PHILLIES - NATIONAL LEAGUE EAST CHAMPS ! ! !

PHILADELPHIA — Shane Victorino doused the fans with a fire hose, Brett Myers and Ryan Howard jumped into the stands to join the celebration and Hall of Fame announcer Harry Kalas sang "High Hopes" over the public address system. Believe it, Philly. The Fightin' Phils are going to the playoffs — just as Jimmy Rollins predicted way back in January.

"There's only one more celebration to try and go for now and that's the whole thing," Howard said.

Considered all-but-out of contention just 2 1/2 weeks ago, the Philadelphia Phillies overcame a huge deficit in the standings, caught the Mets and won their first NL East title since 1993 on the final day.

Howard hit his 47th homer, 44-year-old Jamie Moyer pitched 5 1-3 gutsy innings and the Phillies, backed by a crowd going crazy, beat Washington 6-1 Sunday to end a 14-year playoff drought.

Myers tossed his glove underhanded straight in the air and jumped off the mound after striking out Wily Mo Pena to end it. Pat Burrell ran out of the dugout and hugged Myers and everyone piled on.

The party was on, and it lasted for hours right there on the field, thousands of fans staying to enjoy a rare moment in Philly.

"This has been an incredible ride and we've got to keep going," Burrell said.

The Phillies also needed help up I-95 to clinch, and got it from Florida. The Marlins beat the Mets 8-1 to ensure there wouldn't be a tiebreaker playoff game on Monday.

Philadelphia rallied from seven games down on Sept. 12, matching the biggest September comeback in major league history. The Phillies and the Mets went into the last day tied for the division lead.

Now, it's the Phillies who are advancing to the postseason for only the 10th time in their history. They'll host Game 1 of the first round Wednesday against the winner of Monday's wild-card tiebreaker between San Diego and Colorado.

Somehow it seemed fitting the Phillies enjoyed success the same season they became the first team in professional sports to lose 10,000 games.

A team known for one of the biggest collapses in baseball — they blew a 6 1/2-game lead with 12 games left in the 1964 NL race — took advantage of a colossal fold to finish first. The Phils won 13 of their last 17 and wound up 89-73.

The Phillies' long-suffering fans are quite familiar with heartbreak and failure. One World Series championship (1980) in 125 years makes for plenty of disappointing finishes, especially in recent seasons.

In 2005, the Phillies were eliminated on the final day. Last year, they were knocked out on the next-to-last day of the season.

Finally, the die-hards have reason to celebrate.

Guided by heavily criticized manager Charlie Manuel, Philadelphia overcame a 4-11 start and numerous injuries to key players. Yet even in mid-September, the comeback kids — they rallied for 48 come-from-behind wins this season — never gave up.

"No matter what the stakes are, we're never going to quit," center fielder Aaron Rowand said.

Many players admitted they shifted their focus to the wild-card race earlier this month. Once the Mets started free-falling, helped by Philadelphia's three-game sweep at Shea Stadium on Sept. 14-16, winning the division became a possibility.

No major league team failed to finish first after having at least a seven-game lead with 17 to play. The Phillies joined the 1934 Cardinals and 1938 Cubs as the only teams to overcome seven-game deficits in the final month.

"The Mets just hit a bad streak, and we were able to take advantage," general manager Pat Gillick said.

The Phillies hadn't spent a day in first place until tying the Mets on Thursday night. They moved into sole possession of first Friday, but gave it right back with a loss on Saturday.

Before they took the field against the Nationals, the Phillies looked up at the out-of-town scoreboard and saw the Mets were trailing 7-0. And, you didn't have to be inside the ballpark to know that score.

When the Marlins scored their fourth run in a seven-run first inning, one tailgater leaped high in the air off the back of his flatbed pickup, landing feet-first on a plastic Mets helmet, crushing it into tiny pieces. His buddies circled around and mocked New York fans with "Jo-se, Jose, Jose, Jose, Jo-se, Jo-se!" in the singsong pattern of soccer's "Ole" chant.

Jose Reyes isn't going to the playoffs, but Rollins is on his way. Rollins took heat for boldly predicting last winter that the Phillies were the team to beat in the NL East. Rollins backed up his words with an MVP-caliber season, and added one more highlight to a sensational year with an RBI triple in the sixth.

"I'm no prophet, just a baseball player," Rollins said.

With the crowd emphatically chanting "M-V-P!" during Rollins' at-bat, he lined his 20th triple into the right-field corner for a 5-1 lead.

Sensing something special, the sellout crowd at Citizens Bank Park never chanted "E-A-G-L-E-S!" Sunday or during the six-game homestand.

Not since the days of the Dude and Wild Thing — Lenny Dykstra and Mitch Williams — has a Phillies team captured the hearts of a city starved for a championship. The NBA's 76ers were the last to win a title in 1983.

And leave it to a native son to deliver at a crucial time. While fellow 40-something Tom Glavine struggled for the Mets, Moyer (14-12) was sharp. Moyer grew up in nearby Souderton and played hooky from school to attend the Phillies' victory parade on Broad Street in 1980.

The crafty left-hander allowed one unearned run and five hits, striking out six. He baffled hitters with a typical mix of offspeed pitches and barely 80-mph fastball.

"I'd like to be going down Broad Street again on one of those floats instead of watching the floats go by," Moyer said.

