Barack Obama Forms Exploratory Committee

(Full Text And Video)
...The decisions that have been made in Washington these past six years, and the problems that have been ignored, have put our country in a precarious place. Our economy is changing rapidly, and that means profound changes for working people. Many of you have shared with me your stories about skyrocketing health care bills, the pensions you've lost and your struggles to pay for college for your kids. Our continued dependence on oil has put our security and our very planet at risk. And we're still mired in a tragic and costly war that should have never been waged.
But challenging as they are, it's not the magnitude of our problems that concerns me the most. It's the smallness of our politics. America's faced big problems before. But today, our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions.
And that's what we have to change first.
We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans.
This won't happen by itself. A change in our politics can only come from you; from people across our country who believe there's a better way and are willing to work for it.
Years ago, as a community organizer in Chicago, I learned that meaningful change always begins at the grassroots, and that engaged citizens working together can accomplish extraordinary things.
So even in the midst of the enormous challenges we face today, I have great faith and hope about the future - because I believe in you.
And that's why I wanted to tell you first that I'll be filing papers today to create a presidential exploratory committee. For the next several weeks, I am going to talk with people from around the country, listening and learning more about the challenges we face as a nation, the opportunities that lie before us, and the role that a presidential campaign might play in bringing our country together. And on February 10th, at the end of these decisions and in my home state of Illinois, I'll share my plans with my friends, neighbors and fellow Americans.
In the meantime, I want to thank all of you for your time, your suggestions, your encouragement and your prayers. And I look forward to continuing our conversation in the weeks and months to come.

Sincerely,



U.S. Senator Barack Obama

Beyond The Bounds Of The Law, As Usual

Firstly, sorry about the time between posts guys. Unlike Atrios and Joshua, I have a full time job and my "blog" does nothing to supplement my income. Anyway, enough with the "woe-is-me's" and "theya-culpas." It appears "President" Bush has been breaking the law (and not just by spying on and wiretapping us). A thorough investigation of two public laws pressed into service by the Bush Congress reveals he has broken two of his own laws and without the help of signing statements(this time). Those two laws would be Public Law 107-40, the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan and Public Law 107-243, the Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. I'll explain: Firstly, I am not now, nor was I ever against military action in Afghanistan. Far from it; I considered joining the Marines (to my friends: I was skinnier then. Seriously). However, inasmuch as what Public Law 107-40 actually authorizes, it is laser accurate and very precise. It reads as such:

SEC. 2.(a) <> In General.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Note the italics: "the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001," meaning precisely that. Public Law 107-40 applies only to nations, organizations, or persons who were responsible in any way shape or form for the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. To apply this law to any other resource is illegal, and "President" Bush has used said law to justify illegal detention of U.S. citizens, to justify eavesdropping on us and to justify stealing as many of our liberties as he sees fit.
Now, as for P.L. 107-243, that is a contract that was entered into under false pretenses so, as I see it, it should be void on it's very face. While reading, remember that while "whereas" can mean "on the contrary," in legal documents, as a preamble, "whereas" means "on the condition of":

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

So, before we go any further, if this entire law is dependent on these three statements being true, then the whole of the document is false. I'm pretty sure that's the Law of Modus Tollens in logic (not to say that anything this administration does is logical or lawful). Now, beyond that, there is another conditional placed within P.L. 107-243. that reads as such:

SEC. 3.(b)(2): ...acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

In plain English: Action in Iraq cannot detract from the pursuit of those responsible for the attacks on 9/11. End of point: Go get 'em Senator Biden (that is one type of "Joe-mentum" I'm willing to get behind!)!

What's The Worst That Could Happen?

(Update 01/10/07-- After I started writing this post, speculation made way for fact and Georgie-Porgie announced plans to "surge" 21,150 troops to Iraq (why such an obscure number? Most "experts" believe that 21,150 is all the troops we have left. Comforting, no?) and Joe-Mentos (the fresh-maker, he ain't) quickly stepped up and kissed his ass:
"Tonight, the president did not take the easy path, but he took the correct and courageous course. We are engaged in a world-wide struggle against Islamist extremism, and Iraq is now the central front. It is a dangerous illusion to believe that we can depart Iraq and the inevitable killing fields and terrorist violence will not follow us in retreat -- even to our own shores," Lieberman said in a statement.)

