The Freedom Clock, started over a thousand days ago, indicates that we are exactly one year away from the end of George The Worst's reign. At which point one hopes that the country will rise, blinking, as if shaking off an extended and hideous dream, and return to the land of the living.
Long national nightmare indeed.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at January 19, 2008 12:34 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI still chuckle when I think of a bumper sticker I saw one day on the way to work:
"I never thought I'd miss Nixon."
I can’t say I’ve ever been really crazy about the guy (or voted for him for that matter) but, at the risk of starting an incredible sh*tstorm, I get this feeling that history is going to be kind to him.
As a president, he stirs deep emotion from his critics and admittedly, I am not happy with some of the things his administration has done. Still, because we are so caught up in the present we cannot see the effect a chief executive can have on the nation’s path until many years later.
What does stick with me though is how many people ran around eight years ago thinking we wouldn’t survive a Bush presidency but, here we are 8 years later with some very interesting prospects for his successor.
Over the course of my lifetime, 10 different men have led the country, only 7 of which I can clearly remember. Bush Junior certainly wasn’t the best but, he wasn’t the worst either.
It's a good thing Bush was elected when I was an adult, when the years go by quicker (it doesn't seem like seven). I remember when the first Bush was elected, it felt strange, because it seemed like Reagan had been president forever (since he was in office from the time I six years old until I was 14, so he was really all I knew).
I think he will be remembered as a dangerous fool who started messes economic, military and political and left them for his successors to resolve. I've lived during the administrations of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton and GW Bush, and loved none of them.
Eisenhower - fairly moderate and not bewitched by the military-industrial complex, but a horrendous public speaker.
Kennedy - foolhardy in foreign relations, probably well-meaning, and remembered fondly mostly because of his personal charm and tragic assassination, rather than any great accomplishment.
Johnson - crude, well-meaning, and completely destroyed by his incomprehension of the Vietnam War situation.
Nixon - tremendously well prepared for the office by education and experience, but so terribly flawed in character that he destroyed himself and harmed the nation.
Ford - a genial nobody who was defeated by an incompetent opponent in the 1976 election.
Carter - Small-minded and temperamentally unsuited to perform the job of President of the United States.
Reagan - Enormously charming, but completely distrustful of the checks and balances of the American political system. Iran/Contra was treasonous and moronic foolishness belonging in a James Bond movie. I believe his intellectual rot began long before he left office.
GHW Bush - it is possible he could once have been a competent President, but his eight years as Vice President left him cynical and tired.
Clinton - brilliant, well prepared to serve as President, and hobbled by serious flaws of character, thinking with his penis.
GW Bush - stupid, incurious, hostile and jaded, with absolutely no respect for the constitutional system: a criminal.
"I can’t say I’ve ever been really crazy about the guy (or voted for him for that matter) but, at the risk of starting an incredible sh*tstorm, I get this feeling that history is going to be kind to him. "
I think the opposite.
A year or two ago some historians took a look at who were considered the best and worst Presidents in US history. There was a very clear pattern amoung the worst Presidents. They all served during long, unpopular military conflicts that didn't have clear victories. I don't remember all the details, but the criteria matched Bush extremely well.
In the end, there's nothing good to remember about Bush. Most of what people like about him is the personal feeling they get when he speaks. Thirty years from now that will have faded away and historians will only be left with the facts of his Presidency, almost none of which shows improvement from when he entered the office.
I voted for Bush in 2000 and against him in 2004. I would have liked for this to have been a good Presidency, but it will definitely go down in history as a bad one.
George Bush goes to a primary school to talk to the kids to get a little PR.
After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand and George asks him his name.
"Stanley," responds the little boy.
"And what is your question, Stanley?"
"I have 4 questions:
First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?" Fourth, why are we so worried about gay-marriage when ½ of all Americans don't have health insurance?"
Just then, the bell rings for recess. George Bush informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess
When they resume George says, "OK, where were we? Oh, that's right, Question time. Who has a question?"
Another little boy puts up his hand. George points him out and asks him his name.
"Johnnie" he responds.
"And what is your question, Johnnie?"
"Actually Sir, I have 6 questions:
First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? Fourth, why are we so worried about gay marriage when 1/2 of all Americans don't have health insurance? Fifth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And Sixth, what happened to Stanley ?"
Yeah, I've read that joke. It's funny.
I noticed that the year was coming up soon myself. But Peter, aren't you a day early in this announcement? I know what the clock says, but January 20th is tomorrow. Won't it be 365 days beginning then?
Are you certain Bush's time in office is over next year?
Constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz and Washington Post columnist Gene Weingarten uncovered a scenario where Bush can get legally get another term in office.
Reality is much stranger than fiction.
366 days, alas. This is a leap year.
As for ""I never thought I'd miss Nixon."", believe it or not, there's an op-ed piece by one former Senator George McGovern out there where he says:
"I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?"
Free hint to the young'uns; look up who Nixon defeated in '72, and what Watergate was initially about.
Full piece at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010404308.html
As Tom points out, it is only Jan 19th
Bush's replacement enters office on Jan 20th at noon.
I know this quite well as I was born exactly 24 hours after Nixon entered office.
W makes Nixon look good.
I just find it odd that so many of us are fondly remembering the days when our biggest problem with the President was him lying about his sex life.
Blair said:
"...Bush can get legally get another term in office."
=====
Okay. It was a fantasy article. But let's also not forget that a thing (a presidential decree? a presidential statement?) was made listing the chain of command should the country suffer a 'great disaster'. All that has to happen is a 'great disaster' occurs, and Martial Law is declared. Then Bush et al. could rule indefinitely.
Just like the current situation in Pakistan.
Don't know if anyone has linked to this in other threads or not, but Countdown played this last night.
Go to www.blimptv.net and click on the link to "Bush's Coins".
It'll definately be a day for dancing in the street.
But whether our national nightmare is over kinda depends on who wins the election.
The thing that currently scares me: John McCane. He seems to be doing good for the Republicans. It seems like he MIGHT be the one who gets to run for them. McCane, as far as I can tell, is another George W. Bush. Sure he can speak a lot better then Bush, but he has all the same politics (so basically he's a well-spoken Bush and he knows how to sucker people in). He's VERY scary imo. And I wonder if Hilary runs, will anyone vote for her? Or enough people? WHAT IF WE GET McCane in office?!
*shivers* If that happens, we might as well just keep Bush...*shivers more*
Seriously...I'm just not liking where this election looks to be going....
DF2506
" I think Hilary might be OK as President (definitly better then Bush), although OBama seems like a better choice to me."
I disagree that McCain is another Bush. He supports Bush more than I'd like, but I think that's largely because he's of the mindset of not speaking publicly against a sitting President, especially one of his own party. That's not a value that I admire, but it's not the worst thing.
