Oooohhhh oh.... oh yeah baby, yeah... Hurts! So! Good!

Karl Rove, baby, you're up next! :) :)

Regarding the book of gardening stating that "holly does not 'fuck' the land"...

While a most entertaining statement, and, even possibly true, I believe that a proper reading of that phrase should be "holly does not 'suck' the land." (Meaning, suck out its nutrients.)

If you look throughout the entire rest of that page, I believe you will find that there is no character there for 's' (at least not as we are traditionally used to seeing it today). Rather, it appears that they use the same type face character for both 'f' and 's' interchangeably.

I have noticed this same convention within other books printed in that period, and while I am not sure of the reason behind this, I suspect that it was the norm at one point in time. It might possibly make for an interesting bit of research into the history and evolution of printed type-face.

In fact, I'm not sure that the word "fuck" itself even existed at that point either, and that would probably make for another interesting research project.

But, in any case, just thought that I would point this out ;)

In an online dicussion on this topic with a Righty person with whom I regularly argue such things, he too posted up Clinton's above mentioned executive order 12949, and I posted in response this very same debunking of it, highlighting that supposedly all-important phrase: "if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section."

In his retort, however, he insisted that that bit make no sort of difference whatsoever - to wit:

"I don't know what's more pathetic, that I need to point this out to you, or that you believed that tripe in the first place. Ok, number 1: Do you know what 50 U.S.C. 36,1801(a) says a foreign power can be? "(4)a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor" Furthermore it says agents of a foreign power can be any person who: "(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;" It goes on to provide a half dozen more examples of this as well.

Translation: That means terrorists you morons!! And terrorists can be US citizens as defined under FISA. Clinton did order warrentless searches of American citizens."

And for Carter, he adds:

"No, it's not solely direct at communication exclusively between or among foreign powers as the agents of said powers can be US citizens as defined by the FISA."

He then wraps up with a listing of what supposedly could define a foreign power in this case including things that might possibly implicate and American Citizen as such:

"(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;

(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of (note it doesn't say completly devoid of) United States persons; or

(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.

(2) any person who—

(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;

(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;

(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;

(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or

(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C). "

So... his partisan ranting aside, does he have a point with this, then? I have a feeling he must still be missing something, or else why would the Bush team themselves not be using this argument? But, I'm having a hard time finding the flaw in it, other than that, generally, so long as you can accuse, rightly or wrongly, at least one American of working at the behest of a foreign power, then you can go ahead and spy on him anyway, with no trouble from FISA, because now he's technically a 'foreign agent'. If that's the case though, then it would seem like FISA would never even have any bearing at all anyway, and obviously that can't be true. So, what's the deal here?

http://worshiptheglitch.com/2006/06/henry-rollins-love-letter-to-ann.html