http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ICanHasCheezburger/~3/idGzrcLjsog/

http://icanhascheezburger.com/?p=226047

just dont maek skweekah soundz wif it.

http://thevalentinecat.blogspot.com/2009_12_30_archive.html#5048252599154329414

http://xkcd.com/682/

http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2009/12/it-was-a-very-good-year.html

http://crooksandliars.com/bluegal/open-thread-308

Today is "Good Riddance Day" in Times Square, New York City, where people are invited to write down what they wish "good riddance" to for 2010 and put it in a very big, very public, shredder.

I wish rather than hope we can say good riddance to this recession.

What do you wish "good riddance" to? (Keep it clean, thanks.)

Open Thread below...

http://lnmc.crooksandliars.com/bluegal/cls-late-nite-music-club-allison-krauss

One of the best-selling soundtracks of the last decade, if you count 2000 as being in the Aughts, is "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" There's renewed interest in religion in Coen Brothers movies since the recent publication of "The Dude Abides: The Gospel According to the Coen Brothers."

What are your favorite soundtracks of the past decade? And whatcha listening to this evening?

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/hey-google-why-my-gmail-account-constan

This is getting ridiculous. For the past three months Gmail has been blocking my access to my account about every three weeks. I keep getting a message that says: Unusual Activity Detected

This account has been locked down due to unusual account activity. It may take up to 24 hours for you to regain access.

Unusual account activity includes, but is not limited to:

1. Receiving, deleting, or downloading large amounts of mail via POP in a short period of time.
2. Sending a large number of undeliverable messages (messages that bounce back).
3. Using file-sharing or file-storage software, browser extensions, or third party software that automatically logs in to your account.
4. Leaving multiple instances of your Gmail account open.
5. Browser-related issues. Please note that if you find your browser continually reloading while attempting to access your Inbox, it’s probably a browser issue, and it may be necessary to clear your browser’s cache and cookies.

If you feel that you have been using your Gmail account according to the Gmail Terms of Use, you can troubleshoot your problem by clicking here.

The only violation I've committed is having the account open on more than one computer in my office and that's because it's so vital to bloggers, but after the first time I've been very careful. I have not been using Gmail in an inappropriate manner and every time I email them my complaints I get a standard automatic response. I'm forwarding all my emails to another account now, but why is it virtually impossible to get a straight answer out of Google?

I also pay for extra space because of the amount of emails I get everyday so WTF is up with them? I tried a few of the online fixes I've seen posted on the Internet, but none of them work. Does Google want me to leave? I'm getting to the point where they will force me to and I will never have a kind word about them again. I come to you because Google is incapable of or unwilling to help.

Does anyone have a solution for this problem? Is Google listening?

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ron-paul-vs-ben-stein-dust-terrorism

DOWNLOADS: (512)

PLAYS: (3879)

I don't agree with Ron Paul on a lot of issues, but one of them I do agree with him with is our military presence in the Middle East being one of the causes of terrorism. Ben Stein acts like he's never heard such a thing and the conversation gets pretty heated with Sheila Jackson Lee stuck in the middle. I have a very hard time believing that Ben Stein has never heard that argument made before. Saying you disagree with it is one thing. Pretending you've never heard the argument made is ridiculous.

I agree with something Rep. Lee managed to get in the end there as well. President Obama should do a recess appointment for the head of TSA to combat the Republicans obstructionism.

Transcript via CNN.

KING: Ron Paul, you want to respond first to the congresswoman and then Ben.

PAUL: Yes, I do.

KING: Go ahead.

PAUL: One thing that is missing here is never asking the question what is the motive? He said why he was -- he did it. He said it was because we bombed Yemen two weeks ago. That was his motive. Osama bin Laden said that he has a plan for America. First, he wants to bog us down in the Middle East in a no-win war. He wants to bankrupt this country, demoralize us, as well as have us do things that motivate people to join his radical movement.

It seems like we've fallen into his trap. Why is it off base? Today, when the gentleman indicated that he did it because of the bombing, you know what the administration said? They dismissed it. It can't possibly be so. If you dismiss motivations for why they hate us, we can never resolve this. There's hate on both sides. You have to ask the question, why do they hate? And they usually come up with a reason. And we're foolish not to take that into consideration.

KING: Ben?

STEIN: Well, that's -- I have never heard anything quite like that in my whole life. What he's saying, basically, is we are doing something wrong by defending ourselves. Look, if these terrorists are trying to kill the government of Yemen, we've got to help defend them. They're our friends. We can't just let al Qaeda run wild. If we try to stop them --

PAUL: Why?

