Tuesday, May 31, 2005
So, it's come out that Cheney is offended by the Charges of prisonery abuse by Amnesty International? did he get just as offended when the Red Cross had similar findings? I didn't realize our VP was so fragile. maybe we should pick him some flowers and tell him it'll all be better soon...so very soon.
Friday, May 27, 2005
And here it is...Newsweek gets raked over the coals for starting riots and killings over its report of abuses at Guantanamo Bay. They're made to retract their story stating that the US Government had confirmed the abuses that were long ago reported elsewhere.
(One has to wonder about the level of sudden outrage over this in the middle east. the stories--and much worse--have been public knowledge for well over a year.)
The White House accuses them of playing fast and loose with the facts and doing a great deal to harm the reputation of this country with their 'untrue' story. in addition, they say this magazine may be responsible for new risks that our soldiers face in these hotspots around the globe.
It enrages me that this white house can blame loss of life and respect for the US on the magazine's story...yet, somehow, cannot detect its own role in all this! Moreover, lets get down to the fact that the White House hung Newsweek out to dry on this story when...IT WAS ACTUALLY TRUE!! this White House can't be bothered with things like 'responsibility' when there's someone else who can take the blame!
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
On her recent trip to the middle east, LAURA Bush was the one that managed to finally bring the Arabs and the Jews together. How'd she do that? the ALL got together to Boo and Heckle her. I guess this administration is having some progress.
OH! and on a side note: Ariel Sharon visited New York City on the same day and also found himself heckled--by Jews.
Monday, May 23, 2005
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Uh...how BLAZINGLY BAD is it when Bush's Man in Afghanistan seems to be aiding the trafficing of Heroin?
WASHINGTON, May 21 - United States officials warned this month in an internal memo that an American-financed poppy eradication program aimed at curtailing Afghanistan's huge heroin trade had been ineffective, in part because President Hamid Karzai 'has been unwilling to assert strong leadership.'
Friday, May 20, 2005
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Ah...this one has cracked me up for MONTHS. i believe gorj. saw this one too. what a riot! actually, wanting to take a picture of this to share with others was the springboard to the "Phonebook Diaries".
Anyway, as you can see, our local target is gay friendly. what's that? how do i know? well just LOOK! they sell the FOREMOST HOMO MILK. Evidently fortified for the queer lifestyle with "Vitamin D". uh huh. is THAT what the kids are calling it nowadays...?
Falsehood #1: Democrats' filibuster of Bush nominees is "unprecedented"
The most prevalent talking point put forth by advocates of the "nuclear option" is that Democratic filibusters of 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees are "unprecedented" in American history.
But Republicans initiated a filibuster against a judicial nominee in 1968, forcing Democratic president Lyndon Johnson to withdraw the nomination of Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice. Then-Sen. Robert Griffin (R-MI) recognized at the time that denying nominees a vote was already an established practice. "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote," Griffin said, according to a May 10 New York Times op-ed by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME).
Cloture votes were also necessary to obtain floor votes on Clinton judicial nominees Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon in 2000, and Republicans attempted to filibuster the nomination of U.S. District Judge H. Lee Sarokin to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1994. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who is leading the Republican opposition to Democratic filibusters, voted against cloture for the Paez nomination.
And these are merely instances when Republicans filibustered Democratic presidents' judicial nominees. The Republican-controlled Senate blocked approximately 60 Clinton nominees through other means. This included strict enforcement under Clinton of the "blue slip" policy, which at the time allowed a senator from a nominee's home state to block a nominee simply by failing to turn in the blue-colored approval papers required for the nomination process. While Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) strictly adhered to the "blue slip" policy to allow Republicans to block Clinton nominees, he relaxed the policy nearly to the point of elimination in his efforts to push through Bush's nominees.
For example, Hatch held committee votes on the nominations of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Carolyn B. Kuhl over the objections of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), as well as four 6th Circuit nominees over their home state senators' objections.
Because of these numerous responses to Falsehood #1, proponents have honed their message in order to continue arguing that the present Democratic effort is "unprecedented." The argument has now been reduced to: It is unprecedented for a nominee to be blocked who 1) has clear majority support in the Senate; 2) has actually reached the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote; and 3) did not ultimately get confirmed after being filibustered.
