Bloggfrslur mnaarins, jn 2006

Hin fullkomna veruleikafirring AM Talk Radio

Blue State - Red State. etta eru gamlar frttir, og hlf klisjukenndar. En a er alltaf vi og vi a maur er minntur etta - a a s flk sem virkilega skilji ekki hvort anna - einhverra hluta vegna. a er of auvelt a tskra lkar plitskar skoanir me v a vsa til ess a eir sem eru sammla manni su einfaldlega heimskir ea ffrir - og stundum list a manni s grunur a eir su anna hvort vondir ea vitfirrtir (og nna er g a hugsa um vini vors og blma, ljflingana Bill O'Reilley og Ann Caultner).

En, stundum neyist maur til a spyrja sig - getur veri a vitfirringarinr su virkilega a misskilja alltsaman?

Glenn Beck, sem er ein af rsandi stjrnum AM Talk Radio Bandarkjunumer einn af eim sem g held a hafi misskili hlutina einhvernveginn lliega. Beck er lka me ttastubb CNN, sem gerir hann a meirihttar media-personality.

Undanfarna daga hefur Beck haft miklar hyggjur af v a New York Times flytji frttir af njsnaprgrmmum Bush stjrnarinnar - n seinast eftirliti eirra me llum bankafrslum inn og t r Bandarkjunum. Og eftir a hafa eytt miklu pri a frast yfir v a fjlmilaflk skuli voga sr a gagnrna stjrnvld (Gagnrna stjrnvld! hvlk svfni! gerir etta flk sr ekki grein fyrir v a stjrnvld eiga a stjrna, og skrllin a hla?Og ekki eitt mkk!)fer Beck a velta v fyrir sr hva geti hugsanlega vakafyrirNYT a birta frttir um njsnir rkisstjrnarinnar:

How can you be fighting for the same things that Al Qaeda wants, you know? ...The New York Times is just -- I don't get it. I don't understand it. Except that I really truly believe that they believe that we're a bad nation, or at least our government is bad and has always been bad.

a er oft skemmtilegt a skoa hugsanafli vangaveltum AM Talk Radio, v essir ttir eru allir sendir t beinni tsendingu, og virast yfirleitt vera spunnir upp stanum, og g held a maur geti yfirleitt teki essa speklanta orinu - eir eru a segja a sem eir meina. Beck alvrunni mjg erfitt me a skilja af hverju NYT myndi vilja vera a segja almenningi fr v a a s veri a njsna um , og honum finnst alvrunni a NYT s a berjast fyrir v sama og Al Qaeda, og einhvernveginn tekst honum a tengja r vangaveltur vi fjldamor gyingum og indjnum! N vri auvelt a afskrifa Beck sem hlfvita ea einhverskonar jlasvein - en g held a a s eiginlega elilegra a skra essa furulegu vangaveltu hans me v a draga t orin "I don't get it. I don't understand it.".

Vandamli er sennilega einmitt etta - Beck og skoanabrur hans skilja ekki hlutverk fjlmila, eir skilja ekki muninn v a fremja hryjuverk og fjldamor og a voga sr a gagnrna stjrnvld.

Annars birti NYT helvti gan leiara um daginn ar sem eir rttlttu umfjllun sna um njsnaprgrm Bush stjrnarinnar.

June 28, 2006

Patriotism and the Press

Over the last year, The New York Times has twice published reports about secret antiterrorism programs being run by the Bush administration. Both times, critics have claimed that the paper was being unpatriotic or even aiding the terrorists. Some have even suggested that it should be indicted under the Espionage Act. There have been a handful of times in American history when the government has indeed tried to prosecute journalists for publishing things it preferred to keep quiet. None of them turned out well — from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the time when the government tried to enjoin The Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers.

As most of our readers know, there is a large wall between the news and opinion operations of this paper, and we were not part of the news side's debates about whether to publish the latest story under contention — a report about how the government tracks international financial transfers through a banking consortium known as Swift in an effort to pinpoint terrorists. Bill Keller, the executive editor, spoke for the newsroom very clearly. Our own judgments about the uproar that has ensued would be no different if the other papers that published the story, including The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal, had acted alone.

