Who can take these guys seriously anymore? No Fox News "reporter" or "news anchor" should ever be hired in a real news station anymore. You don't agree, then watch this:
They've become a self-parody. "Fair and balanced" has become a synonym for "we do the exact opposite of what we claim."
It has now come to light that the detainee abuse in Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afghanistan started when the Bush administration ordered our interrogators to use a document called: "Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance."
This was a 1957 document that showed how the Chinese Communists tortured people -- in order to get false confessions! The only thing we changed was that we dropped the title of the document. Otherwise it is exactly the same. We have been using communist torture tactics that are designed to get false confessions. Meanwhile, The Bush administration has been calling it "enhanced interrogations" and saying we got "valuable intelligence" from it.
More details on the story here:
If you want to read the story of how we came to use this document for our own interrogations, you can click here. This is deplorable. Will anyone ever suffer the consequences for ordering this illegal torture? Will the press question John McCain on why he voted to allow the CIA to continue doing this? I wouldn't bank on it.
But if we do this, and no one ever gets punished for it, can we really say that America doesn't torture anymore? Watch the Best Web TV Show Here and Here
In this article on Huffington Post, you can see that an Obama campaign insider seems to be laying the groundwork for moving to the right on Iraq. Here's the relevant quote:
Speaking on background, a source in the Obama campaign admitted to a certain frustration with the current narrative of their candidate "moving to the center" on issues where the Illinois Democrat has always staked out moderate ground. When talking about a gradual pullout from Iraq during the primary season, for example, Obama took some abuse from the "immediate withdrawal" crowd for his repeated mantra that "we should be just as careful getting out" of Iraq as we were "careless getting in." (And indeed, as represented by the "Responsible Plan" website, that kind of talk is firmly in the mainstream of activist anti-Iraq war sentiment anyway.) In the aftermath of Obama's FISA repositioning, the Obama campaign's fear, however, is that every subsequent moderate noise will be interpreted as a cynical centrist tack.
I'm worried this sounds like a campaign floating the idea that they might move their position on Iraq. They seem to be trying to prepare the ground that Obama has always been for gradual withdrawal from Iraq. Here's the thing, almost no one is for immediate withdrawal. That's a straw man argument. So, why are they now bringing up this gradual withdrawal point? I think bending on his 16 month timeline for withdrawal during the general election campaign is a terrible idea. I explain why below:
There is a difference between moving to the center and moving to the right. There is a difference between making tough choices about Iraq once you get into office and flip-flopping in the middle of the campaign. There is a difference between being moderate and being weak. Changing your position on such a central issue would be taken as a tremendous sign of weakness. They better not even be thinking about it.
Obama didn't come this far by running a traditional campaign. Why would you switch now and go back to running the same old conventional losing campaign that Democrats have run for so long? Appeasing the right brings you no political friends. It just brings you justified scorn from both sides. Go with what brought you here, not some cheap old political tricks.
Six employees at King's County Hospital in Brooklyn have been fired after surveillance revealed a woman who was completely ignored and left to die on the hospital floor. Esmin Green had been waiting in the emergency room for more than 24 hours before she toppled from her chair and fell on ground. Although the waiting room was occupied by other patients, a security guard, and a staff member, no one cared to help Green until more than an hour after her fall.
The surveillance shows the staff member and the security guard noticed Green on the ground at least three times, but they made no attempt to assist her. The security guard didn't even leave his chair. Instead he rolled over to briefly look at Green's body and then rolled back into place.
The AP reports that someone else in the waiting room had to get the attention of another medical staff member before Green received any assistance. By that time, she had already died.
Green was unwillingly admitted in King's County Hospital's psychiatric ward the night before she collapsed. The psychiatric unit received several complaints in the past, and the surveillance of the hospital's negligence is said to have begun new reforms at the center, such as shorter wait time in the emergency room.
Everyone has been lambasting General Wesley Clark today over his comments about John McCain, including Barack Obama who rejected his comments. But has anyone watched the comments? Not only does General Clark not disparage John McCain's war record, he calls him his "hero" for how courageous he was in his service.
The only point General Clark is making is that this does not translate to having experience in executive responsibility. That point is not only uncontroversial, it is indisputable. Is everyone who got shot out of a plane or spent time in a POW camp qualified to be President of the United States? Of course, not.
Does that experience and how he handled it speak to John McCain's courage? Absolutely. His service to the country? No doubt. But does it speak to whether he has the national security or foreign policy experience necessary to be president? Absolutely not.
Watch General Clark's comments here and judge for yourself whether he said something outrageous or perfectly rational:
The Republicans did an internal accounting to see what they were doing wrong in Congressional races (because they got mauled in the 2006 elections and the special election since). The results are amusing. We explain them in the short video below:
While the Senate was ready to vote on the FISA Amendments Act today, Senators Russell Feingold and Christopher Dodd fought to keep them from casting a final vote and jamming the bill through Congress.
