From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #688 Dead-Flames Digest #688, Volume #48 Thu, 27 Oct 05 11:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: shes gone (kpnnews@yahoo.com) Re: Are you on or near Cape Cod Massachusetts? (wyeknot) Re: cheney = traitor (kpnnews@yahoo.com) Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? ("Everybody's Gonna Be Happy") Re: shes gone (leftie) Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) ("Everybody's Gonna Be Happy") Re: cheney = traitor (leftie) Re: shes gone ("Stuknot") Re: Are you on or near Cape Cod Massachusetts? ("jeffm725") Re: shes gone (leftie) Re: India CDRs? (Gary & Ellie) Re: cream bt ("Dave Kelly") Re: cheney = traitor ("Ray") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: kpnnews@yahoo.com Subject: Re: shes gone Date: 27 Oct 2005 10:02:00 -0700 Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > "Don Bean" wrote in message > news:mc48f.13561$rE2.3635@fe10.lga... > > > bush realized hes an idiot....... now were gonna see jesus get a > > nomination..... > > Bush still thinks she's super keen. > > It was those pesky senators, of both parties, who were left totally > unimpressed with this mental and legal midget in their one on one > converstaions with her that brought her down. She apparently impressed no > one. > > Bush used her work as White House counsel as the main reason why she should > be confirmed. Then he decided no one but him should have any idea what that > work was: > > "It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access > to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the > White House -- disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to > receive candid counsel." > > Then why'd ya nominate her? > > Then he tells her she's kaput and issues the standard political statement > when a president yanks somebody for his own good: > > "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential > aspect of the constitutional separation of powers -- and confirms my deep > respect and admiration for her." > > He's really in a box now. The ultra right will demand even more vigorously > than usual some religious fanatic. The Dems will plant their feet more > firmly in the ground than usual, and we may very well end up with nuclear > option / filibuster scenario everyone fears. In other words, 8 Supreme > Court justices until Bush leaves office? I am telling y'all, we all always underestimate GWB. Is he just a bumbling and a fumbling through this second term? You have got to remember who we are dealing with; these folks are players at the national/world level. I find it funny that the left wing sees a conspiracy everywhere, but when it comes to GWB, "he's an idiot" yardstick is used to explain policy, behaviour, etc. This ain't over yet, but I have a feeling at the end. GWB, Limbo, Hannity, etc, are going to be looking at the left and saying "you got served ." This ain't over. Kurt ------------------------------ From: wyeknot Subject: Re: Are you on or near Cape Cod Massachusetts? Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:02:11 -0400 Big Rhythm Wine wrote: > Some folks got a babsitter..... Thank god Streisand won't be there!!! Matt ------------------------------ From: kpnnews@yahoo.com Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: 27 Oct 2005 10:06:10 -0700 Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > "JC Martin" wrote in message > news:uCN7f.1001$te3.16430@typhoon.sonic.net... > > Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > >> "Richard Morris" wrote in message > >> news:pvWdnV2hgNGdeMPeRVn-og@comcast.com... > >> > >>>"Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" wrote in > >>>message news:QOt7f.404$EP6.2042@eagle.america.net... > >>> > >>>snip > >>> > >>> > >>>>Cheney is off the hook unless someone is willing to testify to a > >>>>conspiracy to leak the name led by Cheney. > >>>> > >>>>I can't imagine that happening, even as prosecutors try to flip Libby or > >>>>whoever with threats of jail time. Those guys aren't gonna rat out > >>>>Cheney even if he was the instigator. And we have no evidence that he > >>>>was. > >> > >> > >>>If he was the instigator, don't be too sure that his lackey won't sell > >>>him out. When faced with a little prison time, these are not necessarily > >>>stand-up guys. > >> > >> > >> No chance. Libby is going to testify that Cheney ordered him to break > >> the law? > >> > >> LOL. > > > No, Libby would never out his boss. He's a pretty loyal Cheney guy from > > all I've read and whatever you want to say bad about these right-wingers, > > they do go to bat for each other. Plus, even if Libby did out Cheney, you > > would have one word against another. No way to convict on that. > > > > You're right on the rest Toad. This is small stuff and is merely > > political payback for the bigger lie which was perpetrated in regards to > > Iraq. However, I'll take what I can get at this stage. > > Oh yeah, I find it rather amusing myself. It will be even more amusing if > someone actually goes to jail. > > Unfortunately things that personally amuse me rarely have a major impact on > our federal government. > > The Delay thing could be one of those rare moments, but not this. What I find funny is the cover to Wilson's book where he's in the car with his wife. He definitely has a bit of smugness, but she is wrapped up with a scarf and sunglasses like some woman leaving a motel room hoping she doesn't bump into someone she knows. Yet she still stares at the camera. Kurt ------------------------------ From: "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" Subject: Re: Condi v Hillary 2008? Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:14:53 -0700 wrote in message news:1130428676.073408.233490@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: >> wrote in message >> news:1130344363.586183.156800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: >> >> wrote in message >> >> news:1130340819.108824.276380@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > And what does not being married have to do with it? >> >> >> >> The primitive religionists will interpret that as being a lesbian. >> >> >> >> A black lesbian with a fancy college education. >> >> >> >> That pretty much rules her out as a Republican presidential candidate. >> >> > I don't think they would mind her having an advanced degree. George W. >> > Bush not only has an advanced degree, but an Ivy League advanced >> > degree, and not just any Ivy League advanced degree, but a Harvard MBA. >> >> But Bush is obviously as stupid as the American Taliban, no matter what >> school he skated through. >> >> Rice is obviously very bright; a smart, well educated, black (lesbian?) >> member of the east (and west) coast elite who goes to churches where >> blacks >> were bombed by good ole boys instead of a church where snakes are handled >> and strychine drunk. > They both seem equally intelligent to me. They agree on everything > and connect very well on a personal level. LOL. Rice is light years smarter than the literal imbecile Bush. Condi is well read, bright, quick, well traveled. Bush can't complete a coherent sentence. >> > But instead of arguing about whether or not Condi could get elected or >> > reading Dick Moris' book, why not just look at the polls? >> What do they tell us? > They tell you whether or not the people would vote for her. And the answer from Republicans is a resounding no. EGBH ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: shes gone Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:15:39 -0700 kpnnews@yahoo.com wrote: > I am telling y'all, we all always underestimate GWB. Is he just a > bumbling > and a fumbling through this second term? You have got to remember who > we > are dealing with; these folks are players at the national/world level. GWB's team (Rove, Cheney, Libby, etc.) may be playas, but GWB ain't a playa. So now that the team is occupied with other affairs (e.g., trying to stay out of jail), GWB is in fact floundering quite publicly. > I find it funny that the left wing sees a conspiracy everywhere, but > when it comes to GWB, "he's an idiot" yardstick is used to explain policy, > behaviour, etc. I think that Fitzpatrick and the courts will show that there has been a conspiracy in the Plamegate case. And Meirs shows that when left to his own devices, Shrubya is in fact an idiot. > This ain't over yet, but I have a feeling at the end. > GWB, Limbo, Hannity, etc, are going to be looking at the left and saying > "you got served ." This ain't over. We shall see. But when William Kristol was on The Daily Show the other night it was pretty damn clear that even the right's true believers don't have much good to say about GWB right now. ------------------------------ From: "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" Subject: Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:16:26 -0700 "dyrewlf" wrote in message news:oV68f.36669$hP6.17296@trnddc05... > > "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" wrote in message > news:py68f.56$DP.693@eagle.america.net... >> > >> That's the thing: I'm wrong more often that not in my progostications, >> so instead of having a website or an RSS feed (whatever that is) I just >> dump my gunk on RMGD. >> >> EGBH > Ahhhhh, now I know why things get a little sticky in here once in awhile. Try a sock; works great for me. EGBH ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:17:46 -0700 kpnnews@yahoo.com wrote: > What I find funny is the cover to Wilson's book where he's in the car > with his wife. He definitely has a bit of smugness, but she is wrapped > up with a scarf and sunglasses like some woman leaving a motel room > hoping she doesn't bump into someone she knows. Yet she still stares at > the camera. Book jacket covers are chosen by publishers, not authors. ------------------------------ From: "Stuknot" Subject: Re: shes gone Date: 27 Oct 2005 10:18:00 -0700 kpnn...