The Swift story bears no resemblance to security breaches, like disclosure of troop locations, that would clearly compromise the immediate safety of specific individuals. Terrorist groups would have had to be fairly credulous not to suspect that they would be subject to scrutiny if they moved money around through international wire transfers. In fact, a United Nations group set up to monitor Al Qaeda and the Taliban after Sept. 11 recommended in 2002 that other countries should follow the United States' lead in monitoring suspicious transactions handled by Swift. The report is public and available on the United Nations Web site.

But any argument by the government that a story is too dangerous to publish has to be taken seriously. There have been times in this paper's history when editors have decided not to print something they knew. In some cases, like the Kennedy administration's plans for the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, it seems in hindsight that the editors were over-cautious. (Certainly President Kennedy thought so.) Most recently, The Times held its reporting about the government's secret antiterror wiretapping program for more than a year while it weighed administration objections.

Our news colleagues work under the assumption that they should let the people know anything important that the reporters learn, unless there is some grave and overriding reason for withholding the information. They try hard not to base those decisions on political calculations, like whether a story would help or hurt the administration. It is certainly unlikely that anyone who wanted to hurt the Bush administration politically would try to do so by writing about the government's extensive efforts to make it difficult for terrorists to wire large sums of money.

From our side of the news-opinion wall, the Swift story looks like part of an alarming pattern. Ever since Sept. 11, the Bush administration has taken the necessity of heightened vigilance against terrorism and turned it into a rationale for an extraordinarily powerful executive branch, exempt from the normal checks and balances of our system of government. It has created powerful new tools of surveillance and refused, almost as a matter of principle, to use normal procedures that would acknowledge that either Congress or the courts have an oversight role.

The Swift program, like the wiretapping program, has been under way for years with no restrictions except those that the executive branch chooses to impose on itself — or, in the case of Swift, that the banks themselves are able to demand. This seems to us very much the sort of thing the other branches of government, and the public, should be nervously aware of. We would have been very happy if Congressman Peter King, the Long Island Republican who has been so vocal in citing the Espionage Act, had been as aggressive in encouraging his colleagues to do the oversight job they were elected to do.

The United States will soon be marking the fifth anniversary of the war on terror. The country is in this for the long haul, and the fight has to be coupled with a commitment to individual liberties that define America's side in the battle. A half-century ago, the country endured a long period of amorphous, global vigilance against an enemy who was suspected of boring from within, and history suggests that under those conditions, it is easy to err on the side of security and secrecy. The free press has a central place in the Constitution because it can provide information the public needs to make things right again. Even if it runs the risk of being labeled unpatriotic in the process.

Kristin afturhaldsfl a yfirgefa Republikanaflokkinn?

Slate dag er mjg forvitnileg pling um afstu kristinnia afturhaldsafla til Republikanaflokksins - g bendi llum sem hafa huga Bandarskum stjrnmlum a lesa hana, og a vru frttir aevangelical christians yfirgfu GOP,er hitteiginlega hugaverara, a a sublikur lofti um a a su a vera breytingar forystulii Evangelical Christians, og a essi 'kristnu' fl hafi minni huga a vera a blanda sr stjrnml - og srstaklega a eir hafi minni huga a vera pe Republikana.

23% kjsenda eru Evangelical, og Republiknum hefur tekist nnast a einoka atkvi eirra undanfrnum kosningum - og framhaldandi sigrar eirra kosningum byggjast v miki til v hvort essir kjsendur skili sr kjrdag.

a er eitt sem veldur mr kvenum hyggjum: Vibrg Republikana vi v a afturhaldssamir Evangelical Christians su a missa tr flokknum getur leitt til tveggja mjg lkra vibraga. Annarsvegar gtu frambjendur flokksins kvei a eir yru a gange lengra a vinna hylli essara kjsenda - t.d. me v a hera barttunni gegn samkynhneigum, ea me v a leggja til alvru rsa gegn kvenrttindum og reproductive rttindum.

Hin niurstaan, sem vri betri fyrir lri, frelsi og mannrttindi, vri a Republikanar httu a bila til ofstkis og afturhaldsaflanna, og legu ess sta meira upp r v a bila til mijuflks.


