SUPER-CON

I attending my first convention, the "Super-Con" in San Jose over the weekend.

Since it was my first I'd barely any idea of what to expect, I just went on impulse.

There was a row of celebrities as I entered. There was Bruce Dern, I think he was in Last Man Standing with Bruce Willis. There was also the man who played the Flash in the live action TV series around the 90's. Margot Kidder was there, you know Lois Lane from the Superman movies starring Chris Reeve. Dern, and Kidder both seemed very unapproachable. The Flash on the other hand was smiling and seemed happy to be there.

Humberto Ramos was there and getting all the attention. And making quite a bit of money off of commissions. I really wanted to ask him for one but I didn't have enough money for an Inked work, besides I dunno if he'd know who the heck the "Super-Wizard" was.

Anyway, It was very different, didn't know how to approach the ppl/artists at their booths, but I'm a bit asocial. There's always next time. Hopefully Avatar will have something in California in the near future, I'd be a bit more comfortable approaching that sort of booth.

Star Trek Review

5 out of 5 stars for action, Special FX, 2 out of 5 for Story= overall: 2 1/2 stars

***SPOILER ALERT***SPOILER ALERT****SPOILER ALERT***

I watched JJ Abrams Star Trek over the weekend. I'm no Trekkie, I don't follow the characters or their stories religiously, though I have enjoyed a number of Star Trek films and episodes.

Throughout the film the lead character, Kirk, shifts roles between, rebel, genius, womanizer,brawler, and comic relief; sometimes within one sequence. It's a bit much to ask I think. I'm supposed to believe that such a doting character, can also take charge in a potentially dangerous situation? Okay, fine. The actor playing Kirk seems to over act and in nearly every scene is not as graceful or charismatic as one would think Kirk should be;however he does have a good sense of comedic timing. The action/drama, which is done well, is always followed by a slight comic relief, no matter how boring and devoid of content each following scene is.

The very Clever use of a version of time travel which creates alternate timelines as a device to ignore Star Trek's years of history was brilliant. Although, this kind of device can create convolution, which could be a problem since the people behind this are also behind the television series LOST. Despite how brilliant this device is, it's used simply to say "hey, this ain't your dad's Star Trek". The entire film, while being entertaining and doing well with the introduction to the new cast of familiar characters, fails to have any underlying theme. It's a series of scenes without any real story, a prologue. The strongest part of the entire story is left as a backdrop. With this alternate timeline comes a number of different possibilities, including the fact that each character, including Spock may die at any moment. This is never brought up, there is no sense that young Kirk was robbed of his place in history that the events at the beginning of the film took away opportunities he otherwise would've had. The line "Do you ever feel like you were meant for something more" (paraphrasing) should've held more meaning by the time it was spoken.

I agree with one of the only critical reviews about this movie I could find. Quoting from some of the parts I agree with:

"'Star Trek' as a concept has voyaged far beyond science fiction and into the safe waters of space opera, but that doesn’t amaze me. The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action. Like so many franchises, it’s more concerned with repeating a successful formula than going boldly where no 'Star Trek' has gone before."

"The new movie essentially intends to reboot the franchise with younger characters and carry on as before. The movie deals with narrative housekeeping. Perhaps the next one will engage these characters in a more challenging and devious story, one more about testing their personalities than re-establishing them. In the meantime, you want space opera, you got it." ,

Roger Ebert's Review

Now What?

So, no one reads this but me. Maybe that will change soon as I start mentioning it exists by other means?

Title should now read 3YearsLeftTilTheEndofTIME.

I've been gone a long while, got my head stuck in the virtual world of Online gaming. It aches knowing I could write better sentences and have more interesting conversations while I was knee deep in researching one of my many bullshit projects while hopped up on political commentary from mainly public radio sources.

I should read a fucking book.

Illegal Immigrant Rights?

A bit of my thoughts on a local news article I read that bleeds into a bigger issue somewhat.


The "Day Without An Immigrant" began on Monday morning May 2nd 2006 in Gilroy with over 600 people marching through the city streets to gather at Gilroy's City Hall. At the end of the demonstration dozens drove to larger protests in San Jose. This was not the first march of its kind concerning "immigrant rights". The first was held in April and was organized in protest of a proposed bill that would have made it a felony to be an illegal immigrant and to help an illegal immigrant. Soon after the demonstration the bill was revised and did not include language making illegal immigrants felons. The point of the May 2nd demonstration was to show the law makers in Washington the economic power of the illegal immigrant work force and those who support them, corporations notwithstanding.

