Monday, January 30, 2012

Rick Santorum, "No Right To Privacy" This Apllies To His Wife As Well


Phoney-ram-a Catholic Religious Kook Rick Santorum, Did Not Marry One Of Gabriels' Angels, But Rather A woman Who Carried On A Long Term Affair With A Man Over 40 Years Older Than Her. She Must Of Liked The Good Life With Her Sugar Daddy, Even Though He Made Money By Providing Women - Abortions.

Pittsburgh City Paper
Slag Heap


Friday, January 20, 2012
Op-Ed: Rick Santorum doesn't believe in the right to privacy. Is his wife still entitled to it?
Posted by Chris Potter on Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 1:51 PM

"When you look at someone to determine whether they'd be the right person for public office, look at who they lay down with at night and what they believe in. Who is the person at their side who has ... the closest counselor to that person?"

-- Rick Santorum, during an appearance at the "Value Voters Summit" last October

Earlier this week, somebody took Rick Santorum up on the invitation to take a closer look at political spouses: The Daily Beast's's Nancy Hass reported the surprising news that during the 1980s, Santorum's wife Karen shacked up with a Pittsburgh obstetrician, Tom Allen, who provided abortions.

Actually, that's a bit of an understatement. "You have to understand," says Jeanne Clark, a longtime activist on women's rights issues here: "This isn't just another doctor who did abortions." Allen was a strong advocate for a woman's right to choose: "He was the most visible person on this issue here. He was the leader."

Yet as Hass' story makes clear, for several years Allen was in a live-in relationship with the future Mrs. Santorum -- who was then Karen Garver, a nursing student at Duquesne University. Among other disclosures, Hass depicts Garver providing informal support to at least one woman seeking an abortion:

In October 1983, Mary Greenberg ... flew to Pittsburgh to consult Allen about an abortion. He directed her to colleagues at the Women's Health Center; Karen, recalls Mary, immediately offered to accompany her to the clinic. "She told me it wasn’t that bad, that I shouldn’t be worried," says Mary, who ultimately went on her own, and met Allen and Garver for dinner later that night. "She was very supportive."

To some, the most surprising thing about the story is that Allen was four decades older than Karen Garver -- and that in fact, he'd delivered her as a baby. But perhaps equally surprising is the direction Garver’s life took once the relationship ended. (Hass ascribes the break-up to the fact that Allen didn't want children.) Today, after all, Karen Santorum is known as the author of a book, Letters to Gabriel, which stakes out a staunchly pro-life position while recounting a different part of her life story: the tragic death of a son. She is married to a former Senator who, in his own book, opined that "Too few of us dare say living together without the benefit of marriage is wrong."

Nor surprisingly, Hass' piece has outraged some conservatives, though just as unsurprisingly, it seems some in the pro-life fringe are citing the story to discredit him.

But generally, the story has been met with a yawn. While the Newsweek report has gotten some play from the New York Daily News, and some foreign papers, a Google news search suggests it has largely been ignored by major news organizations here. (Some have mentioned the piece in reporting on the pro-life attacks on Santorum, however.)

Among the media outlets that have ignored the story are both daily newspapers in Pittsburgh, where it all took place. Which may not be surprising: At least at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, I'm told, reporters have been aware of the Garver/Allen romance for years. Columnist Sally Kalson, for one, acknowledges having known about the Allen/Garver romance, "from way, way back." In fact, Clark says that while she believes the story is "absolutely fair game," she figured it had never been written because "the story was so out there in public" -- as an open secret among Allen's wide circle of friends .

This isn't the first time the story has surfaced beyond that circle, only to disappear quickly beneath the waves; a 2005 Philadelphia City Paper story briefly noted Karen Santorum's relationship to Allen in a profile of the former Senator. And while I read that story, Karen Santorum’s background didn’t register with me at all. (The only part that stuck with me was the bit about Santorum shaking the reporter's hand after taking a leak.)

Of course, back in 2005, Santorum wasn't a credible candidate for president. Which raises the question: Is this story news today? Is it fair game to report on the personal life of a presidential candidate's wife ... when the conduct in question took place 30 years ago -- and before they even met?

Not everyone thinks it is.

