LOL Cats

Ken AshfordWeb RecommendationsLeave a Comment

Time magazine focuses on the web phenomenon, icanhasacheezburger.com:

Take a picture of a cat doing something cute. Then make up a caption–something witty that the cat would be saying if cats could talk. Bear in mind that cats can’t spell all that well and that they’re not so hot on subject-verb agreement either. Photoshop the caption onto the image, and post your creation on a blog. What you get is lolcats: lol for laugh out loud, cats for cats.

It’s easier to show lolcats than to explain it. The oldest known example–which probably dates to 2006–is an image of a chubby gray kitty looking at the camera and asking plaintively, I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER? Later came a shot of a kitten in a state of feline outrage, standing over a plate of what look like clementines and meowing DO NOT WANT. A ginger cat caught in midleap, hind legs pedaling furiously, appears over the words INVISIBLE BIKE. A fierce-looking tabby crouches in a well-stocked refrigerator: IM IN UR FRIDGE EATIN UR FOODZ. You get the idea.

Here’s the one that started the whole thing:

Cheezburger_410

Mental Floss has more on the origins of the lolcats phenomenon.

Anyway, it’s a very cute site.

Newshoe2big_2

Yerputterizreadynow

Whatchumeani2sml4chzbrgr

It’s even spawned a few spoofs, like LOL Trek:

Wehastrouble21

The Unauthorized “Christians United For Israel” Tour

Ken AshfordGodstuff, Middle East1 Comment

Max Blumenthal has done it again.

He attended a conference of the "Christians United for Israel" people, and brought his camera.  What he saw was alarming.  Watch it.

Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour from huffpost and Vimeo.

There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with anybody being pro-Israel.  What makes me squirm about these people is that they are pro-Israel for the wrong reasons.  As Blumenthal explains:

CUFI has an ulterior agenda: its support for Israel derives from the belief of [CUFI founder and megachurch pastor] Hagee and his flock that Jesus will return to Jerusalem after the battle of Armageddon and cleanse the earth of evil. In the end, all the non-believers – Jews, Muslims, Hindus, mainline Christians, etc. – must convert or suffer the torture of eternal damnation.

As the members itself in this video reveal, it is not the Jews, or an inherent belief in a Jewish state, which drives their support for Israel.  In fact, Jews are — they’re quite clear about this — going to be damned for all time when the Rapture comes (unless they convert).  They merely support Israel because doing so will bring about the End Times.

As such, the group’s name "Christians United for Israel" is a bit of a misnomer.  What they are all about is "Israel for Christians".  Scary.

RELATED:  The Pope believes in evolution.

Gonzales: Another Bit Of Perjury Yesterday

Ken AshfordCongress, Crime, White House Secrecy, Wiretapping & SurveillanceLeave a Comment

This centers around a meeting held on March 10, 2004 with members of the Bush Administration and the "Gang of 8", members of Congress who head up intelligence committees.  The topic discussed was —  well, that’s the issue. Here’s what Alberto Gonzales said under oath on Tuesday:

At a heated Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday, Gonzales repeatedly testified that the issue at hand was not about the terrorist surveillance program….Instead, Gonzales said, the emergency meetings on March 10, 2004, focused on an intelligence program that he would not describe.

Gonzales, who was then serving as counsel to Bush, testified that the White House Situation Room briefing sought to inform congressional leaders about the pending expiration of the unidentified program and Justice Department objections to renew it.

…."Not the TSP?" responded Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y. "Come on. If you say it’s about other, that implies not. Now say it or not."

"It was not," Gonzales answered. "It was about other intelligence activities."

Other intelligence activities? Not the TSP? Despite the recollections of other participants that the meeting on that day was precisely about the TSP?

Well, guess what? It turns out the dates of all the TSP meetings were the subject of a memo from John Negroponte last year. So it’s all down on paper. And you know what date shows up? March 10, 2004.

Short version: Gonzales lied (again) before Congress.

Olbermann does a good job of breaking it down.  As the reporter says, "this is a really, really big deal and a big problem for Gonzales. … The legal expert I talked to tonight said this is a clear case of perjury."

CNN is on this, too.  Well, everybody is, I guess.  When the nation’s top lawyer commits perjury, you know the nation is deep in the crapper.

Luckovich

Hardin-Smith offers advice:

Here’s a tip for Bush Administration cronies:  if you are going to lie under oath, on the record, with a video camera in your face, don’t lie about something for which there is documentary evidence directly contradicting your statements.  It makes you look unprepared, panicked and sloppy.  Even petty thieves get their stories straighter than this in magistrate courts across the nation.  Juries still find them guilty, and see right through their lying skeezeball stories, but at least they have enough pride in their thievery to put a little work into covering their own asses.  It’s especially pathetic when you are given a number of the questions in advance.

Flashback a few months ago to an interesting conversation between Bill Moyers and Jon Stewart regarding Gonzales:

So prescient.

Glenn Greenwald on Gonzales: “That is what Alberto Gonzales does. He lies to protect the President. And the President will never fire him. Gonzales isn’t keeping his job despite his willingness to lie to Congress, but because of it. Congress has no choice but to act meaningfully — impeachment of Gonzales and a Special Prosecutor — and if they do not, then, I suppose, one could say that Congress deserves to be lied to.”

UPDATE:  Oh, man — as the day gets on, it gets even worse for Gonzales:

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller said Thursday the government’s terrorist surveillance program was the topic of a 2004 hospital room dispute between top Bush administration officials, contradicting Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ sworn Senate testimony.

Mueller’s statement came hours after Senate Democrats called for a perjury investigation against Gonzales and subpoenaed top presidential aide Karl Rove in a deepening political and legal clash with the Bush administration.

Yeah! It’s THEIR Fault!

Ken AshfordHealth CareLeave a Comment

New study says you’re fat because your friends make you eat.

Fatfriends Obesity spreads through social networks, according to the study, so if your friends put on weight, you’re more likely to put on the pounds, too. Your family members or spouse can also influence you; as they get heavier, you’re more likely to gain along with them. But, your friends—even if they don’t live anywhere near you—have the most sway. A close friend’s weight gain can even be downright dangerous.

Harumph!  With friends like that, who needs anemia?  [Sorry, couldn’t resist]

Death-Predicting Cat?

Ken AshfordRandom Musings1 Comment

Associated Press:

Capt_96b17ad5cd62406aa2eb555336079dPROVIDENCE, R.I. – Oscar the cat seems to have an uncanny knack for predicting when nursing home patients are going to die, by curling up next to them during their final hours. His accuracy, observed in 25 cases, has led the staff to call family members once he has chosen someone. It usually means they have less than four hours to live.

"He doesn’t make too many mistakes. He seems to understand when patients are about to die," said Dr. David Dosa in an interview. He describes the phenomenon in a poignant essay in Thursday’s issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

The 2-year-old feline was adopted as a kitten and grew up in a third-floor dementia unit at the Steere House Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. The facility treats people with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease and other illnesses.

After about six months, the staff noticed Oscar would make his own rounds, just like the doctors and nurses. He’d sniff and observe patients, then sit beside people who would wind up dying in a few hours.

Here’s my take on this story — the cat doesn’t "predict" deaths so much as cause them.

Picture this: Mabel is an elderly person at the Steere House Center.  She’s 94, very ill and feeble, and bed-ridden.  Suddenly, this loveable furball jumps on her bed.  "OMIGOD!" she thinks, "It’s OSCAR, the DEATH CAT!  Whoever that cat goes near, dies within a few hours."   Mabel goes into cardiac arrest, as anyone who would when visited by the Grim Reaper.

Might as well give that damn cat a hood and scythe.

Deathcat

About That Hurricane Season

Ken AshfordDisastersLeave a Comment

Forecasters predicted a bad 2007 hurricane season, but it’s seemed pretty mild so far, yes?

