30 April 2006
A politician's job and life are separate
An article published on the BBC website today discussed deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's affair with civil servant Tracy Temple. It reminded me of the Clinton scandle. And I feel the same way about both. I don't think that how a politician spends his or her time outside of the job should be discussed or critized at all. Their job in office is what matters. Yes, Bill had "sexual relations" with Monica, but the United States also had a surplus budget. You don't see that now, do you? All that matters is a person's ability to take care of the people of whom they are serving.
27 April 2006
Army Times poll says bye bye Rummy
Taken from AlterNet, written by Evan Derkacz, April 26th 2006 www.alternet.org/
In a thoroughly unscientific poll on the Army Times website, found by Raw Story, responders have voted 2 to 1 in favor of dumping the man widely seen as the architect of the Iraq War -- if it could be said to have structure, that is.
The question was as follows:
"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has come under fire in recent weeks from a variety of retired generals, who say he should resign for his performance in managing the war in Iraq. Do you think the U.S. war effort is grounds for Secretary Rumsfeld to resign?"
When I clicked through to the Army Times page I found this advertisement occupying the middle of the page. I doubt it needs much commentary:
21 April 2006
Here's a pic I found on Myspace Quizzer. I thought it was pretty cool. It actually reminded me a bit of some pictures my dad fowarded me a few days ago. I'll post those too.
Here are the ones by artist Julian Beever. He specializes in sidewalk art. It's so cool. Here's the pics:
Are you now wondering how this guy does it? The next two pictures will give you a hint: 
Here are the ones by artist Julian Beever. He specializes in sidewalk art. It's so cool. Here's the pics: Are you now wondering how this guy does it? The next two pictures will give you a hint:
20 April 2006
This Talks For Itself
Taken from Vanity Fair, April 2006:
"The Pentagon has also found a novel way of recovering some of the $240 billion it has spent to fight its losing war in Iraq: charge soldiers for gear destroyed in battle. First Lieutenant Willaim "Eddie" Rebrook IV, a 25-year-old West Virginian, found out about this new military income stream the hard way. He was riding in the turret of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle last year when it was hit by a roadside bomb. Rebrook's right arm was wounded and he was picked up by a Black Hawk helicopter and taken to a combat hospital in Baghdad. When he turned his gear in early this year, prior to heading home, he was ordered to pay nearly $700 for the equipment that was destroyed in the attack, including $570 for the Kevlar vest he had been wearing. Not really knowing what to do, Rebrook borrowed the money from his pals in the First Cavalry Division and paid the U.S. Army. When WKWS, a local Charleston, West Virginia, radio station, reported the story, donations flooded in - more than 200 of them, according to americablog, for a total of $5,400. Rebrook, who graduated with honors from West Point, ins't keeping the money. He's giving some of it to the mother of a soldier who helped save his life in Iraq; her house was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The rest, he's giving to charity.
"The Pentagon has also found a novel way of recovering some of the $240 billion it has spent to fight its losing war in Iraq: charge soldiers for gear destroyed in battle. First Lieutenant Willaim "Eddie" Rebrook IV, a 25-year-old West Virginian, found out about this new military income stream the hard way. He was riding in the turret of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle last year when it was hit by a roadside bomb. Rebrook's right arm was wounded and he was picked up by a Black Hawk helicopter and taken to a combat hospital in Baghdad. When he turned his gear in early this year, prior to heading home, he was ordered to pay nearly $700 for the equipment that was destroyed in the attack, including $570 for the Kevlar vest he had been wearing. Not really knowing what to do, Rebrook borrowed the money from his pals in the First Cavalry Division and paid the U.S. Army. When WKWS, a local Charleston, West Virginia, radio station, reported the story, donations flooded in - more than 200 of them, according to americablog, for a total of $5,400. Rebrook, who graduated with honors from West Point, ins't keeping the money. He's giving some of it to the mother of a soldier who helped save his life in Iraq; her house was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The rest, he's giving to charity.
Spectacular Canadian Architecture
I was glancing through the entries of Luxist (http://www.luxist.com ) when I saw a picture of this awesome building. It's located near Toronto, at a place called Mississauga, Ontario. It was built by Beijing-based MAD Architectural Design Studio. It's not built quite yet, but will be fully completed by 2010. Isn't it gorgeous?
18 April 2006
Harry Taylor is my hero
Harry Taylor vs. President Bush.
Q: You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you’d like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my own behalf. You are –
THE PRESIDENT: I’m not your favorite guy. Go ahead. (Laughter and applause.) Go on, what’s your question?
Q: Okay, I don’t have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that I — in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate, and –
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: No, wait a sec — let him speak.
Q:And I would hope — I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself. And I also want to say I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I’m saying to you right now. That is part of what this country is about.
THE PRESIDENT: It is, yes. (Applause.)
Q: And I know that this doesn’t come welcome to most of the people in this room, but I do appreciate that.
THE PRESIDENT: Appreciate –
Q: I don’t have a question, but I just wanted to make that comment to you.
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it, thank you. Let me –
Q: Can I ask a question?
THE PRESIDENT: I’m going to start off with what you first said, if you don’t mind, you said that I tap your phones — I think that’s what you said. You tapped your phone — I tapped your phones. Yes. No, that’s right. Yes, no, let me finish.
