Friday, June 06, 2008

CyberNotes: Useless (but interesting) Facts



 
 

Sent to you by irie1972 via Google Reader:

 
 

via CyberNet by Ashley on 6/6/08

CyberNotes
Fun Friday

These weeks sure fly by, don't they? It's Friday once again so we're stepping away from Technology news for a second to have some fun. Today we're looking at useless facts that are interesting nonetheless. If you know of an interesting fact, post it in the comments below. Have a great weekend!

  1. The dot over the letter "i" is called a tittle (read more here).
  2. The word "queue" is the only word in the English language that is still pronounced the same way when the last four letters are removed.
  3. Coca-Cola would be green if coloring weren't added to it.
  4. More people are allergic to cow's milk than any other food.
  5. The "spot" on the 7-up logo comes from its inventor who had red eyes - he was an albino.
  6. 3,115 entries in Webster's 1996 dictionary were misspelled
  7. There are 318,979,564,000 possible combinations of the first four moves in Chess.
  8. The international telephone dialing code for Antarctica is 672.
  9. The average rain drop falls at 7 miles per hour.
  10. Every day, 7% of the US eats at McDonald's.
  11. In Disney's Fantasia, the Sorcerer to whom Mickey played an apprentice was named Yensid *which is "Disney" spelled backwards.
  12. Annually, 17 tons of gold is used to make wedding rings in the United States.
  13. Every U.S. bill regardless of denomination costs just 4 cents to make.
  14. The longest recorded flight of a chicken is 13 seconds.
  15. The elephant is the only mammal that can't jump.
  16. A giraffe can clean its ears with its 21-inch tongue.
  17. The sound you hear when you put a seashell next to your ear is not the ocean, but blood flowing through your head.
  18. Back in the mid to late 80's, an IBM compatible computer wasn't considered 100% compatible unless it could run Microsoft's Flight Simulator.
  19. You share your birthday with at least 9 million other people in the world.
  20. Our eyes are always the same size from birth but our nose and ears never stop growing.
  21. Almonds are members of the peach family.
  22. The penguin is the only bird that can't fly but can swim.
  23. Every time you lick a stamp you consume 1/10th of a calorie.
  24. 11% of the world is left-handed.
  25. Tigers have striped skin, not just striped fur.
  26. 25% of a human's bones are in feet.
  27. A jellyfish is 95% water.
  28. Broccoli and cauliflower are the only vegetables that are flowers.
  29. In America you will see an average of 500 advertisements a day.
  30. The average person falls asleep in seven minutes.

Sources: Here, Here, and Here

Copyright © 2008 CyberNet | CyberNet Forum | Learn Firefox

Related Posts:


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

'Top Chef' Contestant Lisa Fernandes Hates Your Poor Blogger Ass | Serious Eats : Required Eating

'Top Chef' Contestant Lisa Fernandes Hates Your Poor Blogger Ass | Serious Eats : Required Eating: "Lisa Fernandes responded:

Oh no, I don't read the blogs—you couldn't pay me to read the blogs. I don't want to know what people who can't even afford to eat in my restaurant, let alone know how to cook have to say about me, and the few comments I did read on Eater.com a few weeks back because my job asked me to read 'em. The best they could come up with was that I was ugly."

Time Warner Cable To Learn They're Being Sued Just As Soon As Their Service ...



 
 

Sent to you by irie1972 via Google Reader:

 
 

via Defamer by Seth on 6/6/08

Longtime readers of Defamer no doubt recall the days when our corporate campus was limited to a fifty-acre plot on the Eastside. True, we had all the razor scooters and air hockey we ever dreamed of, but, unfortunately, we were also solely reliant on the unstable intertube-accessing services of Time Warner Cable. This led to frequent outages, requiring the entire editorial department to wander, laptops in hand, from Silver Lake coffee house to coffee house in a desperate search for a working connection—where we'd inevitably be greeted with hastily posted signs of this nature. Why rehash the wounds of the past, you ask? Well, read on:

Time Warner Cable Inc. was accused Thursday of lying to Los Angeles subscribers and providing shoddy customer service in a lawsuit that seeks potentially tens of millions of dollars in fines against the city's main provider of cable television.

"The company has broken multiple laws, and harmed countless Los Angeles consumers," City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo said in a statement. The suit was filed as a civil law enforcement action and names the people of California as plaintiffs.

The suit also seeks $2,500 in penalties for each violation — and that would be doubled to $5,000 for each violation involving a senior citizen or disabled person, city attorney's spokesman Nick Velasquez said.

The total fine being sought would "conservatively" be in the tens of millions of dollars, he said.

We applaud these bold steps taken on behalf of consumers against corrupt cable monopolies, as we've for too long been the victims of a form of History Channel-robbing, porn-download-depriving rape. If anyone can right this wrong, it's our city's PR-friendly crusading D.A., Rocky Delgadillo. Now if you'll excuse us, we've been on hold with a Time Warner operator for the past 45 minutes, and we're wondering if that cable guy is going to ever show up in the guaranteed six-hour window. If you can read this post, it means the problem may have already been fixed.



 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Goes Well With 'Chinese Earthquake End Tables' [Marketing]



 
 

Sent to you by irie1972 via Google Reader:

 
 

via Gawker by Hamilton Nolan on 6/6/08

KC.jpegAfter Hurricane Katrina, Lowe's started selling "Katrina Cottages"—easy, cheap, pre-fab housing for those left homeless. Nice. But now they're trying to expand the "Katrina Cottage" line, marketing them to the public as a "Mountain retreat, vacation cabin, guesthouse." Mountain retreat OF DOOM. [Lowlife]



 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Thursday, June 05, 2008

Countdown’s Bushed!: Who, Me Lie? Version



 
 

Sent to you by irie1972 via Google Reader:

 
 

via Crooks and Liars by Nicole Belle on 6/5/08

video_wmv Download | Play   video_mov Download | Play  (h/t Heather)

Honesty and the Bush administration are twains that never shall meet, if this installment of Bushed!  is an indication.

Our first scandal is an oldie but goodie.  Rep. Henry Waxman has recently come into possession of an edited version of the  FBI interview with Scooter Libby and whaddya know?  It turns out that maybe–just maybe–Dick Cheney did tell Scooter Libby to leak the name of Valerie Plame to the press.

Next up is the news that the judge in the Guantanamo trial of a Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, has been replaced, for reasons "completely unrelated" to the fact that he threatened to suspend the proceedings over the government's reluctance to release paperwork necessary to Khadr's defense team.  Right, I'm sure it is completely unrelated.  Say, how successful terrorism trials can the Bush administration count?

And finally, there is the Man In The Oval Office himself.  After likening Democratic nominee Barack Obama to a Nazi appeaser for daring to say that he would meet with and speak to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, he finds himself in an awkward spot, seeing as his man in Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki is doing just that as well, in an effort to strengthen economic and diplomatic ties between the two countries.   Oops!

That's correct, by Mr. Bush's definition, his man in Iraq, for whose government 4,100 Americans have died, is himself the equivalent of a Nazi appeaser.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

BREAKING: Two Top AF Officers Forced Out



 
 

Sent to you by irie1972 via Google Reader:

 
 

via Crooks and Liars by Nicole Belle on 6/5/08

video_wmv Download | Play  video_mov Download | Play   (h/t Bill W)

NY Times:  (reg. req'd.)

The Air Force's senior civilian official and its highest-ranking general were ousted by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Thursday following an official inquiry into the mishandling of nuclear weapons and components, senior Pentagon officials said.

The Air Force secretary, Michael W. Wynne, and the service's chief of staff, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, were forced to resign after the inquiry found that both leaders were responsible for "systematic and cultural failings in how the Air Force carried out its important mission to assure the security of the nation's nuclear arsenal," according to a senior Pentagon officials.

Never before has a defense secretary ousted both a service secretary and a service chief, according to senior Pentagon officials. Since taking office 18 months ago, Mr. Gates has made accountability of theme of his tenure. He has also fired senior Army officials, after disclosures of shoddy conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the service's premier medical facility for wounded soldiers.

The inquiry involving the Air Force was an effort to determine how four high-tech electrical nosecone fuses for Minuteman nuclear warheads were sent to Taiwan in place of helicopter batteries. The mistake was discovered in March - a year and a half after the erroneous shipment.

Most troubling, the senior Pentagon official said, was that little had been done to improve the security of the nuclear weapons infrastructure after it was disclosed last year that the Air Force unknowingly let a B-52 bomber fly across the United States carrying six armed nuclear cruise missiles.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

McCain pressed on opposition to Webb GI bill



 
 

Sent to you by irie1972 via Google Reader:

 
 

via Crooks and Liars by SilentPatriot on 6/5/08

At a town hall meeting today in Baton Rouge, LA, Senator McCain was asked by a military mother why he opposes the Webb GI bill. In predictable fashion, he starts off by rightly stating that educational benefits for veterans have become outdated, but then goes into his debunked spiel about how the bill is too generous and would harm enlistment numbers. There's a reason your response was met with zero applause, Senator.

video_wmv Download | Play video_mov Download | Play


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

McCain Caught Off-Guard About Campaign’s Lobbyist Problems



 
 

Sent to you by irie1972 via Google Reader:

 
 

via Crooks and Liars by Bill W. on 6/4/08

Despite the fact that much of the news coverage for the past few weeks on McCain has revolved around his lobbyist-run campaign, especially Co-Chair "Foreclosure Phil" Gramm's lobbying ties to "the wrong side of the ongoing mortgage foreclosure crisis," Chris Wallace's "last question" about it caught McCain by surprise Tuesday night, and left him stammering, stuttering and fibbing:

video_wmv Download | Play video_mov Download | Play

Wallace: Let me ask you one last question. David Axelrod said you talked in your speech today about changing the way Washington does business, but your campaign is run by two of the biggest lobbyists in Washington. How do you respond to that?

McCain (stuttering): "Uh, I di.., look, uh, the, the, those, they are not lobbyists, but th.. the fact is Americans care about my vision and plan of action for the future,"… blah blah bs, blah … 'Obama is a liberal' blah…

Wallace didn't press any further (of course) on who this "they" is, but it was a lie in any case clearly worthy of a few Pinocchios. Does the McCain campaign really not have a practiced answer at the ready for this simple a question about its mounting lobbyist problems (if so, I'm nearly certain 'um, um, they are not lobbyists' isn't it) or did McCain just get so comfortable on the Republican News Network he blanked on the script?


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

DOD Contract Goes to Known Money-Launderer



 
 

Sent to you by irie1972 via Google Reader:

 
 

via Emptywheel by emptywheel on 6/4/08

Jeebus. First we confirm that the British defense company BAE was funneling bribe money into Soviet covert ops. And now we learn (h/t scribe) that DOD has a jet fuel contract with Gaith Pharaon.

Pharaon is best known for his central role in the BCCI scandal. As a seemingly wealthy Saudi, he served as a perfect front for BCCI, which wanted to purchase an American bank to make it easier to get money in and out of the US. So Pharaon schmoozed all the right people in Georgia (including a number of high level Democrats with ties to Jimmy Carter) and got BCCI its approval for the bank.

Well, now we're back in business with him, to the tune of $80 million.

The US military has awarded an $80 million contract to a prominent Saudi financier who has been indicted by the US Justice Department. The contract to supply jet fuel to American bases in Afghanistan was awarded to the Attock Refinery Ltd, a Pakistani-based refinery owned by Gaith Pharaon. Pharaon is wanted in connection with his alleged role at the failed Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the CenTrust savings and loan scandal, which cost US tax payers $1.7 billion.

The Saudi businessman was also named in a 2002 French parliamentary report as having links to informal money transfer networks called hawala, known to be used by traders and terrorists, including Al Qaeda.

Interestingly, Pharaon was also an investor in President George W. Bush's first business venture, Arbusto Energy.

[snip]

An official at Attock, who did not wish to be named, confirmed the refinery was supplying thousands of tons of jet fuel to the US base at Bagram Air Base every month.

Is it just me, or does anyone else doubt that the money for a contract in Afghanistan with a known money-launderer with ties to hawala is really going to jet fuel? I mean, c'mon, really. This guy's in the business of laundering money for the rich and powerful, and apparently his clients now include the Pentagon.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Today's Must Read



 
 

Sent to you by irie1972 via Google Reader:

 
 

via TPMMuckraker by Kate Klonick on 6/5/08

As the Bush years wind to a close, and administration officials slink back to jobs in the private sector, the road ahead of Daniel Gonzalez, the chief of staff for Kevin J. Martin, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, seems bleak.

From the New York Times:

Hoping to pursue a career in an entirely different field from telecommunications, Mr. Gonzalez invested in a small energy company three years ago and then joined the company's board in 2006. The company, law enforcement officials say, turns out to have been a fraudulent venture that took more than $54 million from investors.

In what looks to be a Ponzi scheme, Gonzalez personally guaranteed bank loans to the company of over $10 million, even though his personal worth was only in the hundreds of thousands, the banks allege. Gonzales disputes that allegation.

The energy company, MCube Petroleum, was founded by Robert Miracle, who appears to have a more checkered past than he presented to investors. Gonzalez's involvement with the company, began when he was introduced to Miracle by a childhood friend.

Mr. Miracle, who was born in 1960, represented himself as a seasoned businessman. In a company overview, he said he had more than 20 years of experience at Toyota and NASA and served as an adviser to Frank G. Wells, the former president of Disney.

But an affidavit by a criminal investigator for the Internal Revenue Service said that Mr. Miracle had never worked for Mr. Wells, and that in 1994, Mr. Miracle had been convicted of felony theft in Oregon for stealing textbooks from a community college. The affidavit said that, rather than working at Disney, Mr. Miracle might have been involved in reselling textbooks from universities.

Through his lawyer, Miracle denies any wrongdoing:


Mr. Miracle's lawyer, Greg Hollon, denied that his client had committed fraud. "We are confident that when the whole story is heard, and all of the facts of this matter properly understood, he will be vindicated," Mr. Hollon said. He added he could not discuss the details of the case because of the pending criminal investigation.


While it seems possible that Gonzalez was the victim of a con by Miracle, the question of why he would ever personally guarantee $10 million in company loans remains unknown.

Friends and colleagues are puzzled about why he took such a large risk. Asked why his client would guarantee a promissory note of $10 million when his net worth was so much smaller, Mr. Willey said, "I cannot give an answer."


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

McCain Fails to Come Clean on Katrina Record



 
 

Sent to you by irie1972 via Google Reader:

 
 

via Crooks and Liars by Bill W. on 6/5/08

Unlike last month's photo-op where the media let him get away with his make-believe Katrina record, Maya Rodriguez with the New Orleans CBS affiliate news brought a dose of reality to McCain's town hall in Baton Rouge on Wednesday:

Rodriguez: Senator, my understanding is you have voted twice against the creation of commission to investigate the levy failures around New Orleans, and my question is: Why have you voted against that creation of that commission?

McCain: I've supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy. I've been here to New Orleans. I've met with people on the ground. I've met with the Governor. I'm not familiar with exactly what you said but I've been as active as anybody in efforts to restore the city. …

Despite his claims otherwise, the reporter was correct, and McCain's record on Katrina is not at all what he would have you believe.

  • McCain Voted Twice Against Establishing A Commission To Study The Response To Hurricane Katrina. [ 9/14/2005, 2/2/2006]
  • McCain Opposed Granting Financial Relief To Those Affected By Hurricane Katrina. [9/15/2005]
  • McCain Voted Against Five Months of Medicaid For Hurricane Katrina Victims. [11/3/2005]
  • McCain Voted Against Emergency Funding Bill, Including $28 Billion for Hurricane Relief. [5/4/2006]

And as for McCain's: "I've been here to New Orleans. I've met with people on the ground," ThinkProgress notes that "until traveling there one month ago, McCain had "made just one public tour of New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina touched down in August 2005.""

The truth is, until Bobby Jindal won the Louisiana Governor's race in Oct. and McCain began trying to remake his Katrina image out of pixie dust and media complacency, his gulf coast record hadn't changed much since the day the hurricane made landfall.



 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

The Weekly Carboholic: Not a drop to drink…



 
 

Sent to you by irie1972 via Google Reader:

 
 

via Scholars and Rogues by Brian Angliss on 6/4/08

carboholic

People without water will do anything - Wendon, The Ice Pirates (1984)

Deprived of water, people die within days of dehydration. So do livestock. Crops wither and, if the fields produce at all, the yields are cut dramatically from normal. And now we're beginning to hear stern warnings about the availability of cheap potable water.

"We once assumed that water is free, air is free and power is cheap. The latter is clearly no longer true and we are increasingly realising the truth about water," argued MIT Sloan School of Management Professor Sarah Slaughter in a May 2008 paper.

According to a USGS estimate, 96.5% of the available water is in the oceans, 1.7% is frozen into icecaps and glaciers, 0.8% of the water is in freshwater aquifers, and about 0.0072% is available in freshwater lakes and rivers. Generally speaking, humanity relies on that 0.0072% for all of its direct consumption and agricultural uses. But most (about 2/3rds) of that available freshwater is tied up in just a few major bodies of water, namely Lake Baikal, Lake Tanganyika, Lakes Superior, Michigan, and Huron (which will be threatened by Western development well outside their drainage basins), and the Amazon River. This means that, for the majority of humanity that is unlucky enough to not live next to one of those bodies of water, rising populations and a hotter climate are gong to put pressures on the availability of potable water.

As an example, the Spanish city of Barcelona is literally shipping tankers full of millions of liters of water to slake the public thirst. The problem is that a growing population, more agriculture, and an extended drought has left Barcelona's main reservoir at only 18% full. So the city is paying 22 million euros to ship in six tanker ships of water from other regions around Spain over the next few months. The problem is that this can't be sustained. Not only is all of Spain dealing with water shortages that make shifting water from region to another a logistical and political nightmare, but Barcelona is a city of 1.6 million people. According to the Guardian article, those 23 million liters are enough for 180,000 people for only one day. At that rate, if the reservoir were to run dry, Barcelona alone would need 9 tankers of water every day. At the quoted rate of 22 million euros for 6 tankers (or 3.67 million euros per tanker), that would be about 33 million euros every day just for water. If we scale Los Angeles (population: ~4 million, total city budget ~$6.5 billion) down to estimate Barcelona's city budget (~$2.6 billion, or 1.73 billion euros), then importing the city's entire water needs would cost about 7x more than the city's entire budget. Thankfully it's not that bad, because the city still has water in it's reservoirs, but it doesn't take many shiploads of water to make constructing multi-billion dollar desalination plants and the associated power plants a viable option.

And that's just for one Spanish city in the relatively wet north of Spain. According to The New York Times, there are water wars between developers and farmers in the much drier south of Spain, and the climate of southern Spain is coming to resemble that of north Africa. The Times reports that a large part of the problem is mismanagement of existing water supplies, especially the drilling of hundreds of thousands of wells that have sucked the groundwater so dry that, combined with droughts caused by global heating and poor land use, large tracts of southern Spain are literally turning into a desert.

The Christian Science Monitor has an excellent feature article about limitations on water ("Is water becoming 'the new oil'"). According to the article, while there is plenty of freshwater for human use, the combination of waste (watering Kentucky Blue Grass lawns in semi-arid Colorado, for example), global heating, and pollution has left water supplies stretched. Add to this the fact that, as a result of global heating, weather patterns will change enough to dry out some presently wet areas and simultaneously soak currently dry regions, the management of water will be a major challenge in the next century. And access to freshwater is expected by the UN to be a major source of conflict:

In January, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon cited a report by International Alert, a self-described peacebuilding organization based in London. The report identified 46 countries with a combined population of 2.7 billion people where contention over water has created "a high risk of violent conflict" by 2025.

In the western United States, we have a saying supposedly coined by Mark Twain that, unfortunately, is coming to apply far more broadly than just in the West: "Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over." (Source: Twainquotes.com)

———-

While much of the rest of the world is looking at anthropogenic global heating (AGH) as a threat to their water supplies, crops, and even directly to life and limb, The Scotsman reports that the 56,000 residents of Greenland are actually looking forward to a warmer isle. Their reason? AGH is expected to dramatically improve the economic fortunes of the island via shipping through the Northwest Passage, offshore oil and gas extraction, and greater tourism. All this economic growth may also enable the self-governing Danish territory to declare full independence.

———-


Source: EPA

If sea levels rise as much as expected this century, significant portions of southen Florida will be flooded unless the government (state, local, even federal) does something to prevent it. And if that flooding occurs, lots of presently developed land will be submerged and rendered part of the Atlantic Ocean instead of part of the state of Florida. According to a Miami Herald article, the Florida Coastal and Ocean Coalition (FCOC) is recommending, against the opinion of the state's largest coalition of real estate developers, that coastal lands most likely to be submerged be left development-free:

The group is calling on state and local government to minimize beach front development in light of the possibility that today's beaches could be in tomorrow's ocean.

The state could target its program for buying environmentally sensitive property toward buying more beach front land, [David Godfrey, executive director for one of the group's member organizations, the Caribbean Conservation Corp.] said. It could also offer tax incentives for developers to shun beaches for more inland areas.

According to the article, more than 80% of the state's population lives within 20 miles of the coast, and the actual report estimates that losses from the average IPCC estimate of sea level rise (about 1 meter by 2100) would cost Florida a least $327 billion in economic damages.

As with all reports like this, the devil is in the details. For example, that $327 billion in losses assumes a worst-case IPCC "business-as-usual" scenario that combines the impacts of hurricane damage, reduced tourism, real estate losses, and costs of additional electricity for air conditioning. The actual loss directly attributed to sea level rise is just the real-estate losses, and that's expected to be "only" $56 billion, or 17% of the total. Still a lot of money, but MUCH less than the total from the original Tufts University study quoted by the FCOC (and, not coincidentally, commissioned by FCOC member organization Envirionmental Defense Fund.)

I applaud the FCOC for directly tackling the issue of what sea level rise will do to southern Florida. The problems are serious enough that they need to be well publicized so that the Florida state government can address them directly and in the open. But the problems are also serious enough that the FCOC shouldn't have resorted to numerical hyperbole - the unexaggerated numbers are bad enough already, thanks.

———-

Global heating deniers have long pointed to the "fact" that satellite and radiosonde (weather balloon) data recorded little or no increase in upper troposphere warming as an example of why global heating predictions were wrong. Most climate scientists involved in trying to measure heating in that part of the atmosphere knew that their data (and thus the data quoted by the deniers) was so full of errors that making any conclusions was effectively impossible. Now, though, a new paper in Nature Geoscience and reported by TerraDaily.com has shown that the upper troposphere has actually warmed as most climate scientists expected.

In the new study, climate scientists Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood of Yale University use a more accurate method to show that temperature changes in the upper troposphere since 1970 — about 0.65 degrees Centigrade per decade — are in fact clearly in sync with most climate change models.

Rather than measuring temperature directly, which had yielded inconsistent results, they used wind variations as a proxy.

A proxy is an indirect measurement of something else. In the case of ice cores, for example, since it's not possible to travel back in time hundreds of thousands of years and make direct temperature measurements, scientists use the amount of deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) in the water as a way to estimate the temperature. In this case, though, wind speed (measured by the movement rate of the radiosonde) was found to be a good proxy for temperature in the upper troposphere. Since the errors were lower by a factor of 10, the radiosonde's speed data was used to look back to 1970 and estimate the temperature rise in the upper troposphere - 0.65 degrees Celsius, or very close to what climate models have predicted.

The new study "provides … long-awaited experimental verification of model predictions," [Peter Thorne of Britain's Met Office Hadley Centre] wrote.

Image: Ship brings water - Source: BBC


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

McCain’s More of the Same



 
 

Sent to you by irie1972 via Google Reader:

 
 

via Crooks and Liars by Nicole Belle on 6/4/08

It's been a stressful time coming to the end of the primaries. Feelings have been running high across the spectrum, and isn't it kind of John McCain to give us a little comedy to help us all relax?

video_wmv Download | Play video_mov Download | Play (h/t Heather)

What's that you say? This wasn't a comedy sketch? Could have fooled me. From the very first sentence when he declared himself to be in New Orleans (and not "N'awlins," but "New Or-lee-ens") when he was in fact in Kenner, Louisiana, the speech was a non-stop laugh fest of strange and nonsensical rhetoric. Proving that he's not above co-opting more than Bush's presidency, he spoke before a green backdrop reminiscent of the one used by Arnold Schwarzeneggar, covered with a modified Obama campaign slogan. Politics 101 says you don't let your opponent frame the debate…McSame still hasn't figured that out? And the choice to make a speech at that time, just before the polls closed in Montana and South Dakota and Obama was scheduled to make his speech? That's comedy gold, because there was no way the networks wouldn't pre-empt him.

Pundits and party elders have declared that Senator Obama will be my opponent. He will be a formidable one. But I'm ready for the challenge and determined to run this race in a way that does credit to our campaign and to the proud, decent and patriotic people that I ask to lead.

Maybe the argument that McCain is ready for the challenge would be more persuasive if he at least acknowledged that in this country, it's the VOTERS that declared Obama would be his opponent, not pundits. But hey, his party doesn't seem to put a lot of stock in the democratic process.

Now if you want to get serious, the DNC has done a little fact checking on McCain's speech–they were able to hang through the whole thing, more power to them– and found it remarkably fact free:

JOHN MCCAIN'S RHETORIC VS. JOHN MCCAIN'S RECORD

MCCAIN IS AS CLOSE TO BUSH AS THE SENATE HAS TO OFFER

MCCAIN TONIGHT: "This is, indeed, a change election. No matter who wins this election, the direction of this country is going to change dramatically."

  • REALITY: McCain voted with President Bush 95 percent of the time in 2007. According to Congressional Quarterly, He also has a record of heartily supporting Bush on some of his most controversial priorities, including the Iraq war and comprehensive immigration reform. In 2007, as he ramped up for his second White House run, McCain voted with Bush 95 percent of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly, which tallied votes McCain was present for on issues in which the administration took a position." [Arizona Republic, 4/6/08] McCain had the highest rate of support in the entire U.S. Senate. [Congressional Quarterly, 1/13/2008]
  • REALITY: John McCain is promising to take the Bush tax cuts to reckless new extremes. McCain's Own Tax Cuts Would Double Cost of Extending Bush Tax Cut. The New York Times noted, "The McCain campaign put the cost of his tax cuts at roughly $200 billion a year, but its estimate did not include the cost of making the Bush tax cuts permanent, which would more than double that figure." [New York Times, 4/16/08]
  • REALITY: John McCain is willing to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years, Long Term American Presence In Iraq Analogous To South Korea. At a New Hampshire town hall when McCain was asked "President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years." McCain responded: "Maybe 100″ and "that would be fine with me." McCain explained his 100 year remark by drawing an analogy to the long-term American presence in South Korea: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That'd be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." [McCain Town Hall, Derry NH Opera House, 1/3/2008; New York Times, "The Caucus," 1/11/2008]

MCCAIN WAS SILENT WHILE WAR WAS FAILING

McCain Tonight: I disagreed strongly with the Bush administration's mismanagement of the war in Iraq. I called for the change in strategy that is now, at last, succeeding where the previous strategy had failed miserably.

FACT: McCain Was Late To Criticize War.

McCain: "No One Has Supported President Bush on Iraq More Than I Have." During an March 2008 interview on The Mike Gallagher Show, McCain stated, "no one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have." [Think Progress blog, 4/2/08]

Rich: McCain Failed To Stand Up When It Counted. "He didn't just vote to authorize the war; in response to a question from Tim Russert in September 2002, he lent his military credibility to the administration's undermanned war plan. When Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, challenged that strategy in a February 2003 Senate hearing by calling for ''several hundred thousand soldiers," Mr. McCain did not speak up in support. … The one part of his Iraq past that Mr. McCain does want us to recall now is his subsequent criticism of the war's execution. But contrary to his current claims, he never publicly demanded Mr. Rumsfeld's head. And when Mr. McCain did call for more troops in Iraq, he was again in sync with Democrats like Joe Biden, with whom he made that case on "Meet the Press" in August 2003. Rather than dwell on this ancient history, Mr. McCain said last week, we should talk about "what we are going to do now." But his answer to "what we are going to do now" in Iraq is merely more of what he did then." [Op-Ed, Frank Rich, New York Times, 3/2/2008]

McCain in 2003: "I Have No Qualms About Our Strategic Plans" in Iraq. "I have no qualms about our strategic plans. I thought we were very successful in Afghanistan," McCain told the Hartford Courant in March 2003, just prior to the Iraq invasion. [Hartford Courant, 3/5/03]

November 2003 - McCain: I'm a Great Admirer of Secretary Rumsfeld. On a 2003 appearance on MSNBC's "Buchanan & Press," Bill Press told McCain, "Your comments calling for increased troop levels in Iraq "imply at least a criticism of" Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, asking the Arizona Senator: "Do you still have confidence in Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld?" McCain replied: "I'm a great admirer of Secretary Rumsfeld. He's part of the president's team. I support him. When I came back in August, Bill, I said, look, these people on the ground are telling me things are going to get a lot worse unless we do something different. And in August I said we needed more of the kind of troops that I just described." [MSNBC, "Buchanan & Press, 11/6/03]

McCain: No, Rumsfeld Shouldn't Leave Post; "Things Go Bad in Wars" and We Adjust. Press agreed with McCain that things were not going as well as the administration had originally asserted in Iraq, asking McCain: "The man in charge of the post-war plan in Iraq was Rumsfeld. The man in charge now is Rumsfeld. He's obviously not doing the job. Wouldn't it be better for him to get out of there?" McCain replied: "No. Look, things go bad in wars. I was watching a thing last night about the Korean War. One of the great blunders in history was committed by General MacArthur when he refused to accept the evidence that the Chinese were coming…But the American military adjusted…You have to adjust and we have made some adjustments." [MSNBC, "Buchanan & Press, 11/6/03]

MCCAIN HELPED BUSH BALLOON THE DEFICIT

McCain Tonight: [Bush] and I have not seen eye to eye on many issues….

McCain Voted for Four of Five Bush-Republican Budget Resolutions Totaling $9.8 Million

McCain Voted for 4 of 5 Bush Budgets Adding to $9.8 Trillion in Spending. McCain supported four of the five Bush budgets that the Senate voted on from 2001-2006.

2001: H. Con. Res. 83: $1.95 Trillion [2001 Senate Vote #98]

2002: McCain Voted to Table [2002 Senate Vote #134]

2003: McCain Voted No [H.Con.Res. 95; 2003 Senate Vote #134]

2004: S. Con. Res 95: $2.45 Trillion [2004 Senate Vote #58]

2005: H.Con.Res. 95: $2.6 Trillion [2005 Senate Vote #114]

2006: S.Con.Res. 83: $2.8 Trillion [2006 Senate Vote #74]

SEE NO EVIL: MCCAIN DIDN'T LOOK FOR CORRUPTION IN CONGRESS AND DIDN'T FIND ANY

MCCAIN TONIGHT: "When I fought corruption it didn't matter to me if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans. I exposed it and let the chips fall where they may."

REALITY: McCain's Toothless Committee Failed To Investigate Congress, Said No Need For Reform

McCain Acknowledged That Members Had Responsibility In The Lobbying Scandal, But Refused To Investigate Member's Actions In An Investigation That "Ignored" Congressional Republicans. McCain acknowledged that Members were responsible for their conduct in Congress surrounding the lobbying scandal, saying, "Many cast blame [for the Abramoff Scandal] only on the lobbying industry. But, we should not forget that we, as Members, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in a way that reinforces, rather than diminishes, the public's faith and confidence in Congress." But during his investigation, McCain refused to include the legislative actions taken by Members of Congress saying, "We stop when we find out where the money went." The Associated Press reported that, "The intervention by congressional Republicans…was all but ignored in recent hearings on Capitol Hill led by [McCain], that examined Abramoff's lobbying inside Interior. [Senator McCain, CQ Transcriptions, 1/25/06; Roll Call, 3/10/05; AP, 11/17/05]

McCain's Abramoff Report Said No Need for New Lobbying Laws Following Abramoff Scandal. The report by released by John McCain and the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in June 2006 on the Abramoff investigation argued that "no new lobbying restrictions are needed to prevent schemes like those used by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff." In addition, "despite a pledge by McCain two years ago to get to the bottom of a now-convicted lobbyist's influence-peddling, his committee's 373-page report does not detail the relationships between Abramoff and the dozens of lawmakers to whom the lobbyist helped funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars in tribal political donations." [Arizona Republic, 6/23/2006]

MCCAIN PUTS TAX CUTS AHEAD OF RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOBS

MCCAIN TONIGHT: "If America is going to achieve energy independence, we need a President with a record of putting the nation's interests before the special interests of either party."

FACT CHECK: John McCain voted against tax credits to encourage renewable energy and create jobs. And h's proposed bit tax cuts that would reward big energy companies to the tune of nearly $3 billion

  • McCain Repeatedly Voted Against Tax Credits For Renewable Energy Production.
    McCain voted against an amendment to extend the renewable energy production tax credit and clean renewable energy bonds programs for four years including $290 Million for renewable energy R&D on Solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower. [2006 Senate Vote #42, 3/14/2006]

    McCain Voted Against Major Energy Legislation Providing $18 Billion In Energy Related Tax Incentives. McCain voted against the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The bill would overhaul the nation's energy policy and provide for approximately $18 billion in energy-related tax incentives. [2005 Senate Vote #158, 6/28/2005]

    McCain voted against an amendment to establish tax credits for investments in renewable energy technologies, incentives for new energy efficient residential construction and tax deductions for increased energy efficiency in commercial buildings. [2001 Senate Vote #125, 5/21/2001]

McCain's Proposed Tax Cut Undermines His Proposed Environmental Plans. "A global warming plan that weans America off dirty energy requires taking a stand against the huge utility & energy companies. But John McCain's tax plan seems slightly more interested in lining their pockets. An analysis from the Center for American Progress Action Fund finds that John McCain's massive corporate tax cut would save America's ten largest electrical utility companies and ten largest energy companies over $2.8 billion. (This is in addition to the $4 billion tax break for America's five largest oil companies.)" [ThinkProgress.org, 5/13/08]


 
 

Things you can do from here: