A People Plank for the Democratic Party
I want to share an idea that I think has real promise. It's at
the "give me feedback" stage, now, and I'm patient enough to do it right, but
here it is right up front: We need to make the Democratic party understand that
we expect them to put forth and support a constitutional amendment defining what
a "person" is, once and for all. This amendment should define a "person" as a
human being regardless of where they were born. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm looking
for help in the exact words to use to keep the definition in line with the 14th
amendment, too, and I'm open to constructive criticism on how to make the
whole thing workable. I also realize that I'm making quite a leap stating what
"we" demand, but stay with me a little longer.
If done right this could end the domination of politics by corporations, as it
would make it the foremost law of the land that only "persons" have civil
rights. Corporations (and other special interest groups if we word it
carefully), not having been "born", would have no first amendment right to free
speech that allows them to spend such huge sums of money to influence politics.
(You don't have to be all that astute to see what other things defining a person
this way can do to bring peace to the nation, too.)
I'm under no illusion that the Democrats aren't beholden to corporations and big
money. Different corporations and different big money, sure, but beholden to
THEM and not to US just the same. If we're so sure we're right, that corporate
money has ruined politics, why shouldn't we push this? Why shouldn't we demand
that the Democratic candidates push this? Why should we support the Democrats if
they prove to us that corporate money is more important to them than our
opinion?
The Daily Kos and DU have raised astounding amounts of money for some
candidates. Other Democratic candidates and congress-critters post on these
sites and ask for feedback there. There is recognition that the upcoming
election is a "base election" and "the angry left" is actively sharing ideas,
strength, and money because they expect to be heard. Needless to say, this has
the hateful right up in arms! The RW complains about "the angry left" bloggers
out of fear because they recognize a real threat to their power!
The Democrats know what's happening, too, and how much power we still have. Just
as an example, Lieberbush is in deep shit in CT, and he knows it. He's allied
himself with "God's chosen President" one time too many, and the support of
people like you and me are giving Lamont a *real* chance to unseat "joementum"
in the primary.
We shouldn't allow the DNC to "move right." In the past year or so there's been
a real awakening in America to the indisputable fact that the GOP is unable to
do ANYTHING without the approval of the RW-extremist fundies (and if they've
forgotten remind them about Harriet Myers.) Anyone who believes that it's not
the government's province to legislate morality, that it's distinctly
un-American for the government to make "value" judgements for them,
isn't going to vote for God's Own Party this time around, but they may choose
not to vote at all. We will never win the vote of a RW-religious extremist, but anyone else
who is tired of the GOP culture of corruption is looking for something to be
for. I've talked to people from all "sides" in the political debate and this
is one issue all Americans (except those who vote on faith) can unite on. If you
want to "reach across the aisle" and get former GOP supporters to vote
Democratic getting rid of the dirty corporate money is the ticket. People are so
overwhelmed by the huge sums of money dumped into politicians pockets that they
feel like they no longer have any influence on our nation's politics and laws,
and they're tired of it.
We shouldn't support a Democratic party that's only better than the GOP
because they're free to act without consulting the Dobson's and Falwell's of the
world. We should let the Democrats know what we want them to do for us, and we
should expect them to do it. The religious right and the big money behind
our current government aren't going to give up power meekly, but until we get
the money and the religion out of politics we aren't really even in the ring,
much less winning the fight. The least we can do is tell our representatives how to
represent us, have their backs when the inevitable attacks begin, and be willing
to do the work to make the changes necessary to restore government
for, of, and by the people, not legal concepts.
04/17/06
United States Revenues (2005 estimate, CIA factbook):
$2,119,000,000,000.00
United States Expenditures (2005 estimate, CIA factbook):
$2,466,000,000,000,00
"Off budget" expenditures for war in Iraq (2007, Army Times):
$112,000,000,000.00
Amount spent in Iraq, so far (from costofwar.com, changes by the second):
$241,398,551,873.69
Bush net worth (estimate, Center for Public Integrity):
$9,000,000.00
Cheney net worth (2001 estimate):
$38,000,000.00
A "six-figure income":
$200,000.00
Number people in United States (CIA factbook):
295,734,134
Cost to each American, regardless of age, of Iraq war (so far, not counting
interest or the "cost" to families of the dead):
$816.00
Cost of Iraq war to each American (not counting interest or the "cost" to
families of the dead) by year's end:
$1195.00
Percentage of "average American's" (with a 6-figure) income going to Iraq by
year's end:
0.6%
Percentage of "average American's" (with a $50,000.00/yr) income going to Iraq
by year's end:
2.39%
Percentage of Bush's net worth going to Iraq by year's end:
0
OK, that's probably true, but here's the calculated number:
0.01327%
Percentage of Cheney's net worth going to Iraq by year's end:
0
OK, if it wasn't funny the first time it's probably not funny the second time,
so here's the calculated number:
0.003145%
Number of members of Bush/Cheney families lost in war in Iraq/Afghanistan:
0
Total casualties in Iraq (US only, 2/16/06):
2274
Percentage of total casualties suffered by Bush/Cheney families:
0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000%
02/16/06
My son had just married so I went to spend some time with him,
his new wife, and her grandparents just before Christmas. Her grandparents had
met in WWII. He was "over there" fighting the forces of a man who blamed
Germany's problems on Jews, Gays, and Gypsies. She was a German citizen who fell
in love with the young man from America, and was none too fond of the sort of
mentality that led the German people to hold garden parties and enjoy their
newfound peace and prosperity while young men were sent to fight and die in wars
of aggression (blitzkriegs) against other countries.
After the war ended they married and moved back to the states and they went
about living their lives in the liberal United States of America, where FDR had
just led the country and the world to victory over the Nazis and had just
instituted social security.
I'll come back to those two nice old people in a minute, but first let me give
you some FDR quotes, as inscribed in granite at the FDR memorial in Washington,
DC:
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those
who have much, it is whether we provided enough for those who have too little."
"I never forget that I live in a house owned by all the American people and that
I have been given their trust."
"We must scrupulously guard the civil rights and civil liberties of all
citizens, whatever their background. We must remember that any oppression, any
injustice, any hatred, is a wedge designed to attack our civilization."
"I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running
from the wounded...I have seen the dead in the mud, I have seen cities
destroyed...I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and
wives. I hate war."
"They (who) seek to establish systems of government based on the regimentation
of all human beings by a handful of individual rulers...call this a new order.
It is not new and it is not order."
"Unless the peace that follows recognizes that the whole world is one
neighborhood and does justice to the whole human race, the germs of another
world war will remain as a constant threat to mankind."
"The structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man or one party, or one
nation...it must be a peace which rests on the cooperative effort of the whole
world."
Now, there is a large and vocal right wing echo chamber (with a stunning
concentration at "Fair and Balanced" Fox News) that tells us we should move away
from being a nation that "provide(s) enough for those who have too little", we
need to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy. These haters of the America
our parents left us want us to move away from being a nation that "guard(s) the
civil rights and civil liberties of all citizens", and to instead fear "the
terrorists" (Emmanuel Goldstein) so much that we will gladly rephrase Patrick
Henry's famous words: "Give me a false sense of security and I'll gladly help
you shred the Bill of Rights." These "experts" who dominate a corporate media
that's been enriched by war still want to blame all of our problems on muslims (jews),
gays (gays), and "lazy welfare queens" (gypsies), and practice bigotry and
hatred of our fellow Americans, instead. I have hope that reality has shocked us
back into being a nation that has seen and hates waging unprovoked wars of
aggression against nations that can't defend themselves from invasion, but like
any nation that's been invaded are determined to drive out the aggressors. While
the UN is still demonized along with "old Europe" the public relations battle
continues to be waged by the White House and many Americans still seem to
believe that there is a "victory" to be won in the midst of the Iraqi civil war
that didn't exist before we "democratized" that country.
So what did this woman who had lived in nazi Germany, and this man who had
fought the nazis in WWII, think of our current government? They both saw
shocking parallels between the hatred, fear, paranoia, and persecution complexes
that the people in power have put upon vast numbers of voters in the US today,
and the means that the nazis used to rise to power in Germany in the period
between the two world wars.
The folks who fought those wars are all either dead, or too old to fight any
more. The lessons that they learned have been lost, along with the lessons of
Viet Nam. What we're left with as a "national discourse" is years of studying
how to market to that angry portion of America who blame "the liberals" for
losing the war in Viet Nam, the so-called "christians" who are being misled by
the pastors of megachurches and the Southern Baptists to believe that an evil
America is persecuting them, and a ton of money from self-serving corporate
interests who have gained control of the flow of information in America to the
point that cries of "liberal media" are believable, even though they're
demonstrably false. Which media outlet suggested that continuing inspections
might be an effective way to determine whether or not those WMD existed without
losing 10's of thousands of lives?
There is very little courage left in America, any more, but never underestimate
the power of a small but determined number of concerned citizens to effect
change when the country goes seriously off-track. It's the only thing that's
worked in the past.
There is still hope. You might want to read this, too.
01/07/06
Inexpensive Halloween Costumes
For those on a budget, you can go to your costume party as:
1) An evangelical. Tear half the pages out of the Bible that you're carrying.
Never open it. Criticize everyone else's religion.
