Swedish Meatballs
1 day ago
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Latest update on that 300 year old document of mine
For anyone who hasn't been following, I posted a note a few days ago about this seemingly old document I bought in New Orleans, and was wondering if anybody could help figure out what it was, what it says, etc. Well, I got hundreds of responses, including from a librarian in Scotland, a number of folks in England, some government folks in Canada, and lots and lots of smart Americans. Who knew so many people were up on 300 year old English deeds?
Anyway, this is an update to let folks know I've compiled all the suggestions that folks have made as to what the document says and have marked up a new version of the document that shows what we think it says so far. I've basically transcribed the document into "normal" American handwriting so we can at least see what it says in Latin first, then we can worry about translating it to English.
Having said that, a number of folks have already offered partial translations. It is in fact a land transcaction, we think.
You can see my marked-up version here, and to see the clean versions of the document, and the hundreds of comments folks left, go here.
And, feel free to use your crypto skills at using what's already been translated to help figure out what other letters we can identify on the document - I've been doing it for hours, it's actually kind of fun! Read More......
Anyway, this is an update to let folks know I've compiled all the suggestions that folks have made as to what the document says and have marked up a new version of the document that shows what we think it says so far. I've basically transcribed the document into "normal" American handwriting so we can at least see what it says in Latin first, then we can worry about translating it to English.
Having said that, a number of folks have already offered partial translations. It is in fact a land transcaction, we think.
You can see my marked-up version here, and to see the clean versions of the document, and the hundreds of comments folks left, go here.
And, feel free to use your crypto skills at using what's already been translated to help figure out what other letters we can identify on the document - I've been doing it for hours, it's actually kind of fun! Read More......
Evening open thread
While you're not translating 300 year old documents, feel free to chat here.
Read More......
House Judiciary committee votes down GannonGuckert inquiry
I guess the House Republicans don't care how a male hooker got access to the White House for two years, including access to the president, and how he seemingly got around strict security protocols for White House correspondents.
Oh that's right. He's a Republican hooker. And House Republicans, if they love anything, it's a good whore. Read More......
Oh that's right. He's a Republican hooker. And House Republicans, if they love anything, it's a good whore. Read More......
Copy of judge's Memorandum Opinion on Issuing the TRO against USA Next
That's legal speak for the judge has issued his Memorandum explaining why he granted the gay couple a Temporary Restraining Order against USA Next's further use of their photo. The Memo is online at the link above (it's a pdf).
Read More......
Open thread, and Paul Wolfowitz
So Wolfowitz is going to be the next head of the World Bank. That's nice. He single-handedly destroyed Iraq so we figured we'd give him 150 more countries to destroy.
Now, I worked as a consultant at the World Bank in the 90s and the place needs some shaking up. About 25% of the staff is brilliant, 50% okay, and 25% pure deadweight who bring everybody else down. But there's shaking and there's shaking. A cold glass of ice water in their face? Well deserved. Crazed Irish nanny? Bit too much.
Let's guess which one Wolfowitz will bring to the table?
So is the Bush administration just dead set on destroying all our relationships with EVERYONE at this point? First Bolton at the UN and now Wolfowitz?
At least we know that failure breeds success in the Bush WH. Then again, he lost the first election and got to be president so perhaps it's a recipe that works. Read More......
Now, I worked as a consultant at the World Bank in the 90s and the place needs some shaking up. About 25% of the staff is brilliant, 50% okay, and 25% pure deadweight who bring everybody else down. But there's shaking and there's shaking. A cold glass of ice water in their face? Well deserved. Crazed Irish nanny? Bit too much.
Let's guess which one Wolfowitz will bring to the table?
So is the Bush administration just dead set on destroying all our relationships with EVERYONE at this point? First Bolton at the UN and now Wolfowitz?
At least we know that failure breeds success in the Bush WH. Then again, he lost the first election and got to be president so perhaps it's a recipe that works. Read More......
Nuclear Power: The Short-Term Answer to Global Warming?
Here's a New York Times article about the latest models of nuclear reactors. There hasn't been one built in the US since 1973, so the new models are much safer, more efficient, etc. Four major electric companies are strongly moving towards giving the go-ahead.
UK scientist James Lovelock -- who created the Gaia hypothesis beloved of environmentalists -- created a major stir last year when he said nuclear power was by far the best immediate answer to global climate change. In short, Lovelock said the greenhouse effect and global climate change are at a crisis point, creating huge changes in the environment and our world and action must be taken immediately. He says environmentally that nuclear power is much preferable to coal-burning plants and other energy sources that contribute to global climate change. (Having China depend on Western-built modern nuclear power plants could dramatically reduce future problems all on its own.)
The US might be committing to its first new plant in three decades. What say you? Is this terrible? Smart? Dangerous? Green? Read More......
