idrankwhat

Deaths in our sport don't make that great an impression either. It's the pull of the mountain for them. I understand the allure of the mountain. But Everest used to be a goal that people worked and trained YEARS before they would attempt. I wonder how many people on the mountain this season had climbed Rainier, or any of the volcanoes in Mexico, or Aconcagua. I'm willing to bet that most of the clients probably went from Rainier or some trekking in the alps and then bought their way up Everest. I mean hell, they've already brought a Polish Playboy model up there this year. Maybe I'm prejudging her ability, maybe not.

Please, by all means, enlighten us as to why you want such information disclosed to the public. Well, those of us who aren't really excited about handing over "freedom for security" would like to know if the phone companies are handing over our records. I don't know who scares me more, this administration or their apologists who blindly accept, no, actively defend whatever they dish out without question. Just as an aside, what was Negroponte's role in the Iran/Contra scandal again? Covering things up?

Climbing in that environment is a very difficult thing. Your body is still dying even under the best of circumstances at that altitude. Normally I'm reluctant to rip climbers (used to be one) for those sorts of decisions because they normally don't come very easily. But in this case, Everest has become the playground of the rich. If you can buy the permissions and the guides they'll haul your unqualified ass up there. No doubt that many of the more experienced climbers on the climb that day had a bunch of clients that they had to babysit up and down the mountain so I don't blame those guys for saving the many and leaving the few. What a crappy thing to happen. I need to look into this one some more. You'd think that 1996 would have left an impression on people. I guess not.

Hastert: FBI 'took the wrong path' when searching lawmaker's office Majority leader suggests that issue may go to the Supreme Court WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Tuesday that the FBI and the Justice Department "took the wrong path" when they searched a Democratic congressman's office this weekend as part of an anti-corruption probe. "We understand that they want to support and pursue the process that the Justice Department is trying to pursue," Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, said. "But there's ways to do it, and my opinion is that they took the wrong path." The FBI searched the Washington home and office of Rep. William Jefferson, D-Louisiana, and found $90,000 of allegedly ill-gotten funds in the freezer of his home, according to an affidavit. (Full story) Jefferson's office is in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill. Leaders from both both parties and both houses of Congress have expressed concern about the search. On Monday, both Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Hastert said they were "very concerned" about the search, which was conducted under a warrant issued by a federal judge. Hastert said the search was the first time a lawmaker's office had been searched in U.S. history. "Nothing I have learned in the last 48 hours leads me to believe that there was any necessity to change the precedent established over those 219 years," Hastert said on Monday. House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said Tuesday that "the congress will clearly speak to this issue of the justice department's invasion of the legislative branch. In what form I don't know." "I've got to believe at the end of the day it's going to end up across the street, at the Supreme Court," Boehner said. "I don't see anything short of that." While emphasizing that all lawmakers must obey the law and the rules of the House, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, on Tuesday echoed Hastert's concern that the Constitution's separation of powers had been violated. "Our founders in their wisdom placed this separation of powers into our Constitution, not to put anyone above the law but to protect the American people of the abusive power of the executive branch," Pelosi said. When asked whether Jefferson should step down, Pelosi said that "is a matter between him and his constituents." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who oversees the FBI, defended the bureau's actions Tuesday but said Justice Department and congressional officials were having "private discussions" about the propriety of the search. "It is true it's never been done before, and the reason isn't because there's never been corruption in Congress ... but because before, we were able to reach accommodation or agreement to get the information, the evidence we needed through subpoena," Gonzales said. "And through variety of reasons, that could not occur here." "At the end of day, the decision was made that this was essential to move forward with that investigation," he said. Jefferson vowed Monday to stay in Congress and fight allegations that he took bribes and blasted an apparently unprecedented weekend search of his office by FBI agents as an "outrageous intrusion into the separation of powers between the executive branch and the congressional branch." "I expect to continue to represent the people who have sent me here," Jefferson said during a brief appearance before reporters. However, he said that on the advice of his attorneys he would not discuss details of the allegations, which he said "would be extraordinarily foolhardy" because he is the subject of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. "There are two sides to every story. There are certainly two sides to this story. There will be an appropriate time and forum when that can be explained," Jefferson said. "But this is not the time. This is not the forum." Jefferson has not been charged with any crime, but a Kentucky businessman and a former Jefferson aide have both pleaded guilty to bribery charges and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors. (Affidavit outlines case against congressman -- 1:28) Last week, the House Ethics Committee opened its own investigation into the allegations against Jefferson. CNN's Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report. Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/23/jefferson/index.html It looks like they only get pissed when people illegally search THEM. Welcome to our world assholes!!!!!!! (breathe)

