Inquiry into leak of NSA spying program launched - Dec 30, 2005

Great, because clearly, the leak is the problem here.

Would You Donate Your Face for a Transplant?

What the fuck is the big deal about this? I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty fucking sure that if you cut my face off and put it on someone else, the result is going to look absolutely nothing like me. You r face is just a piece of skin, what makes it look like you is the underlying bone structure and muscles. The only thing that I can see remaining at all similar to what you looked like before is the nose. Yet to hear these ethicists and doctors talk about it, you'd think that if I donate my face to someone, it's going to be traumatic because this person will have to constantly be explaining to people that they're not me, because they look just like me. It's ridiculous. I know on Face Off, when they traded faces, they looked like each other, but in real life, it just can't work that way.

I've already told my family, but in case there's any conflict, I'll document right here, that when I die, I want to donate anything that anyone can use. And if it were up to me, I'd make everyone do the same, regardless of consent. What the fuck are people hanging on to pieces of a corpse for? So they can burn it, or bury it? Especially if it can help someone else. It's ridiculous.

Many Americans Still Believe Hussein Had Links to al Qaeda

In my own somewhat related research, I have concluded that the number of hopelessly stupid adults in America is somewhere between 22 and 56 percent.

Study: Men and Women Use Internet Differently

The study also concluded that boys have a penis, while girls have a vagina. Seriously, who wastes time doing these studies to find out something that common sense could tell you in the first place?

White House Details President's Vacation Reading

Who gives a fuck? Why does anyone care what this asshole is reading? Unless it's the Constitution, because he obviously doesn't get the gist of that one. And why the hell is he on vacation again, anyway? Everytime he fucks something up, he goes on vacation 'til it blows over. How hard is that to recognize? So instead of continuing to report on how he thinks it's ok to spy on Americans, ABC News instead tells us what he is reading. Great job! Have they given out any Pulitizers yet this year?

Cal Thomas isn't very bright

After several years, we've just recently started receiving the local paper again, the Florida Times-Union. I was reading the opinion page last Thursday and had the misfortune to stumble across Cal Thomas' column, titled War on terrorism requires new methods, not naivete.

It's amazing that guys like this, who rehash tired arguments, don't check their facts, and show a complete lack of logical thought processes have this kind of national forum.

The gist of the column is that Bush was justified in using the illegal wiretaps because, if you invoke national security, then you can do anything you damn well please. Or something like that. Here are a few of his more ridiculous statements.

Talking about the New York Times anonymous sources - Just once it would be nice if the anonymous would leak something beneficial to their country. Obviously, his opinion of what's beneficial to our country differs from mine, but beyond that, what the hell is he talking about? The reason people leak information is to report that something is wrong. Happy news is announced in press conferences, not by anonymous sources.

Then he trots out another tired argument - But civil liberties mean nothing if you're killed by a terrorist who has manipulated the constitution to achieve his or her objectives. The Senate's refusal to extend the Patriot Act increases the likelihood that more of us will die sooner than we expect. No, civil liberties mean nothing if they're subject to the unchecked whims of a chief executive. The argument that our safety requires the suspension (or abolition) of liberty has never been demonstrated satisfactorily. But the dangers of giving unlimited powers to the government have been seen throughout history.

Then he makes an unwarranted assumption - Those relatively few who were spied on and had their cell phones monitored must have demonstrated their intention to aid in another terrorist attack on U.S Soil. Really, they must have, huh? I'm glad Cal is satisfied. That's the problem with this whole scenario. Letting the executive branch authorize surveillance with no oversight invites abuse. In this scenario, we're required to trust that the people in power are working in our best interests. And if they're not? Since it's secret, we won't even know enough vote them out of office, (without a whistleblower). I haven't seen much that leads me to trust that this administration has America's best interests in mind.

Then a factual error - Waiting for a judge to give permission to monitor a suspect's cell phone often takes too long. That may be the case, but as has been widely reported, FISA gives the authorites the ability to tap a phone and get the warrant after the fact. Therefore, time is no longer a concern. In that case, the only reason to ignore the requirement to get a warrant is that you think you may not get one. Or you're drunk with power. By all accounts, these warrants are extremely easy to get and are never denied, so if there was a concern about getting the warrant approved, the intelligence need must be seriously questionable.

