LowerCaseRepublican

Nuke, consider yourself owned. http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair1126.html plus: "I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. . . . Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous " -- US Secretary of State Dean Rusk "...the board of inquiry (concluded) that the Israelis knew exactly what they were doing in attacking the Liberty." -- CIA Director Richard Helms "I can tell you for an absolute certainty (from intercepted communications) that the Israelis knew they were attacking an American ship." -- NSA Deputy Director Oliver Kirby "That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable" -- Special Assistant to the President Clark Clifford, in his report to President Lyndon Johnson "The highest officials of the [Johnson] administration, including the President, believed it 'inconceivable' that Israel's 'skilled' defense forces could have committed such a gross error." -- Lyndon Johnson's biographer Robert Dallek in Flawed Giant, Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 430-31) "A nice whitewash for a group of ignorant, stupid and inept [expletive deleted]." -- Handwritten note of August 26, 1967, by NSA Deputy Director Louis W. Tordella reacting to the Israeli court decision exonerating Israelis of blame for the Liberty attack. "Never before in the history of the United States Navy has a Navy Board of Inquiry ignored the testimony of American military eyewitnesses and taken, on faith, the word of their attackers. -- Captain Richard F. Kiepfer, Medical Corps, US Navy (retired), USS Liberty Survivor "The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack...was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.... It was our shared belief. . .that the attack. . .could not possibly have been an accident.... I am certain that the Israeli pilots [and] their superiors. . .were well aware that the ship was American." -- Captain Ward Boston, JAGC, US Navy (retired), senior legal counsel to the US Navy Court of Inquiry That the attack was deliberate "just wasn't a disputed issue" within the National Security Agency -- Former NSA Director retired Army Lieutenant General William Odom on 3 March 2003 in an interview for Naval Institute Proceedings Former NSA/CIA Director Admiral Bobby Inman "flatly rejected" the Cristol/Israeli claims that the attack was an accident -- 5 March 2003 interview for Naval Institute Proceedings Of four former NSA/CIA seniors with inside knowledge, none was aware of any agency official who dissented from the position that the attack was deliberate -- David Walsh, writing in Naval Institute Proceedings "It appears to me that it was not a pure case of mistaken identity." -- Captain William L. McGonagle, Commanding Officer, USS Liberty, speaking at Arlington National Cemetery, June 8, 1997 "To suggest that they [the IDF] couldn't identify the ship is ... ridiculous. ... Anybody who could not identify the Liberty could not tell the difference between the White House and the Washington Monument." -- Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, quoted in The Washington Post, June 15, 1991, p. 14 But who needs facts when you can be an apologist for state sponsored terror? And Nuke, this may be news to you -- but Israel has and does act like a bunch of thugs. Perhaps taking your head out of the hole & watching some media outside of Fox News, you might see some of these events happening. Both sides have blood on their hands -- I know that may be a difficult concept for you to grasp. As for the security wall, it is nothing more than the ability to annex more land. Cheapening the debate to "There shall be no criticism of Israel's state policy because otherwise you're an anti-Semite!" cheapens the word anti-Semite & is a fascist means to deflect legitimate criticism. Israeli General Moshe Dayan, the man who headed up the war effort in 1967 said “"You don't strike at the enemy because he is a bastard, but because he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us."..."But they were sitting on the Golan Heights, and ...."Dayan interrupted: "Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was.” The attitude was continued with the Israeli Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin’s statement in a February 28, 1968 edition of Le Monde where he said “"I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to The Sinai would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive war. He knew it and we knew it." Hell, there were even discussions in the high levels of the Israeli military about blowing up Muslim cultural icons – like the Dome of the Rock – which were in Gaza/West Bank so they could lessen Palestinian claims to the land being “annexed”. From the 1967 war era: The Israeli elite believed “Amongst ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples in this country...With the Arabs transferring, the country will be wide open for us. With the Arabs staying, the country will be narrow and restricted...The only solution is the Land of Israel, or at least the Western Land of Israel [that is, the whole of Palestine], without Arabs.” An anonymous soldier in the magazine Ha’olam Hazeh stated: “We fired such shots every night on men, women and children. Even during moonlit nights when we could identify the people, that is, distinguish between men, women and children. In the mornings we searched the area, and, by explicit order from the officer on the spot, shot the living, including those who hid or were wounded, again including the women and children.” The concept of calculated murder by the Israeli Defense Forces was further confirmed by an interview with General Uzi Narkiss who stated that Israeli troops had indeed killed civilians trying to sneak back into their homes in the West Bank. The line between Palestinian refugees and inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank were completely blurred. According to Uzi Benziman, a journalist for Haaretz, “several senior Israeli commanders in the Jerusalem district, as well as [General] Dayan, the Mayor of West Jerusalem Teddy Kollek and former Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion were all involved, either in the initial decision or in the actual implementation of the systematic operation to destroy the Arab quarter.” Add in the programs of systematic removal starting in the 1960s by the Israelis and it is no wonder that so many Palestinians might be pissed off and willing to accessorize with dynamite. It doesn't justify what they are doing but it puts a whole lot of gray area into the "ISRAEL = TEH GOOD & PALESTINE = TEH BAD" pap.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 11, 2005 -> 10:41 PM) When the world intervenes, via the UN, all they do is issue a resolution about how bad Isreal is and nothing about the other side. You know, if they would just quit trying to destroy Isreal, most of the problems would just go away. And if Israel would just stop promoting a quasi-apartheid state, murdering children, setting up a nuke program without the world's knowing (except for the whistleblowing of Mordechai Vanunu) and plainly stopped acting like a bunch of thugs then they'd have nothing to worry about. As scholar Norman Finkelstein once said "If the Israelis don't like the allusions to the Nazis, then they must simply stop acting like Nazis." Don't get me wrong, I don't promote the violence of the Palestinians -- but when you actively shoot missiles into apartment buildings and have lots of collateral damage (not to mention shooting kids throwing rocks at tanks...or attaching kids to your vehicles to prevent rock throwing, for instance) then you've gotta expect people to be pissed off. Not to mention putting up a wall and not allowing farmers to get to their crops, kids to get to their schools, etc. When you add in the attack on the USS Liberty (not to mention the potential Pentagon spy and the other already convicted spy Johnathan Pollard), it makes you wonder why Israel is still an ally.

QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 11, 2005 -> 01:58 PM) When we talked about torture being acceptable or not - this is one of the stories that I had in mind. It's a far cry from bonbons and I really hope that the story is inaccurate. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...1664612,00.html If even half of this story is true, what does this say about us as a society? What does it say about how we're handling the war on terror? Please don't slip into discrediting the story or anyone that might be involved. What I want to see here is what your reaction would be IF this story is true. What did Nietzsche say about fighting monsters again?

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 11, 2005 -> 12:39 PM) not........since they keep losing every election. Actually polls year in and year out say that Americans are for keeping the environment safe, for the continuance of Roe v. Wade, etc. etc. etc. It is mere paltry political manipulation and total devious hackery (I contend Saxby Chambliss's ads that he ran showing his Democratic opponent and Vietnam vet next to OBL and Saddam as being Evidence #1) Or Hell, we can talk about how the Bush campaign ran push polling saying that McCain had an illegitimate black child out of wedlock in southern states... When you change the election from issues of national security to "OMG! We gots to stop the f**s from getting married!" to play the Christian right like a cheap fiddle, it is no wonder that Bush Co. won. Cheap statements that nobody can be against like "Support the troops" merely stop any actual questioning of state policy (not to mention the insane "You're either for us or against us" pap). Democratic approval ratings are almost as low as the Republicans (which at last check by me were hovering around 30%ish) because they both don't meet the demands of the public. The prominent conservatives (the Santorums, the Bushes etc.) are essentially "f*** the poor and let's keep the uneven playing field." Now that is not to say that all conservatives think that way, just the vast majority that get elected to be their voice in Congress. Many of the Democrats are not liberal enough for their constituents because the corporate media slime machine will smear the Hell out of anybody who dares to cut into the corporate welfare program going on.

