LowerCaseRepublican

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051228/ap_en_tv/obit_vale Michael Vale, the actor best known for his portrayal of a sleepy-eyed Dunkin' Donuts baker who said "Time to make the doughnuts," has died. He was 83.

This is the kind of thing that has been part of a big debate in my education classes that I've been taking for the past year and a half. Most administrators take into account the abilities of teachers by the loudness of their classroom (quiet = good teacher) It is part of this divide between administrators and teachers that which follows to the idea that administrators believe that there needs to be X amount of topics covered. Any deviation from this to cover topics in depth, have discussions etc. are frowned upon (basically because admins/some teachers lose their over-arching sense of control & state/federal testing problems could come by not covering topics a mile wide) Some teachers don't like having less "structured" classes that involve discussions, etc. because they are usually loud, the teacher does not have as much classroom control as one would if it was a quiet lecture/notetaking procedure and administrators/some teachers frown upon it as being too time consuming. The time consuming thing also goes along with the state/federal testing as well. NCLB only forces teachers' hands into this style of teaching. As Jonathan Kozol put it in his new book "Shame of the Nation": [in certain schools, teachers began] embracing a pedagogy of direct command and absolute control" usually found in "penal institutions and drug rehabilitation programs." And yes, this is a very limited sample size but when I've student taught and had the ability to use discussions and alternatives to lecture, the class has been very responsive & really been involved with the information.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Dec 27, 2005 -> 02:59 PM) Actually one of his ladies that he had relations with said that he raped her. http://www.ishipress.com/janedoe5.htm -- Sworn affidavit from Jane Doe 5 (aka Juanita Broaddrick) that the rape allegations were false. Not to mention that Ed Klein contradicted his own source on the rape claim. http://mediamatters.org/items/200506280013?offset=10 But who needs a little thing like facts?

SBMI, excuse me for sitting this Israel/Palestine thread out. All it does is boost both of our post counts and we don't really sway each other or anybody else. Plus, it gets you riled up and you say some pretty out there (and really hilarious) ad hominem things about me. So I'm saving us both the time and effort.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 26, 2005 -> 07:02 AM) More, much more than this, at the link Good. Somebody needs to tell those fascist RIAA thugs to stick it.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Dec 26, 2005 -> 10:07 AM) Yasser Abbas By Tom Gross There's good reason why the terror in Israel continues — and it has nothing to do with land or supposed occupation http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | On the very day that five Israelis were murdered and over 60 injured outside a shopping mall in the coastal city of Netanya earlier this month, the official Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reported that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas had approved fresh financial assistance to the families of suicide bombers. The family of each "martyr" will now receive a monthly stipend of at least $250 — a not inconsiderable amount for most Palestinians — from the Palestinian Authority. Altogether, the families of these so-called martyrs and of those wounded in terrorist attempts or held in Israeli jails might receive $100 million, according to Al-Hayat Al-Jadida. Around 30 percent of the Palestinian Authority budget comes from international donations, including a hefty amount from the European Union — ultimately, from EU taxpayers. If an Arab government funded stipends to the families of the London or Madrid bombers, it would probably be pretty big news. But this is the Palestinian Authority, and no matter how little it does to discourage terrorism, or to educate its people to coexist with Israel, it can rely on excuses being made on its behalf by an army of sympathizers throughout the West — in the press, on college campuses and, most disturbingly, in foreign ministries. For over a year now, since Mr. Abbas succeeded Yasser Arafat, his boss of 40 years, many in the West have done their utmost to "explain" or ignore Mr. Abbas's failings. But if Americans and Europeans are genuinely interested in promoting Palestinian-Israeli peace, it is time for them to take a realistic look at his record. Some Western commentators were quick to emphasize his condemnation of the Netanya attack. But did they really listen to what he actually said? True, Mr. Abbas condemned the Netanya suicide bomb — but only in the Palestinian Authority's usual inadequate and half-hearted terms. He said that it "caused great damage to our commitment to the peace process" and that it "harmed Palestinian interests." But he could not bring himself to say that murdering people is simply wrong. His outright refusal to confront and disarm terrorists, in violation of the Road Map, hardly registers anymore in the Western media and where it does, it is usually excused and attributed to his relative political weakness. However, the media also give very little idea of the extent to which the Palestinian Authority continues to glorify terrorists. A typical instance is the elevation of Al-Moayed Bihokmillah Al-Agha, who murdered five Israelis