Then he heads off into part two of his column, condemning McCain's bill banning the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners in American custody. One wishes our enemies would adopt such a standard, but they won't because they are more interested in winning than behaving nicely. The major flaw in McCain's thinking is similar to what one sees in our dealings with Israel and her enemies. It is that what we do affects what the other side does and if we will be "humane" to them, they won't blow us to smithereens. That is dangerous wishful thinking and there is no evidence to support it. These and other statements in the column show that Cal clearly supports torture, he thinks it's essential to winning. There are three major flaws in his argument. First, the idea that treating people humanely is only done to get reciprocal treatment for our own soldiers and citizens from the other side. If you've ever read Cal's columns, you know he's a conservative Christian. I'm not a Christian, but I believe that treating people humanely and loving your enemies is one of the central teachings. People should be treated well, not for the hope of any reward, just because it's the right thing to do, it makes us better people. Second, Cal, like all his ilk, make the assumption that everyone we detain is guilty. Where do they get this idea? In actual fact, the vast majority of the people we detain are innocent. We've heard that, especially in Iraq, young men are picked up by the truckload when sweeps are done. If we torture or even stop short and use humiliation and degradation, we are invariably going to harm innocent people. My guess is that people like Cal Thomas don't care about innocent Iraqis. They'll say they do, if cornered, but their positions show otherwise. Third, torture doesn't work. It's widely known that forceful interrogation is not an effective or reliable tool. Look at how many false confessions are forced out of people in this country. And that's with the checks and balances we have in place for our own citizens. Basically, Cal just buys the argument without examination, that if the bad guys behead our hostages, then we must do the same to them.

So you call us naive, Cal? Those of us who hold the U.S. to a higher standard? I think for naivete, you need to look in the mirror.

Happy Festivus!

A donation has been made in your name to The Human Fund.

Patriot Act given a 6-month reprieve

I have mixed feelings about this. While it was nice that the President had to go along with something less than what he wanted, it still bothers me that some seem to be looking at extending this piece of shit for six months as some sort of victory for progressives. The Patriot Act sucks and it needs to go...completely. Why are people so suddenly afraid of terrorism, that they're willing to go along with anything that might (and this is a key word here, most people have no idea of any really scope of terrorist activities or how new measures help or not) prevent it? Sure, September 11th was a terrible, tragic thing, and it was horrible to see. But because it happened once, doesn't suddenly make me afraid that it is coming for me next. Sure, I may die in a terrorist attack, but that's pretty unlikely. I may also die in a car accident, or from a heart attack, or in a freak skydiving accident (not likely either), and I will certainly die somehow. But I don't see the government looking for more power to regulate speed limits, or fatty foods, or skydiving, in order to keep us safer, and no one would give it to them even if they did. Death is my absolute biggest fear, but that doesn't mean that the threat of it will suddenly make me stupid. So why does it seem to do that to so many other people, especially people who supposedly believe that there is something better waiting for them when they die? I hope we all get over this collective fear before we extend this fucked up law again. And I hope next time there are no deals to allow it to continue, and that people by then have realized that it is unnecessary, and does nothing but take away from our freedom that we're all supposed to be so hell bent on protecting.

Stevens: 'This is the saddest day of my life'

What a fucking dickhead. I hope he's never had any loved ones die or anything, otherwise this looks like a pretty fucked up thing to say. At his age, I'm sure someone he knows has died. But then, I guess by now, everyone that knows him probably already realizes that he's a dickhead.

Dungy's son, 18, found dead in Tampa suburb

Tony Dungy is a great football coach, and as far as I can tell has always seemed like a genuinely good person as well. So I really feel sad to see something like this. This shouldn't happen to anyone, much less a guy like Dungy. No amount of success in his career can compensate for what he must be going through now.

I've been rooting for the Colts all year (after the Cowboys), since I like the team (and hate the '72 Dolphins). Now that they've lost a game, I wasn't quite as interested. But now I will be paying closer attention. Not that winning the Superbowl would make Dungy feel any better, but if his team gets to 13-0, then loses in the playoffs, he will take a lot of undeserved crap, which he certainly doesn't need at a time like this. Of course I still want the Cowboys to win it all, but since they'll be lucky to get in as the 6th seed in the playoffs, I don't think there will be any conflict.

Space cadets taken in by TV hoax

Shouldn't the lack of weightlessness have tipped them off? As far as I know, zero gravity isn't something you can fake very easily.