Strmbannfhrer Bill O'Reilly, Saddam, lri og mannrttindi


Bill O'Reilly heldur fram a dsama stjrnarhtti Saddam Hussein tvarpstti snum (The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly - seinustu viku lsti hann v yfir a ef Bandarkjaher tki upp taktk 'the butcher of Baghdad' vri hgt a fria landi rskotsstundu, og gr endurtk hann essar vangaveltur snar. Og hvaa taktk tti herinn a beita? "Martial law, torture, murder, kicking in doors. ... Tough terror" En a eru auvita alltaf einhverjir vondir commies og pinkoes sem ekki leyfa alvru karlmnnum a n rangri - ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), sem O'Reilly hatar meira en pestina, leyfir bandarkjaher ekki a sigra.

Full tilvitnun O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: It just depends on how you want to wage the war. If we wage the war the way Saddam handled Iraq, then we would have already won. That means martial law, torture, murder, kicking in doors. You know, Saddam controlled that country for 25 years. He didn't have any insurrections. He didn't have bombs going off. And half the country wanted to kill him. You know, all the Shia hated him. And how'd he do it? Through terror. So we could do it. But then, you know, as soon as you look at one of these guys cross-eyed, the ACLU's got you sued.

June 27 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly

a besta er a O'Reilly er ekki ngu mikill karlmaur til a standa vi essar furulegu fassku skoanir snar! ann 22 jn neitai hann v stafastlega a hafa lofa stjrnarhtti Saddams vitali Fox vi blaamann Chicago Tribune, en The Tribune hafi birt OpEd grein eftir Don Wycliff benti hverskonar plitk og stjrnarfar O'Reilly vri rauninni a boa.

g hef alltaf haft dltinn huga O'Reilly, v hann virist vera einhverskonar furulegur tmaferalangur - a arf ekki a horfa hann lengi, ea hlusta, til a tta sig a hann er vitlausum sta, og vitlausum tma. skaland fyrri hluta aldarinnar hefi sennilega hft honum betur...


Vsbendingar um hvort The Robert Court muni banna fstureyingar

kvrun Hstarttar Bandarkjanna varandi kosningalg Vermont, gefur kvenar vsbendingar um hvernig hstirttur, eftir a Bush og republikanaflokkurinn eru bnir a bta vi tveimur hgrisinnuum dmurum, muni taka tilraunum til a gera fstureyingar lglegar. egar tilnefning Roberts var stafest af inginu, lofai Roberts vi, a vsu frekar loi, a hann myndi halda uppi eldri dmsniurstum, .e. hann myndi ekki leitast eftir v a kollvarpa fyrri niurstum dmsins vikvmum mlum.

Vermont mlinu greiddi Roberts ekki atkvi me Clarence Thomas og Antonin Scalia, sem bir vildu a hstirttur hafnai alfari v a stjrnarskrin leyfi lagasetningu sem setti hmrk fjrframlg til frambjenda- me v setti Roberts sig andstu vi tvo hgrisinnuustu dmarana rttinum. etta gefur vsbendingu um tvennt:

1) Roberts er ekki steyptur nkvmlega sama hugmyndafrilega mt og eirScalia ea Thomas.

2) Roberts fer varlega a hafna eldri dmsniurstum hstarttar.

nstu vikum mun hstirttur taka fyrir ml sem snertir llrmda endurteikningu kjrdma DeLay Texas. a verur forvitnilegt a fylgjast me v hvernig Roberts tekur v mli.


Ingraham veri Jon Stewart Fox News?

haldsmnnum Bandarkjunum hefur svii undan eim Comedy Central flgum Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) og Stephen Colbert (The Colbert Report) [sj essa nlegu frslu Ritstjrans um skaleg hrif eirra flaga lri]- en eir hafa trlegan hfileika til a benda frnleikann og hrsnina mlflutningi og stefnu nverandi stjrnvalda BNA...

Grn-sjnvarpsst afturhaldsaflanna, Fox-news, hefur, samkvmt orrmi netinu, gert rstafanir til a hleypa af stokkunum sinni eigin tgfu af The Daily show, og hver a f a stra eim tti nnur en sjnvarpskonan geekka, stjrnmlaspekingurinn og mannvinurinn Laura Ingraham! Ingraham vri kannski loksins komin rtta hillu?


New York kurteisasta borg veraldar

Samkvmt Washington Times.

a er klisja Bandarkjunum a bar New York su ru flki kurteisara, og a s varla fyrir simennta og kurteist flk r Mivesturrkjunum ea rum hlutum "the heartland" a htta sr innan um ruddaskapinn strborginni. essi mta passar gtlega vi hugmyndir sumra um a New York s ekki verftandi fyrir allra handa hommum, vinstrimnnum, gyingum og innflytjendum... New York er, samt Seattle og Portland ein vinstrisinnaasta, ea mest liberal, borg Bandarkjanna.

g ver a jta a g hef ekki enn komi v verk a heimskja NY - en allir sem g ekki segja a New Yorkbar su bi almennilegir og kurteisir. Og samkvmt nlegri rannskn er New York lka kurteisasta borg veraldar - Bombay kurteisust verldinni, Moskva og Bucharest dnalegastar Evrpu. Maur hefi reyndar haldi a samneyslusfamflg Kommnista Rmenu og Rsslandi hefu tt a geta ali upp kurteisa borgara, en einstaklingsfrelsi og frjlshyggjan Bandarkjunum a ala upp frekju og dnaskap flki...


Washington bannar skrifstafi reseptum lkna!

etta er me skemmtilegri lagasetningu sem g hef s! Til ess a lkka kostna heilbrigiskerfinu, og fkka mistkum lkna, hefur Washington fylki banna lknum a fylla resept t me skrifstfum:

Physicians barred from using cursive to write prescriptions

On June 7, a new law went into effect that could paralyze the penmanship-impaired. It says that if a prescription isn't hand-printed, typed or electronically generated, it can't be filled, Jeff Smith of the state Health Department explained.

Cursive is illegal.

... random samples of 6,000 prescriptions were collected throughout the state with help from the state's Board of Pharmacy. When pharmacists, physician assistants and others tested the samples, they found 24 percent to 32 percent illegible.

ll frttin er hr.

rak og Ungverjaland

Sguekking Bush er ekki upp marga fiska, en vi vissum a svosem... Um daginn var leiari LA times um nlega sagnfrikenningar forsetans...


From Hungary '56 to Iraq '06

President Bush strains a historical analogy in the friendly confines of Central Europe.

June 23, 2006

ONE OF THE PERKS OF BEING president of the United States is traveling to the post-communist democracies of Central Europe, basking in the rare appreciation of U.S. foreign policy and co-opting the rich local narratives of freedom to justify the White House's interventions du jour. President George H. W. Bush went to a newly free Prague in 1990 to agitate for a showdown with Iraq. President Clinton celebrated victory in Kosovo with a party in Slovenia.

George W. Bush continued that tradition in Budapest on Thursday. But by drawing a direct link between Hungary's quashed anti-communist rebels of 1956 and Iraq's struggling leaders of 2006, he offered a troubling reminder that his administration continues to confuse the Cold War with the vastly dissimilar war on terrorism — while refusing to acknowledge any limitations on the use of American power.

In October 1956, university students in Budapest launched protests that blossomed into a 12-day revolution. A new government freed political prisoners and demanded full withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact. U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles backed Hungary's "sovereignty," but he also signaled to the Kremlin that the U.S. did not "look upon these nations as potential military allies." With Washington preoccupied with the Suez Canal crisis, the Red Army sent tanks into Budapest, killing thousands, driving 2% of the population into exile and extending Soviet hegemony for an additional 33 years.

Speaking in front of some surviving '56ers on Thursday, Bush said, "We've learned from your example, and we resolve that when people stand up for their freedom, America will stand with them." Which comes perilously close to saying that, if given a historical do-over, the U.S. would have sent in soldiers and bombs.

