Author: Mike Nobody
Rachel Maddow Show: Stimulus Showdown and Debunked Nonexistent CBO Report
Rachel reports on the GOP’s opposition to the stimulus package and debunks some of their recent talking points about the nonexistent CBO report.
Countdown: Jonathan Turley on Wiretapping, Torture and Rove Subpoena
Keith talks to Jonathan Turley about whether there will be any convictions for illegal wiretapping and torture and whether Karl Rove will honor his subpoena to appear before Congress.
Water torture is torture using water, which can take several forms. Because no external marks are left on victims of water torture, it has been a favoured method of torture in various countries and political regimes.
The torture has notably been used against political prisoners.
Forced ingestion – Water Cure:
In this form of water torture, water is forced down the throat and into the stomach. This happens repeatedly until osmosis causes the cells to explode. It was used as a legal torture and execution method by the courts in France in the 17th and 18th century, was employed against Americans and Chinese during World War II by the Japanese, and was also used against Filipinos by American Forces during the Philippine-American War. The Human Rights Watch organization reports that in the 2000s, security forces in Uganda sometimes forced a detainee to lie face up under an open water spigot.
Water intoxication can result from drinking too much water, and this has caused some fatalities over the years in fraternities during initiation week. For example, a person was hazed to death by Chi Tau of Chico State (Caifornia) in 2005 via the forcing of pushups and the drinking of water from a bottle.
Terror of drowning
Waterboarding:
Waterboarding refers to a technique involving water poured over the face or head of the subject, in order to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning.
Whipping:
In many cases people had very cold water poured over them, to make a whipping more painful. The water also made it easier to pierce the skin.
Chinese water torture
What is called the “Chinese water torture” was a torture described by Hippolytus de Marsiliis in the 16th century that was supposed to drive its victim insane with the stress of water dripping on a part of the forehead for a very long time. It may also be characterized by the inconsistent pattern of water drips. Supposedly, the desire for the human brain to make a pattern of the timing between the drops will also eventually cause insanity to set in.
Dunking:
In this form of torture used as a Trial by ordeal, a victim would be repeatedly immersed in water, then pulled out and asked to confess to a crime. Those who failed to confess would be immersed again.
Other forms of water torture:
The Falun Gong have accused the Chinese government of using “water dungeons” on jailed practitioners. A water dungeon is simply a pool of filthy water in which a caged detainee is immersed neck-deep for days or weeks at a time. After a few days in a water dungeon the victim will be covered in festering sores and will not be able to move most major muscles for 2 to 3 weeks.
Another instance of a “water dungeon” was the so-called Waterhuis in the Amsterdam Rasphuis. Criminals that were condemned to hard labor had to saw wood in this prison in the 17th century. If they were recalcitrant they were placed in a cellar that quickly filled with water after a sluice was opened. However, they were handed a pump that enabled them to keep from drowning, provided they pumped energetically and continuously. Interestingly, this method of punishment was considered quite humane at the time. The Rasphuis prison was a popular tourist attraction for Englishmen doing the Grand Tour. The description of the dungeon therefore comes mainly to us from travelogues.
Alberto Gonzales Can’t Find A Job
Gonzales doesn’t even realize how screwed he is!
Watch and find out more at http://www.theyoungturks.com
Should Bush Admin Officials be Prosecuted
Cenk debates John Barry of Newsweek. Watch more at http://www.theyoungturks.com.
Far-Right Obama Critics Get a Reply
Published on Sunday, January 25, 2009 by The Miami Herald
Far-Right Obama Critics Get a Reply
by Leonard Pitts Jr.
”I hope he fails.” — Limbaugh
It is, of course, a calculated outrage.
Meaning, it was spewed by a clown in the media circus to kick a familiar sequence into motion: angry denunciation by bloggers, pundits and supporters of President Barack Obama (the ”he” whose failure is hoped), followed by Rush Limbaugh refusing to retract a word, a courageous truth teller who will not be moved. And, trailing behind, like the folks with brooms trail the elephants in the circus parade, Limbaugh’s devotees, complaining that their hero has been misquoted, misunderstood or otherwise mistreated. “What Rush meant was . . . yadda yadda yadda.”
