Friday Humor

I am busy doing ohter things today, so I thought I would just leave you with this and wish everyone a good weekend.

Jon Stewart: Four years ago, el Presidente Bush first spoke of the Axis of Evil: Iran, Iraq and North Korea---a trio of dangerous nations. Obviously, since that time, Iraq has gotten a little more attention than the other two. [It] played Marcia Brady, if you will, to their Jan. Well, last week, Iran (or "Jan") of the Axis of Evil announced the resumption of its controversial uranium enrichment program, and threatened to block international inspectors from its nuclear sites.

So, a Muslim country [is] developing weapons of mass destruction, led by a man who hates America, in repeated defiance of the United Nations. President Bush...

Bush at press conference: We spent some time talking about the Iranian issue and the desire to solve this issue diplomatically by working together.

Stewart: Um...who are you? Where's our president?? Of course, it's a lot easier to be diplomatic when we've only got two armies left to deploy: Salvation and KISS. ... Okay, I know it's strange to hear the president use the "diplomacy" word, but he explains further...

Bush: Our job is to form a common consensus. And so...this is what we call diplomacy.

Stewart: Now, before you think President Bush is being condescending, he was responding to a question from Johnny Stupid of Dumbfuck Monthly.

---The Daily Show

Oh, for The Love Of God!

Paris Hilton, who is being sued for lible for planting a fake story in the press about her then boyfriend's ex-firlfriend, had to give a deposition. These are some of the choices excerpts I have seen in a long time.

In her deposition, Paris is asked about a companion with her that night whose first name is Terry. When asked if she knew his last name, Paris replied: “It is, like, a weird Greek name. Like Douglas.”

Yes, that ever so wierd Greek name Douglas. If she thinks "Douglas" is a wierd Greek name, I wonder what she thinks "Smith" is. Albanian?

Paul Berra, Graff’s lawyer, asks Paris if she is aware that the Page Six article had been republished in various newspapers. “Were there U.K. publications?” Berra asks. Hilton responds “No…there is stuff in London.” Paris’ lawyer, Larry Stein, jumps in and says “London is a U.K. publication.” Paris retorts, “Right. U.K. Whatever.”

It just goes to show you that all the money in the world can't buy you brains. It makes me also ask why, oh why, do Republicans want to make sure that she never pays a penny of tax on the billion dollar empire she will inherit.

Paris on what she said to Zeta Graff:

“She is old and should stay at home with her child instead of being at night clubs with young people. And just that - I just…What else did I say? Just that she is not cute at all.”

Stupidity is not all that attractive either, Paris.

Hilton swore she never saw a republication of the article: "I was in Europe the whole summer, and all there is is like French -- I didn't see anything because I wasn't in American."

You, know... in American... that laguage that she is still getting tutored in.

She added that Graff had threatened Latsis: "He said that she threatened to send Mexican people to come and beat the s..t out of him."

Hilton testified that she too was scared: "He said that she was going to do voodoo on me. And I kind of do believe in that stuff a little bit, so I was a little bit scared about that... "

Well, at least the voodoo doll would have a higher IQ than her.

Hilton, who was admonished several times to use the word "no" instead of "huh-uh," had problems explaining emails between herself and her then-publicist, Rob Shuter. Hilton claims she talked to Shuter after the incident and said: "I don't want this getting out..." But Shuter sent Hilton the article the day it ran with the note: "This is genius." Hilton responded, "You are amazing! I f..... love it!!! You are genius...."

"I meet so many people. I don't even know some of my friends' names."

Can they really be friends then? And, for the record, can you remeber your name, Paris? This is not a trick question, Paris. Let me give you a hint, Paris, it starts with a P.

Hilton's graphic description of Shuter was not the only departure from a traditional deposition. At one point she blurted out: "I'm so hungry."

I guess there were no puppies or babies in the room for her to snack on... Poor Paris.

TMZ
Well, that makes one of them

Where Is The Line?

I had a commenter leave this as part of a reply to a previous post in regards to the question why are Americans more likely to give up liberty in regards to terrorism when you are much more likely to be killed by someone you know.

Somehow, Dingo, I get the feelin' if another attack happened in your backyard you'd be one of the first to blame the Bush administration for not doin' enough to stop it.

Well, if the attack were to be the result of the lack of security in our ports or one of the many other holes that the government has yet to fill, then yes, I would.

But, this brings to the forefront another question - How far is too far?

How much of our liberty is acceptable to cede to the government for security? And, what is the line where you say that the president or the congress has gone too far in "protecting" you? What is your personal limit?

I would like you hear your opinions.

Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire

The republicans rolled out there "lobbying reform package" yesterday. It, in essence, makes the problems only worse.

