graphics are getting a bit stale, don't you think? After all, soon we'll be able to say that we fought World War II in less time than we've been in Iraq. Wars are usually short, but occupations - particularly when they're done stupidly - can be hellish.
[Tim Russert (brightening)]: Ah, so! Now I get it! I even wrote about wars and occupations in my book about my dad. Thanks for coming on the program today and clarifying this for us.
If the Democrats don't shift the discussion from "war" to "occupation," the Republicans will succeed in painting them as being "in favor of losing a war," which will destroy their electoral possibilities.
Instead, every time a Republican or a member of the press uses the Rove slogan "War in Iraq," Democrats need to correct them by saying, "You mean the Occupation of Iraq..."
Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the Air America Radio network and Sirius. http://www.thomhartmann.com/ He's also a former marketing and communications senior executive, NLP Trainer, and consultant to government agencies and companies including many in the Fortune 500. His most recent books include "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," "What Would Jefferson Do?" and "Ultimate Sacrifice." His next book, due out this autumn, is "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It."
New Church Leader a Liberal Woman
Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.
It is a refreshing departure from the overtly homophobic rhetoric touted by most religious and political leaders, perhaps a sign of level-headedness to come from a more enlightened Christian movement.
Congratulations, Bishop Jefferts Schori, and best of luck leading your church...
Monday, June 19, 2006
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Worst Email I Ever Got
Believe me, when I saw this thing in my INBOX my first thought was this has to be the worst possible news you can get from your doctor....
Astro Alert: Uranus Turns Retrograde
Dear Cara,
Rest up while you can! On June 19, Uranus turns retrograde, bringing his flair for the unusual to a planet near you. Until the ruler of rebellion returns to direct motion on November 20, you may notice an increase in personality transformations or oddball news reports; indeed, the conventional wisdom for the next few months is 'Expect the unexpected.' Now, those of you with well-worn PDAs and perfectly up-to-date planners might find that advice less than reassuring. But the key to success these days is to go with the flow. That mind of yours is brimming with untapped talents and innovative ideas, and Uranus is bound and determined to set them free!
Start unleashing your inner trailblazer with a free sample Revelations Reading.Uranus established his reputation as our solar system's renegade long ago. But this planet is very much a rebel with a cause, namely humanitarianism, creativity and breaking with tradition. During his retrograde journey, that energy -- which typically plays out on a more collective scale -- is focused inward. Is there a cause you want to get involved with? a pottery class you've had your eye on? a certain bohemian side of yourself that you haven't seen in a while? Seize this chance to celebrate your individuality and move beyond the status quo.
Reveal your full potential -- including talents that might surprise you! -- as you enjoy 20% off your full-length Revelations Reading.Of course, a period known for erratic, unusual behavior might not be the best time to act on every brilliant idea. But these upcoming months are your golden opportunity to think outside the box in ways that the 9-to-5 world of convention doesn't always allow. Experiment with new modes of expression to find the one that suits you best (pens, food, clothes, music ... no doubt you have ample tools all around you). By late November, you may find that you're ready to share what you've learned with the world.
Here's to making Uranus's retrograde period the start of something much bigger!
Sincerely, The Astrology.com Team -->
http://www.astrology.comhttp://shop.astrology.com
P.S. Hoping to tap into your inner actor? novelist? globe-trotter? Find daily inspiration for all your wishes in Astrology.com's Wishing Dictionary ... You might just come out of this retrograde with a brand-new lease on life!
Pass it on! Forward this offer to a friend.
Your personal information is safe and secure on Astrology.com.
MANAGE YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS:To unsubscribe, click here and follow the unsubscribe instructions.To manage your subscriptions to iVillage Group commercial mailings, please click here.Further information can be obtained by emailing mailings@astrology.com. If you need to email us, please include the following line in your reply. email recipient: caracompton11@comcast.net Astrology.com, c/o iVillage Inc, 500 Seventh Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10018, U.S.A. annmn:[742Hu$042Hu$52DMG00120000042Hu$0mGsHeGsIs] --- annmn:[742Hu$042Hu$52DMG00120000042Hu$0mGsHeGsIs]
--Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.2/357 - Release Date: 6/6/2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