@yahoo.com wrote: > > I am telling y'all, we all always underestimate GWB. Is he just a > bumbling > and a fumbling through this second term? You have got to remember who > we > are dealing with; these folks are players at the national/world level. > I find it funny that the left wing sees a conspiracy everywhere, but > when > it comes to GWB, "he's an idiot" yardstick is used to explain policy, > behaviour, etc. This ain't over yet, but I have a feeling at the end. > GWB, > Limbo, Hannity, etc, are going to be looking at the left and saying > "you > got served ." This ain't over. > So, where are the WMD's? Where are the people lining the streets of Tikrit welcoming us? Where is the oil that's paying for the cost of the war? Where is the "coalition of the willing"? Where are those 2000 young people we used to see around? Whatever happended to our reputation as a beacon of human rights in the world? I know exactly who we are dealing with - these folks are fumbling on the national/world level and they're out of their league in a big, big way. The conservative revolution is over, the GOP is in the hands of religious fanatics - the faction least able to accomplish anything requiring consensus, and the tide has turned. As for the Supreme Court? I'm looking forward to hearing the first Limbaugh, Hannity monkey who says about the next nominee, "The President is entitled to have a straight up or down vote for his nominee." The right wing's campaign to bring down Meier on the grounds she wasn't conservative enough pretty much scuttled that argument for good. It is over. John H. ------------------------------ From: "jeffm725" Subject: Re: Are you on or near Cape Cod Massachusetts? Date: 27 Oct 2005 10:21:29 -0700 wyeknot wrote: > Big Rhythm Wine wrote: > > Some folks got a babsitter..... > > Thank god Streisand won't be there!!! > > Matt Yeah, They got "Mega" Robert Smith and Leonard Malten to hold her down ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: shes gone Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:29:28 -0700 kpnnews@yahoo.com wrote: > I find it funny that the left wing sees a conspiracy everywhere, It's not just the left that sees this misadministration as a cabal. Colin Powell's former chief of staff does too. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wilkerson25oct25,0,7455395.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions The White House cabal By Lawrence B. Wilkerson, LAWRENCE B. WILKERSON served as chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell from 2002 to 2005. IN PRESIDENT BUSH'S first term, some of the most important decisions about U.S. national security — including vital decisions about postwar Iraq — were made by a secretive, little-known cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. When I first discussed this group in a speech last week at the New America Foundation in Washington, my comments caused a significant stir because I had been chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell between 2002 and 2005. But it's absolutely true. I believe that the decisions of this cabal were sometimes made with the full and witting support of the president and sometimes with something less. More often than not, then-national security advisor Condoleezza Rice was simply steamrolled by this cabal. Its insular and secret workings were efficient and swift — not unlike the decision-making one would associate more with a dictatorship than a democracy. This furtive process was camouflaged neatly by the dysfunction and inefficiency of the formal decision-making process, where decisions, if they were reached at all, had to wend their way through the bureaucracy, with its dissenters, obstructionists and "guardians of the turf." But the secret process was ultimately a failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions and virtually ensured that the agencies charged with implementing them would not or could not execute them well. I watched these dual decision-making processes operate for four years at the State Department. As chief of staff for 27 months, I had a door adjoining the secretary of State's office. I read virtually every document he read. I read the intelligence briefings and spoke daily with people from all across government. I knew that what I was observing was not what Congress intended when it passed the 1947 National Security Act. The law created the National Security Council — consisting of the president, vice president and the secretaries of State and Defense — to make sure the nation's vital national security decisions were thoroughly vetted. The NSC has often been expanded, depending on the president in office, to include the CIA director, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Treasury secretary and others, and it has accumulated a staff of sometimes more than 100 people. But many of the most crucial decisions from 2001 to 2005 were not made within the traditional NSC process. Scholars and knowledgeable critics of the U.S. decision-making process may rightly say, so what? Haven't all of our presidents in the last half-century failed to conform to the usual process at one time or another? Isn't