The Gilroy Dispatch reported an unofficial list of local businesses affected by the boycott, most of them "Hispanic-owned" and frequented in large part by the very people boycotting them. The Dispatch also cited "preliminary reports from The California Association of Employers that indicated only 97 percent of businesses in a statewide survey reported they do not believe the boycotts put a financial strain on their business." Although, nationwide the demonstration/boycott did shut down some big name corporate factories. The impact may have been softened, however, by a number of workers calling in to request the day off before the march, allowing employers to find cover for the marching workers.

"We're trying to help the 11 million that have no rights" and "we need to defend the human rights of everyone", the protesters reportedly said. No one offered any specific example of the human rights being withheld or who is doing the withholding. One Gavilan College student who made signs for the protest but did not attend, opting instead to participate in school that day said "America is the greatest country in the world because of immigrants. As long as there is poverty around the world, people are going to come. As long as there is a dream--people will run, jump, swim here. That's why this country is great--because people die trying to come here." While I agree with the sentiment that America is a great country due, in part, to immigration, I cannot say the same for the last part of the comment. People die trying to cross into Mexico from the South but that's not because the country is great, it is because Mexico can shoot border violators on sight. Maybe the quote should instead be "That is why this country is great because people aren't killed for trying to come here."

While the protests are largely in support of amnesty for illegal immigrants both the news media, and the demonstrators fail to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants; Even a number of members of the California State Senate seemingly endorse the breaking of our immigration laws. Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, is the chief author of Senate Concurrent Resolution 113. The resolution compared the illegal immigrants plight to that of the African-American Community during the Jim Crow days. Given that illegal immigrants are not American citizens and there is no organized oppression of immigrant workers, legal or otherwise, it is hard--if not impossible--to see the connection.

I do not agree with making all illegal immigrants felons along with any person who would help them. In fact I would accept granting citizenship to illegals currently in the U.S. who meet the current requirements and who pay any pertinent fines and fees that go along with it. I do, however, support the upholding of laws passed in the 80's concerning employment of illegal immigrants. Laws which have been ignored by corporations in favor of cheap labor and politicians across party lines in favor of those who lobby for the corporations. The laws and systems in place are no more complicated than those of any other country. Disregarding the system of laws put in place, such as financial and health requirements--which have not dampered America's position as a magnet for immigration--threatens to weaken that magnetic force that draws more immigrants to this country than to any other in the world.

Hiatus pt.2

Well if by chance you're here cause you heard about this website from 1stperson singular i'll give you some links to a couple more active and interesting blogs:
FakePlasticNews always something to read there. and Socratic Gadfly Who writes mostly about the creationist vs. science aspect of things political. Though, he rarely replies he posts like a maniac. And feel free to comment on any of my old posts as they are starving for attention. As i said before aegri and i are venturing into another project, involving music, i'm sure it will end in tears.

Hiatus

Aegri and Aegri's associate are busy with "other projects" forgive the complete loss of continuity we'll be back as soon as the weather changes to just the right temperature.

Creationists Take Another THWACK!

Kansas and Evolution

Creationists hiding under the guise of a philosophy called "intelligent design."
I wonder how Avida will impact this whole aspect of trying to destroy valid Scientific theories with philosophical ideas.

Avida Evolving

When Walking into your local grocery store you don't usually ask, How did i get here? or Why am i here? Unless of course you're as scatterbrain as i am--but even then it doesnt usually connote the existential weight it did when i walked into my local grocery store, and sprinted ritualistically to the magazine stand. It was there that i saw staring back at me, over the image of a primate, in bold yellow letters, the words "Testing Darwin, scientists prove evolution works." So i bought the magazine and read through the article as fast as i could. I, being an open-minded creationist, who by the way doesn't believe in the divine monarchy of christianity; nor the idea that the bible is the word or mind of god, was stunned and intrigued.

It seems that Michigan state researchers developed a computer program in the late 1990's called Avida. The program allowed them "to watch the random mutation and natural selection of digital organisms unfold over millions of generations." Now if you think of DNA as a set of instructions that tell cells how to assemble protiens, then it's easy to think of a computer program, or line of code, as virtually the same thing. These lines of code carry information on how to build a new line of code, or a new digital organism--just like DNA does in the physical world.The purpose of this program being to determine if a simple organism or line of computer code could evolve into a complex one. According to the article it has done just that.

The program was even shown to produce results similar to Richard Lenski's "longest continuously running experiment in evolution." Which profoundly demonstrated the idea of natural selection. Not only that but it also argued--with evidence to back up the aruments--against creationist ideas about intelligent design. Ideas such as "just how could they eye have evolved?" And destroyed the argument that mutations in an organism are unwelcomed and usually breeded out of a species after a few generations, and that one was based on a scientific experiment.