Currently, legislators are allowed to take privately funded trips for "educational" purposes, such as Tom DeLay's trip to Siapan to see up close and personal how his vote to favor garment makers on the island makes kids work for 23 cents an hour in sweat shops.

Now, the rules will be changed to ban "educational" trips, but allow "campaign" trips. That means a company... say Halliburton, can fly DeLay to St. Croix for a week on their tab, and as long as they hand him a campaign check, the trip is perfectly legal. No "educational" purpose it needed.

Please, tell me how this is better?

This is what happens when you send a Republican to do a mans job.

Loophole in Lobbying Bill Leaves Wiggle Room

Republicans Propose Restrictions On Lobbying

Why Does Terrorism Scare Us More?

I saw this as part of a post on the Iowa Voice. The author is an unabashed conservative, but for the most part he does put thought into his posts and at least is willing to articulate an argument (even if I disagree). In regards to the NSA illegal spy program he writes:

Personally, I'd much rather have 1000 innocent people investigated than to have NO investigation at all and find out later that had we done it, we could have prevented the next 9/11. Of course, by the time we realize that, the next 9/11 will have already happened, and it would be too late.

What is it about terrorism that has us so afraid that we are willing to give up liberty for security? This is not meant to be an attack on anyone's ideals, but an honest question.

There were 14,408 murders in this country in 2003, which is more deaths than all terrorist attacks in the history of the US combined (including domestic terrorists like McVey). 9,638 were by firearms. Of those 9,638 murders, approximately 3400 of them were by people who had never committed a crime before.

So, still, you have more deaths by firearms from previously non-criminal Americans in 2003 alone than you have deaths by terror in the history of the US. Why is the 2nd amendment so sacred, but the 1st and 4th can be tossed out the window for the sake of safety. Rational thought would tell you that the 2nd amendment is much more dangerous to our safety than the 4th.

Surprisingly, only 17% of murders in the US in 2003 were related to felony crimes such as rape, robbery, burglary, drugs, etc (the reason we say we keep guns for protection). The rest were done mainly over arguments over property, significant others, bar room brawls, etc.

The majority of murders happened by people the victim knew (of cases where the murder was resolved as to the offender). 123 by husbands. 573 by wives. 129 by fathers. 105 by mothers. 268 by sons. 193 by daughters. 3294 by acquaintances. 160 by boyfriends. 464 by girlfriends. Only 1795 were by strangers.

So, what is it about terrorism that scares us more so that we are more willing to surrender our liberties than death from individual Americans. After all, you are thousands of times more likely to die from a crime other than a terrorist attack. Why do we give up our liberty in order to combat terrorism but not other crimes? Iowa voice is much more likely to be killed by his wife or girlfriend than a terrorist.

Why is it that we respect the constitutional right of law biding gun owners when 35% of the 9,638 gun murders are committed by people who never had a prior record, but we don't respect the 1st and 4th amendment in relation to terrorism?

Of course some of it comes from the fear of mass murder from weapons of mass destruction. But, even if Terrorist were able carry out a 9/11 attack each and every year, it still would not match the number of murders inflicted upon us by our fellow citizens.

So, what is it about terrorism that gives us such a knee-jerk reaction to safety? Why is it that the low grade simmer of murder by Americans is less fearful than flash in the pan terrorism? And if there are so many more murders committed by Americans than terrorists, why do we insist that the police stay within the bounds of the constitution on one, but not the other.

I would like to hear your opinions.

Sources: FBI

Murder stats 2003

Murder by State 2003

Murder by Relationship 2003

Follow Up Post to Who Is More Out Of Touch

In follow up to my post - Who's More Out of Touch? - I think Pedro sums it up well

Basically, we have two parties right now in America: one that looks out for the interests of rich people, and one that looks out for the interests of the rich people who like to think of themselves as looking out for the interests of poor people.

And, also a comment left in reply to Pedro by Bilwick:

I agree with comedian Colin Quinn, a lifelong Democrat, explaining to his show-biz-lib friends why he was supported George Bush: "Because the fascism of the Right is at least out in the open."

Whether you are liberal or conservative, if you are in the middle, your respective parties have been taken over by a fringe that is intolerant of dissent.

Yes, the Democrats have become obstructionists in the Congress. So have the Republicans. Democrats have been shut out of all forms of the legislative process. Republicans meet behind closed doors to draw up legislation and block Democrats from even adding amendments to bills. In return, Democrats block any movement of significant legislation through the house or senate.

30 years ago, legislators of both parties would dine together after a day of debating each other on the floor. While they had partisan disagreements, they could still act cordially to each other off the floor and form friendships that would help them cooperate with the opposition.

Now, we are in the world of "K-Street projects" and if a republican legislator is seen in the company of a Democrat or vice versa, they are considered disloyal and traitors to their party.

