I do have that itch

A great article today in the USA Today about Troops Getting Different Tattoos once they come home from Afghanistan and Iraq.

In the beginning they wanted tattoos that identified them by name, religion or simply as soldiers, as Freeman did, says tattoo artist Scott LaGrange, 26, of Forever Tattoos in Evans Mills.

"That's when their religion comes out," LaGrange says. "Crosses, bottles of booze, hearts with 'Mom' and 'Dad.' "

A former Marine and veteran of Afghanistan, LaGrange says those who return are requesting skulls, patriotic phrases or memorials to fallen comrades.

"It's more what had happened to them," he says.

Returning troops often want tattoos to express their intense feelings, or even to blot them out — if only for a short time.

"A little bit of pain makes you forget about a whole load of it," says Joe Robbins, 37, owner Empyre Tattoo.

As a tattoo person, it's always nice to see an article that puts tattoos in a positive light as it still has that stigma of bikers and ruffians to most people, even though my generation is probably more tattooed then any American generation prior. This article just reminds me that I need to go see my guy next month, it's been far too long.

What Would You Do With A Billion Dollars

via Crooks and Liars:

While there is some disagreement on the idea of troop deadlines for US soldiers in Iraq, all sides seem to be on board with the amount included in the bill to fund the war.

Including the $124.2 billion bill, the total cost of the Iraq war may reach $456 billion in September, according to the National Priorities Project, an organization that tracks public spending.

The amount got us wondering: What would $456 billion buy?

You can take a glimpse of what it could buy with Boston.com's gallery.

I find it funny that while we are more then willing to give $400 billion for this illegal war we tighten our purse strings when it comes to helping our OWN folks here at home devastated by natural disasters, which the government is at fault in certain occasions (see levees).

More than 20 months after the Katrina catastrophe, tens of thousands of houses remain vacant, in part because of administrative delays in the aid program, the largest single source of direct federal help for homeowners. To date, only 16,000 of 130,000 applicants have received money.

Now, ICF Consulting, the Fairfax firm hired to administer the claims as part of Louisiana's Road Home program, projects that the allotted aid budget of $6.9 billion will fall $2.9 billion short of the claims from homeowners who have been promised checks.

Read the whole story at The Washington Post.

It is shameful that we give more to other countries when a natural disaster hits then we do to ourselves. It's almost two years later and people are STILL living in FEMA trailers and that is inexcusable. We have no problem apparently throwing money to Haliburton, Blackwater, and other Haliburton subsidiaries, but when it comes to actually helping our own people there apparently is nothing to gain, no monetary reason to attempt restore their lives back before Katrina hit.

If I were the Democrats and want to get REALLY creative with the War Funding Bill and make it lethal to Republicans, add some pork that no one with a heart would object to. Add say $20 billion dollars of aid to victims of Hurricane Katrina and those who lost their homes in the recent tornadoes in Kansas. See what Bush's response to the bill is, sure it makes it even more political then it already is, but you can claim that you're at least trying to help people here while funding the war as well.

Durbin Kept Silent On Prewar Knowledge

This is interesting, I understand that you're sworn to secrecy, but at the same time this administration didn't mind bending those rules (see Plame, Valerie). You think of how many American and Iraqi lives that could have been saved if you would have just said something, anything, to prevent this war. You knew, and still did nothing to stop it.

By Sean Lengell, Washington Times

The Senate's No. 2 Democrat says he knew that the American public was being misled into the Iraq war but remained silent because he was sworn to secrecy as a member of the intelligence committee.

"The information we had in the intelligence committee was not the same information being given to the American people. I couldn't believe it," Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, said Wednesday when talking on the Senate floor about the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002.

"I was angry about it. [But] frankly, I couldn't do much about it because, in the intelligence committee, we are sworn to secrecy. We can't walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to this Congress."

Mr. Durbin's comments come after years of inquiries and debate about prewar intelligence, and as congressional leaders clash over Democrats' calls to pull out of Iraq.

The White House responded by saying Congress had access to the same intelligence and voted overwhelmingly to go to war.

"We all understand today that there were intelligence failures, but there was no effort to mislead either members of Congress or the American people," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

Mr. Durbin yesterday said there was no "ethical" way to notify the public of specific misleading information being touted by the Bush administration because it would have required revealing top-secret information being provided to the intelligence committee.

He cited the White House's claim that Iraq was trying to acquire aluminum tubes needed for a nuclear weapons program -- details of which have since been declassified -- as an example of bad intelligence, saying that there was an ongoing debate within the administration as it was being used in public.

Mr. Durbin, whose floor comments were part of the debate before yesterday's passage of an emergency war-funding bill, said he and half the Democrats on the intelligence committee voted against the war over concerns of the White House's "very flimsy case, but it was given to the American people as a proven fact."

Congress authorized the 2003 use of armed force against Iraq by votes of 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate. Five of nine Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence voted for the measure as did all eight Republicans.

At least you voted against it, but you could have implied to other Democrats that what they were being told were bold face lies, you didn't, shame on you sir.

A Brit I Can Respect

Crooks and Liars Once again find an excellent place of information, very educational...

I Wish I Knew...

...how to speak THIS language.

Yes, she is hot, great voice, and I think it is hilarious...even if I can't understand it.