in a suicide bombing in December 2004. When the Rafah crossing, the scene of his terror attack, was re-opened at the start of this month, the Palestinian Authority renamed it "in honor of Shahid (martyr) Al-Agha." Then there is the soccer tournament named in honor of the terrorist who murdered 30 people at a Passover celebration in Netanya, or the girls' high school named by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education after a female terrorist who murdered 36 Israeli civilians and an American nature photographer. (The school was recently renovated with money from USAID, channeled through the American Near East Refugee Aid.) Examples could easily be multiplied. A poetry collection published by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Culture, for instance, is named in honor of a suicide terrorist (dubbed "the Rose of Palestine" in one of the poems) who killed 21 at a restaurant in Haifa. (The collection was distributed this August as a special supplement in the daily Al-Ayyam. Most of Al-Ayyam's editors are appointed by Mr. Abbas.) Reliable nongovernmental organizations like Palestinian Media Watch meticulously translate such hateful material, but Western journalists almost invariably refuse to report it. They prefer to cling to the illusion that the present-day Palestinian leadership is genuinely striving to achieve peace and coexistence. This lack of proper coverage leads many people, including even many who are broadly sympathetic to Israel, to hold a false view of Mr. Abbas and to persuade themselves that the Palestinian Authority has undergone a fundamental change for the better since Arafat's death. No amount of wishful thinking, though, can obscure the fact that the true "root cause" of Palestinian terrorism is the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinian Authority sometimes goes so far as to stamp out even the most symbolic gestures of coexistence with Israel. Consider last month's soccer match, organized by the Shimon Peres Center for Peace, in which Israeli and Palestinian soccer stars played together in a joint "Peace Team" against Barcelona. They played well, losing only 2-1 at Barcelona's famous Nou Camp stadium in front of 31,820 spectators, including many dignitaries. Yet on the Palestinian Authority's orders, the Palestinian Football Association announced that it would punish the Palestinian players for daring to participate in such a match. Meanwhile Palestinian militias have begun firing enhanced Kassam missiles — with a larger diameter and longer range than previous Kassams — recently hitting for the first time the city of Ashkelon and Israeli villages which until now had been out of range of Palestinian rockets. Equally ominous, the Palestinian Authority is allowing terrorists and weapons to pass freely through the newly opened Gaza-Egypt border. So where does this all leave us? It remains conventional wisdom, especially in the media, that the Israeli government or people are somehow the main obstacles to peace. The fact is, however, Israelis are desperate for peace. Almost no one in Israel now rejects the idea of a Palestinian state. But how many Palestinians really accept the idea of a Jewish state? All the evidence, sad to say, points to the fact that most do not. In the recent Fatah primaries, it was those candidates who were most opposed to peace with Israel who swept to victory. Other Palestinians go beyond Fatah and support the even more extreme position of Hamas, which polled very strongly in last week's local elections in the West Bank. The hope must still be that in the long run Palestinian attitudes will change. When that happens, frontiers can be settled by mutual agreement. But it would be dangerous folly to suppose that the necessary change has already taken place, and until it does, the Israelis have no choice but to put considerations of security first and reserve the right to determine their own borders. Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/ -- Take a look at the charts and then tell me who is causing more damage. /not condoning what the Palestinians are doing but showing that this whole "Israel can do nothing wrong" platform is one that cannot be defended. Take a few minutes and read from an Israeli living in Israel -- http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=8220

Buehrle jersey, a WS sweatshirt, a WS t-shirt and a Sox mug.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 25, 2005 -> 11:44 AM) If someone could give me more info (and not some made up s***) about the quakers, I want to read it. http://www.afsc.org/news/2005/government-spying.htm Early last week, NBC reported the existence of a secret Department of Defense (DOD) database related to "potential terrorist threats." One example of identified "threats" is a group in Lake Worth, Florida that included five Quakers and a 79-year old grandmother who met at their local Quaker meeting house to discuss how to protest military recruiting at an area high school. Other examples of "threatening" events in the database included handing out literature in front of military recruiting stations and commemorating the second anniversary of the Iraq War. At least four of the events listed were activities coordinated or supported by AFSC. The report by NBC News was followed last Friday by a story in the New York Times that President Bush has secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the U.S. without court-approved warrants. The President and the DOD now admit they've been spying on thousands of people in this country for simply exercising their constitutional rights.