2) A Republican: Carry a Bible and a copy of the Bill of Rights. Never open
either one. (If you really want to do this one right, spend twice as much money
as you actually have and declare war on Canada.)
3) Saddam Hussein: Wear only your (not so) tightie-whities and stuff a sock in
the crotch to represent your "weapon of mass destruction."
4) Tom DeLay: Big smile and a prison uniform.
5) Karl Rove: Bald head and a prison uniform.
6) Bill Frist: Dress like Marth Stewart. Prison uniform/ankel bracelet optional.
7) James Dobson: Carry a baby doll around. Freqently take off your belt and whip
the doll with it. (A toy dachsund will work in a pinch.)
8) Harriet Miers: Lots of black eyeliner under you eyes should do it. Refuse to
talk.
9) Clarence Thomas: Collar and leash, get someone to dress like Scalia and hold
the leash. Ask no questions of anyone.
10) Michelle Malkin: (Asian descent only.) No costume necessary. Just twist your
mouth into a hideous grimace while you proclaim your hatred toward nearly
everyone.
11) Ann Coulter: (This one only works if you're a skinny guy with a big adam's
apple.) Wear a blonde wig and stuff a sausage in your pants. Carry a "liberal
hunting license" and a gun.
12) Rush Limbaugh: Buy some pimple cream. Excuse yourself to go to the bathroom
frequently to "smear some of this on my ass." Talk about your girlfriend, Daryn
Kagan and why blacks are "affirmative action cases" when they play in the NFL.
13) Chris Matthews: Blonde hair. Scream a lot. Punctuate screams with "I taught
I taw a puddy tat."
14) John Hinderaker: Shove a rocket up your ass.
Later additions:
15) George W. Bush: Either dress up as a piece of toast (his legacy), or in a
cowboy hat with a handful of brush and some white powder under your nose.
16) Laura Bush: A "June Cleaver dress", high heels, heavy makeup, and spend the
night sweeping the porch.
17) Donald Rumsfeld: Wrap yourself in an ace bandage, tie a balloon to each
foot, and go as a prick.
18) Dick Cheney: Attach some wires to your chest. Clutch at your heart a lot.
Ask people if they know where your bunker is, then laugh uproariously when they
say "no".
19) Bill O'Reilly: A phone, a vibrator, and a loofa/falafel, if you catch my
drift.
10/10/05
Last night we were planning on being in DC between 11:30 and
12:30, in time to meet at the ellipse and join the march. It's about a 2 hour
drive, plus parking/walking/metro time so we figured if we left by 9 or so we'd
be in great shape. I get up between 6 and 7 every weekday, and it's hard for me
to sleep past 8 any more, so I didn't bother to set the alarm.
Needless to say, when I woke up this morning and looked at the clock it read
9:30. Great start!
We decided to go anyway, but there was no longer any reason to rush. We finally
left town around 11:30, headed down 301, across the Bay Bridge on 50, toward DC.
Traffic picked up as we got closer and an advisory was posted that there would
be a lot of congestion downtown and the Metro was suggested. I had entertained
the idea of driving down closer to the mall, but that sign pretty much made up
my mind for me and we pulled into the New Carrollton station. Three lots and not
a place to park! We finally ended up going up around the corner to a lot that
said both "Metro Parking" and "For Sale". I didn't really know if we were legal,
or not, but we were late enough and there were other cars there, so I figured
WTF, parked, and we walked back to the station. On the way we had to walk under
a freeway overpass and the sidewalk was littered with broken bottles and empty
beer cans. I wasn't looking forward to the walk back.
From the train we could see the capital building and the Washington monument
before we went underground. We got off at the Smithsonian stop. If you don't
know the Metro, that's an underground stop and you pop up out of the ground
right by the Washington monument. we got our bearings and headed towards the
ellipse. There were people everywhere, but most of the war-protesters were still
on the route. It was around 2:30.
It had started to rain, lightly, so we made a side trip to the
Jefferson Memorial and stopped at the gift shop. My wife bought an umbrella, and
I bought a hat. I took pains to make sure the hat had "USA" and a flag on it.
I'm really tired of those hateful bastards claiming our flag. This is OUR
country, and we're going to set it right. Of course, by the time we got back
outside the rain had stopped for the day but I wore the hat, anyway.
From there we headed back to the stage. Maxine Waters gave a GREAT speech. Joan
Baez started playing while we walked around the kiosks, so I ran back and got a
couple of pictures. The crowd was starting to fill in, by then.
We just sort of kicked around from then on, talking to people and reading the
signs and t-shirts. There were all kinds of people there; young, middle-aged,
even old people in wheelchairs proudly holding up their signs. We talked to a
couple of cops along the way, and they were very courteous and helpful with
directions. There WERE a lot of cops in the area, and whenever we were near the
White House we'd see huge groups of them. A couple of times we saw "parades" of
10 or 20 cop cars going by with their lights and sirens on, but even though they
were going fast they didn't seem to be actually going anywhere. I overheard
someone asking a SWAT-team guy what was going on and he sort of laughed and said
"they're probably going home." He didn't seem at all threatening, just a guy
hanging out and doing his job. I relaxed, again, and if there were any problems
with cops "busting heads" I didn't see it or hear about it.
As we wandered through the crowd I saw a woman holding the Bushoccio inflatable
doll complete with a hole to poke a stick up his ass and asked her if I could
get a picture and where she got it. I picked one up for myself, later, and got a
couple of pics of the big one that was inflated next to the tent.
We wandered away from the stage to get something to eat and ended
up in front of the White House. We knew George was too much of a pussy to be
there, but I wondered if Laura was there behind the 3 rows of fence, looking out
at all of the people who realize how much trouble he's caused this country. As
we started away we saw that there were photocopies of the faces and names of
every(?) soldier who's died in Bush's insane war on a string line, lying just
inside the first row of barricades. A young woman was picking them up and we
stopped to talk to her. She told us this wasn't allowed, and someone had started
throwing them away. She picked one up and looked at it as tears welled up in her
eyes. "When I look at these faces I just get so sad." Three men had found some
plastic bags and they were gathering them up to take them somewhere else. These
guys just "volunteered" to do it, and they already had 2 bags full.
We started to walk away and the men had stopped. They were transferring the line
to a new bag and it looked like they had run into some problem with it. That's
when I saw a cop yell at one of the goons behind the White House fence,
something about "get them moving", and the two of them started toward the men
collecting the pictures. Thankfully, they had worked out whatever problem they
had and started moving again, so the two cops stopped moving in on them.
I looked again at the two rows of barricade in front of the high wrought-iron
fence with the two cops swinging sticks just inside it. I looked up at the roof
of the White House and saw the glass command center on the roof, two men dressed
in black up there observing the crowd, and I tried to imagine what the founding
father's would think of "the people's house", now. The phrase "police state" was
all that would come to mind. A man in a skeleton costume had laid a flag-draped
coffin down next to the barricade and I snapped a picture before we headed back
to the rally.
As we approached we saw two women had set up a table and they were selling those
magnetic ribbons that the creeps who claim to "support the troops" put on their
cars so their "support" won't scratch their paint, but these were different. I
bought three of them that read, "BRING 'EM BACK OUT OF IRAQ", "GET SAVED BY STEM
CELLS", and "GOD FORGIVE GEORGE BUSH, GOD BLESS OUR TROOPS". I'll have to rotate
them, I guess.
As we sat and listened to what was happening on-stage a couple of
guys walked by. One was in drag and wearing a Bill Clinton head, the other
carried a sign that read "Bill For First Lady (.com) 2008!" They got a great
response, and people were falling all over each other trying to get pictures.
The crowd was huge, by then, and Cindy Sheehan hadn't taken the stage. All day
long there hadn't been a problem, that I saw, and being around so many people,
from so many walks of life, who see that continuing this insane war is a waste
of lives (and money) was therapeutic. The music was good, the speeches were
good, but we had a long drive home so we decided not to stick around for the
end. As we walked away, back to the Metro, I saw the funniest thing I saw all
day. A 10-year old kid with a sign that read "Doing My Part To Piss Off The
Religious Right". way to go, kid!
When we got back to the New Carrollton station we decided to use the restrooms
before getting in the car for the long drive home. The women's bathrooms were
closed for cleaning, so another guy and I guarded the men's room door while
about 10 women used it. As we stood there I asked him if he'd been at the rally.
He replied, "I've been to a lot of these, and this was really something. There
must have been a quarter of a million people. Watch. The Park Service will
estimate the crowd at 100,000." I told him we'd arrived too late for the march
and he said that the crowd was so big it was backed up for at least a half hour,
just getting onto the route.
We walked back to our car at that distant lot, and as we passed under the dark
overpass a man sat alone in the dark with a brown paper bag. I said "hello" as
we went by. He didn't reply. we got in the car and drove home.
The White House, with John Roberts' full knowledge and consent,
has engaged in EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES to hide his past. Experience should tell
us that ANYONE THAT WORKS THAT HARD TO HIDE SOMETHING HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE.
John Roberts has revealed that he believes that some people are above the law.
He doesn't believe that the government is accountable to the people and, as
we're about to see, he believes that the Congress isn't a co-equal branch of the
government. He simply doesn't believe that the people have any right to know to
whom they are granting a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT to one of the most POWERFUL
POSITIONS IN GOVERNMENT.
The importance of hiding the records was
recognized early on.
