ThinkFast: November 28, 2006
ThinkFast: November 28, 2006
At a “First Amendment awards dinner,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) said yesterday “the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.” He said a “different set of rules” may be needed to limit “terrorists’ ability to use the Internet and free speech.”
The president-elect of the Christian Coalition of America “has stepped down, saying the group resisted his efforts to broaden its agenda to include reducing poverty and fighting global warming.” Rev. Joel Hunter said of the split, “When we really got down to it, they said: ‘This just isn’t for us. It won’t speak to our base, so we just can’t go there.’”
A classified Marine Corps intelligence report concludes that in Western Iraq, “the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point” that U.S. and Iraqi troops “are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar.”
“The Bush administration pleased farmers and frustrated environmentalists Monday by declaring that pesticides can be sprayed into and over waters without first obtaining special permits.”
The “stakes in Afghanistan are much larger in the near term than they are in Iraq,” former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said in a speech yesterday, predicting that Iraq’s troubles would remain internal for some time while Afghanistan’s could have “enormous repercussions” on Pakistan and India.
Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) yesterday “hit out at efforts by figures in the Bush administration and business to roll back corporate accountability reforms imposed in the wake of financial scandals such as Enron.” Spitzer argued businesses are failing to compete not due to over-regulation, but because of “failed business models and the lack of smart investment in technology.”
A decade ago, “researchers had assumed the number of AIDS cases would be declining. Instead, it’s on the rise.” A new report by the Public Library of Science’s Medicine Journal finds AIDS “is set to join heart disease and stroke as the top three causes of death worldwide” within the next 25 years.
The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) called for an official investigation into whether House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) broke the law “by pushing for federal funding of a highway project near land he owned west of Chicago.” Hastert turned a 500 percent profit by selling the land last year.
And finally: Put away your tissues, she’s back. “Rumors are floating in Florida GOP political circles that outgoing Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL), one of the most disastrous Senate candidates in a very long time, is secretly plotting an ‘08 House campaign,” Roll Call reports.
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Reducing poverty does not “speak” to the Christian Coalition’s base?! I wonder if any of these folks have ever read the teachings of Jesus.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:12 amOne of Secretary of State Rice’s advisers, Philip Zelikow, is stepping down. What amazes me is that this story glosses over two of his more controversial roles, executive staff director of the 9/11 Commission, and co-creator of the pre-emptive strike policy. Both are reduced to a single sentence.
Zelikow had rubbed some lawmakers the wrong way when he served as executive director of the commission that investigated the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
At Rice’s request, Zelikow was the primary writer of the administration’s post-Sept. 11 national security strategy, which first outlined the intellectual rationale for preemptive war as a key tool in U.S. foreign policy.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:17 amDo you think Harris will get the votes?
November 28th, 2006 at 9:18 amOk, so now, super toxic pesticides can now be applied without regard to whether they enter waterways or not. Thanks Bush!
This decision is terrible for the environment and human health but does reward bad land managers and pest control operators to continue their piss poor land management (hey, if you can’t keep the spray out of the waterway, they you’re an idiot – by definition).
Also, to minimize the situation by saying only a few percent of the pesticides used get into the water ignores toxicity and environmental fate of these poisons. Basing risk on the total amount of a pesticide that enters a waterway is like assessing balance in reporting by counting the letters in the statements from opposite sides of an issue.
Remember, many organophosphate insecticides are toxic to trout at sub-part per billion levels. Insect growth regulators are also very toxic to shellfish and other desirable animals at very low levels. Herbicides, while often not as directly toxic to animals as insecticides, have a variety of very toxic effects on aquatic plants – the base of the aquatic food web.
Also, many of these chemicals are neurotoxic. I guess that explains it then…..by causing brain damage in humans, they create more republicans! Whod a thunk it?
CB
November 28th, 2006 at 9:20 am…and, uh oh – where in the world is matt lauer???
November 28th, 2006 at 9:22 amnbc still calling it a ‘civil war’, but did matt get sent to a corner?
no explanation, just ‘here’s lester sitting in for matt’…
“The Bush administration pleased farmers and frustrated environmentalists”
I think the distinction needs to be made that it is industrial agribusiness farmers and corporate interests seeking to perpetuate harmful farming practices for quick financial gains to whom this benefits.
The simplistic dichotomy of farmers v. environmentalist undermines the possibility of farmers being environmentalist and marginalizes the growing numbers of small-scale local organic sustainable farmers on whom our future depends.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:22 ama “different set of rules†may be needed to limit “terrorists’ ability to use the Internet and free speech.â€
here it comes again…
November 28th, 2006 at 9:27 amdon’t forget – SAVE NET NEUTRALITY !!!
call your reps!
And You Thought – the ‘christian’ thing to do is to pass laws regulating what a woman can or cannot do with her own body and laws discriminating against whom one can or cannot marry based solely upon gender. Those are apparently the only two causes ‘christ’ championed. Heaven forbid the followers of ‘christ’ concern themselves with those who die from “low food security” or war or polluting the planet until it can no longer sustain human life.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:28 amI wonder if any of these folks have ever read the teachings of Jesus.
Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid
And least Rev Hunter had the “cohonas” to step down, and not to blindly follow like so many do (Hello, St.Daryll, I’m talking to you!)
Geez, who would of thought a Christian would take a stand against poverty. Kinda makes you go…HUH
And notice this little tidbit from the article:
November 28th, 2006 at 9:29 amMrs. Combs asserted, however, that the group’s debt had declined and its fortunes were changing.
Well good, then the organization can now definelty help out the needy, the poor. Opps, one little problem….that doesn’t fit their agenda
The EPA decision gave the pest operators what they wanted. It also closely parsed the English language for what the all-important word “pollutant” means.
EPA officials concluded that a pesticide, when it’s deliberately applied, isn’t a “pollutant” under the terms of the 1972 Clean Water Act.
Does anyone else find that statement absurd?
November 28th, 2006 at 9:30 am“the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.â€
“We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade,”
Since when was a Republican all Doom and Gloom?
November 28th, 2006 at 9:31 am…declaring that pesticides can be sprayed into and over waters without first obtaining special permits.â€
huh… i read this story in my paper:
High court to hear global warming case
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court hears arguments this week in a case that could determine whether the Bush administration must change course in how it deals with the threat of global warming.
…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-26-scotus-global-warming_x.htm
talk about mixed messages…
November 28th, 2006 at 9:35 ama “different set of rules†may be needed to limit “terrorists’ ability to use the Internet and free speech.â€
….and herein lies the problem. Please define “terrorists”
November 28th, 2006 at 9:37 amIf Happy Dude or goodscarrier hijacks a thread, are they terrorists?
If I reprimand my children acting up in an airport, am I a terrorist?
If my neigbor, Abdul Mohammad, was seen driving down my street with a (gasp) white woman as a passenger, can I report him as a terrorist?
At a “First Amendment awards dinner,†former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) said yesterday “the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.†He said a “different set of rules†may be needed to limit “terrorists’ ability to use the Internet and free speech.â€
I don’t think Newt knew where he was. This statement shows just how facist neo-cons are. They would take away are freedoms to protect us from the ones that want to take away our freedoms.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:37 am“We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, etc….”
November 28th, 2006 at 9:42 amIt already happened, Newt, last year….. ever hear of a place called New Orleans?
And its loss is due to terrorism… economic, political, and race based terrorism……
Newt Gingrich is a fear monger who has no faith in our security and has no faith in Democracy.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:46 amNewt Gingrich is an enemy of Democracy.
At a “First Amendment awards dinner,†former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) said yesterday “the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.†He said a “different set of rules†may be needed to limit “terrorists’ ability to use the Internet and free speech.â€
In Newty World, terrorist = anyone without his agenda.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:46 amNewt: “We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade,â€
Can he explain how taking away Freedom of Speech or giving corporate control over the internet will create a situation that will stop a determined terrorist from exploding a nuclear device in a city? Typical neo-con ruse. Use illogical fear to gain control of an unrelated situation.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:46 amthe organization can now definitely help out the needy, the poor. Oops, one little problem….that doesn’t fit their agenda — Comment by DRxJ
Hilarious!
November 28th, 2006 at 9:47 amDear “Lizard” Gingrich,
Free speech doesn’t kill, terrorists do. Our country needs to have reasonable security measures, but we must not destroy our values from the inside because of fear of outsiders. We need to cure the disease that manifests as the symptom of terrorism, and this is a lot harder than token “solutions” such as yours. A “new set of rules” for free speech is window-dressing for terrorism and burial clothes for our values.
Sincerely,
November 28th, 2006 at 9:47 am“The Bush administration pleased farmers and frustrated environmentalists Monday by declaring that pesticides can be sprayed into and over waters without first obtaining special permits.â€
Yay! We can kill the planet even quicker now!
F*cking farmers, that’s exactly how a lot of them think. They make their living off the land, but don’t mind leaving ruins behind them.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:48 am“Rumors are floating in Florida GOP political circles that outgoing Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL), one of the most disastrous Senate candidates in a very long time, is secretly plotting an ‘08 House campaign,†Roll Call reports.
That is frickin’ awesome…you go Katherine! Heh.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:50 amI’ve said it time and time again, the people of this country formed a government to pass laws to protect the people against the actions of individuals that might harm them. The businesses didn’t form the government and they sure as hell don’t need the government’s protection from the people!
November 28th, 2006 at 9:52 amI’m courting goodscarrier’s wrath here,
November 28th, 2006 at 9:53 ambut “Good Morning, Zooey!”