Tom Gordon, J.C. Romero and Myers finished it off with 3 2-3 scoreless innings.

Rollins singled leading off the bottom of the first against Jason Bergmann (6-6). He stole second and third and scored on Chase Utley's sacrifice fly to give the Phillies a 1-0 lead.

In the third, Howard made it 3-0 with a two-out, two-run single. His solo shot in the seventh capped the scoring.

Valeria Ferrari

Valeria Ferrari - hot by name and just as hot by nature.


She's definitely one horny bitch who is always so ready to play with your hard cock so come on in and have some fun.


She's ready for it and she wants to start right now!

Adriana Morena

Adriana is one hot babe who loves to have fun. She'll tease you and get you all hot and horny and then she'll spread her legs
and beg you to drive your cock deep into her wet pussy.


She's waiting for you right now so come on in and have some fun with her .

Fifty ways to understand the "Protect America Act"

By Carol Gee

There is a new law on the books that affects all U.S. citizens. It has the potentially comforting but ironic title, "The Protect America Act." The law (PAA, for short) is the latest amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. It was hurriedly passed by Congress in August, 2007.

The subject of the legislation - PAA - is very difficult to comprehend. As a matter of fact Congress did not really comprehend the amendment for which they were voting. Wisely, they made it temporary with a "Sunset" provision. It will have to be fixed by February of next year. And Congress needs our help to do this. But in order to weigh in to your elected officials on the law's problems, we must understand the complexities of the Act.

I have compiled a kind of 50-item glossary that might help "get through the weeds" of the PAA. My approach to this task has been to look through my own September blog posts (on civil liberties and foreign intelligence gathering) for key items with terminology that might be confusing. Most are linked to the posts that have the original information. The glossary will give you my best understanding as a layman of what the terms really mean to us as citizens, but in simpler language. Please understand that these definitions are in my own words and editorial comments, unless cited, not the official ones.

I begin with this: OCP -- Our Current President (my own term), aka POTUS, the President of the United States. V-POTUS is aka the "Veep." Understand that the PAA was their deal. That is the first "given."

1. ACLU -- American Civil Liberties Union: Those on the Right would call it a "special interest group." Civil libertarians call it our "special watchdog" having the willingness and capacity to sue the government on behalf of citizens' constitutional rights.
2. AKA -- "also known as." This is included to illustrate that I know "spy talk."
3. Analyst -- The professional arm of the Intelligence Community, they are trained and certified to analyze the information gathered for intelligence purposes electronically or by the spies.
4. AUMF -- Authorization for the Use of Military Force: Congressional action giving the Commander in Chief particular permissions regarding the "use the force" of the military to protect the nation.The executive and legislative branches disagree on the meaning of what was authorized prior to the invasion of Iraq.
5. Briefing -- in reference to the "(Intel) Community" sharing intelligence findings with its "customers."
6. Checks and balances -- originated in the U.S. Constitution. The current challenges are to the Congress and the Courts to "check" the power of the Executive branch of government.
7. Civil liberties -- enumerated in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search or seizure (privacy protection of one's home and person).
8. Community -- refers to the people who make up the "Intelligence Community," the FBI, the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, the NCTC, etc. They also consider themselves part of an international community of people in the "Intel" business.
9. Customers -- The Community serves its clients, those who need to know the things that intelligence gathering produces. Examples include the POTUS, and the Vice-POTUS, members of Congressional Intel committees, and law enforcement people.
10. Community of interest -- the network of people that a target of surveillance is in contact with. Used in the data mining business.
11. Database -- Electronic information gathered for intelligence purposes is entered into a holding location in order to facilitate management of the raw data. This data consists of billions of bits of electronic data gathered through a variety of means, such as telecommunications records, e-mails, satellite info, bank records, etc.
12. Data mining -- sophisticated methods of analyzing raw data for commercial or intelligence purposes.
13. Domestic surveillance -- the spy business as it is practiced in the United States, as opposed to spying elsewhere.
14. DNI -- Director of National Intelligence. This intelligence coordinating position was created when the government was reorganized after 9/11/01. The DNI or his designee gives the POTUS his daily briefings.
15. Electronic Surveillance -- eavesdropping, listening to conversations, watching what people do, etc., in order to uncover threats to the national interest. The surveillance/spying is via electronic rather than person to person means.
16. FBI -- Federal Bureau of Investigation: Since the governmental Intel reorganization, the FBI is generally supposed to be in charge of domestic intelligence -- that within the United States -- though there are many FBI agents stationed overseas.
17. FISA -- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - 1978: legal framework governing foreign intelligence collection, analysis and dissemination. It has been amended many times by Congress.
18. Foreign intelligence -- The Intel business as it is practiced outside the U.S. Constitutional protections are supposed to follow U.S. citizens when they are outside the U.S.
19. Fourth Amendment -- "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (source: Wikipedia)
20. Incidental -- When someone is "targeted" for electronic surveillance only one end of the conversation can be targeted for listening. The authorities have no control over who the target calls, or who calls the target. All non-target overheard subjects are known as "incidentals," though they may become targets themselves.
21. Inherent authority -- refers to the constitutional powers given to those who govern. "Unitary theory" of the presidency ascribes very broad inherent authority to OCP. Civil libertarians see this as the source of much mischief.
22. Intelligence -- Information gathered and analyzed for the purpose of protecting the United States from threats to its national security.
23. Justice Department/AG -- The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the U.S., overseeing the Justice Department. Currently an Assistant Director for National Intelligence carries a portion of the legal portfolio for the nation's Intel business, under the Acting Attorney General. (source: Wikipedia)
24. Minimization -- refers to the procedure under FISA whereby privacy protected incidental surveillance information (gathered without a warrant) is expunged ("innocent,") minimally revealed ("name protected,") or published ("of foreign intelligence significance,") depending on the judgment of the agents, analysts and supervisors.
25. National security -- something that is supposed to keep the people of the U.S. safe and secure. It is often associated with secrecy, so as to protect the sources or methods of obtaining the information.
26. National security letter -- An official letter from the FBI compelling the recipient to turn over information for national security purposes. Recently abused by the FBI, the letters were not legal substitute for a warrant issued by a court.
27. NCTC -- National Counter Terrorism Center. The "action arm" of the Intel community that works to "counter" terrorist activity.
28. NIE -- National Intelligence Estimate. An official document of the Intel community, it is designed to inform us about the most significant national security threats. (source: DNI - "NIE" 10 pg. pdf)
29. Northern Command -- The military sector that includes the United States. Charged with military protection of "the homeland."
30. Oversight -- Refers to watching what is done by another entity. The procedures and the work of the Intel community receive oversight from within the executive branch at 4 levels, as well as from Congressional Intel committees.
31. PAA -- The Protect America Act of 2007. The law came as a result of very strong entreaties from the Executive branch, claiming that they were unable to protect the nation unless the FISA law was changed.
32. Posse Comitatus -- An Act that substantially limits the powers of the Federal government to use the military for law enforcement.
33. Probable cause -- A legal standard required to get a FISA surveillance warrant.
34. Retroactive liability -- Protection against being sued for liability for things done in the past that may have been illegal. Still being sought for telecommunications companies who assisted the government with warrantless wiretaps.
35. Reverse targeting -- A practice that is illegal under FISA law. Involves targeting an innocent party in order to get at the person at the other end of that conversation.
36. Security clearance -- Official permission to know national security secrets. Members of the House and Senate are not required to get security clearances by reason of their oversight responsibilities as elected officials. Staffers are required to get clearances.
    