He has been critical of the war in Iraq in the past and he isn't a warmonger. I think he's immensely more rational than Bush and I don't think he would have gone to war with Iraq if he'd been elected in 2000. I like him a lot more than Mitt Romney.
I think Hillary is where the money and speical intrest groups lay and egg. I really didn't want to see her do good in the elections Edwards is the man really but all of those grandma chuckies are voting for her arse.
Yeah, but McCain still refers to the Koreans as "gooks".
I know he was tortured by them as a POW and all, but seriously, do you want your President to be someone who refers to Koreans as gooks? In public?
I disagree that McCain is another Bush.
Maybe yes, maybe no.
But his economic gobbledygook is just as bad. For example, in one speech he says..
""As a Republican, I stand before you embarrassed. Embarrassed that we let that spending get out of control," the presidential candidate told voters on the eve of the state's GOP primary. "The economy is not good. The stock market continues down. And the indicators are not good. I'm not too astonished. ... We let spending get totally out of control, and it continues today, and I'm sorry to tell you this," McCain said at a town-hall style meeting at the Carolina Hospital East Campus in Florence. The Republican presidential candidate has voiced apprehension over proposals for temporary tax cuts and more spending as suggested by many Democrats and Republicans alike, saying they result in additional strains on resources. McCain has proposed cuts in corporate taxes instead from 35 percent to 25 percent, extension of Bush tax cuts, and elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax."People talk about a stimulus package. Fine, if that's what we want to come up with. But stop the spending first," he said."
Sounds good, right?
Problem is...we're in a recession-type of economic problem. Goverment spending HELPS that kind of problem, not hurts. Cutting government spending helps with inflationary problems, not recessionary. If anything, our problems comes from an unregulated mortgage and banking system. Hm. Didn't we have a savings and loan scandal before? Hm. Wasn't one of the politicians involved in that debacle named McCain?
McCain is just as much of a tool of big money as is Bush...
roger Tang said:
"Problem is...we're in a recession-type of economic problem. Goverment spending HELPS that kind of problem, not hurts."
=====
True. Basic economics. But I don't think Bushco. understands anything that requires thinking. Tax cuts will not stimulate the economy fast enough to make much of an impact. Rebates aren't a great idea, IMO, but spending HERE AT HOME is sure to help the economy.
I know he was tortured by them as a POW and all, but seriously, do you want your President to be someone who refers to Koreans as gooks? In public?
What the hell were the Koreans doing in Vietnam???
As someone who actually likes President Bush I have found his two terms to be particularly exasperating and frustrating.
His blatant violation of his vital commitment in the system of checks balances is reflected in many of his attempts to be bipartisan... which means that sometimes he probably doesn't read the bills that come across his desk, as drunk with blind trust (if not alcohol) as he is.
His expansions of executive power would be less disconcerting if he had more elegant constitutional arguments defending them and a tighter framework to prevent those expansions to be abused by any later President that held more guile.
He spends like a drunken (that metaphor) sailor. He communicates good ideas like a blind deaf-mute.
He has been an enormous disappointment.
I believe, however, that history will judge him more like Truman than like Nixon.
Of course, I love Truman, and I despise much if his individual policies. No President is perfect; as I went through the "Current Events" section at the semi-local mega bookstore Schuler's I could not suppress the notion that all the books examining President Bush's administration were jumping the gun. I judged his work as if I were a naive giddy school girl when I was 19, 20, 21. I'm not judging it again as a whole for another ten years.
"Problem is...we're in a recession-type of economic problem. Government spending HELPS that kind of problem, not hurts."
I'm sorry but your wrong, Ever hear of TVA it was great program during the depression right..well other than the fact it displaced more black people that it employed and then not only were they jobless but also homeless. If i have to give money to the people in the corporations to fix the economy or to the government I'm going to side with the people that if they fail they now longer have a job vs the people that will just take more of my money if they mess up.
as for bush his term isn't over but considering its an election year and congress traditionally does next to nothing when there running for there own seats the only things that can change Are Iraq and the economy. And while Iraq is getting better the economy is slowing down. so its going to be a mixed year at best for him.
If i have to give money to the people in the corporations to fix the economy or to the government I'm going to side with the people that if they fail they now longer have a job vs the people that will just take more of my money if they mess up.
You mean like the CEOs who's salaries have gone up 2000% in the last 25 years with no rise in profits, or the companies receiving government subsidies to make adding factory-processed corn to everything cheaper than sugar, increasing diabetes rates by up to 10? Maybe you should try spending a day or two without picking up the korporate kool-aid.
Bill Mulligan - What the South Koreans were doing in Vietnam was fighting - often with great valor. 300,000 South Korean troops served in the Vietnam War. Many U.S. troops were impressed with the discipline and fighting ability of the Koreans (who had shown much of the same in previous wars). North Korea sent an approximately 200 man fighter squadron to serve the North Vietnamese side, but I do not know what the North Vietnamese or anyone else had to say about their service.
Rereading the previous post, no - of course McCain was tortured by North Vietnamese, not Koreans, so that first post was seriously mistaken. Although "gooks" is a pretty offensive word, I wouldn't argue with McCain about anything he wanted to call the NVA. A family friend was always so unPC as to dislike the Japanese, and call them bad names, just because they killed a lot of his friends and tortured him for a few years! How primitive! (Yes, I am being sarcastic.) It's hard to reverse the prejudices and propaganda attached to our previous wars, and I'm afraid our soldiers really do need to depersonalize the enemy - whoever it is - in order to survive combat mentally intact. I've read a lot about WWII GIs who were much more uncomfortable about their actions against Germans and Italians than against Japanese, because they Japanese were more effectively demonized. Just about every GI knew somebody back home who looked just like the Germans and Italians he had to kill, but most didn't know any East Asians.
> Or how about this bumper sticker?
There were two errors, not one. The first, and lesser error came when he was elected in spite of his less-than-sterling background. The far worse error came when he was kept in office after the first term.
>You mean like the CEOs who's salaries have gone up 2000% in the last 25 years with no rise in profits, or ...
Or CEOs who get huge bonuses for just firing people? In Canada one infamous guy (head of high tech giant Nortel at the time) got a $128M (that's right, MILLION) bonus when all he really did was lay off over 10,000 people. I can't help wonder how many of those several thousands could have been kept employed using that $128M?
Certainly I mean no disrespect toward the South Korean soldier. Were I choosing sides for thermonuclear kickball they would definitely be near the top of the list, along with the Aussies and Israelis.
As long as it isn't Huckabee, I'll be happy. I think he is the one that is like Bush, not McCain, not Romney. It's that Christian Fundamentalist mindset that scares me and seems to make the guy believe he can do anything 'cause God is on his side...
