United nations need to be agree on how to handle Iran, as Gates puts it.

The United State alone cannot force Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday.

Gates called Iran as "an ambitious and fanatical theocracy," and said he has yet to find "the elusive Iranian moderate," according to remarks prepared for delivery at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

"With a government of that nature, only a united front of nations will be able to exert enough pressure to make Iran abandon its nuclear aspirations — a source of great anxiety and instability in the region," Gates said.

Iran denies it is pursuing nuclear weapons. It says its nuclear program is strictly for civilian energy development.

"Our allies must work together on robust, far-reaching and strongly enforced economic sanctions," Gates said. "We must exert pressure in the diplomatic and political arenas as well. And, as President Bush has said, with this regime we must also keep all options on the table." The term "all options" is a veiled reference to possible military action.

Gates said Iran seems increasingly willing to act contrary to its own interests.

"We should have no illusions about the nature of this regime or its leaders — about their designs for their nuclear program, their willingness to live up to their rhetoric, their intentions for Iraq, or their ambitions in the Gulf region," he said in his prepared remarks, copies of which were made available before he spoke.

Full story...

I like knowing that I'm with one of the companies.

Three telecommunications companies have declined to tell Congress whether they gave U.S. intelligence agencies access to Americans' phone and computer records without court orders, citing White House objections and national security.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell "formally invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent AT&T from either confirming or denying" any details about intelligence programs, AT&T general counsel Wayne Watts wrote in a letter to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Qwest and Verizon also declined to answer, saying the federal government has prohibited them from providing information, discussing or referring to any classified intelligence activities.

"Our company essentially finds itself caught in the middle of an oversight dispute between the Congress and the executive relating to government surveillance activities," Watts wrote.

The White House declined to comment on the matter Monday...

The House is about to consider a new government eavesdropping bill. The White House has threatened to veto the bill unless it includes retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies that assisted government investigations without court orders...

House Democrats vowed last week not to grant immunity in the eavesdropping bill without being told exactly what the companies did that requires legal protection...

A Senate version of the bill, scheduled for committee action on Thursday, is likely to include an immunity provision.

The Bush administration has thus far refused to disclose to Congress details of the program other than classified briefings provided to a small group of House and Senate intelligence committee members.

Telecommunications companies regularly and legally provide assistance to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

Full story...

What is the world/society/culture coming to when this is talked about happening:

Humans could marry robots within the century. And consummate those vows.

"My forecast is that around 2050, the state of Massachusetts will be the first jurisdiction to legalize marriages with robots," artificial intelligence researcher David Levy at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands told LiveScience.

Levy recently completed his Ph.D. work on the subject of human-robot relationships, covering many of the privileges and practices that generally come with marriage as well as outside of it.

At first, sex with robots might be considered geeky, "but once you have a story like 'I had sex with a robot, and it was great!' appear someplace like Cosmo magazine, I'd expect many people to jump on the bandwagon," Levy said.

I would love to see a discussion about the morality and ethics associated with this.  I will ponder it for thought.  My head is spinning trying to follow this logic:

The possibility of sex with robots could prove a mixed bag for humanity. For instance, robot sex could provide an outlet for criminal sexual urges.

"If you have pedophiles and you let them use a robotic child, will that reduce the incidence of them abusing real children, or will it increase it?" Arkin asked. "I don't think anyone has the answers for that yet — that's where future research needs to be done."

Keeping a robot for sex could reduce human prostitution and the problems that come with it.
However, "in a marriage or other relationship, one partner could be jealous or consider it infidelity if the other used a robot," Levy said. "But who knows, maybe some other relationships could welcome a robot. Instead of a woman saying, 'Darling, not tonight, I have a headache,' you could get 'Darling, I have a headache, why not use your robot?'"

Arkin noted that "if we allow robots to become a part of everyday life and bond with them, we'll have to ask questions about what's going to happen to our social fabric. How will they change humanity and civilization? I don't have any answers, but I think it's something we need to study. There's a real potential for intimacy here, where humans become psychologically and emotionally attached to these devices in ways we wouldn't to a vibrator."

Levy is currently writing a paper on the ethical treatment of robots. When it comes to sex and love with robots, "the ethical issues on how to treat them are something we'll have to consider very seriously, and they're very complicated issues," Levy said.

Levy successfully defended his thesis Oct. 11.

[eBay story towards the end]  You may have heard how MediaMatters and members of the left have tried to smear Rush Limbaugh for saying "phony soldiers" trying to say Rush meant the comment to encompass all soldiers who have served a tour or two abroad in our current wars Afghanistan and Iraq and return with opposition to the wars.  The thing to keep in mind and notice when this type of thing is brought up, is the lack of context that is presented.  I've noticed that those on the left, in an effort to distort for personal benefits, will only include/quote a sentence or two to prove their point.  Whatever point they want.  A speech can be given for an hour detailing the positive in the economy or the war or in foreign affairs but if a sentence is uttered like, "...It has been difficult to say the least, and it may continue to be difficult at times...", that is what an article will be based on with the headline reading "[So and So] Confirms Distressing Times".  They don't include the "...but arguably things have been on a steady growth in the positive, and continue to do so" portion of the quote or statement, or anything past that.  So case in point [2] [3], Rush utters "phony soldiers" to a caller who is talking about "...these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media..."  Now if the conversation ended there I could see how one could extrapolate that Rush was including all those soldiers that oppose the war now, and he would have need to provide an explanation or clarification, but after he hangs up with the caller he goes on to explain "...fake soldiers...".  [Please notice that in the links provided above, only the things said before "...phony soldiers..." is given but nothing after.  Context is the mother of all understanding [kind of thing].  I provide links to the full transcript below.]  Rush brings up Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth as the example, the ruler by which to measure a phony soldier or fake soldier.  A man that got kick out after 44 days from boot camp, never stepping foot in Iraq or Afghanistan, and never being a Ranger.  Now before the record of his service was known Jesse MacBeth proceeded to tell stories to the media of atrocities he and fellow soldiers committed.  All false as his service shows, it was impossible for the stories to be true.  That is a phony soldier.  That is a fake soldier.  That is a liar.  That the media was all to willing to use because it served the purpose of trying to demoralize the President and the nation.  They try and say he didn't mean one soldier because he said the plural soldiers.  But please, let use be intellectually honest, clearly he meant "...phony soldiers..."/"...fake soldiers..." in the mold of Jesse MacBeth.  When Rush describes the story for "...fake soldiers..." he says not one iota about soldiers who served and returned opposing the war.  It's just not there.  Read the transcript, or listen to the clip from the show [bold is what the media is pretty much quoting] + [full transcript and full audio]:

