I rarely watch the Daily Show anymore, either.

So I have been a subscriber on Facebook of Lizz Winstead's, the creator of the Daily Show, for about a year now. Her status update this morning was "9/11", so I commented "Physics!" and posted the PBS show by Richard Gage. Not crackpot conspiracists, but actually physicists, engineers, and architects putting their career credibility on the line, saying things like "Newton's 3rd law" and "Path of least resistance." Someone commented that Bush had let 9/11 happen through his negligence, and I replied, "I think Bush did more than *let* it happen,"

She blocked me from her page. For someone who enjoys mocking those who believe such unscientific things as, there is no global warming, evolution is a lie, a woman's body can "shut it all down" she is remarkably disinterested in the inconvenience of science when it comes to the greatest crime ever committed in the US. Of course her access to powerful people, and thus her great success, depends upon her supporting the official story, and people can rarely see what their paycheck necessitates them not seeing. It's alright. The longer I was subscribed to her, the less I liked her. She was always just parroting the agenda of the Democratic party, all of her criticism reserved for Republicans. I thought she was a true political comedian, like Carlin, but she's just a very clever and amusing Democratic party mouthpiece, just another player in the vast game of "Good cop/Bad cop" being played on us all. So disappointed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l-8PFk8j5I

You can't have it both ways

Romney's position that abortion is only OK in instances of rape doesn't stand up philosophically with "Abortion is murder". Anyone who says it's murder and should therefore be illegal, cannot make the claim that is OK in rape or incest. It is either, philosophically always OK or never OK. The physiology of the fetus does not change from human to non-human depending upon the morality of the woman, whether or not she was "asking for it." If it is a question of when life begins, if it is ever OK (the fetus is not human yet) then it is always OK, if it is ever *not* OK, (the fetus *is* human) it is never OK. How the woman became pregnant should HAVE NO BEARING on whether or not she should be allowed to have an abortion, if you have rendered abortion illegal because your concern is preventing murder.

Also: How do you enforce a law that allows exceptions for rape? Can she have an abortion AS SOON AS she says she was raped? Does she have to have a hearing first to determine the likely hood she was raped? Does she have to wait until there is a CONVICTION? With how long the courts take to determine guilt or innocence, there could be a 2 to 3 year old child before the case has concluded. What if abortions are allowed as soon as a woman says she was raped, no investigation necessary? What if after the abortion, the suspect is acquitted? Will she then be able to be prosecuted for illegal abortion?

Because of these logistical problems, abortion only in the case of rape is an unenforceable law under the current legal system. Not that it matters. Because anyone who feels abortion should only be allowed in the case of rape, is a sexist interested in oppressing women, not an advocate for preventing murder. Because the fetus inside a rape victim is the same, scientifically speaking as the fetus inside any other woman, and if life has begun for one, it has begun for the other.

They *all* want him dead.

The Akin story? Too convenient. My theory: They crunched the numbers saw that Akin couldn't win, then told him how he could serve the interests of the party. Make sloppy remarks about "legitimate" rape, so that Obama can smack him down, so even Republicans can shake their heads, so it can lead the news tonight, and the idea that "rape is rape" (-Obama) can be rattling around in all y'alls heads the next time you hear about the Julian Assange situation. Not because he raped anyone. But because they need progressives to BELIEVE he did, or even just doubt him enough, in order that we will silently consent to him being dragged to his death for daring to practice ACTUAL JOURNALISM. Republicrats ALL WANT HIS HEAD ON A PLATTER. Do not doubt this kind of collusion.

BBC hacks cry at night with jealousy over WikiLeaks actual journalism

BBC you, vile imperialist Establishment lap dog you can kiss my ass. I tuned in at the top of the hour "news" broadcast last hour. They played less than 5 seconds of what Julian Assange actually said, then had the anchor speak for *10 minutes* to some smug hack "expert" who doubtless never put himself in any real danger for a story in his LIFE. "I don't know what he is doing talking to Obama, the President he would *never* do the the things the is alleging." And "I wasn't there, bust I *wonder* if all the police he mentioned, were there because of the protesters" (HA! I saw the livestream, LIVE. The army of police arrived at midnight local time. THERE WERE NO PROTESTERS YET. Dissembling HACK! Either you are completely ignorant of the subject you have been hired to discuss as an "expert", or you are utterly deceitful, and shame on BBC for employing EITHER.) Then the anchor asks, (incredulously!), "Why would he associate himself with *Pussy Riot*?" HACK: "I suppose he considers himself to be of the same caliber as Pussy Riot" WTF? He exposed actual evidence of actual crimes of the elite at great personal peril. They performed ONE SONG. Brave, yes, but hardly required the kind of coordination and forethought and understanding of the laws that Wikileaks and Julian Assange's work does. BBC long ago whored itself out to the will of the ruling class. And this is where you all are getting your reports about Syria. Think about that. They are so biased, they twist every fact they can to serve the interests of the western elite. They are not to be trusted to serve the public interest. (TURN OFF BBC. They are lying to you, daily.)

Who *isn't* the thief? The one who has the best lawyers.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151453177505602&set=p.10151453177505602&type=1&ref=nf

This is a photo link of Richard Hayne, President and CEO of Urban Outfitters. He’s also a supporter of Rick Santorum and donated over $13,000 to him. He’s against gay marriage and abortion.

His company pulled a pro-gay shirt back in 08, they also blatantly ripped off an Etsy designers work, featured a t-shirt for women that said “eat less” and most recently had a card with a “tranny” slur on in.

He also owns Anthropologie and Free People.

If the gay and abortion stuff isn't enough to get you mad, there is the "stealing" from Etsy artists.

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2010/05/are_brooklyn_fa.php

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/05/urban_outfitter_2.php

But as Helen Killer of Regretsy points out, there is a lot of "idea drift" in the hand crafting community. Are people "stealing" from each other? Or do ideas develop organically, across a population at the same time?

http://www.regretsy.com/2011/05/27/urban-outrage/

MY POINT is, regardless of who is the originator of the idea, as soon as an entity, be it a business or a man, that has enough money to ENFORCE a copyright claim, claims it, the idea is essentially owned... and is that fair? All ideas are based on the zeitgeist, and on the effect incremental changes in thinking, that occur daily, have upon people's thoughts. Suddenly someone thinks of something clever, but never in a vacuum. You put that same brilliant idea man in isolation for 20 years, and any ideas relative to marketing kitschy things would be lost, PDQ. You have to be in the flow of popular thought to conceive of the ideas, but you have to be rich and powerful to CLAIM the ideas, to OWN what we ALL make. This is the biggest problem with "Intellectual Property". It springs from the intellect of ALL of US.

But I am just saying what so many others have been saying, aren't I? ;-)

Dear NECN

I have been watching you for years. When money and support were POURING in from out of state for Brown during the special election, I found your lack of reporting on the fact infuriating. *Now* at last you seem to be concerned about out of state money in our Senatorial elections, because the money is going to Elizabeth Warren. Your Republican bias is glaring. And that you keep bringing it up when you were so mum in the special election is even MORE infuriating than it was then. Of course, why would Comcast want a Senator that supports REGULATION rather than the darling of the free market we have now? *You* are who is guilty of thwarting democracy of the People with the democracy of dollars and you are disgusting.