Bill Mulligan - I initially misunderstood your post, but it was a valid question which didn't denigrate the Korean soldiers.
I have a question for the relegious right... I know as a country we have been either blessed or extremely lucky but, if GOD cares so much for america why did it take almost 1500 years after the the crucifixtion of christ just to find the silly continent? Imean if you are a strick creationist that means 3/4's of creation has been spent without even knowing where america was... Not to mention the about 9/10ths without America as a country
Exciting news! I just heard that, as part of the new reality-based line of comics Marvel is planning to launch this year, the inaugural series is going to be a major comics event based on George Bush leaving office. They're still working out details for the format and release date, but are hoping to attract a lot of media coverage when the project is officially announced. (The not-yet-released news that Marvel is hiring Markos Moulitsas as co-writer on this project should pretty much guarantee that!)
The series will be set January 19, 2009, with Bush and the remaining members of his administration contemplating what could happen when a new administration takes over (Investigations? Indictments? Trials? Prison time, without presidential pardons?) and deliberating over what they can to do in the remaining time in office.
The tagline Marvel is planning to use to promote the series is: What would you do if you only had... One More Day?
The tagline Marvel is planning to use to promote the series is: What would you do if you only had... One More Day?
*chuckle*
The best part is that it's an 8 years truly worth wiping out.
matt said (in reference to Bush):
"...so its going to be a mixed year at best for him."
=====
MIXED??!?!?? He hasn't had a good one yet! Everything he has done has been to benefit him, his friends, and corporations that back him. He doesn't give a shit about terrorism, national security, the economy, etc., unless it benefits his cronies.
I'm sorry but your wrong, Ever hear of TVA it was great program during the depression right..well other than the fact it displaced more black people that it employed and then not only were they jobless but also homeless. If i have to give money to the people in the corporations to fix the economy or to the government I'm going to side with the people that if they fail they now longer have a job vs the people that will just take more of my money if they mess up.
And what does this have to do with what I said?
You're pointing to implementation rather than principle; any idiot can screw up a plan. And, of course, you ignores the point that we HAVE been stimulating the economy through corporations over the past seven years, and not only do we have the mess we have now, but many of them are still on the job, those who are not have been richly rewarded, and NONE of them are in any way responsible to you or me as voters.
Posted by Bill Mulligan
George Bush goes to a primary school to talk to the kids to get a little PR.
After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand and George asks him his name.
First heard that one from Myron "Everyboby Gotta Be Someplace" Choen in the Sixties, with Red Square as the locale. "What happened to Levine?"
Cohen was also the raconteur from whom i first heard "Oh, you want Greenberg the spy. Second floor back."
Posted by PandaPhil
...whether our national nightmare is over kinda depends on who wins the election.
Well, actually, from where i sit, it looks as if none of the candidates likely to actually be nominated could be worse than Bush.
Posted by John
Yeah, but McCain still refers to the Koreans as "gooks".
I know he was tortured by them as a POW
You misspelt "Vietnamese".
My full opinon on this: As long as we don't get a Republican for our next President we should be OK. It should be a Democrat for our next president or better yet, an Independent. Haven't heard what independents will be running though. I must likely won't be voting that way though since Independents NEVER win..but it would be intersting to see wouldn't it? *sigh*
I'm definitly very against McCain though. I don't even want to see him run. He's just way too close to Bush for my tastes. I don't want to see Huckabee run either if he's really like Bush (don't know much about him). I'd say either Mitt, lol, or the "smart" Republican choices: Fred Thompson or even better (imo) Rudy Giuliani. Those are the only two that I can see that MIGHT be OK. Still wouldn't want to see either win...but if I Republican HAD to win....
DF2506
Mike, did you actually see Myron Cohen??? I love that guy! Classic stuff:
A couple is before a divorce judge. The judge says: "And so Madam, I am going to find for you that you receive 400 dollars per week for the rest of your life or until such time that you remarry." And the husband says: "You know, judge, that's so fair of you that I also shall throw in a couple of dollars."
Hopefully by 2009 you'll undergo the same experience that Australia did. It seemed like Bush-admirer-and-loyalist Prime Minister John Howard had been around forever. Unfortunately more than 50% of Australians disagreed with that assessment and he lost the 2007 election. For me, it really does feel as though the country has woken up from a deep slumber and we're reengaging with the world again.
Of course, 50% of the country would probably disagree. :)
Posted by Bill Mulligan
Mike, did you actually see Myron Cohen??? I love that guy!
No - my Dad had a copy of the "Everybody Gotta be Someplace" album and maybe some others...
"What the hell - my mother would send me out on a night like this?!?"
Appreciating and learning from Myron Cohen (and David Tarr, among others) may be why a Jewish firend who i'd known for some time was surprised to discover that i *wasn't* Jewish myself...
How about a short list of the good things Billy did for this country?
or make it long if you wish....
or how about a list of accomplishments from the house and senate since the Dems have taken over?
Hmmm. Pat, the failure of the Democrats to accomplish anything in Congress is mostly due to the fillabusters of the GOP and the vetoes of Shrub. Another reason to hope that the Democrats win 10 more seats in the Senate.
The Dems could very well overide any one of Georges vetoes but they just never seem to have enough votes. Why? Because they themselves dont believe what they are doing.
That's strange. It sounds almost like you're saying that there are enough democrats in the Senate and House that, if every democrat voted to, they'd be able to override any veto.
Well, let's take a brief trip into the land of basic arithmetic. Overriding a veto requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of congress. That's 67 votes in the Senate, and 290 in the House. There are currently 49 democrats in the Senate and 232 democrats in the House. Both of these numbers are less than that required for a veto-proof majority.
Unless, of course, you actually meant that if the democrats had the Power Of Belief, they'd be able to magically convince 18 republican senators and 58 republican representatives to break with the president and their party to override any veto. Because, I supposes, the republicans don't believe in what they're doing, so any little amount of conviction from the opposing side would win them over with no trouble.
Yeah, right.
Posted by David Gian-Cursio at January 21, 2008 11:32 AM
Unless, of course, you actually meant that if the democrats had the Power Of Belief, they'd be able to magically convince 18 republican senators and
58 republican representatives to break with the president and their party to override any veto. Because, I supposes, the republicans don't believe in what they're doing, so any little amount of conviction from the opposing side would win them over with no trouble.
Yeah, right.
You mean politics.. You mean actually proving what you believe to be true?
Yeah right.
Look everyone is screaming about George being Satans love child but I have yet to see something different. TELL ME what you plan to do. Show me what you plan on doing. Quit telling me how bad George is or how bad he will be remembered.
What do Bush and Slinkies have in common?
Neither is of any real practical value, nor requires any great skill to operate...
BUT...
The thought of pushing them down a set of stairs is enough to bring a smile to your face.