RUSH ARCHIVE:  It's not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER:  No, it's not.  And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers.  They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH:  The phony soldiers.

CALLER:  The phony soldiers.  If you talk to any real soldier and they're proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they're willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH:  They joined to be in Iraq.

RUSH:  It's frustrating and maddening, and why they must be kept in the minority.  I want to thank you, Mike, for calling.  I appreciate it very much...

Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers.  This is a story of who the left props up as heroes.  They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth.  Now, he was a "corporal."  I say in quotes.  Twenty-three years old.  What made Jesse MacBeth a hero to the anti-war crowd wasn't his Purple Heart; it wasn't his being affiliated with post-traumatic stress disorder from tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.  No. What made Jesse MacBeth, Army Ranger, a hero to the left was his courage, in their view, off the battlefield, without regard to consequences.  He told the world the abuses he had witnessed in Iraq, American soldiers killing unarmed civilians, hundreds of men, women, even children.  In one gruesome account, translated into Arabic and spread widely across the Internet, Army Ranger Jesse MacBeth describes the horrors this way:  "We would burn their bodies.  We would hang their bodies from the rafters in the mosque."

Now, recently, Jesse MacBeth, poster boy for the anti-war left, had his day in court.  And you know what?  He was sentenced to five months in jail and three years probation for falsifying a Department of Veterans Affairs claim and his Army discharge record.  He was in the Army. Jesse MacBeth was in the Army, folks, briefly.  Forty-four days before he washed out of boot camp.  Jesse MacBeth isn't an Army Ranger, never was.  He isn't a corporal, never was.  He never won the Purple Heart, and he was never in combat to witness the horrors he claimed to have seen.  You probably haven't even heard about this.  And, if you have, you haven't heard much about it.  This doesn't fit the narrative and the template in the Drive-By Media and the Democrat Party as to who is a genuine war hero. Don't look for any retractions, by the way.  Not from the anti-war left, the anti-military Drive-By Media, or the Arabic websites that spread Jesse MacBeth's lies about our troops, because the truth for the left is fiction that serves their purpose.  They have to lie about such atrocities because they can't find any that fit the template of the way they see the US military. In other words, for the American anti-war left, the greatest inconvenience they face is the truth.

MediaMatters is saying that Rush edited the replay on his show.  Rush took out a bit that was about Weapons of Mass Destruction.  "Moot" to the point of "...phony soldiers..."  but they will try anything.  It doesn't help their argument if he had left the minute thirty-five in.  There was the issue of the "...phony soldiers..." and then wmd's.  I would have cut out the fluff to get to the meat at the matter.  It's a false argument.  They are trying to lambast him again because he said he was playing "the entire transcript, in context, that led to this so-called controversy."  Clearly only attaching themselves to the entire transcript part while missing the in context, that led to this so-called controversy part.  I haven't heard people bring up the wmd's as part of the controversy have you? False argument.  [Here's a link to a full transcript and intelligent points [2] [commentary [3] [4]] about this]

If you know that story, you know that the Senate sent Limbaugh's boss a letter intensely nudging him "to publicly repudiate" Rush and his comment.  Rush's boss has since defended Rush and his comments after reading the transcript in full.  Well Rush has decided to make lemonade from the rotten bunch of lemons and as any entrepreneur little lemonade sales stand kid knows you get compensation for the work of producing the lemonade.  Rush is auctioning off the letter on eBay [2] and giving the proceeds to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation.  The sugar that makes it that much sweeter and chills the bitter sour to the taste is the donation but he is also including the Halliburton suitcase it's secured in, a letter of thanks from Rush, and a photo of Rush and the letter.

A letter sent to Rush Limbaugh's boss demanding he be chastised for comments he made on the air about "phony soldiers" is now on the auction block, and the latest bid is a cool $41,400.

One hundred percent of the money raised from the eBay auction will go to educate the children of Marines and law enforcement officers who died while on duty, the auction says.

Bids will continue until Friday for the letter signed by 41 Democratic senators and sent on Oct. 2 to Mark P. Mays, president of Clear Channel, the parent company of the conservative talk show host's radio broadcast. The winning bidder will get the letter, the "Halliburton briefcase in which this letter is secured 24 hours a day;" a letter of thanks from Limbaugh and a picture of the talkmeister announcing the auction at a speech in Philadelphia delivered last Thursday.