Okay guys, this on is a little long-winded and winding but, I'll get to the point by the end. The video above (from C-Span via Crooks and Liars) is of a very "bi-partisan" Joe Lieberman breaking bread with John McCain over the Captain McChimpy's "brilliant" idea of a "troop surge" (first set of quotes is in the ironic sense and the second is in the "he is so full of bullsh*t" sense).

From Crooks and Liars:
Lieberman:…that there be some kind of attempt to resolve this pivotal moment with a compromise among factions in American politics and in the American Congress rather than doing what is right and has the highest prospect of succeeding in Iraq—in other words this moment cries out for the kind of courageous leadership that does what can succeed and win in Iraq—not what will command the largest number of political supporters in Congress….we need to support the President as he goes forward, hopefully with exactly that kind of new initiative in Iraq.

From Rolling Stone:
In words that should trouble any Democrats counting Lieberman in their camp, Lieberman was praising Bush as a “great leader” for bucking American opinion, as expressed in the 2006 election, in his determination to double down in Iraq. Lieberman then said something incredible:
Even those opposed to the surge, he said, “ought to at least let us try it.”

The worst that could happen is an exponential increase in U.S. casualties in a war that is no longer ours to fight (if you ask me)
Also, if you ask me, the most quotable of quotables in Lieberman's soliloquy would be right near the end where he said: "...It would be an extreme action during a time of war to, for instance, attempt to block the funding for the increase in troops that the President and the military think are necessary." Lieberman has, for sure, not been paying attention to his 20th Century history. As a matter of fact, Congress not only has the right to exercise control and restraint on military deployment, it has the job to do so. A job that they were only too happy to do with Democrats in office:
October 1994. P.L. 103-423 – A joint resolution regarding U.S. Policy Toward Haiti. Congress supported a “prompt and orderly withdrawal of all United States Armed Forces from Haiti as soon as possible.”
July 2000. P.L. 106-246 – Military Construction Appropriations and For Other Purposes – Personnel Ceiling in Colombia: “no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act (including funds described in subsection (c)) may be available for— (A) the assignment of any United States military personnel for temporary or permanent duty in Colombia in connection with support of Plan Colombia if that assignment would cause the number of United States military personnel so assigned in Colombia to exceed 500; or (B) the employment of any United States individual civilian retained as a contractor in Colombia if that employment would cause the total number of United States individual civilian contractors employed in Colombia in support of Plan Colombia who are funded by Federal funds to exceed 300.”
November 1993. P.L. 103-139. The Congress limited the use of funding in Somalia for operations of U.S. military personnel only until March 31, 1994, permitting expenditure of funds for the mission thereafter only if the president sought and Congress provided specific authorization.
September 1994. P.L. 103-335. The Congress declared “no funds provided in this Act are available for United States military participation to continue Operations Restore Hope in or around Rwanda after October 7, 1994, except for any action that is necessary to protect the lives of United States citizens.”
June 1998. P.L. 105-85 – Defense Authorization Bill. The Congress prohibited funding for Bosnia “after June 30, 1998, unless the President, not later than May 15, 1998, and after consultation with the bipartisan leadership of the two Houses of Congress, transmits to Congress a certification— (1) that the continued presence of United States ground combat forces, after June 30, 1998, in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is required in order to meet the national security interests of the United States; and (2) that after June 30, 1998, it will remain United States policy that United States ground forces will not serve as, or be used as, civil police in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.”

Willard Scott Denies Global Warming

This is just insane:

From the January 2 edition of NBC's Today:

SCOTT: Well, listen are you a globing -- a global-warming fan? Do you believe in global warming?
VIEIRA: I'm not a fan. No. No, sir.
SCOTT: Well --
VIEIRA: But I -- something's going on, 'cause it's warm here.
SCOTT: Well, now, wait a minute -- that's it; it's warm here. From Savannah [Georgia] all the way up to Boston, we're having unheard-of warm weather, but ask the folks out in Denver and Colorado --
VIEIRA: That's so.
SCOTT: -- the coldest winter they've had in years. So it all depends on which side of the Mississippi you're hanging your hat.