Uh, Pat....the point remains, the numbers don't add up. Can't over-ride the veto if you don't have the numbers.
Plenty of other things to criticize the Dems on (caving on water boarding and Iraq), but referencing vetoes seems rather innumerate.
I know the numbers but it doesnt mean you cannot get a Reb. to agree and help turn a vote. Mccain sure had no prob with the finance reform
Either side can only get the other side to do something if they want to. If a President vetos something, you can't point at one side and say, "they could have overruled it if they believed in what they're doing." It takes both sides.
Overriding a Presidential veto is extremely rare. Saying that it isn't happening because the majority group in Congress doesn't believe in themselves is basically saying that there has never been a Congress that believed in itself. The truth is, vetos are incredibly powerful and the Democrats cann't overrule them by themselves. You have to give the Republicans in Congress some of that responibility.
In his pandering to the Republican base, John McCain has lost whatever credibility I thought he had.
McCain supported Bush after racist attacks were made on his family by Bush's people.
Of course, McCain himself is a racist. If he was using words like "nigger" or "kike", he'd be compared to David Duke. How is "gook" any different? Yes, his jailers were Asian people,
but so were our allies in Vietnam, as in the world today, as are many hard-working Americans.
Racism can never be rationalized.
He referred to the Christian Right as "agents of intolerance" but then went and spoke at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.
The Republican Party's right-wing has managed to do something that the Hanoi Hilton could not.
They've broken the will of John McCain.
Bush is certainly the best president ever...
at being the worst president ever.
Our Grandchilren are gonna be PISSED that we let him back in office the second time.
McCain (or Romney) has no other choice. If he wants the nomination, he has to appear more conservative than he really is. This is just one of the legacies of the eight years of George the Worst: the entire American political spectrum has shifted to the right.
If McCain or Romney didn't publicly assume more extreme positions than they have in the past, the nomination would fall on Huckabee's lap, and then the shit would really hit the fan, because it seems that Huckabee really is as conservative as he says he is.
The reason so few bills are getting to the vote process is that the Republicans are filibustering at a record pace. In 2007, they filibustered more often than in any one year, having made enough filibusters in one year to reach a normal 2-year average.
Such is the nature of so-called Republican bi-partisanship.
I think Rene sums up my feelings on McCain. I think McCain is someone who wants to be honest, to the point that he'll tell voters in Michigan that some jobs aren't coming back while Romney blows smoke up their butts. But McCain knows he has to appeal to Republicans to get the Republican nomination. So he dances, just like all politicians dance. In the end, I think he's a better candidate than Romney or Huckabee.
Besides, if he messes up, he knows better than anyone how much crap he'll take from Jon Stewart.
I know the numbers but it doesnt mean you cannot get a Reb. to agree and help turn a vote
Um, what does party affiliation mean, anyway?
Sorry, but this is just an inane argument. No one can take it seriously.
Posted by roger Tang at January 21, 2008 07:26 PM
I know the numbers but it doesnt mean you cannot get a Reb. to agree and help turn a vote
Um, what does party affiliation mean, anyway?
Sorry, but this is just an inane argument. No one can take it seriously.
Lets see...from the dreaded Wikipedia:
John McCain and Russ Feingold Bipartisan campaign reform act of 2002
Gang of 14:
Republicans-John McCain
Lindsey Graham
John Warner
Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Mike DeWine
Lincoln Chafee
Democrats-Joe Lieberman
Robert (KKK) Byrd
Ben Nelson
Mary Landrieu
Daniel Inouye
Mark Pryor
Ken Salazar
Its called Bipartisan politics you know the often talked about, always promised but rarely seen.
so you see its not really all that inane.
so you see its not really all that inane.Yes. It. Is.
Blaming the Democrats and not the Republicans? Inane is the kindest word for it.
Mccain sure had no prob with the finance reform
McCain also had no problem goose stepping with the administration on issues such as torture.
If McCain still has a pair, he needs to find them.
Its called Bipartisan politics you know the often talked about, always promised but rarely seen.
And you see the Republicans doing a whole helluva lot of it over the last couple of years, haven't you?
Do you actually have any other examples besides the "Gang of 14"?
"McCain also had no problem goose stepping with the administration on issues such as torture."
Really? He seemed to break with the current administration more than any other Republican on the issue of torture.
In Republican debates the other candidates would answer the torture question by saying they support whatever is necessary. The crowds cheered when the made Jack Bauer jokes. McCain said torture was wrong to deafening silence. The Republican party has wanted him to support torture, but in everything I've seen he hasn't.
Posted by Alan Coil
Our Grandchilren are gonna be PISSED that we let him back in office the second time.
Wouldn't bet on it, as the current electorate is in large part composed of the children and grandchildren of the electorate that put Nixon in office twice. (The upcoming election will, after all, be thirty-six years since Nixon's second victory...)
*Without* a packed Supreme Court overriding the real election results.
Do you really think that future generations will be any better at learning from history? Especially since it appears the every succeeding generation is managing to be more poorly educated than the previous one?
In a story blurb in "Astounding", John W Campbell Jr once said "History doesn't always repeat iteslf. Sometimes it just screams 'Why aren't you listening to me?' and lets fly with a club."
McCain also had no problem goose stepping with the administration on issues such as torture.
That will come as news to me...from what I've seen there are some republicans who keep harping on how McCain has been naive to condemn torture. What makes you think he's with the pro-waterboarders on this?
Posted by roger Tang at January 21, 2008 09:42 PM
Blaming the Democrats and not the Republicans? Inane is the kindest word for it.
Hey I just asked what have the Dems done since they have taken the House and the Senate. They promised great changes. They made some pretty strong promises to their constituents but not much productivity. I think that is going to bite some of them on the @$$. Just my opinion mind you.
Now the Republicans dont have much to brag about either. We still have wide open borders. They still spend like theres no tomorrow. Social Security is still a mess. This tax rebate George is promising is a joke. The Rep. are not innocent by any means.
Posted by Craig J. Ries at January 21, 2008 10:10 PM
Do you actually have any other examples besides the "Gang of 14"?
other than the finance reform no not off the top of my head.
I just think its weird some of you feel he's pandering to the "Neocons" When I think its the opposite.
Hey I just asked what have the Dems done since they have taken the House and the Senate. They promised great changes. They made some pretty strong promises to their constituents but not much productivity. I think that is going to bite some of them on the @$$. Just my opinion mind you. Now the Republicans dont have much to brag about either. We still have wide open borders. They still spend like theres no tomorrow. Social Security is still a mess. This tax rebate George is promising is a joke. The Rep. are not innocent by any means.
Well, fixing on the lack of veto-overrides is probably not the best argument to use. There's much better fodder in the set-asides, caving in to the White House on issues they said they'd challenge on, backing down on trying to fund continued entitlements and benefts and so on. Disappointing to say the least....
