400

That's how many soldiers that have died in Iraq since the war began in March.

And how about the injured?:

Fortunately, Time magazine wasn’t afraid this week to confront the realities of what’s happening to our soldiers in the shooting gallery of Iraq, where they are literally being torn limb from limb. Here’s an excerpt from Mark Thompson’s article:

For several seconds after the rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) drilled through the back of their armored M113 "battle taxi," the soldiers inside, mainlining adrenaline, continued firing. Then they started screaming. "It blew my leg clean off," says Private First Class Tristan Wyatt, who was standing at the rear of the armored personnel carrier (APC), unloading an M-240 machine gun at a dozen or more Iraqis who had ambushed them minutes before. He was the first to be hit. The RPG then passed through Sergeant Erick Castro’s hip, spinning him violently to the floor. His left leg was still attached — but barely. "I picked up my leg and put it on the bench," he says, "and lay down next to it." Finally, the RPG shredded Sergeant Mike Meinen’s right leg. "It was pretty much torn off," he says. "There was just some meat and tendons holding it on . . . As troops on the two other APCs continued firing, the lone medic among the 15 soldiers on the patrol climbed up the back ramp into the compartment. " ‘Holy s___!’ was the first thing out of his mouth, and it looked like his eyes were about to pop out of his head," Wyatt remembers. "That’s kind of disheartening when he's talking about you."

Sick. Just plain sick.

Modern art

From the I-Shit-You-Not Dept.:

Police on Friday removed the corpse of a man believed to have hanged himself at least a year ago after builders and students at Budapest's University of Arts had initially mistaken it for a modern sculpture.

A year ago? Holy crap. Nobody had the time to ask, "Hey, what happened to so and so?" Try calling him and wondering why he never replied to your email.. Something. Anything. I should ask these art students if ignorance is bliss.

Kick'em when their down

BON JOVI!:

Sitting in the control room at Los Angeles' Henson Studios earlier this fall listening to mixes for "This Left Feels Right" -- a collection of Bon Jovi hits radically revamped by the band -- Jon Bon Jovi admitted, "I don't know if anyone's gonna buy this."

It seems JBJ is starting to learn his place in SuckDom.

Source: rall.com

Eating Crow, and making up for it

I'll be serving myself a heaping helping of crow before somebody points out my gaffe from yesterday, when I said:

The Senate Democrats are using powers granted to them in the Constitution. Last time I checked, if our representatives work within the bounds of the Constitution, then their actions are not wrong. Maybe the Republicans and CNN should retake their high school civics class before they speak of this topic again.

I may need to take a Civics class again, too. But this issue isn't as cut and dry as I originally thought it was.

When I said the Senate Democrats were using "powers granted to them in the Constitution", I was referring to their filibuster (which is continuing, since the Republicans could only muster 53 votes against it.) Last night I took a look at the Constitution and I could not find the word "filibuster" anywhere in the text. That doesn't mean that members of the Senate don't have a right to filibuster, which a Republican Senator from West Virginia whose name escapes me tried inciting when I heard his speech on C-Span last night. Filibustering, and how to stop it, is appearently a slippery slope, and the Republicans are trying to change the rules so that a filibuster can be killed with less than 60 votes. They are claiming that since filibustering is not in the Constitution, but the Constitution mandates that the Senate approve or reject judicial nominees from the President, it is unconstitutional for those nominees to not receive a vote.

Taking filibuster out of the picture for a moment, this is an interesting argument. I'm not an expert on the Constitution, but I'm taking a look at it again and here's what I found in Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2: "He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate ... and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate ... Judges of the supreme Court ..."

With Advice and Consent. Hmm.. So, unless I'm (again) missing something huge here, what exactly is the problem with the Democrats filibuster? They are using Senate procedures to provide their advice and consent (in this case lack thereof) to the President on his judicial nominations. I see nothing in the Constitution mandating a vote, only advice and consent. The Constitution does not mention any procedures different from what the Senate already uses in the case of judicial nominations. If any party is being unconstitutional in this mess, it is the executive branch which is not dating the "advice" of the Senate that it is mandated to take.

Back to filibustering. Here's what the History of the Senate has to say on the topic of "Filibuster and Cloture":

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could use the filibuster technique. As the House grew in numbers, however, it was necessary to revise House rules to limit debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued since senators believed any member should have the right to speak as long as necessary.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Henry Clay, Clay threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Thomas Hart Benton angrily rebuked his colleague, accusing Clay of trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate. Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917. At that time, at the suggestion of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote -- a tactic known as "cloture."

The new Senate rule was put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Despite the new cloture rule, however, filibusters continued to be an effective means to block legislation, due in part to the fact that a two-thirds majority vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next several decades, the Senate tried numerous times to evoke cloture, but failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to southern senators blocking civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate.