We need to demand more of our elected officials. Sometimes we will have to be happy with only getting 50% of what we want in order to get anything at all. This partisan divide serves to the benefit of none except the few who use it to raise money and push fascist ideas of either extreme.

Are The Economic Numbers Really All Buch Claims Them To Be

Without question, the economy is growing, and the Republicans are jumping all over it as a sign of how wonderful they are. But, what does it mean to the average American and are the numbers all that they are cracked up to be?

Bush's Expansion Leaves Workers Behind, Sparking Fed Friction
By Craig Torres and Alex Tanzi

Jan. 17 (Bloomberg) -- American workers have rarely taken home a smaller share of the nation's prosperity, a condition that is undermining bipartisan support for free trade and creating friction between President George W. Bush's administration and the Federal Reserve.

After 16 consecutive quarters of economic growth, pay is rising at a slower rate than in any similar expansion since the end of World War II. Companies are paying less of their cash gains in the form of wages and salaries than at any time since the Great Depression, according to government figures.

Such a disparity, partly the result of globalization of the labor market, helps explain why the Bush administration is struggling to muster support for lower trade barriers even with the jobless rate at a four-year low. The imbalance has also triggered a debate between Bush's Treasury Department and the Fed about how low unemployment can go without kindling inflation.

``There is no doubt that something is happening'' to reduce labor's share of income, says Robert Solow, a Nobel Prize- winning economist and professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. An economy that doesn't distribute its gains widely is ``poorly performing,'' he says.

From the final quarter of 2001 through last year's third quarter, total compensation paid to employees by corporations, including health benefits, rose at a 4.3 percent average annual rate, according to government figures. That's the slowest growth for any similar period in post-war expansions lasting at least four years.

(Full Story)

Illegal Spying Helps Little

While the ACLU is filing suit against the Bush administration for its secret wire taps of American citizens under violation of the 1st and 4th amendments. While Rush Limbaugh is still out there spreading the lie that the FISA court rejected a FBI request to tap Jose Padilla, the article draws attention to how the N.S.A. program might even be counter productive by drawing F.B.I. agents away on wild goose chases.

Spy Agency Data After Sept. 11 Led F.B.I. to Dead Ends By LOWELL BERGMAN, ERIC LICHTBLAU, SCOTT SHANE and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: January 17, 2006

WASHINGTON, Jan. 16 - In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month.

But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.

F.B.I. officials repeatedly complained to the spy agency that the unfiltered information was swamping investigators. The spy agency was collecting much of the data by eavesdropping on some Americans' international communications and conducting computer searches of phone and Internet traffic. Some F.B.I. officials and prosecutors also thought the checks, which sometimes involved interviews by agents, were pointless intrusions on Americans' privacy.

As the bureau was running down those leads, its director, Robert S. Mueller III, raised concerns about the legal rationale for a program of eavesdropping without warrants, one government official said. Mr. Mueller asked senior administration officials about "whether the program had a proper legal foundation," but deferred to Justice Department legal opinions, the official said.

President Bush has characterized the eavesdropping program as a "vital tool" against terrorism; Vice President Dick Cheney has said it has saved "thousands of lives."

But the results of the program look very different to some officials charged with tracking terrorism in the United States. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, including some in the small circle who knew of the secret program and how it played out at the F.B.I., said the torrent of tips led them to few potential terrorists inside the country they did not know of from other sources and diverted agents from counterterrorism work they viewed as more productive.

(Full Story)

Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Assisted Suicide

Today, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the assisted suicide case that pitted John Ashcroft against the Oregon law that allows Dr.s to assist terminally ill patients to end their lives.

I agree with this ruling. The practice of medicine is traditionally the purvey of the states and the decision to ends one life if afflicted with a terminal disease is an individual right that should be upheld under the 9th and 10th amendments. I don't agree with the practice, but it is something that should be decided with ones family, doctors and clergy, not politicians in Washington.

Supreme Court Upholds Oregon Suicide Law
By GINA HOLLAND Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON Jan 17, 2006 — The Supreme Court upheld Oregon's one-of-a-kind physician-assisted suicide law Tuesday, rejecting a Bush administration attempt to punish doctors who help terminally ill patients die.

Justices, on a 6-3 vote, said that federal authority to regulate doctors does not override the 1997 Oregon law used to end the lives of more than 200 seriously ill people. New Chief Justice John Roberts backed the Bush administration, dissenting for the first time.

The administration improperly tried to use a drug law to prosecute Oregon doctors who prescribe overdoses, the court majority said.

"Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

(Full Story)

E-Trade Sucks

So, E-Trade bought out my brokerage firm, Harris Direct and transferred everything over to their brokerage. The final switchover was on Tuesday. Everything seemed to transfer over fine... until today. 25% of my money market funds are gone.

