The Mouse that Roared

Top 10 Christmas Movies I Want to See

Top 10 Christmas Movies I Want to See

by Michael Dare

 

10: It's a Horrible Life: Clarence the angel gets his wings after convincing George W. Bailey to kill himself by showing him how absolutely fantastic the world would have been had he never been born.

 

9: The Polar Espresso: Elves from around the world are kidnapped and forced to work at the first Starbucks at the North Pole.

 

8: How the Magnanimous Billionaire Gave Away Christmas: A mad billionaire hires minions to sneak into people's houses and replace the gifts around the tree with much better ones.

 

7: Homo Alone: I really don't want to see this. What was I thinking? You go see it.

 

6: Elf Realization: Che Elf rouses the toy workers to overthrow their hefty master. Siddhartha Elf finds enlightenment.

 

5: The Nightmare After Christmas: A swamped clerk at a Wal-Mart's return desk kidnaps shoppers and opens an underground slave department where illegal aliens can buy white people.

 

4: The Little Shop Around the Coroner: Law and Order meets CSI meets Bones meets Love, Actually, with a bit of Die Hard and Eyes Wide Shut thrown in.

 

3: Rudolph the Normal-Nosed Reindeer: There's nothing special about Rudolph so he never guides Santa's sleigh or ever really amounts to anything. Nobody writes a song about him and he dies in obscurity.

 

2: Disaster on 34th Street: Santa is hijacked by elf terrorists who crash his sleigh into Macy's which mysteriously comes crumbling down in what many claim must have been a controlled demolition. The US declares war on the North Pole and blows up a Starbucks. Gimbels has its biggest week ever.

 

and the number one Christmas movie I want to see...

 

1. The Most Improbable Story Ever Told: A virgin who appears on tortillas gives birth to a man who can walk on water. Starring Jesus Saves (pronounced Hey-soos Sah-vess.)

 

http://dareland.blogspot.com/2009/12/top-10-christmas-movies-i-want-to-see.html

We had a deal. A few Senators just lied to us.

by Chris Bowers

I've seen a few post-mortems of the public option campaign kicking around the Internets.  Invariably, as more are written, some will blame the people leading the campaign for not adopting different tactics which, the authors of the post-mortems will claim, could have led to victory.

Before this line of writing becomes too widespread, we all need to remember that the only reason we didn't win the public option campaign was because a few Senators lied to us.  Unless someone can think of ways to have prevented them from lying, then these post-mortems will be useless.

Back on May 21st, there were only 28 Senators in support of a triggerless public option.  Through your tireless participation in a whip count effort, by October 8th we raised that number to 51 when Jon Tester came out in support.  By October 30th, when Evan Bayh said he wouldn't filibuster, we were up to 56 Democrats for cloture on health care reform with a public option.

From that point, the only four Senators we still needed all lied to us in one form or another.  Both Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln signed a document stating that they supported a public option, only to reverse their positions.  Blanche Lincoln's website still comically claimed she supported a public option even as she was declaring her opposition to one on the Senate floor.

Still, Landrieu, Lincoln and Ben Nelson were all part of the group of ten Senators who forged a deal on the public option that included a Medicare buy-in.  Further, immediately after that deal was reached, Harry Reid contacted Joe Lieberman to see if he liked the deal.  Lieberman told Harry Reid that he was liking what he was seeing, and just wanted to wait for the CBO report.  Further, Lieberman had supported an even stronger Medicare buy-in (for Americans aged 50-64) as recently as September 2009.

Six days later, Lieberman and Nelson went on national television to engage in some more mendacity.  Lieberman said he would filibuster the deal, even though he had told Reid he liked it, and even though he had recently advocated for it.  Ben Nelson badmouthed the deal even though he helped forge it.

And then, when the lying was all done, Rahm Emanuel ordered the Democratic Senate caucus to do as Lieberman said.  And the Democratic Senate caucus not only is ready to comply, but to do so without punishing Lieberman (or any of the other liars, for that matter).