37. Satellite -- A space satellite able to do high resolution visual surveillance.
38. SigInt -- signals (electronic) intelligence, as opposed to "HumInt," (gathered by humans) intelligence.
39. Sleeper cell -- Terminology used to refer to a group of alleged terrorists in the U.S. waiting to strike at the U.S.
40. Sunset -- A provision in the law that requires that it be renewed.
41. Surveillance -- secretly gathering information about the activities of a suspicious person or persons.
42. Target -- The person or group under formal electronic surveillance. If foreign no warrant is required. If domestic a FISA warrant is required.
43. Telecommunications infrastructure -- Companies that provide communications services. They must cooperate with the government before electronic surveillance can take place.
44. TSC -- Terrorist Screening Center; it keeps the Watch List of suspected terrorists.
45. Ubiquitous -- everywhere. All over everything.
46. U.S. citizen -- has the civil liberties rights protections of the constitution.
47. U.S. person -- a person in the U.S. who may or may not be here legally. A warrant is required to target electronic surveillance on a U.S. person.
48. Warrant -- A court order allowing surveillance of the named subject(s).
49. Watch list -- A list of suspected terrorists. Error rate a problem.
50. Wiretap -- an electronic listening device or method for overhearing conversations.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

SCARLETT JOHANNSON "GLAMOUR GIRL"

JENNIFER IS SUCH A POPULAR NAME

JENNIFER CONNELLY,JENNIFER LEIGH,OR JENNIFER LOPEZ ???

WINONA RIDER - NEW MORE MATURE LOOK ?

KUDOS TO WINONA FOR USING MARISA TOMEI AS A FASHION ACCESSORY !!!

HOT ISRAEL - SEXIEST ARMY IN THE WORLD !

APPARENTLY ITS NOT ALL ABOUT SOCIAL AND RELIGIOUS REPRESSION ANYMORE !!!

HILARIOUS CELL PHONE MISHAP ! ! !

No Newt

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Alas, some sad news. Newt Gingrich will not -- repeat, not -- be running for president. I know, I know. You had your hopes up. You were all looking forward to it. Hey, so was I. I can admit that. I'm not ashamed. I really, really, really wanted Newt to run.

Bummer.

Why was I so excited? Me -- a liberal, a Democrat, the embodiment of all that is anathema to Newt. What had me so turned on to him, to his prospective candidacy?

Well, allow me, briefly, to look back through the mists of time, back to some of the Newt-related posts I've written, way back when, well in the past. The explanation lies there, somewhere.

Yes, here it is -- May 15, 2007:

Sure, there's Tancredo (crazy on immigration), Brownback (crazy on abortion), Romney (crazy clean image) McCain (crazy for war), Giuliani, (just plain crazy), and so on, but there's always room for more craziness on the Republican side. Remember back in '00, for example, when Bauer and Keyes were running and Bush was widely seen as the class clown? Good times.

Gingrich would bring to the show not only his massive and shameless ego but some genuine partisan zeal, unironic self-righteousness, ugly arrogance, and a whole lot of hypocrisy and personal baggage. Plus, he's proven his dangerous idiocy time and time again.