In a statement released by Feingold, he says:
"I am pleased we were able to delay the vote on FISA until after the July 4th holiday instead of having it jammed through. I hope that over the July 4th Holiday, Senators will take a closer look at the deeply flawed legislation and understand how it threatens the civil liberties of the American People. It is possibly to protect this country against the terrorists while also protecting the rights and freedoms that define our nation."
For those who haven't read up on the new FISA bill, it would basically give the government the right to peek into the private overseas phone conversations, emails, and even text messages of all Americans. Part of the bill would give retroactive immunity to telephone companies that gave the government private information of Americans.
Feingold says the FISA bill would also allow the government to take all international communications and put it in a giant database. The most outrageous part of the bill states that there does not have to be any court review or evidence that anyone is doing anything wrong before the government intrudes on the person's privacy. The government will simply have complete access to the personal overseas communications of every single American.
Feingold continues to say, "It's a vast power that has no limits. There's no regulation of it."
Obviously, the new FISA bill was created to help the government "track down terrorists"....just like the Iraq War was orchestrated to find weapons of mass destruction. It all makes perfect sense.
It's angering that the government has instilled so much fear in the minds of Americans, that many are ready to hand over precious civil liberties in the name of "protection." In fact, it's sickening. All the Republicans who are avid gun owners and want to protect their constitutional right to bear arms have NO RIGHT to say an American's right to privacy is not as important. This proposed FISA bill simply violates the right to privacy. Fear tactics should not trick Americans into giving up their freedoms. The Senate needs to wake up.
The more the Bush Administration remains in power, the more the United States mirrors the image George Orwell illustrated in his book 1984. Big brother really is watching, and members of our own Senate are allowing it to happen.
Feingold admits that many of the Senators have not completely read the bill and do not know the logistics of it. By holding off on the bill until after July 4th, hopefully the Senate will have the opportunity to think things over and not just hand the Bush Administration exactly what they want.
If you want to watch TYT's interview with Senator Feingold, please check out the video below:
John Constantine of Jacksonville Florida finds saggy pants extremely offensive. In fact, he believes pulling out a gun and shooting an 18-year-old who refuses to lift up his pants is completely warranted.
The altercation began when Constantine followed David Mitchell to the courtyard of his apartment building and asked him to lift up his pants. Mitchell refused, and the situation soon turned to a scuffle.
That's when Constantine took out a small caliber handgun and shot Mitchell in the stomach. When authorities arrived at the scene, they found Mitchell laying on the floor while being comforted by neighbors. Of course, police were also able to find a small bottle of crack cocaine in Constantine's pocket.
There are two points I would like to make about this story. Let's begin with the least important:
Why did Constantine care that the young man was sagging his pants? I understand the man is 54 years old and baggy pants don't tickle his fancy, but who cares? There is quite a strong possibility that Constantine was also on drugs. But I digress to a more important point:
It really is too easy for people to obtain guns. While some may argue that every American has the right to bear arms, I think stricter gun laws should definitely be in place. Guns are too accessible for nut jobs like Constantine, and if anyone tries to justify his use of the weapon, they are downright wrong.
Interestingly enough, there has just been a survey done by Rasmussen Reports, which indicates that Americans are evenly split on whether or not the U.S needs stricter gun control laws. Forty four percent believe we do need tough gun laws, while another 44 percent disagree and believe we do not. The other 12 percent are not sure.
The issue is, guns are rarely used as a defense mechanism by standard Americans. I'm not saying guns aren't sometimes used for justified defense. But in reality, and in most cases guns are often utilized for violence.
Every time a big championship game is played, I wonder what it would be like to watch it with a person not involved but very personally invested in the outcome.When Lakers head coach Phil Jackson won his 9th NBA Title as a head coach in 2002, tying legendary coach Red Auerbach's number of titles, I wondered what Auerbach was saying and thinking as the man he openly criticized as a head coach was accomplishing what he had sole possession of.
When Peyton Manning watched the Super Bowl this past season, what thoughts did he have about his conference rival Patriots going against his younger brother's Giants?Sure, he gives glowing answers to the media when they ask him about the respect he has for the guys representing Boston, but what kind of things was he saying about Tom Brady over a few beers with friends?The uninhibited trash talking fuels me; it's like the sports bet to an out-of-control gambler that makes the competition all the more exciting.
Now that former Lakers star and avid trash talker Shaquille O'Neal has voiced a few of his thoughts about Kobe Bryant's recent NBA Finals loss at the hands of the Boston Celtics, I can take one person off my "I Wonder What He Was Saying" list.