"This historic document may well represent the first time in the history of America that this large a group of U.S. senators attempted to demonize a private citizen by lying about his views. As such, it is a priceless memento of the folly of (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid and his 40 senatorial co-signers," reads the eBay announcement.

As of midday Sunday, 95 bids by 36 bidders had been made on the letter, whose opening bid price was $100.

Playing up the controversy over comments Limbaugh made last month in which he used the term "phony soldiers," seemingly to describe U.S. troops opposed to the Iraq war, Limbaugh told his audience last week that he is going to turn lemons into lemonade.

"Over the last 20 years, I've been called a chicken hawk. I have been accused of being blindly supportive of the military. Now, all of a sudden, I hate the military. All of a sudden, I'm critical of soldiers who are critical of the war — which I have never been," Limbaugh said in his Friday broadcast.

"I would like to issue this challenge to Senator Reid and the 41 senators who signed his letter. You say you support the military. You say you're big, and you think it's patriotic, and that I was unpatriotic. Well, I would like for each of you, Senator Reid, and the 40 senators who signed, to match whatever the winning bid is. Show us your support for the U.S. military by all 41 of you pro-military people, Democrats in the Senate, match whatever the winning bid is and send that amount to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation," Limbaugh said. Limbaugh sits on the board of the foundation that has dispersed $29 million for scholarships.

Place a bid if you want it, but it's getting up there.

Unbelievable [Google makes great decisions but sometimes they make "interesting" decisions]:

Internet search giant Google has rejected ads that are critical of far-left advocacy group MoveOn.org. MoveOn caused a national stir last month after The New York Times gave it preferential treatment for the infamous “General Betray Us” public message.

The banned ads were placed by the campaign of Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, for her re-election. The reason given for the ads' removal was that they violated Google’s copyright infringement policy.

Click here to read The Examiner’s report.

The removed campaign ads said, “Susan Collins is MoveOn’s primary target. Learn how you can help” and “Help Susan Collins stand up to the MoveOn.org money machine.” The ads linked to Collins’ campaign Web site with a headline reading “MoveOn.org has made Susan Collins their #1 target.”

The Examiner contributed to this report.

Is this going to go both ways?  You think?

Oldey but goodey of Google's interesting decisions [I think it goes against their own philosophy]:

Google censors itself for China

Leading internet company Google has said it will censor its search services in China in order to gain greater access to China's fast-growing market.

Google has offered a Chinese-language version of its search engine for years but users have been frustrated by government blocks on the site.

The company is setting up a new site - Google.cn - which it will censor itself to satisfy the authorities in Beijing.

Google argued it would be more damaging to pull out of China altogether.

Critics warn the new version could restrict access to thousands of sensitive terms and web sites. Such topics are likely to include independence for Taiwan and the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

The Chinese government keeps a tight rein on the internet and what users can access. The BBC news site is inaccessible, while a search on Google.cn for the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement directs users to a string of condemnatory articles.

Google's move in China comes less than a week after it resisted efforts by the US Department of Justice to make it disclose data on what people were searching for...

You go Google.

The following is from FoxNews.com:

Hashemi Rafsanjani, former Iranian president and current Chairman of the Assembly of Experts, said Friday that Hitler’s treatment of Jewish people in Europe was due in part to their being “a pain in the neck.”

and

Rafsanjani noted that Jews caused problems for European governments because they “had a lot of property” and “controlled an empire of propaganda.” He also said that the Nazis were successful in saving Europe from the evil of Zionism.

That is the majority of the story, but they have a link to a video of the speech.  I would like to go on record and say thanks to Columbia University for getting a concrete answer from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about the Holocaust so we have is as a permanent record:

MR. COATSWORTH: A further set of questions challenge your view of the Holocaust. Since the evidence that this occurred in Europe in the 1940s as a result of the actions of the German Nazi government, since that -- those facts are well-documented, why are you calling for additional research? There seems to be no purpose in doing so, other than to question whether the Holocaust actually occurred as an historical fact. Can you explain why you believe more research is needed into the facts of what are -- what is incontrovertible?

PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Thank you very much for your question. I am an academic, and you are as well. Can you argue that researching a phenomenon is finished forever, done? Can we close the books for good on a historical event? There are different perspectives that come to light after every research is done. Why should we stop research at all? Why should we stop the progress of science and knowledge? You shouldn't ask me why I'm asking questions. You should ask yourselves why you think that it's questionable.

Why do you want to stop the progress of science and research? Do you ever take what's known as absolute in physics? We had principles in mathematics that were granted to be absolute in mathematics for over 800 years, but new science has gotten rid of those absolutism, gotten -- forward other different logics of looking at mathematics, and sort of turned the way we look at it as a science altogether after 800 years. So we must allow researchers, scholars to investigate into everything, every phenomenon -- God, universe, human beings, history, and civilization. Why should we stop that?

I'm not saying that it didn't happen at all. This is not (the ?) judgment that I'm passing here. I said in my second question, granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people? This is a serious question. They're two dimension. In the first question, I --

MR. COATSWORTH: Let me just -- let me pursue this a bit further. It is difficult to have a scientific discussion if there isn't at least some basis -- some empirical basis, some agreement about what the facts are. So, calling for research into the facts when the facts are so well-established represents for many a challenging of the facts themselves and a denial that something terrible occurred in Europe in those years. (Applause.)

Let me move on to -- (pause).

Mr. President, another student asks, Iranian women are now denied basic human rights...

Nevermind.  Sorry, I forgot.

Are you getting this?