STEIN: Why should we stop them? Because they are terrorists and murderers and they're very anti-American.

PAUL: Why are they terrorists?

STEIN: Surely congressman --

PAUL: Why are they terrorists?

STEIN: They're terrorists and murders because they are psychos.

PAUL: They're terrorists because we're occupiers.

(CROSS TALK)

STEIN: No, we're not occupiers. That's the same anti-Semitic argument we've heard.

PAUL: Now that is a vicious attack. You --

(CROSS TALK)

STEIN: It's not a vicious attack.

LEE: Larry, I'd like to respond to some of these points that are being made.

KING: Let's go back to Sheila.

(CROSS TALK)

KING: Look at this, folks. Two republicans going at it. This is fascinating. With a democratic liberal in the middle.

LEE: I can referee between the two of them.

(CROSS TALK)

LEE: Let me referee, please.

KING: All right. Sheila, say something.

LEE: Yeah, let me referee, please. That is interesting.

KING: Both have good points, right?

LEE: They have good points. Let me clarify and try to say that Congressman Paul has a point on our positions that we took in Iraq, which obviously created a very terrible atmosphere, and we all asked the questions what were the results. And, of course, Afghanistan is still a question. But we must be reminded that the terrorists acted under President Bush's clock. And so this can't be an issue of the president's inactivity, per se, and a lack of commitment to the homeland.

But we have to do better. And I believe we need to have behavioral assessment. There was no reason for this individual to have a visa that still was in place until 2010 for them to be able to travel. There was no reason for him not to be detected because of his behavior. Behavioral assessment. We need to make the homeland security of the nation focus. Secretary of Homeland Secretary should be the point person and that person should establish a road map that then allows us to fund and to put resources accordingly. And finally, the president --

KING: Guys, we're out of time.

LEE: The president should put in place the NTSA administrator by way of a recess appointment.

KING: Death, taxes and these three are going to be back tomorrow.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ICanHasCheezburger/~3/0TIImPkiu08/

http://icanhascheezburger.com/?p=224798

BUT you said I could invite a friend over

wheerz his bow?

Picture by: Katy S. Caption by: dunno source via Our LOL Builder

» Recaption This!

» View All Captions

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/battlefield-healthcare-reform-moves-s

Activism and organizing for healthcare reform on the state level has the potential to be more effective, because while state legislators are even more easily influenced by campaign donors, they're also more vulnerable to local pressure. So it's important to follow the fight in your state, make your position on strong regulation known to your representatives and lobby friends and family to do the same:

WASHINGTON — Like about a dozen other states, Florida is debating a proposed amendment to its state constitution that would try to block, at least symbolically, much of the proposed federal health care overhaul on the grounds that it tramples individual liberty.

But what unites the proposal’s legislative backers is more than ideology. Its 42 co-sponsors, all Republicans, were almost all recipients of outsized campaign contributions from major health care interests, a total of about $765,000 in 2008, according to a new study by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, a nonpartisan group based in Helena, Mont.

It is just one example of how insurance companies, hospitals and other health care interests have been positioning themselves in statehouses around the country to influence the outcome of the proposed health care overhaul. Around the 2008 election, the groups that provide health care contributed about $102 million to state political campaigns across the country, surpassing the $89 million the same donors spent at the federal level, according to the institute.

Any federal legislation is likely to supersede state constitutional amendments. But backers of the state measures say they want to send a message to Congress and also lay groundwork for fights about elements of the health care package that are expected to be left up to the states.”

[...] Advocates of a sweeping overhaul by the federal government, on the other hand, say the magnitude of the health care industry’s contributions shows the dangers of leaving such a question up to individual states, where campaign finance and ethics rules vary from strict to negligible.

“The states are the next battle,” said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for the liberal advocacy group Health Care for America Now, “and the insurers and health care industry are primed up and ready to go. The industry has enormous power at the state level, and very few states have state-level consumer groups that are able to lobby effectively against them.”

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ICanHasCheezburger/~3/D4gMbjkhm6s/

http://icanhascheezburger.com/?p=224970

ders no place liek mom

mom iz teh best fing 2 cuddel wif.

Picture by: mylomonster Caption by: lhickman1-neo.rr.com via Our LOL Builder

» Recaption This!

» View All Captions

http://crooksandliars.com/bluegal/midday-open-thread

Open thread below...

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/pat-buchanan-torture-american-style-wit

DOWNLOADS: (421)

PLAYS: (1004)

Spencer Ackermann tried this morning on Morning Joe to bring common sense to the debate over the fate of the would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. He rightly points out that the "freak-out factor" that a situation like this occurs.