"The journalistic issues here are pretty dicey," says Maggie Patterson, a Duquesne University journalism professor who teaches media ethics.
"There are a couple things that are problematic," Patterson says of the decision to publish. "One, [Karen Santorum] is not a candidate. People who are running for public office should not have to have family members dragged out for public scrutiny. The second is that it was a long time ago: How far back into a person's past life do you go? And the third thing is, so what? Are people not allowed to change their minds? I don't have any doubt that Santorum is sincerely a pro-life candidate. So what's the point? If at one point she had a different position, what does that have to do with the price of eggs?"

Of course, Karen Santorum is a public figure herself, having written a book about abortion. And as Clark puts it, "She's not like [former Democratic presidential candidate] Howard Dean's wife, who you never saw. You have a right to talk about people who are making public judgments about other people. And they are damaging other people's lives."

Kalson, of the Post-Gazette, agrees. "She has written a book about this, and they are very out front on the abortion issue," she points out. Even if Karen Santorum hadn't written the book, Kalson says, "she's married to a national candidate for the presidency, and everyone knows what happens to spouses in these situations. Theresa Heinz took it pretty tough." Indeed, the wife of 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry ran into a buzzsaw of opposition, no small part of it from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. (Meanwhile, both Pittsburgh papers successfully sought to open the formerly sealed will of Heinz's first husband, the late Pittsburgh-born Senator John Heinz.)

To take another example, during the 2000 election campaign, there was scattered reporting -- including from the Associated Press -- that Laura Bush, then Laura Welch and just 17, killed another driver after running a stop sign. She was never charged in the accident, which, like Santorum’s live-in relationship, took place before she met her future husband.

Kalson acknowledges that while "it does make me a little uneasy, you can't overlook the influence of spouses on each other." What's more, Kalson says, the story points up how abortion can be a more complicated issue than politicians like Santorum admit.

Clearly, Kalson contends, Karen Santorum "had no objection to abortion at the time [she was involved with Allen]. That doesn't mean her position today is illegitimate. But it does mean that her former position was also legitimate. And there are many people who are in favor of abortion rights today. She was once one of them, so surely she can see the other side. And I'm not sure that's true of her husband. "

(All of which raises an obvious question: If this is a worthy story, why hasn't Kalson, or someone else at the Post-Gazette, already written it? "I think you better ask [executive editor] David Shribman," says Kalson after a slight pause. Shribman had left town on a trip before we could connect; when I hear from him, I'll update his response.)

Duquesne's Maggie Patterson has also studied the abortion issue, having written a book about women who have confronted the choice to have one. (In fact, she interviewed Allen as part of the research for her book.) She agrees that the debate over abortion is toxic. It's "the most wedgey of the wedge issues," she says, and "we've ended up with bad policy as a result."

Patterson says the debate that should be happening around abortion concerns "why Americans have so many of them." When researching her book, she says, "I can't tell you the number of women who said, 'I had no choice BUT to get an abortion.'" A more serious discussion, Patterson says, would begin with reflecting that many developed countries with laxer abortion laws still have lower abortion rates -- in part because they have stronger social-welfare nets.

Women who are considering abortion, she says, aren't usually worried about the terms that define the public debate -- liberty and freedom. They worry about how they would care for their child, and for those already born. But instead of talking about those questions, the debate focuses on more limited debates over individual freedom and responsibility. "When we interviewed people about the decisions they made," Patterson says, "they would say, 'I feel like I see legitimacy on both sides. There must be something wrong with me.'"

But couldn't this look at Karen Santorum's past -- which suggests how even crusaders on the issue can feel ambivalence about it -- be an opportunity to widen discussion?

"I think there are justifications for looking at her past," Patterson allows. "But the political discourse is so bitter and divided. I'm not in favor of doing this in a way that is just more of that. If you go after him on this, are you driving the discourse further into the abyss?"

A healthier, more compassionate approach, she says, would be to approach Karen Santorum and say, "This story is leaking out. You have a chance to put this experience in your own terms." (Indeed, such a story could end up helping Santorum's political aspirations: As Kalson puts it, "There's nothing evangelicals love more than a convert.") But the Santorums, despite frequently discussing other parts of their personal history in depth, have never discussed this chapter of Karen Santorum's life. And they declined to comment for Hass' story at all. Should a reporter then drop the piece completely, thereby passing up a chance to have the kind of dialogue Patterson says is so needed?

"You're asking a very tough question," she says.

So where does all that leave us? Here's my own take, for what it's worth.

Perhaps very few politicians have scrambled the personal and political so thoroughly as Santorum. Indeed, it's not clear that he recognizes a distinction: At the heart of his political philosophy is a belief that when it comes to sexual conduct, Americans do not have the right to privacy ... because what they do in their bedrooms has a bearing on the overall direction of society. To take just one example:

"The battle we're engaged in right now is same sex marriage, ultimately that is the very foundation of our country, the family, what the family structure is going to look like ... One of the things that I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the sexual liberty idea and many in the Christian faith have said, you know contraception is OK. It's not OK because it's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

And don't be too sure that this is just some empty election-year platitude. Remember the Terri Schiavo case? As a Senator, he showed a willingness -- a zeal, actually -- to bring the force of government to bear on very private family matters. There's good reason to worry he'd engage in similarly heavy-handed behavior as President.

So Santorum's own behavior would clearly be fair game. But what of his wife's past?

It's clearly a closer call. But as Kalson says, there's ample precedent for coverage of spouses' wives. What's more, if you take the quote at the top of this article at face value, then Rick Santorum certainly seems to be inviting such scrutiny of his wife's moral principles.

It's a common bit of election-year pabulum to invoke your family as a source of strength and support, of course. But to my ear, Santorum is going beyond that. He's actually suggesting that his wife's beliefs and moral fiber are a reason to elect him to office.

And hey, it's not like it was my idea to make personal morality a matter for political discussion. Rick Santorum has done that, by publicly challenging the rights of gay and straight couples alike to live their lives as they see fit. As Amanda Marcotte recently put it in Slate:

This entire story reveals why the collapse between personal belief and policy advocacy is making this country collectively stupider by the minute ... It's a shame that such a fuss is being made over Karen Santorum's past. In a sane world, we'd be allowed to have our private lives be private. But since the Santorums want to strip you of your right to sexual privacy in order to have the government micromanage your sex lives, it's high time she be held to the standard she wants for you. After all, she's benefited long enough from the freedoms that she and her husband want to take away from everyone else.

But as Patterson points out, this argument boils down to "he started it." And the charge of hypocrisy cuts both ways. Part of what makes Santorum so controversial -- and so objectionable to people like, well, me -- is his position that privacy rights don't exist. But for those of us who think he's wrong, isn't it hypocritical to deny the privacy of his wife -- no matter how juicy the story? In fighting Santorum's monstrous political philosophy, do we risk becoming monstrous ourselves?

Maybe so. In any case, "This is a story a lot of mainstream journalists are going to be squeamish about," says Jeanne Clark. And it won't be the first time the Santorums have made them feel that way.


Sunday, January 29, 2012

Archiving Life




LISTENING TO ANGELS AND AIRWAVES TONIGHT, DRINKING MEXICAN COFFEE AND SMOKING SENECAS. SPENT THE LAST 1O DAYS SORTING THROUGH ARCHIVAL MATERIAL, HERE ARE A FEW SAMPLES. THANK YOU TO THE LOYAL CYCLOPSWARRIOR BLOG AUDIENCE, I WILL BEGIN REGULAR POSTINGS AGAIN SOON. REGARDS, WARRIOR.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Are These Images Politically Incorrect Or Just Americana? You Decide!


A birthday card from the 1950's

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Klan Gets Out The Vote For Gingrich In South Carolina










SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES, THE NEW TERM FOR "EVANGELICALS" SURE AIN'T GOING TO VOTE FOR NO MORMON AND DEFINITELY WON'T VOTE FOR THAT "NIGGER" - OBAMA.

AT THEIR FRIDAY NIGHT FISH FRYS, (READ, KLAN MEETINGS) THE SOUTH CAROLINA HUCKABUCKS SURE AIN'T GOING TO VOTE FOR NO WALL STREET SLICKER FROM MASSACHUSETTS, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE'S A MORMON RELIGIOUS KOOK!

SO WHAT IF NEWT WANTED AN OPEN MARRIAGE AND CHEATS ON HIS WIVES? HELL, HE'S GETTING MORE PUSSY THAN HUGH HEFNER!

THE SUPER HAWK, CHICKEN HAWKS AND RIGHT WING REDNECKS KNOW NEWTS' A TOUGH TALKING GEORGIAN WHO WILL KNOW HOW TO KICK IRANIAN ASS AND PROTECT THE HOLY LAND OF THE BIBLE.

HELL YEAH! NEWT!

AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Paris Says Hi!

Hi!

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

This Blog On Strike Today To Protest SOPA and Protect IP - The Internet Is Doing Just Fine Without Meddling Politicians!