I think an apologist for the Confederacy is just what the GOP needs, and it'd be sincerely edifying to have him defend his linguistic bigotry, not to mention his understanding of the word "ghetto," on the national stage. Oh, and he'd be the James Dobson candidate -- he has already confessed his sins to that evangelical maniac and, "mistakes" and all, he could very well turn out to be the darling of the religious right.

Yes, this is sounding better and better.

Run, Newt, run!

But... no. It is not to be. No runnng. Nor for Newt.

Which means that all we have to look forward to is more of Newt's man-crush on Fred Thompson, so common to so many on the GOP side.

That -- and more of the same from the ever-so-crazy bunch seeking the GOP nomination: Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Huckabee (fundamentally crazy), Keyes (utterly insane), and, yes, Freddie T. and his on-screen personae (delusionally crazy).

Yes, good times. But they could have been so much better.

Thanks for nothin', Newt. (2012, anyone?)

Shine On

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It doesn't get much better than this. "Shine On You Crazy Diamond" -- by David Gilmour (with Richard Wright, David Crosby, Graham Nash, and an incredible band), live at Royal Albert Hall, from the new DVD, Remember That Night.

The video's at YouTube, but BUY THE DVD!

What can be done to liberate the people of Burma?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The totalitarians who call the country Myanmar, a military junta that makes up one of the most brutal regimes in the world, have clamped down on those who wish to liberate the country from within, the monks and other protesters who have had enough of being brutalized.

The insular rulers of that insular country, a country made ever more insular by the insular totalitarianism of those rulers, seem to care nothing for world opinion, nor for their country's place in the world. They have responded to internal dissent by cutting the country off even more from the outside world, notably by cutting off access to the Internet.

And, of course, they responded to non-violence with violence, with brutality, with murder. The "official" reports, those released by the totalitarians, the illegitimate "government" of what is rightly called Burma, play down this violence. They set the death toll well below what it must really be. The violence, much of it unreported, given the absence of international journalists and the control of whatever local media there are, has been widespread, as the totalitarians have sought to crush any and all opposition to their rule.

And yet the protests continue, the streets in Rangoon and elsewhere alive with hope:

Several hundred people have held protests in Burma's main city of Rangoon, despite three days of crackdowns on pro-democracy protests.

Protesters chanted slogans before being baton-charged by security forces, and at least two were severely beaten, eyewitnesses said.

In the central town of Pakokku hundreds of monks reportedly led a peaceful march of thousands of demonstrators.

Such incredible courage, such an admirable cause. But what is to be done? They cannot do it alone.

**********

The cultists of national sovereignty -- which is to say, many at the U.N., many around the world who stand as apologists for genocide -- argue that the crisis in Burma is an internal matter and therefore that there is no cause for intervention. But there must be intervention where genocidal regimes are in power. Have we not learned the lessons of the last century, of Rwanda, Bosnia, now Darfur, and so many others? The question is rightly not whether to intervene but how to intervene. Obviously, military action is often not the answer. Whether through unilateral action (the U.S., mostly), treaty-based multi-lateral action (NATO), or international action (the U.N.), military responses to such crises may not be feasible, for a variety of reasons. So what else?

Diplomacy, sanctions, pressure. And this seems to be the course the U.S. and Europe are taking, and, for once, I cannot find fault with the position of the U.S. government, that is, with the Bush Administration:

The Bush administration stepped up its confrontation with the ruling junta in Myanmar on Friday, and officials said they were searching for ways to persuade China and other nations to cut off lending, investment and trade into the country.

But in a sign of how limited Washington's leverage is against the country, which has long been the target of American sanctions, officials said they were concerned that China, a trading partner and neighbor of Myanmar, would block any serious effort to destabilize the Burmese government.

The administration seems to regard the violent crackdown on Burmese monks as a long-hoped-for opportunity to get other Southeast Asian nations to rethink their insistence that they should not interfere with the internal politics of their neighbors. The hope is that American pressure might force the Burmese leaders into a political process that would drive them from power, if not from the country.

"What we are trying to do is speed their demise," said a senior American official. "The question is, do we have the diplomatic and economic influence to hit a bank shot here," by persuading Beijing, in particular, that its dealings with Myanmar could embarrass it as the 2008 Olympics approach.

Another senior official said the administration would try to persuade China to offer sanctuary to the leaders of the junta, in hopes it would get them out of the country. Other ideas include getting China and India to halt investment in new oil and gas projects, cutting off bank lending in places like Singapore to freeze Burmese accounts.

These are "techniques are modeled on the sanctions designed against North Korea," sanctions which have been somewhat successful in terms of cutting off (Western) investment and other engagement with the Hermit Kingdom. But there is only so much the U.S. and Europe can do without Chinese and Indian support. As long as the totalitarians in Burma have China and India to prop up their regime, efforts to "speed their demise" may not be all that effective.

Still, it's something -- and something (Bosnia) is better than nothing (Rwanda). With military action not feasible, the crisis in Burma forces the U.S. and Europe to pursue other means, notably diplomacy (through the U.N.), tougher sanctions, pressure on China and India, and, presumably (hopefully), secret efforts in support of the protesters and their cause.

The Burmese people need our help. This confrontation with their totalitarian rulers must amount to a lot more than talk if they are to be liberated.