Okay, so what, exactly, would you say is the most stunning part about that? Would you say that it's Willard coming out against global warming or Meredith Vieira (who's being paid on and upwards of a billion or so dollars a year to host that crack-pot show) agreeing with him?
Either way, my Mother is a certifiable genius and, seemingly just to throw it in my face, she posited this theory on the insane snowstorms in the midwest: the snow wouldn't be possible, except for warmer temperatures. Yes, I said it is snowing so much, not in spite of, but because of warmer temperatures (Bear with me, I feel some science coming on). Now, most people know that water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius). Most people also understand that it is much colder at 30,000 or so feet (where clouds usually form). What most people do not either know or understand is once a cloud reaches a certain temperature (between -30 and -40 C (-22 and -40 F)) it will not snow. So, seeing as the average January surface temperature in Denver has, historically been 10 degrees lower than it is this year (-4C to 0C (24F-32F) vs. -.5C to 4.4C (31F-40F)), that could, in effect, account for the drastic increase in snowfall.
Go back to birthdays Scott. Leave the weather to my Mom.
(Celsius to Fahrenheit converter, Average winter temperatures, Colorado)

Blogger is having issues right now, so here is a little evil for you to gnaw on while I am figuring it out.

This Man Makes My Head Hurt.

This man, as some of you might know, is Hal Turner, host of the political talk show "The Hal Turner Show" (broadcast in NYC on Wed. 9p-11p). On his website (which was just recently attacked with a DDOS attack so loading might be slow), when you get to the first page you see headlines like "BUSH CLAIMS RIGHT TO OPEN AMERICANS' MAIL WITHOUT SEARCH WARRANT;
IT IS LONG OVERDUE TO "REMOVE" THIS MAN FROM OFFICE; I ADVOCATE THE REMOVAL OF GEORGE WALKER BUSH FROM THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE," and right next to it on the same page "SAVAGE SPIC FORCES WOMAN INTO CAR WITH MACHETE; RAPES HER. BROAD DAYLIGHT CRIME IN THIRD-WORLD CESSPOOL FLORIDA." You probably see my confusion.
Prior to the mid-term election, Mr. Turner suggested that if those Congresspersons that have wronged America were voted back into office then they might have to be assassinated. His exact words:

" October 27, 2006 -- As the November 7 Election approaches, I decided to write a few lines to my fellow Americans about the state of our nation and the ugliness that may have to occur if the people who caused these problems are re-elected: They may have to be assassinated."

Now, what exactly does Mr. Turner have a problem with? His list:

"1) Limited our freedom of political speech...
2) Killing of 655,000 innocent people...
3) Congress doesn't read the Bills they pass!...
4) Elected Officials Simply Ignore Our Will...
5) Deliberate Fraud...
6) They've broken the nation's financial back...
7) Passed the "USA PATRIOT ACT" and the "Military Commissions Act of 2006"...
8) Take YOUR land and sell it to someone else for higher taxes!...
8) Boating, Hunting and Fishing in "navigable waterways" ruled ILLEGAL!...
9) Talking about AMNESTY for ILLEGAL Aliens...."

Here comes the headache. Mr. Turner is an admitted anti-Semitic white supremacist, and, with the exception of numbers 9 and 8 (the second number 8), I agree with him (not on the actual assassination tip, but his frustrations seem very legitimate).
Now, here comes the second headache. It appears he has set a timetable for those "suggested" assassinations:

"Members of The United States House of Representatives or United States Senate who try to grant any form of Amnesty to millions of illegal aliens are hereby notified they may as well paint a bulls-eye target on themselves. Our Bullets don't care about their sovereign power," he wrote.
"This seems to be 'it' folks. I'm going to do what I have to do to protect my nation from its government. I know where all of my New Jersey Congressmen and Senators live. Do you know where yours live? If not, you better find out before January so you can scope out their neighborhoods and prepare yourselves," he said.
"Those of you who, for years, have said you're 'gonna do this' or 'gonna do that' when the time comes; are about to face ugly reality. In January, 'the time' will come. In January the entire world will find out if you're real or just a bigmouth coward," he said.
Turner also declined a suggestion to post a list of addresses and provide maps "so people can protest at their homes" by saying, "Once I publish such a list, they would undoubtedly feel the need and take steps to secure themselves. If we forewarn them by publicly publishing a list, we lose the element of surprise."

I'm so confused. Since when has the calling for an assassination of a publicly elected official been made legal? Isn't it treason or inciting violence or something? And hasn't he made his intention to murder his own elected officials pretty clear? "I'm going to do what I have to do to protect my nation from its government. I know where all of my New Jersey Congressmen and Senators live." All I'm saying is if Jose Padilla can be held on suspicion of nothing for three years, we can hold this redneck, bigoted bastard for saying he's going to kill Congress.

Starbucks Day of Action

Okay, this post is a little late (as the event happened on Dec. 16th of 2006) however, there are some new events to report.
The above video was posted in conjunction with Oxfam Charity's "Starbucks Day Of Action" to protest Starbucks' alleged dirty dealings in a trademark dispute with Ethiopia's Sidamo region. Starbucks, to their credit, has forgone the traditional "press-release-that-no-one-reads" format for dealing with Oxfam's allegation and in turn has released their own "YouTube" video. Here's the scoop:

Starbucks, Ethiopia, and the Coffee Branding Wars

By Joshua Gallu

Fine coffee beans may be Ethiopia's most precious natural resource. But Starbucks is standing in the way of the country's efforts to trademark its gourmet product. The row is escalating.

Think you know what's in your coffee cup? It used to be simple: ground coffee beans and water. Now though, your average robusto has given way to a grande double non-fat latte with a shot of vanilla syrup. The 20 cent cup of mud has turned into a $4 coffee experience.
Still, even as coffee has gone upscale, the barista whipping forth your drink still works with coffee beans. How they find their way from plantations to your mug is a quintessential tale of globalization, complete with giant wealthy corporations, poor local farmers and conflicts over who is entitled to what.
The most recent dispute in this economic food chain involves Starbucks and the Ethiopian government. The giant coffee franchise opposes Ethiopia's efforts to trademark the names of its most famous coffee regions Sidamo, Yirgacheffe and Harar. Starbucks, after all, is already using those names to sell coffee for top dollars across the globe. A clear case of a developing country defending itself against rapacious Western business interests, right? Oxfam, the UK-based development agency, thinks so. It is championing Ethiopia's move and has embarked on a massive media campaign accusing Starbucks of keeping the small farmer under its thumb.
"Harar and Sidamo have sold in coffee shops for up to $24 and $26 per pound," Seth Petchers from Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Farmers who grow these specialty coffees get as little as $.60 to $1.10 per pound.... We want to work to find a win-win solution." Oxfam estimates that over time Ethiopia's coffee industry would benefit from an additional $88 million annually were the trade marking plan to go through.
Ethiopian names "generic"
Starbucks, though, insists that it is not trying to deny Ethiopian farmers their legitimate coffee profits. Alain Poncelet, Starbucks' head of Green Coffee Purchasing, told SPIEGEL ONLINE that his company is all for Ethiopia "protecting its regional names." Just not through trademark. Starbucks favors a geographic certification model -- similar to Jamaican Blue Mountain Coffee, Florida Orange Juice and Napa Valley Wines -- which guarantees a point of origin and standard of quality.
So which model is best? Your answer to that question likely depends on which end of the supply chain you're on.
Ethiopia's efforts to protect the "Sidamo" name actually began way back in March 2005. But the country's application to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) went nowhere for the next 15 months. Starbucks, as it turns out, had already applied to trademark an expression that included the word "sidamo."
In June 2006, the giant coffee distributor withdrew its application and took a different approach to get its way. According to Oxfam, Starbucks leaned on the National Coffee Association (NCA) to help block Ethiopia's bid. And it worked. In refusing Ethiopia its trademark, the USPTO cited a position directly from the NCA letter of protest: The names Ethiopia wanted to trademark, it argued, were "generic."
Ethiopia has until December to appeal the USPTO's decision -- a move the country will likely make -- and the government, with the help of Oxfam, is trying to get the NCA and Starbucks to stop blocking the trademark process.

Happy New Year's Everyone!

And I do mean everyone (Second to last BS post guys, I swear!). It appears that Times Square isn't the hottest spot in the universe for New Years. Next year, I'm dropping the ball at Chicago's O'Hare Airport:

In the sky! A bird? A plane? A ... UFO?
Video: UFO over O'Hare Airport?

It sounds like a tired joke--but a group of airline employees insist they are in earnest, and they are upset that neither their bosses nor the government will take them seriously.
A flying saucerlike object hovered low over O'Hare International Airport for several minutes before bolting through thick clouds with such intense energy that it left an eerie hole in overcast skies, said some United Airlines employees who observed the phenomenon.
Was it an alien spaceship? A weather balloon lost in the airspace over the world's second-busiest airport? A top-secret military craft? Or simply a reflection from lights that played a trick on the eyes?
Officials at United professed no knowledge of the Nov. 7 event--which was reported to the airline by as many as a dozen of its own workers--when the Tribune started asking questions recently. But the Federal Aviation Administration said its air traffic control tower at O'Hare did receive a call from a United supervisor asking if controllers had spotted a mysterious elliptical-shaped craft sitting motionless over Concourse C of the United terminal.
No controllers saw the object, and a preliminary check of radar found nothing out of the ordinary, FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory said.
The FAA is not conducting a further investigation, Cory said. The theory is the sighting was caused by a "weather phenomenon," she said.
The UFO report has sparked some chuckles among controllers in O'Hare tower.
"To fly 7 million light years to O'Hare and then have to turn around and go home because your gate was occupied is simply unacceptable," said O'Hare controller and union official Craig Burzych.
Some of the witnesses, interviewed by the Tribune, said they are upset that neither the government nor the airline is probing the incident.
Whatever the object was, it could have interfered with O'Hare's radar and other equipment, and even created a collision risk, they said.
The Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (the term that extraterrestrial-watchers nowadays prefer over Unidentified Flying Object) was first seen by a United ramp worker who was directing back a United plane at Gate C17, according to an account the worker provided to the National UFO Reporting Center.
The sighting occurred during daylight, about 4:30 p.m., just before sunset.
All the witnesses said the object was dark gray and well defined in the overcast skies. They said the craft, estimated by different accounts to be 6 feet to 24 feet in diameter, did not display any lights.
Some said it looked like a rotating Frisbee, while others said it did not appear to be spinning. All agreed the object made no noise and it was at a fixed position in the sky, just below the 1,900-foot cloud deck, until shooting off into the clouds.
Witnesses (were) shaken by sighting
"I tend to be scientific by nature, and I don't understand why aliens would hover over a busy airport," said a United mechanic who was in the cockpit of a Boeing 777 that he was taxiing to a maintenance hangar when he observed the metallic-looking object above Gate C17.
"But I know that what I saw and what a lot of other people saw stood out very clearly, and it definitely was not an [Earth] aircraft," the mechanic said.
One United employee appeared emotionally shaken by the sighting and "experienced some religious issues" over it, one co-worker said.
A United manager said he ran outside his office in Concourse B after hearing the report about the sighting on an internal airline radio frequency.
"I stood outside in the gate area not knowing what to think, just trying to figure out what it was," he said. "I knew no one would make a false call like that. But if somebody was bouncing a weather balloon or something else over O'Hare, we had to stop it because it was in very close proximity to our flight operations."

Slate's 2006 Bill Of Wrongs

Two awesome things were released today. First (and funniest) would be the Darwin Awards for 2006 (the number one story is about a guy who effectively disassembled an RPG with a sledgehammer). But, more importantly, would be the Slate.com 2006 "Bill of Wrongs," the most egregious of civil rights abuses for the year (I'm just giving you the top four to conserve space):
(PS-Links are mine. Be sure to click on John Ashcroft (It's how I will always remember him ;-)

4. Extraordinary Rendition
So, when does it start to become ordinary rendition? This government program has us FedEx-ing unindicted terror suspects abroad for interrogation/torture. Khalid El-Masri, a German citizen, was shipped off to Afghanistan for such treatment and then released without charges, based on some government confusion about his name. Heh heh. Canadian citizen Maher Arar claims he was tortured in Syria for a year, released without charges, and cleared by a Canadian commission. Attempts to vindicate the rights of such men? You'd need to circle back to the state-secrets doctrine, above.

3. Abuse of Jose Padilla
First, he was, according to then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, "exploring a plan to build and explode a radiological dispersion device, or 'dirty bomb,' in the United States." Then, he was planning to blow up apartments. Then he was just part of a vague terror conspiracy to commit jihad in Bosnia and Chechnya. Always, he was a U.S. citizen. After three and a half years, in which he was denied the most basic legal rights, it has now emerged that Padilla was either outright tortured or near-tortured. According to a recent motion, during Padilla's years of almost complete isolation, he was treated by the U.S. government to sensory and sleep deprivation, extreme cold, stress positions, threats of execution, and drugging with truth serum. Experts say he is too mentally damaged to stand trial. The Bush administration supported his motion for a mental competency assessment, in hopes that will help prevent his torture claims from ever coming to trial, or, as Yale Law School's inimitable Jack Balkin put it: "You can't believe Padilla when he says we tortured him because he's crazy from all the things we did to him."