it the president's prerogative to make decisions with whomever he pleases? Moreover, can he not ignore whomever he pleases? Why should we care that President Bush gave over much of the critical decision-making to his vice president and his secretary of Defense? Both as a former academic and as a person who has been in the ring with the bull, I believe that there are two reasons we should care. First, such departures from the process have in the past led us into a host of disasters, including the last years of the Vietnam War, the national embarrassment of Watergate (and the first resignation of a president in our history), the Iran-Contra scandal and now the ruinous foreign policy of George W. Bush. But a second and far more important reason is that the nature of both governance and crisis has changed in the modern age. From managing the environment to securing sufficient energy resources, from dealing with trafficking in human beings to performing peacekeeping missions abroad, governing is vastly more complicated than ever before in human history. Further, the crises the U.S. government confronts today are so multifaceted, so complex, so fast-breaking — and almost always with such incredible potential for regional and global ripple effects — that to depart from the systematic decision-making process laid out in the 1947 statute invites disaster. Discounting the professional experience available within the federal bureaucracy — and ignoring entirely the inevitable but often frustrating dissent that often arises therein — makes for quick and painless decisions. But when government agencies are confronted with decisions in which they did not participate and with which they frequently disagree, their implementation of those decisions is fractured, uncoordinated and inefficient. This is particularly the case if the bureaucracies called upon to execute the decisions are in strong competition with one another over scarce money, talented people, "turf" or power. It takes firm leadership to preside over the bureaucracy. But it also takes a willingness to listen to dissenting opinions. It requires leaders who can analyze, synthesize, ponder and decide. The administration's performance during its first four years would have been even worse without Powell's damage control. At least once a week, it seemed, Powell trooped over to the Oval Office and cleaned all the dog poop off the carpet. He held a youthful, inexperienced president's hand. He told him everything would be all right because he, the secretary of State, would fix it. And he did — everything from a serious crisis with China when a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft was struck by a Chinese F-8 fighter jet in April 2001, to the secretary's constant reassurances to European leaders following the bitter breach in relations over the Iraq war. It wasn't enough, of course, but it helped. Today, we have a president whose approval rating is 38% and a vice president who speaks only to Rush Limbaugh and assembled military forces. We have a secretary of Defense presiding over the death-by-a-thousand-cuts of our overstretched armed forces (no surprise to ignored dissenters such as former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki or former Army Secretary Thomas White). It's a disaster. Given the choice, I'd choose a frustrating bureaucracy over an efficient cabal every time. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:36:01 -0400 From: Gary & Ellie Reply-To: gary.and.ellie@gmail.com Subject: Re: India CDRs? Richard Morris wrote: > "The Lord of Eltingville" wrote in > message news:djpd8b01a8i@news1.newsguy.com... > >>Roger wrote: >> >>>drumsandwires@yahoo.com wrote: >>> >>>>Slightly off topic but I returned a spindle of Sony CD-Rs to Target >>>>this week. Many of the disks were defective. >>>> >>>>I know most members of the group are Fuji purists but I can't always >>>>find Fujis and have had good luck with other CD-Rs. For instance, most >>>>members disparage Maxell and Memorex but I have actually found Maxell >>>>to be the most reliable. I am just speaking from my own experience. >>>> >>>>In any case, there are Sony's out there that seem to be bad as near as >>>>I can tell. >>>> >>> >>>I use Japanese discs, mostly Fuji, to archive my shns and flacs, but >>>use Maxell or Memorex to burn audio for listening at home or in my >>>truck. Those brands are cheap enough to be disposable. Many get damaged >>>in my vehicle, so I just toss them and burn another copy. I have found >>>Maxell and Memorex superior to Sony - I get more skips with Sony discs. >> >>Odd, considering they're all made at the same favotry...Ritek. >> >>Although I stopped archiving to CDR a while back, in favor of DVD+Rs, I >>keep a spindle or two of CDRs on-hand for burning freebies for friends. >>They're the cheapo Staples brand, and in almost two years of using those >>for freebies, not one person has had a problem playing them or had a >>disc go bad -- and that's even with them being burned at 40x thru 52x... >> >>A big tip 'o the