Though--even with the obvious breakthrougs achieved with the program--I believe that the crux of creationism was lost upon these men. The crux being that someone or something created us. Doesn't Avida in fact prove that without someone bothering to take the time to create us we would have never evolved into the "complex" organisms we've now become? After all Avida was created by these scientists right?

So why are we here? i mean, if something did create us, as those scientists created Avida, then it could be plausible that whatever did it may have done so to ponder how and why it was created. Though, that could just be nonsensical thinking. The only thing that steered me away from creationism is energy. The whole concept that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It lead me to think that if something can exist without having to be created then just maybe there was no "intelligent design" involved in our creation or evolution into being. Maybe some physiological programs won't allow themselves to compute that there was no grandiose purpose to thier existense. Maybe they need to believe that they were created for a purpose.

But,After all, in the end, people will just believe what they want to believe. Creationists will be hell bent on promoting thier beliefs and arguments. And evolutionists will do the same, albiet with much more proof than the creationists.
------

For more info on Avida go to: dllab.caltech.edu/avida

Or visit discover.com

Securing the Bomb

"Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11 th eU.S. has secured less nuclear material than in the 2yrs prior."-Matthew Bunn assisntant director of science, technology and public policy program at Harvard.

when i first heard this story it was May of last year, last i heard about it bush threw some money at the problem, i still dont know if the Dept. of Energy has gotten the power it needed to do something about the hazardous nuclear material. I'll do some looking and let you all know.

Democracy

So the Iraqi elections went on without as big a murderous rampage as most were expecting, still 36 died last I heard, when an IED went off. Perhaps the recent capture of some high ranking insurgents payed off. In my cautious optimism I'd have to suspect that the real killing could begin after the election, taking out elected officials etc. From what i gather from everything i've heard so far this is just one hurtle for the Iraqi people. After this there will be a drafting of a constitution, something everyone will have a part in, unlike the elections that were boycotted by the Sunni. Though, from what i understand it may be more because of thier scant numbers than anything else.
It's been about fifty years since an election like this has taken place in Iraq. It seems, from newscasts and interviews of Iraqi's, that the U.S.'s image could gain some support from Iraqi's. In interviews with ex-patriots here in california there is a sense of pride and hope about what is happening. In Iraq there are mixed feelings some people voted no matter what, others were too scared of the insugency to make it out.
The whole purpose of our ousting of Saddam is plain to me, though, i could be wrong. It's all riding on this idea that democracy spreading in the middle east will somehow eradicate or dampen the extremism of terrorists. Islamic terrorists stuck in the 7th century and convinced that America is the great satan.
Despite the mistakes made post-war it looks as though there will be an Iraqi democracy. If it works out better than expected we could have a new ally in the fight against Islamic extremism. If it fails at worst a stronger enemy and another war.

Laura Ingraham and Right Thinking

So i'm listening to right wing radio, and there's Laura Ingraham with her smear campaign against eveything and everyone who doesn't fall in line with the path of the righteous man, also known as "right thinking." No one should really mind this, but when you complain day in and day out about how one-sided--left leaning--the mainstream media is, which is painfully true by the way, all while being blantantly one-sided yourself, it can get kinda bothersome. For instance last night's show had its share of contradictions, not that it had no redeeming quality, if you're LIBERAL enough you can see where sometimes they can actually make sense.
So, anyhow, last nite's show she starts off saying how the washington post's article on the march for life was written very well and without any sucker punches on the views of the people marching. Then, of course, she compares it to what she called "the march for death." Which is in reality the opposing view point of the march for life. She proceeds to take as many shots at those people and what they believe in as she can, until it's just redundant.
So Laura proves, once again, she's no better than any liberal-leaning newscast, talk-show host or article. At least she never went off like Brian Sussman did when he praised the B-2 bomber and made the comment "...Hey wouldn't that scare you from Allah to Jesus in no time?" If only everyone thought like these people we'd all be Right Thinking American Patriots who beleive in voo doo economics. God bless us everyone.

7yrs. left till the end of time

oneMoreGrainOfSand
"The study of ancient cultures, and the two oldest sciences in the world of Mathematics, and Astronomy have much to offer our modern world. One could believe that we are on the verge of an evolutionary jump in our culture that was predicted by ancient astrologers, both Mesoamerican, and Western. One may infer that the end of the fourth creation as predicted by the Mayans on December 23rd, 2012 offers a precise date of the same phenomena put forward by Western Astrologers concerning the Age of Aquarius. Now that you know the world isn’t going to end on Dec 23rd, 2012, you may be wondering what will happen, and what it means. My opinion is that this is a time of progression for humans, and one should not be ignore the possible importance of these events that we are so lucky to be alive to witness. "

Sorry for the gap between postings, and loss of continuity but oh well ay?