There you go. Filibustering, which has been practiced by both parties, is well within the rules of debate in the Senate. The safeguard against excessive filibustering is "cloture", which the Republicans have failed to meet.

The rules of cloture have been changed before. Can they be changed again? Yes, they can be. I don't know if that's going to be a strong issue, though.

The Republicans could attempt to change the rules of cloture for judicial nominations only, keeping filibustering/unlimited debate rules intact for all other Senate activities. Judicial Watch sides with the GOP on this matter, and they are taking the case to court. Given what the Constitution says, though, I think the Republicans are wrong. But I'm not a lawyer and I do not know what previous decisions, if any, have been made on this matter.

In conclusion, I'd like to note that I tried to be as objective as possible with this post. If the Republicans think it's unconstitutional for four Bush nominees to not receive an up or down vote, what do they think about the fifty-five Clinton judicial nominees that never received a vote, who were never even filibustered. They were simply held up by one Republican committee head who refused to bring a vote for their approval to the Senate floor. (If memory serves me correct, it was Orrin Hatch who was the head of the Senate Judicial Committee when Clinton was President, and he held up the votes on Clinton nominations.)

The Republicans think the Democrats current filibuster is unconstitutional, but they are being highly hypocritical by not thinking their actions during the Clinton era, which were far more extreme, are not somehow considered unconstitutional by their very own ideology. Senate Democrats have also made great points questioning why the hell Republicans are dragging them through an almost 40 hour session to question the nominations of four judges when they have already approved 168 of Bush's 172 nominees. This isn't addressed by the Republicans. Senate Democrats have also mentioned that they should be debating about other issues, like how come we don't have a budget, what's happening with our energy policy, and correct me if I'm wrong but I think I heard something about Iraq. Still, the GOP won't budge.

In my opinion, all I have to say is.. What a bunch of little fucking crybabies. We need to send the GOP senator's mothers onto the Senate floor, all welding large wooden spoons to discipline them with. Maybe the mothers can wash their mouths out with soap and change their diapers while they are around. I mean, honest to god, all this over 4 stalled judicial nominations? Have I stepped into an alternate reality dictating that this issue is so important that it should take precedence over all other issues facing the nation. Jesus. Earth to GOP: Shut the fuck up and pick some less extremist nominees to goto the federal bench. The problem isn't the Democrats, it's you.

Well, it appears that I have my DSL line back. I don't have time to make many posts until tonight, though.

Get your righteous ass outta here

Alabama's Cheif Justice has been booted from the bench for breaking the law by putting the 10 commandments on display.

Good, this is what people like him deserve. Maybe this jerk should think before he tries shoving his religion down the throats of people who do not have the same beliefs.

And for anybody who thinks that Christianity is being persecuted in this country, get fucked. Seriously. Open your friggen eyes, churches are more ubiquitous than McDonald's on the American landscape, and nobody is telling you that you can't worship how you choose. We're telling you that we will not be forced to worship with you. If you consider that to be persecution, then you should look into purchasing a dictionary and carton of clue cookies.

More of that "Liberal Bias" from the media

As I watched CNN this afternoon, the news scroll trolled away at the bottom of the screen, spitting out headlines without detail. But boy, they can sure frame an issue using this. One headline that scrolled past really caught my eye: "Senate 30-hour talkathon continues; GOP accuses Democrats of blocking judicial nominees."

Let's break this down. "GOP accuses", this is what I have the biggest problem with. Anyone who isn't a neophyte to the English language knows that when you accuse somebody of committing an action, then you are inherently saying that their action is wrong. In some cases, you can assume that the accuser thinks the action in question was performed with malicious intent.

So to say that the GOP "accuses" the Democrats of holding up judicial nominations, the GOP, with CNN's help, has framed the issue to saying that the Democrats are doing something wrong by holding up the nominees from being voted on to see if they can fill positions in federal courts.

The Democrats are blocking judicial nominations, but it's not wrong, it's democracy. The Senate Democrats are using powers granted to them in the Constitution. Last time I checked, if our representatives work within the bounds of the Constitution, then their actions are not wrong. Maybe the Republicans and CNN should retake their high school civics class before they speak of this topic again.

What's the problem with reporting the truth? Why not have a headline that says, "Senate 30-hour session continues because GOP disagrees with Democrats blocking judicial nominees." The Senate Democrats are using the powers granted to them in the Constitution to fight the GOP, and the GOP is doing the same thing in the Senate. Unfortunately, they have decided to play dirty by inciting that the Democrats have done something wrong by blocking these judicial nominations. They haven't, unless there's something wrong with the democratic process. Taking a look at who resides in the executive branch right now and the party which supports him, I get the feeling that Republicans simply aren't concerned about democracy if it doesn't lead to the accomplishment of their goals.

Bring'em on

Today in Iraq still has all the war headlines you should be reading about.

Well, surprise surprise, my DSL line is down again. Fuck it.

Random Notes

Well, even though Verizon didn't show up today, my DSL line appears to be back. Since I'm using it right now and just -- ow! -- pinched myself, I must not be dreaming. Hopefully it stays up, even though Verizon still needs to take a look at the lines. I had to call them to have them tell me that they couldn't come out today and never intended to call me about it. Gee, that was nice of them. Maybe they can reimburse me for the pay I lost when I took a half day out of work.

Now that I have my DSL line back, I'll have time to check out a few blogs that have fresh new links to Loaded Mouth. Eight of them that I haven't seen yet, I'm hoping they have a lot of news on them because it looks like I'll be able to start blogging full time again tomorrow. If, of course, the DSL line holds up. Please please please, huminahuminahumina, staaaaaay!

If you get a chance, check out the comments from my letter to Bush that I posted yesterday. I've made no secret of the fact that I'm a victim to Bush's economic policies, but I haven't seen other bloggers posting their personal experiences about day-to-day life living under the reign of the shrub. Personally, I feel that we need more voices out there expressing how they have suffered under the shrub's regime. It doesn't take an economist to figure out that the White House is lying about the economy, and that things are not going to get better if good jobs for skilled workers are being shipped overseas, and the corporations who received massive tax cuts to kickstart the economy by creating jobs aren't helping by creating seasonal jobs for the Christmas season. When service and temporary positions are the only jobs out there for skilled workers to take when they find their jobs shipped across the ocean, it's not going to help the economy. This is a basic fact that is free of the taint of partisanship; it's common sense. It really can't be denied. And those who try to deny it are lying to you.

If you have been marginalized by Bush's economy, leave a comment. Post it to your blog. Write a letter to your local daily newspaper and alternative weekly, if you have one in the area. Write Buzzflash a letter to put in their mailbag. What Bush has done to our economy needs to be documented by those who are living the truth. We will NOT let the White House and the Republicans use the docile press to spread their propaganda, talking about how the economy is getting better and new jobs are being created. We will not let them spread lies.

I'm expecting a Verizon tech to come over this afternoon to repair my DSL line. Tha would be great. I know the blog has gone downhill lately and I apologize for that, but when I can't go online for extended periods of time during the day, there's nothing I can do, unfortunately. The quicker I can get my DSL line back, the quicker the mouth becomes loaded again.

(Hmmm, that might not sound quite right...)

Anyways, here's some light, non-political afternoon reading:

If you've ever thought much about numbers or talked with a preschooler learning to count, you've probably encountered some of the questions that led to Cantor's discovery a century ago. How many natural numbers are there? (Naturals are just the numbers we count with: 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on up forever.) And what about the even naturals: 2, 4, 6, 8 and so on? Infinitely many in both cases, right? OK, but are there more naturals than evens? Clearly every even natural number is a natural number, but there are plenty of naturals that aren't even -- namely the odds: 3, 5, 7, 9 and so on. Does that mean that the set of naturals is bigger than the set of even naturals?

What about the positive rational numbers -- fractions like 1/2, 17/23, 15/3? Are there more of those than the naturals? After all, the rationals include the naturals, since any natural number can be written as a fraction in lots of different ways (for example, 2 is 2/1, 4/2, 6/3 and so on). And what about the real numbers, which include the integers and the rationals, but also weird numbers like pi and the square root of 2, which can't be written as fractions -- are there more of those? Are there more points on a circle than there are seconds in eternity? How would you even begin to think about answering such questions?

You can fathom that. I'll be digging into Big Lies this afternoon.

Want to protest a Hummer dealership near you? November 15th is the day to do it.

My thank you note to George W. Bush

Dear Mr. pResident,

The new service job I have is great, and being the grateful person I am, I'm just like to thank you for the shape of the economy while it has been under your caring and watchful eye.

When I was a child, I always dreamed that I wouldn't be able to find a job in the field of labor I'm skilled in, and that I've worked in for 5 years. I relish in the opportunity to take a pay cut, going from $15 to $8.50 an hour at a temporary seasonal job. This makes me feel safe and secure, and I'm planning my next vacation right after I finish this letter!

Giving tax cuts to rich folks who continue to ship good, skilled American jobs overseas, sir, that's just a stroke of genius. I mean, who would have thought that the economy would grow on the backs of all the new part time service and temporary jobs that you have helped to create. Instead of having a career, now I have a McJob! Now I can only afford to pay for the basics: food, clothing, roof over my head, telephone. and high speed internet. You see, I need the high speed internet to look for a job online while still keeping my phone line open. While you may think of this as a luxury, it's now a necessity. Having it leaves less money in my pockets to do Christmas shopping with. Isn't that great?! I'll be spending less money during the season when the American economy needs the most money spent! And after the season passes, my job will disappear, too!

Genius, sir. Simply genius. You are a deity among men. I hope you get selected for a few more terms in office!

Keep up the good work. I'm sure the American people will appeciate it and vote for you next November, but in case you have any doubts, you might want to rig the election again.

Toodles!,
tas

Interior design TV shows

We need to spice up this genre. I propose a new show hosted by George Clinton and soem Japanese guy. The name: FUNK SHUI!

God, do I need my DSL line back.

Things that shouldn't be news

Since I can't go online whenever I want this week, I have to rely upon the boob tube for a lot of my news. So let's just say that I'm not feeling all too informed. However, I do know what I don't want to be informed about, and that's Prince Charles. What did he do, what didn't he do, why can't anyone talk about it..? I honestly couldn't give half a crap. The only time I'll care is if he actually did have sex with another man, then I'll hope he weds that man so England can have two kings. Because that would just be funny.

Honestly, though, why should we care? What merit does this story have to make huge headlines on this side of the Atlantic, where what happens in the day-to-day lives of British Royality has absolutely no effect on our lives? Why are people even paying attention to it? Was it really that slow of a news day? When's the last time we heard about the Plame Affair, anyways? The Bush administration can out a CIA agent just because her husband wrote an op-ed piece that said Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, thus threatening the agent's life. As far as I know, there have been no senior administration officials in handcuffs, so why isn't the media reporting that? That should be a larger story then whose ass Prince Charles' cock is in. Why do sex scandals like this have to be stories? Prince Charles might be gay, oooh! Who cares.. Who really cares?

Get Mc!@#%$

McDonald's doesn't like all the words in the English language. I think their list of favorites is topped by "greed", "slavery", and "fat". But they hate "McJob", especially since Webster made it an official word. I'm confident that I don't have to state the definition of "McJob" to you, it's already well known.

I love how McDonald's complains about McShit like this. They are merely a victim of their own success. Their advertising campaigns have been hugely popular, and since they tack "Mc" onto the beginnings of their products, I can't see how they can whine about what they started. If they don't want words like "McJob" in existance, then I have a few great suggestions:

1.) Stop offering "McJobs". Start offering REAL jobs.
2.) Stop adding "Mc" to everything under the sun.
3.) Start being a good corporate neighbor to the rest of the world and stop suing people who add "Mc" to the beginning of words to describe desperate and cheap situations.

So, how about that McEconomy?

I'm officially !@#$ up

What's my sleep schedule supposed to be suited for, first or third shift? When well I get my DSL line back so things don't take 5 minutes to load? Will my head not be screwed up by my sleep schedule and allow me to concentrate and blog again? Stay tuned!

I guess I should say I'm on semi-hiatus until I get my DSL line back. I can't go online as much because I I'll tie up the house telephone, and when I do go online loading webpages is so slow that I can't read half as much as I want to read. Unfortunately, there's really not much I can do until Verizon gets their shit together.

Fark headline of the day

Jessica Lynch says Pentagon full of liars

Since my DSL line is down, I can't do much blogging because 'm only running at 28.8bps and I can't be on the telephone for too long. Expect updates latre tonight.

More on how much Verizon sucks. They called me today at noon. Since I'm trying to adjust to a third shift schedule and I went to bed at 7:00am, noon is a very bad time to call. Was yet, I was told hat instead of Verizon coming here on monday, they would be here on thursday. I was able to talk him down to wednesday, but this still leaves me down for another friggen week, which is unacceptable. The tech told me that line tests failed (this is news to me) and that the lines inside my house had to be checked. So, I mentioned to him that before I got the DSL line, a Verizon tech came into to install a phone jack, and he also replaced the line outside the house. If the lines instead the house also needed repair, and the tech knew that I was getting DSL, WHY DIDN'T HE FUCKING DO IT THEN?! Of course, he didn't know why.

So yeah, I'm stuck with these assholes. I threatened to goto another ISP, but Verizon said that if I do that they they won't check the lines inside my house, which they should have done in the first place. How's that for blackmail?

If you're thinking about getting a DSL line, I'll tell you right now: don't go through Verizon. I've had my line for a little over 2 months and it's been down for 2 weeks because of their incompetence. And the timing of this couldn't be worse, since I got DSL so I could be online looking for a job and have the telephone line free so I could get calls from employers. Well, now that I have to look for a job, the DSL line goes down again. Sigh. You can't trust anybody to do their jobs these days.. So it's ironic that they still have jobs while I'm out on my ass. What the fuck am I doing wrong?