When he served as U.S. deputy solicitor general from 1989 to
1993, John G. Roberts Jr. worked for the American people. But now that Roberts
is a Supreme Court nominee, President Bush is barring the public from access to
documents written by Roberts in that public service. This secrecy leaves an
incomplete picture of Roberts' public service and his views. Senate Judiciary
Committee Democrats are justified in requesting these papers before the
confirmation hearing begins Sept. 6.
The law is clear on presidential records, or at least it used to be clear. The
1978 Presidential Records Act said such documents are to become available to the
public 12 years after a president leaves office. A Supreme Court ruling gives
former presidents some leeway to claim executive privilege after 12 years.
Roberts' former boss, President George H.W. Bush, left office in January 1993.
But IN NOVEMBER 2001, THE CURRENT PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT
GUTTED THIS LAW. His order essentially allows a former president to prohibit the
release of any records. In this case, it gives the incumbent - and/or his own
father - a way to spare his Supreme Court nominee from full scrutiny. Cozy. The
order is part of the incumbent's pattern of exalting secrecy and abusing the
claim of executive privilege.
Those who oppose releasing the documents point out that the public already has
access to tens of thousands of pages of Roberts' writings from his tenure as a
lawyer in the Reagan administration. Those memos are helpful, and they raise few
red flags for the fair-minded. But they are also the product of a
twenty-something lawyer in the early 1980s, not of the more mature person who
helped to shape public policy in the early 1990s. People as smart as Roberts
often evolve in their views. why deny the public the right to see how Roberts'
framed legal arguments in this more recent service?
And we still don't know what role, if any, that John Roberts played in the cover-up of one of the greatest crimes of the second half of the last century, Iran/Contra. What we DO know is that President Bush has appointed one Iran/Contra figure after another to some of the highest positions in his administration. Men who have openly displayed their contempt of congress by defying the Boland Amendment, which prohibited the federal government from providing military support "for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Nicaragua." Men who, like Roberts, have no regard for the separation of powers should NOT be lecturing the rest of us about "judicial activism".
Roberts Errs on Side of Secrecy as White House Counsel
Documents recently released from the Ronald Reagan library reveal that, while
acting as White House associate counsel during the Reagan administration, John
Roberts supported government secrecy and strenuously avoided any implication
that the White House had an obligation to provide information to anyone,
including Congress. On occasion, Roberts made small efforts to assist those
seeking information. These, however, tended to be minor issues; and, even in
these efforts, Roberts typically included disclaimers to prevent any assumption
that the administration was required to respond.
In one memo, Roberts expressed aversion to government openness, recommending the
removal of a reference to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from President
Reagan's radio address to avoid endorsing the law. In the original text of the
radio address, which condemned the Soviet Union's handling of a 1983 incident,
in which its military shot down a Korean Airline passenger plane, the president
would have acknowledged that "freedom of information" is necessary to democracy.
Roberts noted that the statement clashed with the administration's efforts to
limit FOIA and advised replacing "freedom of information" with "free speech."
"'Freedom of information' is of course a legal term of art, and we have, quite
correctly, taken several steps to limit the scope and certain abuses of the
Freedom of Information Act."
That Roberts endorsed Reagan administration efforts to limit FOIA as undertaken
"quite correctly" here offers a rare glimpse into Robert's personal opinions on
freedom of information.
In another memo, Roberts appears willing to bend FOIA to avoid disclosure.
Generally, when the White House received requests for information under FOIA,
Roberts used standard response language, informing the requester that FOIA did
not apply to the White House. Responses always noted that some offices of the
executive branch were covered by FOIA and advised the requesters to resubmit
their requests to specific offices. The White House exemption from FOIA is a
fairly well established legal precedent, thus these responses reveal little of
Roberts' position on FOIA.
However, on at least one occasion Roberts advised claiming the White House
exemption when he did not believe it was legally justified. On March 30, 1984,
Diane Powers of the White House Photo Office inquired if she could deny requests
from photo collectors. Apparently, the Photo Office sought to avoid satisfying
the deluge of requests under FOIA for copies of photos of the president with
other world leaders and on other occasions of state. In a memo, dated April 27,
1984, to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Roberts advised that "as an initial
matter" the White House "take the position that the Photo Office is not subject
to FOIA." Roberts also noted that "While I have no doubt that this is the
position we should take, I must point out that it is not clear that it will
withstand legal challenge."
As hard as the Bush administration has worked to cover up what must be EGREGIOUS opinions on the part of Roberts, the documents that have been reviewed tell a frightening story of racism, sexism, disdain for poor and middle class workers (Roberts is a silver spoon child of wealth), a belief in an all-powerful executive branch, contempt for the environment, fanatical support of "corporate rights" at the expense of our civil rights, and a particularly visible and aristocratic contempt for the First and Fourth Amendments to our Constitution.
Roberts had an influential hand in shaping the government's
arguments, at least in the case involving a challenge to the FCC's policy of
giving minorities an edge when it came to the awarding of radio and television
broadcast licenses, according to documents found at the George H.W. Bush
Presidential Library in Texas and provided by a source opposed to his
confirmation as chief justice.
The FCC's policy was adopted at the urging of Congress, and the solicitor
general's office usually defends agencies such as the FCC against legal
challenges. But a Jan. 9, 1990, handwritten memo found in the files of Associate
White House Counsel Fred Nelson suggested that Roberts was behind the office's
refusal to do so. "John Roberts at SG handling. Reluctant to defend commission's
position," the memo said.
<snip>
Unlike internal documents from the solicitor general's office, the memos in the
FCC case come from files outside that office that are subject to public records
law. Because the solicitor general files are not subject to the same laws,
Roberts' reasoning on this and many other cases remains unknown, and it is
impossible to know how vigorously he pressed his own views.
A Supreme Court Justice nominee expresses his contempt for the American people and "perceived" and "so-called" rights:
As special assistant to the Attorney General in the Reagan Administration, and later as a key legal strategist in the Reagan White House counsel's office, Roberts was an aggressive participant in the administration's attempts to restrict fundamental constitutional and civil rights. In fact, Roberts often came down to the right of ultraconservative legal luminaries, including Robert Bork, William Bradford Reynolds, and Ted Olson. He supported the legality of radical proposals to strip the courts of jurisdiction over certain school desegregation remedies, abortion, and school prayer. He denigrated what he referred to as the "so-called" right to privacy, resisted attempts to fully restore the effectiveness of the Voting Rights Act, and worked against measures aimed at increasing gender equity. As the Washington Post has reported, at times he was "derisive, using words such as 'purported' and 'perceived' to describe discrimination against women."
This "so-called right to privacy" is what keeps the government
out of YOUR bedroom, your bank account, off your phone line, and ensures YOUR
personal freedom and rights. But, it's also the basis of Roe v. Wade and
numerous court rulings that allow homosexual Americans to live together, so it
sends the quasi-religious right into screaming spasms of self-righteous rage.
This IS the core of the man's appeal to the most insane among us; Robertson,
Falwell, and Dobson, and D. James Kennedy being the LEAST objectionable of the
fundie right. Take a look at "God hates fags" dot com if you want to see
extremist, then see if you can discern and delineate for the rest of us what, if
any, real difference exists between the teachings of The Westboro Baptist Church
(WBC) of Topeka, Kansas and the ministries of the other men that I just named.
Even the Second
Amendment is under attack by this man. (Gun owners of America is hardly a
"leftist" group.)
So far, there is little direct evidence showing how Judge Roberts
would come down on Second Amendment rights. But a pile of indirect evidence has
recently been unearthed that should greatly trouble gun owners.
To be sure, there are a lot of people who consider themselves supporters of the
President who are VERY concerned with the Roberts' nomination.
Columnist Ann Coulter calls the President's pick a "Souter in Roberts' clothing"
-- an obvious reference to the fact that Supreme Court Justice David Souter was
a "stealth nominee" himself when he was nominated by President Bush in 1990,
and, for most constitutionalists, has turned out to be quite a "dud."
And this is why it is imperative that President Bush hear from gun owners
nationwide. There are truly OUTSTANDING candidates that could have been
nominated to the Supreme Court, unfortunately, the President has already
squandered an opportunity to appoint one of these candidates.
More on Roberts, a guy who claims he DOESN'T want to "legislate from the bench", contempt for Congress.
John G. Roberts Jr. has been very courteous while making the
rounds on Capitol Hill in anticipation of his Supreme Court confirmation
hearings next week. But he was far less respectful of lawmakers two decades ago,
when he was a young lawyer in the Reagan White House.
In one case, Roberts bemoaned a proposal to ease the Supreme Court's workload
that had the support of then-Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and was gaining
steam in Congress. "Our only hope," Roberts wrote in an October 1983 memo, "is
that Congress will continue to do what it does best -- nothing."
He also criticized the Democratic majority for voting to posthumously award Rep.
Leo J. Ryan (D-Calif.) a Congressional Gold Medal after he was killed near
Jonestown, Guyana, in 1978 while investigating whether cult leader Jim Jones was
holding people against their will. In a Nov. 18, 1983, memo to then-White House
counsel Fred Fielding, Roberts wrote: "The distinction of his service in the
House is certainly subject to debate, and his actions leading to his murder can
be viewed as those of a publicity hound."