Your right pretty weak at best. but come on Im trying to meet you guys somewhat halfway:)
Considering of what I've seen of the future, I have only this thought.
"The Past is Prolouge"
Cynical I know. But from what I've seen, it's not going to get any better.
JP
Considering of what I've seen of the future, I have only this thought.
"The Past is Prolouge"
Cynical I know. But from what I've seen, it's not going to get any better.
JP
Considering of what I've seen of the future, I have only this thought.
"The Past is Prolouge"
Cynical I know. But from what I've seen, it's not going to get any better.
JP
Considering of what I've seen of the future, I have only this thought.
"The Past is Prolouge"
Cynical I know. But from what I've seen, it's not going to get any better.
JP
Considering of what I've seen of the future, I have only this thought.
"The Past is Prolouge"
Cynical I know. But from what I've seen, it's not going to get any better.
JP
It'll take a lot more than a new President. Remember, people _put_ him there. Twice.
>Look everyone is screaming about George ... but I have yet to see something different. TELL ME what you plan to do. Show me what you plan on doing. Quit telling me how bad George is or how bad he will be remembered.
High on the list of ways to tell when someone's on a power grab, rather than posessed of a genuine desire to help people, is when they gleefully attack the other guys without, for all that, bothering to present any specifics as to what they'd do differently and how.
The Canadian federal Liberals (our version of the Democrats ... sort of) in '93 savagely attacked the Progressive Conservatives (who richly deserved it) but kept telling voters "you'll see how we plan to carry out our promises *after the election*" That set off alarm bells in my mind and, for once, I voted for another party. Unfortunately, too many people fell for their bull and they got in with a majority, whereupon voters learned the fine-sounding promises were just so many lies, and the Liberals just carried on with the Conservatives' agenda.
Trouble is, it works. How often and for how many years have all too many people voted AGAINST some one/some Party rather than FOR? Should we blame Party machines for going with that trend? Well, yes, but ...
In order to truly improve on the current mess, it will be necessary to stop voting based on 15 second sound bites. Those little nibbles of quasi-information are calculated to say whatever the listener wants to hear. Read the entire speech, ignore the town hall press scrum. Ask the really tough questions and demand answers.
We are all going to have to hold our leadership to a higher standard, and since in a democracy we (in theory) choose those leaders, the higher standard begins with us.
"McCain also had no problem goose stepping with the administration on issues such as torture."
Really? He seemed to break with the current administration more than any other Republican on the issue of torture.
His acquiescence allowed the Military Commisions Act to go through. That doesn't speak well of him. His silence on Mukasey's inability to affirm waterboarding as torture didn't win me over either.
He seemed to break with the current administration more than any other Republican on the issue of torture.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/politics/main3441067.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3441067
McCain seems to be under the impression, like this Administration is, that we do not torture, that we do not waterboard.
That's either naive on what he thinks our government has been doing, considering how the Bush Administration has run things, or a blunt lie. Take your pick; I think he's full of it.
Sasha also addresses a couple of other points.
Woohoo! Lookit that sucker go! -0362:18:18:19...no, 14...no 10...no wait, it's actually 04...
>High on the list of ways to tell when someone's >on a power grab, rather than posessed of a >genuine desire to help people, is when they >gleefully attack the other guys without, for all >that, bothering to present any specifics as to >what they'd do differently and how.
It's a rare politician that isn't on a power grab, correct? I suppose genuine desire to help people comes much lower in their list of motivations.
You have to vote on the power-grabber that least offends you.
And I very much doubt the Democrats will just continue what the Republicans are doing. You might make a case that they're going to find different ways to screw things up, though.
Even so, were I American, I'd vote on the Democrats, because I just can't make myself vote on social conservatives.
For those comic book and Batman fans who haven't already heard, actor Heath Ledger has passed away.
No, it's not a joke or hoax. Imdb, Wikipedia, and all other sites corroborate it. Imdb and Wikipedia in particular have links to news sites with stories on his passing.
Potentially of some interest in regard to Bush and his "legacy":
Study: False Statements Preceded War
WASHINGTON (AP) - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.
The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."
[snip]
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both
The whole article is available online.
Also, you might want to check out this cartoon by Tom Toles - looks as if the Shrub has decided that if he can't equal Reagan any other way, he's going to try to imitate him in boosting the National Debt...
Sorry but I dont take a study done by a George Soros funded organization serious.
Posted by Pat Nolan
Sorry but I dont take a study done by a George Soros funded organization serious.
The documents they studies are available online, though i don't have the link handy.
And, considering that it basically confirms what anyone whop was actually listening already knew...
Posted by Pat Nolan
Sorry but I dont take a study done by a George Soros funded organization serious.
The documents used in the studies are available online, though i don't have the link handy.
And, considering that it basically confirms what anyone whop was actually listening already knew...
...if he can't equal Reagan any other way...
Who can?
And sometimes Reagan defends toy stores from robbers. (Only the first and last panel make sense without reading the story):
Database of untrue statements by MisAdministration members at http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/
Pat Nolan said:
"Sorry but I dont take a study done by a George Soros funded organization serious."
=====
Typical.
"I don't agree with the results of that study, so it must be wrong. Let me find a reason."
I worked with a guy who exemplified this. A news report would say something he disagreed with, so it was the "Liberal Media". A Fox News report would say something he disagreed with, so his reply was "I'd have to see how they asked the questions before I can comment." It was always something. Then he started telling everyone about the space ships he had seen. Then how he could stop time with his mind. Then I would think, "This might be possible. It seems like hours that I have been stuck listening to him, but it's only been 5 minutes."
Pat Nolan said:
"Sorry but I dont take a study done by a George Soros funded organization serious."
=====
Typical.
"I don't agree with the results of that study, so it must be wrong. Let me find a reason."
Typical.
"I dont agree with the results of that study, because it showed absolutly nothing new that has not been reported Ad nauseam just because it has a different name (Center for Public Integrity, please!!) attached to it doesnt make it anymore reliable. Its the school of "If I say it enough everyone will believe it"
So yeah Typical!
I have to agree with Pat on one thing--the fact that the connection to Soros was not mentioned seems a rather egregious omission.
If, for example, a study was released showing that lax gunlaws resulted in a decrease in crime...and it turned out that the study was funded in part by the NRA...wouldn't you at least want that information submitted for your consideration?
Even if one is not bothered by the Soros connection, the methodology of the study gives me pause. Saying that any statement that "referenced Iraq's contemporaneous possession, possible possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction" is an example of a "direct false statement" seems questionable to me. One will be able to find many many statements by critics of the administration that also would be considered false under that criterion.