hat to Nick for turning me onto the Staples discs when >>he did a freebie for me ages ago. > > > Thanks for the tip ... I have been using generic TYs for a while now without > problem. Although you have to take it as an act of faith that you are > actually getting TYs! > > R. > > Nero also has a free tool for IDing a CDs manufacturer: http://www.softpedia.com/get/CD-DVD-Tools/CD-DVD-Rip-Other-Tools/Nero-CDDVD-Speed.shtml or http://tinyurl.com/bblbr It's called Nero CD-DVD Speed 4.08 ------------------------------ From: "Dave Kelly" Subject: Re: cream bt Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 18:16:39 GMT McCoy Tyner Quartet Tokyo 1972-12 FM Quality A FM -> cassette (acquired in trade) -> Nak DR-1 -> Audiophile 2496 -> Soundforge -> Wave -> CD-R -> Nero -> flac McCoy Tyner (piano and koto) Sonny Fortune (ss, as & flute) Alphonse Mouzon (drums, percussion) Calvin Hill (bass, percussion) Disc 1 1 Intro 1:37 2 Ebony Queen 30:55 3 Rebirth 12:11 tt 45:43 Disc 2 1 ? 23:18 2 Sahara 24:02 tt 47:20 Grand Total Time 93:03 ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: 27 Oct 2005 10:58:38 -0700 Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > "Seth Jackson" wrote in message > news:trs0m11h3uauuhedqoimvnk2jevko22606@4ax.com... > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:22:31 -0400, JimK > > wrote: > > > >>On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:20:48 -0700, DG wrote: > >> > >>>leftie wrote: > >>>>This from Wikipedia: > >>>> > >>>> An anonymous star was added to the wall between named stars that > >>>>can be dated to deaths on February 5, 2003 and October 25, 2003. The > >>>>anonymous star thus fits the timing of the Plame leak. Wayne Madsen, a > >>>>reporter and former NSA employee, has claimed, "CIA sources report that > >>>>at least one anonymous star placed on the CIA's Wall of Honor at its > >>>>Langley, Virginia headquarters is a clandestine agent who was executed > >>>>in a hostile foreign nation as a direct result of the White House leak." > >>>> > >>>>So, for all those out there who think this is just politics, think about > >>>>the person behind that anonymous star. > >>>> > >>>>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/25/191633/61 > >>> > >>> > >>>If this is a direct result of the leak then the death penalty should > >>>be considered. > >>> > >>I'm not totally dismissing it, but if this was true I think we'd have > >>heard a lot more about it. The CIA generally doesn't discuss or bring attention to these sorts of things, especially if they are related to intelligence missions that are still operative. What is true without speculation - at least assuming that the picture has not been photoshopped - is there is an anonymous star in the CIA's Book of Honor: http://sherlock-google.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/20/04918/1941 This means that in 2003 a CIA agent died in the line of duty whose cover is still classified. > > You don't think the White House would be doing everything possible to > > cover it up? > > You do realize that anyone can write a Wikipedia entry, hit submit, and its > up on the site, right? The Wikipedia claim is referenced. One reference is to the Book Of Honor image above, and another is to an August, 2004 essay authored by one Wayne Madsen (whom I'm not familiar with). He is described at the bottom of the essay as 'the author of the forthcoming book: "Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops and Brass Plates." He was with the National Security Agency under the Reagan administration. He is now a syndicated columnist and Washington,DC-based investigative journalist.' Here's Madsen's claim: "Make no mistake about it: the violation of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 by the disclosure of Plame's identity and that of her non-official cover corporate umbrella organization (Brewster, Jennings & Associates) along with its official counterpart, the CIA's Nonproliferation Center - had a disastrous impact on the ability of the United States to track the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction around the world. At least one anonymous star (representing a covert U.S. agent killed while working abroad) placed on the CIA's Wall of Honor during the past year was reportedly a direct result of the disastrous disclosures from Cheney's office." http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/081104_winds_change.shtml Whether this claim is true or not -- and we may never know the answer with certainty -- the fact is that it is a very plausible scenario. And IMO that fact alone is more than enough to warrant putting anyone and everyone responsible for Plame's outing (assuming it was an outing) in jail. "Business as usual"? Gimme a f*cking break. And even if it were "business as usual" - which it's not (I'm still waiting for you to provide us with the names of CIA agents outed by the Clinton and Bush Sr. administrations, EGBH) - it should never be tolerated in any event. Ray ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .