MSNBC VIDEO: Worst Person in the world

Ahhhh the love!

H/T Joe for this post!

I read about this awhile back, and the thing that surprised me was that they wanted to test it on citizens in the U.S. who were protesting, or for crowd control. Seems they’ve spent $40 million and tested it on “volunteer” military personnel. Bat sent the following article to me. They don’t know what the long term effects of such radiation are. I wonder who the suckers were who let them test the damn thing on them. Geezzzz……

MOODY AIR FORCE BASE, Georgia - The military’s new weapon is a ray gun that shoots a beam that makes people feel as if they will catch fire.

The technology is supposed to be harmless - a non-lethal way to get enemies to drop their weapons.

Military officials say it could save the lives of innocent civilians and service members in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The weapon is not expected to go into production until at least 2010, but all branches of the military have expressed interest in it, officials said.

During the first media demonstration of the weapon Wednesday, airmen fired beams from a large dish antenna mounted atop a Humvee at people pretending to be rioters and acting out other scenarios U.S. troops might encounter.

The crew fired beams from more than 500 yards (450 meters) away, nearly 17 times the range of existing non-lethal weapons, such as rubber bullets.

While the sudden, 130-degree Fahrenheit (54-degree Celsius) heat was not painful, it was intense enough to make participants think their clothes were about to ignite.

Read more at MSNBCand hereand here

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is ordering military service chiefs to reduce the use of a controversial policy intended to keep troops in war zones beyond the end of their original commitments, according to a document obtained by The Hill.

In a memo sent to the service chiefs, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and undersecretaries of defense, Gates asked to see plans to minimize the use of the so-called stop-loss policy for active duty and reserve components by the end of next month.

Gates’s directive comes at a time when the White House’s plan to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 21,500 is coming under intense criticism on both sides of the aisle, in part because it would extend the tours of duty of troops already on the ground and trigger stop-loss orders.

“They-re extending and stop-lossing people in the country [Iraq] themselves,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House defense appropriations committee and an outspoken critic of the White House’s Iraq strategy, said on MSNBC earlier this month. “And it is very unpopular, even with the troops themselves, when they don-t understand the mission.”

Several House Republicans sent a letter to Gates last week asking that members of the National Guard and Reserve not be kept on active duty beyond their original commitment.

Read more at the Hill

I love a good barbeque….especially when Republicans are being served.

Several House Democrats plan to grill Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on the Pentagon’s use of private contractors in interrogations at the military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Chief Deputy Democratic Whip Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) and 26 other members wrote to Gates Tuesday asking for a briefing on interrogation practice after the FBI revealed allegations this month of torture by contractors at Guantánamo.

All interpreters and half of all jail workers at Abu Ghraib were private contractors, according to Schakowsky, a member of the intelligence committee.

Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), David Price (D-N.C.) and George Miller (D-Calif.) also signed the letter demanding a briefing.

“As you assume your new duties, we would like to alert you to our concerns about the use of military contractors,” they wrote. “The lack of proper oversight of military contractors results in wasted funds and frustrated missions. It also sends a message to contractors that they will not be held accountable for squandering taxpayer dollars at the expense of supporting our service members.”

Source: The Hill

how appropriate……

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraq’s prime minister told parliament Thursday that the coming U.S-Iraqi security sweep in the capital would not be the last battle against militants, who he said would not be safe anywhere in the country. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki did not reveal the details of the plan, which he has dubbed “Operation Imposing Law,” or say when it would begin.

But he promised to go after those behind Baghdad’s rampant violence no matter where they tried to hide, although he promised to ensure the human rights of innocent Iraqis.

“We are full of hope. We have no other choice but to use force and any place where we receive fire will not be safe even if it is a school, a mosque, a political party office or home,” he said. “There will be no safe place in Iraq for terrorists.”

Read more at NOLA.com

Letterman’s Top 10 Ways Bush Can Improve His Popularity

I like # 4 myself…..

I say let em go it alone. Israel will be the death of the U.S. if we let it. And we’re letting it. This is nothing more than Olmert telling Bush…… if you don’t do something, I will. So go ahead big mouth. Do something. How about you get rid of your nuclear weapons?

The Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, dramatically raised the stakes in the international showdown with Iran last night, with a clear warning that his country was prepared to use military force to prevent Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“The Jewish people, with the scars of the Holocaust fresh on its body, cannot afford to allow itself to face threats of annihilation once again,” Mr Olmert said in a speech to a high-level security conference in Herzliya. “No nation has the right even to consider its position. It is the obligation of every country to act against this will all its might.” “We can stand up against nuclear threats and even prevent them,” he said.