To put it bluntly, we had won the campaign, but were lied to by a small number of Senators.  In particular, we were lied to by Joe Lieberman.  If you have a post-mortem that could have prevented the lying, I'd love to hear it.  For, were it not for the lying, the public option campaign would have been won.

http://openleft.com/diary/16552/we-had-a-deal-a-few-senators-just-lied-to-us

Four Real-Life Christmas Scrooges

By Christopher

4 Andrew Carnegie

Second richest man in history

His Riches

How rich was Carnegie? He is regarded as the second richest man in history, worth $293.3 billion dollars in today's time—3 times more than Bill Gates. Making most of his fortune from the booming steel industry in the late 19^th century, Carnegie soon had fingers in everything from bonds, to sleeping cars.

His Scroogyness

Carnegie was so cheap, that he once "lost a dime. It is said that he got on his knees, and searched for the dime until he found it." This guy, who is worth the GDP of Zimbabwe, looking for something that most of us wouldn't have given a second thought.

Another famous anecdotes was how he tipped a dime once, at a meal. Unless he was eating at a $2 restaurant, is unacceptable. It is unknown if it is the same dime mentioned, although knowing Carnegie, we wouldn't be surprised if he had originally picked it up with his next meal in mind.

Scrooge Rating (out of 10)

Carnegie was a noted philanthropist, and by his death, had given an estimated $35 billion dollars away—again, massively more than Bill Gate's philanthropy of $28 billion (Suck it, Bill!) So, I suppose we could forgive him for the two (one?) dimes.

3 John Elwes

The man Dickens based Scrooge on

His Riches

A Member of Parliament of Britain in the 1700s, Elwes inherited his wealth from his mother and his uncle. Although his mother left him £100,000 (which would be like, a trillion dollars today), she reputedly starved to death, as she was too stingy to spend the money; while his uncle left his £250,000, but prided himself on spending only £110 a year. Which ultimate leads us to ask the question: is being a selfish jerk hereditary?

His Scroogyness

Elwes was so damn stingy, that he has an entire section in his Wikipedia page dedicated to his "Miserliness".

Elwes dressed in beggars clothing; went to sleep when the sun set to save candles; would eat rotten food before buying new ones, once eating the remains left by a rat; refused to see a doctor, even when he had been shot; and ultimately lived on £50 a year.

Scrooge Rating (out of 10)

When Elwes lay dying, he forced his lawyer to draw his £800,000 will in firelight to save the cost of a candle. One. Single. Candle.

Despite all this, Elwes wasn't really an asshole, just stingy.

http://humor.gunaxin.com/four-real-life-christmas-scrooges/40315

Auld Lang Syne: Farewell to another decade of "liberal media bias"

by

It might seem futile to try to select just two quotes from the previous decade and single them out as bookends to illustrate how the political press so often malfunctioned over the last 10 years. But if pressed, I know which duo I'd nominate in hopes of highlighting the absurdity behind the never-ending right-wing claim about supposed "liberal media bias."

Y'know, the same "liberal media" that over the previous decade unleashed its venom on Al Gore, morphed into George Bush's lapdog cheerleaders, and created unfair double standards for covering the new Democratic president, Barack Obama.

The first quote I'd nominate actually comes from very late 1999, but the implication was pure 2000 and the decade that followed. The passage appeared in a Time report about the unfolding Democratic primary battle and came just as the Beltway press was unveiling its unapologetic War on Gore, as The Daily Howler might put it.

The orgy of resentment that erupted toward Gore during the 2000 campaign season was likely unprecedented in American politics, as media elites did very little to hide their disdain for Gore. For years, they mocked him, bad-mouthed him, and made up nasty stories about him. (Hint: Inventing the Internet.) Acting as a conduit for the RNC, the press actively tried to delegitimize the Democratic Party nominee for president. And the chronically caustic and unfair press coverage cost Gore the election in the historically close 2000 campaign.