Finally, in response to Roberts opening statement, today (and a
tip of the hat to
Armando for the idea)...
Umpires interpret the rules. Umpires make bad calls.
Officials
apologize to Serena for bad call Umpire dismissed from Open after
mistake in Williams loss to Capriati
A Bad Call Not that I couldn't have commented on this before, but since the
Bruce Froemming story became a Dodger story today, I feel a little more
compelled. First of all, this is a great decision by the Dodgers. There are
certainly plenty of other umpires that you can hire to work a fantasy camp
before you use someone who called his supervisor a "stupid Jew bitch" on the
telephone. Talk about an umpire's bad call.
On July 24, 1983 George Brett took center stage in one of
baseball's most controversial incidents which has been dubbed the Pine Tar
Game. This highly unusual incident involved George Brett of the Kansas City
Royals, Billy Martin of the New York Yankees, a home run in Yankee Stadium, a
bat with pine tar on the handle, and the umpires' INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES.
Let me SCREAM that, one more time.
THE UMPIRE'S INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES.
As any baseball fan knows, umpires are not uniform in the
delineation of the strike zone. Some are "hitters" umpires. Some are "pitchers"
umpires. Some call the high strike. Some call the outside pitch.
We can't trust this man to serve as umpire and interpret the rules to benefit
the wealthy and the powerful EVERY TIME.
If we can't "Bork: him, let's hope we can "Bolton" him. (Now that he's replacing
that RW extremist Rehnquist, we can force a recess appointment.) If we can't
"Bolton" him, the VERY LEAST we can do is support any Senator with the spine to
express their contempt for this President and this nominee.
9/12/05
1) If envelopes filled with anthrax powder had been sent to Bill
Frist, Tom DeLay, and the offices of Fox News 4 years ago, would we know who
sent them, by now?
2) If President Clinton had taken us to war in Bosnia based on claims that they
had ties to anti-American terrorism and posessed WMD, only to discover that they
had neither, would anyone have cared that Monica gave him a blow job?
3) Who would go to a doctor who learned that "the stork leaves babies on your
doorstep" alongside the "theory" of childbirth in medical school?
4) What constitutes "victory in Iraq"?
More, as I think of them...feel free to add your own in the comments.
8/25/05
Bush is Better Than God. John Roberts is Jesus Christ
When Edith Clement's name was floated as a teaser by the Bush
regime this week, before the last minute announcement of John Roberts as the
nominee, it was in the obvious hope that the moderates and liberals in America
would bite on the bait and criticize her. They didn't. Most of us breathed a
sigh of relief. Clement would have been a good choice, but Bush chose to divide
the country with a
certifiable right wing nut like Roberts..
Of course, moderates not taking the bait doesn't stop the monolithic GOP from
dutifully (or should that be "faithfully"?) following the latest talking point,
"The (you know they're thinking "those damned") Democrats would have criticized
ANYONE that our perfect President Bush put forth as a nominee!"
Listen to Orrin Hatch:
"It's (Democrats having the unmitigated gall to do their constitutionally mandated duty and question John Roberts is) a little bit like biblical Pharisees, you know, who basically are always trying to undermine Jesus Christ," (Orrin Hatch) said on Fox News. "You know, it goes on the same way. If they can catch him in something, they can then criticize and the outside groups will go berserk."
"I think senators can ask any questions they want. I've said, no matter how dumb the question may be. But the, the nominee doesn't have to answer them and he should not, under the canons of judicial ethics, he should not answer questions on any issue that possibly would come before the Supreme Court. Otherwise, he would be foretelling how he would vote on those issues and then they would hold that against him. So it's a little bit like Biblical Pharisees, you know, who basically are always trying to undermine Jesus Christ, you know, it goes on the same way." - Orrin Hatch, again.
The GOP and Falwell's followers are STILL pissed off about Bork,
and they're trying to get a jump on the propaganda wars by 'Borking
History'.
So, while we listen to one talking head after another extol the virtues of John
Robert's "intelligence" and we wait for what looks like John Roberts inevitable
ascension to the Supreme Court (normally, I would have said "elevation",
but...), let's pause to reflect on what an America that's ruled by
Dobson-approved
judges might look like...
---|---
Parents will be jailed when their children refuse to participate
in mandatory prayer sessions at the public school, where their less independent
classmates will be earnestly beseeching God to ensure the success of "Operation
Missiles to Mecca". The children themselves will be sent to "deprogramming
centers" where any thoughts that "God loves you" will be erased and replaced
with "God loves you, unless you are a ___________. In that case, He hates you
and you're going to hell." (Multiple choices to fill in the blank.) Obviously,
"deprogramming" will include "liberal" corporal punishment.
Single pregnant women (who now carry the legal title "breeders") will be jailed
until they can be forced to give birth. They will then be abandoned to survive
without the job they lost when jailed, because, "the wages of sin are death."
Any cute, white children will be put up for adoption. All others will be left to
die with their mothers.
Homosexuality and speaking with a lisp will be punishable by stoning.
On the domestic front, homeowners will resort to burning wood to heat their
homes due to the worldwide oil shortages caused by our continued military
actions in the middle east. National forests will be cut down by a subsidiary of
Halliburton to provide wood. The resulting air pollution will increase deaths
due to lung cancer by 5000%, but since there will STILL be no National Health
Care and Medicare will have gone bankrupt, the SS system will be tapped to pay
for burial. The now 100% GOP Congress (any effort to accurately count our votes
having been ruled an unjust invasion of privacy by the "strict
constitutionalist" SCOTUS) will declare this "the beginning of the rapture" and
proclaim that "the wages of sin are death." "Sin", in this case, being defined
as "not living in the Bible belt, where righteous people live and don't need
heat", in an obvious reference to the sinners of the North who forced all of
those priests to molest little boys.
Catholicism will be outlawed, since "It
teaches a false gospel. And the Pope himself holds a false and unbiblical
office." Southern Baptism will be recognized as the only true religion.
The KKK and all "Christian
Identity" terrorist groups will be given tax-exempt status as religious
organizations.
President Laura Bush (since we've lost all interest in counting votes, by now)
will establish a new cabinet-level position for religious oversight of science,
affectionately called the "Office of Truth." When hospital mortality rates go up
we will be once again reminded that "the wages of sin are death." President
Jenna will think that was such a great idea that she'll establish the "Office
of Truth Enhancement".
The death penalty will be expanded to allow for the execution of sinners. The
"constitution restoration act" having established that no court may challenge
the Bible, "sinner" will be defined by
Leviticus.
BTW, "Bush is better than God" refers to the fact that Bush has NEVER made a mistake, according to his supporters. He was "chosen by God" to lead this nation.
God, however, made liberals too, and, as we should all know by now...
...the extremist Right Wing views liberalism as a sin.
It's a "funny" version of Christianity that believes that God made a mistake, but the voters didn't.
7/21/05
In attempt to decipher the meaning of the words and phrases used
by war supporters, I've started to list some of them along with their apparent
definition according to a neorube. Feel free to use the comments to add to the
list. It's not alphabetized for reasons that may be apparent.
"Appease": Viewing foreign policy through anything other than a gun sight.
"Liberal": Anyone who disagrees with the GOP for any reason.
"Patriot": Anyone who unquestionably follows Republican politicians.
"Fair game": Anyone who is not a "patriot." Example: "If Jesus' teachings are in
opposition to Lord God Bush he's fair game."
"Guilty": Any Democrat.
"Not guilty": Any Republican.
"Terrorist": Any muslim.
"Terrorism": Killing innocent people for political reasons.
"Collateral damage": Killing innocent people for political reasons.
"WMD": What anyone on earth that the President has a personal grudge against
would get, if he could, so he could use them against us, if he could. Used as a
justification for illegal war.
"The UN": An organization who's sole purpose is to destroy America and only
America in defiance of it's own charter to promote peace.
"The axis of evil": Three countries with very little in common and no alliances
with each other.
"Iraq": A country with no important oil reserves but plenty of WMD and
terrorists. (See "terrorists" & "WMD.")
"Iran": A country with no important oil reserves but plenty of WMD.
"North Korea": A country with acknowledged nuclear (pronounce "nuke-ya-ler")
weapons but no proven oil reserves.
7/17/05
(A modern parable.)
The other day I happened to look out my front window and I saw my neighbor,
Tony, looking at the rain gutter of his house. He went to the garage and got out
a step ladder to climb up and take a closer look at a largish brown sac hanging
from his eave. I guessed it must be a hornet's nest, and since I'd dealt with
them before I decided to wander over and see if he needed any help.
Now, Tony's a Bush voter, as evidenced by the campaign signs in his yard and
bumper stickers on his car. I try to stay on good terms with my neighbors so I
never said anything about his flaming ignorance, or discussed politics with him
at all, just kept things at a friendly, superficial level. But even knowing he
was stupid and arrogant I didn't expect his reaction when I criticized his plan.
"What ya doin', Tony?"
"I'm fixin' to get a bat and knock this hornet's nest down."
"Hey, I've had to deal with those things before. That's not a very good idea.
Can I help you?"
"Yeah, what did you do?"
"Well, here's what worked for me. Take a garbage bag and spray a bunch of bug
spray in it. Then, hold the bag over the nest while you either pull or cut it
off at the stem that's holding it to the eave. All you have to do is twist-tie
the bag shut and the hornets will die in your trash can."