Israeli military officials warned this week that Israel - acting alone or in coordination with the US - could launch preemptive military strikes against Iran before the end of this year.

Israel describes Iran-s nuclear programme as an “existential threat” to the Jewish state which should be stopped before Iranian scientists manage to produce a nuclear bomb. There is particular concern because of statements by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, threatening to wipe Israel from the map. But Israeli and western experts say that even without the firebrand Mr Ahmadinejad, who is currently in political difficulties, Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, has made it clear that the Iranians will not back down from their confrontation with the West over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

Read more at the Independent

I firmly believe we should have term limits. I think it would help curb the corruption, and it would take care of this problem. And that they were turning to Frist for health advice is even scarier!!!

The average age of members of the U.S. Senate is older than it has ever been, according to Senate Historian Richard Baker. For many senators, advanced age is starting to show, raising questions about their ability to govern.

Until his retirement last month, former majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a noted heart surgeon, was being consulted for informal medical advice by two dozen of his colleagues — more than 20 percent of the Senate, according to a former leadership aide. They went to Frist complaining about a host of illnesses and chronic maladies, most related to aging.

Among them were Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who flew on Frist’s jet for private consultation and treatment at the Frist Clinic in Nashville, according to Senate sources.

The average age of the 100 senators is 62, up from 60 in the last Congress. Among the new Democratic committee chairmen, it is 69. And, of the five longest’serving senators, three are there today. Including the grand-daddy of seniority, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., 89.

As far as illnesses, at least 10 senators have fought various cancers or suffered severe injuries. Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., remains hospitalized here for a brain hemorrhage suffered last month. And others deal with chronic and debilitating infirmities.

In the past, the clubby atmosphere of the Senate provided cover for its frailest members. No longer. Today, a senator’s smallest stumble, nap or memory lapse gets instant and widespread public exposure online through blogs and videos posted on YouTube and other social-networking Web sites. (See related story.)

Few senators will talk publicly about their own health problems or those of their colleagues. But many sought counsel from one of their own, Frist. He offered informal and discreet medical advice to his colleagues and some spouses during his 12-year tenure, a former Senate leadership aide said.

“You would be surprised by the people who sought his advice” on health-related issues, said the former aide. “There was a steady flow of people in and out of the office.” Frist declined to comment.

Read more here

Earlier today I commented on Batocchio’s “Vanity of Vanities! All is Vanity” post that I felt sitting U.S. presidents are given way too many powers. I also think we should take a closer look into how we pick and install Supreme Court Justices. Case in point: the Florida recount decision. Is it proper for a sitting Justice to ‘gloat’ about having a hand in choosing the presidency in 2000, when so many of our top legal scholars say that the SC shouldn’t have taken this case to begin with? Justice O’Connor even acknowledged “justices probably could have done a better job with the opinion if they hadn’t been rushed.” What does this say about our legal system? It says to me that it’s an embarrassment and one big joke.

Justices defend Florida recount decision

WASHINGTON - Three of the five Supreme Court justices who handed the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000 say they had no choice but to intervene in the Florida recount.

Comments from Justice Anthony Kennedy and retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor are in a new book that was published this week. Justice Antonin Scalia made his remarks Tuesday at Iona College in New York.

Scalia, answering questions after a speech, also said that critics of the 5-4 ruling in Bush v. Gore need to move on six years after the electoral drama of December 2000, when it seemed the whole nation hung by a chad awaiting the outcome of the presidential election.

“It’s water over the deck - get over it,” Scalia said, drawing laughs from his audience. His remarks were reported in the Gannett Co.’s Journal-News.

The court’s decision to halt the recount of Florida’s disputed election results, thus giving Bush the state’s electoral votes, has been heavily criticized as an example of the court overstepping its bounds and, worse, being driven by politics.

Rather than let the recount take place and leave state officials and possibly Congress to determine the outcome of the election, the court’s five conservative justices decided to intervene.
…

Legal scholars and the four dissenting justices have said the Supreme Court should have declined to jump into the case in the first place.

In a decision made public on the evening of Dec. 12, 2000, the court said the recount violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because Florida counties were allowed to set their own standard for determining whether to count a vote.

Source: Yahoo! News