Apparently Sean Penn took a stroll down the non-oppressive streets in Venezuela to see just how a great free society really functions.  In a televised speech the other day, Hugo welcomed Sean in his search for "new paths".  And it didn't hurt that Sean is "...one of the greatest opponents of the Iraq invasion."

"Chavez read aloud from a recent open letter by Penn to President Bush in which the actor condemned the Iraq war and called for Bush to be impeached, saying the president along with Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are 'villainously and criminally obscene people.'"

Hugo said they talked on the phone noting his [Hugo's] bad English but they did "...understood each other more or less."  It makes sense to.  I highly expect they would understand each other.  Sean Penn seems to have a pseudo flamboyant drunken demeanor when he talks.  I bet Hugo was thinking they spoke alike in more ways then one.  When you get two people who can't form a coherent sentence, let alone in English, probably will understand each other just fine.  Fill in the gaps kind of thing.

Flattery will get you no were so I guess Hugo was serious when he said Sean Penn was "...well-informed about what is happening in the United States and the world, in spite of being in Hollywood."  Sean Penn understands that the war on terror and fascist islamic jihad is just a bumper sticker slogan that fits snuggly right next to peoples "my student was on the deans list at _____    _____ high school."  And since it's only a bumper sticker slogan, like Edwards said, it's "...designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe."  How is a bumper sticker going to make us safe?  Sweet mother of mercy, he's right!!!  He understands the process of impeachment with his lawyer degree.  I can't find proof but I bet Sean Penn understands the deplorable genocide in Darfur and that it must stop but understands that it doesn't matter if that happens in Iraq.  Prevention isn't the best I guess.  Sorry but I fail to see how Sean Penn grasps the obvious.  You have more to add to the list I invite you to add it to the comments.

The FoxNews.com story I got this little blog out of ends explaining that Sean and Hugo will get together [for tea and cucumber sandwiches].  And that Sean took a stroll through the new film studios there.  He should make a couple blockbusters down there.  Sure they would be riveting anti-America in the most distinguishably pious pictures ever.  I would love to hear what Sean would say about Hugo shutting down the countries most popular television station because they were critical of Chavez [or trying to overthrow him according to Chavez].  [Which since had to set up as a pay program to continue running]  I wonder if Sean Penn would even get the contradicting ideas.  He gets to say anything he wants about President Bush and his staff, even calling for his impeachment because of perceived gross faults on their respective parts.  Nothing but unrestricted ability.  Free to do so.  But if he were a Venezuelan and felt the same way and wanted to express such views, he would be oppressed.  Why do people love these guys [vicious brutal inhumane dictators]?

I guess what Venezuela's got going for themselves is a lot of propaganda.

On January 10, 2007, President Bush outlined his new plans for Iraq, including a troop increase.

On January 26, 2007, the United States Senate unanimously confirmed Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, to be General.

Soon after, the Senate started talks to pass a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush and Gen. Petraeus' plans for a troop surge of 20,000+ troops.  I signed the pledge.

Conservatives blocked measures, but liberals were intent on have a vote.

On February 16, 2007, the House passed a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush and Gen. Petraeus' troop surge plan.  I made the pledge cover the houses decision.  Seventeen Republicans voted for the non-binding resolution, they will not receive from me financial help.

On February 18, 2007, the Senate non-binding resolution is blocked by "the GOP".  Senators voting yea will not receive financial help from me.

I want victory.

[the following will be updated with possible quotes at later time.  time does not permit currently.]

On March 8, 2007, Democrats push new legislation that includes plans to withdrawal troops from Iraq.  The proposals will be attached to an energy spending bill.  This is done so it will be harder for those opposed to the plans of "slow-bleed" to vote no.  If they vote no, it could be used against them without the context of the vote.

On March 12, 2007, Dick Cheney addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.  Dick Cheney provided intelligent analysis of the underlining dangers to this liberal "slow-bled". [2]

~tohu vavohu

~sign the pledge
~support victory in the war against radical Islamists
~Mitt Romney for possible president 2008
~Rudy Giuliani for possible president 2008
~sorry you screwed it up - no to McCain

On January 10, 2007, President Bush outlined his new plans for Iraq, including a troop increase.

On January 26, 2007, the United States Senate unanimously confirmed Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, to be General.

Soon after, the Senate started talks to pass a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush and Gen. Petraeus' plans for a troop surge of 20,000+ troops.  I signed the pledge.

Conservatives blocked measures, but liberals were intent on having a vote.

On February 16, 2007, the House passed a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush and Gen. Petraeus' troop surge plan.  I made the pledge cover the houses decision.  Seventeen Republicans voted for the non-binding resolution, they will not receive from me financial help if and when they are up for re-election.  And if the NRSC cannot guarantee my money will not be used to financially help them in re-election, the NRSC will not receive financial help from me.

On February 18, 2007, the Senate non-binding resolution is blocked by "the GOP".  Because of John Warner of Virginia, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Susan Collins of Maine, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Norm Coleman of Minnesota and the NRSC will not receive financial help because of their yea vote for this resolution.

I want victory:

Our Mission
Deliver the perspectives and news on the war effort which the mainstream media neglects to help the American public understand the nature of our conflict and its true progress

Provide tools and infrastructure to help citizens who are committed to victory organize into a recognized and influential caucus

Identify opportunities for the caucus to act and exert influence on America’s leaders and to directly aid and support the men and women of our military

Our Beliefs
We support victory in the war against radical Islamists.

We supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and we believe victory is necessary in both countries for America's self-defense.