"You're nuts! First I'll get stung, then I'll have to smell bug spray until trash
day! I'll just knock it off with the bat and run like
hell!"
"Tony, I've done this before! Really! Try it my way. I promise, you won't get
stung."
"Listen, Mr. Know-it-all, maybe I've never done this before but I know what I'm
doing. I'm not going to show any mercy to these goddamned hornets. If you won't hold the ladder while I smack it, just go back in your house
and you won't get hurt. Pussy."
OK, so for some reason Tony didn't want any advice. I know when to quit, and when to let people learn the hard way, so I
mumbled something about "OK, but you're gonna regret doing this...and I'm
sure as hell not going to get stung with you," and I went back in my house to
watch.
Tony came back out of his house with the bat and climbed the ladder. He leaned
back and took a tremendous swing and hit the nest, upsetting the ladder in the
process. He hit the ground at the same time as the nest and before he could get up an angry swarm of
hornets were covering him, stinging the hell out of him. He ran into his house,
screaming and swatting at the cloud of hornets swarming around his head. The
door slammed shut behind him.
Just as the door slammed, and to my horror, I saw the neighbor's
young daughter come around from
her back yard to see what all the commotion was. An angry swarm of hornets was quickly on her. I screamed at my
wife to call 911 as I ran out the door to TRY to help that poor girl. She was
screaming, too, as I picked her up and ran to my yard. I was being stung
everywhere, and she was starting to go a little bit limp as I picked up the hose
and began to spray water on her, trying to drive the hornets away. It seemed to
be working, they were leaving her and coming after me, so I picked her up and
carried her into the house to wait for the ambulance to arrive, brushing hornets
off as I went. We covered her with a blanket and tried to soothe her as much as
we could, but she was losing consciousness by the time the ambulance crew walked
in the door.
I told the ambulance crew what happened. They went to work on her, still talking
to me, and they advised me to get to a doctor, too. They offered me a ride, but
I still had some things to do and declined. Soon they were carrying her out on
a stretcher and cursing the still-stinging hornets who swooped down on them.
They left in a hurry with the siren screaming.
I was in intense pain, and feeling a little woozy from all the stings, but I
called the little girl's mother and told her what had just happened.
"Oh my GOD! Where did they take her?"
I realized then that everything happened so fast I didn't even know which hospital
they took her to. All I could do was tell her to call the ambulance company,
they'd know where they went. She thanked me and hung up.
The phone rang. I was feeling sick from all that venom, by now, but I answered
it anyway. It was Tony's wife.
"You son of a bitch! Why didn't you hold the ladder for Tony???"
I didn't know what to say. She was FURIOUS, at ME!!! I tried to explain what
happened, then quickly I asked her why she wasn't taking Tony to the doctor. She
hung up, and I could see them through the front window, leaving to get medical
treatment. My wife helped me to
the car and we did the same.
The doctor told me that I'd be OK, but probably a little sore for a few days. He
added that he'd
seen things like this before and I'd better be REAL careful in the future
because I might have developed an allergy due to the massive number of stings
I'd received. The next sting could kill me. Great! Thanks, Tony!
We went home and I didn't sleep worth a shit, that night. I had to call in sick
the next day. I'm glad I don't lose pay when I call in sick, but it still sucks
to get behind for no good reason. Even though I still felt like shit, I went to
work the day after that, not only in pain but way behind because of the day I'd
missed.
I called the mother of the girl who had been stung. She would be fine, but she
was still in the hospital. She thanked me for helping, and said something about
"that son of a bitch should have known better," before she said good bye and
hung up. Another neighbor stopped by a little later. He'd been talking to Tony,
and he said he wanted to hear my side of the story because "He said this is all
your fault."
"Jesus. All I did was offer a little bit of advice and now it's ALL MY FAULT?"
"That's what Tony says. He says if you would have held the ladder for him, none
of this would have happened. He said you think you know everything, but if you'd
just helped him do it his way none of this would have happened."
I told him my side of the story, and he agreed that, at the very least, Tony was
over-reacting. He laughed, then, and told me that if he ever needed help taking
down a hornet's nest he'd call me, not Tony.
Today, at work, I was served with a subpoena. Tony's suing me for damages he
incurred because I didn't hold that ladder. Now I'm going to have to explain to
a judge what happened.
This has gotten insane. The idiot who whacked the
hornet's nest, against my good advice and warning that it was bound to happen, is now claiming it's all my fault he got
stung doing it his way.
I think I've already mentioned that Tony voted for Bush, so he's probably too stubborn to
learn from his mistakes, but did I point out that there was another hornet's
nest at the other end of his house? This neighborhood could be in for a very
long summer...
7/09/05
No Potential Soldier Left Behind
DID YOU KNOW... that the infernal No Child Left Behind Act has a sneaky Pete section requiring high schools to turn over student information to military recruiters? OPT OUT your own child, or learn how the process works so you can tell your friends.
6/25/05
I just got off the phone with a representative of Democracy for
America. I didn't ask for permission to use her name, so I won't put it here.
My question was, "How can I donate to the DNC in a way that acknowledges Dr.
Dean is the reason for my donation?"
The answer was, "you really can't." She promised to let me know if anything
develops.
She said they've had a LOT of calls similar to mine, from people who want to get
involved with their time and money to show support for a man who's not afraid to
tell the truth about the GOP. They've tossed around some ideas, but they
couldn't come up with anything that quite fits the situation. Because of
campaign finance laws, a donation to Democracy for America is a donation to
Democracy for America and won't end up at the DNC. so, if you want to donate
money you have two options, that I can see.
1) A donation to the DNC can be accompanied with a letter, saying what you want
to say, but it's not really tabulated in any way. This is worth consideration,
because of the lies being told about Dean's "pathetic" performance as a
fundraiser, but there's another interesting option.
2) You can donate to Democracy for America,
here.
Democracy for America is being run by Howard Dean's brother, now. Dr. Dean is no
longer involved in it, but it's "dedicated to his vision." One of those visions
is identifying and helping local candidates who stand for social freedom and
fiscal responsibility. I specifically asked if money went only to Democrats and
the answer is "no", it can go to independents, too. The support is for
candidates who believe in personal freedom for us and fiscal responsibility from
the government, period.
This seems to be a worthwhile goal, to me.
Here's the official blurb
from
their web site:
Inspired by the presidential campaign of Howard Dean, Democracy for America (DFA)
is a political action committee dedicated to supporting fiscally responsible,
socially progressive candidates at all levels of government—from school board to
the presidency. DFA fights against the influence of the far right-wing and their
radical, divisive policies and the selfish special interests that for too long
have dominated our politics.
DFA has a long-term goal that looks past November 2004. This organization will
rebuild the Democratic Party from the bottom up—it will take time, but we must
start building a base now for the future.
There are more details at their
site.
06/09/05
The "Party of Personal Responsibility" can not admit to failure. Watch any talk show. Watch Fox. It never fails. Here's how you can easily identify the RW pundits:
1)
Never, under any circumstances, EVER, for any reason, NO MATTER HOW MUCH
EVIDENCE THERE IS TO THE CONTRARY, admit that what is actually being
defended/promoted is wrong, EVEN IF YOU KNOW THAT IT IS. The importance of this
cannot be over-emphasized.
Corollary:
1)A) At no time should you ever address the actual facts that are raised by your
opponent.
2) "Liberals" and/or "Clinton" did/do it, too.
3) Shoot the messenger.
4) Use caricature to demean any and all who oppose you
----|----
Update (from DU): How to counter-attack.
1) Keep
telling your republican opponent that they never answered the question.
2) you've been in complete power for 5 years, and you're still blaming
'liberals'? Why don't you grow up and learn to take responsibility?
3) you want to gag the sources who bring corruption to light???? "I can see
why".
4) counter-attack: there is no republican on earth who isn't a body-double for
some malevolent cartoon character.
6/5/05
Buy Your Gas at Citgo: Join the BUY-cott!
Buy Your Gas at Citgo: Join the BUY-cott!
Looking for an easy way to protest Bush foreign policy week after week? And an
easy way to help alleviate global poverty? Buy your gasoline at Citgo stations.
And tell your friends.
Of the top oil producing countries in the world, only one is a democracy with a
president who was elected on a platform of using his nation's oil revenue to
benefit the poor. The country is Venezuela. The President is Hugo Chavez. Call
him "the Anti-Bush."
Citgo is a U.S. refining and marketing firm that is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Venezuela's state-owned oil company. Money you pay to Citgo goes primarily to
Venezuela -- not Saudi Arabia or the Middle East. There are 14,000 Citgo gas
stations in the US. (Click
here to find one near you.) By buying your gasoline at Citgo, you are
contributing to the billions of dollars that Venezuela's democratic government
is using to provide health care, literacy and education, and subsidized food for
the majority of Venezuelans.
Instead of using government to help the rich and the corporate, as Bush does,
Chavez is using the resources and oil revenue of his government to help the poor
in Venezuela. A country with so much oil wealth shouldn't have 60 percent of its
people living in poverty, earning less than $2 per day. With a mass movement
behind him, Chavez is confronting poverty in Venezuela. That's why large
majorities have consistently backed him in democratic elections. And why the
Bush administration supported an attempted military coup in 2002 that sought to
overthrow Chavez.
So this is the opposite of a boycott. Call it a BUYcott. Spread the word.
Of course, if you can take mass transit or bike or walk to your job, you should
do so. And we should all work for political changes that move our country toward
a cleaner environment based on renewable energy. The BUYcott is for those of us
who don't have a practical alternative to filling up our cars.
So get your gas at Citgo. And help fuel a democratic revolution in Venezuela.
Courtesy of
Common
Dreams.
5/17/05
Bush Admin Retracts WMD Clains!
World Calls on "Giggling Butcher of Crawford" to Do More to Repair Damage From
Retracted Accusations
Numerous media outlets say the White House took a "good first step" by
retracting its story that U.N. investigators would find evidence of WMD or WMD
prgrams in Iraq, but massive crowds taking the streets want the administration
to do more to repair damage caused by the claims.
Scott McClellan on Monday formally retracted the claims made by virtually every
official in the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department and
criticized their publication and their use of Ahmed Chalabi as a source.
Protests in America, where more than a dozen people died and scores were injured
in rioting, and demonstrations elsewhere in the world were blamed on the
deception.
Meanwhile, banner headlines and 24/7 coverage of the "smoking gun" memo recently
published in Britain, a memo that proves beyond any doubt that Blair and Bush
conspired to "cook" the intelligence to justify a prior decision to go to war in
Iraq no matter what have a White House that has lost the confidence of the
American people under siege.
"These reports had real consequences," White House press secretary Scott
McClellan said Monday. "1700 Americans and 10's of thousands of Iraqis have lost
their lives. Our image abroad has been damaged. There are some who are opposed
to the United States and what we stand for who are successfully exploiting this
egregious error to recruit anti-American terrorists who will strike again on our
soil. It will take work to undo what can be undone."
McClellan said a retraction was only "a good first step" and said that Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales will appoint a special prosecutor to set the record
straight by "clearly explaining what happened and how they got it wrong,
particularly to the Muslim world, and by prosecuting those who conspired to spread
this deception to the fullest extent of the law."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=I'vegotabridge4sale
5/17/05
"Nuclear Option" Mass Immediate Response
With the Nuclear Option’s timing in Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s hands,
there won’t be enough warning to send out an email alert the moment he drops the
bomb on the Senate. But we can deliver a text message straight to your mobile
that embeds a Senate phone number based on your state.
So please take a moment to fill out the short form below to sign up for our
"Nuclear Option" Mass Immediate Response. By giving us your cell phone number,
we will text message you as soon as Senate Republicans trigger the "nuclear
option." Embedded in that text message will be a link to the Senate switchboard.
With the push of a couple buttons, your call – along with thousands of others –
goes right through to the corridors of power demanding preservation of the
filibuster.
This is a brand new technology, and this is the first time it is being used on a
large scale. (Don’t worry: we will NEVER send you spam or disclose your number
to anyone else; in fact, we won’t even send you any more text messages without
first sending you an e-mail like this one, asking you to opt in.)
Register here:
https://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=18708
5/13/05
The Grenade was a dud.
Secretary of the Georgian Security Council Gela Bezhuashvili said on Wednesday,
“an RDG-5 hand grenade of Soviet make was found 50 metres from the rostrum from
which U.S. President George W. Bush was delivering his speech” on Freedom Square
in the Georgian capital on Tuesday.
Bezhuashvili pointed out, “It was a non-combat, so-called engineer grenade and
it would not have exploded as it was non-operational.”
CNN says, "The device was placed in the crowd about 200 feet from where Bush
was speaking. It was not thrown, as was previously believed, Donadze said.
It never posed a danger to Bush and was apparently placed by someone who wanted
to scare people in the crowd and attract media attention, Donadze said."
It made me think of
this:
We'll start with the facts and work back: it may make it all the easier to
understand how World War One actually happened. The events of July and early
August 1914 are a classic case of "one thing led to another" - otherwise known
as the treaty alliance system.
The explosive that was World War One had been long in the stockpiling; the spark
was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian
throne, in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914. (Click here to view film footage of
Ferdinand arriving at Sarajevo's Town Hall on 28 June 1914.)
Ferdinand's death at the hands of the Black Hand, a Serbian nationalist secret
society, set in train a mindlessly mechanical series of events that culminated
in the world's first global war.
-----|-----
Of course, things are quite a bit different, now. We have nuclear weapons, and
our military is already overstretched. I have doubts that NATO would support an
invasion of Georgia based on a nut with a grenade (although we have proof that
Bush and his supporters will launch wars based on LESS evidence.)
It seems like the cable news services would be more interested in this...
But then, Michael Jackson is still on trial, and there's that whole "runaway bride" thing.
5/11/05
A Baptist preacher accused of running out nine congregants who disagreed with
his Republican politics resigned Tuesday, two days after calling the issue "a
great misunderstanding."
<snip>
He said the dispute inside the church had nothing to do with politics, a
contention echoed Tuesday by Chandler's supporters.
"I don't believe he preached politics," church member Rhonda Trantham said. "I
don't believe anyone should tell a preacher not to preach what's in the Bible."
But some congregants of the 100-member church in western North Carolina have
said Chandler endorsed President Bush from the pulpit during last year's
presidential campaign and said that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic
nominee Sen. John Kerry needed to "repent or resign."
-----|-----
If you didn't vote for Bush you are a sinner and must repent. Understand?
Humans can lie. Preachers are human. Therefore...
5/11/05
Filibuster ban gets White House nudge
Bush, Gonzales call for Senate to vote on all judicial nominees
Turning up the pressure on Republican leaders, President Bush and Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales yesterday called on the Senate to allow yes-or-no votes
on all judicial nominees, a request that could help force a move to outlaw
filibusters of judges.
The White House, marking the fourth anniversary of Bush's nominations of
Priscilla Owen and Terrence Boyle to positions on the federal bench, issued the
statement from Bush yesterday. Democrats, using the filibuster tactic, have
sidetracked both Owen's and Boyle's nominations; while Bush has nominated them
again, Democrats have promised to block them again.
-----|-----
Shall
we remove the last protection for the rights of the minority, just to ensure
that Bush can pack the courts with radical judges who will legislate morality
from the bench? Or, shall we recognize that a 3% plurality is hardly an excuse
to rule the country with an iron fist and ignore the will of nearly half the
voting population?
This is a constitutional crisis. Millions of Americans (ending the filibuster
does not have support in
polls)
are being told their opinion doesn't matter to this party and it's leaders.
"Love it or leave it" in action.
5/10/05
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, behold EXHIBIT A:
the cover of AC/DC's classic album "Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap":
And now peruse EXHIBIT B:
700 photos of flag-drapped coffins from Iraq, released Thursday by the Pentagon.
With the faces of all living soldiers hidden as in shame:
The Best Schiavo Post You'll Ever Read
In
1945, a farmer cut the head off a chicken; but the chicken lived. He started
feeding it with an eyedropper. It gained weight & acted like a chicken. For 18
months it lived; and toured America coast-to-coast, as a profitable sideshow
attraction:
The story of
Mike
The Headless Chicken has all the elements of the Schiavo case: the same
moral dilemmas & divisions. The same hype. Mike even has a cult. Clearly America
should turn it's attentions to the plight & glory of Mike; with all the fervor
that ShiavoMania has been forcefed to us.
Jesus Christ Almighty.
Tax cuts heavily weighted to favor the wealthiest Americans?
$1,000,000,000,000.00
War to ferret out WMD punish those who attacked us on
911 stop Hussein from developing "nuke-ya-ler" weapons
fight the terrorists there instead of here allow the Iraqis to
vote for an Islamic democracy based on the Sharia? $1,000,000,000,000.00
Siphoning off the Social Security trust fund to enrich your largest contributors
and ensure plenty of campaign money for the next election? $1,000,000,000,000.00
Passing the bill off on future generations? Priceless!
The GOP
Express Card.
Don't spread democracy without it.
Yesterday I wrote about some of the more ominous signs that the Bush administration is aiming for another "regime change" project in Iran, and some of the more obvious repercussions we can expect if they go ahead with it. Today, I thought I'd try to fill in a few more details...
Iran's
leaders have begun to make gestures of cooperation with the United States -
which is not at all surprising given the presence of American forces in the
surrounding countries of Iraq and Afghanistan and the rapidly declining
legitimacy of the regime with the Iranian people. Given the Bush
administration's goals for stemming the WMD proliferation and reigning in
terrorist groups, it may be tempting to pursue closer ties with the powerful
clerics. However, as McFaul and Milani note, there is little reason to believe
that a commitment made by the Iranian government on these issues would be
anything but an expedient retreat or, indeed, that it would be honored at all.
In the meantime, by engaging the regime, the administration would "send a
demoralizing signal to Iran's democratic forces," who over the long-term could
actually provide the U.S. with "more lasting gains." From a
PNAC memorandum, February 24, 2004, Subject: Regime Change for Iran.
First, let me make the obvious comparisons between
Iran and another country we believed would "rise up against" their
oppressive government and greet us as liberators,
Iraq.
(From the CIA factbook.)
Iran is sandwiched between Iraq to the West, and Afghanistan and Pakistan to the
East. In other words, Iran is surrounded by US occupied/allied states. With a
population of 25,374,691 (July 2004 est) and occupying an area of 437,072 sq km,
Iraq is slightly more than twice the size of Idaho. On the other hand, Iran,
with a population of 69,018,924 (July 2004 est.) and a land area of 1.648
million sq km, is slightly larger than Alaska and has nearly 3 times the
population of Iraq. The number of males age 15-49 that are fit for military
service was estimated in 2004 to be 3,654,947. US economic sanctions and export
controls have been in effect against Iran since it was designated a "state
sponsor of terrorism" in 1988, but they have not had nearly the effect that the
UN sanctions against Iraq following Operation Desert Storm have had, and Iran
retains major gas contracts with eastern Europe, Russia, and China. Their two
biggest export partners are Japan and China, something that's all the more
notable because the big commercial banks in Japan and China have been financing
America’s huge appetite for borrowed money. If China or Japan were to decide to
stop buying US T-bills they could
bring all of our borrowing to a halt virtually overnight.
OK, so taking all of this into the context of "will the Bush administration
attack, or use it's proxy Israel to attack Iran?" any sane world leader would
see the downside to the whole thing, right?
If you didn't pick up on it, the key word there was "sane". Are these guys sane?
I have my doubts. We're talking about the crew that predicted rose parades after
our Iraqi invasion. But there is a possibility, raised today in the
Christian
Science Monitor, that they may be playing a game of "liar's poker". Let me quote
a bit of it.
--------------
January 27, 2005 The diplomatic equivalent of good cop-bad cop continues with
Britain, Germany, and France on one side and the US and Israel on the other.
Both camps strive to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, speaking in London on Wednesday before a
meeting with Tony Blair, warned that Iran will reach "the point of no return"
within the next 12 months in its "covert attempt to secure a nuclear weapons
capability," reports the Guardian.
Following recent statements by US Vice President Dick Cheney, that Israel might
launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, as it did against
Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, Gen. Mofaz said Iran was "the main
long-term threat to the world." He stressed that "it would not be permitted to
build a nuclear bomb,"
reports the Guardian.
'None of the Western countries can live with Iran having a nuclear capability,'
he said. General Mofaz, who has said in the past that Israel has operational
plans in place for a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, refused to rule
out military action.
--------------
So where are we, today? Iran has a strong "hand" in this game of liars poker
(and I didn't even mention the threat to "middle east peace" between Israel and
Palestine, and the repercussions of a war between Iran and Israel.) Obviously,
"the world's sole remaining superpower" has a pretty strong hand, too. If you've
ever played poker, you know that when you try to bluff a strong hand based on
your own strong hand one thing you can count on is a big pot. IOW, the stakes
are raised.
We also know, because "none of the Western countries can live with Iran having a
nuclear capability", that the US' side isn't going to fold unless THEY are
bluffing. I don't think they are, but what does Iran think?
We know (from yesterday) that the Israelis have what they need to strike and
suspected Iranian nuclear enrichment facility. (And, we know that
these
facilities are HUGE, so they're easy to spot.
We know that Israel has struck a nuclear facility in the past, and publicly
states that they'll do so, again, if they believe it's necessary.
And finally, we have a timetable. Less than 12 months.
We have a "wild card" in the game, too. Pakistan has "the Islamic bomb", but
Musharraf is currently an ally, curiously enough an ally who is a strongman and
siezed power in a coup. Can Musharraf hold onto power if his Muslim
"constituents" are enraged by an attack on their neighbor, Iran?
Is Iran "buying time" by negotiating with our former European allies, or are
they telling the truth about wanting to enrich the nuclear fuel only to the
point of utility in a nuclear reactor for power generation? Are the US, Israel,
or our former European allies prepared for the consequences of a pre-emptive
strike on a nation that claims to have peaceful intent? Can anyone "prove" that
Iran has the intention to build a nuclear weapon, before OR after a strike?
I don't have the answers, yet, but I'll keep digging. Right now all I can say
for sure is, the possibility of full scale war in the middle east scares the
shit out of me, but not the boys from PNAC. (Remember them from yesterday?
Bush's cabinet?)
PNAC
has already publicly stated that "...it is time for the Bush administration
to demonstrate that its commitment to democracy in the Middle East extends to U.
S. policy toward Iran."
"The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that...(t)hose who deny freedom to others
deserve it not for themselves, and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long
retain it." - George W. "Look at me! I'm a christian who doesn't go to church!"
Bush's Inaugural Address, 1/20/05.
1/27/05
We could be well down the slippery slope toward World War III.
We may never know what the energy industry executives who met
in Dick Cheney's secret "energy advisory" meetings asked him to use our government's
resources to do for them, but
we do
know their plans included maps of middle east oil fields.
We also know that
Bush's advisors and cabinet are members of a very public but little known
group called "The Project For The New American Century" (Scroll down and take a
gander at the signatures.) These men are zealots who view themselves as
"revolutionary thinkers" seeking a "Pax
Americana". Temporary setbacks and minor "mistakes" like underestimating the
resistance in Iraq won't dissuade them from their belief that they are remaking
the world into a better place by bombing the shit out of anyone who won't submit
to the will of "the world's lone remaining superpower", all in the name of
"peace."
But with our military already stretched to the limit in Iraq and Afghanistan and
our home shores woefully unprotected by the overfunded and ineffective
"Department of Homeland Security" (aka, "The Ministry of Fear") could they
possibly believe that another war in Iran is winnable?
Well, according to Seymour Hersh, the Bush administration has been carrying out
secret reconnaissance missions to learn about nuclear, chemical and missile
sites in Iran
in preparation for possible airstrikes there.
US commandos are operating inside Iran selecting sites for future air strikes,
he says, and intelligence officials have revealed that
Iran is the Bush administration's "next strategic target". Hersh says that
American special forces have conducted reconnaissance missions inside Iran for
six months. In a recent appearance on Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show", Hersh pointed out that all of his facts are checked
by fellow staffers who also know his anonymous contacts inside the halls of
power. Given his record, Hersh and the New Yorker are credible. But the White House has described his article as "riddled with
inaccuracies".
Is Hersh lying, or is the White House lying? You'll have to decide for yourself,
but remember, according to the 911 commission Iraq and al Qaida had no
"collaborative relationship", the search for WMDs in Iraq has ended after
finding nothing, and the war has cost "just a bit more than" the $1-2 billion
that Paul Wolfowitz told congress it would cost. Yet all of these things were
stated as indisputable facts by the White House and were used as justification
for ignoring the will of the world and invading Iraq. Just for starters.
Read what else the White House has to say about all of this.
"All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not
ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your
liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison,
or exile can know: America sees you for who you are, the future leaders of your
free country. The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as
Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for
themselves, and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it." - George
W. Bush's
Inaugural Address, 1/20/05
"Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the
destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the
rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards. We
don't want a war in the Middle East, if we can avoid it." - Bunker Dick Cheney
on
Imus in the Morning, 1/20/05 (Ummm...Dick? We already HAVE a war in the
middle east. Actually, TWO of them!)
Israel refuses to rule out an attack on Iran, so let's go ahead with
Cheney's idea that we'll have Israel take care of the air strikes for us,
counting on the absurd PNAC inspired idea that
the Iranian people will rise up against the Mullahs who control their
government and install a democracy in Iran.
How many Americans know that we armed the Israeli's with the weapons they'd need
to strike Iran? Not many, I'd guess, since the main stream media stopped
covering the Bush regime's atrocities right about the time he "hit the trifecta"
with the deaths of nearly 3000 people. According to the
Christian Science Monitor, Israel bought 500 2000-lb "bunker-buster" bombs
from the United States just a few months ago. A senior Israeli security source
who confirmed the Haaretz story told Reuters: "This is not the sort of ordnance
needed for the Palestinian front. Bunker busters could serve Israel against
Iran, or possibly Syria." Haaretz quoted Israeli government sources as saying
the sale, including 4,500 other guided munitions, was not expected to go through
until after the U.S. elections in November. Earlier this month,
Haaretz said Israel sought to obtain the U.S.-made, one-ton "bunker buster"
bombs for a possible future strike against arch-foe Iran's atomic development
program, which the Jewish state considers a strategic threat.
Would Iran fight back, perhaps striking Israel?
They say they will.
How many countries would come to Iran's aid? We can only guess, but Iran has
allies in the region, not to mention billions in oil and gas contracts. For
example:
Malaysia says
the United States will stand alone if it attacks Iran. If you're not up on
things like this, Malaysia is right in the middle of the biggest muslim
territory in the world, lending al Qaida even more credibility in their claim
that Bush, the self-professed "christian", is waging a holy war against Islam.
A mere two months ago, the news of a China-Kazakhstan pipeline agreement, worth
US$3.5 billion, raised some eyebrows in the world press, some hinting that
China's economic foreign policy may be on the verge of a new leap forward. A
clue to the fact that such anticipation may have totally understated the case
was last week's signing of a mega-gas deal between Beijing and Tehran worth $100
billion.
December 02, 2004
Indian public energy companies have followed China’s lead and tried to reach to
other suppliers and in doing so they have lined contracts to ensure steady
supplies. The most recent one was
signed
on January 7 of this year and involves liquefied gas purchases with Iran
worth US$ 40 billion over 25 years.
Iran's leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei met Azeri President Ilham Aliyev in
Teheran. During
the meeting, which was also attended by President Mohammad Khatami, Khamenei
praised the expansion of ties between Iran and Azerbaijan, referred to the
ethnic ties between the Iranian and Azeri people. Khamenei called for the
expansion of Tehran-Baku ties in the political, security, economic, commercial,
and cultural spheres, adding that the United States cannot be trusted and that
that Iran and Azerbaijan should never allow their warm ties to be influenced by
the policies of foreigners.
If war breaks out between Iran and Israel, can we come to Israel's aid? In a
well-researched op-ed piece, Gordon Adams says that "The Pentagon's new budget
proposal reveals that there is not enough money to pay for the multitude of
missions facing defense forces." The violence in Iraq escalates by the day, and
Afghanistan is far from stable.
And don't forget, Israel has nukes. If they're facing certain annihilation, or even substantial casualties, who thinks that they'd refuse to use them?
Are you starting to see how this could get out of hand
quickly?
Bush's "shoot first and try diplomacy later" policies have never worked. Not for
him, not for anyone who has gone before him. It's time to demand transparency
from the White House in what their plans in Iran are, and what they are doing to
avoid armed conflict.
"Transparency and accountability" from THIS White House? Who am I kidding? It
may be true that "59 million Americans can be this stupid", but it's beginning
to look like we have also gone insane.
1-26-05
1/24/05 What the heck, I've decided to start blogging. I have no idea how long
I'll last, or how often I'll post, but I'm guessing that I'll be updating more
on weekends than weekdays. We'll just have to see how it goes. Please note that
you're welcome to leave comments on individual entries. Feel free to debate
anything in the comments.
Maybe the best place to start is at the beginning...this is an email that I sent
out to all of my friends with the subject line "C'mon now, you're not really
going to elect that idiot, are you?" on October 27, 2000.
The Beginning (10/27/00)
This is way too long. I hope you'll read it, anyway. And please pass it on if
you find it worthwhile. One vote may not matter, but this is the 21st century.
If email can spread viruses fast, it can spread the truth fast.
---------------------------
I'm not prepared to argue that Gore is such a great choice. But, unless you're
REALLY bad at statistics, you can't possibly believe any of the "third party"
candidates have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, and this election is
CLOSE. There are a few things we'll all have to watch out if Gore DOES eke out a
win. But, in a presidential election in which the Republican is seen as dumber
than a bag of rocks while the Democrat is a weird hall monitor with a long list
of rules, the Shrub truly scares me. As best as I can explain it in a million
words or less, here is why:
"I will look at each piece of legislation when it makes it to my desk," and "I
will review that when it makes it to my desk." — Bush, refusing to comment on
anything before it's absolutely unavoidable.
Probably the main thing that scares me about the guy is this: The old joke about
how to tell if a politician is lying (his lips are moving) just doesn't apply to
this guy. Sure, when he DOES take a position on anything he's lying. But most of
the time he just REFUSES TO ANSWER DIRECT QUESTIONS! Don't voters deserve to
know what he would do in a "hypothetical" situation? He wouldn't tell Letterman,
even though he was asked the same question 3 times in a row. He just got
irritated. To my knowledge, it's always been fair to question what a candidate
would do in office, until this guy. ("Son, I love your strategy: Don't let them
get to know you." — Barbara Bush)
Probably the stupidest thing the Shrub's supporters say is, "I'm tired of the
immoral Clinton administration." Please! We've had 8 years to dig into Gore.
What has been found? NOTHING! Meanwhile, the shrub admits to being a drunk until
he was about 40. Now, trust me, in my book that doesn't disqualify him from
office as long as he's honest about it. But he's not. There are films of him
drinking SIX YEARS AFTER HE "QUIT", yet it's too late for him to change his
story so he sticks with it. Now I ask you, what are the odds there's something
ELSE in his past that we'll have to listen to, ad nauseum, if he's elected? How
many of you are aware that the shrub sold $848,560 worth of Harken Energy stock
on June 22, 1990, just one week before the company posted spectacular losses and
the stock plunged sharply. When the losses were reported to the public on August
20, 1990, the stock plummeted. (Do you trust this guy's budgeting prowess? Still
tired of "immorality in the white house"?) According to documents from a two
year investigation by the SEC, the shrub served on the board of directors of
Harken Energy Corporation and his position on a special Harken committee gave
him detailed knowledge of the company's deteriorating financial condition. The
SEC received word of the shrub's trade ten months late. I won't even go into the
way he ripped off taxpayers to make money on the Texas Rangers. If this idiot
wins, there WILL be investigations into his past.
It's the stupidity, stupid. By now most of us have figured out that Reagan was a
figure head. Let me clue you, so is the Shrub. His "constant gaffes and mental
lapses reflect the luxurious laziness of a (man) who's never had to work hard at
anything." But we don't know BUPKISS about the people who are pulling THIS
puppet's strings. All we know is he's raised more money, by a large margin, than
any presidential candidate, ever. How many favors will he owe, and how will he
pay them?
Let's go back to the lying, for a minute. Just about everything the shrub
actually says IS a lie.
1) He contends in an ad running in California right now that Gore will spend 3
times what he (the shrub) will. In small print at the bottom of the ad it says
that this statement is based on a budget proposed by CLINTON in 1992! Excuse me?
Isn't Gore proposing a budget NOW? Why doesn't the shrub pick on THAT budget?
(Please, you must know the answer to THAT one.) Yet, nobody seems to notice this
shit.
2) "Just look at the record in Texas" on schools: Teacher pay during the first
Bush term fell from 36th to 38th in national rankings. Overall teachers
compensation fell to 51st. The one "score" that he can point to is a specially
designed test that was taken at the end of the school year, and classes were
specifically designed to help students pass THAT TEST. On ALL NATIONAL test
scores, Texas ranks at or near the bottom. Look at the attached document. It's
all referenced, all of the references are believable, and it DOESN'T look good
for the shrub.
3) Texas law prohibits a sitting governor from taking campaign contributions
during the legislative session in order to prevent corruption. But that is
precisely what Bush did. He accepted $300,000 in two months from Texas chemical
and utility interests who brought legislation to Bush to be passed. How could he
accept this money? Because they gave to his presidential exploration committee
instead. Bush then pressed for "voluntary compliance" to pollution laws on their
behalf. (But, I thought you were TIRED of an "immoral white house"?)
4) "I saw the report that children in Texas are going hungry. Where? You'd think
the governor would have heard if there are pockets of hunger in Texas."
— George W. Bush, whose state ranks 2nd in total number of children living in
poverty according to the Austin American Statesman, 12/18/99 (Why does he keep
saying, "Look at the record in Texas"? It doesn't help his case.)
5) " Please," Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "don't kill
me."
— Bush mocking what Karla Faye Tucker said on Larry King when asked, "What would
you say to Governor Bush?" prior to her execution by lethal injection as
reported by Talk magazine, September 1999. (I don't care what your opinion is on
the death penalty, this is sick.)
6) "An atmosphere of adolescence, a lack of gravitas - a carelessness, even a
recklessness, perhaps born of things having gone a bit too easily so far."
— George Will, August 11, 1999, referring to Talk magazine's interview with
Bush. (But that's what everyone LIKES about him, unless his finger is on the
nuclear trigger...?)
7) "Sitting down and reading a 500-page book on public policy or philosophy or
something."
— Bush was asked to name something he isn't good at by Talk magazine, September
1999 issue. (Why bother to read when someone else is buying the election for
you?)
8) "You crammed it down my throat" said Bush to Representative Glen Maxey. Maxey
forced Bush to accept 228,000 children to the federal/state Children's Health
Insurance Program - the CHIP. Why did Bush balk at a program enthusiastically
joined by fellow Republican Governors including his brother Jeb Bush in Florida,
Engler in Michigan, and Christine Whitman in New Jersey? Bush needed money for
his politically motivated tax cut and those children were in his way.
At least you have to give this to Gore. He's been in public life for more than
just his 8 years as VP. He was in congress from 1976 to 1985, and the senate
from 1985 to 1992, and he's ACTUALLY DONE SOME OF THE THINGS HE SAID HE WOULD
DO! The shrub's entire resume is 4 years as governor of pmr the largest stated
in the union, and he only worked part time at that. (I'm citing an Austin
newspaper, here. His hours were: 9 to noon, 2 hour lunch, leaves by 5 daily. And
that was BEFORE running for President. Now, he's just not there.)
On social security: Ask a senior citizen. Social security doesn't cover all
their needs as it is. Where is the money to invest privately coming from? We
still have to write the checks to the seniors, and it's not there, yet. What
will happen to the people who don't know how to invest, and lose it? Not
everyone is a financial wizard. Will we let them go homeless, or will they live
off welfare and county money?
On taxes: To put it simply, this isn't up to the president. He can make
suggestions, veto bills, and outline a PROPOSED budget, but congress passes the
tax laws. And BTW, the current congress is spending the surplus (which was built
up AFTER Clinton took office) right now. Where is that tax cut coming from,
again?
On abortion: It's not up to the president. The supreme court has ruled on
abortion. Of course, there are several supreme court seats that will be open
sometime soon, but if you look at the current court you'll see that some of the
appointees were surprises, indeed. The most "liberal" justice was appointed by a
conservative republican.
Think about it.
1-24-05