Spencer: I really don't understand the argument because every single time we have a new emergency, we have to forget about the hard lessons we've learned in the past about this. And then secondly, by every standard you've seen so far in every piece of reporting, the guy cooperated. He immediately said he was a member of al-Qaida. He started talking in a threatening manner about how there are other attacks coming, so I'm not really sure where we make this jump to the idea that we're not getting information from the guy.

Since he's cooperating so much, what the hell. Ship him off to Gitmo, torture the shit out of him just for the hell of it.

Pat Buchanan couldn't miss out on a chance to join in the chorus of psychopathic right-wingers who have been responding with their usual grotesque visions of xenophobic hatred after the Christmas Day failed attack on Flight 253.

Buchanan: ...frankly if that means you have to deny him pain medication because he's badly burned, I think you go ahead and do that. I'm not arguing for torture, but I am...

Spencer: You just did.

Buchanan: Nobody is, but I am arguing for hostile interrogations of this fellow, because our job is to protect American lives.It's not to make sure his Miranda rights haven't been violated.

Spencer: So you're arguing for torture but with a different euphemism for it?

Buchanan: I'm arguing for the fact that this is an enemy soldier who tried to commit a mass atrocity and the idea that you're treating him like some guy who held up a 7-11, it seems to me preposterous.

Spencer: Except for all of the hundreds of terrorists that we've convicted in federal courts over the years that were able to hold that were able to incarcerate successfully and that were able to get information out of. I mean, the fact is, al-Qaeda is a dangerous and really important threat, but they are also not a super army of supermen that have Muslim heat vision, and it's ludicrous to think that we should inflate how dangerous they are because that's exactly what they want.

Great points by Ackermann, but right-wing loons need to have al-Qaeda built up as the scary monster hiding underneath your beds, ready to strike you down if you go to sleep even for a minute. We can't even get a break from fearmongering, even during the holidays. Withholding pain meds in the way Buchanan speaks of is torture, and the guy has been singing like a canary. Still, right-wing talkers are spreading incredibly sick thoughts on our radio and TV airwaves.

• Deeds and Words - A lovely, thoughtful, in-depth yet not truly spoilery review of Boneshaker can be found at this fine blogging location. The intro quote (via Milton) startled me into a LOL with its sneaky appropriateness.

• Fantasy Magazine - Likewise weighs in vis-a-vis this book, and very kindly.

• Adventures in Reading - See also: Fantasy Magazine’s reviewer (the inimitable Joe Sherry) sticks Boneshaker on his list of 2009’s best. Thanks a million, Joe!
  

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/demint-i-never-wanted-break-president-just

DOWNLOADS: (440)

PLAYS: (1387)

From Fox News Sunday, Arlen Specter criticized the Republicans for planning to ‘break the President’ as soon as he was sworn in to defeat him in 2012 and Jim DeMint claims that wasn’t their intent. I’d like to know how they knew he was going to ‘take over’ the economy and add more debt the day he got elected. DeMint responded to TPM and his defense was basically to call Arlen Specter names and say he can’t be trusted since he switched parties.

Trancript via Lexis Nexis.

WALLACE: Senator DeMint, you have raised questions about whether or not either of these bills are constitutional. Do you plan to file a lawsuit if something is passed to block the enactment of health care reform? DEMINT: Chris, this fight is not over right now, and the only thing worse than the policy itself has been the process that the Democrats have followed to get this passed.

We all heard last week about vote buying and different things going on in secret. So there are a lot of problems with this bill. Whether -- who files a suit or what happens if they pass it is one thing.

But my hope now is as we reveal to the American people what's actually in this bill, what it will cost them, what it will do to our Medicare and health care system, that we'll get a few Democrats to stand up in the House that maybe didn't before and help us stop this thing.

It is really bad, and it -- and it is not the answer. It doesn't meet the goals of the president. We need every American to have a health insurance plan they can afford and own and keep. This bill doesn't accomplish that.

WALLACE: Senator Specter, as our legal expert here -- not to diminish in any case any of the other senators that are appearing -- are there constitutional issues here? And let me ask you specifically about one. How can the government mandate that every individual has to buy health insurance?

SPECTER: I do not think there are serious constitutional issues. The mandate provision is very similar to what was done in Massachusetts when they had mandatory reform.

I'd like to pick up on what Senator DeMint says about the process. I think the process was very bad, but the process is really caused in large measure by the refusal of the Republicans to deal in any way.