Climate conference feedback

By Carol Gee

(White House photo)

The climate conference in Washington has not been smooth sailing for OCP. Our Current President's efforts to derail the global climate change movement are hopefully not going to have much effect. What do others think?

Making gas --
Aljazeera (9/28/07), headlined "Bush: Nations Must Reduce Own Gases." The headline makes me grin, for some reason. But they played the story absolutely straight. To quote:

George Bush, the US president, has said that countries must find their own methods for reducing emissions that cause climate change.

In a White House sponsored-speech to 16 major polluting nations, Bush also proposed that state leaders meet for talks on climate change next year, while renewing his opposition to mandatory caps on emissions.

. . . The 16 nations gathered in Washington for the two-day conference are Australia, Britain, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, South Africa and the United States.

The bus has already gone --
BBC News (9/29/07) put it succinctly this way: "Bush climate plans spark debate." To highlight the UK's utterly dismissive view, I quote:

The British climate envoy, John Ashton, said the US seemed isolated on the issue of fighting climate change.

"I think that the argument that we can do this through voluntary approaches is now pretty much discredited internationally," he told the Reuters news agency.

Bigger than Bush --
The New York Times included a bit in the conference story regarding German opinion. Germany holds the presidency of the European Union this year, and has not been shy about leading the EU on the issue of climate change. Each country going its own way has no appeal to Europeans, or the rest of the world, for that matter. To quote:

But critics in Europe and elsewhere say that approach will allow countries to avoid the tough choices they say are needed to slow climate warming and temper its disruptive effects: a rapid retreat of sea ice, and precipitation changes that have brought droughts and floods, damaging crops.

They favor tough new standards under a treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, signed by 170 countries but rejected in 2001 by President George W. Bush. The Kyoto pact expires in 2012. The Europeans and others are looking toward a U.N.-sponsored conference this December in Bali, Indonesia, to move closer to those goals.

In a speech at the U.N. earlier this week, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany made her view clear: Contributions to fighting climate change from individual countries or groups of countries were welcome, but could “never be a replacement for a post-Kyoto agreement under the umbrella of the United Nations.” She called for global emissions to be halved by 2050.

Who has the right idea --
Another President is also having a big conference. Former President Bill Clinton's annual Global Initiative elicited many energy and climate change commitments from members. Gideon Rachman's blog at the Financial Times (9/27/07), in a post titled "Gore: Climate change's Mr Realism," made an interesting point. To quote:

The last couple of days in New York have provided a chance to compare the styles of two presidents and a nearly-president. On Tuesday George W Bush spoke to the UN. On Wednesday, a few blocks from the UN, Bill Clinton opened his 2007 Clinton Global Initiative. And - in the opening session - he shared a platform with Al Gore. Rather to my surprise, I thought the famously wooden Gore gave the most impressive and charismatic performance of the three men - aided by the fact that the opening session of the CGI focused heavily on his special subject: climate change.

. . . By contrast, the man who pipped Gore to the presidency in 2000 still seems a little too relaxed about the problem. It is true that President Bush has moved on the issue. He now frankly acknowledges that there is a big problem, that mankind has contributed to global warming and that carbon-emissions need to be cut. But he is still resisting the idea of binding, international targets. Bush is about to convene his own global warming summit in Washington. But many people at the UN and at the Clinton Global Initiative still see the Bush administration's approach as a distraction and an impediment to a genuine global agreement. If Gore is right about the polar ice cap, even one more year without real American leadership on global warming is a big worry.

Greenland's glaciers tell the tale --
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's website makes the point that the cliche, "a picture is worth a thousand words," is true. Rather than being an obstacle like OCP - in effect "fiddling while Greenland melts," Pelosi cared enough about the problem to go see for herself.

Meanwhile, the Russians are going about claiming the Arctic. At Ria Novosti's website, you can catch up with the "Russian Arctic mission."

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

OPRAH STILL THE RICHEST CELEBRITY

I THINK OPRAH IS HOT... LIKE $260 MILLION HOT !!!


Forbes' latest list of highest-paid TV celebrities proves it pays to be on daytime television.

The financial magazine had Oprah Winfrey leading the way by a mile, with an astonishing $260 million in earnings between June 2006 and June 2007, Reuters reports.

Second in the list was "Bee Movie" star Jerry Seinfeld earning $60 million, mostly from "Seinfeld" reruns.

Next was another talk show host, David Letterman, who landed at No. 4, taking in $40 million from his "Late Night with David Letterman."

"American Idol" sour puss Simon Cowell earned $45 million to land at No. 3, and "Apprentice" grump Donald Trump was No. 5 with $32 million.

"The View" star and co-owner Barbara Walters landed at No. 18 with $12 million.




Here's the full top 20:

1. Oprah Winfrey, $260 million

2. Jerry Seinfeld, $60 million

3. Simon Cowell, $45 million

4. David Letterman, $40 million

6. Jay Leno, $32 million

7. Dr. Phil McGraw, $30 million

8. "Judge" Judy Sheindlin, $30 million

9. George Lopez, $26 million

10. Kiefer Sutherland, $22 million

11. Regis Philbin, $21 million

12. Tyra Banks, $18 million

13. Rachael Ray, $16 million,

14. Katie Couric, $15 million

15. Ellen DeGeneres, $15 million

16. Ryan Seacrest, $14 million

17. Matt Lauer, $13 million

18, Barbara Walters, $12 million

19. Diane Sawyer, $12 million

20. Meredith Vieira, $10 million

ORPHANED HEDGEHOGS ADOPT BRUSH MOTHER

Four tiny orpahned hedgehogs are snuggling up to the bristles of a cleaning brush - because they think it's their mother.

The four inch long creatures are being hand-reared by staff at the New Forest Otter, Owl and Wildlife Park in Ashurst, Hants.

Workers say Mary, Mungo, Midge and Slappy get comfort from playing with the centre's cleaning brush and enjoy rubbing against it.

Daft as a brush: These orphaned hedgehogs snuggle up to thier adoptive brush mother
Enlarge the image

The smells on the brush, which is used to sweep a yard, remind the hedgehogs of their natural habitat while the texture reminds them of their mother.

Manager John Crooks, 41, said: "They are a bit like human babies - they need activities to keep them busy.

"Because they have very poor eyesight you have to appeal to their sense of smell and touch by giving them different scents and textures.

"They like natural scents and have enjoyed playing with our cleaning brushes, soil, leaves, flower pots and the like.

"They particularly seem to enjoy rubbing against the brush.

"It may sound odd but I imagine the bristles feel a bit like their mum."

We're more than even!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Canadian dollar briefly reached parity with the American dollar last week, before pulling back slightly. But today -- well, it feels awfully good:

The Canadian dollar has closed above parity with U.S. dollar for first time since November, 1976, closing up two-thirds of a cent at $1.0052 (U.S.).

The Canadian dollar vaulted back above parity early Friday and held on to its gains throughout the afternoon as commodity prices rallied and the U.S. currency continued to struggle.

The Canadian currency reached parity with its U.S. counterpart for the first time in 31 years on Sept. 20. Since then, it has risen above par during intraday trading a number of times but has failed to close above that level.

The generally weak American dollar has helped, of course, but another reason for the rise of the loonie (the nickname of our dollar) is oil: "'Among the G-10 nation currencies, the Canadian dollar is used more than any other as a proxy for oil,' Rebecca Paterson, global currency strategist at J.P. Morgan in New York, said in an interview. 'So when oil prices rise, anyone that wants to bet on oil and does not want to play the commodity market turns to the Canadian dollar.'" With the price of oil on the rise, almost reaching its record high today, the dollar has become a currency of choice for investors.

Why does it feel so good? Because, to some extent, national (and personal, insofar as the national is personal) self-identity is connected to the value of one's currency. If your currency is strong, you generally feel good about your country. It makes no sense, given the intricacies and inanities of the international currency market, but buying power matters -- the understanding that x amount of your currency buys y amount of another. It may not matter all that much whether the Canadian dollar is worth 70 U.S. cents, or 90, or a full dollar, or, as is currently the case, a tiny bit more than a full dollar. What does such "value," or worth, even mean?

And yet, it wasn't so long ago that the relative strength of the U.S. dollar and the relative weakness of the Canadian dollar -- relative to each other, that is -- seemed to put us at some sort of disadvantage. We could travel to the U.S. and our dollar just wouldn't buy all that much, or so it seemed. Our dollar was a joke, or so it seemed -- so we were told, regardless of whether or not it was true. That 10-dollar U.S. book cost a few more, seemingly many more, Canadian dollars, and, meanwhile, Americans could travel up here and spend their money with seemingly reckless abandon, so strong was their currency relative to ours. And this hurt our professional sports teams, and particularly the hockey teams we care so much about, all of them having to pay out salaries in U.S. dollars while taking in Canadian dollars. Those teams needed help, and got it, and it was necessary -- and embarrassing. And we sensed, with such a "weak" dollar, that Americans were laughing at us.

But not now. Now our sports teams seemingly have more money to spend. Now that 10-dollar U.S. book costs, well, about 10 dollars Canadian. The fact this this is bad for our tourism and export industries seems to matter less -- at least for now, at least to those not involved in those industries -- than the new found strength, the rising "value," of our currency. Laugh at us if you will, but our dollar stands firm tonight.

The loonie has gone up, and, with it, so has our pride, our sense of national self-worth. There is more to this great country than the fluctuating "value" of its currency, its "value" relative to the American currency, but, for now, for the first time in 31 years, it's nice to be more than even with our superpower friends to the south.

Congressional strategy on dealing with Bush exposed by Salon comic!

By J. Thomas Duffy

Oh My God!

It's out there, on-line, for all the world to see ...

Ruben Bolling, via his Tom the Dancing Bug comic strip, has exposed the Congressional strategy for how they plan on dealing with The Commander Guy and his Grindhouse the remainder of their term.

The Garlic, making quick calls, reached Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to alert her to the leak, and Pelosi was not fazed, indicating that "Not kissing President Bush's ass is off the table".

Check out immediately Do not tell President Bush about this!

Bonus Links

Ruben Bolling

Tom the Dancing Bug On Salon






















(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

MILLA JOVOVICH - 193LBS & PREGNANT !

WHAT'S IN A TWINKIE ???

(CBS) NEW YORK America is well-known across the globe as a country with an obesity problem, a problem that's become so bad, our snacking habits have turned us into a so-called "Twinkie nation."