Another 4yrs of Bush jr. it was so predictable that it scares me.

I didnt plan on this blog being anything political, it just became that way out of nowhere. the trouble is i'm very inconsistent. I plan things out and never get them written on here i hope i can change that at least slightly.

The Washington Post published an article in which MR.BUSH says the '04 election ratified his Iraq-war Policy. And you know what? He's right, that's exactly what happend.

If ratifiying a war BUSH dove into head first with erronious reasons and without having a grasp on the reality of the post-war situation, then i'd HAVE to believe that the U.S. is more dumbed down than I could have ever imagined. Yes, I have to believe that because this is a president who was told, a short time after 9/11 there was a 10kilaton Nuclear bomb somewhere in N.Y. The very same president who allowed for the shittiest job of securing nuclear material scattered all over the world. Nuclear material that could be used on the U.S. And ppl vote for him and Feel safer? i can't believe that america is anything but completely out of thier fucking minds. But hey, after all, this is america, and i guess that's enough of an excuse.

"Another cowboy for the cattle."

380tons of Lies and Half truths

A 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS crew in Iraq shortly after the fall of Saddam Hussein was in the area where tons of explosives disappeared, and may have videotaped some of those weapons
...

Using GPS technology and talking with members of the 101st Airborne Division, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS has determined the crew embedded with the troops may have been on the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation, where the ammunition disappeared. The news crew was based just south of Al Qaqaa, and drove two or three miles north of there with soldiers on April 18, 2003.
...
On Wednesday, 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS e-mailed still images of the footage taken at the site to experts in Washington to see if the items captured on tape are the same kind of high explosives that went missing in Al Qaqaa. Those experts could not make that determination.

...
"the Russians can't have absconded with the explosives before the war if a US camera crew still sees them there in April of 2003."-j.cole


Ok there's Waaaay too much info to get into at this point for me, I should've started in the morning but i had to convince someone ("a funny kid") that the russians weren't angels to chechens, i hope i did at least a fair job at that.

So for the sake of time i will leave a list of links to click to get the full story on the missing explosives. Note two things before hand though; There were reports of Iraqi weapons found in places like syria and iran, I believe, i'll try and get info on that if i can.

Second thing, while everyone seems to want to blame Bush, do not forget to note that the IAEA went ahead and let Saddam Hussein keep these types of weapons Specifically the Hdx and Rdx, which I believe, are used primarily for detonating Nuclear weapons. Saddam said he needed them for mining; if these types of Highgrade explosives aren't necessary and are in fact overkill for mining then why did the IAEA let Saddam keep them at all? Why weren't they destroyed? For that the IAEA must take responsibility.

Edit:Third note, there's also a sentiment in certain circles that holds the belief that the IAEA seals could have been removed the weapons stolen and then the said seals could have been placed back on the bunkers/weapons.

the links including the one Above^:

Washington Times

Josh Marshall questions satellite imagery, as cited in Juan Cole's blog

Juan Cole
---
Tomorrow, if i'm not procrastinating, some questions about the Adam Pearlman video which has apparently been authenticated by our Intel agencies according to Fox News.

Adam Pearlman

NewsLink

As first reported by internet shock columnist Matt Drudge earlier today, the hour-long videotape was obtained by America's ABC News in Pakistan over the weekend and was passed along to anti-terror groups in the US after being viewed by network exectutives.

ABC News vice president Jeffrey Schneider told Reuters that the network had been "working around the clock" to determine whether or not the tape was authentic.
...According to Matt Drudge, "The terrorist claims on tape the next attack will dwarf 9/11. 'The streets will run with blood,' and 'America will mourn in silence' because they will be unable to count the number of the dead. Further claims: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda. "
....
The MSNBC story quotes anonymous officials as saying analysts’ concerns about the tape's warnings were "low" because it was not clear that the tape was recorded recently and because the man on the tape, who spoke in what appeared to be an American accent, mentioned no details.

More on this and Russian Special Forces moving Iraqi Explosives into Syria and possibly Iran tommorrow.

Cofer Closes In On bin Laden

Much thanks to FPN and the DigiBoard for posting the News Link.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - The United States and its allies have moved closer to capturing Osama bin Laden in the last two months, a top U.S. counterterrorism official said in a television interview broadcast Saturday.

"If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught," Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told private Geo television network.

Asked if concrete progress had been made during the last two months - when Pakistan has arrested dozens of terror suspects including some key al-Qaida operatives - Black said, "Yes, I would say this."-Excerpt


Joseph Cofer Black, The coordinator of the State Department's Counterterrorism Office. The State Department which presented, in April '04, a "Terrorism report" which claimed acts of terror dropped significantly in '03, when in fact the opposite was true. Two months later the State Department corrected their findings because of pressure from congressman Henry Waxman (D-Ca) who sought a review of the State Department's findings by the Congressional Research Service.

U.S.Raises Figures for '03 Terror attacks (june 22, 2004)


U.S. wrongly reported world terrorism in '03 (june 11, 2004)

Will "Intelligence Matters" Matter?

Democratic Sen. Bob Graham's book: "Intelligence Matters" alleges that the Bush admin. and the FBI are hiding evidence linking Saudi Arabia to Al-Qaeda.

NY times 9-5-04

Excerpts from Graham's book, which goes on sale on Tuesday, showed that at least two of the hijackers had support from Omar al-Bayoumi, whom the senator called a Saudi government spy and said was a ``ghost employee'' of a Saudi contracting firm, Erean. The owner of the firm, Graham said, was thought to be a supporter of Osama bin Laden.

Sen. John Kerry called for an immediate investigation into Graham's allegations.``If the White House and the FBI did in fact block an investigation into the ties between the Saudi government and the 9/11 hijackers, then this would be a massive abuse of power,'' Kerry said in a statement.

The Bush campaign dismissed the issue.``John Kerry is flailing about making baseless attacks founded on the assertions of a failed presidential candidate,'' Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said.Graham dropped out of the Democratic presidential race in October 2003.
---

According to this article Grahm Made the accusation as early as May.
5-11-04

Much thanks to Fake Plastic News for the LINK info.
---

Later Today in "8yrs": Cofer Black Predicts the future! after failing miserably to assess the past.

"Straight Shooter"

Below is a small portion of just why some ppl should think twice about Bush being a "Straight shooter" or any other politician for that matter, wether he's a Dem. or a Rep. The full list provided

HERE

, though i do not see all the points on this list as genuine "flip-flops" a small number of those i believe are are listed.

Also if you're someone who would profess that there's a reason why he changed his mind, even if it's more than twice, then take that reasoning into consideration no matter what party that person is in; not forgetting that they are after all "politicians" who will change their mind and make policies according to how many votes it could garner for them.

1. Social Security Surplus

BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush,

3/3/01

]

...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]*link unavailable

2. Patient's Right to SueGOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon,

2-7-01

]...

CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush,

10-17-00

]...

PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits ‘would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post,

4-5-04

]


4. North KoreaBUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement,

11-15-02

]...

BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan,

6-23-04

]

5. AbortionBUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation,

6-15-00

, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]...

BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush,

10-3-00

]

12. Weapons of Mass DestructionBUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland,

5-29-03

]...

BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press,

2-7-04

]


If you find any of this information to be faulty please let me know by e-mail.

So you've Read the 9/11 Report...well...

You should read this too then...

Cover Up : What the Government Is Still Hiding About the War on Terror

"In Cover Up,[author Peter] Lance shows how the government chose again and again to sacrifice America's national security for personal motives and political convenience. In its first half, he unveils shattering new evidence that terror mastermind Ramzi Yousef ordered the bombing of TWA 800 from his prison cell in order to effect a mistrial in his own terror bombing case. Astonishingly, the FBI was alerted to Yousef's plans in advance by a prison informant who even passed along his detailed sketch of a bomb-trigger device -- a document seen here for the first time. And Lance reveals the shocking reason the Justice Department suddenly ruled the crash an accident despite overwhelming evidence of the bombing -- throwing away its best chance to penetrate the cell that was already planning 9/11."

TITLE of POST

So i was listening to Guliani's speech for the RNC When i heard him say that, at the time of the 9/11 attacks, he grabbed someone's arm and said "thank god George Bush is president." i couldn't help but be utterly amused at the prospect of what he would have said had the elections of 2000 gone the other way, "God help us all, Al Gore is president."

About the 9/11 commission and me calling them partisan i'm rescinding that remark as of now. They are actually, in my estimation, a Bipartisan commission who got stuck with the job, demanded by the public/families of the victims of 9/11, of investigating 9/11 to uncover what exactly went wrong, but apparently because some of them were actually partly responsible for intelligence failures and bad oversight they turned the report into something which would not place blame on anyone and just restated OLD intelligence problems dating back to the 90's i believe.

Some Staplers don't staple you.

I look to my awstralian friend, when i'm down, down, down...I look to my awstralien frien...when i'm down, down, down, when i'm....down down d o w n