We believe that the radical regime in Iran, while not representative of the Iranian people, is a menace and that it cannot be allowed to obtain or build nuclear weapons.

We believe that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization that has killed hundreds of Americans and which waged war against Israel in violation of every law of war this past summer, and will do so again in the future.

We believe Israel is our ally and friend and deserves the full assistance of the United States in its battle with radical Islamists.

We believe that Israel has repeatedly shown its willingness to negotiate a just and lasting peace, but that its enemies do not want peace, but the destruction of Israel.

We believe that the American military is the finest in the world and indeed in history, well led and superbly trained, and populated at every level by America's best and brightest.

We support the troops, and those organizations which assist the wounded in their recoveries and support the families of those who sacrificed everything.

We support leaders who support victory.

~tohu vavohu

~sign the pledge
~support victory in the war against radical Islamists
~Mitt Romney for possible president 2008
~Rudy Giuliani for possible president 2008
~sorry you screwed it up - no to McCain

On January 10, 2007, President Bush outlined his new plans for Iraq, including a troop increase.

On January 26, 2007, the United States Senate unanimously confirmed Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, to be General.

Soon after, the Senate started talks to pass a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush and Gen. Petraeus' plans for a troop surge of 20,000+ troops.

It was with this, I signed the pledge:

"If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution."

~tohu vavohu

~sign the pledge
~support victory in the war against radical Islamists
~Mitt Romney for possible president 2008
~Rudy Giuliani for possible president 2008
~sorry you screwed it up - no to McCain

Pamela Hess from the United Press International was recently on C-Spans' Washington Journal and was asked "...what do the people you're with say about being over there?..."  Her answer is sobering.  At times she gets emotional.  In the end she summed it quite well:

"I went in thinking...  ...I must find out what Iraq means for U.S. ational security.  I came out saying, you know, American national security, we can take care of ourselves but somebody needs to take care of these Iraqis..."

You can see the clip here.  [may change blog sites so I can start posting videos directly and have pictures for visual appeal.

Earlier this year, Pamela Hess also surprised a few people when she said the media was ignoring the consequences of withdrawal.  That video can be seen here.

~tohu vavohu

~sign the pledge
~support victory in the war against radical Islamists
~Mitt Romney for possible president 2008
~Rudy Giuliani for possible president 2008
~sorry you screwed it up - no to McCain

Former Iranian deputy defense minister Ali Reza Asgari has defected from Iran.  About a month ago Asgari disappeared while visiting Turkey.  Reports indicate that it is voluntary and "willingly cooperating" and that he is being questioned in Europe.  This is before he will be shipped to the United States as he is seeking asylum.  Why is this big?  He has secrets to be shared about Iran, their capabilities and infrastructure, and Iran's ties to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Read the full story here.

~tohu vavohu

~sign the pledge
~support victory in the war against radical Islamists
~Mitt Romney for possible president 2008
~Rudy Giuliani for possible president 2008
~sorry you screwed it up - no to McCain

Soon after September 11, 2006, after the Arizona 9/11 Memorial was dedicated, an uproar swept not only through the desert landscape of Arizona but across the United States.  An uproar in regards to inscriptions that could be found etched in the thick heavy steal that followed the round circular curve of the memorial.  Because no real reporting was being done in local news, I clung close to a computer screen trying to keep up to date on any story that would come up.  I read news articles, I read blogs, I watched news footage, I listened to audio clips, I looked at pictures.  I was appalled as others seemed to be.  None of it seemed to ring with the hum of commemoration honoring those that lost their lives on September 11, 2001.

It wasn't long before Governor Janet Napolitano, after being asked about the memorial, said, "...you know what, you need to see the memorial as a whole, and see it as a whole 'cause you could only see it as a very honorable and respectful memorial...  ...come down [to the] capitol and see the whole thing and how it all fits together..."

Sunday, October 1, 2006, I took the trip to view the Arizona 9/11 Memorial located at the Wesley Bolin Plaza, 1700 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Az.  I was accompanied by my friend, who a little over six years ago joined the army.  He served in the 82nd Airborne division completing a tour in Afghanistan and a tour in Iraq.  Having heard rumors that were circulating at the time, he welcomed my invitation to visit the memorial so he could base his opinion on his experience.  He holds the events of September 11, 2001 in sweet remembrance.  He was on a break during training exercises, when struggling with a television set, a hazy picture came fluttering to the screen.  It was the live image at the exact time the second plane was flying into the second tower.  In calm, composed amazement, he and his fellow soldiers quietly drew a breath and said, "We are going to bring justice to those that have brought this injustice to our soil.  ...When do we go."

Having missed the opportune time to see the words as shadows on the concrete, we lifted ourselves up onto the ledge to stare straight down at the inscriptions.  Instantly my friend was disturbed by some of the inscriptions he saw.  I can't recall what he said specifically but I know he was genuinely disturbed.  He liked the one about the digging for eight hours and only finding a strap.  "See, there, that a finite detail of something that could be true given sufficient resources of researchable information."  After a minute or two of chaotic movements, we decided to begin at what seemed to be the beginning of the memorial.  We maneuvered to the eastern part of the memorial, and with a quick glance I saw something that disturbed me more than anything I had seen or read about to that point, it was the word:  "Why".  At that time didn't know why but it bothered me.  Passionately, in a instant of confused anger I said, "Why?!?  That's it?  Why?  Why what?  Why will I '...be home for dinner Tuesday night'?  Why this memorial?  Why...?"  But we moved along, panel by panel, phrase by phrase.  My friend went quicker than I did, and at times calling me over to show me something that disturbed him.  Before I was finished, he called me over to the last panel, at one of the last inscriptions.  He was infuriated at "8:30 P.M. President addresses nation".  "They don't even say who our President is!  Is there not enough respect to at least give our presidents name?  There is enough room here to put President George W. Bush addresses nation!" he said.  Adding, "I leaving.  I really can't handle this anymore.  This makes me sick.  People didn't die...  ...I didn't fight for this.  I am going to find the monument of the ten commandments, the very ten commandments I could get in trouble for having on my desk at work." he left.  I finished with the remaining panels and inscriptions I had not yet looked over, and in reverse order look at them again.  As I came back to the beginning it finally dawned on me by "Why" had bothered me so much.

