Anybody got a link to the 325,000 names
On Homeland Securitys' terrorist list?
I need to get to Erie PA. to visit my grandaughter.
It's enough of a hassle nowadays just to fly-
Without a Gitmo detour cause my name shows on some list.
I can get to Erie without a plane ride.
But then I'll need to crew on a banana boat from Venezuela to Tampa.
And have to hitch all the way up I-95 or take the torturous busride.
If I'm considered a terrorist by the gov't-
They should at least let me know my status so I can arrange my life accordingly.
I'm hoping I'm not on their list.
But I dont care to expose my passport to an airport Fed-
Who might have had a bad day-
And then find out the hard way that I'm a badguy...cc

If your on the list then their not going to tell you.
They want to can catch you red handed.
But if you not a terrorist, it doesn't make a difference.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

........if you not a terrorist, it doesn't make a difference.

No ?

I guess you agree there should be no due process, no right to privacy, no right to freely travel.......

Heck, you must believe the Constitution and the rule of law don't make any difference, either.

Scary thought, .....the people who throw around ideas which demonstrate that they would rather throw out our form of governance and embrace fascism,

...........do they do this to escape the responsibilities of facing up to a few terrorists?

____________________________________________________

If there are 325,000 terrorists on that 'homeland security' list of theirs, .....all that demonstrates is, ....it sure shows their level of incompetence............which is abysmal.

Their 'war on terra' is being conducted about as effectively as their response to Katrina...

......but then, that's not supposed to make any difference as far as some would have you believe......

What's that saying again, ....the one they always quote?...... Is it? ..God help us.........?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/16/MNGJRH9E3E1.DTL

http://www.schneier.com/essay-052.html

---

If you were responsible for the security of your nation's militarily designated 'strategic' overseas shipping ports, ...ports, which, keep in mind, our own military has recognized and designated as 'critical' for the movement of strategic military material to ensure the nation's defense, .......would you allow the sale of the operational control of those ports to a company owned and controlled by a foreign nation/state with a questionable record of co-operation in our own defense from international terrorism?

The United Arab Emirates, with a history of being identified as a financial and operational base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks in the US of 9/11, which also has been identified as an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya and is one of only three countries to formally recognize the Taliban has been given the greenlight by the White House and the Homeland Security Department to purchase the right to operate and control six strategically 'critical' US ports.

Under the White House and Homeland Security Department approved 6.8 billion dollar sale, operational control of the shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia has been granted to a front company directly controlled by an Arab nation which has demonstrated that it is less than co-operative in it's support in our war on terrorism.

Feeling safer yet ?

What's next? ....maybe they should contract out the operations of theTransportation Security Administration and the Border Control Service too......

Abject idiocy and incompetence..... it's all the White House and Homeland Security are capable of.......

---

Hungry? Try "The Prophet Muhammad's Roses".

Iran has decided to rename Danish (pastry) sold in Iran to "The Prophet Muhammad's Roses"(!) So, if you're going to Iran in the future, be sure to ask for danish with this new name.

But, since Iran is currently boycotting go(o)ds from Denmark, they may be out of stock in Teheran for these roses...

With apologies to the copyright holder, I thought of way to express the above cartoon, which does not depict the Prophet (peace be upon him), in a uniquely SETI@Home way...



(It's not that I question Paul's patriotism-- I do question Al Gore's-- it is just that I don't recall him once saying anything positive about the curent US administration, even in the "They were doing this right until they screwed it up by trying to fix it" sense.)

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

If you were responsible for the security of your nation's militarily designated 'strategic' overseas shipping ports, ...ports, which, keep in mind, our own military has recognized and designated as 'critical' for the movement of strategic military material to ensure the nation's defense, .......would you allow the sale of the operational control of those ports to a company owned and controlled by a foreign nation/state with a questionable record of co-operation in our own defense from international terrorism?

The United Arab Emirates, with a history of being identified as a financial and operational base for the hijackers who carried out the attacks in the US of 9/11, which also has been identified as an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya and is one of only three countries to formally recognize the Taliban has been given the greenlight by the White House and the Homeland Security Department to purchase the right to operate and control six strategically 'critical' US ports.

Under the White House and Homeland Security Department approved 6.8 billion dollar sale, operational control of the shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia has been granted to a front company directly controlled by an Arab nation which has demonstrated that it is less than co-operative in it's support in our war on terrorism.

