Fool’s News

Don’t hold your breath.  Plus it’s happening in Sweden.

Well, the title of the article is “Redneck Wedding”.

Here

After Ike passed the Gulf Coast, it left behind a mystery — a ragged shipwreck that archeologists say could be a two-masted Civil War schooner that ran aground in 1862 or another ship from some 70 years later.

After examining photos of the wreck post-Ike, Museum of Mobile marine archaeologist Shea McLean agreed it is likely the Monticello, which ran aground in 1862 after sailing from Havana, according to Navy records.

“Based on what we know of ships lost in that area and what I’ve seen, the Monticello is by far the most likely candidate,” McLean said. “You can never be 100 percent certain unless you find the bell with ‘Monticello’ on it, but this definitely fits.”

Cool!

A 54-year-old man says his obsessive-compulsive disorder drove him to eat 23,000 Big Macs in 36 years. Fifty-four-year-old Don Gorske says he hit the milestone last month, continuing a pleasurable obsession that began May 17, 1972 when he got his first car.

Gorske has kept every burger receipt in a box. He says he was always fascinated with numbers, and watching McDonald’s track its number of customers motivated him to track his own consumption.

The only day he skipped a Big Mac was the day his mother died, to respect her request.

The correctional-institution employee says he doesn’t care when people call his Big Mac obsession crazy. He says he’s in love with the burgers, which are the highlights of his days.

Source.

Here he is:

Don Gorske

Suprisingly skinny, n’est-ce pas?

It seems that a woman is Stirling, Scotland called the local police to express concerns about her new pet. She said the newspaper ad promised floppy ears, but flop they would not.

Other calls to the local precint include:  another caller who complained that a passing car had splashed water on him and by someone else inquiring about the postal code for a town’s post office.

In my opinion, the proposed corporate bailout of irresponsible American corporations is fiscally unsound.  It rewards greedy corporation by given them even more of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars.  I have been sending a letter to senators and representatives (not just my own).  Use it if you’d like:

With the election approaching and people discussing politics and the current administration, I often read comments which, in a nutshell, can be summed up as follows:

• Why should you care if the government listens to your phone conversations if you’ve done nothing wrong?
• I don’t care.  Let the government read my e-mails without a warrant; I haven’t done anything.
• So I give up some of my rights.  I’d rather lose a few rights and be safe.
• If you are not willing to surrender some rights in the name of national security, you do not support this country and are pro-al Queda.

These arguments are worth discussing.

First, you should care.  The current administration has shown an immense propensity to lie.  It lies to Congress.  It lies to the public.  It lies to foreign countries.  If the government assures you that it is will not use information it finds against you, why would you ever believe it?

Second, the government violated the Constitution when it secretly colluded with the telecommunications companies to intercept private e-mail.  [As a side note, Qwest did not succumb to the Bush administration's pressure.]  It also secretly listened to international phone calls made by Americans while in America.  It did these things without a warrant.  Why would you trust a government which acts so covertly with its own citizens?

Reading comments on the web, it seems apparent that many Americans would sooner give up their First Amendment rights than they would give up their right to drive a gas-guzzling, pollution-emitting SUV.  That is crazy.  Have American values been so warped in the part 200 years?  We have come to value our material possessions more than the fundamental premises that make America America.  And the Bush administration has capitalized on this.  While Americans have been wondering whether to buy the Hummer or the Navigator or the Toyota hybrid or the Honda hybrid, George has been slowly taking our rights away.  While Americans have been getting subprime mortgages on homes they no longer can afford, George has been slowly taking our rights away. Soon, you will be left with nothing and will be happy you bought the giant car because soon you’re going to need to live in it with your 2.5 kids.

But, those same people would cry foul to the heavens if you tried to take away their Second Amendment right to bear arms.  Kids, there’s a reason the drafters make the First Amendment first.  It was the most important.  Even more important than the Second Amendment.  Get it?  While Americans worry about whether they should have the right to keep an automatic weapon in their closet with little Billy and Janie in the house, the government has been taking away your other – more important – rights.  Example:  Here’s a man who felt the need to use an AK47 to protect his pit bull from raccoons.

The reason Americans should not give up their rights in the name of security is that once you give them up, you will likely never get them back.  The Constitution has no provision for expediency.  The fact that it’s easier for the FBI, CIA, etc. to track al Queda by secretly monitoring Americans without probable cause is not covered by the Constitution.  The fact that it’s more convenient is not an exception.  The point of the Constitution is to make it difficult for the government to spy on its own citizens.

As Benjamin Franklin wisely stated over 200 years ago:  “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”  Well, the First Amendment is the very definition of “Essential Liberty”.

If you’re willing to give up your rights so readily, you are changing what is being defended.  If Americans are so willing to give up their rights, why bother fighting terrorism at all?  American will become a government state like China or North Korea.  If that’s what you want, let’s give up the rights now and not bother defending ourselves.

If the only way to defend America is to change it, I want no part of that “New America.”  Neither should you.  Neither should anyone.

Then-Republican Majority Leader (now a partner at DLA Piper), Richard Armey of Texas, believes that Vice President Dick Cheney may have lied to him in the days leading up to the conflict taking place in Iraq.

According to Washington Post reporter, Barton Gellman in his new book Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency,  Armey met with Cheney for a highly classified, one-on-on briefing, in Room H-208, Cheney’s luxurious hideaway office on the House side of the Capitol.  

Allegedly,

[d]uring this meeting, [] Cheney turned Armey around on the war issue. Cheney did so by telling the House Majority Leader that he was giving him information that the Administration could not tell the public — namely (according to Armey), that Iraq had the “‘ability to miniaturize weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear,’ which had been ‘substantially refined since the first Gulf War,’ and would soon result in ‘packages that could be moved even by ground personnel.’ In addition, Cheney linked that threat to Saddam’s alleged personal ties to al Qaeda, explaining that ‘we now know they have the ability to develop these weapons in a very portable fashion, and they have a delivery system in their relationship with organizations such as al Qaeda.’”

Further:

“Armey has asked: “Did Dick Cheney … purposely tell me things he knew to be untrue?” His answer: “I seriously feel that may be the case…Had I known or believed then what I believe now, I would have publicly opposed [the war] resolution right to the bitter end, and I believe I might have stopped it from happening.”

In short, it was this lie that sealed the nation’s fate, and sent us to war in Iraq. By lying to such an influential figure in Congress, Cheney not only may have changed the course of history, but also corrupted the separation of powers with their inherent checks and balances.

It appears that the Virgin Islands – though somewhat divided – some are proposing a clause prohibiting same-sex marriage in the Virgin Islands.