The "clear majority" qualifier is designed to discount Fortas, even though "[i]t is impossible to gauge the exact support for Fortas because 12 senators were absent for the 'cloture' or 'closure' vote, which failed to halt the filibuster," as the Washington Post noted on March 18. The qualifier that a nominee reach the Senate floor disregards the approximately 60 Clinton nominees whom the Republican-led Senate blocked in committee. The qualifier that the filibuster be ultimately successful gets around Republican efforts to filibuster Paez and Berzon, who eventually won Senate confirmation.
Falsehood #2: Bush's filibustered nominees have all been rated well-qualified by the ABA; blocking such highly rated nominees is unprecedented
To make Democratic filibusters appear unwarranted, many "nuclear option" supporters have falsely claimed that some -- or all -- of Bush's judicial nominees have received the American Bar Association's (ABA) highest qualification rating. Others have argued that Texas Supreme Court justice Priscilla Owen is the first judicial nominee to be filibustered who received a unanimous well-qualified (WQ) rating from the ABA.
But of the 10 Bush nominees filibustered by Senate Democrats, only three -- Owen, Miguel Estrada, and David McKeague -- received a unanimous "Well Qualified" rating from the ABA. Conservatives have frequently touted Janice Rogers Brown as highly qualified (see Rush Limbaugh and Rev. Jerry Falwell), but she twice received an "Unqualified" rating from the California judicial evaluation committee and currently has the ABA's lowest "passing" rating of Qm/NQmin (meaning a majority consider her "Qualified" and a minority consider her "Not Qualified").
Contrary to some claims, blocking WQ-rated judicial nominees is not a new practice. Republicans blocked 10 of President Clinton's appeals court nominees with unanimous WQs from receiving a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and another WQ nominee received a committee hearing but was granted neither a committee vote nor full Senate consideration.
Falsehood #3: Democratic obstructionism has led to far more judicial vacancies during Republican administrations than Democratic administrations
"Nuclear option" proponents have also used the "empty courtroom" argument to advance their agenda, claiming an unusual number of judicial vacancies during Republican administrations as a result of Democratic obstructionism. But what "nuclear option" advocates don't mention is that the discrepancy in judicial vacancies over the last three administrations is primarily due to the recent creation of new judgeships and the president's relatively slow rate of nominating candidates to fill open spots.
One such claim, that more judicial vacancies existed at the end of the George H.W. Bush administration than following the Clinton administration, is largely explained by the 85 new judgeships created by Congress in 1990. And the argument completely collapses when one examines appellate nominees alone: There were more circuit court vacancies when Clinton left office then when President George H.W. Bush did.
Comparisons of the number of current judicial vacancies to the number under Clinton are also misleading, if not outright false. Most of the current vacant federal judgeships are vacant because Bush has nominated candidates to fill only about one-third of the vacancies. There were never fewer district and appellate court vacancies during the Clinton administration than the 45 vacancies that presently exist, according to Congressional Research Service data obtained from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In other words, there were actually more judicial vacancies when Republicans blocked Clinton's nominees than there are right now.
Falsehood #4: "Nuclear Option" is a Democratic term
Following the Republicans' lead, many major media outlets have attributed the term "nuclear option" as a creation of Senate Democrats. In fact, Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), one of the proposed measures' leading advocates, actually coined the term.
Falsehood #5: Democrats oppose Bush nominees because of their faith, race, ethnicity, gender, stance on abortion, stance on parental notification ...
Democrats who have filibustered Bush's judicial picks maintain that their opposition stems from the nominees' alleged inability or unwillingness to put aside personal ideological views and follow the law. But that hasn't stopped "nuclear option" proponents from misrepresenting the rationale for Democratic opposition.
One prominent falsehood is that Democrats have opposed the nominees because of their opposition to abortion rights. But opponents of nominees Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor have cited specific actions and statements related to abortion that run counter to precedent and statutory law. Further, the Senate has confirmed 205 of Bush's judicial nominees -- most with substantial Democratic support -- and few, if any, of these confirmed judges have voiced support for abortion rights. Many Bush appointees approved by the full Senate -- such as Michael W. McConnell, John G. Roberts, and James Leon Holmes -- have voiced opposition to abortion rights.
Conservatives have also accused Democrats of opposing Owen because of her support for Texas' parental notification law for minors seeking abortions. In fact, Democrats claim Owen tried to rewrite the law by imposing obstacles to receiving a judicial bypass that the letter of the law did not require, an accusation first made in an opinion written by her then-colleague on the court, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, in which Gonzales accused the dissenters, including Owen, of trying "to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute" and of advocating "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."
The most frequent distortion has been that Democrats have opposed the 10 filibustered judicial nominees because of their "faith" or their "religion." Additionally, "Nuclear option" advocates have baselessly accused Democrats of blocking Bush's nominees because of their ethnicity, race, or gender.
Falsehood #6: Public opinion polling shows clear opposition to judicial filibusters, support for "nuclear option"
Many media reports have aided "nuclear option" advocates by selectively citing or mischaracterizing polling results to claim that the public is strongly opposed to judicial filibusters.
A partisan Republican poll, which proponents claim suggests broad public support for the "nuclear option," has received significant media coverage. The poll asked respondents whether they agreed with the following statement: "If a nominee for any federal judgeship is well-qualified, he or she deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate [underline in original]." But it is misleading because it offers only the option of supporting or opposing "up or down" votes for judicial nominees without any context or accompanying argument offered in opposition. In addition, the poll posits that the judges in question are "well qualified." Some coverage of the poll mischaracterized its results by unquestioningly reporting Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman's false suggestion that the poll showed that the vast majority of Americans believe all judicial nominees should receive an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
In fact, another question from Republican polling more directly addresses the debate over judicial nominees and suggests that the public opposes eliminating senators' ability to block a nomination using the filibuster. Private Republican polling indicated that only 37 percent of respondents supported the GOP plan to prevent Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees, while 51 percent opposed.
"Nuclear option" advocates have also attempted to dismiss an ABC News/Washington Post poll showing even stronger opposition to the rule change by claiming the poll is biased because it didn't specifically mention the terms "filibuster" or "unprecedented." But other polls that specifically mention the filibuster similarly indicate majority opposition to the "nuclear option," and the Democrats' use of the filibuster is not unprecedented, as noted above. The most recent poll to specifically mention the term "filibuster," conducted May 10-12 by Time magazine, found that 59 percent of respondents opposed Republican efforts to "eliminate the filibuster" for judicial nominees, compared to 28 percent in favor.
Falsehood #7: Filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional
Another argument made by those supporting the "nuclear option" is that filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional. In fact, the Constitution makes no mention of filibusters, but it explicitly empowers the Senate to determine its own rules. Senate rules allow for unlimited debate on any subject, including judicial nominees. Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which governs debate and filibusters, explicitly states that the rules apply to "any measure, motion, [or] other matter pending before the Senate," including judicial nominations. In response to a May 12 question from Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) on the Senate floor, Frist acknowledged that the Constitution does not require an up-or-down vote for all judicial nominees: "To the question, does the Constitution say that every nominee of the President deserves an up-or-down vote, the answer is, no, the language is not there."
Falsehood #8: Clinton's appellate confirmation rate was far better than Bush's rate
"Nuclear option" advocates have also claimed that the confirmation rate for Clinton's appellate nominees was much higher than for Bush's nominees. But the confirmation rate in Clinton's second term and Bush's first term are nearly identical -- 35 of Clinton's 51 nominees were confirmed, compared to 35 of Bush's 52 nominees.
Another talking point is that "100 percent" of Clinton's appellate nominees were approved once they reached the Senate floor. But that statistic is highly misleading because the Republican-led Judiciary Committee blocked the 16 second-term Clinton appellate nominees by keeping them off the floor and, in all but one case, denying them even committee hearings.
Falsehood #9: Sen. Byrd's alterations to filibuster rules set precedent for "nuclear option"
Yet another faulty claim put forth by opponents of judicial filibusters is that past actions by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) have constituted a precedent for the so-called "nuclear option."