I do agree with the reasons people detested certain inscriptions.  Trite and devoid seem to be a fitting descriptions of what is now etched in such hard, lasting material.  The people that hold this type of opinion have a valid point, and I hope they are heard and well evaluated.  But I would like to present something that I have not read, heard, or seen anyone else present in a discussion of this subject.  I hope you find this to be a refreshingly new observation.  The word "Why" alone implies that it is a question.  If a sentence is preceded by the word "why" it can only be a question.  Only when "why" is preceded by other words can it be intended for a statement.  It had dawned on me that I had asked the right question in the beginning, "Why this memorial?"  on the north part of the memorial, below rusting metal from the World Trade Center sits these words, "...The memory of September 11, 2001 casts  a shadow...  ...It is the shadow of many decisions and nearly 3,000 lives lost.  This memorial intends to bring them to light for you...  ...the sun reveals descriptions of that day's decisions and reactions...  ...Decisions make history..."  I assumed that the commission took it as their honorable objective to erect a lasting historical memorial attesting to the events of September 11th.  Shedding light on those dark gray areas, to illuminate truth.  And I assume this because Governor Janet Napolitano said, "As Governor, I charged this commission with creating a memorial for Arizona that fully encapsulates the losses that America suffered on September 11, 2001."  During the dedication of the memorial she added, "...my task, and the task i gave to the commission, was to make sure that Arizona children understood what had happened."  I assumed it was to even be intended as an educational aid as to why September 11th happened.  I realized the better question was "Why?  Why did September 11th happen?  Why were we attacked?"  I started from the beginning of the panels and inscriptions and worked my way to the end.  Before and after I read each inscription, before and after I glided to the next panel, I said aloud, "Why?  Why did September 11th happen?  Why were we attacked?"  After I read the inscription and repeated my inquiry aloud I asked, "Does this inscription answer the question of 'Why'?"  Unfortunately inscription after inscription, panel after panel, I failed to recognize any answer to my question.  No statement of who attacked us.  Inscriptions erroneous in and of themselves crowded most of the panels giving only general ideas and references.  Quotes lacking concrete documentation as to the author of such words.  I see no way "...Arizona children..." will be able to understand what "...encapsulates..." the events of September 11th.  If by chance all records of history where consumed and existed no more, and this Memorial stood as the last living testament to some point in history as  document of some point in time, children would be at a lost as to what took place that day.  Are we to educate or confuse?

The dedication presents this idea:  "...memory...  ...casts a shadow...  ...it is the shadow of many decisions and nearly 3,000 lives lost...  ...the sun reveals... [those] ...decisions... [and] ...decisions make history..."  I found all of one possible inscription that could be construed as a decision in direct correlation to September 11th:  "FBI agent issued July 2001 warning in 'Phoenix memo'"  Without any other contextual history regarding September 11th, this is the only one that can be taken as a decision that lead to, or caused the horrific events.  It is the only one that has any reference to a time that predates September 11th.  And it must be a decision we made because underneath is the inscription:  "06 03 02 Congress questions why CIA & FBI didn't prevent attacks"  Without further information, one would have to assume that the "the Phoenix memo" told of a prediction of September 11th attacks when it was in fact a memo informing other FBI offices of suspicious activity from "individuals of investigative interest" who were attending flight schools.  It was an inquiry of notice, not a prediction.  Historical context is lost in this memorial.  I found only three things inscribed in the memorial that could be considered as an answer to my question, "Why?  Why did September 11th happen?  Why were we attacked?"  Above, I gave the first two, and they beg the question, "Were we attacked because we did or didn't do something?  It must be our fault?!?"  But still with no real answer.  The last inscription I had to work on an assumption, an assumption that can go either way; it was meant as an inscription pre-9/11 or post-9/11.  I took a leap and made the assumption that "Middle East violence motivates attacks in US" spoke to something before 9/11 since there is not a stamp of a definitive date of occurrence.  But it begs the question, "What Middle East violence?  Was the US the author of said violence?  Who are the players in this?  What part did the US play in this violence?  What did we do?  Was it our fault?"  As with a lot of the inscriptions, I could only assume and speculate as to what it meant as a stamp in a historical memorial to a date, September 11, 2001.  But no real answers.  Again, I don't see how "...Arizona children..." or any child for that matter, present of future, can come to an understanding of what had happened through a visit to this memorial.