Over 500 million of the popular golden cakes are sold each year, but what exactly are they made of? CBS 2's Dr. Holly Phillips decided to dissect the anatomy of a Twinkie, worshiped today on sites across the Web and even on the big screen.

Dr. Phillips says there are 39 ingredients packed into the dessert, and all but one are processed.

The ingredients cellulose gum, calcium sulfate, and polysorbate 60 are also used in sheetrock, shampoo, laundry detergent, and even rocket fuel. Author Steve Ettlinger spent five years tracking down the source of every ingredient found in a Twinkie.

"I was surprised that so many not only came from petroleum, but at least five came from rocks," Ettlinger says.

The vitamins, artificial flavors, and colorings all come from petroleum. Phosphates from limestone make Twinkies light and airy.

"Sorbic acid is made from natural gas. That really blew my mind," Ettlinger says.

And the creamy middle?

"There is no cream in the cream, as they say. It's mostly Crisco," Ettlinger says.

Processed foods have been indicted as the main contributor to our childhood obesity epidemic. The 290 calories and nine grams of fat are less-than-friendly to our coronary arteries.

Hostess, the maker of Twinkies, issued a statement about the Twinkie's anatomy:

"Deconstructing the Twinkie is like trying to deconstruct the universe. We think the millions of people would agree that Twinkies just taste great."

Ettlinger says there is no denying a Twinkie is far from a health food. "It is what it is. If you want healthy, if you want something good for you, eat your broccoli," he says.

And while snacking can help boost energy throughout the day, research shows that processed, high-sugar snacks give quick jolts followed by even more fatigue. When it comes to those guilty pleasures, moderation is key.

RESCUE OF BABY BLACK BEAR FROM BRIDGE

TOSCANI'S NUDE ANOREXIA BILLBOARD

Italy's anti-anorexia ads have divided France's powerful fashion industry -- with the high end couture federation deeming them "scandalous" while its ready-to-wear cousin hails a fresh move to keep skinny models out of fashion.

Asked to comment on photographer Oliviero Toscani's striking image of a nude anorexic woman which was plastered on billboards and in magazines across Italy this week, Didier Grumbach, head of the French Couture Federation, told AFP:

"I'm pleased this is not happening in France. I find this absolutely scandalous.

"Winning notoriety through people's illness is painful. What we're seeing here is sensationalism by a label, to the detriment of an extremely serious social problem," Grumbach said.

Toscani's picture of Frenchwoman Isabelle Caro, who weighs just 32 kilogrammes (70 pounds) for a height of 1.65 metres, is part of a campaign by Italian clothing firm No-l-ita that was launched in the middle of Milan fashion week under the slogan "No to Anorexia."

"I thought this could be a chance to use my suffering to get a message across, and finally put an image on what thinness represents and the danger it leads to -- which is death," Caro told the press this week.

The French fashion industry, gearing up for its own spring-summer ready-to-wear Fashion Week starting Saturday, to date has failed to finalise a proposed charter to keep ultra thin models off catwalks, magazines and advertising posters.

"This young girl is not a model," Grumbach also told AFP. "This is low behaviour ... It is degrading."

But the head of the French Ready-to-Wear Federation, Jean-Pierre Mocho, did not agree.

"If you don't show people (anorexia) it remains nothing more than dinner-table talk," he told AFP. "You must show the disaster."

Mocho said his federation favoured a raft of stiff measures in France to meet growing global concerns over the link between showcasing skinny bodies and anorexia.

"Whatever the size of a company, measures should be imposed," he said.

Mocho bemoaned the fact that France was heading towards drawing up a consensus charter containing guidelines but no legal provisos.

Leaders of both France's powerful couture world and the ready-to-wear industry had joined a working-group set up by the Health Ministry in January amid concern over teenage anorexia following the death of two South American models last year.

But talks to fine-tune an ethics "charter on body image" drafted in May were suspended and will not resume until next month, a ministry official said.

In France, agencies require a government-registered licence and must request special authorisation for models aged under 16, who undergo regular medical check-ups.

Also asked for comment, the head of the National Union of Model Agencies (UNAM), Isabelle Saint-Felix, said she was unaware of the Italian campaign but believed that anorexia and thin models should not be lumped together.

"We have extremely specific legislation in France for model agencies," she said. "We should do more to promote our laws rather than anything else."

In case you were wondering, Chris Matthews is still a sexist jerk

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He may have massive crushes on the disreputable Judy Miller and the reprehensible Ann Coulter, but, for the most part, Chris Matthews and his balls of steel are scared shitless of powerful women, what with their feminism and sisterhood lunches, their unwillingness to play along with his chauvinism.

After the Democratic debate at Dartmouth on Wednesday, Matthews asked Chris Dodd whether he finds it "difficult to debate a woman". A stupid and blatantly sexist question, to be sure. One wonders why he didn't also ask the senator whether he finds it difficult to bring a woman to orgasm, whether he finds it difficult to deal with a woman's menstrual cycle, whether he finds it difficult not to smack a woman's ass when he finds one to his liking.

For Matthews, what this question really amounted to was this: Do you find it difficult to treat a woman with respect, to take a woman seriously, to consider her an equal. You know, because feminism has really fucked things up. The women of Matthews' perfect world ought presumably to be on their hands and knees scrubbing the bathroom floor, or whatever else Matthew would have them doing in that position, Miller and Coulter included.