A calculated outrage.
And knowing this, knowing how frequently and adroitly media are manipulated by self-promoting media clowns who defame conservatism by calling themselves conservative, one is tempted to let the statement pass, to make its way unimpeded to the dustbin like so many other manufactured controversies. But occasionally, it’s necessary to intercept one of them and hold it up to the light.
This is one of those times. Not because what Limbaugh said on his radio program a few days before the inauguration was an outrage — outrage is the point, remember? — but rather, because of what the thing he said says about him and his fellow clowns.
“I hope he fails.”
Do you ever say that about your president if you are an American who loves your country? Would you say it about George W. Bush, who was disastrous; about Bill Clinton, who was slimy; about Jimmy Carter, who was inept; about Richard Nixon, who was crooked? You may think he’s going to fail, yes. You may warn he’s going to fail, yes.
But do you ever hope he fails? Knowing his failure is the country’s failure? Isn’t that, well . . . disloyal?
The irony is that Limbaugh and the other clowns would have you believe they are bedrock defenders of this country, that they love it more than the rest of us, more than anything.
That’s a lie. Limbaugh just told us so, emphatically.
It’s not the country they love. It’s the attention. The ideology, their perversion of conservatism, is but a means toward that end.
Yes, an observer might point out that it’s counterproductive to give them attention while decrying their love of attention. But, as already noted, occasionally the clowns spew something that cannot, and ought not, be ignored.
Ideological division is nothing new to politics. But has ideology ever taken quite the seat of prominence it now enjoys? Have people ever been quite so prone to regard their ideological identity as more important than their national identity? The last 30 years are rare in that regard, if not unique.
“I hope he fails?!”
So that, what? The defamation of conservatism Limbaugh represents will stand vindicated? The Republicans will pick up a few seats in the midterm election? Limbaugh’s ”side” — his word — will score points?
A sense of mission
Is this only a game, then? No lives at stake, no future on the line, no planet in the balance? Just a game?
I hope he bricks this free throw.
I hope he fumbles that pass.
I hope he fails.
And to hell with the country.
The country doesn’t matter. The ”side” does. And Limbaugh’s side seems angry in power and angry out. It’s as if anger is all they really have.
Barack Obama was elected in large part on a promise to carry the nation past anger, past the notion that either party has a monopoly on wisdom, past the belief that ideology is identity. He was elected because people want a sense of mission that makes them feel like Americans again.
If he is successful, Limbaugh and the other clowns will face tough sledding in a radically different world. Small wonder he is so eager to strangle this presidency in its infancy. And need it even be said?
I hope he fails.
© 2009 Miami Herald
Voter Bill of Rights
Voter Bill of Rights
——————————————————————————–
From unreliable electronic voting machines and millions of uncounted ballots, to partisan election officials and 10-hour waits at the polls, it is clear that our electoral system is in dire need of an overhaul. To build a more just, secure, and robust democracy, please support the following 10-point Voter Bill of Rights:
1. Pass a Constitutional Amendment Confirming the Right to Vote
Most Americans believe that the “legal right to vote” in our democracy is explicit (not just implicit) in our Constitution and laws. However, our Constitution only provides explicitly for non-discrimination in voting on the basis of race, sex, and age in the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments respectively.
Even though the “vote of the people” is perceived as supreme in our democracy — because voting rights are protective of all other rights — Justice Scalia in Bush v. Gore constantly reminded Gore’s lawyers that there is no explicit or fundamental right to suffrage in the Constitution. The Supreme Court majority concluded: “the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.” (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104 (2000))
Voting in the United States is based on the constitutional principle of states’ rights. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Since the word “vote” appears in the Constitution only with respect to non-discrimination, the so-called right to vote is a “state right.” Only a constitutional amendment would give every American an individual affirmative citizenship right to vote.