As I may agree with a lot of people that that the inscriptions should be changed, I don't agree with the idea that is was formed in a shape of a crescent.  I don't agree that it should be torn down and something new erected in it's place.  I think it is only the inscriptions that need a necessary change.  Even after everything that I find deplorable about the memorial, the one thing I noticed and will confirm, is that architecturally it is a beautiful monument.  Architecturally and visually stunning.  And even more beautiful is the concept of light casted from the sun to illuminate inscriptions, casting shadows on a ring of concrete.  Amazing.  Hats off and hand claps to those that designed the concept of the memorial.  My friend, the one that accompanied me, even thought the effect was "cool" and regretted we were past the time for a direct shadow.  And to a certain extent, I disagree with what some people have suggested for inscriptions.  The reason is because they have suggested inscriptions I feel are out of the scope of a September 11, 2001 memorial.  But I would be ok with the inscriptions if the commission deemed the scope was more broad.  And it would be up to the commission to set the limits of said scope and focus.  Will the scope be broad as focus and encompass years?  If this is done I see no problem in inscribing events in direct correlation to September 11th.  Descriptions of who attacked us.  History leading up to the attacks.  Historical reasons.  Service men and women who died, giving the ultimate sacrifice so that we may live free.  Statements of our founding fathers expressing the need and cost of freedom.  But will the scope be of that day and the focus that narrow?  If it is meant to memorialize September 11th and the events of that day, I think I would limit it to a commemoration of the lives lost.  The names don't have to be the inscriptions but the history of who, what, where, when, why can be just as powerful.  The commission needs to decide what is the purpose of this Arizona 9/11 Memorial.  What is it we are commemorating?  What do we need to teach people?  What is the infallible truth?  If there is a quote, I would like to see authorship.  I would like to see the presidents name reverently honor, fully being spelled out.  I like statements suggested by Len Musnil, "Lets Roll" - "United We Stand" - "God Bless America".  The money is being raised by Arizona Honors 9/11 and can be utilized to undertake this project.  It can be done.

I don't think the commission intentionally set out to upset people.  I really do believe that the members of the commission truly believe that they had put the best possible memorial forward.  And you posed and inscribed a good question "Why?"  But I unfortunately and regretfully believe that this memorial doesn't make it known the decisions of those radical Islamic fascists/nazi's (minority they may be) that caused September 11th, it doesn't provide an educational tool for instruction and knowledge.  Based on what Governor Napolitano stated as her charge and task to the commission, the commission failed.  Based on what is stated on the dedication, the commission failed.  I regret I can't find gentler words.  With all of best and good intentions the commission put into this memorial, it pains me to say that I think the memorial is fundamentally wrong.  The inscriptions should be changed.

I wish I would have had the opportunity to voice my opinion when the commission worked through the suggestions, but I don't recall any open invitations in any type of news medium.  The official site was unfortunately weak with any type of updates as to any real progress or news.  News that could have provide such an open invitation.  Like many other people, I was unaware that I could attend and voice an opinion.  I was never presented with the opportunity to be a part of the festivities of the commission.  I think it is a weak argument to say I never attended.  To ask why I didn't have a problem then.  How could I have, when I didn't know it was even going on?  I have yet to see in the last couple weeks in the major valley newspaper a mention of the meeting that is taking place this Friday, December 14, 2006 at the Washington Capitol Building on 15th Ave and Washington at 9 A.M. but I see no mention of it.  If there is such a mention, I fear that it is in a 2 inch square space, tucked away in the clutter.  I read about it in a quick article several weeks ago, but it gave no detail as to specifics.  It was through local talk radio that

I implore the commission to take away the current words and start from the beginning of the ideas and suggestions of inscriptions and rebuild the foundation of the words.

"Remember"
"...Decisions make history..."

Friday, December 14, 2006
Washington Capitol Building
15th Ave and Washington
9 A.M.
Arizona 09/11 commission meeting with the general public to discuss the 9/11 memorial.  If you have the ability to attend this meeting, I highly encourage you to do so.  If you think this is important, please, do something about it.  That is the beauty of democracy, we can make change with civil exchanges.  Be civil and voice your opinion.

~tohu vavohu

Friday, October 6, 2006, The Arizona Republic made note, as I am sure newspapers across the state and possibly the country did, that on October 5th, two liberal judges sitting all the way in San Francisco on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals "...blocked the...  ...new voting requirements..." but this is "...only a temporary injunction."  The voting requirements are part of Proposition 200, a 2004 proposition requiring proof of citizenship to vote in the state of Arizona and ensuring noncitizen/illegal immigrants couldn't "...receive public benefits...", a proposition that the voters of Arizona passed.  I couldn't find the link to the full story so I have taken it mostly from the physical paper from The Arizona Republic on October 6, 2006, story began on A1 and continued on A18.  It's unfortunate that two liberal judges hundred of miles away from Arizona can say that Arizona can not make their own laws and govern their own people, especially laws the voters of the state of Arizona put their vote to.  Like State Rep. Russel Pearce said, the courts need to "...realize we live in a democracy, not a juridocracy..."  But opponents to Prop 200 "...hailed [it] as a victory for the state's poor, elderly, rural and minority voters..." saying that the voting requirements "...disenfranchised..." potential voters.  But positive to Prop 200, it worked during this years Arizona primary "'...without a hitch and without a hiccup...'" said Jan Brewer, Secretary of State.  Opponents say that it violates the 24th Amendment because voters without ID's would have to go out and purchase one.  First Prop 200 is not "...requiring people to go out and purchase a form of ID..."  Second, besides allowing four different photo ID's to be utilized, Prop 200 also made it possible for a person without proper photo ID to vote utilizing 9 forms of identification without photo ID, as long as it has the persons name and address (on page 1).  Third, if a person didn't have either form of ID they could still vote utilizing a provisional ballot.  The voter would then have to provide for the provisional ballet, "...proof of identification..." to county recorder office by "...the fifth business day after a general election..." and by "...the third business day after any other election..." for it "...to be processed and counted..." (on page 5/top)  Fourth as far as the 24th Amendment argument I don't know how much water it would hold because it says a persons right to vote "...shall not be denied or abridged...  ...by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."  First it specifies the paying of a tax to vote.  Not the purchase of ID, which isn't being required, and by the way, ID is required for a number of many things in the United States (you're going to need it and that's besides the fact of voting).  The taxes it refers to were real taxes and real poll taxes a person was required to pay before voting, which were implemented after the Reconstitution and five states still had until the 24th Amendment was ratified (scroll to "Expansion of the Right to Vote" if doesn't automatically).  ID is not a tax.  Prop 200 "...has faced legal challenges..." all the way but at the time of the Republic article the state planned to appeal the order.