It's appropriate to question Washington's response half a century ago, particularly in allowing the CIA-backed Radio Free Europe to stoke Hungarians' hopes that the West would rally to their side (a cruelty not unlike the disastrous signals sent to Iraqi Shiites who opposed Saddam Hussein in 1991). But confronting Moscow in Budapest would have almost certainly precipitated World War III, with potentially tragic results for the very people being saved. Though liberty was delayed, it eventually came, largely through the efforts of the Hungarians themselves — making it more likely to endure.

In Iraq, regime change came from the outside, and getting locals to buy into it is proving more difficult. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, Bush insisted in Budapest, "is committed to the democratic ideals that also inspired Hungarian patriots in 1956 and 1989." We hope that's true. But staking a nation's foreign policy on Iraq resembling Hungary is a recipe for disappointment — or something much worse.

Bill O'Reilly og Saddam Hussein

a er hgt a treysta Bill O'Reilley sem rjtandi uppsprettu vitfirringar og vitleysu. Njasta tspil O'Reilly eru stuningsyfirlsingar hans vi Saddam Hussein, og yfirlsingar um a Saddam hefi kunna a halda uppi r og reglu rak, og a Bandarkjamenn ttu a taka sr hann til fyrirmyndar...! tvarpstti snum lsti O'Reilly v yfir a

Saddam was able to control Iraq, as you know, and defeat insurgencies against him. The new Iraqi government can do the same, but it needs to get much tougher.

og gullkorni, eftir a hafa lst v hvernig Saddam lt taka af lfi plitska andstinga og ara vandragemsa...

That's how I'd run that contry -- just like Saddam ran it.

N hlt g einhvernveginn a eftir stjrnvld og stuningsmenn eirra hefu s a gereyingarvopnafyrirsltturinn vri orinn gagnslaus hefu au kvei a sta innrsarinnar rak hefi veri a koma lri og flma fr vldum llmenni Saddam Hussein... Er ekki kominn tmi til a O'Reilly krefjist ess a fyrrum forseti rak veri kallaur aftur til starfa?

(sj umfjllun um essi ummli O'Reilly hj Media Matters, hr og hr.)


Slfri Bandarskrar utanrkisstefnu The Onion

The Onion getur stundumme frnleikanum hitt naglann hfui! essi frtt eirra er ein af skemmtilegri analsum Bandarskum utanrkismlum sem g hef lesi lengi!

Report: U.S. May Have Been Abused During Formative Years

June 21, 2006 | Issue 42•25

WASHINGTON, DC—A team of leading historians and psychiatrists issued a report Wednesday claiming that the United States was likely the victim of abuse by its founding fathers and motherland when it was a young colony.

"In its adulthood, the U.S. displays all the classic tendencies of a nation that was repeatedly mistreated in its infancy—difficulty forming lasting foreign relationships, viewing everyone as a potential enemy, and employing a pattern of assault and intimidation to assert its power," said Dr. Howard Drexel, the report's lead author. "Because of trust issues stemming from the abuse, America has become withdrawn, has not made an ally in years, and often resents the few nations that are willing to lend support—most countries outgrow this kind of behavior after 230 years."

According to Drexel, nations that act out in selfish, self-destructive ways in statehood were usually granted too much independence at an early age, especially if the motherland had other newly annexed lands to care for.

According to Yale University psychology professor John Bauffman, while some rebellious behavior in a nation's adolescence is common, and sometimes healthy, America's historically stormy relationship with mother country Great Britain points to a deep need for acceptance.


Although the American nation appeared to be on the road to recovery by the early 1990s, watershed events such as the open discussion of sexual issues, a protracted custody battle in the closing months of 2000, and a series of threats and physical attacks from enemy nations triggered centuries of repressed memories and set off a recurring pattern of violent outbursts and emotional volatility.

"America compensated for early mistreatment by taking out this pent-up aggression on other nations—getting involved in aggressive conflicts seemingly just for the thrill of it, starting arguments and wars that can't be won, suspecting that everyone is out to get them," Drexel said. "This nation needs help, but by its very nature, refuses to accept it."

Afganginn af "frttinni" m svo lesa hr.

Nsta sa


Ath. Vinsamlegast kveiki Javascript til a hefja innskrningu.

Hafu samband