RIP to an IL native and one of the greatest standups to grace the stage: As he said: There's nothing worse than being an aging young person.

QUOTE(EvilMonkey @ Dec 10, 2005 -> 03:26 PM) I hope you meant for that to be green, otherwaise that was a very lame attempt, especially for you. It is an attempt to show that somehow using tanks and flak jackets et al. that murdering people is somehow more moral than other forms of murder. Especially with all the ramblings about the War on Christmas, shouldn't all the self-proclaimed Christians be worried about the un-Christian behavior of our nation before worrying about semantics of what a tree is called in some town?

I'm sure if they had the missiles and helicopters to shoot into apartment complexes, they'd be just as "civilized" as the Israelis.

QUOTE(sec159row2 @ Dec 9, 2005 -> 03:00 PM) Right. Everytime a conservatve speaks at a college they should expect to be heckled. There is a difference between a conservative and the bile spewed by Miss Coulter who believes it is a shame that the NY Times building wasn't attacked by Tim McVeigh. She's got the right to say: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." but then she should expect to have people pissed off. Add in the fact that her books have events happen in the wrong years (being a history major, when she has events of the Palmer Raids era take place in the wrong years, it is a tad bit annoying/funny) so she is entirely devoid of any scholarship. Add in the fact that she has referred to some Muslims as monkeys and there is a good case to be made that she is less conservative and more like a Michael Moore of the right throwing everything they can and seeing what sticks (only difference is sometimes Moore gets on board with good causes like protesting the God Hates f**s group led by "Rev" Fred Phelps etc.)

I dunno if anybody's read "Savage Inequalities" or Kozol's new book "Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America" -- pretty scathing review of the status of schools in America. Public school resegregation is a "national horror hidden in plain view," writes former educator turned public education activist Kozol (Savage Inequalities, Amazing Grace). Kozol visited 60 schools in 11 states over a five-year period and finds, despite the promise of Brown v. Board of Education, many schools serving black and Hispanic children are spiraling backward to the pre-Brown era. These schools lack the basics: clean classrooms, hallways and restrooms; up-to-date books in good condition; and appropriate laboratory supplies. Teachers and administrators eschew creative coursework for rote learning to meet testing and accountability mandates, thereby "embracing a pedagogy of direct command and absolute control" usually found in "penal institutions and drug rehabilitation programs." As always, Kozol presents sharp and poignant portraits of the indignities vulnerable individuals endure. "You have all the things and we do not have all the things," one eight-year-old Bronx boy wrote the author. In another revealing exchange, a cynical high school student tells his classmate, a young woman with college ambitions who was forced into hair braiding and sewing classes, "You're ghetto-so you sew." Kozol discovers widespread acceptance for the notion that "schools in ghettoized communities must settle for a different set of academic and career goals" than schools serving middle-and upper-class children. Kozol tempers this gloom with hopeful interactions between energetic teachers and receptive children in schools where all is not lost. But these "treasured places" don't hide the fact, Kozol argues, that school segregation is still the rule for poor minorities, or that Kozol, and the like-minded politicians, educators and advocates he seeks out, believe a new civil rights movement will be necessary to eradicate it. Hell, I was talking to my cooperating teachers for my student teaching this semester and I was telling him that I am interested in issues based/problem based social studies teaching using value analysis etc. (basically taking any situation -- like my lesson on the American revolution and using it to have students think about "When is violence okay to use?", "Do the arguments of those for/against the war stand up to scrutiny?" and stuff like that) So not only do you teach the material but they get engaged and are able to develop thinking skills they can apply to current events. He was afraid of what parents would think but was open to the idea. I could see the fear in him about what the parents' reaction would be to a non-traditional method of "Here's X, Y, Z info now listen to me lecture some more." teaching style & one where students would be actively questioning. Not that straight lecture isn't good but it should be used along with other tools instead of just straight lecture.

