:: PseudoPsalms ::

A little bit of this...A little bit of that...
:: welcome to PseudoPsalms :: Main | email ::
Jewish Bloggers

:: Thursday, September 25, 2003 ::

A Rabbi?

Has anyone seen any verification of this?

"Raised a Southern Baptist who later converted to Roman Catholicism, Gen. Wesley Clark knew just what to say when he strode into a Brooklyn yeshiva in 1999, ostensibly to discuss his leadership of NATO´s victory in Yugoslavia.
"I feel a tremendous amount in common with you," the uniformed four-star general told the stunned roomful of students.
"I am the oldest son, of the oldest son, of the oldest son — at least five generations, and they were all rabbis."
He told The Jewish Week in New York, which first reported the yeshiva comment in 1999, that his ancestors were not just Jews, but members of the priestly caste of Kohens."

:: Peter 9/25/2003 06:30:00 PM [+] ::

Oh Brother...

This is just plain goofy.

1) We're at war.
2) There just has to be better things to be occupying the time of the FBI and Oregon police.

"A New York City police officer accused of sexually abusing a 17-year-old Corvallis girl he met while on a post-9/11 goodwill speaking trip to Oregon has married the girl, now 18, and the couple live in New York. "

3) In most states across America the age of consent is 16.
4) If she lived in one of those states there would be no crime.

"But De Gennaro's marriage to the girl he's accused of sexually abusing in an Albany hotel room has no bearing on his criminal case, said Linn County Deputy District Attorney Eric Hsu."

5) We wouldn't want love to get in the way of a good crime now, would we?

"Just two weeks after his marriage, De Gennaro is barred from having any contact with his wife, according to the jail release agreement imposed Wednesday by Linn County Presiding Judge Rick J. McCormick."

6) So much for the honeymoon

"De Gennaro allegedly snapped photos of the sexual tryst that were found by the girl's parents in May."

7) This is the clincher. Pictures.

Why are pictures so damning? Simple. I'll use the example of states which do have 16 years as the age of consent. In those states it is LEGAL to have sex with a 16 year old.

In all 50 states it is ILLEGAL to photograph someone having sex below the age of 18.

See the problem? Pictures of a LEGAL act are ILLEGAL.

8) If he molested a child he should be punished. Castration comes to mind.

Does anyone, anywhere, think he molested a child?


"De Gennaro, an 11-year veteran of the New York police force, is facing charges of first-degree encouraging child sexual abuse, second-degree encouraging child sexual abuse and using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct. The latter charge is a Measure 11 crime and carries an automatic 70-month prison term."

9) See...there is 'first-degree encouraging child sexual abuse, second-degree encouraging child sexual abuse' but it's the PICTURES which have such a strong sentence that the reporter actually feels compelled to include the term: 'The latter charge is a Measure 11 crime and carries an automatic 70-month prison term'

10) I don't think he's going to be getting along all that well with his in-laws.

:: Peter 9/25/2003 05:00:00 PM [+] ::
:: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 ::

12 days ago?

Hasn't this been debunked? By Clark himself recently?

From the website of Michhael Moore:

"My wife and I were invited over to a neighbor's home 12 days ago where Clark told those gathered that certain people, acting on behalf of the Bush administration, called him immediately after the attacks on September 11th and asked him to go on TV to tell the country that Saddam Hussein was "involved" in the attacks. He asked them for proof, but they couldn't provide any. He refused their request."

Hasn't Clark already announced that this didn't happen?

Oh, and in case you were wondering: Yes, apparently someone did marry Michael Moore.

I wonder if the food is any good here.

UPDATE: I searched some more to get information about whether or not Clark retracted his comments. In a way I found more than I was expecting. Searching Yahoo I found The Carpetbagget Report. This is in no way shape or form a pro-Bush site from what I can tell. On Sept. 2, 2003 a blog was posted which deals with this situation: (this is excerpted but not Dowdified)

"Clark's media critics appear to have settled on one comment the general made on Meet the Press in June on which to focus their attacks. The conservatives seem to believe they caught Clark in a damaging slip-up. When you check the transcript against the accusations, you realize the critics are wrong, and worse, are misleading their readers...
To hear Will and Continetti explain it, Clark's comments sound potentially damaging. Both conservatives point to apparent quotations in which Clark said that he was asked by White House officials to assert Iraq's connection to 9/11. Do Will and Continetti have something here? No. They're both deceptively playing fast and loose with the transcript...
When Clark said "it came from the White House," he was talking about the effort on the part of the administration to convince America to wage war in Iraq. Later, Clark talked about getting a call while working for CNN about connecting Iraq and 9/11, but he certainly never said he was contacted by Bush administration officials.
Continetti insisted that Clark claimed to have "received a call on 9/11 from 'people around the White House.'" This is completely untrue. Clark never said anything of the sort."

The main point being that Clark's defenders are saying that Clark never said that he heard from the White House. Reading the transcript, which is located, in part, here I'd have to agree that no where in this interview does Clark say that.

Now it's morphed into 'certain people, acting on behalf of the Bush administration.'

Who? Why? Why would anyone care what an out of work General was going to say to CNN? And why, on Sept. 11, 2003 is a potential President of the US telling crap like this to Michael Moore?
:: Peter 9/23/2003 04:47:00 PM [+] ::


:: Peter 9/23/2003 12:30:00 PM [+] ::
:: Monday, September 22, 2003 ::

What are they thinking?

With names like Yuppy Puppy and Doghouse Blues you might think they're new silly-ass costumes for dogs. You'd be wrong, but close. No, we're talking nail polish.

Not nail polish for teens which have 'hip/trendy' names. No.

Nail polish for dogs.

Can't make shit like this up.

In case you're curious:

"Applying Pawlish to your pet’s nails can be easy if you follow a few simple tips:
1. Plan to apply Pawlish when your pet is relaxed.
2. For the smoothest application, first trim any fur away from your pet’s nails.
3. Holding one paw firmly but gently in one hand, stroke Pawlish on your pet’s nails. Only one coat is needed. Pawlish dries quickly, so you can finish all four paws in just minutes!
4. Give your pet a treat after nails are done – and let your pet know that he or she looks fabulous! (A good tummy rub at this point would be perfect!)
5. Time for a new look? To remove Pawlish, saturate a Paw Pads wipe with It’s Dog Gone! Pawlish Remover. Then hold one paw firmly but gently in one hand, and stroke pad over pet’s nails. Apply new Pawlish color and get ready for the compliments! "

But, perhaps, my favorite part of the entire site is this:

"Pawlish is tested on people, not animals."

Yes, we are so PC in this country that we won't even test stuff FOR animals on animals.
:: Peter 9/22/2003 02:36:00 PM [+] ::


From Jewish World Review:

:: Peter 9/22/2003 08:17:00 AM [+] ::

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?