;)
Gingrich,and again under scaring and terrorism banner,wants to examine the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech. He and many like him are annoyed by the internet…they see it as a threat and out of control,because they can control the tv,the magazine,the paper by paying pundits and columnists big dollars,and putting them under the control of corporate watch..but the internet to Gingrich and his people are not under their thumb and not under their control. They like FOX network. The Republicans, without a doubt, know now that while spending millions on tv ads in the last elections..people were getting different stories from the internet…they want this to be curbed under the guise of terrorism,because they can control the masses better to secure their future elections.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:53 amHuh, Krazynine Hairyass begins secretly plotting a campaign just when Unka Deadeye shows up in Talahasee on another hunting trip. (He didn’t check into the office with Jebya Bush either) Wonder what he’s huntin’ with…………..
November 28th, 2006 at 9:56 amTalabani visits Iran, admits he needs help
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani: [Iraq is] “desperately in need of help” to quell escalating insurgent attacks. “Iraq is in need of any kind of help that is offered by Iran to fight terrorism and to restore security.”
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: ‘”The Iranian nation and government will definitely stand beside their brother, Iraq, and any help the government and nation of Iran can give to strengthen security in Iraq will be given . . . We have no limitation for cooperation in any field.”
November 28th, 2006 at 9:56 amZooey,
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Without farmers, what would you eat?
I agree that the policy is ridiculous and environmentally irresponsable. Why ruin the land and water that you need in order to grow more crops? Use environmentally friendly alternatives.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:58 amWhat Newt didn’t say is that the the GOP considers anyone who opposes them to be a terrorist and thus the need “to limit terrorists’ ability to use the Internet and free speech.” Doesn’t he understand that he’s no longer in a position to impose his stupid ideas on us?
November 28th, 2006 at 10:00 amtarazan’s got it…
newt is using terrorism as an excuse to stomp out the last BEST bastion of FREE free speech…
as aquafiero pointed out, he doesn’t give a shite about the cities…
and F goodnscary -
November 28th, 2006 at 10:01 amGOOD MORNING EVERYONE!… SLEEP WELL LAST NIGHT?
maybe some 3rd shifters here also – settle down, sleep well today…
I’m courting goodscarrier’s wrath here,
but “Good Morning, Zooey!â€
;)
Comment by trueblue
Goodscarrier can bite me. This is the open thread!
Good Morning from the great polar northwest, true!
November 28th, 2006 at 10:02 amOn one hand it’s shocking but on the other hand it’s not that the Christian Coalition would frown upon actually advocating positions that don’t have to do with gays and a woman’s right to choose. Pitiful.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:03 amAmerica’s Least Wanted
I agree that the policy is ridiculous and environmentally irresponsable. Why ruin the land and water that you need in order to grow more crops? Use environmentally friendly alternatives.
Comment by robert
Good morning, Robert. I will ignore your first paragraph, since it only an attempt to start something. Admit it…
I agree with your second paragraph. Are we up to three things we agree on? My, my…
November 28th, 2006 at 10:05 amAt a “First Amendment awards dinner,†former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) said yesterday “the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.†He said a “different set of rules†may be needed to limit “terrorists’ ability to use the Internet and free speech.â€
Yes, Newt. The first thing to reconsider is whether to allow mentally unstable disgraced ideologically driven ex-republican politicans to speak at First Amendment awards dinners.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:07 amtell you what, robert –
the big time farmers do NOT grow our food…
they grow livestock feed (corn) and artificial sweeteners (soybeans) that have basically created a gaseous, obese, lazy population unaware of just how dangerous their “food” really is…
i once had a load of “topsoil” brought in and was delighted at it’s rich, dark color and consistancy… the stuff wouldn’t even grow weeds… found out it came from a former field that had been ‘chemicallized’ beyond repair…
just sayin’…
November 28th, 2006 at 10:09 amGood morning Zooey,
Not trying to start something, just food for thought. Not all farmers are bad people.
Actually, my post about Newt didn’t post, so we may be up to 4 things now.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:10 amoops – correction -
November 28th, 2006 at 10:11 amcorn is also the artificial sweetener… not sure what all the soybeans are for…
gotta run now… can’t think…
Well, Dubious is exercizing his right to free speech today (cringe)
November 28th, 2006 at 10:14 amHe says Iraq is not in a civil war, merely some fomentation by Al Keyeda stirring up the locals….
And, he is berating NATO allies for not sending forces into trouble spots in Afghanistan………
Put your high water boots on folks, and hike up your skirts and trousers, it’s gonna get deep………….
Goodscarrier can bite me. This is the open thread!
Comment by Zooey — November 28, 2006 @ 10:02 am
What the hell is he gonna do? Attack me with….words?
Listen, at the end of the day, I go home to a beautiful wife, to mostly great kids, and to a pain in the ass dog. Do you think for one minute that his attack will affect me in anyway, that I will be replaying his “articulate assault” again and again in my head? Uhhh, NO!
And another off topic post: Here in Southwest Michigan, it is sunny and the high might actually reach low 70’s!
November 28th, 2006 at 10:14 amGO GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Don’t get me started on high-fructose corn syrup, katy. That stuff (made with chemically engineered enzymes) is the number one contributor to obesity in America. You get the sugar rush from it but your body doesn’t recognize that it’s getting fed so you’re still hungry and down more of the stuff.
And it’s in everything. Even ketchup.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:16 amDidn’t mention the blizzard that’s due to hit by the end of the week…
November 28th, 2006 at 10:18 amKaty, then where does the stuff on the produce aisle come from? Magical elves?
I agree that we need more environmentally friendly solutions. The small gardening that I do for a few veggies is done as friendly as possible. I compost and only use friendly pesticides so I do not put that trash into my family. There is enough of that from the mainstream markets.
BTW, soybeans are made into tofu (and countless other products), which when mixed with Shitaki mushrooms, onion, cabbage, and garlic can be quite tasty!
November 28th, 2006 at 10:21 amDidn’t mention the blizzard that’s due to hit by the end of the week…
Comment by TheToonGuy
I’m not listening (fingers in ears) LA LA LA LA LA LA LA
November 28th, 2006 at 10:22 amNot trying to start something, just food for thought. Not all farmers are bad people.
Comment by robert
At no point in my comment did I say all farmers are bad people! I know a lot of farmers, and mostly they’re just rich — even if they don’t look it.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:23 amTerrorists be damned … we are NOT going back to pre 1776 Newt. Want to try? Well I got a prediction for you. George Washington. If you dont get my meaning just keep thinking … it will come to you.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:25 amDo you think for one minute that his attack will affect me in anyway, that I will be replaying his “articulate assault†again and again in my head? Uhhh, NO!
No, mostly I think he’s funny. Although it is creepy the way he was following me around.
And another off topic post: Here in Southwest Michigan, it is sunny and the high might actually reach low 70’s!
GO GLOBAL WARMING!!!
Comment by DRxJ
In Idaho this morning, it’s 1,000,000 degrees below freezing and I just scraped 6 inches of snow off my car — and it’s piling up again. I love snow! But where are my gloves…?
November 28th, 2006 at 10:25 amChemical, drug and oil companies are all in bed together.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:26 amThe drug companies love to charge the hell out’a ya to make you think you feel better from getting sick eating artificial food made using the chemical fertilizer and pesticides made from petroleum…… whew…….
I’m not listening (fingers in ears) LA LA LA LA LA LA LA
Comment by DRxJ
Wouldn’t that be (fingers in eyes)?
Just sayin’…
November 28th, 2006 at 10:27 amGingrich scares me. Ever since his drive-by takeover of the House in 98 I’ve kept waiting for him to show his agenda. He’s a political science professor, he’s smarter than any other politician out there right now, and he’s a true believer, and I’m not talking about his belief in God. Be afraid.
“reexamine freedom of speech”? WTF? He thinks separation of church and state keeps people from expressing their religion. That only makes sense if ‘expressing their religion’ means putting God into the law books and making my loyalty as a citizen linked to my belief in God.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:39 amThey would take away are freedoms to protect us from the ones that want to take away our freedoms.
Comment by dlet — November 28, 2006 @ 9:37 am
Incredible isn’t it dlet? Perhaps one of the reasons that there hasn’t been an attack on American soil since 9/11 is because one isn’t necessary. The effort to change our values and way of life has progressed quite nicely under the republicans and probably at a faster pace than the ‘AQ types’ could have imagined. bin laden smiles as newt suggests we reexamine free speach.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:39 amWell, ya’ll have fun. I’m off to the dentist. I love the dentist!
Gotta use up those bennies before Thursday!
November 28th, 2006 at 10:40 amDoes anyone else find that statement absurd?
Comment by trueblue —
November 28th, 2006 at 10:42 amKinda reminds me of the idiot who ate spoonfuls of DDT back in the 50’s to show it had no effect.
Never heard from they guy again, wonder how it went for him?
Kinda reminds me of the idiot who ate spoonfuls of DDT back in the 50’s to show it had no effect.
Never heard from they guy again, wonder how it went for him?
Comment by RUCerious
Thomas Medley was a guy who worked for GM. He proposed to add lead into gasolines to prevent engines from early-ignition (dont know the right translation). He used to show the press that lead was not harmful by drinking a full glass. He knew it was harmful but in high amounts. In fact it was believed that lead was asimilated by the human body cuz it wasnt found in urine or feces. In fact it attaches to bones producing cancer and stuff. The guy didnt stop there. He invented CFC´s that are depleting the stratospheric ozone layer. He was a true gift for humanity, no doubt.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:00 amGood thing Gingrich is pretty much inconsequencial.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:09 amGood thing Gingrich is pretty much inconsequencial.
Comment by ForTruth — November 28, 2006 @ 11:09 am
Hope you’re right, but he was viewed as kind of a wimp before 98. A lot of Republicans still listen to him.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:16 amNewt will be Newt.
I would find his victory of death proclaimation very funny were he not serious.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/nov/27/gingrich_column_discusses_victory_or_death_in_iraq
Newt’s dissing of Baker-Hamilton regarding Washington crossing the Delaware is strangely phrased. Baker-Hamilton would have advise Washington to take advantage of the (bad) weather and attack, just as Washington himself did.
If Newt can be so wrong on history can he be trusted with our future?
Not by a long shot.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:36 amThe insane Christofascist terrorist wants to defend the denial of the Constitution in order to “save a city” — and yet this is the same insane Christofascist that dick-sucks the world’s worst terrorist butcher who already lost an American city: New Orleans.
Good grief. Christians are absolutely insane.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:41 amChristian Coalition Mission:
November 28th, 2006 at 11:48 amRepresent the pro-family point of view before local councils, school boards, state legislatures and Congress
Speak out in the public arena and in the media
Train leaders for effective social and political action
Inform pro-family voters about timely issues and legislation
Protest anti-Christianity bigotry and defend the rights of people of faith
They are an admitted political organization. They are not about biblical causes, but about effecting political outcomes to proposed legislation and the election to office of those that say they wil support their mission. No where on their site describing what they are about or “What We Believe” is God mentioned. It’s all about “them”, not God. As a believer in Christ and his teachings, I am saddened that such an organization even exists.
someone needs exercise thier first amendment rights to tell newt to shut the f#ck up. it only make sense that fascists want to suppress free speech.. all for what.. the sake of something thats rapidly losing ground to “falling out of bed” as far as lethality to americans is concerned:
( http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1562978,00.html
falling out of bed has killed 3000+ americans since 9-11 )
all the alleged “sleeper” cells busted in america since 9-11 have been anything but, nothing but a bunch of poseurs and wannabees..
fascists want to shut down the “internets” because lets face it, they hate information that can’t be controlled by money. sure, there are plenty of libelous shitmongers like Drudge floating like turds in the virtual toilet, but the internet is one of the few places that hegemonic bs gets rapidly addressed and debunked. its also a place disenfranchised people can go to realize that “gosh, gee, there are lots and lots and lots of peopel who think like me, who agree that this crap im hearing on the tv is total bullshit”.
what fascist fear most is the people waking up and realizing they arent alone in thier doubt of the “truth”
November 28th, 2006 at 11:50 amJesus said blessed are the poor… so I guess the Christian Coalition just doesn’t want to get rid of the blessed among us… makes sense right?
November 28th, 2006 at 11:52 am“We think of faith as a source of comfort and understanding but find our expressions of faith sowing division; we believe ourselves to be a tolerant people even as racial, religious, and cultural tensions roil the landscape. And instead of resolving these tensions or mediating these conflicts, our politics fans them, exploits them and drives us further apart.”
November 28th, 2006 at 12:04 pmBarak Obama
I don’t think his ‘reexamination of freedom of speech” is related to the Internet, except in the case that it provides an example of what they think is wrong with freedom of speech, namely that it shouldn’t expose their secrets, only discuss topics, preferably topics that they think are valid. But what happens when he is able to make people think that the internet is different when it comes to free speech? What happens when(if) they start imposing all these restrictions on the internet in the interests of security? Once that happens, does anyone think they wont start saying “Well.. that isn’t allowed on the Internet.. why should it be allowed anywhere else?”
I wouldn’t underestimate him. Newt isn’t a right-wing wacko. He’s got brains, and when he says seemingly outlandish things, they aren’t directed at the smart people. They’re intelligently calculated to hit the ears of the masses and turn them to his side, and he’s good at it.
Gingrich is the first Republican that if he got elected to the presidency, I wouldn’t be able to tell if he was the party’s new puppet, or they were his. Bush is a right wing wacko. He does what he’s told. Newt does what he thinks is right, and what he thinks is right is scary.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:06 pmHmmm, Lizard boy,
November 28th, 2006 at 12:09 pmIs dumping your wife who’s dying of cancer included in this new set of rules?
New rule #1: People named after reptiles have to STFU. No speeches.
No reporters. No shit.
Newt’s at it again he tried to become US dictator by having that fake contract with America that no one knew about. Now he’s looking to dismanel our constitution. Newt wants to take over where Bush/Cheney left off. Now we can’t have freedom of speech. What’s next with this sicko.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:13 pmIs Newt looking for another girlfriend by putting himself in the spot light one would think after having an affair with his employee while married was enought.
Reducing poverty does not “speak†to the Christian Coalition’s base?! I wonder if any of these folks have ever read the teachings of Jesus.
Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid — November 28, 2006 @ 9:12 am
You can only give so much. These individuals will continue to come back for seconds and thirds……. I believe in giving, but only to a certain extent. They have to learn how to survive with their hands and feet. Instead of giving directly, we need to create programs to ensure that they earn their keep in our country. Jesus said, “before you work, you must eat”.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:14 pmAnd least Rev Hunter had the “cohonas†to step down, and not to blindly follow like so many do (Hello, St.Daryll, I’m talking to you!)
Comment by DRxJ — November 28, 2006 @ 9:29 am
Again, Jesus said,”you must work before you eat”. We need to create programs instead of funding the poor directly. Second, he should step down. Why bring global warming into a christian organization? Before we address the global warming issue, I want substantial proof that this is the reason why the arctic ice caps are deteriorating. I’ve read too many articles that don’t reflect proof/facts.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:22 pmAnd You Thought – the ‘christian’ thing to do is to pass laws regulating what a woman can or cannot do with her own body and laws discriminating against whom one can or cannot marry based solely upon gender. Those are apparently the only two causes ‘christ’ championed. Heaven forbid the followers of ‘christ’ concern themselves with those who die from “low food security†or war or polluting the planet until it can no longer sustain human life.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — November 28, 2006 @ 9:28 am
There’s more to holiness than those two issues, but I know global warming isn’t one of them.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:26 pmKaty, then where does the stuff on the produce aisle come from?
oops – good point… well, here amidst the corn and soybean fields of illinois i forgot about that… but those california veggie fields are another example of what is seriously wrong with our food production – contaminated spinach, anyone?
I agree that we need more environmentally friendly solutions. The small gardening that I do for a few veggies is done as friendly as possible. I compost and only use friendly pesticides so I do not put that trash into my family. There is enough of that from the mainstream markets.
wow – i am impressed! … you don’t happen to have a like-minded, progressive liberal friend looking for … never mind… heh…
BTW, soybeans are made into tofu (and countless other products), which when mixed with Shitaki mushrooms, onion, cabbage, and garlic can be quite tasty!
Comment by robert — November 28, 2006 @ 10:21 am
um… tofu… definitely needs all those other veggies to be palatable – in my opinion… i know, i know… it’s good for you, too!
soy bio-diesel is catching on in these parts…
November 28th, 2006 at 12:31 pmi’m not sure of all soy’s uses off the top of my head… many and varied tho…
Let’s take a second to examine the two positions in the global warming debate as we know it today. Specifically, let’s consider the ramifications of each position if said position turns out to be correct and the consequences if said position turns out to be incorrect.
Position 1. Global warming is not caused by man and is simply part of the earth’s natural cycle.
Correct:
Companies whose operation or products are linked to greenhouse gases continue to profit until their preferred fossil fuel runs out. At which point the company will collapse.
Incorrect:
Greenhouse emissions continue until fossil fuels are used up or until existence on earth is impossible.
Position 2: Man is responsible in part for the current warming trend.
Correct:
Research into clean-burning fuel sources discovers fossil fuel alternatives that free us from our dependency on fossil fuels and the nations whose borders contain them. Life on earth continues to thrive.
Incorrect:
Research into clean-burning fuel sources discovers fossil fuel alternatives that free us from our dependency on fossil fuels and the nations whose borders contain them.
I don’t understand how this is even an issue.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:44 pmI want substantial proof that this is the reason why the arctic ice caps are deteriorating. I’ve read too many articles that don’t reflect proof/facts.
Comment by Daryll — November 28, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
That’s your problem. You’re reading articles when you should be looking for information.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:53 pmI don’t understand how this is even an issue.
Comment by erock — November 28, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
It’s an issue because every politician alive today is going to be dead before the earth becomes uninhabitable. It’s still an issue because billions of dollars depend on the current resource management structure (find as much oil as possible for us to use)
Keep in mind Bush want’s us to get off our foreign dependency on oil, so that his and his friends companies make money and companies that import oil don’t. They can’t advance that agenda unless they minimize the Global Warming issue, even if they don’t believe that Global Warming is not happening or not the fault of human activity.
Besides, since when has politics ever had anything to do with the truth?
November 28th, 2006 at 1:21 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/28/likability.poll.reut/index.html
“Americans know who he is, and have pretty much decided they don’t like him,” said Brown. He noted the poll found that 95 percent of respondents said they had heard enough about Kerry, who lost the 2004 White House race to President Bush, to rate the Massachusetts Democrat.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:23 pmI can understand why politicians and and corporations refuse to acknowledge the existence of (or severity of) global warming. What I can’t fathom is how the average citizen thinks he/she will benefit by supporting the oil companies position that is so clearly self-serving.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:27 pmhttp://www.cnn.com/ 2006/ POLITICS/ 11/ 28/ likability.poll.reut/ index.html
“Americans know who he is, and have pretty much decided they don’t like him,†said Brown. He noted the poll found that 95 percent of respondents said they had heard enough about Kerry, who lost the 2004 White House race to President Bush, to rate the Massachusetts Democrat.
Comment by Tundra — November 28, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
‘Feeling thermometer’?? WTF is this?? The hippie poll??
“Hey.. I get some good vibes off this candidate over here.” Real impartial and scientific there.
Anyway, polls about presidential candidates mean nothing right now. Most voters switch off their brains when election time rolls around, otherwise Bush never would have got two terms, so the one with the slickest commercial will be the front-runner. Kerry’s as viable a candidate as any of the others out there. A LOT can happen in two years.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:34 pmI can understand why politicians and and corporations refuse to acknowledge the existence of (or severity of) global warming. What I can’t fathom is how the average citizen thinks he/she will benefit by supporting the oil companies position that is so clearly self-serving.
Comment by erock — November 28, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
Because they believe their candidate. For some reason, it’s not so clear to them.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:35 pmBecause they believe their candidate. For some reason, it’s not so clear to them.
Comment by Swordsbane — November 28, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
I was hoping for an answer other than “because they are sheep.” Perhaps someone who doesn’t believe in global warming can help me.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:41 pmYou’ve already lost one, Newt. Remember New Orleans?
November 28th, 2006 at 1:43 pmPerhaps someone who doesn’t believe in global warming can help me.
Comment by erock — November 28, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
You clearly have a brain. I don’t think you’ll understand their answer any better.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:44 pmOn the other hand erock. If you can stand it.. it looks like Daryll doesn’t buy the whole Global Warming thing.
Daryll. Can you tell us why?
November 28th, 2006 at 1:46 pmRegarding food: everyone would do well to look up the effects of MSG and hydrogenated vegetable oils.
Apparently these substances are addictive, and the withdrawl symptoms mimic hunger pangs. You’ll note most snack foods have partially hydrogenated vegetable oils in their ingredients. So do most breakfast cereals. You’ll find eliminating foods that contain those substances makes controlling weight far easier.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:47 pmApparently these substances are addictive, and the withdrawl symptoms mimic hunger pangs. You’ll note most snack foods have partially hydrogenated vegetable oils in their ingredients. So do most breakfast cereals. You’ll find eliminating foods that contain those substances makes controlling weight far easier.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — November 28, 2006 @ 1:47 pm
Odd. Most breakfast cereals make me full faster than anything else, and most foods I know with HVO’s in them (chips, etc) do the same thing.
The problem with weight control is that everyones metabolism is unique, but all diets are general. Our laws about advertising don’t help much though.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:59 pmYou clearly have a brain. I don’t think you’ll understand their answer any better.
Comment by Swordsbane — November 28, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
Sadly I think you’re right. I llike to think that the decisions of most people are driven by reason and logic. However, the more I observe the American people’s reactions to issues like this one, the more I believe that people are fundamentally motivated by fear. Fear of change, fear of what they can’t understand, and above all, fear of things they cannot control. In the case of global warming, its all of the above fears and the power of denial that will lead us headlong into oblivion.
Exxon/Mobil ‘08
November 28th, 2006 at 2:02 pmYou clearly have a brain. I don’t think you’ll understand their answer any better.
Comment by Swordsbane — November 28, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
Sadly I think you’re right. I llike to think that the decisions of most people are driven by reason and logic. However, the more I observe the American people’s reactions to issues like this one, the more I believe that people are fundamentally motivated by fear. Fear of change, fear of what they can’t understand, and above all, fear of things they cannot control. In the case of global warming, its all of the above fears and the power of denial that will lead us headlong into oblivion.
Exxon/Mobil ‘08
Comment by erock — November 28, 2006 @ 2:02 pm
A lot of it is simply that we’re not used to thinking so far ahead. Even the worst case scenarios for Global Warming are around 50 years from now, and what we’re doing right now will affect the outcome. You not only have to convince them that they’re doing the wrong things, but that the right thing to do will leave them with less money than before. No one wants to hear that, and they’ll grab hold of any theory that looks like it says something else.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:20 pm81, do the research. Think about it. If those substances are addictive, theh body’s response when it receives the addictive substance is to be satiated. But the hunger pangs (read: withdrawl symptoms) kick in sooner than with foods without the substances. Need a mid-morning snack? Get the munchies in the afternoon?
What are the consequences of putting an addictive substance into snack foods? The more you snack, the more you want to snack. Sales go up, obesity goes up.
Google it like I did when a co-worker mentioned it to me a couple of years ago. It’s rather disturbing.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:29 pmNo one wants to hear that, and they’ll grab hold of any theory that looks like it says something else.
Comment by Swordsbane — November 28, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
Again, I entirely agree with you. I wish there were some dissension in here. Where is Daryll?
November 28th, 2006 at 2:36 pm81, do the research. Think about it. If those substances are addictive, theh body’s response when it receives the addictive substance is to be satiated. But the hunger pangs (read: withdrawl symptoms) kick in sooner than with foods without the substances. Need a mid-morning snack? Get the munchies in the afternoon?
What are the consequences of putting an addictive substance into snack foods? The more you snack, the more you want to snack. Sales go up, obesity goes up.
Google it like I did when a co-worker mentioned it to me a couple of years ago. It’s rather disturbing.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — November 28, 2006 @ 2:29 pm
Not disparaging your research. I’m sure it’s accurate and well researched. Just explaining my own reactions.. and no, don’t get the munchies in the afternoon. or a midmorning snack. Usually I eat breakfast and then dinner, skipping lunch. Sometimes I get hungry and eat a candy bar or drink a soda. Of course I know my metabolism is pretty weird, so I guess you can’t use me as an example either way.
On the other hand, the research you are describing lists tendencies. Going by such research, anyone who smoked pot would become a drug addict and anyone who drank beer would become an alchoholic. It doesn’t happen that way, of course. Take the research for what it is. If you’re looking for a reason why you can eat a bag of doritos and be ready for more in a couple hours but eating all your vegitables get’s you through till the morning, then MSG and HVOs might be the culprit. If you’re wondering why you weigh half a ton, you’ll need to look somewhere else.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:41 pmI think the first sentence puts farmers in the wrong light on this one. Of course they may be happy about this ruling, but it wasn’t farmers who were pushing this thing. It should read Terminators are happy. Farming does its fair share of polluting, but they don’t need anymore shit piled on them.
November 28th, 2006 at 4:15 pmi tried posting this on the FAST thread this morning and it didn’t show up – subject matter must me too much for TPs “tastes”… tuff shite…
November 28th, 2006 at 4:39 pmhere goes again… i’m just back from some more yard work and hear randi talking about it, as exasperated about it as i am…
did you hear about the man in chicago who set himself on fire as a protest against this war???? …probably not… it’s not covered my any major news outlets… only made a local paper when a curious reporter decided to dig into the story… the link i posted was the international herald tribune, also globe and mail – both foreign…
now it’s posted at http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003438519 via randi’s site…
.
good point, redstatesblue – it’s the chemical companies pushing this stuff…
November 28th, 2006 at 4:40 pm#72 – Tundra,
November 28th, 2006 at 4:51 pmWhy Rudolph Giuliani even placed is a mystery to me. His morals make Clinton look like a saint, yet he tries to shove morality down the throats of everyone else. He has slept with more women than any Saudi Prince, but considers underwear ads (either sex) in the NY Times as immoral.
I know it’s a bitter pill. But we need to realize that the governing elite always lies and deceives. How great of a
concept the idea of “Of The People, By The People, For The People” indeed was. On second review it will unfortunately appear that something is missing here. It’s the human factor. The factor that includes greed, deceipt and lies for the benefit of personal gains for the “By The People” – people, who have created a cast of ‘political power holders’ that limits greatly the influence of the “Of The People” – people in joining the political process that was once intended to be directed into “For The People”.
It seems illusory that a political structure as we witness it as status quo bears in itself the need to act on behalf of “For The People”. The obvious circle of beneficial actions is limited to the political and economical power cast. The rules of the Government do not apply to the rulers themselves. The political elite enjoys greatly a lawlessness or at least a total lack of responsiblity towards the empowering masses. Through focus on issues that evoke fears amongst the empowering mass, a intellectual rift between the rulers and the ruled is guaranteed. Obedience as means to maintain this rift is neccessary and demanded by offering as only alternative the unacceptable term of being unpatriotic or evil.
To comprehend the full extend of deceiption by the rulers it is advised to expect the worst intentions behind doubtful requirements for ‘peaceful coexcistance’ amongst the “Of The People” or ruled cast of people.
Whereas the intend in the following example seems to be limited to an aera widely perceived as ‘Cold War’, it must be understood that the practice and the mindset of the rulers that dwells behind those ideas is still at large and of greater power than during formentioned times.
The example I want to give is called ‘Operation Northwoods’ and ‘Operation Mongoose’. Both accessible through ‘National Security Archive’:
http://www_gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621004%20Minutes%20of%20Meeting%20of%20Special.pdf
and
http://www_gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/620219%20Memo%20for%20the%20Chief%20of%20Ops..pdf
Even if this seems to be ‘Cold Coffee’ it needs to be stressed out that there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that there has been a change in attitude over the last 44 years. The contrary appears as obvious. The republican rulers extended their powers and methods of rule to a degree where the initial notion of ‘Of The People, By The People, For The People’ has only ‘historical value’ and is no longer feasible. In times of ‘Terrorism’, Terror is just one resort to achieve the goal of cementing political power. The so called ‘War on Terror’ requires of course the abandonment of the use of Terror as means to fight terrorism.
The limitation of the ‘Freedom of Speech’ is a step into total control of the ruled, eliminating any spark that would lead to widespread doubt about the political powers.
That’s all folks.
The dots are all there. Not to possess a pen does not qualify as an excuse.
Truefully Yours
November 28th, 2006 at 5:11 pmKarma is just that
Sorry, this is the more relevant document. Somehow I got it mixed up (dial-up) ;-)
http://www_gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
P.S. Replace the underscore after www with a dot…
November 28th, 2006 at 5:21 pmAt a “First Amendment awards dinner,†former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) said yesterday “the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.†He said a “different set of rules†may be needed to limit “terrorists’ ability to use the Internet and free speech.â€
Let’s see…
- The NSA can monitor anyone they choose with warrantless wiretapping.
- Every passenger boarding a plane in the U.S. is searched as if they are a potential terrorist.
- The NSA reportedly sought phone records on tens of millions of Americans, again marking all of us potential terrorists.
Thus we can safely assume that Newt will apply his new rules to each and every one of us.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:42 pm