Oddly enough, Coulter is not the biggest right wing wingbat to come through UConn's doors. I contend that that specific honor go to the Ultimate Warrior.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 08:38 AM) Dont twist my words around cause that's not what I said. Actually you've been very adept at creating a straw man. And I'd love to know from anybody who "Homicide" as the cause of death of a person in our custody due to blunt force trauma is any different than people being kidnapped/killed by the insurgents. If we claim we're so much better then we shouldn't be beating people to death.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Dec 8, 2005 -> 12:31 AM) All I know im going to have a much better time at the Bowling Alley now that the person next to me isnt smoking cigars and s***. But it sets a slippery slope of "I'm sorry SoxFan101, you can't have that alcohol because somebody else thinks it is bad." or "I'm sorry SoxFan101, you can't listen to that music because somebody thinks it is offensive" or "I'm sorry SoxFan101, you can't eat that because somebody was offended at the way it was made." You get to make the choice to put yourself in the situation where you know there will be smoking going on. If you don't like that establishment's choice -- then voice your opinion with your dollars and don't go there.

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Dec 7, 2005 -> 10:52 PM) What a concept...smokers actually have to go outside to smoke! What is this world coming to. What a concept -- personal choice of where to work and where to frequent...or better yet the owner of the establishment choosing to have it be smoking or not getting steamrolled in the name of a "We know better than you" uber-nanny. For f***'s sake, sometimes fun costs you. I don't smoke but I'm not anti-smokers.

I would like to enter into evidence the entire catalog of Creed and anything Scott Stapp has ever sung.

Wow, I am a real thread killa. /still waiting for torture proponents to say that our murdering people in custody is a good thing for our image & that it will cease terrorism

Probably one of the following: "Extraordinary Machine" - Fiona Apple "Hit Somebody (The Hockey Song)" - Warren Zevon "You're A Whole Different Person When You're Scared" - Warren Zevon

I stand by the Pam Anderson roast comment -- "How is it that Kurt Cobain looks better than Courtney Love?"

Was the in flight movie 50 Cent's new flick?

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Dec 7, 2005 -> 01:15 PM) and you'd be wrong. I never once said I thought what these two nutjobs did was ok. I did however point out how quickly people judge entire demographics and label these guys Christians, when their behavior is anything but Christian. no one is looking at the facts. This professor, who verbally mocked christians via email, an act that would call into question his decision making skills, got out of his car after he pulled his car over to the side of the road when he was being tailgated by some men in a truck. I find it interesting that no one says, "hmm, I wonder if the professor said anything to the attackers to piss them off?" I just find the whole thing very curious. Everyone was quick to assume the professor's story to be 100% accurate, aside from his ass getting kicked, which we can assume is the safest bet. The professor has a history of antagonizing people, and how do you think almost 100% of every person on soxtalk.com would react to someone tailgaiting them? they'd be pissed. And your reaction if you pulled over and the truck followed? more pissed The guy made the mistake of getting out of his car. The same people who blame rape victims for putting themselves in stupid situations, don't seem to be speaking up about this professor for being a moron. My final points: I hope the two a-holes who attacked him go to jail. I don't trust the professor's report 100% I think it's assinine to label anyone who acts like the attackers did, christians. Just because you say you're something or label yourself something, doesn't make it a reality. PA, I think their reaction is just a showing of what knee-jerk fundamentalism can do. Unthinking belief in anything (i.e. Muslim extremists, white supremacists, militia nuts, etc.) will lead to problems. Unpopular speech is the speech that should be most protected by the First Amendment (something on which I think we'll both agree) And I agree with your last statement -- I mean Hell, look at OBL, Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and Co. who all say they are spokespeople of their respective religions when they're nothing more than charlatans and cranks trying to bilk people out of money.

As Colbert said, "If Jesus cared about anything, it was semantics."