I’d like to describe that decision I made about protecting this country. You can come to whatever conclusion you want. The conclusion is I’m not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program, and I’ll tell you why. We were accused in Washington, D.C. of not connecting the dots, that we didn’t do everything we could to protect you or others from the attack. And so I called in the people responsible for helping to protect the American people and the homeland. I said, is there anything more we could do.
And there — out of this national — NSA came the recommendation that it would make sense for us to listen to a call outside the country, inside the country from al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda in order to have real-time information from which to possibly prevent an attack. I thought that made sense, so long as it was constitutional. Now, you may not agree with the constitutional assessment given to me by lawyers — and we’ve got plenty of them in Washington — but they made this assessment that it was constitutional for me to make that decision.
I then, sir, took that decision to members of the United States Congress from both political parties and briefed them on the decision that was made in order to protect the American people. And so members of both parties, both chambers, were fully aware of a program intended to know whether or not al Qaeda was calling in or calling out of the country. It seems like — to make sense, if we’re at war, we ought to be using tools necessary within the Constitution, on a very limited basis, a program that’s reviewed constantly to protect us.
Now, you and I have a different — of agreement on what is needed to be protected. But you said, would I apologize for that? The answer — answer is, absolutely not. (Applause.)
Q: You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you’d like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my own behalf. You are –
THE PRESIDENT: I’m not your favorite guy. Go ahead. (Laughter and applause.) Go on, what’s your question?
Q: Okay, I don’t have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that I — in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate, and –
AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: No, wait a sec — let him speak.
Q:And I would hope — I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself. And I also want to say I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I’m saying to you right now. That is part of what this country is about.
THE PRESIDENT: It is, yes. (Applause.)
Q: And I know that this doesn’t come welcome to most of the people in this room, but I do appreciate that.
THE PRESIDENT: Appreciate –
Q: I don’t have a question, but I just wanted to make that comment to you.
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it, thank you. Let me –
Q: Can I ask a question?
THE PRESIDENT: I’m going to start off with what you first said, if you don’t mind, you said that I tap your phones — I think that’s what you said. You tapped your phone — I tapped your phones. Yes. No, that’s right. Yes, no, let me finish.
I’d like to describe that decision I made about protecting this country. You can come to whatever conclusion you want. The conclusion is I’m not going to apologize for what I did on the terrorist surveillance program, and I’ll tell you why. We were accused in Washington, D.C. of not connecting the dots, that we didn’t do everything we could to protect you or others from the attack. And so I called in the people responsible for helping to protect the American people and the homeland. I said, is there anything more we could do.
And there — out of this national — NSA came the recommendation that it would make sense for us to listen to a call outside the country, inside the country from al Qaeda or suspected al Qaeda in order to have real-time information from which to possibly prevent an attack. I thought that made sense, so long as it was constitutional. Now, you may not agree with the constitutional assessment given to me by lawyers — and we’ve got plenty of them in Washington — but they made this assessment that it was constitutional for me to make that decision.
I then, sir, took that decision to members of the United States Congress from both political parties and briefed them on the decision that was made in order to protect the American people. And so members of both parties, both chambers, were fully aware of a program intended to know whether or not al Qaeda was calling in or calling out of the country. It seems like — to make sense, if we’re at war, we ought to be using tools necessary within the Constitution, on a very limited basis, a program that’s reviewed constantly to protect us.
Now, you and I have a different — of agreement on what is needed to be protected. But you said, would I apologize for that? The answer — answer is, absolutely not. (Applause.)
17 April 2006
Bobby Chiu's Subway Sketch Group Blog
Here's a really cool blog I found recently. It's sketches made on the subway; be sure to take a look. :-)
http://bobbychiusubwaysketchgroup.blogspot.com/
http://bobbychiusubwaysketchgroup.blogspot.com/
13 April 2006
"Ashley"
Language of Origin: Old English
Meaning/Translation: ash tree clearing
Info about origin: from a family name which is derived from a place name,also used as a male name, but mostly female nowadays
Words: aesc=the ash; leah=the wood, the clearing, the meadow
Spelling:
Ashley English (#1 in US popularity)
Ashely English (#983 in US popularity)
Ashlee English (#185 in US popularity)
Ashleigh English (#212 in US popularity)
Ashli English (#923 in US popularity)
Ashlie English (#598 in US popularity)
Ashly English (#722 in US popularity)
Ashlyn English (#285 in US popularity)
Ashlynn English (#668 in US popularity
Meaning/Translation: ash tree clearing
Info about origin: from a family name which is derived from a place name,also used as a male name, but mostly female nowadays
Words: aesc=the ash; leah=the wood, the clearing, the meadow
Spelling:
Ashley English (#1 in US popularity)
Ashely English (#983 in US popularity)
Ashlee English (#185 in US popularity)
Ashleigh English (#212 in US popularity)
Ashli English (#923 in US popularity)
Ashlie English (#598 in US popularity)
Ashly English (#722 in US popularity)
Ashlyn English (#285 in US popularity)
Ashlynn English (#668 in US popularity
12 April 2006
I Can't Be the Only One...