And it's a good thing the state appealed the order because as The Arizona Republic reported on Friday, October 20th, "...the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that Arizona can go ahead with requiring voters to present a photo ID, starting with [November 7th's] general election..."  This doesn't mean the U.S. Supreme Court found the voting requirements "...constitutional..." because that "...decision is still pending in federal court."  So what this means is the U.S. Supreme Court found "...that the 9th Circuit made a procedural error by granting an injunction to put the new rules on hold without waiting for the district court to explain its reasons for not granting an injunction."  So it's at least allowing Arizona to continue with voter requirements for at least November 7th's election.  We will have to see after that.

And you can count on "...lawyers, civil rights groups, even a documentary film director..." on sending "...observers to Arizona voting precincts for Tuesday's election..." as The Arizona Republic reports (November 1st on A1 cont. A12.  couldn't find on azcentral but here's short alternative article).  With this effort "...they hope to bolster a court challenge to the [voter identification] requirement..."  Also, "Arizona is one of seven states...  ...a national voter advocacy group, Videothevote.org..." will monitor.  Their "...goal is to talk to voters who get turned away from the polls..." by videotaping "...the scene when things go wrong..."  But it doesn't stress what their limitations will be in defining "things going wrong."  Mark your calendar because here is my prediction:  whatever video is presented it will have people saying they were not allowed to vote because they didn't have the proper photo identification or 2 forms of non-photo identification with name and address, but it will not include them saying that they are going to run home real quick to get the identification and it will not include them saying that they voted using a provisional ballot in which they will provide the ID required within the five days allowed.  Expect to see people angry and dumbfounded at the fact that they need to provide ID even though the state has exhaustively advertised the fact that you need identification to vote.  Expect to see people acting clueless to what is going on.  Expect to see them try to exploit the very groups of people they say Prop 200 hurts, the "...poor, elderly, rural and minority voters..."  Wouldn't it be interesting to surveillance the group to see if there may be a connection between them and the people they interview?  Meaning, wouldn't it be interesting that if they exploit those certain groups of people that you could find out the group gathered volunteers or paid people for their clueless presence at the polls?  Thankfully the group and the other voting observers are restricted "...from being within 75 feet of a polling area..."  Involved with monitoring voting precincts will be Democratic and Republican representatives which are allowed within 75 feet of a polling place.

As I mentioned how it would be interesting to see if the group would pay for people or gather people to show up without ID so they could make a more interesting/damaging video, I think due to a judges ruling this sort of practice on November 7th will be more possible but with a different twist.  Federal Judge Roslyn Silver "...refused to let...  ...observers inside polling stations...  ...but ordered election officials to count how many people without identification walk away without voting."  If someone refuses to utilized one or two of the 13 combined forms of identification to prove a person is a citizen, why should that reflect as a negative to the voter requirements?  If someone refuses to provide ID or to cast a provisional ballot and provide ID within 5 business days, he or she is choosing not to vote.  They are not being denied the right to vote, they have in essence revoked their own right to vote.  This is not a problem with the voting requirements but a problem with the voters themselves if they choose to go about their obligation in this manner.  Intending and hoping to have Prop 200 declared unconstitutional "critics..." of the voter identification requirements law "...contend it [the law] will disenfranchise some voters, particularly the elderly and minorities."  But people are "...not automatically disenfranchised: They can cast provisional ballots..."(s2)  Unfortunately the reports that will come from the data taken will not "...provide challengers [to those who oppose voter ID requirements] with the names of those who leave — or the reason."(s2)  David Bodney, representative of the Inter Tribal Council, predicts "...a "significant number of people" will be unable to vote."(s2)  Linda Brown, spokeswoman for the challengers, thinks Silver's ruling is good but questions the accuracy of the poll workers data because "'...they have inherent conflicts of interest..."  Mark your calendar again for my prediction:  People will show up without any form(s) of ID, refuse to cast a provisional ballot, and leave knowing poll workers have marked it down and leave telling their story to those observers outside.  And if it could be investigated further, a number of them will have only done it to have a negative mark on the data recorded just to further the the drive to have the voter identification requirement law of Arizona declared unconstitutional.  I can see those opposed to the voter ID requirements gathering as many people as they can to enter and exit polling precincts without voting to have the most negative light cast.  It's going to happen.  They want it struck down, and they will do anything, unfortunately even if it is unethical.  Now don't think that I mean every person leaving without voting has an ulterior motive.  There will be people that are legit but I think that this is a welcome invitation of "non-voter" fraud waiting to happen.

So make sure you remind people that when they vote they need to take their ID.  One form of photo ID or two forms of non-photo ID with current name and address.




prove you're a citizen and exercise your right and obligation to vote,
~tohu vavohu