If the purpose of the study was to show that people were wrong about Iraq's possession of WMD, well, ok, but that's not exactly news. If the purpose was to show deliberate lying the methodology doesn't support it--people saying what was conventional wisdom at the time that has since been proven wrong falls short of that goal.
So... because the report gathers data that had been previously reported, instead of somehow finding Brand New Data (coming soon from Marvel!), that makes it false?
That's an... interesting worldview...
It doesn't make it false, it just means it doesn't prove what it says it proves.
Did Bush say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Yes.
Was Bush lying when he said that? We can't say for sure. It would be nice to know.
Does proving that he said it, and said it a lot, prove that he waging a campaign of false pretenses? No, the fact that he said it a lot doesn't prove that he knew the information was wrong.
The study isn't doing anything wrong by showing how much he spread his version of the facts. But they are being sloppy by making a claim that isn't supported by their data.
Posted by: Jason M. Bryant
Did Bush say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Yes.
Rather as with Nixon's denial of any knowledge of the Watergate break-in (If hw knew, he was engaging in illegal activities and lying about it, if he didn't know, he had let his people get out of control - in either case, not someone one would want as President), Bush is damned either way here:
If he knew what he was sdaying was false, then he was lying.
And if he *didn't* know it was false, he was not listening to his own intelligence services, wheter from stupidity or because their reports contradicted what he needed to say to advance his own agenda.
An example: The CIA told him that there was no evidence to support the Niger/yellowcake story, but he claimed it as fact in his State of the Union Address.
Was Bush lying when he said that? We can't say for sure. It would be nice to know.
Were his lips moving?
Does proving that he said it, and said it a lot, prove that he waging a campaign of false pretenses? No, the fact that he said it a lot doesn't prove that he knew the information was wrong.
If he didn't know, then he's incompetent, because his ownb intel;ligence community, as well as the inspectors on the ground, were telling him.
When Clinton lied, nobody died.
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with any of that, mike weber. He was either lying or incompetent, no arguing from me. I'm just saying that the study makes claims about proving something, but their data doesn't prove it and doesn't actually tell us anything we didn't already know.
It's like they said that someone bathed in horse manure and that was the thing that caused him to get cancer later. Whether the horse manure actually gave him cancer or not, telling me the exact volume to the milliliter of the horse manure doesn't prove anything about it being cancerous. Also, I certainly didn't need to know that exact volume to know that bathing in the stuff was a bad idea.
How dare you guys think Bush lied. Bush doesn't lie. He is the President of the United States. What he says is law. Why, Bush is God. Hearing words from Bush is like hearing words from the Pope: They are words given directly from God.
I'm sorry, but this "study" was a joke. Have Bush and the members of his administration told outright lies? Yes. But holding up the results of a purely done study that has ties to very vocal anti-Bush advocates (while being billed a "neutral" group) has all of the credibility of a Bill O'Reilly "fact" or less.
The press and others trumpeting this study only gives Bush supporters (all 37 of 'em) ammunition to point out the legitimately faulty (in this case) nature of Bush's detractor's "facts" and the role of the press in advocating for the other side. While I agree that Bush and crew have lied a lot and fudged the facts even more often then that, you have to choose you attacks better. Everyone that I'm seeing here supporting this study has in the past attacked the equally faulty studies and facts that were used to attack Bill Clinton and John Kerry as well as the supposed neutrality of the sources. You can't have it both ways or you're no better then those that you criticize.
Bush has lied. He's lied quite a lot actually. But this study is faulty in its construction and, owing to those faults, inaccurate in its overall findings. Not a great foundation to attack others with.
Bush has always had good fortune in his opponents. So did Bill Clinton, though Obama seems to have thrown him off into uncharacteristic clumsiness.
I see parallels in this study to the one published in The Lancet that overestimated the number of Iraqi civilian deaths by quite a bit, or at least it would seem. The methodology was flawed and it was only recently that it was revealed that George Soros contributed to the funding.
Now I would not automatically dismiss a report just because Soros helped fund it...any more than I'm sure my liberal friends would automatically dismiss anything that was critical of Bill Clinton just because the researchers accepted money from Richard Mellon Scaife, right? But when that aid is not reported...well, it makes one wonder if maybe they were embarrassed by it and, if so, whether or not there was a reason for that embarrassment.
But you know, Soros and Scaife and partisans on both sides have every right to slant things their way. That's politics. The ones who really deserve to be ashamed are the reporters who either didn't do the easy research to investigate the report or did it and deliberately suppressed the information. The conservative bloggers sniffed out the Soros link before the day was old--are they really better at this than the AP or NYT?
I see parallels in this study to the one published in The Lancet that overestimated the number of Iraqi civilian deaths by quite a bit, or at least it would seem. The methodology was flawed and it was only recently that it was revealed that George Soros contributed to the funding.
Actually, that's a bit exaggerated. Sure the methodology is flawed, but it was flawed in a way that all survey methods are flawed (and there have been subsequent studies that estimate a lower death toll, but still within the error bars of the Lancet study).
It all comes down to the data. No study is EVER perfect, and it's a mark of partisanship to expect it out of a study--all you can do is look at the methodology, see where it is weak, and accept the conclusions are only as good as that weak link---but that doesn't mean that the result are invalid.
It also comes down to the wording of the study and the parameters for the search. This study has some issues as far as how large a net it was willing to cast to allow something to be portrayed as a lie rather then a mistake and how many times a lie could be counted. Rather then saying Bush lied once in a speech that was ten minutes long, they instead counted each actual articulation of an idea in that speech. Before anyone jumps in on that, simplify it, take Bush out of it and think a minute. If it takes three minutes to tell a lie and to reinforce the ideas in the lie, then it's still only one lie. It is not four, five or six separate lies.
It also matters how you define what you're looking at and how determined you are to paint a bad (or a worse) picture. It's kind of like the AFA study that was sent to the media about wrestling back in the late 90's when wrestling was at an all time popularity boom. They said that there were something like 100 (or some number close to that) sexual acts performed on TV in the five hours of combined TV time that Raw & Nitro had on Monday nights. Thing is, when you looked at there guidelines, they defined a sexual act as, amongst other things, prolonged contact of one persons hand on another's forearm or thigh. Gee, you don't think that maybe a wrestling show would have non-sexual activities that involved prolonged contact of one persons hand on another's forearm or thigh, do yah? There were legitimate complaints to be made about the sexual nature of some of the storylines that were being run from 97-00, but making stuff up only makes your legitimate complaints look like more of the same "crying wolf" and undercuts your credibility. Same thing then, same thing with the Clinton attackers and Swift Boaters and the same thing here.
Look, I'm not really getting on anyone's case here or trying to defend Bush. God knows that anyone who's read any of my past posts here about Bush can not believe that I'm a Bush backer, supporter or apologist. But I am getting kind of tired of constantly turning around and seeing people whining about how the evil Conservative hit machine is attacking some noble Democrat with faulty facts and trumped up or exaggerated charges and the turning around and happily doing the same thing. If it's wrong, then it's wrong no matter who does it. You either stand for something or you don't. But, if you're not going to stand for something, don't put on the outraged act later when the same dirty tricks are aimed at someone you support.
It all comes down to the data. No study is EVER perfect, and it's a mark of partisanship to expect it out of a study--all you can do is look at the methodology, see where it is weak, and accept the conclusions are only as good as that weak link---but that doesn't mean that the result are invalid.
One way to judge the validity of the data is to be allowed to examine it. According to several sources, including a pretty good article at http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm
some of the lead researchers on the study have been less than forthcoming: The key person involved in collecting the data -- Lafta, the researcher who assembled the survey teams, deployed them throughout Iraq, and assembled the results -- has refused to answer questions about his methods.
I never said I expected perfection from this or any other study but this one seems to fall short of even the minimum standard for acceptance, much less worthy of the fanfare it received. Unless one thinks that the political goal of a supposedly scientific report is more important than whether or not it reflects reality.
Roger Tang: "Sure the methodology is flawed... but that doesn't mean that the result are invalid."
Actually, it does.
To amplify Jerry's point: a few decades ago, someone conducted a study of violence on television. The thing is, their definition of "violence" included "verbal violence" like telling someone you don't like them.
Know what show they concluded was the most violent on T.V. at the time? "The Brady Bunch."
One way to judge the validity of the data is to be allowed to examine it. According to several sources, including a pretty good article at http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm some of the lead researchers on the study have been less than forthcoming:
Well, one reason why is that details of the methodology would allow respondents to be identifiable. I don't think that's a good thing to occur in a chaotic area like Iraq.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...or at least not less evidence.
If what we are left with is a study funded by partisan individuals that is released right before an election, to great fanfare, with a result that is considerably different from all other reports (and different in a way that said partisan funders will find extremely useful) and whose methodologies do not allow for review...I don't think one has to be one of Allan's "Bush is God" true believers to think such a report is of limited value, if any.
Alan, not Allan.
And if the methodology of the report is flawed, so are the results, thus they are invalid. Doesn't mean the results won't be found to be about the same with the next study.
Question: If Faux Noise does a report, is automatically valid? Or is it automatically invalid?
Because a study is funded by Soros does not automatically make it invalid. If the Main Stream Media refuse to pursue these studies, then who is going to? Somebody has to put up the money.
Or perhaps it would be better if we just let Limpburger and O'Really control the world.
And if the methodology of the report is flawed, so are the results, thus they are invalid.I prefer to say flawed results and not necessarily generalizable (that's what stronger methodology allows us to do; there's not such thing as perfect methodology).
Alan, not Allan.
My apologies.
Question: If Faux Noise does a report, is automatically valid? Or is it automatically invalid?
Neither. Depends on the methodology used, of course. Of course, there are those who would automatically dismiss anything from Fox. Beats thinking about it, I guess. Ditto those who would simply accept anything from Fox, CNN, the Bible, moveon.org, etc. as true simply by virtue of being.
Because a study is funded by Soros does not automatically make it invalid.
That's true. Witness my comment above--Now I would not automatically dismiss a report just because Soros helped fund it...any more than I'm sure my liberal friends would automatically dismiss anything that was critical of Bill Clinton just because the researchers accepted money from Richard Mellon Scaife, right?
However, I do expect that sources of funding should be made public. Unless the researchers are trying to hide these facts, for whatever reason that might be, such transparency is the only ethical way to go and not following it raises valid questions.
Or perhaps it would be better if we just let Limpburger and O'Really control the world.
Fortunately there is a happy medium between blindly following the extremists of the right and the extremists of the left
The media has no clue, and are only interested in one thing: ratings. Rupert Murdoch saw a market not being served - the non-liberal media - and exploited it. But if you look at the fox entertainment channels, it's shows hardly model the conservative ideal. Again, it'snot an agenda, just ratings.
If you think the media (Fox, CNN or anyone else) does have a clue, just think about the last time they covered something about your profession. In my case, computer security. The flaws in the reporting are laughable. Then, you have to realize that all their reports are like that. They know very little, but pretend they know quite a bit.
To me it seems that the reason the 24-hour networks are so opinion-based and poll-based is because they have to fill air time, and that's much easier than "real reporting". Why pay someone to do investigative journalism, when you can pay a smooth talker to just yap with little research.
On Fox, I actually do like the first half of the Brit Hume news show, but the rest of Fox's lineup is well worth ignoring. On Sunday's I enjoy Russert more than any of them - though occasionally watching Juan Williams and Bill Kristol go at each other can be fun.
” If you think the media (Fox, CNN or anyone else) does have a clue, just think about the last time they covered something about your profession.”
What, like how they cover the use of tasers? I swear, it’s considered a bad joke amongst most law enforcement officers that any taser usage will be introduced on the TV news with some idiot going on about “50,000 volts” in the same voice one might use while describing some catastrophic event. Then you get lots of repeating of the 50,000 volts thing as they discuss the incredible, unbelievable and unimaginable force that went through some dipwads body.
News flash folks: 50,000 volts ain’t diddley squat.
A simple static shock from you to a friend is 20,000 – 25,000 volts.
www.livescience.com/environment/060417_MM_static_electricity.html
The Van de Graaff Generator (that big metal ball that kids play with at science museums to make their hair stand straight up) is a common toy to most elementary school science teachers. Every time a kid touches it, the thing sends anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 volts through their tiny little bodies.
www.hometrainingtools.com/catalog/technology/other-technology-products/p_el-vandegr.html
That wall socket that will knock you on your butt? 100 – 125 volts in America.
www.magellans.com/store/util/ElecWiz
Volts mean nothing. It’s all about the amps. The amps delivered by the X26 TASER (the most common model used by police in America) is about 0.0021 amps. The minimum amps needed to kill a human is 0.07 amps and even that's not always lethal. Ever been shocked by your Christmas tree lights while stringing the tree? A bulb on a string of Christmas tree lights is about 1 amp.
But these little facts never seem to make it into the talking head's hysterics as they're burbling on about fascist states, police legally murdering people and 50,000 volts. They also seem to forget that, while talking about how the police should get rid of tasers and stick with safe stuff like pepper spray, the very same media was filled with the very same hysterics over the introduction of pepper spray all those years ago. And, having been hit by both more then once, I'll take the taser hit over OC spray any day of the week.
Yeah, I just love it when the media talks about my profession.
Posted by Jerry Chandler at January 26, 2008 12:44 AM
What, like how they cover the use of tasers? I swear, it’s considered a bad joke amongst most law enforcement officers that any taser usage will be introduced on the TV news with some idiot going on about “50,000 volts” in the same voice one might use while describing some catastrophic event. Then you get lots of repeating of the 50,000 volts thing as they discuss the incredible, unbelievable and unimaginable force that went through some dipwads body.
I think it grand fun when they then take some poor slob and actually shoot him with the taser to show the audience how effective they are. It always ends up looking like some really bad faith healing scam.
I've been that poor slob at demos and training days. It may look like a bad faith healing scam, but it feels like someone breaking every one of your bones in between the two darts with a small sledge hammer.
Still like it better then the OC spray. Five seconds of charge and you're done with the taser. OC spray kicks your butt for hours and hours after you've been tagged with it. And, as one of my academy mates found out, washing it off in the shower only makes it flair up again and it makes it worse. How? The oil follows the flow of the water down/along your body and burns whatever it hits. And, as much as the guys are crossing their legs right now at that thought, the academy mate in question was a woman.
You can all say "ouch" now.
OUCH!!!!
I work in an emergency department and the police brought this fine upstanding individual who thought for sure he could out run the K-9 and after we patched him up (man those dogs dont kid around either)he started getting his second or third wind, one of the officers sprayed him with pepper spray. We had to shut down one whole side (about 10 rooms) of the ED so we could air it out. Everyone was crying and of course they have to come over and see what all the racket is and they would just walk into it. Not fun!!
See, that's just an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. One of the basics of OC certification is that you never use it in environments like that foe exactly those reasons. And, beyond the ventilation systems circulating it everywhere, you put at risk anybody in the place who is in there for any kind of respiratory issues.
The Van de Graaff Generator (that big metal ball that kids play with at science museums to make their hair stand straight up) is a common toy to most elementary school science teachers. Every time a kid touches it, the thing sends anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 volts through their tiny little bodies.
Elementary teachers??? Heck, this high school teacher LOVES the Van De Graaff! Having that thing set up in the room is like a Day Without Lesson Plans. The kids love it. They actually begin to use higher level thinking, coming up with all kinds of great experiments like What Happens If I Touch It With My Tongue, Let's Electrify The Door Handle So We Shock Tyrone When He Comes Back From His Bathroom Break, Who Can Look The Most Like Don King and other classics. They might even accidentally learn something.
Still like it better then the OC spray.
Yeah, we had an incident where one of the resource officers broke up a fight with Pepper Spray. Even though it was outside some of it drifted into the ventilation system of my building and I noticed kids starting to give little coughs. Thought they were being wisenheimers until it hit me too. You could taste it. Had to bug out for an impromptu outdoor lesson.
Hey, wouldn't it be great to have a giant Tesla Coil? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1553601457651947389&q=tesla+coil&total=1756&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
It is indeed the amps.
Electricity kills you in 2 ways. It stops your heart, or it destroys so much tissue that you can't survive. I've seen videos that made me turn away.
Electricity can kill you indirectly by causing you to fall: fall into more electricity, fall into machinery, fall from heights, etc.
Had a friend in college, black belt in several arts,in great shape, was sure that he could handle anything. During one of the Martial Arts Club's demonstrations, someone had a vial of pepper spray. This guy, having just demonstrated how tough he was, jumped right up to take it to show how it worked, and that once again, he could take it.
Thirty five seconds later, it was a different story.
BTW, anybody reading this, Land of the Dead is on TNT at this moment.
As for the tasers, beyond most people not understanding the scientific terminology, what sounds more dangerous? 0.00something or Somety-THOUSAND something? Above all, in media, size is attention getting.
"BTW, anybody reading this, Land of the Dead is on TNT at this moment."
Or, as it is in my house, Land of the Dead is on TNTHD. I loves my Dish. ~8?)
The one thing that I like about the taser over OC spray is that your martial arts buddy isn't everybody. I can fight for a good little bit after getting a blast of OC. I had to when was in academy. Some people doen't even have the slightest problem with it at all. A taser will lock up 100% of the people out there for about 5 seconds and even most of the dumbest SOBs don't want another blast. It hurts like nothing I've ever been hit with.
Scott probably could have fought, but to watch it happen, it was kinda like that scene in A Christmas Story with the pole. "This is nothing, really, I--AAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUGGH!"
Land of the Dead is on TNTHD. Yeah, well, I'm at WORK so all the HD sets are tuned to either basketball, UNC and Maryland currently tied, or horse stuff. At least it's not snowing, because then I'd get to go out on the roof and sweep off our dishes. Even the great big ones that look like they fell off the Millenium Falcon.
Or, as it is in my house, Land of the Dead is on TNTHD. I loves my Dish. ~8?)
Oh just rub it in...I just spent 5 hours shooting zombie footage in the woods only to find out that the camera has some glitch and the footage is probably ruined...
Anyone seen DIARY OF THE DEAD yet?
Seen it?!? I didn't even know it was out yet. I haven't even seen so much as one ad around here.
It's been at every horror/sci-fi/comics convention (With one notable exception, that being any convention I'm at!). I think the Weinsteins have it which always means it might get shelved for a decade or so. (Romero is apparently already planning a sequel though).
The early reviews are mixed but so were LAND OF THE DEAD's and I loved that one. Romero has the disadvantage of everyone thinking he's going to reinvent the genre as he has twice before...c'mon! Who needs that pressure? At least he isn't Dario Argento, who seems to have forgotten everything it was that made him so freaking great.
Yeah, I'd heard that the Weinsteins had it and were looking at a "limited" release in February or March. With my luck, "limited" means at least an hour's drive and, while that was once a little more doable, that's not really an option in my life right now.
BTW, Bill Mulligan, no apology was really needed. After all, I am the one that started this whole "using the wrong name" meme here on this site a few weeks ago.
I just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't trying to be cute. I'm bad with names and spelling--just ask my friend Bill Meyers.
So, Peter, will you live blog George W. Bush's
Last State Of The Union?
-- Ken from Chicago
Posted by: Ken
So, Peter, will you live blog George W. Bush's Last State Of The Union?
The mind bloggles ... err, "boggles" ... at the thought of what we might read...
If only my last name had one less "e" in it. Then Bill Mulligan might might be my friend, instead of chumming around with this "Bill Meyers" guy.
OK, that last post should have read "If only my last name had one MORE 'e' in it..."
Whenever I get sinus infections, I get dizzy and can't concentrate. It's Chandler's fault. He gave me this cold over the phone.
Anyone seen DIARY OF THE DEAD yet?
I'm waiting for BLOG OF THE DEAD.
No, not over the phone, but rather via email. That's what you get for not keeping your antivirus protection up to date.
~8?P
Too late. Blog of the Dead has been taken. I think it's dead though.
http://zombiebloggers.blogspot.com/