Confirmed Participants:


If you can also tweet at us at @FightForTheFTR from your official Twitter account, it will be easier for us to verify your participation. A blog post about why you are striking is great too!

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

The heighth of hypocrisy! Karen Santorum had six year 'love affair' with abortion doctor 40 years her senior who delivered her as a baby!



The wife of fiercely pro-life presidential hopeful Rick Santorum had a six-year love affair with an abortion doctor, 40 years her senior - and incredibly who delivered her as a baby - it has emerged.

Karen Santorum, 51, who, like her husband, opposes abortion even in cases of rape, dated Pittsburgh abortion pioneer Tom Allen during the 1980s.

When they met, Mrs Santorum, who then went by the name of Karen Garver, was a 22-year-old nursing student at Duquesne University while Allen was a 63-year-old divorcee and father-of-six.

Allen, now 92, co-founded Pittsburgh's first abortion clinic in the 1970s, and was close friend of Mrs Santorum's parents.

Her father was a pediatrician and many of his patients were referred to him by Allen.

Karen and Rick Santorum married in 1990. They have seven living children together, all of whom are home-schooled.

Interviewed recently by the Daily Beast website Mr Allen said: 'Karen was a lovely girl, very intelligent and sweet.

'Karen had no problems with what I did for a living.'

Accounts of Allen paint the picture of a caddish playboy - a wine and opera aficionado whose first marriage is said to have failed due to his penchant for much younger women.

Now forced to use a walking frame he retains his cheeky smile and remains a strong supporter of for reproductive rights.


He began dating his current wife Judi - 30 years his junior - a few months after splitting from Santorum. The couple have now been married for 16 years.

Allen claims his relationship with Mrs Santorum: 'wasn’t that big a deal, at least to me,' and admits to having had several young girlfriends before meeting her.

He said: 'My first marriage didn’t do very well because of that behavior.'

A close friend of her parents, Allen had effectively known Santorum her whole life after delivering her as a baby.

Their relationship began when she phoned him for advice while looking for an apartment to rent near Duquesne.

She moved into the basement apartment of the block where he lived on the top two floors but it wasn't long before they were cohabiting.

Recalling the day they began their relationship Mr Allen recalls: 'That first night, as soon as it got dark, she called to say she was scared and asked if she could come up.

'I figured it was a come-on, but that was OK.'

The pair lived together for nearly five years, during which time Allen paid to have her teeth straightened and bought her a grand piano.

The couple enjoyed several European holidays as well as a trip to Hong Kong together.

According to Allen’s youngest daughter, Candy who, at 51, is the same age as Santorum, the relationship did not go down well with Santorum's parents.

Allen says they split up on good terms in 1988 because Santorum wanted to have children which was something he had already done.

Although it was already known that Mrs Santorum had dated an abortion doctor, the fresh details of their relationship could damage Santorum's campaign to be picked as the next Republican Presidential nominee.

Rick Santorum is well-known for his hard-line pro-life views and Christian conservatives form a core part of his support base

He has described abortions as a great moral wrong and believes doctors who provide them should face legal proceedings.

According to a Gallup poll, Mr Santorum is currently standing in third place in the race to become the Republican nominee behind Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

He is yet to comment on his wife's relationship with Mr Allen.

Do you think Rick was bummed to find out his wife was not a virgin?

Monday, January 16, 2012

The Dream


I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.



Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.



But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.



In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."



But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.



We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.



It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.



But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.



The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.



We cannot walk alone.



And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead.



We cannot turn back.



There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."



I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.



Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.



And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.



I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."



I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.



I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.



I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.



I have a dream today!



I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.



I have a dream today!



I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together."



This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with.



With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.



And this will be the day -- this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning:



My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.



Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,



From every mountainside, let freedom ring!



And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.



And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.



Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.



Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.



Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.



Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.



But not only that:



Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.



Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.



Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.



From every mountainside, let freedom ring.



And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:



Free at last! Free at last!



Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!



In honor of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday today, this is the text from his "I Have a Dream" speech, delivered Aug. 28, 1963, at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.:




Friday, January 13, 2012

Thanks For A Record Month! Over 45,000 Hits To This Blog! WOW!