For example, columnist and CNN host Robert Novak claimed that a 1977 parliamentary maneuver by Byrd to break a post-cloture filibuster set such a precedent. A standard filibuster occurs when senators exercise their full rights under Senate Standing Rule XXII, which requires a three-fifths majority (60 votes) to invoke cloture, or cut off debate, on any matter pending before the Senate. But then-Senate Majority Leader Byrd's action in 1977 was a successful attempt to break a post-cloture filibuster; 60 senators had already voted for cloture, but two senators continued to extend debate by offering a series of amendments meant to manipulate a loophole in then-standing Senate rules. In order to end the post-cloture filibuster, Byrd invoked a provision of Rule XXII forbidding dilatory amendments. The precedent Byrd set was novel only because he interpreted Rule XXII to allow the chair of the Senate to rule the dilatory amendments out of order without first requiring a point of order from a senator on the floor.
By contrast, Republican senators are currently considering the "nuclear option" precisely because they lack the 60 votes to invoke cloture on the initial filibuster of the 10 judicial nominees.
Novak's claim is just one instance of opponents of judicial filibusters claiming that actions by Byrd set a precedent for the "nuclear option." The various claims originated in a fall 2004 article by lawyers Martin B. Gold and Dimple Gupta published in the conservative Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Gold is a former floor adviser to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), and Gupta is a former employee of the Bush Justice Department. The progressive advocacy group People for the American Way rebutted the other arguments for a "nuclear precedent" put forth in Gold and Gupta's article in a February 22 report.
Falsehood #10: Democrats have opposed "all" or "most" of Bush's judicial nominees
"Nuclear option" proponents have drastically exaggerated Democratic efforts to block Bush's judicial nominees, suggesting that they have opposed all of his nominees or all of his conservative nominees.
In fact, the Senate has to date approved 205 judicial nominees, with Senate Democrats filibustering 10. The vast majority of Bush's nominees have received strong bipartisan support. For example, in April district court nominee Paul Crotty was confirmed by a vote of 95-0. Even among Bush's first-term appellate nominees, the Senate confirmed more than 70 percent
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
The Rainbow Whole Foods Co-Op had a fundraiser/prom this weekend. For the Occasion, Mr. Mooch let me borrow his Fez--an accessory always found in the wardrobes of discriminating monkeys the world over. sooooo...with La Federala in hand and Fez on head, i headed to the prom. I even brought a flask to spike the punch with (who'da thought Jack Daniels and Punch would be so good!?!). anyway, a couple jivin' strolls down the soultrain line, and yours truly was elected "Prom King".
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Here you go, the finest in BROKEN shrimp. is this speaking of their bodies or their will? La Federala wouldn't buy it, so we'll never know.
**This is me doing a bit of 'catch-up' on a project i'd planned to start a month or so ago. my goal is a semi-regular photo from my day as a Photo-diary of sorts i take these with my cell phone hence the name and (poor) quality. Anyway, these are gonna be daily shots of days past until i use 'em up and catch up.
Monday, May 16, 2005
(CNN) -- This year's Atlantic hurricane season is forecast to be above normal like 2004, when four storms slammed the Florida coast.
The annual forecast from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, announced Monday, calls for seven to nine hurricanes during the coming season, June 1 to November 30. Of those, three to five will be major storms ranked Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson scale of hurricane strength.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Friday, May 13, 2005
Seems Bush has made Iraq and Afganistan safe....FOR DRUG TRAFFICING! the BBC reports that (paired with the huge heroin production out of Afganistan) Iraq is now a principle route for the Afgan drug trade. who knew the jobs bush WOULDN'T help outsource would be the RE-HAB industry!
This is a Trademark for Jack Kirby.
It's a general action shot, but if you look down there in the corner, there is ALWAYS some guy that's somehow MORE shocked that you, the reader, has come up behind him...compared to the fact that Captain American is mere feet away from him about about to beat him within an inch of his life. I actively seek this guy out whenver i see ANY Kirby artwork!