Later, as if to reinforce with viewers the sheer magnitude of his sexism, Matthews said this to debate moderator Tim Russert:

Let me tell you how short Hillary's leash is. She was asked by you, sir, about whether we're going to get full disclosure of contributors to presidential libraries. And she did not feel that she had the latitude in her husband's absence to give you an answer. She said, you'll have to ask my husband, as if you're a guy going door to door trying to sell someone and says you’ll have to wait for my husband to get home.

Yes, that's right, his view of Hillary Clinton, one of the most powerful women in the world and possibly the next president of the United States, is that she's on her husband's leash, presumably also on her hands and knees, unable to speak for herself, nothing without her dominant man. Forget her many accomplishments, her intellect, her character, her very individuality. Like all good women, according to Matthews, Hillary is very much the embodiment of the weaker sex. She may have her feminism and her sisterhood lunches, but, when it comes right down to it, she's a submissive, subservient object.

This was offensive enough -- so offensive, in fact, that I cannot do it justice here -- but, as Think Progress notes, it was also grossly misleading:

[A]s Media Matters points out, Clinton said that she had "co-sponsored legislation that would have sitting presidents reveal any donation to their presidential library." She could not answer whether or not the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Library would "voluntarily" make such donations public in the absence of such legislation because she does not control those entities.

I have never been an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton, and I do not support her now, but I respect and admire her and, with some concern, would support her in the general election. But this is not about Hillary, it's about the perception of Hillary, and of women generally, and especially of strong and powerful women, by a sexist fool with his own media platform on MSNBC, a sexist fool who frequently spews such offensive abuse.

Why he still has a job, let alone his own shows on a major cable news network, however pathetic, is beyond me. I can only conclude that his bosses are content to continue to provide him the platform to spew not just offensive abuse but political commentary that is often ignorant and misleading, riddled with bias and distortion.

If anyone needs a leash, it's Chris Matthews. But, then, maybe that would turn him on. Who knows what dark and demented fantasies lurk in that sexist little soul of his?

Something told me . . .

By Carol Gee

. . . to take a quick look at the Iraq Coalition Casualties website. It had been weeks since I had done so. What I saw sent a chill through me. A new milestone -- 3800 -- has been reached. And I know that others will report this, also.

And I understand that is just a reported number, no more or no less tragic than #3799 or #3801. However, each of the three people killed in this set of numbers was absolutely and uniquely dear and precious to their families, buddies, friends and acquaintances. And to us.

What I do not understand is why. Something told me the U.S. invasion of Iraq was looming at the end of 2000. Something told me that Congress would go along. And they still are. And I don't understand that, either.

What I do understand is that 3800 brave men and women have died for their country during the war in Iraq. And I am so very sorry.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

General Pace or General Disgrace?

By Capt. Fogg

Oh hell, let Congress censure me, but I'm an American citizen and I don't work for the government and I have a right to call it the way I see it. I have absolutely no obligation to respect the opinions of people I consider to be enemies of freedom and particularly those people on the public payroll who insist they work for an invisible entity not the taxpayers. I will not be bullied into worshipping authority or their authoritarian gods.

So when Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a Congressional hearing yesterday that our secular democracy should

"not through the law of the land, condone activity that, in my upbringing, is counter to God's law,"

I have to call it disgraceful. I have to call his "upbringing" disgusting and I have to call the private and legal behavior of consenting adults none of his God damned business. There is no religious test or requirement for service in the armed forces and our troops are not required to bow to the beliefs of generals.

Screw Pace, screw his superstition, arrogance and his upbringing - and as for his god - screw him too.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

If it is broke and you can't fix it

By Edward Copeland

During last night's Democratic presidential debate, most of the top candidates refused to commit to having all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the theoretical end of their first term in January 2013. Joe Biden had the most specific answer, saying that he would only keep troops if Iraq finally gets a political solution but if it's still the chaos it's in today when he took office in 2009, he'd start immediate withdrawal.

Of course, all the posturing and specific and nonspecific answers may be moot because once again one of the U.S. military's top officers, this time Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey, told Congress yesterday that the military has reached a breaking point where it will be unable to keep up its current activities, let alone allow for unexpected conflicts or new ones elsewhere. He told the House Armed Services Committee that the Army is "out of balance":

"The current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."

What's even more fascinating is that though Casey, who has just taken on the job of Army Chief of Staff, could have held a private hearing but requested a public one so that his words could be heard by everyone. Perhaps those on the inside of the military now finally are getting the guts to take disputes with Dubyaland out in the open, since this comes the same week Defense Secretary Robert Gates edited his prepared remarks to Congress about war funding bill to delete yet another unnecessary 9/11 reference that we can only assume was placed there by one of the Bush loyalists.

Though Gates did urge the funding without any strings, Casey addressed the cost of the war as well during his House hearing, saying the costs can only go higher.

Casey's testimony yesterday sent a clear message: If President Bush or Congress does not significantly reduce US forces in Iraq soon, the Army will need far more resources - and money - to ensure it is prepared to handle future security threats that the general warned are all but inevitable.

"As we look to the future, national security experts are virtually unanimous in predicting that the next several decades will be ones of persistent conflict," Casey told the panel, citing potential instability caused by globalization, humanitarian crises, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

Responding to Casey's testimony, Rep. John M. McHugh (R-N.Y.) called the general's warnings "just downright frightening."