IT WAS A BIG MONTH HERE AT CYCLOPSWARRIOR..., 45,000 HITS IN THE PAST MONTH! THANKS TO THE SOUTH AMERICANS, AUSTRALASIANS AND THE EUROPEANS AS WELL AS ALL OF NORTH AMERICA.
THE REASON I STARTED THIS BLOG WAS TO HAVE ONE PLACE TO GO FOR MY INTERNET FAVORITES WHICH THE LINK SECTION PROVIDES. SECONDLY, I'M TIRED OF BEING LIED TO BY THE CON-MEN, SCAM ARTISTS AND THE POLITICIANS. I KEEP 'EM HONEST HERE OR AT LEAST TRY TO. YOUR A BIG PART OF MY SUCCESS..., VISIT OFTEN, CHECK OUT THE LINK SECTION. THE BEST PART OF THIS BLOG IS YOU!

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Idiot America Goes Apeshit After Video Of Marines Pissing On Taliban Corpses Surfaces - I Say Piss On 'Em!




IDIOT AMERICA BESIDE ITSELF AFTER LEARNING THE SONS OF LIBERTY PISSED ON CORPSES OF TALIBASTARDS THESE MARINES HUNTED DOWN. THE SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES IN THE BIBLE BELT ARE SCRATCHING THEIR HEADS, ASKING THEMSELVES,"WHY IS IT OKAY TO KILL THESE FOLKS BUT WE CAN'T PISS ON 'EM?" SORT OF LIKE COLONEL KURTZ IN APOCALYPSE NOW ASKING WHY IS IT OKAY TO NAPALM VIETNAMESE VILLAGERS BUT WE CAN'T WRITE FUCK ON THE AIRPLANE THAT'S DROPPING THE LOAD OF NAPALM. THESE FUCKING HYPOCRITES IN WASHINGTON GO AND START TWO ILLEGAL WAR YET CAN'T HANDLE THE REPERCUSSIONS OF US GI'S IN THE FIELD USING DEATHS' SCYTHE TO HARVEST ENEMY CORPSES. IDIOT AMERICA DID NOT PROTEST THESE WARS, BUSH CALLED THEM A CRUSADE AND 9-11 GAVE AMERICA ALL THE REASON IT NEEDED FOR THE QUESTION, WHY WE FIGHT?
THESE TALIBASTARDS, MUSLIM RELIGIOUS KOOKS WOULD LOVE TO SEE YOU AND ME DIE..., I SAY PISS ON 'EM, BETTER YET SLICE OFF THEIR PENISES AND JAM 'EM DOWN THEIR THROAT! FUCK THESE PRIMITIVE BASTARD BARBARIANS!

Future ShocK 1969 Never Envisoned What 2012 Would Be Like








Billions of potentially populated planets in the galaxy

Loads of Earthlike worlds in the habitable zone around stars

There are billions of habitable planets in the Milky Way where aliens could be having their tea right now, according to a new six-year study.

"Our results show that planets orbiting around stars are more the rule than the exception. In a typical solar system approximately four planets have their orbits in the terrestrial zone, which is the distance from the star where you can find solid planets." said astronomer Uffe Gråe Jørgensen from the Niels Bohr Institute.

Star-gazing boffins from PLANET, the Probing Lensing Anomalies Network, used the gravitational microlensing technique to spot the worlds lying in the habitable zone around a star, which differs from the 'transit' method used by NASA's Kepler mission.

The 'transit' way to find planets looks for dips in the brightness of a star that would show that a planet had passed in front of it. But planets that are either very far or very close to their star can be missed by this technique.

Microlensing uses one star as a 'lens' to amplify the light from a star behind it. If one star passes precisely in front of another, the gravity of the one in front bends the light from the one behind. If there's a planet orbiting the front star, that can produce additional brightening, which reveals the planet.

Microlensing events from a star alone last around a month, but if there's a planet involved, the extra brightening goes on for a few hours or days.

There's also a third method of detection, known as the radial velocity method, which measures how much a star rocks in small circular motions due to a revolving planet's gravitational force.

The microlensing process can tell boffins the mass of the planet, but unfortunately, it can't give the scientists any idea of what that world is made of. Just because a world is within the habitable zone, doesn't necessarily mean it will have the life-giving composition of our own planet.

"Together, the three methods are, for the first time, able to say something about how common our own solar system is, as well as how many stars appear to have Earth-size planets in the orbital area where liquid what could, in principle, exist as lakes, rivers and oceans - that is to say, where life as we know it from Earth could exist in principle,” said Jørgensen.

Of the 40 or so microlensing events the astronomers studied, three showed evidence for exoplanets. Statistically, the research team extrapolates that one in six stars has a Jupiter-sized planet, half have one the same mass as Neptune and two-thirds have an Earth 2.0.