2. The Military Commissions Act of 2006
This was the so-called compromise legislation that gave President Bush even more power than he initially had to detain and try so-called enemy combatants. He was generously handed the authority to define for himself the parameters of interrogation and torture and the responsibility to report upon it, since he'd been so good at that. What we allegedly did to Jose Padilla was once a dirty national secret. The MCA made it the law.

1. Hubris
Whenever the courts push back against the administration's unsupportable constitutional ideas—ideas about "inherent powers" and a "unitary executive" or the silliness of the Geneva Conventions or the limitless sweep of presidential powers during wartime—the Bush response is to repeat the same chorus louder: Every detainee is the worst of the worst; every action taken is legal, necessary, and secret. No mistakes, no apologies. No nuance, no regrets. This legal and intellectual intractability can create the illusion that we are standing on the same constitutional ground we stood upon in 2001, even as that ground is sliding away under our feet.

Saddam Hussein Executed!

Story by BBC News, Middle East:

Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been executed by hanging at an unspecified location in Baghdad, for crimes against humanity.
Iraqi TV said the execution took place just before 0600 local time (0300GMT).
The news was confirmed to the BBC by the Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister, Labeed Abawi.
Two co-defendants, Saddam Hussein's half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti and former Iraqi chief judge Awad Hamed al-Bandar, were also executed.
Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by an Iraqi court on 5 November after a year-long trial over the 1982 killings of 148 Shias in the town of Dujail.
"Criminal Saddam was hanged to death," state-run Iraqiya television announced, as patriotic music and images of national monuments were broadcast.
A scrolling headline read: "Saddam's execution marks the end of a dark period of Iraq's history."
The TV station said Saddam Hussein's half-brother and the former chief justice of the Revolutionary Court were also hanged.
Other Arab TV stations aired live footage of the sunrise over Baghdad's Firdous Square, where US Marines pulled down a statue of Saddam Hussein, after he was deposed in April 2003.

'Turning a page'

US troops and Iraqi security forces are on high alert for any violent backlash. The US State Department has urged all its embassies to increase security.
The BBC's Peter Greste in Baghdad says Shias have generally welcomed Saddam Hussein's passing and hailed the execution as justice for the suffering endured under his leadership.
But Saddam's own Sunni tribesman were angered by his treatment in the past and they may well protest once more, our correspondent adds.
The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington says the Bush administration will see the act as turning a page in Iraq - a demonstration that Iraq has a sovereign and democratic government.
A US statement is expected. However, the Bush administration will be keen to portray the execution as a matter purely for the Iraqi government and its court system, our correspondent says.

Later, a look at how the U.S. took part in Saddam's crimes! (Hint: why do you think we were so sure he had weapons of mass destruction?)

Draft Obama TV Spot: Believe Again

I love Barack Obama. I hope he runs for President. As a matter of fact, I hope there is an Obama/Clinton ticket in '08 (and I am, for sure, not the biggest Hillary fan). This website, "DraftObama.Org" seems to share the sentiment. CNN Ticker has the story about the TV spot set to run while the Senator vacations in Hawaii:

In between football games and holiday programming, Sen. Barack Obama might see a television ad urging him to jump into the 2008 presidential race while he vacations in Hawaii over the holidays.
DraftObama.org, a grassroots organization urging the Illinois Democrat to run for president, will begin airing an ad in Obama's birth state of Hawaii, the group announced Friday.
The ad is currently airing on local cable in New Hampshire and Washington, D.C. as well as on New Hampshire station WMUR in what a spokeswoman called a "moderate rolling ad buy." Called "Believe Again," the ad scrolls through still photographs of Obama while clips his from past speeches are played. It begins with the words "We can replace fear with hope," and ends with "Believe again."
The group says the ad will now run on "several stations in Honolulu" and is timed to coincide with Obama annual trip there.
"All I really want for Christmas this year is for Barack Obama to run for president," Ben Stanfield, founder of DraftObama.org, said in a statement.