This has me confused as well. Presumably operating a port does not exempt one from complying with all of the port laws... and since "cost of compliance" won't be as big a concern in Congress than if American companies had to foot the bill, it might actually increase the poor container inspection rate at these US ports. (There are several laws that affect specific companies, specific airports, etc., so why not one involving only these specific ports?)

I still don't like the idea, even if it does work. Critical infrastructure should remain in the host nation's hands if they have the technical competence to operate it.

(edit for spelling)

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

I liked this one!

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

France gets tough over nuclear program
Iran continues to deny it's making weapons

By John Leicester
ASSOCIATED PRESS

February 17, 2006

PARIS – France accused Iran yesterday of secretly trying to make nuclear weapons, ditching Europe's traditional diplomatic caution for bluntness in remarks that echoed the tough U.S. stance on Iran's disputed nuclear program.

The accusation from French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy – which Iran quickly denied – appeared to reflect mounting exasperation and a tougher stance by one of the key European negotiators.

“No civilian nuclear program can explain the Iranian nuclear program. It is a clandestine military nuclear program,” Douste-Blazy said on France-2 television.

By contrast, though, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said yesterday that she was “truly optimistic, I would even say very optimistic, that we can do everything to solve this conflict with diplomatic means.”

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also erred on the side of caution, saying, “There are strong suspicions internationally that Iran may be seeking . . . to develop a nuclear weapons capability” but “we do not have absolute proof.”

The board of the International Atomic Energy Agency voted last month to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council, but Russia, a close ally of Iran, insisted that the council not take it up until March. On Tuesday, Iran announced that it has resumed small-scale uranium enrichment, insisting the program is for nuclear energy, not arms. Iran's move heightened tensions.

In Washington, the House voted 404-4 yesterday to approve a nonbinding resolution expressing support for efforts to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council. The Senate already approved the legislation, which imposes no legal consequences on Iran.

The next big test comes when talks between Iran and Russia start Monday in Moscow on a Russian proposal to move Iran's enrichment program to Russia and abandon enrichment on Iranian soil for a significant period of time.

The proposal is meant to allay fears that Tehran might misuse the technology to make nuclear arms. Tensions over Iran are likely to diminish if Tehran agrees to the Russian proposal – and to balloon if it does not.

A deputy Russian foreign minister, Alexander Alekseyev, said yesterday that cooperation with China could help push Iran toward accepting Moscow's offer, according to the Interfax news agency. He added, however, that the Iranian nuclear issue recently had become “sharper,” and “it is too early to assess the effectiveness of our joint steps to resolve it.”

China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya, asked at U.N. headquarters in New York about the Russian proposal, said: “I think it's a way out. I do hope that all sides can agree to that.”

“I hope that the meeting next Monday will lead to good results,” Wang said.

Merkel, also optimistic, said in an interview to be broadcast by ZDF television that the “diplomatic path has every chance of success.”

The French Foreign Ministry insisted that Douste-Blazy's remarks were in line with the European position on Iran, but fellow negotiators Germany and Britain have not spoken so frankly.

“The international community has sent a very firm message in telling the Iranians to return to reason and suspend all nuclear activity and the enrichment and conversion of uranium, but they aren't listening to us,” Douste-Blazy said.

“Now it's up to the Security Council to say what it will do, what means it will use to stop, to manage, to halt this terrible crisis of nuclear proliferation caused by Iran,” Douste-Blazy said.

Iran's chief negotiator, Ali Larijani, lashed back.

“I recommend that Mr. Douste-Blazy speak in diplomatic terms and avoid increasing tension,” he said, according to Iranian state-run television. “The motivation of the French foreign minister behind his new comments is ambiguous to us. But it is in the interests of the region that the West adopts a logical stance toward Iran's nuclear activities.”

On Wednesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited the Natanz nuclear facility about 150 miles south of Tehran where the uranium enrichment facilities are located, the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Georges Le Guelte, a nuclear expert at France's Institute for International and Strategic Research, called Douste-Blazy's statement “remarkable.”

“It was not very diplomatic,” Le Guelte said.

He called it a powerful message to French companies operating in Iran that have pressured the government to remain cautious.