Poof, vanished into thin air.

So, I get a little concerned, but not too much. I decide to call their customer service line - 1-800-WE-SUCK-1. They have one of those all automated systems where you have to enter you account number, followed by you SSN. Then it says that it is transferring you to an account rep.

But, instead, you get "sorry, this call cannot be completed as dialed."

Grrr... I try it again. same thing.

So, I call the number again and try hitting O when it asks for my account number.

"Sorry, I did not understand your account number. Please enter it again."

I press O again followed by the # sign.

"Sorry, I did not understand your account number. Please enter it again."

This time I press 666 followed by the # sign.

"Please wait while we connect you to a customer representative."

Figures... So, I am on hold for 13 minutes before I get a live person. She asks me 6 ways to Sunday of verification info, some of which, I don't even know, like what was my LDL cholesterol count in 1997. She finally asks me what she can help me with. I tell her a good chunk of money is missing from my money market account.

"Oh, well you will have to talk to an associate about that. Please hold."

45 minutes later, I am still on hold. My neck muscles are cramping up and I am head tilt with spasms that Bush gets when he is asked an uncomfortable question.

So, screw the phone, I'll go to the nearest E-Trade office and talk to a live person there. I walk the 7 blocks and ask to speak with someone about my account and the missing money.

"Oh, you'll have to call the customer service line for that."

I explain, I have already done that and could not get through. My neck spasms are starting again, but it is from anger, not phone neck.

Smugly, he says he can't do anything. There has been a computer glitch and they can't access accounts until next Tuesday. Luckily, there were several people with sales people who were looking to open up accounts. As loudly as possible, but without being obnoxious, I reiterate my dissatisfaction with the missing money and the hour + I spent on the phone getting no answers.

At least one of the people there to open an account got up and walked out behind me. So, at least I got some satisfaction out of the trip.

So, if you are thinking about opening an E-Trade account - Don't

There computers suck. There customer service sucks. They suck.

Update: I found these other reviews on-line

E-Trade - "E-Trade is awful. Every time I have had a complaint and call the helpdesk it takes forever for them to pick up. One time I had lost my debit card and I waited on hold for over an hour before the battery on my cell phone died. E-Trade is just plain awful. If I didn't have my direct deposit and other banking already through them I would just leave. I will, however, start to transition everything so I can get another bank. I've had it with them." - Salvador - Florida, USA (Sep-2005)

"Customer Service at E-Trade is very very poor - among the worst I have seen in this or any other industry. I have called them on various requests at least once every business day for the past two weeks and the average hold time before I could speak to an agent was 48 minutes! A few of those days I waited on hold more than one hour to speak to someone... - A. Sircar - Connecticut, USA (Aug-2005)

"All interactions I have had with E-Trade customer service has ended in disappointment and complete dissatisfaction. I have attempted to deal with E-Trade customer service more than 7 times on various issues. All ended terrible. I am still a member on E-Trade with 0 dollars in my account. - J. Slunder - California, USA (Jul-2005)

"E-Trade sucks. I wish I read the comments on this website first. The listed price of $19.95 a trade is not entirely accurate. E-Trade also imposes a $3 processing fee in addition to the $19.95. What the hell? When I finally cancelled my account, I was charged a $10 fee to get my own money." - R. Beckman - California, USA (Feb-2005)

"Worst customer service I have ever experienced." - Hamid - California, USA (Nov-2003)

And it looks like E-Trade has sucked for a very, very long time - Etrade's Rosy Picture Wilts in Face of Truth

Alito Likely to Pass Through Senate

I have listened to or watched much of the Alito hearings. As I have said before, I don't like him for the SC. I don't dislike him as a person. But his interpretation of privacy, discrimination and the expansive powers of government scare me. Someone who can't even accept a married couple right to use contraception as "settled law," gives way too much weight to the government over individuals.

Some round up articals:

Alito Likely To Become A Justice

A Hearing About Nothing

Liberals Vow to Dig In

Who's More Out of Touch?

I see liberals saying that Republican politicians are out of touch with the average American

I see conservatives saying the Democrat politicians are out of touch with the average American.

Did'ja think, maybe... just maybe it is not Republicans or Democrats... just politicians as a whole.

In the end, it is the growing partisan divide that is driving this.

And, in the end, I blame us... the average American. We have let both of our parties be hijacked by the extremer elements of either side. The Democrats have let it happen. The Republicans have let it happen, and to equal amounts.

Politicians, by nature, respond to their constituency. We have allowed the politicians to create cozy little "safe" districts for themselves where they only have to pander to the fringe to remain in power. The vast middle America has sat down and shut up. We allowed them to become out of touch. We voted them into office after all.

Follow up post: Follow up to who is more out of touch