George Bush is an Asshole - May become on ongoing series

As everyone comments on this insane abuse of power by our President, I see people quoting government websites and portions of The Patriot Act where the White House assures people that all the provisions of the Patriot Act are done within the bounds of the Constitution and with judicial oversight. Of course people are rightly pointing to all these assurances as evidence of the President assuring us all of one thing, while actually doing another in secret, which is nothing new for him, but this may be the worst of what he has done that has become public, and he has admitted that it is going on (although he claims it is legal). What I'm worried about is all this discussion about the legality of the secret wiretaps may have the consequence of making people more comfortable with all the violations of their civil liberties contained in The Patriot Act. Since it isn't secret, and is all done more openly than this program that has now come to light, people may forget how much of our Freedom is actually taken away by The Patriot Act. Or, worst case, it may be renewed in some bullshit deal in order to stop all the secret stuff we're now finding out about.

In a sane world, this new revelation would have the opposite effect and would serve to focus people on violations of their civil liberties, and therefore make The Patriot Act look even worse. But, as I've learned these last few years, we definitely do not live in a sane world, so I hope that as we condemn the President's illegal activities, we also remember that his legal ones are over the line as well.

Son of the Mask

So, I'm watching this stupid movie because I thought my son might think it was funny. Anwyay, the movie starts off in a museum where Ben Stein is giving a tour featuring the mask, when one of the tourists suddenly turns into a silly green monster and starts doing all kinds of cartoonish masky sort of things, then grabs the mask, realizes it's a fake and gets upset. Now, it's been a while since I saw The Mask, but as I remember it, it was the mask itself that supplied all these powers, so I don't know how this guy was able to do all this stuff without it. Maybe this will all be cleared up later, but I don't expect to be watching much longer.

George Bush is an asshole

So now Bush breaks the law, and isn't even worried enough about it to lie about it. He openly admits it and tells anyone who doesn't support his criminal behavior to fuck off. Not that this isn't exactly the kind of shit I expect out of him and his administration, but it's pretty fucking sad to realize that he'll probably get away with it.

Listen up, idiots. This is not an issue about Bush spying on terrorists. No one likes terrorists. I know it's more comfortable for you when everything can be black and white, but reality isn't like that. This is an issue about Bush breaking the law. It's about unchecked power. Sure, it may not affect you if he spies on some terrorists (of course, we have only his word (whatever that's worth) to assure us that he's only doing this for suspected terrorists), but at some point there may be some liberty that you do enjoy that he wants to take away. And if you give him the right to take away one, it's a lot easier for him to take away the next one. Eventually, he may have a problem with something you do, or something you care about. Suppose one day he decides that Americans shouldn't be able to own guns anymore, because that makes it easier for the terrorists to own guns? I guess you might finally start to come around then. Unfortunately, it will be too late, since you dumbasses have decided to trust him with the power to decide what's good for America. No one deserves this much power, even if they are right. I don't want Bush to have it, and I wouldn't want a President I supported to have it, because it's unAmerican. It's that simple. Why anyone still supports this guy is beyond me.

W is for What an asshole.

'Iraq's Looking Good,' Cheney Tells U.S. Troops

"Well, Iraq's looking good," Cheney replied. "We've turned the corner. I think when we look back from 10 years hence, we'll see that the year '05 was in fact a watershed year here in Iraq."

emphasis mine

Wow, did he actually say that with a straight face? Someone should put together a list of all the corners we've turned, then maybe we can get an idea of how many corners there actually are in Iraq. Anyway, it takes a lot of balls to say something like that at this point. And how does no one ask him the obvious follow-up about how many corners there are?

I also heard Bush said that we're "tightening the noose" which I wondered if it was anything like "last throes" and how many of these useless comments that are obviously not backed up by any objective reality that these guys can make before they are held accountable for this mess.

The Sneeze - Steve, Don't Eat It!

If you haven't been here, you need to go. It's fucking hilarious. My wife and I were reading it a couple of nights ago and just about crying. It takes a lot to make me laugh uncontollably, but this site did it.