Well, don’t un-duct-tape your windows yet, cowboy:

Worst of Atlantic hurricane season still to come

MIAMI (Reuters) – Nearly eight weeks have passed since the last tropical storm in the Atlantic-Caribbean region faded away, but banish any notion the 2007 hurricane season has been unusually slow and beware the coming months, experts say.

The peak of the six-month season is just around the corner and forecasters are still predicting a busy one.

"There’s absolutely nothing out of the ordinary," Gerry Bell, a hurricane forecaster for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said of the Atlantic season’s first two months. "It’s not slow. It’s not fast."

On average, June and July produce zero to two named storms or hurricanes. So far this year there have been two. Andrea formed in early May, Barry on June 1.

There’s plenty of evidence the first two months are meaningless as an indicator for the rest of the season.

***

Historically, the Atlantic hurricane season peaks on September 10 and the period from August 20 until October 14 produces the greatest number of storms.

Katrina1545zc0508281kg12

Contempt!

Ken AshfordAttorney Firings, Breaking News, Bush & Co.Leave a Comment

MSNBC:

WASHINGTON – The House Judiciary Committee voted contempt of Congress citations Wednesday against White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and President Bush’s former legal counselor, Harriet Miers.

The 22-17 vote, which would sanction the pair for failure to comply with subpoenas on the firings of several federal prosecutors, advanced the citations to the full House.

The full House will take it up after the August recess.

Fun fact:

The last time a full chamber of Congress voted on a contempt citation was 1983. The House voted 413-0 to cite former Environmental Protection Agency official Rita Lavelle for contempt of Congress for refusing to appear before a House committee. Lavelle was later acquitted in court of the contempt charge, but she was convicted of perjury in a separate trial.

413-0.  That was back in the day when the GOP had enough principles to put down its partisanship and simply enforce the law.  I don’t that could happen with today’s Republican Party.

Debunking An Email

Ken AshfordConstitution, Godstuff, HistoryLeave a Comment

There’s an email circulating — maybe you’ve seen it — that is so replete with factual inaccuracies that it cannot withstand even the slightest scrutiny.  Here it is, with my debunking:

This is worth remembering, because it is true. It’s familiar territory, but those of you that graduated from school after the early 60’s were probably never taught this. Our courts have seen to that!

Fact: There is not a single court case which has mandated the teaching of historical inaccuracies.

Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of “The Declaration of Independence” were orthodox, deeply committed, Christians? That they all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention.

Well, there were 56 signers, but we’ll let that slide.  Maybe the writer of this email didn’t count the Catholic (Charles Caroll, of Maryland).  In any event, not enough is known about each of the signers to conclude — without reservation — that they ALL "believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention". 

So let’s just focus on a couple of signers, one of whose name may be familiar to you — Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson was a self-proclaimed "deist", hardly what you would call an "orthodox, deeply committed" Christian.  In fact, according to one Jefferson biographer:

Jefferson had real trouble with the Divinity of Christ and he had real trouble with the description of various events mentioned in both the New and the Old Testament so that he was an enlightened skeptic who was profoundly interested in the figure of Christ as a human being and as an ethical teacher. But he was not religious in any modern meaning of that word or any eighteenth century meaning of that word. He wasn’t a regular church goer and he never affiliated himself with a religious denomination–unlike Washington who actually did.

Moreover, Jefferson created his own version of the gospels; he was uncomfortable with any reference to miracles, so with two copies of the New Testament, he cut and pasted them together, excising all references to miracles, from turning water to wine, to the resurrection.

Jefferson lack of religious scruples is, of course, significant because not only was he one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence — he actaully WROTE the damn thing.

Ben Franklin, another signer, was also a Deist and held similar views as Jefferson.  John Adams rejected many fundamental doctrines of conventional Christianity, such as the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, becoming a Unitarian.

