John McCain - total fuckup

What the hell?!?!?

During an appearance last weekend at the University of Mississippi, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, predicted that Mr. Lott would become Republican leader again, adding, "I will tell anyone that of all the majority leaders we've had in the United States Senate, I believe that Trent Lott was the finest leader we've had."

Florida 34, FSU 7

Sweet! And it's a shame about that 7 points - this should have been a shutout.

It was probably the most complete game they've played this year. Leak did well, despite a number of overthrown passes (one of which was intercepted). Decent day rushing (100+), though nothing spectacular. Against a top-ranked defense. And special teams stepped up once again, blocking a field goal for a touchdown, and good punting (kudos to Wilbur) and return coverage. The defense played well all night - holding the number 1 (???) ACC offense to a late touchdown, and under 100 yards rushing.

And...Florida finished undefeated at home for the first time since 2000 and knocked off its top three rivals -- Tennessee, Georgia and Florida State -- in the same season for the first time since 1996. Cool.

I wish I could have said it better myself

Shorter Hunter:

Ann Coulter is a bitch.

But his version is much more fun. Read it.

Here's why average people can't debate science

I'm an engineer, and understand this posting. But unless I've read it, I'm in no position to debate anybody on the subject. And unfortunately, too many people aren't willing to do the research before making stupid statements. (be sure to visit the link for all the embedded links)

14 Jan 2005
The global cooling myth

— william @ 5:31 am - (fr flag)

Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

.

Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.

.

George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.". The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:

Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth's orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar's (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).

...

Oh, and George Will is a douchbag.
(hat tip to Chris Mooney for leading me to this)

Thanksgiving Prayer

We return thanks to our mother, the earth,
which sustains us.
We return thanks to the rivers and streams,
which supply us with water.
We return thanks to all herbs,
which furnish medicines for the cure of our diseases.
We return thanks to the moon and stars,
which have given to us their light when the sun was gone.
We return thanks to the sun,
that has looked upon the earth with a beneficent eye.
Lastly, we return thanks to the Great Spirit,
in Whom is embodied all goodness,
and Who directs all things for the good of Her children.

Iroquois Prayer

Scalia is a douchbag

I found this in the comments to this huffingtonpost thread - Scalia: "The Election Was Dragged Into The Courts By The Gore People. We Did Not Go Looking For Trouble"...:

Scalia did far more that go looking for trouble. He and his buddies re-fashioned the facts of the case with their order stopping the vote-counting.

You have to understand what the law of injunctions are. A judge can order an injunction when:
(a) one party
(b) will suffer harm
(c) that is greater than the harm to be suffered by the other party
(d) and that cannot be repaired in any way other than an injunction.

So ask yourself, what is the "harm" that the injunction was designed to prevent?

Scalia wrote, in supporting the injunction, that the harm would be to the legitimacy of the Bush presidency. This reason fails completely the test for granting an injunction because:

(a) The "harm" to Bush is not one that is cognizable by the judicial branch. The "legitimacy" of an election is not a tangible harm; it's at most a political phrase.

(b) The "legitimacy" of a presidency hangs upon the vote count itself. If the vote count went against Bush, he would have no presidency and therefore no legitimacy.

(c) The other party (Gore) has a much stronger harm involved: actually getting the office of President.

(d) Any harm to the "legitimacy" of Bush's presidency caused by a recount could easily be repaired ... simpy by counting the votes. No injunction was needed.

The injunction stopping the vote was illegal on one more grounds: it changed the amount of time available to perform the count.

The shortness of time to count the vote was cited as a major factor in the ultimate decision a few days later. The majority in that case neglected to mention that the reason the time was short was their own injunction.

The five judges who ordered the injunction violated their oaths of office, and deserve to be whipped out of the court. History will not be kind to them.

Posted by: rewinn on November 22, 2005 at 10:41am

Oh yeah, and apparently dumbass Scalia can't read - it was Bush v. Gore - therefore it was Bush (plaintiff) who took it to the SC.

How'd I miss Midnight Madness?

I didn't realize it, but the Gators are 4-0, and beat 19th ranked Wake Forest AND 16th ranked Syracuse to win the 2K Sports Coaches Vs. Cancer Tournament. This year is just flying by...

How do you spell "petty"?