The Apprentice

As I watched the Apprentice finale last night, I was rooting for Randal to win, because I think he was clearly the best canidate, but I also liked Rebecca, and I thought since last week that Donald Trump just might hire both of them. So I wasn't surprised when Trump asked Randal what he thought about it. I was surprised at Randal's response. I don't see any reason why sharing a fake job is any better than having it by yourself. Especially when it is pretty clear that Randal was the better choice, I don't think anyone would have seen it as a tie. I do think it was a little unfair to put Randal in that position. I didn't ever consider that race had anything to do with that, though as this article suggests some people did. Hopefully, this won't turn into some big controversy.

McCain, Bush agree on torture ban

Wow, this is a moment that should go down in our history like the Great Compromise. Imagine, the leader of our country and congress have tentatively agreed that torturing people is a bad thing, and that it really ought to be banned. Next up for our forward-thinking leaders, a ban on taking candy from babies. (although I'm sure the administration will argue for a provision exempting the CIA, in case said candy is actually part of a terrorist plot.)

Pepsi Cappuccino

This is a bad idea. Pepsi and Coke need to just calm down and realize that cola is fine all by itself, and we don't really need a whole bunch of new flavors of it. Although I kind of like Cherry Coke, I'd be willing to have it go away if it would take Coke with Lime and Vanilla Coke with it. I guess I should at least be happy that I haven't seen that Pepsi Holiday Spice crap around this year (it tastes like there's dirt in it (but just a little bit, maybe at the bottom), if you didn't see my post on it last year (and if you didn't, what the hell is wrong with you, read the archives, dammit)).

Bob Novak: Bush knows who leaked CIA officer's identity

While it sometimes seems that Bush knowing anything would be news, this is pretty ridiculous. I can't understand how anyone would have ever thought he didn't know. The guy is loyal to his friends before the country, he lies to protect his interests, and he isn't very good at his job. Of course he knows who did it, it was probably done with his consent. And if he didn't know at the time it happened, he surely would know by now. His ridiculous comments about the case all along have been nothing more than trying to sound like he cares about it all the while waiting for it to disappear from public attention. And why not, that's a strategy that works pretty well for him. Hopefully this time it will not.

Rep. Davis wants to protect symbols of Christmas

Oh my god, could we please stop this fucking insanity? I don't know what's saddest about this story. Is it that people are actually fucking stupid enough to believe that there is any sort of attack on the celebration of Christmas? Or is it that even if there was an attack on the celebration of Christmas that people would even take any notice of it, instead of just ignoring it which if it actually existed would make it go away? Or is it that these idiots elect people even stupider that think that this is in any way the business of the United States government? Or is it that even if it was the business of the government, that people would think it's important enough to waste time on when there are so many things that are absolutely the government's business that either aren't getting done or aren't getting done well? I can't decide, but I do know that people are fucking stupid.

Look if you want to celebrate Christmas, fine, just don't get upset if everyone else doesn't happen to want to celebrate it with you. And if you don't want to celebrate Christmas, fine, but don't get upset if other people do want to celebrate it (although I think most people get this one). And if you're a religous nut that is offended by some employee at Wal-Mart telling you Happy Holidays, then shut the fuck up and let the rest of us have happy holidays (whether those holidays are Christmas, New Years, Hannakuh, Kwanzaa, Festivus, or just a day off to watch football and get presents). If you like it better when people say "Merry Christmas" then you say "Merry Christmas" and maybe in a few years, it just might catch on. Or you could just move to reality where I (and many others) live where people already say it all the time without any reservations. Assholes.

King Kong

I've never been a King Kong fan. I have to admit, I've never seen the original movie, so my opinion is not well-informed. I did see the Jessica Lange version. But mainly the story's never really appealed to me. I'm not a big fan of monster movies or movies where animals are the stars (e.g. Beethoven), and King Kong seems like the ultimate animal/monster movie.

That said, I'm really getting excited about this movie. The previews look great(don't they always, though), the reviews are very positive, and I loved the Lord of the Rings movies, so Peter Jackson's involvement carries a lot of weight with me.

So I've been reading the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and it's got an 84% positive rating from the critics, which is really good for a popular movie. Then I read the negatives to see what the handful of people who don't like it are saying. This is one of my biggest movie critic pet peeves. Of the 22 rotten reviews, the majority mention the length as a big negative factor. I can't stand this. There are a group of critics who seem to think that all movies sould be 2 hours or less, no matter what. I'm convinced half of these people saw the running time and went into the theater expecting it to be too long. If your attention span is so short, quit whining and start reviewing TV shows. These guys probably thought Lord of the Rings should have been one movie instead of three.