Information received from torture is notoriously unreliable and how does this make us better than the terrorists that we claim are so inhuman? If we say that we stand for higher culture, justice and all that is good -- then how can we condemn them for torture and executions when we're torturing and executing? (see the boldened portions) This isn't terrorist coddling -- but rather not wanting to see the US sink to a level of inhuman proportions for no reason that will yield any benefits. See... A recent American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posting of one of forty-four US military autopsy reports reads as follows: "Final Autopsy Report: DOD 003164, (Detainee) Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy revealed bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominately recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide. Whitehorse Detainment Facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq." The ACLU website further reveals how: "a 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was "undetermined" although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death. Another Iraqi detainee died on January 9, 2004, in Al Asad, Iraq, while being interrogated. He was standing, shackled to the top of a doorframe with a gag in his mouth, at the time he died. The cause of death was asphyxia and blunt force injuries. So read several of the 44 US military autopsy reports on the ACLU website -evidence of extensive abuse of US detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan 2002 through 2004. Anthony Romero, Executive Director of ACLU stated, "There is no question that US interrogations have resulted in deaths." ACLU attorney Amrit Sing adds, "These documents present irrefutable evidence that US operatives tortured detainees to death during interrogations." Additionally, ACLU reports that in April 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized the use of "environmental manipulation" as an interrogation technique in Guantánamo Bay. In September 2003, Lt. Gen. Sanchez also authorized this technique for use in Iraq. So responsibility for these human atrocities goes directly to the highest levels of power. A press release on these deaths by torture was issued by the ACLU on October 25, 2005 and was immediately picked up by Associated Press and United Press International wire services, making the story available to US corporate media nationwide. A thorough check of Nexus-Lexus and Proquest electronic data bases, using the keywords ACLU and autopsy, showed that at least 95percent of the daily papers in the US didn't bother to pick up the story. The Los Angeles Times covered the story on page A-4 with a 635-word report headlined "Autopsies Support Abuse Allegations." Fewer than a dozen other daily newspapers including: Bangor Daily News, Maine, page 8; Telegraph-Herald, Dubuque Iowa, page 6; Charleston Gazette, page 5; Advocate, Baton Rouge, page 11; and a half dozen others actually covered the story. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Seattle Times buried the story inside general Iraq news articles. USA Today posted the story on their website. MSNBC posted the story to their website, but apparently did not consider it newsworthy enough to air on television. What was it that Nietzsche said about when fighting monsters again?

Kid, thanks a lot for the info. I'm just looking for article examples of how HK/Chinese cinema is in Kill Bill and how these examples impact the sense of "Japaneseness" throughout the movie. I've found some stuff about many Japanese directors working for SB during the 1960s and 1970s and cameos by certain characters throughout Kill Bill are from famous SB films. I'm just looking for articles about stylism. I was also wondering if anybody knew why in the tea house scene with the Crazy 88 -- why it is partially in color and then goes to black and gray? Was that just to please the American censors or an homage to the old black/white samurai film or what?

Okay, gang. I got a paper due Friday by 2 pm. I've got to watch a non-Japanese film and discuss the influences of Japanese cinema on the film. I chose the very obvious Kill Bill with the clear influences to the Baby Cart series and Lady Snowblood. However, I am also looking to see how the Hong Kong/Chinese influences affected the sense of Japaneseness in QT's movie. So, if you have a few minutes, I'm looking for articles that would show the influence of Japanese cinema on the HK/Chinese cinema (specifically fighting films) of the 1960s and 1970s. Any assistance would be very much appreciated. All the books that I've asked my professors about are either not in print anymore or my library can't get their grubby meathooks on in time for me to write this paper. So my last haven is the internet.

Cerb, I got hit on the 19th of Nov. Some lady couldn't figure out that a red light means stop & instead thought it meant plow into traffic. She admitted it was her fault -- my car's target date to have it fixed according to the body shop is Dec. 23 -- the lady who hit me's insurance is paying for it all. Nailed the back of my car and caused damage that costs about half what I purchased the new car for just a few months before.

QUOTE(Stocking @ Dec 5, 2005 -> 10:48 PM) This is not a joke, this guy is serious. Almost spit my beer up when i saw it. Gunther At least we know what the actor who played Kip Dynamite is up to now.