“All of the doors that were open in terms of negotiations . . . are gradually being closed by the Iranians,” said Richard Whitman of the Chatham House think tank in London. He said Douste-Blazy's comments reflect “a sense of exasperation with the Iranian government.”

Russia's top military chief, meanwhile, warned the United States against launching a military strike against Iran, saying “it is hard to predict how the Muslim world will respond.”

“This may stir the whole world, and it is crucial to prevent anything like that,” Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the chief of Russia's general staff, was quoted as saying by Russian news agencies.

This is why I actively crunch the science projects, not the medical projects.

This is why I actively crunch the science projects, not the medical projects.

Yeah, if they use Boinc to cut their development cost I don't think their going to lower the price.
We get screwed if we let them use our computers.

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

This is why I actively crunch the science projects, not the medical projects.

Yeah, if they use Boinc to cut their development cost I don't think their going to lower the price.
We get screwed if we let them use our computers.

It's also why there's so much R&D in treatments and not vaccines. No money in vaccines.. but billions in treatment. Look at how many billions the pharmaceuticals rake in just for cold treatments. They'd never give that up.

---

Account frozen...

(It's not that I question Paul's patriotism.... it is just that I don't recall him once saying anything positive about the curent US administration, even in the "They were doing this right until they screwed it up by trying to fix it" sense.)

Ha Ha,

You're as devious as Bush with that kind of statement..... '"it's not that I question this man's patriotism, .......but here, ....let me lay out my questioning of his patriotism right here....""

As if...........


Since patriotism cannot possibly equate to whether or not one praises, or not praises, any past or current administration, and trying to draw some correlation between the two is nothing short of inanity, ......it seems to me that you need examine your own 'patriotism'.....

I think you have little concept of what patriotism might consist of.....

It appears that you, and some others, think you owe some blind allegiance to a president, or to that president's administration, just because they are in a position of power....

..........thinking you 'owe' something to the president? .......that's not patriotism, that's a dereliction of your duty as a citizen....

What describes your 'patriotism', ...... is it, “No talking out of school?”, ......it sounds as if you believe in 'patriotism' whose best analogy would be, ....... “What goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas?”

For the moment, I'll assume you know full well the distinction between “country” and “policy”, and that your attempt to conflate these very different concepts is simply a bit of imprecision on your part in trying to find a way to attack my views or my actions.

Do you understand the distinction between country and policy? I thought so.....

I must assume that you are trying to point out that there is some incidental overlap between criticism of the one and criticism of the other. But there is none.


The loyalty “owed” a President, or any government official, or any policy of the same, by a private citizen, is this much loyalty: ...........zero.

Let me say that again: the loyalty I, or you, or anyone “owes” to someone in the government, or to some course of action they favor, ........is none whatsoever.

To think otherwise, Teddy Roosevelt might comment, is “unpatriotic and servile”.

~~""To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.""
Theodore Roosevelt, 1918

He's saying that asking private citizens to hold back their criticism is not merely not what you must do to warn people away from treason, ......it is, in fact, unpatriotic and servile.

I admire Roosevelt, and I think he is absolutely correct here.

You can give your loyalty to the President or his policies , ......it’s a free country, and you can do any non-treasonous thing you want with your loyalty.

But that’s your decision, ..and nobody has to live with it but you .......(well, ..and all the people who suffer from the consequences of your confused and ill-considered choice of loyalties, of course.)

Personally, I think the President has not one redeeming quality and his policies are not in the best interests of the country.

Your results may vary. But if someone tells me that I “owe” it to the President or his failed policy to act like I don’t think that, ......well, that person can get in the big long line with the rest of folks who really desperately need to re-examine reality in the light of day.

Bush and Bush’s policies owe us, me and you, loyalty.

The President and his policies are supposed to be working for the good of the country and her people. That’s how the loyalty flows. The President is required to act for my (ok, “our”) benefit.

.............if he does not, .......the betrayal is not 'mine' ....but his,

.......and the sorts of things which you’d like to call “disloyalty” on my part, .....become not my disloyalty, .......but my duty to country to openly condemn his policies.

Does Gore’s speaking out against torture “undermine” the country? That’s a tricky position to hold if you oppose torture. Does it “undermine” the policy?

No,

........it does this instead, ...........it reminds the world that however screwed up our government is, ......our government isn’t us, our government doesn’t always speak for us, ........and it can never, ever make us quiet down.