My position on movie length is this - if the movie's good, I want it to be longer. If it's bad, I'll just leave. I can't remember a time when I sat in a movie and thought, hey, this isn't bad, but it would be a lot better if it was 30 minutes shorter. When a movie's really good, I get caught up in it and don't really notice the time. Titanic is a good example. (I know there are plenty of people out there who hated it, but for every one of those, there were 1000 who liked it.) It was a long movie, but I was so into what was going on, I never looked down and thought, Man when is this shit going to be over?.

So I'm excited about seeing King Kong and I'm excited that it's a good, long movie. And it may very well be that it won't live up to my expectations, but if it doesn't, it won't be because it was too long.

Poor Bathroom Etiquette

I just walked into the bathroom at work and there was a guy at a urinal having a conversation with a guy in the stall. I hope I'm not the only one who finds this kind of behavior disturbing and unacceptable.

Cable Relents on Channels for the Family

Oh good, family friendly programming packages. Now that fraction of a percent of people that whine about these kinds of stupid things have a choice. Of course, only about 6 people will take advantage of these packages unless they are pushed by the cable companies, so it amounts to a big waste of time for everyone. Not that I'm not all for parents being able to control what their kids watch on TV, but there are so many better ways to do that already. TVs have the VCHIP (which no one ever uses), cable boxes all have locks that can be configured by time, channel, rating, or some combination. There are ratings on each show as it starts, and parents could actually pay attention to what their kids are watching. Of course, that's a lot of work, and who wants to take the time to do that. Also, you could raise your kids not to be closed minded morons where if they happen to see something on TV that they shouldn't (like a nipple for a second), that it won't be some catastrophic event in their childhood. The best way to make sure your kids will watch something they shouldn't is to tell them they can't watch it without any explanation of why it's inappropriate. And nothing you do will keep your kids from seeing things they shouldn't now and then, whether they do it on purpose, or by accident. But if you handle it correctly, it shouldn't be such a big deal. And handling it correctly does not entail writing letters to the FCC wondering why they don't care about your children. It's not the government's or anyone else's job to raise your children for you.

At least we didn't end up with a la carte programming, which I had seen suggestions of. Because, although it sounds pretty attractive, only paying for the channels you really want, I just don't think it would work in practice. I'm sure I would miss things that I watch only occasionally, like The History Channel or Bravo, that I wouldn't want to pay for. And I'm sure without packaging channels together, cable companies would find some way to make it cost just as much, if not more. Also, all people wouldn't want to pick every single channel, and cable companies would sell them in packages anyway, just with less to offer.

Sunday Night TV

The West Wing isn't what it once was, and I recognize the ongoing campaign (especially done a year early) is a pretty transparent attempt to increase ratings. And I think they are doing pretty well with it, in any case. But whoever decided last night to focus an entire episode on the wedding of a character that no one cares about was ridiculous. Having said that, the show wasn't that bad, but I just don't understand the need to have a "wedding event" in the first place unless it's for someone meaningful to the story. It just seemed awfully forced. And I would like to see a little more coverage of the Vinnick campaign as well. I like Jimmy Smits and Alan Alda, but I'm rooting for Santos, because Vinnick's character just doesn't seem the slightest bit realistic. An atheist pro-choice Republican may exist, but he's not running for President, much less winning the nomination, much less leading the race. Either way, watching the show always makes me sad because all the characters are better choices than what we have in real life (even Bingo Bob).

I'm still pissed that they have the Survivor finale on Sunday when the show airs all season on Thursday, and I may have started boycotting it for that reason, as I might have mentioned last year sometime, but now that I have my DVR, it doesn't bother me too much anymore. Anyway, it's always interesting to see how those people look in real life on the finale after getting used to how they look living in the jungle for all that time. I think Stephanie might be the first person who actually looked worse after cleaning up. Anyway, it was an ok show, I guess, Danni looked like she could have balanced on that board for weeks. Rafe actually looked fairly comfortable too, if he had paid attention to what he was doing. I didn't think Stephanie would do well in an endurance competition after how quickly she jumped off last year for a slice of pizza. I think Survivor does a good job of changing the rules (even if it doesn't always make it better) to make sure the show isn't predictable. it will be interesting to see how they implement that Exile Island next year.