"GOP"

Republicans Refuse to Honor Springsteen

By DONNA DE LA CRUZ, Associated Press Writer Fri Nov 18, 8:33 PM ET

WASHINGTON -
Bruce Springsteen famously was "born in the USA," but he's getting scorned in the U.S. Senate.

An effort by New Jersey's two Democratic senators to honor the veteran rocker was shot down Friday by Republicans who are apparently still miffed a year after the Boss lent his voice to the campaign of Democratic presidential candidate
John Kerry.

The chamber's GOP leaders refused to bring up for consideration a resolution, introduced by Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Jon Corzine, that honored Springsteen's long career and the 1975 release of his iconic album, "Born to Run."

No reason was given, said Lautenberg spokesman Alex Formuzis. "Resolutions like this pass all the time in the U.S. Senate, usually by unanimous consent," he said.

Telephone calls to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's office seeking comment were not immediately returned.

Lautenberg said he couldn't understand why anyone would object to the resolution.

"Even if the Republicans don't like (Springsteen's) tunes, I would hope they appreciated his contributions to American culture," Lautenberg said.

Corzine said he, Lautenberg and other Americans appreciated Springsteen's contributions to American culture.

"We'll never surrender looking for ways to honor our local hero who made it big in this land of hopes and dreams," Corzine said.

Springsteen endorsed Kerry last year, and made campaign appearances that drew huge crowds who came to hear music described in the resolution as "a cultural milestone that has touched the lives of millions of people."

This is NOT the way to win hearts and minds, but republicans were never any good at that anyway...

Yeah...

Playing on an earlier post...

Never underestimate the power of makeup

The comments are a great read

The Swift-Boating of Peak Oil

Seems our moron friend Jerome Corsi is back talking about ANOTHER subject he knows nothing about...

Recognize any names?

Signatories of a 1998 letter requesting Clinton invade Iraq. This, folks, is why this country faces a serious problem.


Elliott Abrams
Richard L. Armitage
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner
John Bolton
Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama
Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol
Richard Perle
Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld
William Schneider, Jr.
Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Here's the text of the letter (it was more important to list the signatories first):

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Tammy Bruce = anti-intellectual

Don't believe me, check out World O'crap for the takedown (and laugh all the way home)...

Well, you can't say they don't deserve each other

Caught this on Alterman's Blog, and let me just say "eeewwwwwwww":

Irony: I skipped a friend’s Halloween party, because I don’t like costumes, but stupidly, as it turned out, because I missed the sight of Ron Silver showing up with Ann Coulter on his arm… And yes, finish the joke about her costume yourselves…

Update:

Thanks to MN ChimpH8R over at DU:

That reminds me of an old Doug Kenney quote from a National Lampoon article - "(having sex with Coulter) is like riding an English bicycle over railroad ties and you don't even get to honk the horn."

For the astronomers out there

Astronomers Determine Trigger of Massive Star Formation

Bjorn Carey
SPACE.com Staff Writer
SPACE.com 2 hours, 58 minutes ago

Some regions in space are especially good at creating massive stars. Astronomers know the recipe for creating a star in one of these stellar nurseries calls for hydrogen gas, dust, and some amount of heat and gravity, but they still don't know quite how all the parts come together or what triggers the event.

So several theories have been proposed. One predicts that low-mass stars accrete surrounding material. Another calls for the forceful combination of two protostars. A third, called the "collect-and-collapse" model, says that a parent massive star influences the formation of second-generation stars.

Now, a collection of images presented by astronomers at the Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Marseille, France provides the most complete and detailed evidence supporting the collect-and-collapse model, without ruling out the other models.

How it works

...

Oh yeah, I'D get a ticket

Casual drive through Paris

Here's the primary link with torrent download info.

I remember this day. Do you?

You should never forget it.

Published on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003


To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Spurrier 1, Meyer 0

Urban Meyer has a long way to go to catch up with Steve Spurrier. Meyer can be cut some slack, since this is his first year in the SEC, and he hasn't had a chance to recruit players to his system of coaching, but yesterday that shouldn't really have mattered. Florida is a more talented team than South Carolina, yet still couldn't beat the Gamecocks. Too little emotion, too many mistakes, basically the look of an unprepared team going into enemy territory against a team with a lot at stake and a coach's emotional ax to grind.

As an aside:

Kentucky 48, Vanderbilt 43

Hmmm...