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Here you can LITERALLY see video of Pat Robertson urinating on the Bill of Rights. This guy just can't stop. Appearing on ABC's THIS WEEK, Robertson claimed he'd be weary of allowing ANY Muslims to any top positions in the U.S. Government, including judgeships (you afraid they'd impose their religious views on others? i mean...that'd be wrong! i mean...who would EVER allow THAT???).
So, the weekend before last, Pat Robertson was on THIS WEEK with George Stephanopoulos, and Mr. Robertson offered his often unique, and mostly contorted view of God, more specifically, all the various ways God REALLY wants all the things that Pat wants and--somehow--REALLY HATES all the things Pat Hates (that must be cool)! you want examples...ah...we always have examples here at Polly & the Mooch!
So let's get this straight Pat...God can let a few hundred thousand die in a Tsunami, but--DAMNIT!--he won't STAND for a Supreme court that you don't like? gotcha. Glad you and I don't worship the same god, cause yours sounds like crap.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, Reverend Robertson, the God you describe is taking a very active, direct role in our lives. One of the earlier clips we showed said you had him saying, "I am removing justices from the Supreme Court," and I'm just wondering why does a God who is so involved in our daily life, so directly involved, allow something like a tsunami to kill several hundred thousand people in Asia?
ROBERTSON: I don't think He [God] reverses the laws of nature. The reason for that tsunami was the shifting of tectonic plates in the Indian Ocean. I don't think he changes the magma in volcanoes and I don't think he changes the wind currents to bring about hurricanes. So, I don't attribute that to God, or his lack, or otherwise. But in terms of human affairs, I do think he answers prayer and I think there have been literally millions of people praying for a change in the Supreme Court. The people of faith in this country feel they're on a tyranny and they see their liberties taken away from them and they've been beseeching God, fasting, and praying for years. So, I think he hears and answers their prayers.
Pat Robertson is REALLY mad that about 10 of Bush's appointees are being held up by the Filabuster. It seems that if a Judge isn't ready to install a Theocracy (and i mean RIGHT NOW) then, he's a real danger. how much of a danger? well, let's listen to pat tell George Stephanopoulos: "Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "THIS WEEK with George Stephanopoulos." "I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy." [Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.] "Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."
"Over 100 years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings," Robertson said on ABC's "THIS WEEK with George Stephanopoulos."
"I think we have controlled Al Qaeda," the 700 Club host said, but warned of "erosion at home" and said judges were creating a "tyranny of oligarchy."
[Confronted by Stephanopoulos on his claims that an out-of-control liberal judiciary is the worst threat America has faced in 400 years - worse than Nazi Germany, Japan and the Civil War - Robertson didn't back down.]
"Yes, I really believe that," he said. "I think they are destroying the fabric that holds our nation together."
In case you weren't sure before, it has been revealed. Former Head of Homeland Security got into some fights (where he lost) over the color coded threat meter we used. Seems the White House wanted a spike in just how "Dangerous" things were whenever their points started to drop. Ridge didn't like it...so he says now. oh well, it didn't matter. his protests fell on deaf ears as he repeatedly tweaked the terror threat level to help the white house scare the public during the election.
This president is damn worthless.
With the world coming to grips that we are on the DECLINE of world oil production, we've seen the end of inexpensive oil and gas prices. you can like it or not...that is a fact. Soooo....in light of that, what does GM and Ford do? they spend the last few years building a business model centered around giant, gas guzzling trucks. As the second part of their double pronged business attack, they've avoided alternative/hybrid technology and really downplayed its worth in general. GM was the worst culpret, actually running Saturn ads putting down hybrids. yeah.
so what does this genius plan produce? well, in their effort to avoid 'tree hugging' and create the ...i dunno, what to call it...? market segment that says "Hey, i need RANCHER vehicles in the CITY!"...they've managed lose $1.1 BILLION in one quarter (GM alone). i hope to god this gets these idiots to start making better cars that are cheaper to run...otherwise it'll be the 1970s all over again and detroit will be kicked in the teeth...again.
Salon.com News | Hummertime blues: "At the end of April, G.M. reported losses of $1.1 billion in the first quarter of this year. The company's market share has fallen to an 80-year low. This week, G.M. announced a recall of some 2 million vehicles, including some of their most popular SUVs. Meanwhile, Ford Motor Co.'s first-quarter earnings fell by more than one-third, with sales of the usually popular Ford Explorer falling 25 percent in the first quarter."
DETROIT (AP) - A New York rating agency declared billions of dollars of debt owed by General Motors and Ford to be "junk" on Thursday, a significant blow that will increase borrowing costs and limit fund-raising options for the nation's two biggest automakers. ...
The numbers involved already are enormous: GM paid about $12 billion in interest on debt last year and Ford's tab totaled about $7.1 billion. GM's consolidated debt as of March 31 was $291.8 billion and Ford's totaled $161.3 billion, S&P said.
Great interview over at RawStory.com.
On Energy: "The energy bill was just a bunch of tax breaks for gas drillers. Some Republican staffers suggested it was the Tom DeLay MTBE tax exemption bill. It exempted MTBE producers from any liability for toxic pollution of aquifers. Not that that wasn't bad enough--but then it gave them $2 billion in tax breaks, $2 billion in subsidies, because they're big supporters of Mr. DeLay. I just don't trust any of these people to do the right thing for people in need."
The Budget: "And this budget that we [just voted] on--taking 40 billion dollars out of programs for the poor, including $10 billion in Medicaid over five years, and we're cutting more income taxes, dividends and capital gains taxes, three-quarters of which go to people who make over $200,000 a year. And yet in the same budget, we cut $70 billion in taxes, by further reducing the dividend and capital gains taxes, most of which of course are paid by the wealthiest. These guys just have no shame."
On Curious George: "The only actual news that he reads is the sports section. All the national news, all the opinions that he gets have been filtered, and it goes to his daily briefing that has already been pre-screened to give him what he wants to read. He doesn't read any books, and he doesn't talk with people that don't already agree with him. He's surrounded himself with ideological sycophants. And the biggest ass-kisser of all is Dick Cheney." [Damn right!]
And from the pages of "People that can shoot straight to Hell"...
[Breaking] Barbour Approval Rating Only 37 Percent. SurveyUSA has released its approval rating survey results conducted in all 50 states for May 10, 2005. 600 Mississippians were asked 'Do you approve or disapprove of the job that Haley Barbour is doing as governor?' In response, 37 percent said they approve, 55 percent said they disapprove, and 8 percent said they were unsure.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Readers of this spot may recall an interview I had a few weeks ago. I detailed the events on this blog. Well...i've been made an offer and I took it.
I think this new gig of mine will be more difficult than I ever imagined and it maybe some small part of that will be related to actually practicing law. Anyway, I'm in and I expect ever inch of this to be utterly bizarre
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
It seems a New Jersey student found a Walt Whitman 1888 interveiw in the school paper for The College of New Jersey. In it, he gives some advice for aspiring writers seeking a career in literature:
First, don't write poetry,
From Harper's Weekly:
A papyrologist at Oxford University announced that new techniques in spectral imaging, which make it possible to decipher previously illegible ink on papyrus fragments, have yielded parts of a lost tragedy by Sophocles, a novel by Lucian, and an epic poem by Archilochos; researchers also applied the technique to third- and fourth-century manuscripts of the Revelation of Saint John and discovered that the number of the beast, contrary to popular belief, is 616, the area code of Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Saturday, May 07, 2005
I don't really talk about Michael Jackson's trial that much and i really don't talk about legal advice online, but Mr. Mooch and I were talking...is it a good defense for Jackson to put people on the stand to testify that he never molested THEIR children? Isn't that sorta like putting people on the stand to say "hey, he didn't KILL ME...he MUST not be a killer!"
just a thought.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Leave it to this Baptist Church to turn its back on the founding principles of this nation:
Religion and politics clash over a local church's declaration that Democrats are not welcome.So politics had nothing to do with it? Lying bastard.
East Waynesville Baptist asked nine members to leave. Now 40 more have left the church in protest. Former members say Pastor Chan Chandler gave them the ultimatum, saying if they didn't support George Bush, they should resign or repent. The minister declined an interview with News 13. But he did say 'the actions were not politically motivated.' There are questions about whether the bi-laws were followed when the members were thrown out."