But let’s turn to a contemporary historian to see what they were saying THEN about the makeup of the signers of the Declaration:

"Although it had its share of strenuous Christians… the gathering at Philadelphia was largely made up of men in whom the old fires were under control or had even flickered out. Most were nominally members of one of the traditional churches in their part of the country.. and most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone. Although no one in this sober gathering would have dreamed of invoking the Goddess of Reason, neither would anyone have dared to proclaim his opinions had the support of the God of Abraham and Paul. The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist and even secular in spirit." (Clinton Rossiter, 1787; The Grand Convention, pp. 147-148.)

Back to the email….

It is the same Congress that formed the American Bible Society, immediately after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of Scripture for the people of this nation.

Fact:  Odd, because the Declaration was adopted in 1776, and the American Bible Society — according to its own website — was formed in 1816.  As for importing the Bible, this happened in September 1777 (hardly "immediately" after the Declaration was "created").  The newly-minted United States was at war with Britain, and experiencing a shortage of many goods, due to blockades. There were few printing presses in America, and so all Bibles had to be imported (even before the war), and we certainly couldn’t import them from England. 

Despite what the email says, Congress did not vote on it; rather it was referred to a committee.  The motion to import Bibles, by the way, won by the narrowest of margins — 7 to 6.  Immediately thereafter, a subsequent motion was passed ordering "that the consideration thereof be postponed to Saturday next."  Nothing happened the following Saturday, and as far as historians know, no Bibles were imported.

Patrick Henry, who is called the firebrand of the American Revolution, is still remembered for his words, “Give me liberty or give me death”; but in current textbooks, the context of these words is omitted. Here is what he actually said: “An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death.”

Fact:  The author here is playing fast and loose with "context".  He has cherry picked part so of Henry’s actual speech, and mashed them all together.  There are sentences, even paragraphs, between each of the sentences in the quote above.  You want the real context?  Here it is.

These sentences have been erased from our textbooks.

Fact:  No, they haven’t.  I just linked to them.  And how do you erase sentences from textbooks anyway?  I mean, it’s a nice metaphor, but what is the reality?

Was Patrick Henry a Christian? The following year, 1776, he wrote this: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.”

Fact:  While Henry was a Christian (and, so what?) he never uttered those words.  It’s an urban legend.

Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote in the front of his well-worn Bible: “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator.”

Fact:  Um, context problem again?  First of all, those words were not in the front of his well-worn Bible.  They were from a letter he wrote in 1816.  As you can see, Jefferson, as I noted above, was hardly an orthodox Christian.  Let’s put the "real Christian" quote in its original context:

"I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognize one feature. If I had time I would add to my little book the Greek, Latin and French texts, in columns side by side."

So, Jefferson believed he was a "real Christian" by rejecting the Bible as it was written, and writing his own version.

He was also the chairman of the American Bible Society, which he considered his highest and most important role.

Fact:  Funny the ABS doesn’t acknowledge this.  Could it be, oh, made up?

On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: “It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”

Fact:  Adams never said this.  It comes from the preface of a book written in the 1860’s, in which the author, John Wingate Thornton, wrote:

The highest glory of the American Revolution, said John Quincy Adams, was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principle of Christianity

The italics are in the original.  There are no quotation marks around the "quote" from Adams — it is the author’s words.  He gives no source.  Over time however, Thorton’s conclusions about Adams have been distorted into actually being a Madison quote.

Back to the email…

Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States reaffirmed this truth when he wrote, "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."

Coolidge?  You’re giving me Coolidge?

In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.”

Fact:  In 1782, the Congress merely recommended that a certain edition of the Bible, printed in America (known as the Aitken Bible), be made available to Americans who wished to read a Bible and authorized only that Aitken freely print the recommendation. Aitken was not officially solicited to print his work, the Congress paid him nothing for his efforts, and no legal statement was made by the government regarding the use of the Bible in public schools.  You can read the actual resolution here.

In any event, the United States in 1782 was operating under the now-defunct Articles of Confederation at the time.  The Constitution, and the separation-of-church-and-state doctrines it ebodies, had not yet been written and adopted.