Political songs and cartoons meet in the 21st century

Rush's theme: I'm a Nazi

Nice fucking job, Sony

Viruses use Sony anti-piracy CDs
Natasha Bedingfield
Virus writers are exploiting Sony's controversial anti-piracy software to hide their malicious creations.

In late October Sony was found to be using stealth techniques to hide software that stopped some of its CDs being illegally copied.

Now three virus variants have been found that use the Sony software to evade detection by anti-virus programs.

Sony has apologised, saying it is working with computer security firms to address the problems.

Viral trio

The stealthy methods that Sony BMG used to protect its anti-piracy system were uncovered by Windows programming expert Mark Russinovich on 31 October.

He discovered that the Sony XCP copy protection system is a so-called "root-kit" that hides itself deep inside the Windows operating system.

XCP uses these techniques to install a proprietary media player that allows PC users to play music on the 20 CDs Sony BMG is protecting with this system. The CDs affected are only being sold in the US.

Soon after Mr Russinovich exposed how XCP worked security experts speculated that it would be easy to hijack the anti-piracy system to hide viruses.

Now anti-virus companies have discovered three malicious programs that use XCP's stealthy capabilities if they find it installed on a compromised PC.

"The development we feared most from Sony's inclusion of rootkit technology to conceal its DRM software was its use to conceal malicious code," said David Emm from security firm Kaspersky Labs.

"Unfortunately, it seems our fears were well-grounded."

...

Republican party and corruption

"The corrupt cronyism of the Republican Party is utter and complete, encompassing the Executive Branch and both branches of Congress."

Here's the supporting evidence - Trickle Down Corruption As Far As the Eye Can See

Flash cards for retards

aka Faux News (thanks Janeane)

Florida 49, Vanderbilt 42

Jesus Christ it's fucking VANDERBILT!!! Last week they held undefeated Georgia to 10 points, this week they give up 35 to Vandy in regulation, and another TD in OT. Seemed like they were either scoring or turning the ball over (of 14 drives, 6 TD, 4 TO, 3 punts, and end of half). The defense couldn't stop anything, giving up 361 passing yards on 28/42. To Vanderbilt. WTF.

And the special teams, which had been doing so well of late, missed a short field goal (26 yd) which would have prevented Vandy from ever tying the game; and blew the recovery of an onside kick, which allowed them to score the TD to send it to OT. Not good.

Two other issues - why would you let your #1 cornerback, one of the best players on the team, return punts? Oh, yeah, he broke his ankle on a punt return. Second, where was the crowd noise? Vandy had no trouble getting their plays called, no problems with the play clock, and I don't believe had a false start. The fans need to pick things up, especially for the Commodores (who always play us close).

I'll take the win. But next time, leave out the headache.

Heard this morning on Stephanie Miller

talking about a sign at a Bush appearance:

"Can the President get a blowjob so we can impeach him?"

Just a reminder

Good quote from Hunter over at dKos:

"And placed a White House that came into power on accusations of sex-based perjury into a position of defending themselves on national security based perjury charges."

Yep, that pretty much sums up their honor and integrity.

Just a little "shot" across the bow, so to speak

Drunk dude becomes part of art installation?

Lucky for the GOP Fitzgerald doesn't use the "Starr Standard"

For a nice stroll down memory lane, and an indication what Cheney et al could be facing if Fitzgerald wasn't a principled prosecuter (ie Ken Starr).

Frist needs to stop whining

Today he was bitching about how the Democrats had "hijacked the Senate". Hahahahahahahahahaha. That is so amazingly...I can't think of a good word to describe it.

Anyway:

Since 1929, the Senate has held 53 secret sessions, generally for reasons of national security.

...

· Six of the most recent secret sessions, however, were held during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.

So Bill Frist, please shut the fuck up!

I got a good laugh just picturing this one

Thanks to ReddHedd for this one

"An arraignment is the hearing where the accused is formally presented with the charges he faces, and is asked to enter his plea of guilty or not guilty. Expect Scooter to plead not guilty. Everyone does.

Well, everyone except this one guy I prosecuted once who had to be dragged into the corner of the courtroom by his attorney for a serious talk after he said loud and clear, "Oh, I am so guilty your honor. And I'm awful sorry for what I done." Needless to say, we worked out a plea on that one."