Thursday, July 31, 2008
It appears to be (by my calculations) a size 8 NIKE tennis shoe.
I was looking at the new page about water being found on MARS and found the print.
Although its possible that this mark was left by the mars scooper,
it doesnt appear to have the sharp lines produced by the other scoop marks
2 different angles. (just to the right of the obvious"scoop" marks)
It looks almost like a stream of water left an impression stopping at the large rock.
Download the original 11mb file here
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Law professor rebukes Democrats for letting Bush off hook
Nancy Pelosi needs to hold meaningful impeachment hearings that will focus on evidence that President Bush has committed crimes in office, constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley said Wednesday.
Turley was speaking with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann about the House Speaker's indication that she would let the Judiciary Committee hold an hearing to consider an impeachment article introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH).
The problem, Turley says, is that Pelosi has already rendered a "not guilty" verdict on the impeachment question, and the hearing organizers are making sure they won't be exposing any additional criminal activity. This makes the whole exercise more like a "fancy dress ball," than a criminal prosecution, he said.
Recalling his testimony to an impeachment hearing during the Clinton administration, Turley said the Republican Congress was focused on its goal of impeaching the president in a way the Democrats simply are not.
"It covered crimes," Turley said of Clinton's congressional inquisition. "What [Pelosi and others are] already saying is that they'll be talking about a wide array of abuses by the president.
"An impeachment hearing needs to be focused and it needs to deal with things directly and frankly, as whether the president committed crimes," he continued, "And there is considerable evidence to say that the answer is yes."
This video is from MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast July 16, 2008.
Read rest of article…
McCain drops out of race to open Cheese company !
You can't change the dynamics on the ground if you've criticized the brave leader of Iraq.
- Geroge Bush
The First Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate
Problem with the quote above is that now John McCain has critized the leader of Iraq for wanting the US out of his country ??
some McCain quotes from 2000
Historically, foreign policy debates in the United States have been pre-occupied with a false dichotomy
between policies that are intended to protect our security interests and policies intended
to promote our political values. In truth, I've never been able to understand what the fuss is all about.
I think the debate is a waste of time. For the United States, values and interests are inextricably linked,
and traditionally, American leaders have designed policies to serve both ends.
The policy of containment was based first and foremost on our faith in our core values -
- individual freedom and rights, democracy, pluralism, free markets, and the rule of law.
Core values that are, by the way, universal values -- absurd pretenses like an "Asian way" not withstanding.
As I have noted already, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the clearest danger
we currently confront. Nowhere is the threat more worrisome than in rogue states such as Iraq, North Korea
and others. The United States should formulate a policy, in many ways similar to the Reagan Doctrine,
of supporting indigenous and outside forces that desire to overthrow the odious regimes that rule these states.
Call it rogue state rollback if you will. Such a policy serves both our security and our ideals because, again,
they are inseparable from one another.
Third, force has a role in, but is not a substitute for, diplomacy. In other words,
if you perceive a threat to our security and our values that warrants the use of force if necessary,
don't forget the "if necessary" part. All means short of force should be employed first.
And don't be dragooned by other countries or international organizations into risking American lives
in quarrels that are entirely someone else's affair, where no faction is committed to our values,
and no vital interest is at stake.
Moreover, when force must be used, have clear rules of engagement, define an achievable mission,
know how to recognize when it is accomplished, and bring them home as soon as possible.
And never, never, accept foreign or "dual key" authority for the command of an American military operation.
If climate change is a bona-fide global environmental problem, the solution must be global as well.
I have serious concerns about the Kyoto treaty because it fails to include the cooperation of countries
such as China and India. A problem that is serious enough to require U.S. action, should require
the responsible participation of other major countries as well
I believe that taxes are too high and the tax code too complex.
The average working family pays nearly 40% of their earnings to the taxman. That's not fair.
Q: Where does John McCain stand on abortion?
A: I am pro-life. I oppose abortion except in the case of rape,
incest or when the life of the mother is in danger.
Q: How does John McCain feel about Roe v. Wade?
A: Roe v. Wade should be overturned and we should endeavor to change cultural attitudes
about abortion in favor of life.
Q: What about exempting firearm sales at gun shows and pawnshops from background check requirements?
A: I believe instant background checks should be conducted for all commercial firearms sales,
including gun shows and redemption of guns at pawnshops. I helped lead the fight in the Senate
to assure such sales are covered.
Q: Where does John McCain stand on federally imposed "waiting periods" for firearm purchases?
A: I have opposed federally mandated "waiting periods"
Q: Where does John McCain stand on Campaign Finance Reform?
A: I have been privileged to lead the fight in Congress to clean up our corrupt campaign finance system.
I think most Americans understand that soft money - the enormous sums of money given to both parties
by just about every special interest in the country - corrupts our political ideals
whether it comes from big business or from labor bosses and trial lawyers.
The influence of money is corrupting our ability to address the problems that directly affect the lives
of every American. Without reining in soft money and reducing the role of money in politics
we will never have a government that works as hard for the average American as it does for the special interests.
Q: How should we prioritize use of the surplus?
A: First, it's important to understand that of the projected $3 trillion surplus over the next 10 years,
$2 trillion is a surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund. Let's keep that share away from politicians
and leave the revenues in the trust fund so that promised benefits can be paid without dramatic increases
in payroll taxes.
Of the remaining $1 trillion, I would dedicate 62 percent to shore up Social Security
as the President promised but has failed to make good on. Twenty-three percent should be used for tax relief;
10 percent should be dedicated to bolster Medicare and 5 percent earmarked for debt reduction.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Is it only due to speculation?
Do you really think that all the experts disagree,
and none of them really know the reason ?
The oil companies are "testing us"
to see the point that demand drops off.
(and that is about $4.00 a gallon)
You see, the oil companies see the writing on the wall.
GW Bush gave them what they wanted long enough,
but they dont trust Obama to play their game.
Obama, or even to some extent McCain would put federal $ toward getting us off of foreign oil
(by way of alternatives + green energy)
So, the oil companies will be loosing money in the next 10 years from the USA
(China and India will STILL be using a lot)
Reason # 2
LAND GRAB !
The oil companies knew EXACTLY what the republicans would do,
and are playing them like a fiddle.
Big Oil are trying to get MORE land off the coast of the US,
even though they arent using what they have now.
(much of that has NEVER even been explored!)
The REPUGS have fallen right into their hands (AGAIN??)
I beleive that these are the same people who made money after 9/11
On airline stocks.
I think if we find out what companies these are that are driving up the price,
we will see that it IS the oil companies, but not for the reason it may seem.
I think the oil companies are falsely driving up the price,
not only by raising the price, but also by speculation.
False assumption #1
That speculators will lower the price once we open ANWR and offshore drilling.
Speculators KNOW that it would take years before we see any REAL oil come from this,
and they dont change the numbers on something 5 years out.
Now, once that oil is a few months from hitting the market, it may change a small bit.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
McCain said today
"There was not a drop of oil spilled after Hurricane Katrina."
Bobby Jindal (R- Louisiana and possible McCain VP)
also stated yesterday the same thing,
so did a major McCain surrogate Nancy Pfotenhauer.
McCain Rep Lies: Katrina and Rita 'Didn't Spill A Drop'
On July 14, Nancy Pfotenhauer, senior energy adviser to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and a lobbyist for Koch Industries, lied to MSNBC's David Schuster, claiming "We withstood Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, and we didn't spill a drop."
McCain Claims Offshore Drilling 'Safe'
Sen. McCain (R-AZ) in Houston, June 17, 2008: "As for offshore drilling, it's safe enough these days that not even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from the battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston."
Bobby Jindal Claims Katrina Caused No Oil Spills
Q: Real fast, Governor, the price of oil went up five bucks a barrel today. You’ve been drilling off the coast of Louisiana for a number of years. Any oil spills to worry about?
JINDAL: You know, that’s one of the great unwritten success stories, after Katrina and Rita, these awful storms, no major spills.
The EPA called the spills “worse than the worst-case scenario.”
595 spills, which were spread across four states and struck offshore and inland, rank these two hurricanes among the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history. Some have even compared the total amount of oil released — estimated at 9 million gallons — to the tragedy of Exxon Valdez.
Katrina oil spills may be among worst on record
The oil pollution in the wake of Hurricane Katrina could be among the worst recorded in North America, officials trying to coordinate the clean-up say. The US coastguard, which is responsible for the marine environment, said yesterday more than 6.5 million gallons of crude oil had been spilt in at least seven major incidents. The previous worst spill in US waters was the 11m gallons in Alaskan waters from the Exxon Valdez in 1989.
"This is a major event," said Lieutenant Colonel Glynn Smith of the coastguard in New Orleans. "Things are going well, but three-quarters of the oil from the spills has not yet been recovered."
The figure does not include petrol and oil spilt from up to 250,000 cars which have been submerged, or that spilt from hundreds of petrol stations. The coastguard says it has received almost 400 reports of spills, the vast majority of which have not been assessed.
President Bush attempted to regain the political initiative with an address to the nation pledging an unprecedented federal effort to help rebuild New Orleans and the Gulf coast. The prime-time speech from New Orleans was timed to confront growing doubts over his leadership abilities, after the stuttering federal response to Katrina's impact.
Residents at oil spill site told not to move back Some in Katrina disaster area have, but EPA has ‘serious concerns’ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9994305