UK scientist James Lovelock -- who created the Gaia hypothesis beloved of environmentalists -- created a major stir last year when he said nuclear power was by far the best immediate answer to global climate change. In short, Lovelock said the greenhouse effect and global climate change are at a crisis point, creating huge changes in the environment and our world and action must be taken immediately. He says environmentally that nuclear power is much preferable to coal-burning plants and other energy sources that contribute to global climate change. (Having China depend on Western-built modern nuclear power plants could dramatically reduce future problems all on its own.)
The US might be committing to its first new plant in three decades. What say you? Is this terrible? Smart? Dangerous? Green? Read More......
US Military: A Lot More Prisoners Were Killed In Custody Than We Thought
Ok, so today the military says that -- so far -- 26 prisoners may very well be the victims of homicide. That's 400% higher than the figure it gave to Congress just one week ago. Oops.
"Only one of the deaths occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, officials said, showing how broadly the most violent abuses extended beyond those prison walls and contradicting early impressions that the wrongdoing was confined to a handful of members of the military police on the prison's night shift," per the New York Times.
So today we find out that along with raping, sodomizing, torturing, and humiliating prisoners of war in violation of international law, US law, and common decency, we've been killing them as well. And we've been killing a lot more of them than we'd been led to believe.
Yesterday, we found out that Halliburton has ripped off the American people by war profiteering and overcharging for the fuel it provided. (In one case, it paid $87,000 for a shipment of fuel and charged the American people $27 MILLION -- now that's a markup.) And we just found out that the total amount of money it garnered was a LOT higher than we'd been led to believe. And the report detailing this was hidden from Congress and the American people until after the election.
So what other numbers will turn out to be wrong, as the truth comes out? Some possibilities:
1. We'll find out the number of civilian deaths in Iraq is much higher than previously reported.
2. We'll find out (again) that the number of insurgents and their allies is much higher than previously thought.
3. We'll find out that the cost of the war and occupation will continue to be much higher than previously thought/
4. We'll find out that Bush's dismantling of Social Security will create a debt load that is much higher than previously thought.
Any other suggestions? Read More......
"Only one of the deaths occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, officials said, showing how broadly the most violent abuses extended beyond those prison walls and contradicting early impressions that the wrongdoing was confined to a handful of members of the military police on the prison's night shift," per the New York Times.
So today we find out that along with raping, sodomizing, torturing, and humiliating prisoners of war in violation of international law, US law, and common decency, we've been killing them as well. And we've been killing a lot more of them than we'd been led to believe.
Yesterday, we found out that Halliburton has ripped off the American people by war profiteering and overcharging for the fuel it provided. (In one case, it paid $87,000 for a shipment of fuel and charged the American people $27 MILLION -- now that's a markup.) And we just found out that the total amount of money it garnered was a LOT higher than we'd been led to believe. And the report detailing this was hidden from Congress and the American people until after the election.
So what other numbers will turn out to be wrong, as the truth comes out? Some possibilities:
1. We'll find out the number of civilian deaths in Iraq is much higher than previously reported.
2. We'll find out (again) that the number of insurgents and their allies is much higher than previously thought.
3. We'll find out that the cost of the war and occupation will continue to be much higher than previously thought/
4. We'll find out that Bush's dismantling of Social Security will create a debt load that is much higher than previously thought.
Any other suggestions? Read More......
Let's start with the WH following the rules they have
GG writes today on his blog:
The second point you fail to grasp is that no one is asking the White House to run STRICTER background checks on journalists. We're simply asking that they apply the same security standard for all journalists who want regular access to the White House. Currently, male prostitute republican journalists get to have regular access to the White House without undergoing a 3-month FBI background check. While non-male-prostitute non-conservative journalists DO have to undergo the 3-month background check. We'd like to know why the discrepancy? Did the male prostitute know people on the inside who let him in without the necessary security check, or what?
Until you can explain how you got regular access to the White House for 2 years and NEVER had to undergo the kind of 3-month FBI background check that OTHER regular-access-for-two-years journalists had to go through, we're going to keep asking why you got special favors that enabled you to circumvent White House security during wartime. Did someone in the White House choose to let the male prostitute regularly circumvent security for two yeaers during wartime, or was it a major screw up that went on for two years and was never caught? Either way, it's a problem.
Perhaps some day, some real journalist in the mainstream media will do the obvious story:
1. How does the White House decide which journalists can get access with a day pass and which journalists need to apply for a hard pass? What's the standard for determining who has to apply for which pass, and what's the rationale for requiring a much higher level of scrutiny (i.e., a 3-month FBI background check) for journalists who want a hard pass, as compared to the much lesser scrutiny required of journalists requesting a day pass (which only requires a quick on-the-spot Secret Service social security number check to make sure you're not a criminal)?
2. How does the White House justify giving Guckert de facto hard-pass access to the White House even though he simply had a day-pass? The question is hardly esoteric. Day-pass access requires little more than a quick Secret Service check to make sure you're not a criminal. Hard-pass access requires a 3-month FBI background check. There is clearly a different threat perception of hard-pass journalists vs. day-pass journalists.
3. Why did the White House let Guckert essentially get around security? Did someone choose to let him in, and if so, why? Or was it a major security screw up? Read More......