Senator DeMint is the author of the famous statement that this is going to be President Obama's Waterloo, that this ought to be used to break the president, so that before the ink was dry on the oath of office -- and I know this because I was in the caucus -- the Republicans were already plotting ways to beat President Obama in 2012.

Now, effective government in a democracy relies upon some bipartisanship, but there simply isn't any. And the process which was used was not good. The lead story today in the Washington Post is that after you reform health care, you ought to reform the Senate. And I would start with the process.

And if some of the Republicans would come forward with suggestions, offer a vote or two, or three or four, to take away the need to have every last one of the 60 Democrats, you'd have a much better bill in accordance with the tradition of the Congress, especially the Senate, on bipartisanship.

WALLACE: Well, let me bring in Senator DeMint as a matter of personal privilege. You get 30 seconds to respond, sir.

DEMINT: Well, thank -- thank you, Chris. I never wanted to break the president. We just wanted to break his momentum as he took over more and more of our economy and created more and more of our debt.

The reason the Republicans didn't have any ideas in the bill is that the Democrats didn't allow it, Chris. There was nothing that they would consider other than a government takeover of health care. Whatever words were used, that was their intent.

The Republicans have a number of bills, Chris, that would allow insurance to be more available and affordable to every American, but that was not the goal of the Democrats here. They want the government to run it. They want 80 or 90 percent of Americans on government health care. That's not a good thing for our country.

WALLACE: Let me -- let me -- let me...

SPECTER: Twenty -- twenty -- twenty -- 20 seconds...

WALLACE: Gentlemen...

SPECTER: ... 20 seconds in reply?

WALLACE: No, no.

SPECTER: Twenty seconds in reply?

WALLACE: Senator Specter, no, because, in fairness, I've got to bring in your two other colleagues, and I know you wouldn't want to take time from them.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ICanHasCheezburger/~3/hcpv8f7juJ4/

http://icanhascheezburger.com/?p=225028

Signs of Impending Disaster CAT—-> table <—table edge <—-glass—> table edge—> table <–Carefully wrapped gift

kitteh awlwayz causin trubbel.

Picture by: THE BigRedRage11 Caption by: grouchie via Advanced Lol Builder

» Recaption This!

» View All Captions

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/rove-says-obamas-handling-nigerian-a

DOWNLOADS: (456)

PLAYS: (558)

Karl Rove went on Fox News twice yesterday -- first on Your World and later on Hannity, where he essentially repeated his earlier performance -- to accuse the Obama White House of being soft on terrorism because it did not declare Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be bomber of that Northwest flight into Detroit, an enemy combatant:

Rove: This shows the big difference in this administration's approach to it. This guy was treated not as an enemy combatant, and turned over to the FBI and the CIA for interrogation, he was charged criminally, which means he immediately lawyered up and the amount of information we're going to get from him is going to be this much, compared to what we could get if he was just simply sweat by the FBI and the CIA -- not even using enhanced interrogation techniques, just using what police would be able to use if you weren't lawyered up. This is a very troubling way in which the administration has handled this.

On Hannity, he claimed that by filing criminal charges, "we treat him as a guy who tried to knock over a Seven-Eleven or got caught shoplifting."

Memo to Karl: Convenience-store robbers and shoplifters do not get charged with terrorism in federal court. Just sayin'.

Moreover, the problem with Rove's claim that "this shows the difference" between the Bush and Obama administrations is flatly false (aka a lie).

Faced with nearly identical circumstances with would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid -- who was attempting to use the exact same kind of explosive on an American flight -- the Bush administration in 2001 did exactly the same thing: it filed criminal charges and eventually tried Reid in federal court.

What's worth noting is that Reid, too, was potentially an intelligence bonanza, since he had numerous operational ties with Khalid Sheikh Muhammad.

Then there was Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen who was eventually convicted of plotting with Al Qaeda to participate in the 9/11 attacks. He, too, was treated as a federal criminal by the Bush administration.

Finally, it should be noted that declaring suspects "enemy combatants" -- especially when they are captured away from the field of battle -- is actually a legal minefield fraught with far greater uncertainty than the use of federal criminal statutes. The classic example of this was the case of Jose Padilla, who was declared an "enemy combatant" by the Bush administration and whose case wound up taking years to be settled by the Supreme Court -- which eventually insisted that he be tried in federal court. Padilla's case was somewhat different, since he is a U.S. citizen, but one can rest assured that the issue of habeas corpus central to his case would be resurrected should Obama have followed Rove's advice.

But then, anyone who follows Karl Rove's advice deserves everything that inevitably will happen to them.