Thursday, February 16, 2006

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

What Really Happened in the Gunning Down of Whittington? A Conspiracy Theory.

Was alcohol involved? Cheney admits having had a beer at lunchtime. Cheney of course had to leave Yale because he was too busy getting drunk to keep his grades up. Cheney also has two drunk driving convictions. Unlike GW, Cheney never gave up the booze. The sheriff didn't get to interview Cheney right away - why?

Who was the third hunter? Why haven't we heard from them? Weren't they the nearest witness? It was Pamela Willeford, US Ambassador to Liechtenstein and close friend of Dick Cheney (also rumored to be having a 'relationship' with Cheney).

The guy that was gunned down has a pellet near his liver and one near his heart. It was cold out so at a minimum Whittington had on a heavy shirt and a jacket. It's kind of hard to believe that pellets from a 28g shell could penetrate the jacket, the shirt and skin to travel into his abdominal and thoracic cavities from 90 ft away. The doctors said they knew he had a pellet near his heart from 'the beginning'. Whittington was likely gunned down much closer than 90 ft. They also initially 'misstated' time the shooting occurred.

The sheriff needed to be stalled so they can get Ms. Willeford out of sight and get Cheney sobered up.

There are several witnesses so time is also needed to get the story straight and to make sure Mr. Whittington knows what story to tell.

Now people at the hospital are using the 'McClellan technique' on reporters asking questions. They refuse to say how many pellets hit Mr. Whittington or even whether the pellets are lead or steel although they answered many other questions.

We aren't getting even close to the real story.

Monday, February 13, 2006

Dick 'Elmer Fudd' Cheney

VP Cheney didn't shoot anyone, he 'sprayed' them.

Accidents like this happen ALL the time. In fact most bird hunters have been 'peppered' at least a couple of times.

It obviously wasn't the VP's fault, the guy snuck up behind him. Everyone knows if you sneak up behind someone that has a gun, you should expect to get 'peppered'.

Besides, the guy wasn't really hurt, they just put him in intensive care because the other hospital beds were all filled.

Oh yeah, and the wounds were only superficial. That's why many of the 'peppers' will be left in the victim.

A VP can hunt, and then fulfil the proper licensing requirements after the fact.

And, being VP has its advantages. If you 'pepper' someone with a shotgun, you don't need to be interviewed by the sheriff immediately, the interview can be done later by phone or something.

Can you imagine what the Republicans would be saying if Al Gore or John Kerry were involved in this type of hunting accident? I'm pretty sure it would be characterized as attempted murder.

Defining a Liberal Today

One of my favorite new blogs is by Glenn Greenwald, an attorney that specializes in first amendment cases. On Sunday he wrote: It used to be the case that in order to be considered a "liberal" or someone "of the Left," one had to actually ascribe to liberal views on the important policy issues of the day – social spending, abortion, the death penalty, affirmative action, immigration, "judicial activism," hate speech laws, gay rights, utopian foreign policies, etc. etc. These days, to be a "liberal," such views are no longer necessary.

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

This couldn't be more true. What is even funnier is what passes for a 'conservative' today. Back in the days of St. Ronald Reagan a conservative was someone who believed in small government, staying out of foreign affairs, belief in a strong military and a balanced Federal budget. That sure is no longer the case. A conservative is now someone that follows the Bush Admin. hook, line and sinker, even if they disagree with Bush.

Today Glenn goes on to write:conservatives over the last three decades have been abandoned almost entirely and have been replaced by their precise antitheses -- all in order to justify George Bush’s conduct. The principal example used was the angry opposition to warrant-based FISA eavesdropping voiced by conservatives under the Clinton Administration, as compared to the stirring defense of warrantless, oversight-less eavesdropping now engaged in proudly by the Bush Administration.

But beyond that specific, quite revealing instance is the general disappearance of an anti-federal-government ethos. Principles of a restrained federal government and distrust of that government -- previously centerpieces of the conservative movement -- have been discarded like yesterday's trash in order to maintain praise of George Bush's actions and to maximize the powers and reach of the Federal Government now that Bush controls it.

Glenn is a bright guy that hits the nail directly on the head. How do I know that? Well, because of all the outragious emails he received from the 'right wing' in response to his post.

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Happy Birthday Charles Darwin

Charlie's 200th birthday anniversary will be in 2009. What else can be said about Charles Darwin that hasn't already been said? I found that his son Leonard Darwin (1850-1943) was the mentor of Ronald Fisher (1890-1962) who almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science.

Are We a Sheep-Like Nation?

Bruce Mulkey asks What is it going to take for the American people to wake up to the presidential coup d’├ętat that is now under way, a takeover that is occurring in broad daylight by a president who has declared that as commander in chief he has unfettered power to fight an undeclared and never-ending war on terrorism, even if that means ignoring the courts, disregarding laws passed by Congress and circumventing the Bill of Rights in the process?

This is exactly the right question. Are we so afraid of terrorist attacks that we will allow Bush to decide which laws he will follow and which ones he will not? It seems like a very small majority feel exactly that way. You really have to wonder why so many people are afraid of terrorists? As countries go, we are one of the those with the least to fear of actual terrorists attacks. If we are so afraid of terrorist attacks, why are we not demanding better protection of our ports, nuclear power plants, railways, and chemical plants? Congress has got to wake up soon and it looks like it is beginning to happen with a few key Republicans questioning the legality of Bush ignoring our laws.