Which brings me to Quote of the Decade No. 1, courtesy Time's Eric Pooley and his New Hampshire primary dispatch: [emphasis added]:

[T]he 300 media types watching in the press room at Dartmouth were, to use the appropriate technical term, totally grossed out by it. Whenever Gore came on too strong, the room erupted in a collective jeer, like a gang of 15-year-old Heathers cutting down some hapless nerd.

If readers needed confirmation regarding the open contempt for Gore, blogger Mickey Kaus soon traveled to New Hampshire and announced the consensus among journalists: "They hate Gore. They really do think he's a liar. And a phony."

My second Quote of the Decade nominee arrived 110 months later and via NBC's Chuck Todd. It was uncorked inside the new Obama White House press room, on January 23, 2009. The topic on the table was the administration's proposed economic stimulus package and whether the White House, which was hoping for a bipartisan effort on the legislation, would be disappointed if the bill passed with little or no Republican support. And that's when Todd asked Robert Gibbs the following:

Would [the President] veto a bill if it didn't have Republican support?

That's right. Just days into the new presidency, Todd wanted to know if Obama would go ahead and take the unprecedented action of vetoing his own legislation designed to immediately jump-start the faltering economy because not enough members of the opposition party supported the stimulus bill.

If nothing else, Todd's absurd query highlighted the unheard-of double standard the press constructed for the new Democratic president. Namely, when addressing the issue of bipartisanship (i.e. "involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties") the press decided to hold only one of the political parties accountable: the Democrats. Bipartisanship was now something Democrats had to bring to fruition.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200912220005

Be Careful What You Pray For

by Iron Knee

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said on Sunday:

What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight. That's what they ought to pray.

Coburn was hoping that a Democrat would not show up for the vote on health care reform and the vote would fail. But he forgot to specify the party of the person against whom people should pray.

But on Tuesday a teabagger called into C-SPAN because he was terrified that the prayers had backfired. He had prayed that aging Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) would either die or be unable to show up to vote. Instead, it was Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) who failed to show. The caller, obviously distraught, asks Senator John Barrasso (R-WY):

How hard did you pray because I see one of our members was missing this morning. Did it backfire on us? One of our members died? How hard did you pray senator? Did you pray hard enough?

First they pray for bad weather for the Democratic convention, and instead get a hurricane for the Republican convention. Now this. If there is a God, he must be laughing.

Watch it here:

http://politicalirony.com/2009/12/23/be-careful-what-you-pray-for/

How Banks Fleece the Unemployed

 

 

By Barbara Koeppel

 

Just when you thought the big banks had maxed out their chutzpah account, think again.

While posting breathtaking profits in the last two quarters – Wells Fargo's $3.2 billion, Citigroup's $3 billion and Chase's $2.7 billion – U.S. banks have figured out a way to squeeze some extra dollars from those who can least afford it, the unemployed.

Here's how it works. In the past two years, states have been overwhelmed with unemployment claims. Always eager to serve, America's banks offered a deal the states couldn't refuse.

Sign a contract — which won't cost you a dime — and send us your weekly unemployment funds, the banks said. In return, we'll issue our VISA or MasterCard debit cards to your laid-off workers, on which we'll post their benefits electronically.

Thirty states signed on with the usual suspects — Citi, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America — and some smaller ones, too. More states are lining up.

In a stroke, states dropped all their costs for printing and mailing checks. Andrew James, with North Carolina's Employment Security Commission, told me that in the past year, his state saved a whopping $10 million. During the same time, Nevada saved $800,000, Maryland $400,000 and West Virginia $340,000.

But if the system is good for the states, it's great for the banks. A February 2009 Associated Press article noted that Missouri's Central Bank, which won that state's contract, could reap $6.3 million this year alone.

The banks profit from interest earned on the funds the states deposit with them until the money is posted onto the debit cards. Then there's the money the banks get from retailers where the unemployed shop with their cards — from 2 percent to 3 percent per transaction.

