I'm sure there are reporters who have done what I did. But most of the headlines you're seeing are based on the same wire story and wire stories are rarely re-reported.

And there is always the chance that I am wrong and there are other retirement package components I've missed. But the stories I found referenced the proxy statement so if it is in there I'm completely missing it.

And here's another logical flaw I'm starting to see pop up in the reporting. Admittedly this is from a blog but I've seen it elsewhere this morning:

So not only is the $51 million included in the $400 million it is then highlighted to show just how out of line his compensation was for his last year of employment. This, of courses, counts the $51 million twice. It also fails to note that 70% of the $51 million is from compensation given in previous years and not compensation awarded in 2005.

Getting rid of Rumsfeld is like firing Homer at the Springfield Power Plant. The real problem is Mr. Burns.

You must spread some Mojo around before giving it to Gemini Cricket again.

Moussaoui clearly wants to die. Whether it's because he's afraid of prison, or if he wants martyr status, who knows? Probably a little of both. But clearly he was just an annoying hanger-on, desparate for the attention, but completely on the outside of the real workings. So now he's just trying to bolster his role to make himself look more important. And, unless he's completely off the deep end, I can't imagine he thinks he's fooling Allah into givin' him the virgins, he must just really want some mortal recognition. I find myself leaning more towards pity for the pathetic bastard (not pity as in, "I think he's a good soul gone astray," pity as in, "You're gonna spend a miserable life in prison because you're filled with hate, and yet astoundingly ineffectual. Sucks to be you.")

Regarding Moussaoui - Can a US court sentence someone to life in solitary confinement? He'd be too much of a hero or teacher while spending a lifetime in prison with others. That's not good.

Source

Uh, that's kinda scary.
:eek:

Well, you know, he is The Decider.

There is an old saying among musicians that when you are in a situation where you might have to perform a song that you haven't learned beforehand and don't really know, you play it "wrong but strong". The idea being that if you are confident in your playing and look like you know what you are doing, the people watching just might think you know what you are doing. You can get away with a lot of bad notes that way.

That to me best describes Bush's way of handling things...wrong but strong.

Has any president since James Garfield promised not to use nukes to change the mind of people who wanted to keep the nation on the silver standard ever publicly ruled out the possibility of using nuclear weapons in a conflict?

Not to the best of my ability to recall. And yet everybody gets all excited every few years with the "president won't rule out nukes; reveals self as monstrous maniac!" headlines. You can find the same headlines about Clinton, Bush, and Reagan. I don't know how far back it could go because I don't know when peole developed the silly idea that the president might actually publicly reject a specific military tactic ahead of time.

I would be strongly opposed to the use of any nuclear weapon to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I also would be opposed to the president saying ahead of time that he wouldn't use them.