30 Days as a Muslim

From the "Thirty-Days" series, this video shows how ignorant some Christians can be (found on Alternet.Org:

This program, from a series created by Supersize Me's Morgan Spurlock, has a young white Christian man from West Virginny live with a Pakistani Muslim couple in Michigan for a month.
They eat, pray, study and live together.
The man, Dave Stacey, is an exceptional sport, participating when he can, questioning when he can't. He's also under the additional discomfort of being away from his family and all that's given his life meaning in the past. In other words: it suffers from the same heartily unscientific flaws that all "reality" TV suffers from.
The participating Muslims, on the other hand, are far more practiced at dealing with proximate discomfort so their tolerance often (though not always) appears effortless.
Spurlock peppers the experiment with 'man on the street' interviews on Islamic culture, exposing ignorance and resurrecting the American Holy Ghost of the Wild West.
Asked what he would do if the Muslim call to prayer were broadcast next door, a man responds (paraphrasing): I'd go crank up my stereo with some Tom Petty or maybe some Duran Duran and give 'em some payback. Because that's my right as an American.

This video is over 40 minutes...

Another Point Of View

Well, it appears that an incoming Congressperson has been discriminated upon and persecuted for their religious beliefs before. Alan Dershowitz (at The Blog at Huffington Post) has the story:

'Jacob Henry, a Jew who was elected to North Carolina's legislature in 1808, but was blocked from taking his seat by a law requiring him to accept the divinity of the New Testament, posed the following rhetorical question:

"Will you drive from your shores and from the shelter of your constitution all who do not lay their oblations on the same altar, observe the same ritual, and subscribe to the same dogmas? If so, which among the various sects into which we are divided shall be the favored one?"

As if to demonstrate that intolerance once practiced against Jews can also be practiced by some Jews against other minorities, a Jewish right wing talk show host named Dennis Prager led a campaign to disallow the first Muslim elected to Congress (in November 2006) to take an oath of office on the Koran. Prager insisted that Congressman Keith Ellison:

"'should not be allowed to do so - not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization,' Prager argued. 'Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible.' "'If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress,' he wrote."'

Thats right, kiddos! Dennis Prager, who caused all the trouble (just like the Model T Ford. I mean, who's gonna patronize an itty-bitty, two-by-four kinda store anymore?) is Jewish. Not that being Jewish, in and of itself, is a bad thing (the clearest minded thinker today is Jewish (big-ups, Lewis Black!)). Being a Jew, and a hypocrite? That's a little more worth writing about.

Another Smoke-Screen Non-Issue

Okay, so is this whole Keith Ellison being sworn in on the Koran thing over yet? It appears not if Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) has anything to say about it. He said Thursday that he will not retract the letter he wrote, warning that unless immigration is tightened, "many more Muslims will be elected" and use the Koran to take the oath of office. That, instead of a quick "sorry for being so retarded" and a "try not to do it again," (sorry to any "retarded" people who read this (and to those who will, inevitably, get upset at the use of the word "retard" (see: Lewis Black for the correct usage of the term))). Anyway, the way the whole thing started was a "journalist" named Dennis Prager wrote a piece for the site "Townhall.com" against Rep-Elect Keith Ellison's decision to be sworn in on a Koran instead of a Bible (Ellison is the US's first Muslim Congressperson):

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.
He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Okay, that sucked enough as it was, but, in addition to this hot-headed windbag, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) had to add his two cents in a letter to his constituents that, somehow, was leaked to an actual human being and was promptly published in the Charlotteville Newsweekly website, C-Ville Weekly:

...When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped...

The letter droned on the way those letters always do: yadda yadda, zeig heil, yadda, master race, etc. Now, all Goode had to do was say, oops, my bad and we could all get on with some actual business (anyone hear about this ISG Report and how the President is determined to ignore everyone's advice but John McCain's?) but, no, he stuck to his guns.
Interesting note, for all you "fact-junkies" out there: Congresspeople are not sworn in on a bible. They are not sworn in on a Dictionary, a Thesaurus, a Compendium of Brother's Grimm Tales or any other large, old book at all. Congresspeople are sworn in, en masse with one hand in the air and the other hand lying limply by their side. The "swearing in" we've been persevering about for weeks is, in fact, an informal swearing-in "photo-op" that almost every new Congressperson has in their own office, privately.

SNL - Digital Short - A Special Christmas Box

Hey everyone! Sorry for the complete lack of posting lately. Christmas is stressful, as I'm sure you're all aware. Anywho, I'm back and I'm posting as much as possible. This first bit isn't news, really (it's an SNL bit that was censored on the air but released uncensored on the net). For some strange reason, instead of covering the Iraq war or KBR and Halliburton no-bid contracts, the NY Times decided this was the real story. Go fig.