William Holmes McGuffey is the author of the McGuffey Reader, which was used for over 100 years in our public schools with over 125 million copies sold until it was stopped in 1963. President Lincoln called him the “Schoolmaster of the Nation.” Listen to these words of Mr. McGuffey: “The Christian religion is the religion of our country. From it are derived our nation, on the character of God, on the great moral Governor of the universe. On its doctrines are founded the peculiarities of our free Institutions. From no source has the author drawn more conspicuously than from the sacred Scriptures. From all these extracts from the Bible, I make no apology.”

I don’t dispute this — it’s just not relevant, seeing as how Mr. McGuffey isn’t a founding father (nor, for that matter, is Mr. Lincoln).

Of the first 108 universities founded in America, 106 were distinctly Christian, including the first, Harvard University, chartered in 1636. In the original Harvard Student Handbook, rule number 1 was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the Scriptures: “Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies, is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation for our children to follow the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.”

I don’t dispute this either.  I just don’t see the point.  You know what?  Of the first 108 federal judges appointed to the bench, all of them were white men who wore powdered wigs.  Does that mean we should only appoint white men to be judges, and they have to wear powdered wigs?

James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, said this: “We have staked the whole future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments.”

Fact:  The only problem with the above is, no such quote has ever been found among any of James Madison’s writings. None of the biographers of Madison, past or present have ever run across such a quote, and most if not all would love to know where this false quote originated.  Robert Alley, an distinguished historian at the University of Richmond, has made an attempt to track down the origin of this quote. You can read about his effort in "Public Education and the Public Good," William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal,, Summer 1995, pp. 316-318.

Madison, however, did write the famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments", which was a precursor to the notion of separation of church and state:

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence," The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right….

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people….

The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance was written in opposition to a bill, introduced into the General Assembly of Virginia, to levy a general assessment for the support of teachers of religions. It was, and remains, a powerful argument against state supported religion.

Back to the email…

Today, we are asking God to bless America. But, how can He bless a Nation that has departed so far from Him? Prior to September 11, He was not welcome in America. Most of what you read in this article has been erased from our textbooks. Revisionists have rewritten history to remove the truth about our country’s Christian roots.

"Revisionsist".  Pot. Kettle.

You are encouraged to share with others, so that the truth of our nation’s history will be told. John 3:16. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life!

This information shared is only a drop of cement to help secure a foundation that is crumbling daily in a losing war that most of the country doesn’t even know is raging on, in, and around them…

I don’t know.  It seems like this person is conducting a War against Truth.

Gonzales Follies

Ken AshfordBush & Co.Leave a Comment

Hearing, watching or reading Gonzales’ tragically comical performance yesterday is painful.   TPM Muckraker has a good Youtubed roundup.

The best part, everyone seems to agree, is this exchange with Sen. Schumer.  Schumer is pointing out how Gonzales in his previous testimony — um — basically lied to the committee.  Watch how Gonzales, the Attorney General of the United States — the numero uno law enforcement official in the country — weasels and dodges:

SCHUMER: I’ll let you speak in a minute, but this is serious, because you’re getting right close to the edge right here.  You just said there was just one program — just one. So the letter, which was, sort of, intended to deceive, but doesn’t directly do so, because there are other intelligence activities, gets you off the hook, but you just put yourself right back on here.

GONZALES: I clarified my statement two days later with the reporter.

SCHUMER: What did you say to the reporter?

GONZALES: I did not speak directly to the reporter.

SCHUMER: Oh, wait a second — you did not. (LAUGHTER)  OK. What did your spokesperson say to the reporter?

GONZALES: I don’t know. But I told the spokesperson to go back and clarify my statement…

SCHUMER: Well, wait a minute, sir. Sir, with all due respect — and if I could have some order here, Mr. Chairman — in all due respect, you’re just saying, "Well, it was clarified with the reporter," and you don’t even know what he said. You don’t even know what the clarification is. Sir, how can you say that you should stay on as attorney general when we go through exercise like this, where you’re bobbing and weaving and ducking to avoid admitting that you deceived the committee? And now you don’t even know. I’ll give you another chance: You’re hanging your hat on the fact that you clarified the statement two days later. You’re now telling us that is was a spokesperson who did it. What did that spokesperson say? Tell me now, how do you clarify this?