They don't. They bury their profits overseas. That's the benefit of being multinational.

Not if you want to prolong it to use as a tool to further your agenda. Just think, if we hadn't left Afghanistan and actually pursued and caught this guy, do you think that our administration would have ever been able to talk anyone into backing the Iraq war? Not likely. So he's a good guy to have on the loose until there's a suitable replacement.

That's where I have a problem. First of all you don't know what's actually programmed onto the chip. There could be info that would open the door to financial records, family medical history records, movie rental history, paypal password, list of stuff you bought at the grocery store, name of your dog's favorite chew toy....who knows. There's just too much potential for abuse with these RF broadcasting chips. All someone needs is a scanner and they've got your information. That's why I don't like the RF idea for passports either. Personal records are already too easily accessed. No sense making it easier.

Yea, I missed it. Sorry. First of all, I'll have to check but I question how "American" American oil companies are considering that most are multinational. Admittedly, the price of oil is higher world wide and I attribute a lot of that to Bush's vigorous stirring of the middle east hornet's nest. But the real price of a gallon of gas isn't pegged 1:1 to the current price of oil. Oil and gas companies deal in bulk and pay less than the going rate, (something I wish our government would do with prescription drugs). Also, someone pointed out yesterday that the oil companies say that mixing blends with ethanol etc. makes gas more expensive yet those states which don't use those blends are still paying the national average for gas. These folks will get the price that the market will bear. Except for Venezuela. Chavez seems to be the exception and I think a lot of that is just f'ing with Bush. But now that I'm thinking about it, why does Citgo gas (from Venezuelan heavy crude) still cost the same as everyone else? Who's setting the price on their gas? I may have to look into that one, even though I think I know the answer.

The RNC and DNC are both under pressure to raise as much money as possible for the coming elections. Which team do you think is doing better? The one who gets the greatest percentage of the money doled out by multinational energy and pharmaceutical companies, banks and other large corporate interests.

Actually I believe that Gonzales is indeed talking about prosecuting reporters. On the talk show, when asked if journalists could be prosecuted for publishing classified information, Gonzales responded, "There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility."

Finally, you're starting to come around. That's what I was pointing out before. When you have an industry that pays millions and millions of dollars (oops, free speech) to put "public" servants into office, those servants also happen to have financial ties to the oil industry, both business and personal family relationships, why would I not expect those government officials to write tax codes that benefit the industry, create subsidies for them and hell, even let the industries themselves write the legislation that sets the regulations on production and pollution control? I understand it but I don't like it. I'm a tax payer and my tax dollars are subsidizing an industry that holds control over the cost of everything in my daily life, as well as our Nation's foreign policy. Call me old fashioned but I like to be kissed when I'm fucked.

This is a few year's old but I doubt that the sentiment behind the memo's has changed. It's about large corporations trying to maximize their profits. Published on Friday, June 15, 2001 by the Associated Press Leaked Oil Industry Memo Suggests Bid to Curb Refinery Output by H. Josef Hebert Even as the Bush administration cites a lack of refineries as a cause of energy shortages, oil industry documents show that five years ago companies were looking for ways to cut refinery output to raise profits. The internal memos involving several major oil companies were released Thursday by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., whose office obtained them from a whistleblower. He said the materials did not necessarily reflect any illegal activities but said some of them "sure look very anticompetitive." In response, Red Cavaney, the president of an industry trade group, said: "This finger pointing six years into the past serves no useful purpose." Wyden was turning the material over to the Governmental Affairs Committee, which plans hearings on oil industry practices and energy prices. Tight gasoline supplies have been cited repeatedly by the industry and the White House as a primary reason for soaring gasoline prices this year. While pump prices have eased recently, the cost of gasoline jumped an average of 31 cents a gallon nationwide during the seven weeks ending in mid-May, according to government figures presented at a House hearing Thursday. Because it takes about four years to build a large refinery, planning for a new plant would have had to begin by the mid-1990s, energy experts say. There has not been a new refinery build in the United States in 25 years; in the meantime, dozens of small ones have closed. The documents obtained by Wyden's office suggest that in the mid-1990s oil companies had no interest in building refineries because of low profit margins. In fact, companies were discussing the need to curtail refinery output in order to make more money, the documents suggest. "If the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins (profits)," said an internal Chevron document in November 1995, citing views presented by participants at an American Petroleum Institute conference. A year later, an official at Texaco, in a memo marked "highly confidential," called concerns about too much refinery capacity "the most critical factor" facing the refinery industry. Excess capacity is producing "very poor refining financial results," the memo said. Wyden said the documents "raise significant questions about whether America's oil companies tried to pull off a financial triple play – boosting profits by reducing refinery capacity, tagging consumers with higher pump prices and then arguing for environmental rollbacks." The institute produced statistics showing refinery capacity has increased since 1996 as refineries became more efficient and some expanded. The figures also showed capacity increasing slower than demand. Cavaney, the institute's president, said the industry's reluctance to invest in new refinery capacity when profit margins are low and supplies are adequate – as was the case in the mid-1990s – was "a normal response in a commodity market." Wyden singled out a 1996 memo from Mobil Corp., which has since merged with Exxon, that suggests that Mobil was ready for a "full court press" to make sure an independent California refinery, which had closed in 1995, would not reopen. At the time Mobil was concerned that if the refinery, owned by the Powerine Oil Co., resumed production it might force down the price of a special, cleaner burning gasoline by as much as 3 cents. "Needless to say, we would all like to see Powerine stay down," the memo said. "Full court press is warranted in this case." The refinery remained closed. Texaco spokeswoman Keelin Molloi said Wyden's allegations "divert attention away from legitimate policy questions" about energy needs. As for the 1995 Texaco memo, she said: "Within any company, discussions about the margins and capacity are conducted in a normal course of business and in no way constitutes inappropriate or illegal behavior." Chevron spokesman Fred Gorell said the company "flatly denies any improper conduct involving refinery production levels or gasoline pricing." Attempts to reach ExxonMobil were unsuccessful. The need for more refinery capacity has been the focus of President Bush's energy plan. Vice President Dick Cheney has blamed gasoline prices increases on tight supplies caused to a large part, he contends, by the fact that the last new U.S. refinery was built in 1976. In fact, 24 refineries – many of them small independents – have shut down since 1995, according to the Energy Department. That has accounted for the loss of 831,000 barrels a day of refining capacity. Individual refinery expansions at the same time have added 1 to 2 percent of capacity annually. © Copyright 2001 The Associated Press

Samuel W. Bodman During his second week in office, the President put together a task force to address America’s energy challenges. The task force sent back more than 100 recommendations as part of a new National Energy Policy. And over the past four years, we have implemented 95 percent of those recommendations. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20050309.html I try not to listen to too much of what the President says. He has a tendency to mislead so I prefer to look at the results. Before they implemented 95% of the energy industry's recommendations it cost me half as much fill up. Exxon/Mobile et. al. is reaping profits higher than any company in history. But why would you expect it to be any different considering that oil execs are holding our nations highest offices. They've even got at least one Supreme Court judge in their pocket. Pardon me while I remain cynical of the results finding no wrong doing. It's not unlike Halliburton's gas contract with Iran in spite of sanctions. Perfectly legal because it was handled through a Cayman fax machine. Wrong, but legal. Quack Quack.

Sounds like the typical entrepeneur. Wouldn't be the first failed businessman president. He actually made a fortune on these failed attempts though, so it would depend on what one would consider "success". He made a fortune because Tom Hicks from (pro-war propaganda pushing) Clearchannel bailed him out and bought Bush's baseball team. I wouldn't call that being a successful business man. I'd call that being connected to a powerful family. You know, one that can get you a coveted seat in the guard (and out of it after you don't show up), get you into schools through legacy programs, get you and your wife's driving records purged and new numbers issued, and get you elected president. I'm pretty sure that he'd still be serving fries through a drive through window if he had been Joe Average's son. Membership has its privileges

How about an MBA from Harvard? That must explain the outstanding successes of his various business enterprises. Thanks a LOT! I just fired coffee out of my nose

Actually I'm not positive but I think he might have an argument through the eminent domain clause in the fifth amendment. All he needed to do was to compensate the gun owners for their guns and include interest, considering that he took the guns before the owners were compensated. As an aside, I wonder if the people who are pissed that Nagin took guns during a time of crisis/disaster are just as pissed that the Patriot Act allows the Fed's to sneak into your house and take anything they want.

WAIT!!! I FORGOT!!!!! This wasn't a bribe, it was FREE SPEECH!!!!!!

Have you considered that charges have not been filed yet because they don't want to formally present one (or 20 more likely) until they figure out which ones will stick? And please don't tell me that you want to compare this to the Abramoff scandal. Hell, he's probably involved in this one too. And damn that liberal media!!!! Where do they get off writing damaging stories about Democrats

Give Pat a break, he's a bit hard of hearing now. I think he said "blessed are the cheese makers".

Much of it depends on perspective. Many people consider the Palestinians to be terrorists and the Israelis to be Jews who are defending themselves from terrorists. Ask a Palestinian his/her perspective and the answer would be just the opposite.

"Dubya D40"! Made that one up myself!

What are you saying? You mean Bush deliberately mislead us I'm shocked Let me guess, you get all your information from numerous sources. Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly AND Savage. "What kind of music do ya'll like around here?" "Oh, we got both kinds. Country AND Western".

May 18, 2006 Judge Dismisses Suit by Man Who Says He Was Tortured By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ROCKVILLE, Md. (AP) -- A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by a German man who said he was illegally detained and tortured in overseas prisons run by the CIA, ruling that a lawsuit would improperly expose state secrets. The ruling by U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III makes no determination on the validity of the claims by Khaled al-Masri, who said he was kidnapped on New Year's Eve 2003 and detained in various overseas prisons for nearly five months before finally being dumped on an abandoned road in Albania. During his detention, he said he was beaten and sodomized with a foreign object by his captors. He also alleges that a CIA team forced him to wear a diaper, drugged him and refused to contact German authorities about his arrest. Ellis said he was satisfied after receiving a secret written briefing from the director of central intelligence that allowing al-Masri's lawsuit to proceed would harm national security. "In the present circumstances, al-Masri's private interests must give way to the national interest in preserving state secrets," Ellis wrote. In my opinion, this is just all kinds of wrong. No wonder people are pissed at us.

Still waiting for Bush to fire himself, Cheney and Rove over that one. Should I hold my breath? I mean he promised us that he would

PLus american companies are profitting, plus it is traded in US dollars....maybe not stealing, but certainly creating major "fringe" benefits. As a side bar, I saw something posted on the White House website the other day. It was boasting that we have implemented 95% of the suggestions that came out of Cheney's secret energy task force meetings. Coincidence that those who attended the meetings are reaping world record profits?