A video surfaced at the beginning of the week showing Shaq in a New York nightclub doing a freestyle rap for the fans.Let's not get into the hip hop styling of Mr. O'Neal, since it's pretty much confirmed that his lyrics,
"Once again it's time to get braggadocios, the tall human being and that's right, Shaq-a-tocios, check out my lyrical slam slam, watch me flip flam flam, I re-frack the crim-clanks, I biggity bitch the bam bam"
aren't exactly lyrically killin 'em in the streets.
As he ripped into Kobe from the very beginning, taunting him for losing the championship without him, the crowd knew they were in for an unexpected treat.It quickly became obvious that the thesis of his rap was "Kobe, tell me how my ass tastes.
"
You can disagree with the insensitive timing; only a week after Kobe suffered the devastating loss in his MVP season, disagree with the vulgar words, which everyone should just calm down and finally get used to, but you can't fight the fact that this has rebuilt the excitement NBA fans have to see these two rival teammates go up against each other again next year.The season just ended and I'm already looking forward to November just to see how this will play out on the court.We have the never ending antics of Shaq to thank for that; people love him when he's talking for their side, but hate him as soon as he's against them.Just ask Lakers fans, that's some effective trash talking.
And I'll admit it, I had Shaq's album back in '93.The truth shall set me free!
One of McCain's campaign managers, Charlie Black, told Fortune magazine that an attack on the United States would be good for John McCain's campaign. As I explain in the video below, I'm not a big advocate of over-emphasizing these campaign gaffes but imagine if Obama's campaign had said this:
You know that if an Obama adviser said an attack on America would help their campaign, there would be a media riot over it. They would cover nothing else until that staffer was fired and Obama and denounced and rejected him and everyone he knows. This would be the largest news story for weeks. Now, let's see what happens to McCain and see how fair and balanced our media really is. Young Turks on You Tube
While seventeen teenage girls in the same Massachusetts high school are awaiting the birth of their babies, everyone wants to know whether or not they made a "pregnancy pact" to conceive within the same year. There were allegations indicating that the girls planned on having, and raising their children together. Even the Mayor of Gloucester got involved with the investigation to put an end to the rumors.
During a press conference today, Mayor Carolyn Kirk stated she is "not able to confirm the existence of the pact." She continues to say, " Any planned oath to become pregnant - there is no evidence."
Who cares whether or not there was a pact? That is the most unimportant element of the story. Those girls are all under 16 years of age, and are already expecting children. There is a significant issue here that has received very little attention.
Gloucester High School reportedly had to cut back on health education spending to meet federally mandated standards such as No Child Left Behind. With little emphasis on sex education, and no contraceptives readily available, it's no surprise that the school, located in a conservative fishing town, has had trouble controlling teen pregnancies for years.
In addition, the nature of the high school simply caters to the needs of pregnant teens. For instance, there is a childcare center provided in Gloucester High for young mothers who wish to complete their high school education. This can be seen as good or bad depending on ones perspective. On one side, it's great that young mothers are given the opportunity to finish school. On the other side, it sends out a message that conceiving a child while in high school is acceptable, and will be supported by the school itself.
It would be foolish to completely blame the high school for the teen pregnancies, although Gloucester High still has some fault. Hollywood definitely could have played a role in this case. For instance, actress Jamie Lynn Spears mentioned she was pregnant at the age of 16, and just delivered her daughter Maddie Brian. News of Spears' pregnancy led to a little criticism, but mostly a lot of positive attention.
"Juno" was entertaining and well written movie about a teenage girl who got pregnant by a first-time sexual encounter. In fact, I will be the first to admit it was my favorite movie of the year. However, I hate to say that it did send out a bad message to young girls who are easily influenced by the media. While some people are able to differentiate reality from a fictional movie, some young people simply are not. It's a sad fact that movies like Juno have to receive flack because of those who can't think straight. But that's just the world we live in.
Hollywood romanticizes pregnancy. Ashley Simpson is back in the media after she announced that she's pregnant, and Paris Hilton keeps talking about how she can't wait to have babies with her boyfriend Benji Madden. But if schools have actual programs to sit young girls down and tell them the truth about how difficult it is to raise children, and how easy it is to prevent unexpected pregnancies, I think it can counter Hollywood pregnancy romanticism. Education is power in every single aspect of life. These girls just need to be aware and educated, and Gloucester High somehow missed the memo.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama claimed over and over during the primaries that they were strong leaders who could take America in a new direction. They also claimed that George W. Bush was the worst president in US history. Then, how come they have never been able to beat him in almost any legislative battles?
This week they surrendered again. This time it was about giving immunity to telecommunication companies who broke the law to placate the Bush administration. Nearly everyone involved admits they broke the law -- otherwise they wouldn't need immunity.
I didn't rob a bank, so I don't need immunity for robbery. Everyone should have their rights, and that definitely applies to the telecom companies and the Bush administration as well, so it should be very simple for them to go into a courthouse and show there was nothing wrong with what they did. Except they can't, and that's why desperately need immunity for the crimes they have committed.
This isn't about spying on terrorists. The FISA court gives out warrants like they're growing on trees. If they spied on terrorists, it's the easiest thing in the world to show. No, this is for breaking the law and spying on Americans without a court order. Do we know who they spied on? No, and now we never will. Why? The Democrats are going to give these companies -- and by extension the Bush administration -- immunity for breaking the law.
In essence, the Democrats are giving a preemptive pardon to George Bush and everyone else that authorized and participated in this illegal surveillance program.
Now, if we only had a couple of strong leaders on the Democratic side who could stop this. Oh wait a minute, I remember two people that kept telling me how strong and capable they were. One of them even claimed that change was coming. You know when it might be a good time for change? Right about now.
Instead, Hillary Clinton is on vacation somewhere doing absolutely nothing about this immunity bill. When it's not about her career, all of a sudden she's not that moved to fight for us, our laws and our constitution. Since she's not going to be president, she's taken her ball and gone home.
And what about Obama? Nothing. Worse than nothing, because he's actually thinking about voting with the Republicans on a so-called compromise, which in the words of Sen. Feingold is nothing short of a "capitulation." Leadership you can believe in!
You think I sound angry here, you should have seen me all week on the show. If you want to see what I think of pathetic Democratic weakness, watch this (not safe for work or with kids around). The Democrats make it nearly impossible to respect them. And if you want to see what I think of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama's awful record of leadership on this issue, watch this:
If you can't beat the most unpopular president of all time in a simple legislative fight like this, how can you claim to be a strong and effective leader?
Authorities in the Czech Republic have discovered two beaten and abused boys, who have been victims of their own family's cannibalism. The boys were locked in the dark basement of their home by their own mother, Klara Mauerova, who fed off their raw flesh.
Seven-year-old Onjreh, and his brother Jakub were discovered chained-up in cages after a neighbor purchased a baby monitor to keep track of his own child. The monitor turned out to pick up signals from the Mauerova household, because Klara had purchased the same monitor to keep an eye on her sons.
Authorities arrived at the home to find the two boys partially skinned, sexually abused, and severely beaten. In court, Onjreh testified that he had been locked in the basement by his mother for months. His mother admitted to all charges, and wept in court as her son testified against her.
Klara Mauerova is said to be part of a cult known as The Grail Movement, and she would refer to a "doctor," who was really a leader of the cult, to receive instructions on how to abuse her sons. The worst part of the story is that her 34-year-old sister participated in the activities, and helped to abuse and literally consume the boys' flesh.
The Young Turks had a brief discussion on the topic, which can be viewed in the video below:
We just found out that the person in charge of investigating detainee treatment in the past for the Pentagon said the Bush administration is committing "war crimes." And that the four major Western oil companies have conveniently received no-bid contracts to take the oil out of Iraq.
And what has the press done with these stories? Not a damn thing. War crimes -- don't sweat it. A war that cost thousands of lives so that the oil companies can get no-bid contracts -- don't even look into it. The news editors in this country are a national embarrassment. They wouldn't know news if it slapped them across the face. They're too busy typing out the latest government press release as if it's real news.
Here is the war crimes story and what the press did about it:
Here is the Iraqi oil story and what the press did about it (can you see a pattern here):
The press is supposed to challenge power, not suck up to it. It seems they have completely forgotten this part of the job description. Television is the worst, I don't know why we call those paid actors and models reporters anymore. Other than a handful of quality journalists, the rest of them have no idea what the news is and they are matched in their incompetence and cowardice by their own news editors. God forbid someone actually wants to report on the news, that's when the editors come in to spike the story. This system is fundamentally broken and it will take a long time to repair, if ever.
This man has no conscience. He didn't care to get Osama bin Laden for seven long years and now the Times Online in the UK is reporting Bush is putting on the pressure to get Osama before he leaves office. He wants it for his legacy. It was never about those people who died on September 11th. This has always been about George Bush's terrible and despicable ego. It's easy to see why the country is repulsed by this man:
Here are the quotes where Bush said he didn't care about getting Osama bin Laden. He wasn't concerned about him. How did the country and the press let him get away with that? Imagine if a Democrat had said that?
The press claims they're better now after the lessons they learned from how they covered the lead-up to the Iraq War. In fact, they've learned nothing. Today, Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba said the Bush administration committed "war crimes." War crimes!
Imagine if a Democrat was accused of that? Now, how do you think the press is going to cover this (with the obvious exception of McClatchy Newspapers, whose coverage has been exemplary)? I guarantee you'll hardly hear a peep.
The Bush administration soiled the good name of America. Their ought to be a price for that. But they are just going to walk out of that White House as if they did nothing wrong. If that doesn't make you angry, you're not paying attention.