2. Guarantee a Voter-Verified Paper Trail for All Voting Machines
Every voting machine in the United States must be equipped to produce, and store, a voter-verified paper and electronic record of every vote cast. Electronic voting machines must incorporate “open source” coding tested by an independent agency before and during the election to guarantee a transparent and fair process. A national standard for voting machines should be implemented to insure that by 2008, every vote cast in federal elections is cast using the same voting technology.
3. Replace Partisan Oversight with Non-Partisan Election Commissions
It is time to overhaul our federal, state, and local election agencies to guarantee fair elections. We must replace the current system of partisan election administration, in which partisan secretaries of state, county clerks, election commissioners, and other partisan officials are able to issue rulings that favor their own political parties and themselves, with a non-partisan, independent system of running elections. We must end the practice of contracting out fundamental election functions, such as the maintenance of voter lists, to private corporations. We must also insure that independent international and domestic election observers are given full access to monitor our elections.
4. Celebrate Democracy: Make Election Day a National Holiday
Working people should not be forced to choose between exercising their right to vote and getting to work on time. While the laws of 30 states guarantee the right to take time off from work to vote, many workers and employers are unaware of these laws. Holding national elections on a national holiday will greatly increase the number of available poll workers and polling places and increase overall turnout, while making it much easier for working Americans to go to the polls. Election Day is already a holiday in Puerto Rico in presidential election years, and many Puerto Ricans celebrate and make Election Day a fun and festive party with a purpose. It’s time for the United States to follow Puerto Rico’s lead.
5. Make it Easier to Vote
Many citizens are discouraged from voting by unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and restrictions. We must simplify and rationalize voter registration so that no one is again disenfranchised for failing to check a superfluous box, as occurred this year in Florida, or for not using heavy enough paper, as nearly occurred in Ohio. We must require voter registrars to sign affidavits promising to submit any registrations in their possession in a timely manner. We must eliminate police intimidation, language, physical disability, extra-legal requirements of personal identification, and other barriers to voting. To ensure that all qualified voters are able to vote, we must follow the lead of states like Minnesota and Wisconsin by replacing restrictive voter residency requirements with same-day voter registration, allowing qualified voters to register at the polls on Election Day itself.
Our current system forces millions of voters to wait up to ten hours to vote. This is unacceptable, and it disenfranchises those who cannot afford to wait. To increase access to the polls, all states must provide sufficient funding for enough early voting and election-day polling places to guarantee smooth and speedy voting. To ensure equal access and minimize the wait at the polls, election authorities must allocate resources based upon the number of potential voters per precinct. We must put an end to the government-backed practice of allowing partisan activists to challenge the voting rights of individual voters at the polls. Instead, the government must invest in campaigns designed to educate voters about how they can exercise and protect their right to vote.
6. Count Every Vote!
Voters must know that their vote will count and make a difference. Every recent presidential election has been marred by the discounting millions of spoiled, under-vote, over-vote, provisional and absentee ballots. This discounting of votes has disproportionately impacted people of color, especially African Americans, and is a fundamental voting rights and racial justice problem. Election officials must ensure that every voting precinct and wards is adequately staffed with sufficiently trained personnel and professional supervision; that old and unreliable voting machines are replaced; that absentee ballots are mailed with a sufficient time for delivery; that every ballot, including provisional ballots, are counted; and that provisional ballots count for statewide and federal contests regardless of where the vote is cast. Election officials should wait until after any recounts have been completed to provide final certification of election results.
7. Implement Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and Proportional Representation (PR)
We must replace our current “first-past-the-post” system with Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Unlike our current system, which forces voters to reject their preferred candidate in favor of a “lesser evil” who may have a better chance of defeating the candidate they most fear, IRV allows them to choose both. In this way, it eliminates the so-called “spoiler” and “wasted vote” effects and gives voters a more democratic set of choices. Under IRV, voters simply rank candidates in order of their preference (first, second, etc.). If a candidate wins a majority of first choice votes, that candidate is the winner. If no candidate gets a majority of first choices, the lowest vote-getting candidate is eliminated, and his/her votes are given to the candidates whom the supporters of the eliminated candidate chose as their second option. Counting continues until one candidate has received a majority. IRV therefore not only allows voters to voice their real preferences; it also ensures that the will of the true majority, not a mere plurality, produces the winner of each election. In addition, IRV makes it possible to conduct the runoff count without the need for a separate and expensive runoff election. Instant Runoff Voting has been used successfully around the world, including Ireland, Australia, and most recently, San Francisco.
The right of representation belongs to all citizens. Our winner-take-all elections award representation to the largest factions and leave everyone else, often the majority, unrepresented. The winner-take-call system unnecessarily restricts choice, polarizes politics and limits political discourse. We must adopt Proportional Representation (PR) for legislative elections to ensure the fair representation of all voters. Millions of Democrats in Republican areas and Republicans in Democratic areas are unrepresented in our system, and the majority of Greens, Libertarians, and other independents are unrepresented at all levels of government. Our system should provide fair representation to all voters, in proportion to their numbers.
8. Replace Big Money Control With Public Financing and Equal Air-Time
In a system where the amount of money a candidate spends is directly related to their likelihood of winning, it is not surprising that voters think politicians are more concerned with big campaign contributors than with individual voters. We must follow Maine’s lead by establishing a nationwide system of full public financing for all ballot-qualified candidates. We must require the broadcasting corporations that license our public airwaves to provide airtime for debates, and free time for all ballot-qualified candidates and parties.
9. Guarantee Equal Access to the Ballot and Debates
In our current electoral system, independent parties and candidates face a host of barriers designed to limit voter choice and voice. Ballot access laws and debates specifically designed to exclude independent party candidates discourage voting and undermine the legitimacy of our elections. In most cases, the established parties have never themselves met the signature requirements they impose on independent parties. We must eliminate prohibitive ballot access requirements, and replace the partisan Commission on Presidential Debates with a non-partisan Citizens Debate Commission.
10. Abolish Electoral College, Enfranchise Ex-Offenders, Enact Statehood for the District of Columbia
It is time to end the safe state/battleground state dichotomy and make all votes equal, no matter the state of the voter. We must amend the Federal Constitution to replace election of the President by the Electoral College with direct election by the voters. At the same time, for so long as the Electoral College persists, we must amend our state laws and constitutions to allocate each state’s electors proportionately to the popular vote.
The permanent disenfranchisement of former felons, a practice that falls outside of international or even U.S. norms, is an unreasonable and dangerous penalty that weakens our democracy by creating a subclass of four million excluded American citizens. The practice has also been used to purge voter lists of hundreds of thousands of citizens never convicted of any felony. Because the criminal justice system disproportionately penalizes African American males, this disenfranchisement is racist in its impact and is constitutionally suspect. Those states that permanently disenfranchise felons must amend their laws and practices to restore full citizenship to ex-offenders.
It is also time to end the disenfranchisement of the over half million Americans who reside in the District of Columbia. D.C. residents deserve the same political rights enjoyed by citizens of our nation’s fifty states, namely full voting representation in both houses of the U.S. Congress, as well as legislative, budgetary, and judicial sovereignty. Washington D.C. is the only existing majority African American federal jurisdiction, and thus, the denial of D.C. voting rights is inherently racist. Furthermore, the denial of D.C. voting rights cannot be defended on the basis of population size; the majority white State of Wyoming has a smaller population. It is time to grant statehood to the District of Columbia.
Additional Information:
The Voter Bill of Rights is a product of the2001 Democracy Summer program and the 2004 No Stolen Elections! campaign.
My Immigration Solution
If Mexicans want to be Americans so badly, why not get Mexico to apply for U.S. statehood?
That way, Mexico would abide by the same laws as the U.S. and get the same protections as U.S. citizens. Also, the current proposals by the Republicans & Democrats are unfeasable in effectively dealing with illegal immigration.
Besides, the Southern border of Mexico would be much easier to manage immigration through than the current 2,000+ miles between the USA and Mexico. The U.S. would benefit by having easier access to Mexican resources without having to deal with customs and border issues. NAFTA was essentially created for the purpose of setting a pretext to create a North American Union, similar to the European Union. However, the design of this Union (shaped behind-the-scenes by an elite clique of globalists) robs the U.S. of it’s national sovereignty and civil rights protections. The corporate elites want a pseudo-communist constitution to replace the sovereign constitutions of Canada, Mexico and the USA. The “Amero” is intended to replace all three currencies as well.
If Mexico JOINED the United States before such a Union was completed, it could save us from losing our constitution to the conspirators doing this.
BANNED AGAIN! Updated 12-22-08
MIKE NOBODY GOT BANNED AGAIN!
My new YouTube screen name is MikeNobodyIsBack. I also have a sister page which is exclusively my own content MikeNobodyStuff. My other accounts on LiveVideo, Dailymotion, PutFile, etc. have not been changed.
I’m still Mike Nobody.
We are the United MadTubers. We are an online organization here to fight for youtuber rights. Many youtubers, maybe such as yourself have had videos deleted, because of “terms of violation”, or “copyrights”, although nothing was wrongly done. You may have even had account deleted, even though what you were posting was perfectly legal. What we want is for Youtube to allow us to fully “Broadcast Ourselves” without deleting our accounts or videos.
New Channel at LiveVideo!
Well, I got tired of YouTube (deleting my account, four attempts at a director’s account, crummy site hardly ever works, etc.). So, I’m moving. I’ll keep my YouTube account open and check out anything new there. But, I’m focusing my energies where they’ll get better results (got a director’s account first day and doubled the file size I can upload, the software seems to work better, the community is already gelling really well. It looks good)
More Rh1no1 Questions:
Rh1no1
But hey… if there is no God, then who made us? Who made the primordial glue? Who created innate senses? Who created life? Who created calcium and protein? What is your take on that?
There wasn’t a “who”, it was “what”…which was the Big Bang, which created the universe, planets, stars, comets, etc.
Molecules of amino acids formed from atoms which were formed from neutrons, proton, quarks, etc. pulled together by gravitational forces.
Those amino acids were stimulated by electrical charges present when the Earth was very, very, young. This formed the first proteins which became single-celled organisms. Single cell organisms later created multi-cellular organisms.
Stimulated further by solar radiation, the evolutionary process created mutations in organisms which were passed on generationally over 4.57 Billion years. Organisms became more complex over time as they adapted to their environment.
Who created the propensity for the big bang? Just curious about your answer.
From Wikipedia;
In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that the universe emerged from a tremendously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The theory is based on the observations indicating the expansion of space (in accord with the Robertson-Walker model of general relativity) as indicated by the Hubble redshift of distant galaxies taken together with the cosmological principle.
Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity (for reporting on some of the more notable speculation on this issue, see cosmogony).
The term Big Bang is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble’s law) began — calculated to be 13.7 billion (1.37 × 1010) years ago (±2%) — and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and expansion of the universe, as well as the composition of primordial matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted by the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory.
From this model, George Gamow in 1948 was able to predict, at least qualitatively, the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). The CMB was discovered in 1964 and further corroborated the Big Bang theory, giving it an additional advantage over its chief rival, the steady state theory….
Buddhism has a concept of universes that have no initial creation event, but instead go through infinitely repeated cycles of expansion, stability, destruction, and quiescence. The Big Bang may be reconciled with this view, since there are ways to conceive an eternal creation and destruction of universes within the paradigm. A number of popular Zen philosophers were intrigued, in particular, by the concept of the oscillatory universe.
The oscillatory universe is the hypothesis, attributable to Richard Tolman from 1934, that the universe undergoes an infinite series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.
It was once popular amongst cosmologists who thought some force would prevent the formation of a gravitational singularity and connect the big bang to an earlier big crunch: the mathematical singularities seen in calculations were the result of mathematical over-idealizations and would be resolved by a more careful treatment. However, in the 1960s, Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose and George Ellis showed that singularities were a universal feature of cosmologies with a big bang and that no feature of general relativity could prevent them. Theoretically, the oscillating universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death. Other measurements suggested the universe is not closed. These arguments caused cosmologists to abandon the oscillating universe model.
The theory has been revived in brane cosmology as the cyclic model, which evades most of the arguments leveled against the oscillatory universe in the sixties. Despite some success, the theory is still controversial, largely because there is no satisfactory string theoretic description of the bounce in this model.
Rh1no1 Questions
I’ll try to get through your questions here. But, I’m not a philosophy major.
Rh1no1;
What I would like to ask you after this reply, is this: Is atheism based on the belief that faith, or anything yet concretely proven, is merely hypothesis and should not be respected, valued, or adhered to?
I can’t speak for all atheists. But, even in science, there is the matter of “probabilities”. Hypothesis’ typically begin on a hunch, which theory “smells good”. With more data gathered, a hypothesis can either show a low probability or high probability of being correct when tested. Monkeys might evolve the ability to fly someday. But, it looks improbable. Nothing supports that hypothesis. So, its not even entertained.
In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is a mathematical limit on the accuracy with which it is possible to measure everything there is to know about a physical system. In its simplest form, it applies to the position and momentum of a single particle, and implies that if we continue increasing the accuracy with which one of these is measured, there will come a point at which the other must be measured with less accuracy.
Wouldn’t this go against the claim that atheist have which is that they have a right NOT to believe?
Everyone has right to believe whatever they like, no matter how ridiculous. But, when false claims and imaginary deities do demonstrable harm to society, or promote ignorance of what is true, those claims must be challenged.
Atheism isn’t a church with its own dogma. The point of atheism, as far as I know, is to spend less time and resources chasing false hopes, exercise the higher brain faculties and use reason to find what is demonstrably true. This would enable humanity to make improvements in the future that we lacked in the past.
It something has a connection to your heart rather than to a ruler and a scientific principal, does it make that belief any less important or valuable than one that can be re-proven in a jar?
In what context? if my heart tells me to do something that is demonstrably horrific (like barbecuing the neighbor’s kids for laughs) its a safe bet the evidence trumps my heart.
On the other hand, listening to your heart can trump perfectly rational situations and you may sacrifice yourself, acting against your own self-interest for a higher purpose and the greater good.
Is a girl’s belief in a unicorn (or God) any less valuable than, say, the theory or relativity or the speed of light?
The Theory of Relativity or Unicorns or God has no bearing on morality, if that’s what you’re getting at. Conscience is a product of our evolution as a species, both biologically and socially. Even primates and other animals are capable of empathizing with others.
Which one helps her survive best?
Neither.
What is the qualification?
To survive humans need food, water, and oxygen.
If you mean what helps her remain sane and healthy, that’s another subject.
And you’re right, religion is sometimes illogical, but sometimes it is not. If this is not really an argument about which belief is right, and which one is wrong, is it simply about one’s right to choose what to believe?
If so, then why the argument?
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when asked how the world might have changed, biologist Richard Dawkins responded:
Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where’s the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Dangerous because it teaches enmity to others labeled only by a difference of inherited tradition. And dangerous because we have all bought into a weird respect, which uniquely protects religion from normal criticism. Let’s now stop being so damned respectful!
What is the argument?
What is the harm done by belief in the supernatural? and Is it worth continuing to promote this belief without something to substantiate it on?
Can you define it using one sentence?
Is there or is there not a God and, if so, which one?
There are so many layers of abstract. Nothing in life is as concrete to me as the abstract notion of love. It’s hard to argue a paradox. Are we all talking over one another or do we meet somewhere in here, perhaps on a more universal level? As usual.. philosophy asks more questions than it answers.
Yes it does.
I think I stated in one of my videos that I tried to define my philosophy toward religion by saying I am an Existential Zen Buddhist Atheist. I kinda got into Buddhism (as philosopher Alan Watts called it, “The Religion of No Religion”), in a strange way, by reading up on physics.