A few Marx Bros. movies The 6 part Lone Wolf and Cub series A bunch of Hunter Thompson books On the Road - Jack Kerouac Dharma Bums - Jack Kerouac Buehrle jersey White Sox World Series shirts Land of the Dead DVD Fists of Fury DVD A few other CDs and a few other books

QUOTE(Kid Gleason @ Dec 23, 2005 -> 09:04 PM) But you kids in Cali will be falling into the ocean eventually, while the midwest will just be chilly part of the time. Exactly Soon we'll be fishing off of Arizona Bay.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 06:30 PM) Uh, all I said was the U.S. isn't as 'evil' as you have been lead to believe. I don't think the government should be able to ignore the 4th amendment, so I agree with you in a lot of ways, just not on the 'blame america always and first' stuff. I'm just trying to really dispel the "Well, I have nothing to hide" defense that some are attempting to use in this thread. Nothing personal.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 06:13 PM) contrary to what your sociology teacher has been preaching to you, compared to most governments, ours has done a pretty good job protecting it's citizens rights. Actually I've done lots of my own research on the topic so please preach to me more in a condescending tone. Please tell me how extrajudicial murders (as seen in COINTELPRO, for example) keep me more secure or sending tapes telling MLK Jr. to kill himself make me more secure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 11:24 AM) Seriously though, if people would stop whining about Law Enforcement and just co-operate with them then life would be a lot easier. Some people here make it sound like Law Enforcement has nothing better to do than harass people just for the sake of harassing them. Given government's track record (Palmer Raids, COINTELPRO etc. etc. etc.), then yes, they have abused power. Let's not forget that the government has even recently investigated those notorious terrorists the Quakers.

QUOTE(White Sox Josh @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 02:04 PM) no it wasn't. He was supposed to be alive. At first I did think it was his imagination but when you go back and watch it over and over again it is very clear it is not his imagination. Go back to when the cop stops Clive Owen and you will see through the cops perspective that his Del Toro's head is moving and his eyes are moving. Also Bruce Willis living even though he is shot 5 or 6 times in the chest in beginning of the movie. He is also shot in other places yet he lives. It is just like John Woo's "Nobody ever runs out of ammo until the end of the scene/drama of the scene necessitates the protagonist running out of ammo" aesthetic of storytelling. It is calling 'willing suspension of disbelief", people. Plus, Sin City was based off of comic book conceptions so reality was out the window from the get-go.

Manhattan, IL for a small family get together.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Dec 24, 2005 -> 10:08 AM) http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/v_for_vendetta/ Looks very cool. The Wachowski bros have fooled me before though. And Natalie Portman is hot. hair or no hair. If they stay true to Alan Moore's original storyline then this movie will be excellent. I can't wait for this to come out.

http://lennybrucefan.tripod.com/id58.html Ed note: Just in case people miss it in the beginning of the article, this isn't a condemnation of all Christians...just the reactionaries that are nuttier than a re-gifted Christmas fruitcake.

http://www.bushflash.com/wmf/Countdown-Spying.wmv Better living through domestic spying.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 22, 2005 -> 03:45 PM) And Ann Coulter is a flaming idiot. But just in case you couldn't tell, it's called SARCASM. Given her track record, I wouldn't doubt if she was serious. She just throws all sorts of s*** at the wall and sees what sticks. Much like most political hacks (Rush, Moore, etc. etc.)

