Happy Birthday, Bergs!!!

 (a/k/a PamB)

And, as the month of June is a sign of the approaching Summer, cyber ice cream will also be served!!
BY: CynNY 

Tom Cruise Gets What He Deserves!!

Tom Cruise Gets What He Deserves!!

What a flippin' nutjob!

At this point, Over the Hedge is poised to pass Mission: Impossible III in domestic grosses. Yes, talking animals are out-grossing Tom Cruise—and they're not even Pixar animals. It seems beyond debate that Cruise has a problem, especially with the ladies.

The article recommends that Cruise takes one year off to foster (IMO) memory lapses by folks who witnessed him jumping on couches over his "love" of Katie Holmes. It was a total publicity stunt, IMO. AND I can't help but wonder if Katie is locked up in Cruise's basement dungeon or something and having Scientology crammed down her throat WHILE keeping her away from her parents. It seems to me Katie needs a serious intervention to rescue her from the cult freak.

And you can read more about how Cruise does whatever he wants no matter what anyone (wants to) tell him. Kind of reminds me of someone with the initials, GWB. Too cocky to consider he is wrong and refuses to change course. In fact, he won't even entertain hearing anyone telling him that he is wrong. Read more below:

http://www.slate.com/id/2143174/

BY: Rose 

Another Republican to unseat in CT

Another Republican to unseat in CT

Chris Murphy gave Democrats what may be their best hope in years of beating veteran Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) last week when he moved five miles from the town of Southington to Cheshire, a short drive from Hartford.

While my son's primary (no pun intended) efforts are with the Chris Malloy campaign, he is also contributing a bit to Murphy's campaign against Johnson. Sooo, tomorrow (after my son finishes his canvassing shift for Malloy), Matthew will go to a Murphy fundraiser later in the evening.

Murphy was the first president of Matthew's HS Young Dem's here in town. Since Matthew was the president of the same organization for two years, there's a certain loyalty there — enough where he opted to take some compensable time off from the Malloy work to better Murphy's cause.

More on Murphy:

Hill News Link

By: Rose 

I’m a big fan of Felicty Huffman.

I'm a big fan of Felicty Huffman. I'm probably a bigger fan of her husband William H. Macy (you just have GOT to see Fargo!). And I was so pleased that Huffman received awards for this film. That being said, I'm not sure how I feel about it. The beginning was a bit dull, but that may be because I had already seen Huffman on her junket talking about the role in detail. Nothing left to the imagination.

As a woman, I didn't particularly like the character, Bree, in this movie. She was too prim and proper for me. Somehow, though, that persona did elicit a level of respect (limited LEVEL) from her long lost son. But I did like that she had heart and soul (when it seemed at first she did not) so great that she put her surgery in jeopardy in order to help the lost boy try to find some straight (no pun intended) ground in his life.

On that note, I do have questions about sexuality for her and her son and why he persued her before he found out she WAS his father (I hope that isn't giving too much away!). And Bree's mother was a total beotch!! This is a life and an attitude I don't understand. Granted I don't have a child in that circumstance, but I'm quite sure if either of my sons came to me and told me he was a "she" or gay, I would still love them as much as I do now. I might be a bit shocked at the initial revelation, but they are still my boys.

But, geez. That mom had some weird fixations on sex and penises (sp?) in general. She didn't like the pet dog's tail being erect b/c it reminded her of a penis. She yelled at the dog for cleaning his privates . . . accusing it of masterbating. Then she made some references that her husband (the seemingly only sane one in the family) was a sex maniac. Mom is certifiable, IMO.

Anyway, I still recommend watching this movie. It is quite an interesting story. It may serve to give more questions than it does answers. But isn't that what enlightenment is all about?

By: Rose 

Coulter

MMM Ann Coulter: Another Hairball From The Husky Throat

TALK ABOUT DEFAMATION OF THE VICTIMS! The bush luvin' TOXIC TOOTHPICK IS AT IT AGAIN. Even Rupert Murdoch's boys are slamming her this time. I imagine that they're secretly loving it though.

Coulter calls 9/11 widows "witches" By Claudia Parsons, June 7, 2006 Conservative author Ann Coulter sparked a storm on Wednesday after describing a group of September 11 widows who backed the Democratic Party as millionaire "witches" reveling in their status as celebrities. "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Coulter writes in her book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," published on Tuesday, referring to four women who headed a campaign that resulted in the creation of the September 11 Commission that investigated the hijacked plane attacks. Coulter wrote that the women were millionaires as a result of compensation settlements and were "reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis." A spokeswoman for publisher Crown Forum said it had set a first print run of 1 million copies of "Godless" and there were 1.5 million copies of Coulter's previous four books in print. The four women, Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie Van Auken, declined to discuss the book in detail but issued a statement saying they had been slandered. "There was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again," said the statement signed by the four, along with a fifth woman, Monica Gabrielle. The four women, who live in or around East Brunswick, New Jersey, became friends after September 11 and formed a group that agitated for the investigation. "Our only motivation ever was to make our nation safer," they said. Coulter, whose books include the bestseller "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," argues in the new book the women she dubs "the Witches of East Brunswick" wanted to blame President George W. Bush for not preventing the attacks. She criticized them for making a campaign advertisement for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry in 2004, and added: "By the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy." PERSONAL ATTACKS Asked by Reuters why she made such personal comments, Coulter said by e-mail, "I am tired of victims being used as billboards for untenable liberal political beliefs." "A lot of Americans have been seething over the inanities of these professional victims for some time," she added. Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey said Coulter's "shameless attack" on the widows sparked disgust. "Her bookselling antics and accompanying vulgarity deserve our deepest contempt," he said in a statement. The New York Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News. Corp., slammed the comments in an article on Wednesday headlined: "Righty writer Coulter hurls nasty gibes at 9/11 gals." Coulter, a regular television commentator who is hugely popular among some conservatives, was challenged on NBC's "Today" show on Tuesday over what host Matt Lauer called "dramatic" remarks, prompting her to say, "You are getting testy with me." Coulter is known for a combative column after September 11 saying, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." In one book, she wrote, "Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do." Her latest comments were quoted on radio stations in New York on Wednesday and the book was the subject of debate on Web sites such as www.salon.com. The Daily News newspaper's front-page headline was "Coulter the Cruel." The controversy appeared to be doing no harm to sales of Coulter's latest book, which was listed as the second-best seller of the day at online retailer Amazon.com on Wednesday afternoon. SOURCE

She's definitely the transparent poster child of the far right:
"Al Bore wants to put the war on terrorism in a lockbox.
"Gore also complained that Bush has made the 'rest of the world' angry at us. Boo hoo hoo. He said foreigners are not worried about 'what the terrorist networks are going to do, but about what we're going to do.'
"Good. They should be worried. They hate us? We hate them. Americans don't want to make Islamic fanatics love us. We want to make them die. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell angry fanatics. So sorry they're angry – wait until they see American anger. Japanese kamikaze pilots hated us once too. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons, and now they are gentle little lambs. That got their attention"
—————————————-(M)ann Coulter, 09/26/02

I have to admit one thing about her. Her intentions must be to piss off the real citizens of the United States. It works on us: What she doesn't realize (or doesn't care) is that she's not famous, she's infamous. She's really a liability to the scum that she loves, which is satisfying in a way. How do we see her? Since I like to use pictures, here's a few examples:

The pictures and a link to (M)ann songs are posted at bu$hmeriKa, HERE. I like a lot of pictures, but don't want to clutter up the FOUNTAIN!

By: Chuck 

Franken on Letterman tonight!

Franken on Letterman tonight! Sorry, I just found out.

By: Rose 

Europe ‘aided US in CIA flights’

Europe 'aided US in CIA flights'

BBC News

Fourteen European states colluded with the CIA in secret US flights for terror suspects, a report by Europe's human rights watchdog is due to conclude.

The document will be presented to the Council of Europe by Swiss MP Dick Marty after a seven-month inquiry.

An advance copy seen by the BBC says there is also evidence to support suspicions that secret CIA camps are or were located in Poland and Romania.

The two countries have strongly denied the allegation in the past.

The BBC's Tim Franks in Paris, where the report will be issued, says the charges are potentially explosive – but the difficulty remains in securing the proof.

The US admits to picking up terrorism suspects but denies sending them to Arab nations to face torture. [...]

In an interim report in January, he said European governments were almost certainly aware of the CIA's secret prisoner flights via European airspace or airports.

The new report is quoted as saying: "It is now clear – although we are still far from having established the truth – that authorities in several European countries actively participated with the CIA in these unlawful activities.

"Other countries ignored them knowingly, or did not want to know."

According to the advance copy, countries such as Spain, Turkey, Britain, Germany and Cyprus provided "staging posts" for rendition operations. [...]

European media reports have since alleged that the CIA has used several European airports for its programme of "extraordinary renditions".

Under the highly secretive process, US intelligence agencies send terror suspects for interrogation by security officials in other countries, where they have no legal protection or rights under American law. [...]

BY: Barbi 

In the Peruvian election today,

In the Peruvian election today, Socialist candidate (and former President) Alan Garcia was, despite allegations of corruption, leading Ollanta Humala, a protege of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

The story is not, despite how some on the right might spin it, that the leftist wave sweeping over Latin America is running out of steam. Quite conversely, the fact that the choice in the end was between two different brands of socialists points out emphatically how powerful it is. Conservative candidates couldn't even muster the support to make it into the final round of balloting.

This follows socialists being elected in Bolivia and Chile, as well as making big gains or taking control of the parliamentary bodies in Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina.
The only large South American country where they have not done well is Colombia, where there is still an open insurgency being fought. Heck, in Venezuela, things have moved so far to the left that not only is Chavez a prohibitive favorite to win another term later this year, but the most serious opponent he has is a guy who is even farther to the left than he is.

Central America has had much the same story. Earlier this year a socialist came very close to winning the Presidency in Costa Rica, traditionally the most conservative country in the region. And in Nicaragua, former Sandanista leader and Reagan administration bogeyman Daniel Ortega has a good chance to reclaim his old job in elections later this year. Even in Mexico, polls had showed Socialist Manuel López Obrador in the lead earlier this year. Since then, his two opponents have hired American political consultants to begin running an American style negative smear campaign against López Obrador (a style not before seen in Mexico) and current President Vicente Fox, no friend of Obrador's, made an adroit move in inviting rebel leader Subcommante Marcos to go on a speaking tour of Mexico. Marcos' line is that all three candidates are the same so voters shold boycott the election (Fox believes, probably correctly, that anyone who heeds Marcos' call for a boycott would otherwise be more likely to vote for Obrador than either of the other candidates.) Despite all this, recent polls have shown Obrador tied for first with PAN candidate Felipe Calderón.

So what is going on? It would be easy to blame George Bush, and some bloggers have done that, pointing out that Latin Americans are almost unanimous in their dislike of the U.S. leader. But let's be honest– if we do that then we give ourselves entirely too much credit. Though relations with the U.S. are certainly an issue in any Latin American election, they are not what the vote is likely to depend on. Those issues tend to be the same as they are here– economic.

So why would Latin American voters choose socialism?

Simple. Look at the model that Latin America has struggled under for years. The very wealthy, who have controlled the government and suppressed dissent– by force if necessary, have had a very nice world of low taxes, a government which outside of the military does very little, little regulation (none at all if you grease the right palm), and a relatively small middle class, mostly consisting of professionals to service the needs of the wealthy elite. On the other end of the scale, you have the impoverished masses, for whom low taxes mean little, and who get the brunt of the lack of government services while still living in a capitalist society where they have to pay for everything they can't afford. They are in competition with each other for jobs, where labor standards are almost nonexistent, and they can be hired at whatever price the market will bear. Legally they have always had every opportunity to achieve, just they have to be the one in a hundred who through a combination of skill, hard work and good fortune, manages to break out of the slum. Meanwhile businesses, both multinational and domestic, can run up huge profits and pay very little in taxes. In other words, pretty much a conservative Utopia.

What has changed to produce this revolution at the ballot box? Well, the first of these conditions– that the wealthy suppress dissent by force. Maybe not 100%, but by and large that has changed. Yes, we do now have democracy throughout almost all of Latin America. And what has been the opinion of the voters about their old system? That for most people, living in that kind of society sucks. So bad that they are electing socialists all over the place who pledge to raise taxes, increase services and have the government provide basic necessities to all.

People in Latin American don't have to experiment with conservatism. They've been living under it for generations. And now that they aren't staring down the barrel of a gun, we can see what they really think about it.

Cross posted at Deep Thought.

By: Eli Blake 

If you like a good thriller,

try this one on for size. I leave you one caveat, and that is the beginning of the movie. It shows somewhat "normal" lives for longer than I am used to in thrillers that I was a bit disappointed and wondering where the action was. But it comes on with a vengeance in due time. The ending is a COMPLETE surprise. Some edge-of-your-seat stuff there. Give it a try.

No real "reviews" for you folks because I don't want to give anything away. I'll offer more, if you like, to help ease the pain of rerun season.

And, on that note, we went to see another Aniston film, "The Breakup," at the theater yesterday. It was okay, but I hated the ending. Meanwhile, hub hit the men's room after the movie. There was another guy (older guy) at a neighboring urinal, and he was in stitches — laughing his ass off. He had just seen "Over the Hedge." Hmmm. Maybe we'll give that one a try!

By: Rose 

Enron for Dummies?

Enron for Dummies?

That's what I really need because I am clueless when it comes to trading and stocks and all of that. BUT this movie helped a bit to better understand the scandle surrounding Enron. The movie surely gave me a better understanding of how Enron f*cked Caleeforneeya over with those rolling blackouts. Parts of the movie are somewhat dry, but I think you should watch it and glean from it what you can.

By; Rose