GONZALES: I don’t know, but I’ll find out and get back to you.

As Slate’s Emily Bazelon explains:

Even after all these months of tacking and backtracking, Gonzales’ lack of command of the details is something to behold. He doesn’t know the total number of U.S. attorneys who were fired. He doesn’t recall his participation in reversing former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton’s decision about whether to seek the death penalty in a case where all the evidence was circumstantial. He doesn’t know why DoJ’s new guide to prosecuting voter fraud removed or watered down key directives against pursuing cases in a way that could interfere with the outcome of an election. He doesn’t know why the Justice Department’s guidelines restricting communications with the White House now suddenly include a blanket exception for contact between the attorney general and the vice president and his counsel. And, of course, he doesn’t know who put the names of the U.S. attorneys on the list he approved for firing.

Of course, his incompetence is not criminal.  His lying under oath, however, is.  Gonzales was caught blatantly lying about disagreement at the Justice Department over warrantless domestic searches. He was also caught blatantly lying about the motivation behind the Ashcroft hospital visit.

In his testimony today, Alberto Gonzales blamed the Ashcroft hospital visit on Congress — particularly, the so-called Gang of Eight, the top congressional leadership and the leadership of the intelligence committees. As Spencer Ackerman noted late in the day, three members of the group — Democrats Daschle, Rockefeller and Pelosi — said Gonzales’ version of events isn’t true. In an interview with NPR, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) said the same thing — though she was a little ambiguous, suggesting that her ability to discuss the conversations in question were limited because they were classified.

So all four Democrats say Gonzales’ story is bunk.

Roll Call reported that some senators are taking this seriously.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales may have put himself in legal jeopardy with his testimony Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senators of both parties warned, as Members cast doubt on the truthfulness of his answers and suggested he may have improperly released classified information in his own defense.

Judiciary ranking member Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) told Gonzales at one point, “I do not find your testimony credible.”

He suggested the committee would “review your testimony to see whether your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable,” an apparent threat to consider charges against the attorney general for lying to Congress. (emphasis added)

The Fifteen Most Frequently Used Words On Blogs

Ken AshfordBloggingLeave a Comment

Not sure if this is true, but this guy, citing a Oxford University Press study, says the 15 most-used words on blogs are:

blogger
blog
stupid
me
myself
my
oh
yeah
ok
post
stuff
lovely
update
nice
shit

Oh, my.  Just thought I would post this stupid shit on my blog, okay?

UPDATE:  Yeah.  Lovely stuff, huh?  Nice.

Fan Mail

Ken AshfordBloggingLeave a Comment

From a reader:

I typed in ‘latest news on ed brown’ into google and some how i got to this pathetic excuse for a website! wow the above statement is one of the stupidest things ive ever read; you say ‘false arguments’ for all those points but dont explain why theyre false (hint hint you cant prove that theyre false cause at least the 1st 4 are 100% fact). Do yourself a favor and watch the movie "America Freedom to Facism" I understand why the main-stream media reports so bias on this story but when joe-blow nobodies like yourself give theyre opinion after your supposed ‘research’ and still feel that the Browns are wrong, it makes me wonder if the US will ever straighten itself out. By the way the only celebrity you look like there is ofcourse chunky Newman.

He’s referring to this post about Ed Brown, the guy in New Hampshire who involved a months long standoff with the state and federal government for refusing to pay their taxes.

Thank you for sharing!

No Charges Against Katrina Doctor

Ken AshfordCrime, DisastersLeave a Comment

I’m pretty sure I blogged about this a couple of years ago — the physician in New Orleans who was investigated for giving four terminally ill patients a "lethal cocktail" of morphine and midazolam hydrochloride as Hurricane Katrina bore down on them.

A mercy killing, if you will.

The grand jury refused to indict her, so she is in the clear.  Nurses were also cleared of charges last month.

Good.