QUOTE(Controlled Chaos @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 01:45 PM) We all know conservatives don't get to play in Hollywood unless they go at it on their own. Here are a couple of articles that I found interesting, with regards to that topic. I think the future holds change though. Just as the nation doesn't have to depend on the MSM anymore for the news. I also think we won't have to depend on Hollywood for our movies. Hollywood's New War Effort: Terrorism Chic Aug 10, 2005 by Jason Apuzzo Slow to awaken after the 9/11 attacks, Hollywood has finally come around to contributing what it can in the War on Terror: namely, glossy, star-studded movies that sympathize with the enemy. Hard to believe? Here's the pitch: with box-office numbers trending down, studio executives are suddenly greenlighting movies they can describe to shareholders as 'controversial' or 'timely.' Whether the films are anti-American or otherwise demoralizing to the war effort is apparently immaterial. Its appetite whetted by "Fahrenheit 9/11"'s $222 million worldwide gross, Hollywood thinks it's found a formula for both financial security and critical plaudits: noxious anti-American storylines, bathed in the warm glow of star power. Here are just a few films already in the pipeline: - "V For Vendetta." From Warner Brothers and the creators of "The Matrix" comes this film about a futuristic Great Britain that's become a 'fascist state.' A masked 'freedom fighter' named V uses terror tactics (including bombing the London Underground) to undermine the government - leading to a climax in which the British Parliament is blown up. Natalie Portman stars as a skinhead who turns to 'the revolution' after doing time as a Guantanamo-style prisoner. - "Munich." Steven Spielberg directs this film about the aftermath of the 1972 Olympic terror attacks that killed eleven Israeli athletes. "Munich"'s screenplay is written by playwrite Tony Kushner ("Angels in America"), who has been quoted as saying: "I think the founding of the state of Israel was for the Jewish people a historical, moral, political calamity ... I wish modern Israel hadn¹t been born." The film focuses on the crisis of conscience undergone by Israeli commandos tasked with killing PLO terrorists - rather than on the barbarity of the terrorists themselves. - "Untitled Oliver Stone 9/11 Project." Paramount will distribute Oliver Stone's new film recounting the rescue of two Port Authority officers after the 9/11 attacks. The film will star Nicholas Cage and Maggie Gyllenhaal - who recently suggested that America was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. As for Stone, he had this to say only a month after 9/11: "This attack was pure chaos, and chaos is energy. All great changes have come from people or events that were initially misunderstood, and seemed frightening, like madmen." "Syriana." Starring George Clooney and Matt Damon, this Warner Brothers film - set during the first Bush administration - features a plot by American oil companies and the U.S. government to redraw Middle East borders for greater oil profiteering. The film even depicts a handsome, 'tragic' suicide bomber driven to jihad after being fired by an American oil company! The film's climax comes with the jihadist launching an explosive device into an oil tanker as American oil barons and Saudi officials look on. "The Scorpion's Gate." Sony has optioned former terrorism-czar Richard Clarke's novel about oil companies and Washington politicians colluding to reshape the map of the Middle East for greater oil profiteering - this time by launching a global nuclear war. "The Chancellor Manuscript." Paramount reworks Robert Ludlum¹s 1977 thriller into an anti-Patriot Act star vehicle for Leonardo DiCaprio. Here's the film's screenwriter, Michael Seitzman: "We live in this crazy post-Patriot Act environment where Benjamin Franklin¹s warning that 'those that give up essential liberties for temporary security don¹t deserve either one' are being ignored, so the subject matter seemed ripe." "No True Glory: The Battle for Fallujah." Universal has attached Harrison Ford to star as real-life General Jim Mattis - in this story blaming the White House for the deaths of fifty Marines in one of the Iraq war's deadliest battles. Based on the book of the same name by Bing West. "American Dreamz." This 'satire' from Universal Pictures deals with Pakistani suicide bombers out to kill the US president. The film stars Hugh Grant, Richard Dreyfuss, Willem Dafoe and Mandy Moore. According to writer-director Paul Weitz ("American Pie"), "The film is a comic examination of ... cultural obsessions" like the War on Terror "and how they can anaesthetise us to the actual issues of our day." "Terminus." Set in the Middle East of the future, this Warner Brothers film depicts a 'disillusioned' war correspondent covering an 'insurgency' he decides he must support. The producer, Basil Iwanyk, says: "It deals head on with what some call insurgency, what some call guerilla warfare and what some call freedom fighting." "Jarhead." This Universal release, starring Jamie Foxx and Jake Gyllenhaal, deals with the 'dehumanization' of Marine trainees prior to and during the 