“This means, statistically, every star in the galaxy should have at least one planet, and probably more,” said Kailash Sahu, of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore.

“Results from the three main techniques of planet detection are rapidly converging to a common result: Not only are planets common in the galaxy, but there are more small planets than large ones,” said Stephen Kane, a co-author from NASA’s Exoplanet Science Institute. “This is encouraging news for investigations into habitable planets.”

The studies combine to tell us there are plenty of planets with the right temperature to support life, but whether the other building blocks are around or not remains to be seen.

“There are so many unique events in our solar system that have created the basis for the development of life on Earth," Jørgensen said.

"Comets brought water to our planet so that life could arise and a series of random events set in motion an evolution that lead to humans and intelligent life. It is very unlikely that the same circumstances would be present in other solar systems."

But just so we're not totally disappointed the continual absence of proof of aliens, he added; “perhaps other coincidences in other solar systems have led to entirely different and exciting new forms of life".

The research has been published [1] in this week's Nature

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

South Carolina The Deepest Fried Of The Southern Fried States








NEXT UP FOR THE REPUBLICANS, SOUTHERN FRIED SOUTH CAROLINA..., BIRTHPLACE OF THE CONFEDERACY..., THE HOME TO MANY BOSS HOGS AND DUKES OF HAZARD. A PLACE WHERE RICK PERRY AND RICK SANTORUM WILL DO WELL BECAUSE OF THE BACKWARDS HUCKABUCKS WHO CALL SOUTH CAROLINA HOME. THIS IS THE STATE THAT PUTS THE CAPITAL R IN REDNECK, AND THE CAPITAL I IN IGNORANT.

Largest cities, 2010

In 2011, the US Census Bureau released 2010 population counts for South Carolina's cities with populations above 26,000.

Largest cities, 2010 Census
City Population
Columbia
129,272
Charleston
120,083
North Charleston
97,471
Mount Pleasant
67,843
Rock Hill
66,154
Greenville
58,409
Summerville
43,392
Sumter
40,524
Hilton Head Island
37,099
Florence
37,056
Spartanburg
37,013
Goose Creek
35,938
Aiken
29,524
Myrtle Beach
27,109
Anderson
26,686

US Senate

In the 112th United States Congress, the South Carolina delegation to the U.S. Senate are:

[edit] US House of Representatives

South Carolina currently has six representatives in Congress:

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Willard Wants The Strongest Military In The World! Willard You Won't Even Pay For The One You Have Now!




HARD RIGHT REPUBLICAN PRICKS LIKE WILLARD "MITT" ROMNEY ALWAYS USE THE MILITARY LIKE THE PAWNS THEY ARE TO PROMOTE THEIR RADICAL RIGHT WING AGENDA LIKE THE NEOCONS AND THEIR PHILOSOPHY OF PERPETUAL WAR.

AFTER WINNING THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY TONIGHT, ROMNEY BRAGS THAT HE'LL HAVE THE STRONGEST MILITARY IN THE WORLD WHEN HE'S PRESIDENT.

PROBLEM IS, WILLARD..., WE BORROWED MONEY FROM THE CHICOMS TO FIGHT IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN BECAUSE YOUR FELLOW MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES BALKED AT PAYING MORE IN TAXES TO PROSECUTE THESE WARS. THINK - BORROW MONEY TO FIGHT WARS AND PAY IT BACK OVER DECADES WITH INTEREST ACCRUING DAILY.

WILLARD,WHERE THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE MONEY TO BUILD THIS MEGA MILITARY YOU ARE HAVING A WARGASM ABOUT? THE RICH CAN PAY MORE IN TAXES BUT ARE PROTECTED FROM DOING SO BY THEIR REPUBLICAN HENCHMAN IN CONGRESS. THE RICH DONATE HEAVILY TO THE REPUBLICANS BECAUSE REPUBLICANS ARE TRAITORS TO AMERICA AND REFUSE TO HOLD THE WEALTHY ACCOUNTABLE SO THEY WILL PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE IN TAXES TO PAY FOR THINGS LIKE THE MILITARY, WAR AND OTHER FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT CRITICAL FOR A SOCIETY TO FUNCTION.

MITT, YOU'RE A TRAITOR TO AMERICA. GOD HELP THIS COUNTRY IF YOU GET ELECTED. THE BASTARDS!

Monday, January 9, 2012

Destination Unknown - Follow The Stars - Full Moon Bright