"Anyone who examines the record can see that this president has lied his way into this war."
More at Transterrestrial Musings.
H/T Dean's World
His admission to investigating magistrates in Rome on Friday apparently confirms suggestions that – by commissioning “Giacomo” to procure and circulate documents – France was responsible for some of the information later used by Britain and the United States to promote the case for war with Iraq.
Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade “yellowcake” uranium from Niger, France was trying to “set up” Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.
Related Posts (on one page):
Related Posts (on one page):
Related Posts (on one page):
Simply, a big reason for that has to be the dismal state of current campaign finance law - which gives all the appearance in the world of abetting legalized bribery. Both the governor and the state Legislature must get serious about campaign finance reform.Owen goes on to explain the logic of TABOR and the spin surrounding it. Read it all.

  
COUNTY BUDGETScott Walker responds:
Walker could lead by taking cut himself
Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker's plans to reduce the circuit court staff by 25% may be a good idea, especially if he also reduces his staff and salary by the same 25% to show how sincere he really is and willing to share the pain of downsizing. Leaders, lead!
Stan Beranek
Watertown
For those not familiar with my election as County Executive, I made a series of pledges back at the start of 2002. One of them was that I would cut my own salary by $60,000 (or about 46%) once in office. Like each of my other pledges to the general public, I kept my word and I now give $60,000 back each year. At the time, the County Executive was being paid more than the Governor of the State of Wisconsin. That, combined with the fact that I knew how bad the budget situation would be in the future, was the motivation for my salary cut.H/T to Badger Blogger and Scott Walker for Governor blog.
Equally as amusing is the fact that my office cut $300,000 from our budget since 2002. That's a 25% cut. And, we returned nearly $200,000 worth of surpluses since 2002.
How's that for leadership?
- Scott
I was probably in college when I found myself asking what seemed to me straightforward questions about the chemical origin of life. In particular:If scientists would get out of the business of trying to undermine religious beliefs in the classroom, then presenting science would not be an issue. But they present as FACTS what are really mere ASSERTIONS. There is no way to scientifically demonstrate the validity of their proposals on the origin of life...
(1) Life was said to have begun by chemical inadvertence in the early seas. Did we, I wondered, really know of what those early seas consisted? Know, not suspect, hope, theorize, divine, speculate, or really, really wish.
The answer was, and is, “no.” We have no dried residue, no remaining pools, and the science of planetogenesis isn’t nearly good enough to provide a quantitative analysis.
(2) Had the creation of a living cell been replicated in the laboratory? No, it hadn’t, and hasn’t. (Note 1)
(3) Did we know what conditions were necessary for a cell to come about? No, we didn’t, and don’t.
(4) Could it be shown to be mathematically probable that a cell would form, given any soup whatever? No, it couldn’t, and can’t. (At least not without cooking the assumptions.) (Note 2)
Well, I thought, sophomore chemistry major that I then was: If we don’t know what conditions existed, or what conditions are necessary, and can’t reproduce the event in the laboratory, and can’t show it to be statistically probable—why are we so very sure that it happened? Would you hang a man on such evidence?
My point was not that evolutionists were necessarily wrong. I simply didn’t see the evidence. While they couldn’t demonstrate that life had begun by chemical accident, I couldn’t show that it hadn’t. An inability to prove that something is statistically possible is not the same as proving that it is not possible. Not being able to reproduce an event in the laboratory does not establish that it didn’t happen in nature. Etc.
I just didn’t know how life came about. I still don’t. Neither do evolutionists.
Related Posts (on one page):
Related Posts (on one page):