1991 Gulf War. Based on Andrew Swofford's notorious and questionable memoirs of the same name. The above list, incidentally, should not be taken as comprehensive. For example, Paramount also has projects in the works about a 'reformed' al-Qaeda operative, and about the victim of an Iraqi suicide bomber. Little about these projects has been made public. One thing should be obvious from this list: left-wing agitprop filmmaking is no longer the purview of desperate, 'indie' filmmakers with shaky camcorders and maxed-out credit cards. The films listed above are being made by large, multi-national corporations - and will feature sophisticated, expensive marketing campaigns with A-list stars. Imagine Leni Riefenstahl cross-promoting "Triumph of the Will" with People Magazine covers and E! Channel specials. That's more or less what Hollywood has in mind. Hollywood has shifted strategies in its opposition to the War on Terror. No longer content to let clumsy, uncouth documentarians like Michael Moore or Robert Greenwald conduct its foreign policy, Tinseltown is rolling out big guns like Harrison Ford and Leo DiCaprio and George Clooney - complete with their p.r. firms, dazzling smiles, and easy charm. It's imperative for conservatives to shift strategies, as well. It will no longer be sufficient for outraged conservatives to storm talk radio, the Internet or Fox News with the idea of verbally 'rebutting' these movies like dour lawyers in a courtroom. When these films arrive, with their star-power, swelling soundtracks and digital effects, they'll hit the public with the force of a hurricane - and there'll be no obvious butt of derision like Michael Moore for talking-head conservatives to target. These filmmakers and their movies will be much more polished, subtle - and insidious. And these films will be more dangerous than "Fahrenheit 9/11" because their strategy will be to entertain. The proper 'response' for this sort of thing is simple, if complex in execution. At some point conservatives need to raise capital, pick up cameras and start making movies of their own - much like Mel Gibson did with "The Passion." And conservatives should do this not simply to 'rebut' the other side, but to add depth and imagination to what has become a wasteland of popular entertainment. Most Hollywood insiders - even liberals - agree that Hollywood is in a creative depression. More conservative voices can only help what has become a bleak situation for the town, both artistically and financially. Movies are a powerful force in shaping the imagination of our culture, and in defining how history is remembered. It will be a great shame if all we leave behind from this vital period in American history is a shoddy trail of "Syriana"s, "V For Vendetta"s or "American Dreamz" - rather than a "Casablanca" or a "Notorious." But conservatives obviously can't wait for Hollywood to do that for them - they're going to have to do it themselves. ________________________________________________________ Where Conservative Film is Now Oct 7, 2005 by Jason Apuzzo Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A Twenty months after Mel Gibson's "The Passion" took the nation's box office by storm, what progress have conservatives actually made in challenging liberal hegemony in Hollywood? Is it any easier today for a conservative-themed film to make its way down the studio pipeline than it was in early 2004? The answer to this question must be a resounding 'no.' Based on projects recently greenlit by the major studios - including a host of films openly dismissive of the War on Terror - one might argue that Hollywood is drifting even further left than it was in 2004, when films like "Fahrenheit 9/11," "The Day After Tomorrow" or "The Manchurian Candidate" were released. Forthcoming studio films like "V For Vendetta," "Syriana" or even Steven Spielberg's "Munich" appear to question both the efficacy and the legitimacy of our current struggle against terrorism. Frustrating as this may be, however, none of this should be cause for despair. If the studio system remains largely a vehicle for the liberal worldview, conservatives are nonetheless making a new niche for themselves in the world of independent filmmaking. This is hardly surprising. Take the example of "The Passion." Because it came packaged with a star actor (Jim Caviezel) and star director (Mel Gibson), many people forget that "The Passion" was an independent film, financed by Gibson himself. "The Passion" was spurned by major studio distributors until it was acquired by independent distributor Newmarket Films - which no longer even exists, having been absorbed into the Time-Warner empire. Lacking Gibson's fame and fortune, most conservative filmmakers face even more serious finance and distribution challenges. What they lack in resources, however, these new filmmakers make up with vision, feistiness, and a hunger for truth. As co-director of the upcoming Liberty Film Festival (October 21-23 in West Hollywood), I've had the chance to watch countless films submitted by conservative filmmakers from around the country and around the world. A few trends were obvious: working on low budgets, conservatives are taking to documentaries like fishes to water - and are also embracing digital technology at a faster rate than mainstream Hollywood. First-time filmmakers Nina May and Tricia Erickson, for example, wanted to tell the story of how many black Americans found their home in the Republican Party in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, all the way down through the 1950's. To tell this largely forgotten story they interviewed black intellectuals like Shelby Steele, Deroy Murdock and Armstrong Williams - and important witnesses like Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, and Gloria Jackson, a descendant of Booker T. Washington. The resulting film, "Emancipation, Revelation, Revolution," tells an almost shocking tale of how the modern Democratic Party has worked to keep black Americans on a liberal 'plantation,' ignorant of their own history. Meanwhile another first-time filmmaker, Mercedes Maharis, decided to pick up a video camera and begin documenting the corrosive, demoralizing effect of illegal immigration on her border community of Cochise County, Arizona. Her film, "Cochise County, USA: Cries From the Border," vividly captures the tragedy of illegal border crossings for migrants and Americans alike. Neither abstract nor preachy, "Cochise County" simply depicts the sights and sounds of this ongoing crisis, even featuring footage of actual border crossings. Perhaps most novel, though, are the efforts of Marine Seargant Kc Wayland, another first-time filmmaker and an Iraq war veteran. Wayland's "365 Boots on the Ground" documents his year-long tour of duty in Iraq, from recruitment through deployment to his return home. This absorbing, first-person account (shot in part with a helmet-cam) shows the lives of Marines in Iraq, from their daily routines, to humorous and heartwarming encounters with Iraqis, to shocking outbreaks of terrorist violence. Films of this type are more true to the spirit of independent filmmaking than most studio-distributed 'independent' films of today. Some other examples among this new wave of documentaries include Ron Silver's sobering critique of the UN ("Broken Promises"), Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg's witty look at Canadian healthcare ("Dead Meat"), Evan Maloney's irreverent take on political correctness in academia ("Brainwashing 201"), and ProtestWarrior's Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton's political and spiritual odyssey through modern Israel, "Entering Zion." Still more encouraging, though, are developments overseas. For example, noted Kurdish/Iraqi filmmaker Jano Rosebiani recently sponsored the First Short Film Festival in free Iraq, after decades in which moviemaking had been suppressed under Saddam Hussein. Rosebiani paired young Kurdish and Iraqi filmmakers with trained professionals and digital technology to produce a series of anti-terror, pro-democratic short films presently touring Iraq. We'll be showing these films for the first time outside Iraq on October 22nd at the Liberty Film Festival. These sorts of independent, do-it-yourself developments are far more encouraging than any star-laden, expensive projects rumbling their way down the studio pipeline. Why? Although Hollywood is honeycombed with conservatives at all levels, most of these 'closeted' conservatives - having careers to protect and bills to pay - have little incentive to rock the boat. Having been rewarded by Hollywood for keeping their silence, very few such stars or executives are likely to become agents of change. Nor should conservatives expect that 'market forces' will press Hollywood to change its prevailing ideology. Being owned by larger media conglomerates, most Hollywood studios can afford to lose astonishing amounts of money on left-leaning films without blinking an eye. For example, Oliver Stone's revisionist epic "Alexander" lost Warner Brothers untold millions of dollars; he was promptly rewarded with the first major studio film about 9/11. If conservatives want a voice in film, they'll have to claim it the way so many scrappy, low-budget filmmakers are doing it today: without budgets, without stars, with the prospect of only limited distribution - but with a consuming passion for the truth. Eventually - when the budgets, stars and distribution come - conservatives will be able to expand beyond documentary films and move into narratives. And then conservatives will have a major impact. Until then, they'll need to be truly 'independent,' resourceful and unafraid - which is what conservatism teaches us in the first place. This schmuck might have a case for V For Vendetta if he did his homework. Then he'd realize that it was originally written in the late 1980s and was made waaaaaaaay before Gitmo et al. (I know, I've read it) Munich -- the Wrath of God operation actually did kill an innocent guy in July 1973 when the Mossad were trying to get revenge against Black September for their terrible deeds at the Munich Olympics. The assassination team mistakenly took him for a guy they were tailing and offed him. Oops. The fact that this guy can't do basic historical background checks before writing his diatribe proves that he may very well not be knowing what it is that he is talking about.

http://xboxfor100.ytmnd.com/ Hahahahahahahaha. I can't stop laughing about this.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 10:48 PM) I love the outrage and the anger over something that has been going on for years. Whats the difference, one president actually admitted doing it. BTW Apu if you want to find that perfect democracy that would never ever spy on their own people, I would start by eliminating the partners in the Echelon network England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. I am sure the French and the Russians today dont spy on their own, but then again they do. Actually outside of fairytale would you find a single country in the world, if not in modern history that hasnt performed survelliance /spying on their own people. But I guess thats ok because its not the hated George Bush. Now who is behind the biggest upgrades and push to Echelon. Was it Bush in a post 9/11 push of fear and anger. No it was President Clinton. Echelon and spying on your own people is not something new. The system was built in the 70's, and the biggest upgrad happened under Clintons watch. Only a fool would believe that this is something unique to the evil republicans and their leader George Bush cooked up. Clinton seem to love this spying thing. I guess its okay if a Dem orders the spying I wonder how many these companies gave to the Clinton campaign fund. I am pretty sure that all US presidents have acted in this manner. They have all had some sort of survelliance in some sort of manner behind the closed doors. Do you really believe that the military under FDR wasnt spying on japanese americans, or that Eisnhower or JFK didnt do the same thing. Come on. The only difference is today we have better technology. What is the difference between those presidents and Bush. Bush admits it. Why because he feels he is doing it for the best interests of the US. Just like all of the presidents before him probably thought. Get over the conspiracy theories and the "OMG MY RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED". Let me sum it up for you everyone is spying on you. When you go to work and you send an email or use the computer your company is spying on you. I work as a security engineer at my company. We watch every single thing every one of our associates do(email, call detail, internet, im, fax transmissions). I can pull up an IM conversation in session, and see Jimmy trying to pick up random internet chick on company time. And everyone of our users have volunteered for this. Because they click on a little I agree icon(acceptable use policy). Then when we are firing them for surfing for porn, or sending our patents to our competitors. They cry about their rights. I am sure that most have done this at their work and dont think about it. If you use any electronic mediums to communicate you should pretty much assume that it isnt safe. Why because the government is listening to you. No because your neighbor with some smarts in electronics can spy on your cell phone calls, or your home cordless phones. Your email is open to the world, your computer probably has had some spyware on it and has sent out some of your personal information. Your web browsing is being documented probably by others. BTW make sure you triple sooper dooper shred your documents or someone will do some dumpster diving and steal your info.Yes this is the Assume the worst, and then lose the paranoia for a few minutes and put down the Orwell chronicles and figure that maybe just maybe this doesnt have anything to do with you. Are these intercepts by your neighbor, unintended personelle illegal. Yes. But you go ahead and try and catch them. You try and pinpoint someone who is passively intercepting your information. In the end this has been happening for years, stop watching "Enemy of the State" and drink a beer. Go back into the matrix neo, its ok. Sorry the "well, the other party did it too so it must be OK" argument is like a pregnant woman -- they both can't hold their water. There is a major difference between a private company and the US where the government cannot fly in the face of the 4th Amendment. They could have easily got the wiretaps LEGALLY (well, even with the questionable legality of the Patriot Act which FISA had said may not meet 4th Amendment must but "almost certainly comes close") I just smash Bush for his anti-4th amendment crap because he's said he wants to limit the scope of government while taking every goddamn opportunity to give he and his cronies more power. But I'm sure COINTELPRO type activities are perfectly fine in America.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Dec 19, 2005 -> 09:02 PM) Not if they save my life, or the lives of any other American. I have nothing to hide. Surveil away baby. To connect this with the ANWR energy problem, Iraq "war for oil" etc. We no longer need energy from petroleum. Just set up generators on the caskets of Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin. Their spinning will give us more energy than we can ever use. And there used to be another country that spied on people for their own protection -- those wonderful democratic countries like the former USSR or modern-day China. If you want domestic surveillance of people without 4th Amendment warrants, go live in China...and don't let the door hit your authoritarian ass on the way out.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47958 WND HOLIDAY BLUES Santa rampage strikes New Zealand 40 dressed in red suits rob store, assault security guards Posted: December 18, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com It's being dubbed "Santarchy” in New Zealand. As feared, rioting broke out in yesterday in the nation neighboring Australia – but with a strange holiday twist. While Australia has been plagued with racial rioting closely paralleling what happened in and around Paris a few weeks ago, New Zealand's largest city was hit by a group of 40 rampaging men dressed as Santa Claus. According to news reports in Auckland, the Santa gang, many of them drunk, rampaged through the city, robbing stores and assaulting security guards. The attacks began Saturday afternoon when the men, wearing ill-fitting Santa costumes, threw beer bottles and urinated on cars from an Auckland overpass, said Auckland Central Police spokeswoman Noreen Hegarty. She said the men then rushed through a central city park, overturning garbage containers, throwing bottles at passing cars and spraying graffiti on buildings. One man climbed the mooring line of a cruise ship before being ordered down by the captain. Other Santas, objecting when the man was arrested, attacked security staff, Hegarty said. The remaining Santas entered a downtown convenience store and carried off beer and soft drinks. -- I'd comment but I think I'll let the story speak for itself.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 02:17 PM) Nothing to hide= nothing to worry about. You know, I know a place where you can go that is more amicable to your beliefs. It's called China. Or, you could travel back in time to the USSR. I mean, all the spying that they do/did on their civilians was merely done to protect their way of life against their enemies. And citizens who didn't do anything wrong had nothing to fear! Go visit lovely China...and don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.