My Mad Photoart Skills!

Take a look and be amazed at my mad photoart skills!







That's all for now, I'll write more sometime this week!

Memo to the Bush Administration

For all the talk we hear of President Bush supporting the troops, it would be apparent that he would follow through.

But of course, this is Bush we're talking about.

The man who said we would find Osama Bin Laden dead or alive days after the tragedy of 9/11, then six months later say that he's not that important.

This frightening report from the Pentagon's Inspector General shows us how Bush's Administration supports our boys in Iraq.

A study completed in late June by the Pentagon's Inspector General concludes that the Department of Defense (DoD) has risked the lives of U.S. troops in Iraq due to malfeasance in awarding and monitoring contracts for badly-needed armored vehicles.

The study, which was requested by Democratic Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York, found that since 2000 the DoD has awarded "sole-source" contracts valued at $2.2 billion to just two companies, Force Protection, Inc.(FPI) and Armor Holdings, Inc (AHI).

Inspector General auditors found that the Marine Corps Systems Command (MCSC) made these two companies the sole providers of armored vehicles and armor kits for troops, despite knowing that other suppliers may have produced the equipment so desperately needed in Iraq substantially faster. Both manufacturers fell far behind delivery schedules, while AHI also produced inadequate and faulty equipment.

"We determined the MCSC justification for awarding the sole-source contracts was questionable because MCSC officials knew that viable competition was available and were aware of significant concerns with FPI’s delivery capability," said the report about the MCSC's rationale for looking at no suppliers other than FPI. "In addition, Marine Corps officials did not pursue competition as contracts continued to be awarded, which raises concerns about the recurring justification for urgency."

That same report goes on to discover this horrifying find:

"The Inspector General found that Armored Holdings sent cracked equipment that had been painted over, and even two left doors for the same vehicle, instead of one right and one left. Furthermore, FPI was unable to meet production deadlines even after the Pentagon paid $6.7 million to build up their capability. It was completely unacceptable.

As shocking as this information is, it's not the first time that the current administration has shown a complete lack or drive in supporting our armed forces.

During the lead-up to the Iraqi War, our former Defense Secretary ignored the recommendation of a Marine General that we needed a huge amount of troops in Iraq.

The troop level for the initial invasion of Iraq was controversial throughout the run-up to the war, particularly among U.S. military personnel. In 1999, then head of United States Central Command Marine General Anthony Zinni (ret.) organised a series of war games known as Desert Crossing in order to assess an invasion aimed at unseating Saddam Hussein. His plan, which predicted much of the violence and instability that followed the actual invasion, called for a force of 400,000 troops.[140] Consistent with the Desert Crossing scenarios, the original U.S. army plan for the invasion of Iraq contemplated troop levels of up to 500,000, but Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared this plan "the product of old thinking and the embodiment of everything that was wrong with the military", and decided on an invasion force of approximately 130,000, bolstered by some 45,000 troops from the U.K. and a handful of troops from other nations. [141] The plan to invade with a smaller force was publicly questioned by then Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, who, during a February 25, 2003 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, suggested that an invasion force would be "on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers."[142] In a November 15, 2006 hearing of the same committee, General John Abizaid, then head of U.S. Central Command, confirmed that "General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations."[143]

The arrogance of the Bush Administration also stretches to the field of battle as Salon reported of injured soldiers being deployed back into battle.

Last November, Army Spc. Edgar Hernandez, a communications specialist with a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, had surgery on an ankle he had injured during physical training. After the surgery, doctors put his leg in a cast, and he was supposed to start physical therapy when that cast came off six weeks later.

But two days after his cast was removed, Army commanders decided it was more important to send him to a training site in a remote desert rather than let him stay at Fort Benning, Ga., to rehabilitate. In January, Hernandez was shipped to the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., where his unit, the 3,900-strong 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, was conducting a month of training in anticipation of leaving for Iraq in March.

Hernandez says he was in no shape to train for war so soon after his injury. "I could not walk," he told Salon in an interview. He said he was amazed when he learned he was being sent to California. "Did they not realize that I'm hurt and I needed this physical therapy?" he remembered thinking. "I was told by my doctor and my physical therapist that this was crazy."

Once Hernandez arrived to California for training, he was not the only one sent to train although injured.

Instead, when he got to California, he was led to a large tent where he would be housed. He was shocked by what he saw inside: There were dozens of other hurt soldiers. Some were on crutches, and others had arms in slings. Some had debilitating back injuries. And nearby was another tent, housing female soldiers with health issues ranging from injuries to pregnancy.

That's right. The Army is now going after female soldiers who are pregnant.

And as reported this year, veterans who have served in Iraq, are being treated like second class citizens, some even having their disabilities being downgraded.

Now tell me, is this anyway to support our boys in the military, Mr. Bush?

Here's an idea, Mr. President - quit using our soldiers as one of your shameless photo-ops and actually support them! That would be the patriotic thing to do for these men who have risked their lives for your bullshit war.

Hellllllllloooooooo Florida!

Big news!
I'll be leaving the Mains, the O/T forums, my blog, and myspace until the 11th for a trip to florida!
I leave in the afternoon, so if you'll be wondering 'where did young Jonathan go off to?', you'll know.

I'll be back soon!

Transformers: or how Michael Bay FINALLY made a decent, toleralble movie

In this corner: director Michael Bay. The 2nd shittiest filmmaker, behind the atrocious Uwe Boll. The man who spawned the awful Armageddon, and two of the worst films of the decade: the insulting Pearl Harbor and the vile Bad Boys II. The egotistical, pompous hack who believes himself to be auteur in the film making world.

And in this corner, the movie critics and haters (I am one of them) who wish nothing more but to run his ass out of town by slamming his mindless action pieces, his laughable dialogue, and his over-the-top and misplaced dramatic moments.

And what better way to start but to bitch-slap his latest offering, Transformers? Like Bay's other shit movies, there's the mindless, big, loud and dumb action pieces between Optimus Prime and the Autobots vs. Megatron and his cronies, the Decepticons. There's the signature crap storyline that goes off with to many characters: High school student Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) buys a dented Camero that turns out to be an autobot, Bumblebee, that helps young Sam team up with hottie Mikaela (Meagan Fox) to find the Allspark, a device that if fallen into the wrong hands, grants unlimited power to that alien robots. The autobots seek it to rebuild their home world of Cybertron, the decepicons want it only to enslave the galaxy. Earlier on, U.S. soldiers stationed in Qatar break into a fight of one one of the deceptions that hacks the U.S. security system, leaving Capt. Lennox (Josh Duhamel) and his friend, Sgt. Epps (Tyrese Gibson) out in the middle of the desert with a decepticon on their trails. And in a post 9/11 world, it wouldn't be anything but appropriate but to place a member of Dubaya's 'Axis of Evil' as a potential threat - North Korea.

Enough to crucify Bay's latest work yet again, right?

Sorry haters, but this time, Bay wins this round by way of knockout.

Bay haters who are reading this are wondering, 'Michael Bay made a good movie? How was this impossible feat accomplished?'

First off, nuts to Bay for doing what he's really bad at: filling in a weak story as an excuse to add in two hours and twenty-four minutes of implausible, mindless, robot-on-robot violence. From the transformations, to the loud, ear-deafening action-sequences, Bay works the excitement that puts Sam Rami's mediocre Spider-Man 3 and Gore Veberinski's bloated Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End to absolute shame.

Second, in hiring Steven Spielberg to co-produce the film instead of world record holder for longest charade of being a one-trick wonder producer, Jerry Bruckheimer. And third, for hiring LeBeouf to play the role of Sam. If Distrubia was his breakout performance, then Transformers is his vehicle to becoming a household name. Plus, he's the lone standout in a movie full of predictable cardboard cutout characters, which probably isn't saying much in a Michael Bay movie.

As predicted, critics are resuming the Michael Bay hate fest. Let em. In a summer full of mediocre sell-outs, Transformenrs will look like one of the few movies this summer that were fucked around with by human hands.

*** stars out of ****

Independence Day

Today is July 4, our nation's two-hundred and thirty-first birthday.

In 231 years our nation has withstood every obstacle that has been handed.

Each year, I look at the obstacles that have tested our nation's strength and endurance our ability to thrive under change and crisis. From our fight for freedom and the war at home, to the Great Depression and World War II, to the Civil Rights Era to the constitutional crisis that was Watergate, somehow we have come out the other end better and stronger as a nation.

This year, after six years of watching Bush and Cheney showing not only complete disregard for human life in their blood for oil war in Iraq, not only the complete disregard the well being of Americans though their tax breaks for only the wealthiest 1%, but for also our civil rights. In just six years, these two men have all but said that we are the law, Constitution, Bill of Rights, Rule of Law, and Government of the People, for the People, and by the People be damned though the acts of spying on Americans without a warrant or a court order, suspending Habeas Corpus disguised as a bill that will protect the American people, and turning our justice system into a partisan freakshow for an Administration to get away with any crime they have committed, I ask myself: how the fuck did it come to this?

How is it that after 231 years, that our way of life is threated by two businessmen cloaked as the President and the Vice-President who are selling out this country for profit?

How is that we told off King George when he treated our nation like dog shit, but keep silent about the reckless abuse of power coming from the White House?
This Independence Day, I say, we as Americans need to re-examine our history, and our rights as Americans and ask ourselves this question: do we let our elected officials continue to further abuse our laws and our nation, or do we in one united, loud voice reclaim our dignity and our rights and say, 'enough is enough!'?

This is the choice we must make alone.

Good night, and good luck.