An essay on religion

As a Catholic I get flak about our traditions. But they’re actually pretty well-grounded. One example is at end of Mass-the pastor proclaims “The Mass has ended” and the congregation enthusiastically responds “Thanks be to God.”

I hereby formally endorse Paul Burns for President of the United States

Paul Burns has proven himself to be an exceptional leader. He has devoted years of service to advancing the social state of this nation. He is a fighter for kitten rights.

Once in a generation a public servant appears in the spotlight. That time is now, and the servant is Paul Burns.

As he himself would say, “PB&J: Spread the word.”

Why Obama will win

1. 36 million people voted in the Democratic presidential primary. Eventually the shock of loss will wear off and most Hillary supporters will support the Democratic nominee. Just the thought of McCain should keep most in line with Obama.

2. Money. Obama has raised over $235 million during the course of his campaign. Money talks, especially when that money comes from more than a million and a half donors.

3. A majority of the country says we’re heading in the wrong direction. McCain and Obama claim they’re about change, but when you vote with Bush 95% of the time and go fundraising with him…it doesn’t help.

4. Fair media coverage. The media hasn’t attacked McCain too much since he got the nomination. The media also loves talking about Obama, whether in a good or bad tone. After the nasty primary race they’re not much more the media can accuse Obama of.

5. Different policies. One reason the primary was so nasty was because Clinton and Obama have nearly identical platforms. Obama and McCain have almost polar opposite platforms. The general election will seem a cake-walk when Obama doesn’t have to rely on personal attacks.

6. Volunteers. Obama has a national network of volunteers, the reason for his overwhelming caucus victories. With the nation in full primary swing, momentum has swung to Obama, and it’ll stay that way.

It’s finally over

The exhausting, drawn-out Democratic Presidential primary has come to an end. After 54 contests and 35,000,000 votes, we finally have an unofficial candidate.

I say unofficial because Clinton hasn’t dropped out yet. What do you expect? A candidate this stubborn and egotistical doesn’t admit defeat easily. Sure, she will. But it’ll take some time, just like it took her time to realize the primary election wasn’t going to be a cakewalk.

The funny thing is that Obama was mathematically guaranteed the nomination by early March. But it kept going. Reverend Wright was brought up. Hillary slammed him to talking about “guns and religion.” Of course, Hillary and her husband haven’t exactly been grassroots for the past sixteen years.

Well now it’s assured. Every time she lost a front, she changed it. First it depended on delegates, then superdelegates, then popular vote. Every time she lost, she changed the goal post. Now Obama has won every front, and there’s nothing she can do.

I don’t think he’ll pick her as vice-president. There are a lot of people that don’t like Hillary Clinton. The kind of people that don’t like Barack Obama wouldn’t vote for him just because he has Clinton on his ticket. During this season, when one candidate loses, his supporters say they won’t support the other candidate. They always do.

So Barack Obama, don’t pick Hillary. Pick Bill Richardson. He’s a governor of a Hispanic state and Hispanic himself, he’s older, and has been Governor, UN Ambassador, Energy Secretary and Representative.

No one can top a beard like that.

Another pick, I think, is Chuck Hagel. Obama could fulfill his promise of reaching across the aisle by picking this Vietnam vet, former VA secretary under Raegan and Nebraska Senator. Hagel has said this will be his last term as Senator.

I think I’ll also plot my candidate support.
Q2 2007: Obama (Thought he was cool)
Q3 2007: Kucinich (Starting Digging)
Q4 2007: Paul (Kucinich can’t win)
Q1 2008: Obama (Paul can’t win)

And here I am. As you can see, I don’t care if they’re Democrats or GOP. Iraq war opposition, good economic policy and stricter foreign policy is what I care about.

Now that all liberals have a common opponent it’s time to throw our weight around. For years pundits have been saying that only a Democrat can win this year. They’re right. He leads in every poll.

YES WE CAN.

Bush lies about lying

If two wrongs make a right, do two lies make a truth? Not only did Bush lie about Iraq and WMDs, he lied last week when he said the intelligence was faulty.

In an interview with the Politico and Yahoo! News, President Bush blamed faulty intelligence.

“I don’t think so. … Intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was.”

“Do I think somebody lied to me?” he said. “No, I don’t. I think it was just, you know, they analyzed the situation and came up with the wrong conclusion.”

Yes, they did analyze the situation. They came to the right conclusion. You ignored it and now you’re blaming intelligence,

Let’s take a look at the intelligence the Bush administration ignored going into Iraq:

1. As early as September 12, 2001, Bush administration officials quietly questioned the claims. Richard Clarke, Bush’s then counterterrorism advisor, responded to Bush’s query whether Hussein was linked to the attacks.

“But you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq.”

2. Beginning November of 2001, Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith led a team to explore the relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Almost a year later, the team briefed Colin Powell and then-CIA director George Tenet on their findings. On September 25th 2002, Bush linked the two:

“They’re both risks, they’re both dangerous. The difference, of course, is that Al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn’t, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that Al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam’s madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.”

In July of the same year, the Defense Intelligence Agency found “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda has not been established, despite a large body of anecdotal information.”

In April 2001, the CIA drafted a report called Iraqi Support for Terrorism, that found “no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaeda strike.”

3. September 8th, 2002:

“We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know there have been shipments going into . . . Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes that really are only suited to—high-quality aluminum tools that only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs.”

In April 2001, the Energy Department concluded that “while the gas centrifuge application cannot be ruled out, we assess that the procurement activity more likely supports a different application, such as conventional ordnance production.” In September of 2002 when the CIA was preparing the NIE, the Department reminded them of their findings. The CIA ignored them.

4. In his September 28 radio address, Bush claimed:

The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.”

Until three weeks ago, there was no National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq and WMDS. The CIA scrambled to complete one, later debunked by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”

5. His 2003 State of the Union addresses mentioned Iraq buying Uranium from African countries.

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

As early as March 2002, the intelligence community was divided about the link. During that month the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research published a report named “Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq Is Unlikely.”

During July of that year, the Energy Department found “no information indicating that any of the uranium shipments arrived in Iraq” and the “amount of uranium specified far exceeds what Iraq would need even for a robust nuclear weapons program.”

The 2006 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence confirmed this:
“Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq was ‘vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake’ from Africa. Postwar findings support the assessment in the NIE of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are ‘highly dubious.”

6. On February 3, 2003 Colin Powell presented to the UN.

“My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.”

He also claimed that “a senior terrorist operative telling how Iraq provided training in these weapons [of mass destruction] to Al Qaeda.”

Six days earlier, the CIA had concluded that the detainee “was not in a position to know if any training had taken place.”

No Mr. Bush, the intelligence was correct. What you took from that intelligence and told the American people is what’s flawed.

Thanks Center for Public Integrity!

var MyShoutItURL = “http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/162924″;

Cal Thomas: Democrats are liars (Ignores Bush)

This was in the Indy Star today:

Fraud: “deceit, trickery or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.”

The HBO movie “Recount” tells the story from the Democratic Party point of view that the 2000 presidential election was improperly won by George W. Bush because of the trickery of his fellow Republicans and the Supreme Court. That has been shown to be untrue by no less a source than the reliably liberal and pro-Democratic New York Times, but facts rarely influence propaganda.

Here’s a better example of fraud straight from the donkey’s mouth that you can bet will never be told on film. It comes courtesy of 12-term Congressman Paul Kanjorski. During a town meeting last August in his Pennsylvania district, Rep. Kanjorski made a remarkable statement about the 2006 election in which Democrats recaptured the majority. Rep. Kanjorski acknowledged that he and his fellow Democrats “sort of stretched the facts” about their intention to end the war in Iraq and bring American troops home.

A video of his remarks, now on YouTube, shows Kanjorski explaining that Democrats pushed the rhetoric about the war “as far as we can to the end of the fleet – didn’t say it, but we implied it – that if we won the congressional elections we could stop the war.” Democrats also promised to bring down gas prices if they won a majority. That worked out well, didn’t it?

“Now anybody who’s a good student of government,” continued Kanjorski in a condescending manner, “would know it wasn’t true.” I wonder how non-students of government felt about that insult? “But you know,” he said, “the temptation to want to win back the Congress – we sort of stretched the facts.”

Many politicians “stretch the facts” at some point in their careers, but this was more than that. While Republicans do the same thing on another level – like campaigning for spending cuts and then outspending Democrats when they become a majority – what Kanjorski has admitted to is outright fraud. Those who don’t believe in the war, which includes some Republicans, had a right to believe that if they cast their votes for Democrats in the 2006 election, a Democratic congressional majority would end the war. Instead, while huffing and puffing about it, Democrats have continued to approve funds for Iraq and Afghanistan, attaching numerous pet pork projects. Pork covers a multitude of sins.

Some Democrats have made their careers by lying about Republicans and their attempts at necessary reforms of Social Security. My Democratic friend, Bob Beckel, likes to tell the story of his mother who lived in Florida and called him after seeing campaign commercials, which he produced, that claimed Republicans were about to eliminate Social Security. Beckel says he told her, “Mom, don’t worry about it. You vote for Democrats on Tuesday and come Wednesday your Social Security will be back.”

Kanjorski has taken cynicism about Washington and politicians to a new and lower level.
No wonder the disapproval rating of Congress is higher than it is for President Bush.

In cases of fraud, the victim usually has redress in the courts. With political fraud, voters must seek redress at the polls. They should start – but not stop – with Rep. Kanjorski, who is faced with his first competitive race since 2002. But he has a lot of co-conspirators and even one who is not a “good student of government” ought to know when they’ve been duped by fraudulent political practices.

Cal Thomas attacks the Democrats for not living up to their election promise. The Democrats have the President fighting them, who vetoes every bill that tries to fulfill their election promise of getting out.

By attacking Democrats for lying, Thomas ignores the bigger, more fraudulent elephant in the room. Does Bush saying “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons” (9/26/02) sound familiar? Or maybe McCain’s claim that “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” (9/4/02) or Rumsfeld’s infamous “I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks or five months. But it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.” (11/14/02)

Kanjorski honestly admits his party lied. Bush lies about lying by blaming faulty intelligence. “Intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was.” (5/13/08) This contradicts a late September CIA testimony that found “no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaeda strike.” Is that double fraud?

Cal Thomas ignoring past 8 years

I stumbled across this gem in the Indy Star this morning…

OBAMA: SEE NO EVIL

By Cal Thomas

Tribune Media Services

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is the polar opposite of John F. Kennedy.

Judging from recent comments, Obama apparently would pay no price, bear no burden, forsake any hardship, support any foe and oppose any friend that wished to pursue liberty. Kennedy understood that evil exists in the world. He saw it in World War II as his generation defeated the evil that gripped Europe and Japan. And he witnessed it as president when Nikita Khrushchev approved the building of the Berlin Wall and the installation of Soviet missiles in Cuba, acts that flowed from Khrushchev’s perception that the young president was weak and inexperienced.

Obama thinks he can negotiate with evil and transform evil into something else. Initially his foreign policy platform was a naive pledge to meet “unconditionally” with the leaders of Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba and other nations dominated by dictators. In recent days he has changed his tune somewhat. He would still meet with the heads of these mini evil empires without preconditions, but “there must be careful preparation. We will set a clear agenda.”

This leads to an important question: On what basis does a free nation negotiate with nations that are not free? Does Obama expect leaders who got where they are by undemocratic, even violent means, to embrace press freedom, religious liberty, political pluralism and rights for women? What would evil leaders demand of him? Any concession given to dictators, who are not known for keeping their promises, would surely result in the United States being taken less seriously and contribute to the undermining of our national security.

In his recent speech to the Israeli Knesset, President Bush pointedly noted that evil cannot be accommodated, negotiated with, pampered, or appeased. It must be opposed and defeated.

Obama’s “strategy” for dealing with evil is the progeny of a secular age that sees everything bad as curable through counseling, good intentions masquerading as wishful thinking and/or pharmaceutical intervention. Prosperity and a sense of entitlement have dulled our senses to what evil looks like. These days, evil is the political party to which you don’t belong and the ideology to which you do not subscribe.

Evil has a definition. Dictionary.com calls it: “morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked.” There is a presumption contained in this definition. It is that a standard exists by which evil (and its opposite, good) may be judged. Too many of us have been taught in government schools and by contemporary culture that such notions belong to another, less sophisticated era. In the Internet age “evil” has become extinct.

Obama’s only foreign policy strategy seems to be diplomacy, not the defeat of evil. Such an approach when not supported by a credible threat of military power is bound to encourage more evil, not less. Obama debunks the value of experience, claiming the experience of President Bush and John McCain got us into the lengthy Iraq War. That war didn’t start in Iraq and it won’t end there, even if our objectives are achieved. Those objectives are closer to being realized than they were a year ago, but Obama and his fellow Democrats cannot acknowledge progress because they are preoccupied with victory at the polls more than victory over evil.

Recently, The Washington Times carried a story by Rowan Scarborough that quoted intelligence officials who believe terrorist attacks could occur in the early month’s of the next president’s administration. Terrorists attacked in February 1993 just two months after Bill Clinton’s Inauguration and again on Sept. 11, 2001, less than eight months after George W. Bush became president.

The central question for voters ought to be this: who do we want in the White House should another terrorist attack occur; one who seeks to negotiate with evil, or one who is a warrior and wants to crush it?

Ah, good old warmongering. No better way to get started in the morning.

First I’ll start off with his lack of sources. Cal Thomas follows in the paths of media pundits by attempting to analyze Obama from one quote. I still don’t see what’s wrong with talking to Iran. Of course, the Neocons might be sore after the Iran bombing option got uncovered.

Next, he says Obama blames McCain’s and Bush’s war decisions…on their experience. We don’t even get a quote for this one, Lord knows what Obama actually said. Obama usually chooses his words pretty carefully, and that doesn’t sound like something he’d say.

Next…what is evil? Well, according to Thomas, it’s “morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked.” That’s right, now we need to wage war on sluts, lying and obesity too. Just because the almighty US doesn’t agree with someone does not make them evil.

A government can’t fight evil. They can fight threats. Who/what are threats to the US? Bears? Iran? No.

Thomas asks if we want a president who negotiates with evil. Maybe he should ask if we want one that can recognize what’s evil and what’s actually a threat the US can deal with.

The candidate is Barack Obama and the threat is world policing and the eternal warfare state.

Is Hilary Rosen a sign of things to come?

We all love us some Huffpo. The #1 Technorati blog. I don’t even know if blog is the right term for this news site.

Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut (That’s a long but) they just hired a new political director. No, not a politician or journalist. They hired a former CEO of the RIAA. Hilary Rosen, whose time at the RIAA included:

The dismantling of the Napster and Audiogalaxy Internet file-trading services.

Passage of the controversial Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Initiating the Grokster lawsuit on which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the record industry

Passage of the Performance Rights Act creating a public performance right for the first time for sound recordings

Passage of the Record Rental Act providing additional rental protection for sound recordings

Passage of numerous trade treaties providing increased protection for US intellectual property abroad

So now you can blame her for DRM AND watering down the Huffpo. Why do I think she’ll do that?

Well, does Rosen seem like the kind of person who sticks up for individuals? Or fights corporatism and for a free press? Not really.

Arianna Huffington said in a Wired interview that having Rosen on staff would help with political connections.

Now, back to the buuuuuuuuuuuuut. Isn’t that what CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC and FOX do? Trade in impartiality and fairness for contacts? Water down their coverage for easier leads? I hope the Huffpo remains an independent source for news. It would be a terrible thing to waste.

PS-email them at info@huffingtonpost.com

4 reasons Crystal Skull rocked, 4 reasons it sucked

Why it rocked

Historical references. The Last Crusade had Hitler, Raiders had…more Nazis and Doom had the British Empire. Crystal Skull took it to a new level-atomic bombing, high schoolers, and McCarthyists. It was literally heart-wrenching for me when the FBI agent questioned Jones’ war record. The jock-greaser fight was not only funny, but slightly realistic.

Change of scenery and pace. Since Doom was previously seen as the lesser of the three, we’ll exclude it. Raiders took you to the Peruvian jungle, Nepal, Egypt and the isolated island. The Last Crusade began with Jones as a Boy Scout in Utah, then swept you to Venice, Austria and finally the Valley of the Crescent Moon.

Likewise, Crystal Skull begins in the Nevada desert. The movie has a great moment in the test town, and Indy’s foray into Orellana’s tomb was truly frightening.

Old-school plot. Double-crossers, riddles and ancient legends all stay true to the Indiana Jones franchise. Most movie-goers are familiar enough with El Dorado to be engaged.

Big enemies. The fight between Indy and the Soviet giant was especially entertaining. Every Jones movie features a huge enemy that Indy uses his cunning skills to defeat.

Why it sucked

The sidekick. Raiders had the feisty Marion Ravenwood. Doom had Short and Round. Crusade had Sean Connery. Crystal Skull has…Shia Lebeouf.

A sidekick has to be LIKEABLE. “Mutt”, as he’s called in the movie, isn’t appealing at all. He spends almost the whole movie being a douche to Indiana Jones. I hope Spielburg isn’t banking on Lebeouf to eventually replace Ford, because he can’t. He’s too small and funny looking.

The aliens. Indiana Jones movies aren’t totally realistic, but they’re just a little plausible. Everyone’s heard of the search for the Holy Grail.

But aliens? A flying saucer underneath a Mayan temple? Is this Men in Black or Indiana Jones? It’s just plain weird, and spoils the mood of the movie. It’s an action-adventure, not a sci-fi. There was no reason to even involve aliens, the script could have easily created some sort of natural phenomenon to explain the skull instead of…aliens.

The main enemy.

Remember the Nazi that got chopped up by the propeller? That guy was scary. And the prince in Doom that used voodoo on Indy? He was freaky.

But Spalko is absolutely ridiculous. Her accent just comes across as faked. A rapier? Sorry, a huge-ass sword might have worked, but not a rapier.

I don’t mean to be sexist, but Indy always has to battle a man. That’s just how it is.

Closure. The first three movies simply left off with Indy still single, still adventurous. With a wife and soon, the movie threatens to replace kickassery with family drama. Every “awww” moment translates into plot restriction in later movies.

(I know the script for 5 is already written…Doesn’t mean it’s good)

Will the Indiana Jones franchise fall down the path of James Bond-struggling to find a replacement for Harrison Ford, until they find a perfect one? I really hope it’s not Shia Lebeouf, who certainly isn’t a badass like Ford.

According to Brave New Films, I’m a celebrity.

I got that email because I’m subscribed to Brave New Films.
My name is Michael Carper. I’m not a celebrity, I’m a 17 year old student. A Google search reveals nothing striking.

The funny thing is, I didn’t even participate in that Shopping Spree thing. This is slightly humorous.