But such sums are not large enough, it seems. So the banks have figured how to extract more money from the millions of unemployed now using the debit cards. The devil's in the fees. 

http://consortiumnews.com/2009/121509b.html

Darth Vader Opens Wall Street

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed

by Mark Lynas

 

A woman listens to Barack Obama's speech at the Copenhagen climate change conference on 18 December.

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

Christmas Stockings

© Joel Pett

Three Kings

 

Three Kings by Steve Brodner Of all the Santas of all time here are my top three, and the guys who drew them. My all time fave is Haddon "Sunny" Sundblom's Coca-Cola Santa.  He would be in print ads in all major mags all through my childhood, and, I discovered, way before that.  This Santa wasn't just jolly, but in charge.  Like a CEO.  The very image of Big Cola-cum-America.  Rich, smart, benevolent. Oiy.  Anyway.  You felt if you asked for trains, you damn well would get trains.  And they would arrive on time.  BTW: The Quaker Oats man is Sunny's too. Next is Norman Rockwell.  Santa to him was yet another American myth he would put his stamp on.  This one is sweeter, more elfin, like the rest of his world.  Benign, warm, nurturing.  That's the America he wanted. Wars were good wars.  People essentially strove for a Jeffersonian civil society, sublimating personal animus for greater communitarian and spiritual ends. His Santa is another piece of that Frank Capra, Aaron Copeland world.  Never saw a lump of coal in his life. Tommy Nast is our Pop.  Our bloodiest and most successful caricaturist, he developed Santa Claus into the character we know.  First used in large emblematic cartoons in wartime (the Civil War) to entertain the troops in the pages of his Harper's Weekly, his Santa survived into the more sedate and mercantile '80's.  It didn't take long for Santa to move out of the battlefield and into the boardrooms. From me and all my toons to you and yours, a great holiday and new year. And Peace. SB &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Comment at drawger.com/stevebrodner

Obama & Democrats Give Americans a Healthcare Con Job for Christmas

By Kevin Gosztola

In the final moments before passage, Americans will whine about how Republicans are Scrooges and do not understand the meaning of Christmas and they should pass this bill for the poor instead of always giving to the rich. And, some Americans will sympathize with Democrats who have to be in the Senate on Christmas Eve and cannot be with their families because Republicans continue to obstruct passage of health reform.

Corporate Democrats and the Obama Administration stand ready to deliver a gift to Americans on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies and private insurance industry in America: health reform.

Cloaked in the spirit of the holiday season, Americans will let politicians shove this right under their Christmas tree somewhere between little Timmy's Zhu Zhu Pets and daddy's new GPS navigator, which many Americans probably managed to barely squeeze onto their Visa Mastercard.See the words recently spoken by Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) as he read his own version of the famous Christmas poem, "Twas the Night Before Christmas."

"Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the Senate/ the right held up our health care bill no matter what was in it/The people had voted, had mandated reform/ 'We'll clog up the senate,' they cried with a grin, and in the midterm elections, we'll get voted in""

Democrats hope Americans will focus on those in Congress like Sen. Kit Bond and Sen. Chuck Grassley who should be visited by three ghosts before this holiday season is over. They have setup this final vote with the hope that Americans will forget the part about how this Senate bill doesn't have a Medicare buy-in, doesn't have a public option, doesn't support a woman's right to choose an abortion or have full access to all forms of reproductive health care, etc.

They hope deals Big Pharma cut with the Obama Administration to make sure Congress didn't attempt to use government leverage to lower the prices of drugs or support a measure to allow the importation of generic drugs from countries outside the U.S. won't be thought of and the fact that a Medicare for All single-payer health care plan was effectively kept off the table and out of the discussion all year long to the detriment of the American people and for the benefit of health insurance and drug companies in America won't be a problem for a majority of Americans at all.

And, it looks like Obama and Democrats will succeed in passing this without any threats of civil unrest or resistance to how it empowers corporate and special interests getting in the way.

Which means, as Americans sip eggnog, few will grasp the reality that they are going to be forced to buy "poor-quality insurance they can't afford to use," which means that they may pay around "$11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above" their already expensive premiums.[1]

While baking those holiday cookies with loved ones, few will think about the insurance plan they have right now through their employer and how this bill will be paid for by taxes on this plan so that means their employer will inevitably cut back on benefits and increase co-pays. They won't think to wonder why they must start to pay taxes on this bill now if they aren't going to see benefits from the bill and an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions until 2014.[2]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama--Democrats-Give-Ame-by-Kevin-Gosztola-091223-261.html

Peace Activists to Set Up Encampment in Washington

by: Scott Galindez, t r u t h o u t | Report

In August of 2005, Cindy Sheehan, who had lost her son in Iraq, set up camp outside George Bush's vacation home in Crawford, Texas. She had a simple question; she wanted to know what the "noble cause" was for which her son had died. Thousands of people joined Cindy in Crawford, and Camp Casey became a national story that breathed new life into the antiwar movement.

In March of 2010, Cindy Sheehan and other activists from a group calling itself "Peace of the Action" will be converging on Washington, DC, to set up a camp on the National Mall.

When asked how long the encampment will last, Sheehan responded, "as long as it takes, that will be up to the government; we are prepared to stay until our demands are met."

Sheehan went on to say that the demands are simple, "troops out of the Middle East, which includes drones, permanent bases, contractors and torture/detention facilities."

Sheehan said that she has known for years that the peace movement needs to take bolder action and that the group's goal will be to hold multiple civil resistance actions daily throughout the nation's capital.

Sheehan said that participants will be asked to adhere to agreed-upon nonviolence guidelines while standing up and resisting against what she called the "robber class."

http://www.truthout.org/1222091

The Danger of Moderation

JACK, JACK: Who’s Got Your Back?

The very life & legacy of Jack Herer, author of The Emperor Wears No Clothes, is at stake.

by Bonnie King

Jack Herer in his natural environment, at his booth. Photo: Jackherer.com

(SALEM, Ore.) – It's a sad situation. The making of a movie of the week, perhaps. When a world renowned author falls ill, his family and friends become enemies, all professing to do so on his behalf. In the meantime, his health continues to fail, and his good name is tarnished by the very people deemed to uphold it.

Much has been said, some of it true, some of it not true, regarding Jack Herer as of late.

Anchor of the worldwide hemp movement, Jack Herer lies in a bed in a rehabilitation center in Eugene, Oregon, continuing recovery from a heart attack and anoxic brain injury.

Whereas, we reported just over a month ago that he seemed to be making significant progress in his recuperation, now that progress has reportedly stymied.

Jack was rushed to the hospital and admitted November 7th for a four-day stay following dehydration and Stage 5 Renal (kidney) Failure. Doctors spent 35 straight minutes with Jack in Emergency, which is longer than usual to stabilize a patient. Even then, he wasn't stable.

Since then, the battle between those closest to Jack has turned from a skirmish into a war.

DRUG SCREENING REVEALS SHOCKING RESULTS

When Jack was admitted to McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center on November 7th, he was gravely ill with his blood pressure only reading 78/58.

Because doctors questioned the sudden and dramatic illness, the hospital ran a drug screen.

One person who has been consistently on Jack's team, Joy Graves said, "I was notified by a brief phone call that the state of Oregon had an active investigation underway. And, I can see why."

"The day before this test was ran, Avamere had run a drug screen, and it only showed THC, nothing else. So this is absolutely frightening," she added.

The drug screen at McKenzie-Willamette revealed positive for THC (50 ng), Alcohol (20 g/dl), and surprisingly, Amphetamines (1000 ng).

THC: Some might find it laughable that Jack would ever not have THC in his body, after decades of daily cannabis use.

Alcohol: This is a substance that Jack does not imbibe, for over 35 years by some accounts. The theory is that the alcohol may have been part of the hemp mixture he was given, perhaps a tincture, though that has yet to be confirmed.

Amphetamines: How amphetamines came to be in his system is quite the mystery, but the investigation is well underway. That's where this discussion takes an immediate downward turn. And, it is apparently where the State of Oregon decided to step in.

"In his condition, amphetamines are about the farthest thing from what he needs in the world," commented Dr. Phil Leveque, Forensic Toxicologist and friend of Jack Herer. "No doctor would knowingly administer such a thing to a heart patient."

Amphetamines elevate cardiac output and blood pressure making it dangerous for use by patients with a history of heart problems, causing life-threatening complications.

How the amphetamines entered Jack's system is unknown, but the investigation is ongoing.

http://smkrider.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/jack-jack-whos-got-your-back-bonnie-king-salem-news-com/

Taliban claim control of over 80pc of Afghanistan

 

By Mushtaq Yusufzai

PESHAWAR: Rejecting as baseless the US allegations about the presence of Afghan Taliban in the tribal areas, a militant commander said they did not need to flee to the neighbouring country when the Taliban controlled major parts of Afghanistan.

Mulla Sangeen, a key commander of the Afghan Taliban, claimed there was no truth in the US charges, as the Taliban were holding 80 per cent of the territory in Afghanistan.

In his video message, which the Taliban commander claimed was recorded in one of his camps in the Paktika province, he said the Haqqani network was active and based in Afghanistan. Sangeen is also affiliated with the network.

The network, led by Sirajuddin Haqqani, has nominated Sangeen as the shadow governor of Paktika. He said by pressing the government to launch a military operation in North Waziristan, the US was, in fact, trying to weaken the country. He said the US was making efforts to pit Pakistan's armed forces and people against each other. Sangeen said the Taliban had become a strong force and at the moment, they were ruling most of the country with the help of the Afghan people.

"The US knows that we are here in Afghanistan and are fighting against them. The US always levels such allegations whenever it suffers losses at our hands," he stressed.

 

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=26228

Afghanistan War: The Soviet Lesson Not Learned

"Hell on Earth": Released Somali Speaks about Guantánamo

by Andy Worthington

AFP secured an interview on Monday with Mohamed Saleban Bare (known to the Pentagon as Mohammed Sulaymon Barre), the Somali refugee, released from Guantánamo at the weekend with eleven other men (including another Somali, Ismail Mahmoud Muhammad), who ran a money transfer operation for the Somali diaspora in Karachi, Pakistan, until he was seized in a house raid on November 1, 2001. The organization he worked for was, in the eyes of the US authorities, involved with another money transfer company that had ties to the 9/11 hijackers, even though the 9/11 Commission concluded over five years that this was not the case. Speaking to AFP reporter Mustafa Haji Abdinur in a hotel in Bare's home town of Hargeisa, the capital of the northern breakaway state of Somaliland, Bare declared, "Guantánamo Bay is like hell on Earth." He added, "I don't feel normal yet but I thank Allah for keeping me alive and free from the physical and mental sufferings of some of my friends. Some of my colleagues in the prison lost their sight, some lost their limbs and others ended up mentally disturbed. I'm OK compared to them."

 

http://waronyou.com/topics/%E2%80%9Chell-on-earth%E2%80%9D-released-somali-speaks-about-guantanamo/

 

Israel to seek another 1b euros Holocaust in reparations from Germany

 

By Moti Bassok

Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz will demand between 450 million to 1 billion euros in reparations from Germany on behalf of Jews forced into slave labor during the Holocaust, it emerged on Sunday.

Minister Steinitz will reportedly present German government with the demand on behalf of 30,000 Israeli survivors of forced labor in wartime ghettos, during a joint session scheduled to take place in early 2010 in Berlin.

Israeli officials estimate that according to a ghetto workers act passed by the German parliament in 2002, all of the 30,000 living forced labor survivors are entitled to a retroactive payment of approximately 15,000 euros each.

 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1136383.html

Invest?