March 16, 2005Then follows up with this:
Congress takes up Gannongate today in a House Judiciary Committee markup of H. Res. 136. Democrats are demanding in effect, that the White House be required to more thoroughly investigate ANY AND ALL journalists who request access to the White House briefing room. TUNE IN
March 16, 2005James, you were a paid whore. I don't have a problem with you being a paid whore, but in this country, because of people with your arch-puritanical political beliefs, it's a crime. You were committing a crime, running a criminal enterprise, and expected to be granted access to the president of the United States in war time (well, and got that access). Had a gay hooker been found in the Clinton White House, crack journalist James Guckert would be all over the story, quoting 6 religious right news sources and calling the whore a "homosexual."
"Does the White House want greater powers to more thoroughly investigate any and all journalists that ask to attend press briefings?"
The second point you fail to grasp is that no one is asking the White House to run STRICTER background checks on journalists. We're simply asking that they apply the same security standard for all journalists who want regular access to the White House. Currently, male prostitute republican journalists get to have regular access to the White House without undergoing a 3-month FBI background check. While non-male-prostitute non-conservative journalists DO have to undergo the 3-month background check. We'd like to know why the discrepancy? Did the male prostitute know people on the inside who let him in without the necessary security check, or what?
Until you can explain how you got regular access to the White House for 2 years and NEVER had to undergo the kind of 3-month FBI background check that OTHER regular-access-for-two-years journalists had to go through, we're going to keep asking why you got special favors that enabled you to circumvent White House security during wartime. Did someone in the White House choose to let the male prostitute regularly circumvent security for two yeaers during wartime, or was it a major screw up that went on for two years and was never caught? Either way, it's a problem.
Perhaps some day, some real journalist in the mainstream media will do the obvious story:
1. How does the White House decide which journalists can get access with a day pass and which journalists need to apply for a hard pass? What's the standard for determining who has to apply for which pass, and what's the rationale for requiring a much higher level of scrutiny (i.e., a 3-month FBI background check) for journalists who want a hard pass, as compared to the much lesser scrutiny required of journalists requesting a day pass (which only requires a quick on-the-spot Secret Service social security number check to make sure you're not a criminal)?
2. How does the White House justify giving Guckert de facto hard-pass access to the White House even though he simply had a day-pass? The question is hardly esoteric. Day-pass access requires little more than a quick Secret Service check to make sure you're not a criminal. Hard-pass access requires a 3-month FBI background check. There is clearly a different threat perception of hard-pass journalists vs. day-pass journalists.
3. Why did the White House let Guckert essentially get around security? Did someone choose to let him in, and if so, why? Or was it a major security screw up? Read More......
David Horowitz screws up
You may have heard that arch-conservative David Horowitz has launched a jihad against so-called liberal professors at universities. Well, it seems one of his oppressed poster children students lied. From Media Matters, and InsideHigherEd.
Read More......
Washington Post tries to break into the world of comedy
No, not the disgusting anti toe fungus ads that they continue to carry (they're just being whores), but this headline: Narrow Majority Says War Not Worth It. OK, I'm not a math specialist but how is 53% to 47% a narrow majority when all we heard in November was mandate, mandate, mandate after a 51% to 48% victory for Bush? The Post is increasingly a shadow of its former self.
Read More......
Don't forget, Wednesday morning, 10AM, you can watch the House committee meeting and vote on GannonGuckertGate on the Web
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO VOTE ON GANNON RESOLUTION ON WEDNESDAY AT 10 A.M.
BROADCAST LIVE ON THE INTERNET
http://judiciary.house.gov/
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Tomorrow, March 16, at 10 a.m. the House Judiciary Committee will vote on a House resolution which will direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to respond to remaining questions on Gannongate. The resolution was introduced by Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, and twenty-eight Members of the House of Representatives. The American public deserves the full truth as to who at the White House paved the way for Mr. Guckert to have repeated and staged access to the President.
WHAT: Full committee markup of Gannon Resolution of Inquiry (H. Res. 136)
WHO: House Judiciary Committee
WHEN: Wednesday, March 16th, 2005, 10 a.m.
WHERE: 2141 Rayburn House Office Building
**Broadcast live on the Internet, http://judiciary.house.gov/ Read More......
BROADCAST LIVE ON THE INTERNET
http://judiciary.house.gov/
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Tomorrow, March 16, at 10 a.m. the House Judiciary Committee will vote on a House resolution which will direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to respond to remaining questions on Gannongate. The resolution was introduced by Congressman John Conyers, Jr., Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, and twenty-eight Members of the House of Representatives. The American public deserves the full truth as to who at the White House paved the way for Mr. Guckert to have repeated and staged access to the President.
WHAT: Full committee markup of Gannon Resolution of Inquiry (H. Res. 136)
WHO: House Judiciary Committee
WHEN: Wednesday, March 16th, 2005, 10 a.m.
WHERE: 2141 Rayburn House Office Building
**Broadcast live on the Internet, http://judiciary.house.gov/ Read More......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