To be absolutely honest, I'm terrified. Our government is seriously thinking about dropping nuclear weapons on Iran. It's not just a joke, THEY ARE ACTUALLY CONTEMPLATING IT! I can't believe that I'm going to be alive to see America drop it's third bomb. It's insane. We're going to have a freakin' nuclear war in less than two freakin' months! I agree with this, something I found in an AlterNet email: "Should a nuclear first-strike occur, something we all have a hard time wrapping our heads around, according to Billmon we'd become a rogue state, it would 'mark the definitive end of the system of collective security - and the laws and institutions supporting that system of collective security - and the laws and institutions supporting that system - established in the wake of World War II,' oil would skyrocket, and Iran, with a very capable terrorist network would likely ATTACK THE U.S.. If we attack Iran with nuclear weapons, nothing will ever be the same. Everyone will hate us. And with good reason. As Billmon says "A country that nukes other countries merely on the suspicion that they may pose a future security threat isn't the equal of anybody. America would stand completely alone: hated by many, feared by all, admired only by the world's other tyrants. " I can't believe that I'm writing all this, because, even though I may have joked that 'the U.S. is gonna nuke everyone' and stuff of that nature, THIS IS REALLY HAPPENING. I can't think of anything else to say, except we can't let them do it. It's unbelievable that the supposed greatest nation on earth is going to use nuclear weapons in the twenty-first century. The only thing I can think of doing at the moment is letting Congress know how we feel. Here's a link to a petition to sign to try to put a stop in it, even though the Bush Administration can always get away with anything they want. http://political.moveon.org/dontnukeiran/?id=7311-6874093-93FjHoJaBk.U90EVoy0cPA&t=1
Real George W. Bush Q&A
This is what happens when Bush decides to have an impromptu Q&A session by himself with college students:
Q …My question is in regards to private military contractors. Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions.
THE PRESIDENT: I was going to ask him. Go ahead. (Laughter.) Help. (Laughter.)
Q I was hoping your answer might be a little more specific. (Laughter.) Mr. Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws which he assumed applied to those private military contractors. However, Iraq is clearly not currently capable of enforcing its laws, much less against -- over our American military contractors. I would submit to you that in this case, this is one case that privatization is not a solution. And, Mr. President, how do you propose to bring private military contractors under a system of law?
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that very much. I wasn’t kidding -- (laughter.) I was going to -- I pick up the phone and say, Mr. Secretary, I've got an interesting question. (Laughter.) This is what delegation -- I don't mean to be dodging the question, although it’s kind of convenient in this case, but never -- (laughter.) I really will – I’m going to call the Secretary and say you brought up a very valid question, and what are we doing about it? That’s how I work. I'm -- thanks. (Laughter.)
Q …My question is in regards to private military contractors. Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions.
THE PRESIDENT: I was going to ask him. Go ahead. (Laughter.) Help. (Laughter.)
Q I was hoping your answer might be a little more specific. (Laughter.) Mr. Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws which he assumed applied to those private military contractors. However, Iraq is clearly not currently capable of enforcing its laws, much less against -- over our American military contractors. I would submit to you that in this case, this is one case that privatization is not a solution. And, Mr. President, how do you propose to bring private military contractors under a system of law?
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that very much. I wasn’t kidding -- (laughter.) I was going to -- I pick up the phone and say, Mr. Secretary, I've got an interesting question. (Laughter.) This is what delegation -- I don't mean to be dodging the question, although it’s kind of convenient in this case, but never -- (laughter.) I really will – I’m going to call the Secretary and say you brought up a very valid question, and what are we doing about it? That’s how I work. I'm -- thanks. (Laughter.)
11 April 2006
Movies
I just finished watching three fantastic movies. I was surprised, because nowadays when you rent that many movies, two are usually misses and the third is only alright. But all three of these were movies I would recommend to everyone.
The first one I watched was actually one Dennis had gotten from NetFlix. It was called Truly Madly Deeply. It starred Alan Rickman and Juliet Stevenson. It's about a man who dies and his wife who misses him so much that she brings him back. Then she realizes that she doesn't want a ghost controlling her life, and she wants to go on living. It was great. I ended up watching it only because I like Alan Rickman so much (he's been one of my favorite actors for awhile). But I was definetly impressed. I'd never heard of Juliet Stevenson before, but as soon as I saw her in the first minute of the movie I realized that she played Juliet's (Keira Knightly) mother in Bend It Like Beckham, one of my favorite movies. I'd give it an 9 out of 10.
The second movie I view was the new version of Pride and Prejudice. I've never seen the older one with Colin Firth in it (but god knows I want to) but this one was wonderful. I'd read somewhere that the actors had been miscast, but I can't for the life of me figure out where I'd read that piece of garbage. Every one was great in that movie. The imagery was really good to, and they didn't try to update it or make it stray from (what I read of) the original novel. Although I never finished reading the book, I already knew what was going to happen at the end for two reasons. One, it's Jane Austin, and love prevails; and two, because I'd seen Bride and Prejudice (from the same director of Bend It Like Beckham) and it's basically the same thing. I'd give that movie an 8 out of 10.
The third one I watched today (and just finished) was Elizabethtown. I'd wanted to see it when it was in theatre, but I never did. It was great. Despite his sometimes-not-so-great acting ability (which recently has been much better - Kingdom of Heaven was proof of that), I still very much like Orlando Bloom, and he was good in this. And his American accent was very good. It was believable. I live Cameron Crow's movies altogether though. I adored Almost Famous when it came out and I still only watch it on special occasions because I don't want to watch it too much and get sick of it. The soundtrack was good too, something else that's very evident in Almost Famous. I'd give it an 9 out of 10.
The first one I watched was actually one Dennis had gotten from NetFlix. It was called Truly Madly Deeply. It starred Alan Rickman and Juliet Stevenson. It's about a man who dies and his wife who misses him so much that she brings him back. Then she realizes that she doesn't want a ghost controlling her life, and she wants to go on living. It was great. I ended up watching it only because I like Alan Rickman so much (he's been one of my favorite actors for awhile). But I was definetly impressed. I'd never heard of Juliet Stevenson before, but as soon as I saw her in the first minute of the movie I realized that she played Juliet's (Keira Knightly) mother in Bend It Like Beckham, one of my favorite movies. I'd give it an 9 out of 10.
The second movie I view was the new version of Pride and Prejudice. I've never seen the older one with Colin Firth in it (but god knows I want to) but this one was wonderful. I'd read somewhere that the actors had been miscast, but I can't for the life of me figure out where I'd read that piece of garbage. Every one was great in that movie. The imagery was really good to, and they didn't try to update it or make it stray from (what I read of) the original novel. Although I never finished reading the book, I already knew what was going to happen at the end for two reasons. One, it's Jane Austin, and love prevails; and two, because I'd seen Bride and Prejudice (from the same director of Bend It Like Beckham) and it's basically the same thing. I'd give that movie an 8 out of 10.
The third one I watched today (and just finished) was Elizabethtown. I'd wanted to see it when it was in theatre, but I never did. It was great. Despite his sometimes-not-so-great acting ability (which recently has been much better - Kingdom of Heaven was proof of that), I still very much like Orlando Bloom, and he was good in this. And his American accent was very good. It was believable. I live Cameron Crow's movies altogether though. I adored Almost Famous when it came out and I still only watch it on special occasions because I don't want to watch it too much and get sick of it. The soundtrack was good too, something else that's very evident in Almost Famous. I'd give it an 9 out of 10.
So we're going to attack Iran now. According to the Bush adminastration, we're attacking them because they have nukes. Which they probably don't. In an e-mail I received from AlterNet.org, Scott Ritter said that "there's no reason to believe that Iran has the capability, nor that they're actually doing anything to violate the nonproliferation treaty at this point." And former UN weapons inspecter Hans Blix has said that "Iran is at least five years away from developing a nuclear bomb, leaving time to peacefully negotiate a settlement...'We have time on our side in this case. Iran can't have a bomb ready in the next five years.'"
Now for what our prez said. This is a Hersh statement that I'm just gonna copy and paste: "A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was 'absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb' if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and 'that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.'"
I very much doubt that saving Iran is going to be his legacy. His legacy is going to be driving America into three wars while we have a huge deficit. I personally believe that the only reason we're going into Iran is to forget about Iraq, much in the same way we went to Iraq to forget about Afganisthan. It seems the administration thinks American's are to forgetful and dumbfounded by whatever news they choose to tell, and will forget about the other two wars and the over 2000 soldiers who have died there.
Now for what our prez said. This is a Hersh statement that I'm just gonna copy and paste: "A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was 'absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb' if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and 'that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.'"
I very much doubt that saving Iran is going to be his legacy. His legacy is going to be driving America into three wars while we have a huge deficit. I personally believe that the only reason we're going into Iran is to forget about Iraq, much in the same way we went to Iraq to forget about Afganisthan. It seems the administration thinks American's are to forgetful and dumbfounded by whatever news they choose to tell, and will forget about the other two wars and the over 2000 soldiers who have died there.
07 April 2006
Another Strike Against George W. Bush
This guy makes me sick: not only is he a liar, he's a hyprocrite too.
According to the Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/), on September 30, 2003, Bush stated "There's just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. I want to tell you something - leaks of classified information are a bad thing." Hmm... then why did he and Dick Cheney force a leak out of Scooter Libby. Maybe if the president does it it's not so bad? Because of the leak, Bush's approval rating is the lowest it's ever been: 36%. Am I the only one counting down the days until the 2008 elections. Yes, I'm going to take another chance to promote Russ Feingold. www.draftruss.com
According to the Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/), on September 30, 2003, Bush stated "There's just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. I want to tell you something - leaks of classified information are a bad thing." Hmm... then why did he and Dick Cheney force a leak out of Scooter Libby. Maybe if the president does it it's not so bad? Because of the leak, Bush's approval rating is the lowest it's ever been: 36%. Am I the only one counting down the days until the 2008 elections. Yes, I'm going to take another chance to promote Russ Feingold. www.draftruss.com
06 April 2006
Get You Some Bats
This email I got from Ideal Bite made me so happy because I adore bats. Here's what I copied and pasted from the letter:
The Bite:
Spring has arrived, and soon, so will the mosquitoes. To keep these pests at bay, skip pesticides and bug zappers and put a bat house in your yard.
The Benefits:
Many species of these misunderstood mammals are nature’s best control measure for night-flying insects like mosquitos. The little brown myotis, common across North America, can eat 2,000 in a night.
Electric "bug zappers" use more energy every month than two computers. Plus, these energy-suckers don’t catch a lot of blood-suckers: mostly they zap beneficial insects and harmless critters that would otherwise be food for birds, bats or fish.
The pesticide malathion, often used in mosquito control, interferes with the normal function of the nervous system and is highly toxic to frogs, honeybees, and other wildlife.
Dwindling habitats worldwide threatens bats’ survival, but bat houses can help. The odds of attracting bats with a well-built and mounted bat house are good - occupancy rates are up to 80%.
Wanna Try?:
Planet Natural - attractive cedar bat house attaches to walls or trees and can accommodate up to 40 bats ($40).
Bat-chelor Pad - designed for cooler locations preferred by solitary males, but is suitable for a small nursing colony ($27.50).
Build a Bat House - feeling batty and crafty? Build your own bat abode using these free plans.
Bat Conservation International - learn about the 1,100 species of bats (1/4 of the world’s mammal species!), become a member, or support conservation by purchasing bat houses and bat-themed gifts .
http://www.idealbite.com
The Bite:
Spring has arrived, and soon, so will the mosquitoes. To keep these pests at bay, skip pesticides and bug zappers and put a bat house in your yard.
The Benefits:
Many species of these misunderstood mammals are nature’s best control measure for night-flying insects like mosquitos. The little brown myotis, common across North America, can eat 2,000 in a night.
Electric "bug zappers" use more energy every month than two computers. Plus, these energy-suckers don’t catch a lot of blood-suckers: mostly they zap beneficial insects and harmless critters that would otherwise be food for birds, bats or fish.
The pesticide malathion, often used in mosquito control, interferes with the normal function of the nervous system and is highly toxic to frogs, honeybees, and other wildlife.
Dwindling habitats worldwide threatens bats’ survival, but bat houses can help. The odds of attracting bats with a well-built and mounted bat house are good - occupancy rates are up to 80%.
Wanna Try?:
Planet Natural - attractive cedar bat house attaches to walls or trees and can accommodate up to 40 bats ($40).
Bat-chelor Pad - designed for cooler locations preferred by solitary males, but is suitable for a small nursing colony ($27.50).
Build a Bat House - feeling batty and crafty? Build your own bat abode using these free plans.
Bat Conservation International - learn about the 1,100 species of bats (1/4 of the world’s mammal species!), become a member, or support conservation by purchasing bat houses and bat-themed gifts .
http://www.idealbite.com
03 April 2006
"You Can Be Nice To Mice"
I'm just going to copy this from Peta's Animal Times:
"The patient was alive and alert but unable to move an inch. A client brought veterinarian Dianne Ferris and animal who was paralyzed but not from a fall or from being hit by a car - the tiny mouse was hopelessly mired in a glue trap. Dr. Ferris found that "[a]ll four limbs, the abdomen, and the tail were mired in the glue, rendering the animal unable to move. The skin, muscles, and tendons on the dorsal aspect of the left forelimb had been chewed through in an apparent effort by the mouse to free [himself]." After being carefully freed from the trap with vegetable oil, the starving mouse gratefully ate and drank for perhaps the first time in days.
Most mice and rats caught in these "pans of pain" aren't lucky enough to be rushed to a veterinarian. Instead, they die slow, agonizing deaths from starvation, dehydration, or suffocation if their faces become stuck in the sticky goo. Glue traps are one of the cruelest "pest" control devices on the market today. They are indiscriminate, capturing not only rats and mice, but also birds, squirrels, snakes, gerbils, and other small animals, even kittens. Animals who become stuck to these boards often suffer for days before finally succumbing to starvation or dehydration. As the animals struggle to escape, the strong adhesive rips patches of skin, fur, or feathers off their bodies. Many animals chew off their own limbs in an effort to free themselves.
HEALTH HAZARDS
Makers of glue traps claim that they help to prevent the spread of diseases, but trapped animals continue to urinate and defecate, and their bodies are often left in the traps for weeks or months. In one case, a hospital that used glue traps did not check them for more than a year - during that time, the dead mice who were stuck on the traps became hosts for the flies who caused illness among the hospital's patients.
AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION
Glue traps aren't just extremely cruel; they are also ineffective. Biologists and wildlife experts agree that the only long-term way to control rodent populations is to modify the habitat so that the area is unattractive or inaccessible to the animals. Otherwise, when animals are removed from an area, others simply move in to occupy the newly vacant niche. The best solution is prevention: Patch holes larger than 1/4" in diameter, seal cracks in the walls and floor, and close gaps around plumbing, doors, and windows. Also, keep food and trash in sturdy, sealed containers, and make sure foundation plantings are neat and weeded.
SUFFERING FOR SALE
Victoria, Australia, is considering outlawing glue traps, citing a study that concluded that glue traps cause "enormous distress...even if the trapped animals are found after just a few hours and then humanely dispatched." But despite causing suffering that would violate many state anti-cruelty laws, glue traps are widely sold in "big box" stores, such as Home Depot and Lowe's, and even in drugstores, such as Rite Aid. Peta has launced a campaign to convince stores to pull these rodent torture chambers from their shelves, and we've already had some success. CVS drugstores and two major supermarket chains have agreed to stop selling glue traps, and other stores are reviewing the information that we sent to them. So far, Rite Aid has refused to budge. The store needs to hear from its customers that there's no money to be made in being merciless to mice.
If you have mice, try petamall.com for humane "traps".
UPDATE:
Since this article RiteAid has agreed to remove all glue traps. yay!
"The patient was alive and alert but unable to move an inch. A client brought veterinarian Dianne Ferris and animal who was paralyzed but not from a fall or from being hit by a car - the tiny mouse was hopelessly mired in a glue trap. Dr. Ferris found that "[a]ll four limbs, the abdomen, and the tail were mired in the glue, rendering the animal unable to move. The skin, muscles, and tendons on the dorsal aspect of the left forelimb had been chewed through in an apparent effort by the mouse to free [himself]." After being carefully freed from the trap with vegetable oil, the starving mouse gratefully ate and drank for perhaps the first time in days.
Most mice and rats caught in these "pans of pain" aren't lucky enough to be rushed to a veterinarian. Instead, they die slow, agonizing deaths from starvation, dehydration, or suffocation if their faces become stuck in the sticky goo. Glue traps are one of the cruelest "pest" control devices on the market today. They are indiscriminate, capturing not only rats and mice, but also birds, squirrels, snakes, gerbils, and other small animals, even kittens. Animals who become stuck to these boards often suffer for days before finally succumbing to starvation or dehydration. As the animals struggle to escape, the strong adhesive rips patches of skin, fur, or feathers off their bodies. Many animals chew off their own limbs in an effort to free themselves.
HEALTH HAZARDS
Makers of glue traps claim that they help to prevent the spread of diseases, but trapped animals continue to urinate and defecate, and their bodies are often left in the traps for weeks or months. In one case, a hospital that used glue traps did not check them for more than a year - during that time, the dead mice who were stuck on the traps became hosts for the flies who caused illness among the hospital's patients.
AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION
Glue traps aren't just extremely cruel; they are also ineffective. Biologists and wildlife experts agree that the only long-term way to control rodent populations is to modify the habitat so that the area is unattractive or inaccessible to the animals. Otherwise, when animals are removed from an area, others simply move in to occupy the newly vacant niche. The best solution is prevention: Patch holes larger than 1/4" in diameter, seal cracks in the walls and floor, and close gaps around plumbing, doors, and windows. Also, keep food and trash in sturdy, sealed containers, and make sure foundation plantings are neat and weeded.
SUFFERING FOR SALE
Victoria, Australia, is considering outlawing glue traps, citing a study that concluded that glue traps cause "enormous distress...even if the trapped animals are found after just a few hours and then humanely dispatched." But despite causing suffering that would violate many state anti-cruelty laws, glue traps are widely sold in "big box" stores, such as Home Depot and Lowe's, and even in drugstores, such as Rite Aid. Peta has launced a campaign to convince stores to pull these rodent torture chambers from their shelves, and we've already had some success. CVS drugstores and two major supermarket chains have agreed to stop selling glue traps, and other stores are reviewing the information that we sent to them. So far, Rite Aid has refused to budge. The store needs to hear from its customers that there's no money to be made in being merciless to mice.
If you have mice, try petamall.com for humane "traps".
UPDATE:
Since this article RiteAid has agreed to remove all glue traps. yay!
Animals In Captivity
I got this from Peta's Animal Times. It's facts about animals being kept in captivity and what this means for humans.
*Since 1990, incidents involving big cats have resulted in the killings of approximately 110 big cats, 62 human deaths, and more than 235 human injuries worldwide. Incidents since 1990 involving primates have resulted in the killings of 458 primates, two human deaths, and more than 160 human injuries.
*In June 2005, a lion and a tiger who were kept captive at Best Buy Auto Warehouse in Minnesota bolted from their cage and attacked a 10-year-old boy. The child is now a quadriplegic.
*In March 2005, a man was attacked by two chimpanzees who had escaped from their cage at the Animal Haven Ranch in California. The chimpanzees bit off the man's nose, lips, and testicles, most of his fingers, and his left foor and gouged out one of his eyes before bing shot and killed.
*In NOvember 2004, a 14-year-old boy was attacked by a tiger at the St. Johns County Fair in Florida.
*Also in November 2004, a circusgoer was bitten on the cheek by a chimpanzee at the Hadi Shrine Circus while posing for pictures.
*In June 2004, a 10-year-old Toronto boy was attacked by a Siberian tiger who was let out of his cage so the child could take his picture.
*A North Carolina woman's tiger fatally mauled her 10-year-old nephew in December 2003 after pulling him under a fence and into his cage.
It's not worth it to capture and encage exotic animals. Visit http://www.WildlifePimps.com for ways to help.
*Since 1990, incidents involving big cats have resulted in the killings of approximately 110 big cats, 62 human deaths, and more than 235 human injuries worldwide. Incidents since 1990 involving primates have resulted in the killings of 458 primates, two human deaths, and more than 160 human injuries.
*In June 2005, a lion and a tiger who were kept captive at Best Buy Auto Warehouse in Minnesota bolted from their cage and attacked a 10-year-old boy. The child is now a quadriplegic.
*In March 2005, a man was attacked by two chimpanzees who had escaped from their cage at the Animal Haven Ranch in California. The chimpanzees bit off the man's nose, lips, and testicles, most of his fingers, and his left foor and gouged out one of his eyes before bing shot and killed.
*In NOvember 2004, a 14-year-old boy was attacked by a tiger at the St. Johns County Fair in Florida.
*Also in November 2004, a circusgoer was bitten on the cheek by a chimpanzee at the Hadi Shrine Circus while posing for pictures.
*In June 2004, a 10-year-old Toronto boy was attacked by a Siberian tiger who was let out of his cage so the child could take his picture.
*A North Carolina woman's tiger fatally mauled her 10-year-old nephew in December 2003 after pulling him under a fence and into his cage.
It's not worth it to capture and encage exotic animals. Visit http://www.WildlifePimps.com for ways to help.
02 April 2006
Feingold's Committee Hearing Statement
Published on Friday, March 31, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Committee Hearing Statement on the Call To Censure the President
As Prepared by US Senator Russ Feingold
US Senate Judiciary Committee
March 31, 2006
Mr. Chairman, first, thank you for scheduling this hearing. I know you recognize that this is a serious issue, and I thank you for treating it as such. I want to welcome and thank our witnesses, some of whom – Mr. Fein, and Professor Turner -- were with us just a few weeks ago, and one of whom -- Mr. Dean -- last appeared before a congressional committee in 1974. I am grateful for your participation, particularly given the short notice that you were given of this hearing.
There is a time-honored way for matters to be considered in the Senate. Bills and resolutions are introduced, they are analyzed in the relevant committee through hearings, they are debated and amended and voted on in committee, and then they are debated on the floor. We have now started that process on this very important matter, and I look forward to seeing it through to a conclusion.
Mr. Chairman, I have looked closely at the statements you have made about the NSA program since the story broke in December. We have a disagreement about some things, but I am pleased to say we are in agreement on several others. We agree that the NSA program is inconsistent with FISA. We agree that the Authorization for Use of Military Force did not grant the President authority to engage in warrantless wiretapping of Americans on U.S. soil. We agree that the President was and remains required under the National Security Act of 1947 to inform the full Intelligence Committees of the NSA program, which he refuses to do.
Where we disagree, apparently, is whether the President’s authority under Article II of the Constitution allows him to authorize warrantless surveillance without complying with FISA. You have said you think this is a close question. I do not believe he has such authority and I don’t think it’s a close question. We will continue to debate that I’m sure. But I think the fact that you have proposed legislation on this program undermines your argument that such presidential authority exists. Because if it does exist, then nothing that we can legislate, no matter how carefully crafted, is worth a hill of beans. For starters, your proposed bill may or may not cover what the NSA is now doing. You and I have no way of knowing because we have not been fully briefed on the program, and I am a member of the Intelligence Committee as well. But regardless, if the President has the inherent authority to authorize whatever surveillance he thinks is necessary, then he surely will ignore your law, just as he has ignored FISA on many occasions.
If Congress doesn’t have the power to define the contours of the President’s Article II powers through legislation, then I have no idea why people are scrambling to draft legislation to authorize what they think the President is doing. If the President’s legal theory, which is shared by some of our witnesses today, is correct, then FISA is a dead letter, all of the supposed protections for civil liberties contained in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act that we just passed are a cruel hoax, and any future legislation we might pass regarding surveillance or national security is a waste of time and a charade. Under this theory, we no longer have a constitutional system consisting of three co-equal branches of government, we have a monarchy.
We can fight terrorism without breaking the law. The rule of law is central to who we are as a people, and the President must return to the law. He must acknowledge and be held accountable for his illegal actions and for misleading the American people, both before and after the program was revealed. If we in the Congress don’t stand up for ourselves and for the American people, we become complicit in his law breaking. A resolution of censure is the appropriate response – even a modest approach.
Mr. Chairman, the presence of John Dean here today should remind us that we must respond to this constitutional crisis based on principle, not partisanship. How we respond to the President’s actions will become part of our history. A little over 30 years ago, a President who broke the law was held to account by a bipartisan congressional investigation and by patriots like Archibald Cox and Elliot Richardson and yes, John Dean, who put loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law above the interests of the President who appointed them. None of us here can predict how history will view this current episode. But I hope that thirty years from now, this Senate will not be seen to have backed down in the face of such a grave challenge to our constitutional system.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Committee Hearing Statement on the Call To Censure the President
As Prepared by US Senator Russ Feingold
US Senate Judiciary Committee
March 31, 2006
Mr. Chairman, first, thank you for scheduling this hearing. I know you recognize that this is a serious issue, and I thank you for treating it as such. I want to welcome and thank our witnesses, some of whom – Mr. Fein, and Professor Turner -- were with us just a few weeks ago, and one of whom -- Mr. Dean -- last appeared before a congressional committee in 1974. I am grateful for your participation, particularly given the short notice that you were given of this hearing.
There is a time-honored way for matters to be considered in the Senate. Bills and resolutions are introduced, they are analyzed in the relevant committee through hearings, they are debated and amended and voted on in committee, and then they are debated on the floor. We have now started that process on this very important matter, and I look forward to seeing it through to a conclusion.
Mr. Chairman, I have looked closely at the statements you have made about the NSA program since the story broke in December. We have a disagreement about some things, but I am pleased to say we are in agreement on several others. We agree that the NSA program is inconsistent with FISA. We agree that the Authorization for Use of Military Force did not grant the President authority to engage in warrantless wiretapping of Americans on U.S. soil. We agree that the President was and remains required under the National Security Act of 1947 to inform the full Intelligence Committees of the NSA program, which he refuses to do.
Where we disagree, apparently, is whether the President’s authority under Article II of the Constitution allows him to authorize warrantless surveillance without complying with FISA. You have said you think this is a close question. I do not believe he has such authority and I don’t think it’s a close question. We will continue to debate that I’m sure. But I think the fact that you have proposed legislation on this program undermines your argument that such presidential authority exists. Because if it does exist, then nothing that we can legislate, no matter how carefully crafted, is worth a hill of beans. For starters, your proposed bill may or may not cover what the NSA is now doing. You and I have no way of knowing because we have not been fully briefed on the program, and I am a member of the Intelligence Committee as well. But regardless, if the President has the inherent authority to authorize whatever surveillance he thinks is necessary, then he surely will ignore your law, just as he has ignored FISA on many occasions.
If Congress doesn’t have the power to define the contours of the President’s Article II powers through legislation, then I have no idea why people are scrambling to draft legislation to authorize what they think the President is doing. If the President’s legal theory, which is shared by some of our witnesses today, is correct, then FISA is a dead letter, all of the supposed protections for civil liberties contained in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act that we just passed are a cruel hoax, and any future legislation we might pass regarding surveillance or national security is a waste of time and a charade. Under this theory, we no longer have a constitutional system consisting of three co-equal branches of government, we have a monarchy.
We can fight terrorism without breaking the law. The rule of law is central to who we are as a people, and the President must return to the law. He must acknowledge and be held accountable for his illegal actions and for misleading the American people, both before and after the program was revealed. If we in the Congress don’t stand up for ourselves and for the American people, we become complicit in his law breaking. A resolution of censure is the appropriate response – even a modest approach.
Mr. Chairman, the presence of John Dean here today should remind us that we must respond to this constitutional crisis based on principle, not partisanship. How we respond to the President’s actions will become part of our history. A little over 30 years ago, a President who broke the law was held to account by a bipartisan congressional investigation and by patriots like Archibald Cox and Elliot Richardson and yes, John Dean, who put loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law above the interests of the President who appointed them. None of us here can predict how history will view this current episode. But I hope that thirty years from now, this Senate will not be seen to have backed down in the face of such a grave challenge to our constitutional system.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
The History of April Fool's Day ~ A Day Late
April Fool's Day - April 1st
From Beverly Hernandez
Taken From About.com
Learn all about the history of April Fool's Day
In sixteenth-century France, the start of the new year was observed on April first. It was celebrated in much the same way as it is today with parties and dancing into the late hours of the night. Then in 1562, Pope Gregory introduced a new calendar for the Christian world, and the new year fell on January first. There were some people, however, who hadn't heard or didn't believe the change in the date, so they continued to celebrate New Year's Day on April first. Others played tricks on them and called them "April fools." They sent them on a "fool's errand" or tried to make them believe that something false was true. In France today, April first is called "Poisson d'Avril." French children fool their friends by taping a paper fish to their friends' backs.
When the "young fool" discovers this trick, the prankster yells "Poisson d’Avril!" (April Fish!)
Today Americans play small tricks on friends and strangers alike on the first of April. One common trick on April Fool's Day, or All Fool's Day, is pointing down to a friend's shoe and saying, "Your shoelace is untied." Teachers in the nineteenth century used to say to pupils, "Look! A flock of geese!" and point up. School children might tell a classmate that school has been canceled. Whatever the trick, if the innocent victim falls for the joke the prankster yells, "April Fool! "
The "fools' errands" we play on people are practical jokes. Putting salt in the sugar bowl for the next person is not a nice trick to play on a stranger. College students set their clocks an hour behind, so their roommates show up to the wrong class - or not at all. Some practical jokes are kept up the whole day before the victim realizes what day it is. Most April Fool jokes are in good fun and not meant to harm anyone. The most clever April Fool joke is the one where everyone laughs, especially the person upon whom the joke is played.
"The first of April is the day we remember what we are the other 364 days of the year. "- American humorist Mark Twain
From Beverly Hernandez
Taken From About.com
Learn all about the history of April Fool's Day
In sixteenth-century France, the start of the new year was observed on April first. It was celebrated in much the same way as it is today with parties and dancing into the late hours of the night. Then in 1562, Pope Gregory introduced a new calendar for the Christian world, and the new year fell on January first. There were some people, however, who hadn't heard or didn't believe the change in the date, so they continued to celebrate New Year's Day on April first. Others played tricks on them and called them "April fools." They sent them on a "fool's errand" or tried to make them believe that something false was true. In France today, April first is called "Poisson d'Avril." French children fool their friends by taping a paper fish to their friends' backs.
When the "young fool" discovers this trick, the prankster yells "Poisson d’Avril!" (April Fish!)
Today Americans play small tricks on friends and strangers alike on the first of April. One common trick on April Fool's Day, or All Fool's Day, is pointing down to a friend's shoe and saying, "Your shoelace is untied." Teachers in the nineteenth century used to say to pupils, "Look! A flock of geese!" and point up. School children might tell a classmate that school has been canceled. Whatever the trick, if the innocent victim falls for the joke the prankster yells, "April Fool! "
The "fools' errands" we play on people are practical jokes. Putting salt in the sugar bowl for the next person is not a nice trick to play on a stranger. College students set their clocks an hour behind, so their roommates show up to the wrong class - or not at all. Some practical jokes are kept up the whole day before the victim realizes what day it is. Most April Fool jokes are in good fun and not meant to harm anyone. The most clever April Fool joke is the one where everyone laughs, especially the person upon whom the joke is played.
"The first of April is the day we remember what we are the other 364 days of the year. "- American humorist Mark Twain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