Just the same as your addle-brained misplaced loyalty can't be wielded as a method to question my patriotism....... Jeebus.

---

(It's not that I question Paul's patriotism.... it is just that I don't recall him once saying anything positive about the curent US administration, even in the "They were doing this right until they screwed it up by trying to fix it" sense.)

Ha Ha,

You're as devious as Bush with that kind of statement..... '"it's not that I question this man's patriotism, .......but here, ....let me lay out my questioning of his patriotism right here....""

Surprisingly, sometimes a sentence means exactly what it says. I've snipped out most of the words you tried to put in my mouth (keyboard?) because they don't address the point I was making.

It appears that you, and some others, think you owe some blind allegiance to a president, or to that president's administration, just because they are in a position of power....

Look back thru this and the previous Political thread and you'll see I'm hardly a shill for the administration. They've done some things right, some things wrong, some things that seemed like a good idea at the time, and occasionally made goofs that make an outsider wonder if anyone was sober when the decision was made.

The distinction between how opposition members treated this president and the one before him (Clinton) is that Republicans admitted that President Clinton occasionally did something right, and "Republican" media were not cheering for the enemies of the US at the time.

Personally, I think the President has not one redeeming quality and his policies are not in the best interests of the country.

See what I mean? This is a wholly unthinking position. As the saying goes, even a broken clock is correct twice a day... by rejecting the notion that anyone in the Executive Branch, a good chunk of which are Clinton appointees, have done anything right shows exectionally lazy reasoning. It would be far more convincing if you said "except for X, Y and Z, everything Bush has done has been wrong" because it means you've actually digested the administration's record rather that repeating Democratic talking points.

Here's one to try... there has not been a 9/11-scale attack anywhere on Earth since the US woke up on 9/11 and started actively combatting al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. There has not been a foreign terrorist attack of any kind on US soil since the anthrax letters which appear to have been launched on 9/11 in a use-it-or-lose it desperate strike.

But according to your reasoning, this is a bad thing. Look at your statement to see this inescapable conclusion based on your logic.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Feds seek 10 years for Cunningham

Meanwhile in local news...
Superior Court employee pleads not guilty - Prosecutor says fees, fines stolen

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I hope both these traitors of public trust get the max.

Not-so-bright Starr - Downplaying of forged affidavits is appalling

UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL

February 18, 2006

While millions of Democrats loathe him for his role as the special prosecutor who sought President Clinton's impeachment, Kenneth Starr's basic competence has never seemed in doubt. That could change soon. His blithe reaction to the blatant forging of legal documents in a California death-penalty case he's involved in is dumbfounding.

Michael Morales is scheduled to be executed next week for the rape and murder in 1981 of a 17-year-old Lodi girl. Morales reportedly does not deny responsibility. But death penalty foes, seizing on new questions about the testimony of a jailhouse informant, have been lobbying Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to grant clemency. They were helped when San Francisco investigator Kathleen Culhane produced affidavits from a prosecution witness at the original trial who said she had been coerced and from six jurors who said they supported clemency.

Starr, now the dean of Pepperdine University's law school, joined Morales' defense team last month. He touted the affidavits as making clemency a slam-dunk.

If they were real affidavits, Starr had a good case. Instead, by last week all but one had been exposed as obvious forgeries. Unsurprisingly, yesterday Schwarzenegger denied Morales clemency.

Starr's reaction to the discrediting of evidence he touted: He said “I just don't know” if the affidavits are valid and griped about the focus on their forging.

So Starr, whose name is on the clemency filings, thinks it's a minor matter that these filings rely on grossly dishonest affidavits? Earth to Ken: You're shredding your own reputation.

We assume San Francisco police will investigate Culhane, but perhaps the State Bar of California should also take a look at Starr. A law school dean shouldn't try to laugh off legal fraud.

Not-so-bright Starr - Downplaying of forged affidavits is appalling

Sounds par for the course for defense teams in general and capital punishment defenses in particular.

"Our case will show that the state's forensic evidence is flawed. Expert testimony will show that after the 'victim' accidentally tripped and strangled herself with an electrical cord, a meteorite that happens to have ridges like my client's fingerprints struck the victim's collar, bounced to strike the cord, then mysteriously evaporated."

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.