The Definition of Tyranny
By Bob Herbert
The New York Times
Published: July 17, 2006
Congress is dithering and the American public doesn't even seem particularly concerned as the administration of George W. Bush systematically trashes such fundamental American values as justice, due process, respect for human rights and submission to the rule of law.
In the kangaroo courts that the administration concocted to try detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, a defendant could be prevented from seeing the evidence against him, would not have the right to attend his own trial and would not have the right to appeal the sentence to a civilian court.
That's slapstick justice, a process worthy of the Marx Brothers.
"You have been accused of being a terrorist."
"Where is the evidence?"
"We can't show it to you."
"That's ridiculous."
"So is this court. We find you guilty. Take him away."
The Supreme Court now says, in a vote that was closer than it should have been, that this sort of madness cannot be permitted. In its recent decision striking down the tribunals for terror suspects at Guantánamo, the court said of the defendant, Salim Ahmed Hamdan: "He will be, and indeed already has been, excluded from his own trial."
The court said, in effect, that this is not the American way, that ours is not a Marx Brothers republic. Not yet, anyway. (It most likely will be if Mr. Bush gets to appoint one or two more justices to the court.)
The Bush-Cheney regime believes it can do whatever outlandish things it wants, including torturing people and keeping them incarcerated for life without even the semblance of due process. And it's not giving up. The administration now wants Congress to authorize what the Supreme Court has plainly said was wrong. White House lawyers, in a torturous (pun intended) interpretation of the court's ruling, seem to be arguing that the kangaroo courts, otherwise known as military commissions, will be quite all right if only Congress will say so.
They're not all right. They're an abomination (like the secret C.I.A. prisons and the practice of extraordinary rendition) that spits in the face of the idea that the United States is a great and civilized nation.
"Can you imagine if the Hamdan decision, among others, had gone the other way?" said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been waging an extraordinary fight to secure basic legal protections for prisoners at Guantánamo. "I mean we'd be looking at a dark nightmare."
The court's decision brought into sharp relief the importance of one of the most fundamental aspects of American government, the separation of powers. Checks and balances. The judicial branch put a halt — a check — on a gruesomely illegal practice by the executive.
Mr. Bush has tried to scrap the very idea of checks and balances. The Republican-controlled Congress has, for the most part, rolled over like trained seals for the president. And Mr. Bush is trying mightily to pack the courts with right-wingers who will do the same. Under those circumstances, his will becomes law.
Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion in the Hamdan case, referred to a seminal quote from James Madison. The entire quote is as follows: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
As the center noted in a recent report, "The U.S. government has employed every possible tactic to evade judicial review of its detention and interrogation practices in the Œwar on terror,' including allegations that U.S. personnel subject prisoners to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment."
There is every reason to be alarmed about the wretched road that Bush, Cheney et al. are speeding along. It is as if they were following a route deliberately designed to undermine a great nation.
A lot of Americans are like spoiled rich kids who take their wealth for granted. Too many of us have forgotten — or never learned — the real value of the great American ideals. Too many are standing silently by as Mr. Bush and his cronies engage in the kind of tyrannical and uncivilized behavior that has brought so much misery — and ultimately ruin — to previous societies.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Savage? Try Psychotic...
Common decency and the fact that my mother reads this blog prohibit me from going into great detail about my feelings for this feces flinging evil little shit monkey. I do not believe that there is another single individual whose vitriol is more toxic to our society than that of Michael Savage. That said, the right is sure full of toxic shit flinging monkies...
Robert Novak on Meet the Press
Jon Stewart, who is right about SOOOO many things, hit the nail on the head when he referred to Robert Novak as a "douchebag of liberty."
Monday, July 17, 2006
The Prophetic William Butler Yeats
The events of this last week in the middle east have left a line from a poem read long ago resonating in my head...I keep thinking "Things fall Apart, the centre cannot hold..." Well I looked the poem up and was pretty astonished with what I read...
The Second Coming by William Butler Yeats
TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
The Second Coming by William Butler Yeats
TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Sunday, July 16, 2006
The Great Greg Palast on Why Democrats Don't Count
Watch "Florida con Salsa," Palast's 15-minute investigative report from Mexico City for Democracy Now!
The Exit polls said he won, but the "official" tally took his victory away. His supporters found they were scrubbed off voter rolls. Violence and intimidation kept even more of his voters away from the polls. Hundreds of thousands of ballots supposedly showed no choice for president -- like ballots with hanging chads.
And the officials in charge of this suspect election refused to re-count those votes in public. Everyone knew full well a fair count would certainly change the outcome.
You've heard this story before: Gore 2000. Kerry 2004.
But Lopez Obrador 2006 is made out of very different stuff than the scarecrow candidates who, oddly, call themselves "Democrats."
For six years now, I've had this crazy fantasy in my head. In it, an election is stolen and the guy who's declared the loser stands up in front of the White House and says three magic words: "Count the votes."
This past Saturday, my dream came true. Unfortunately, it was in Spanish -- but I'll take what I can get. There was Andreas Manuel Lopez Obrador, presidential challenger, standing in the "Zocalo" -- the square in front of Mexico's White House, telling the ruling clique inside, "Count the votes!"
Most important, his simple demand was echoed by half a million pissed-off, activated voters chanting with him, "Vota por vota!" -- vote by vote.
And you know what? I think they are going to have to listen. I suspect that the rulers of Mexico, a vicious, puffed-up, arrogant elite, may well have to count those votes. But, for that to happen, someone had to ask them to do it -- in no uncertain terms.
Traveling the USA, I'm asked again and again 'Why don't Democrats stand up when their elections are stolen?'
The answer: for the same reason jellyfish don't stand up... they're invertebrates.
I'm beginning to find that answer a bit too glib (though darn funny). Because it's not about electoral cojones; it's about a devotion to democracy deep in the bone. Yet weirdly, candidates that call themselves "Democrats" seem kind of, well, indifferent to democracy.
Why? Elections are the radical tool of the working class -- the great leveler of the powerless against the too-powerful. But the candidates themselves, both Republican and Democrat, tend to come from the privileged and pampered class. Votes are just the surfboards on which their ambitions ride.
Right now in Mexico's capitol, nearly a million ballots sit in tied bundles uncounted. That's four times the "official" margin of victory of the ruling party over Lopez Obrador. Supposedly, they're "votos nulos" -- null votes, unreadable. But, not surprisingly, when a few packets were opened, the majority of these supposedly unreadable votes were Lopez Obrador's.
If you think that's a Mexican game, think again. Because that's exactly what happened in Florida and Ohio.
In Florida, 179,855 ballots supposedly showed no vote for President. A closer look by the US Civil Rights Commission statisticians showed that 54% of those Florida "votos nulos" were cast by African-Americans. Did Black folk forget to vote for President, couldn't make up their minds or, as one TV network implied, were too dumb to figure out the ballot? Not at all. Machines can't count some ballots. But people can. For example, several voters wrote in, "Al Gore," which the machines rejected as his name was already printed on the ballot. The write-in could fool a machine but a human has no problem figuring out that voter's intent.
The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago reviewed all 179,855 "uncountable" votes and found the majority attempted to choose Gore. And they would have been counted -- but Florida's Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, ordered a halt.
So Bush was elected not by counting the votes but by preventing their count. And he was reelected the same way in 2004 when a quarter million votes were nullified in Ohio.
But why fixate on Florida and Ohio? Here's a nasty little fact about voting in the Land of the Free not reported in your newspapers: 3,600,380 ballots were cast in the November 2004 presidential election that were never counted. In 2000, the uncounted ballots totaled just under two million.
And where were the Democrats? In 2004, behind the huge jump in uncounted votes was a mass challenge campaign aimed at poor, Black and Hispanic voters by the Republican Party -- pushing these voters, mostly Democrats, to "provisional ballots." They could have been counted, if someone had fought for it. Hundreds of lawyers were on stand-by but the head of the biggest legal team told me in confidence -- and in frustration -- that the Kerry campaign told them to stand down.
Recently, Al Gore was asked if the election of 2000 was stolen. "There may come a time when I speak on that, but it's not now," said the beta dog. (I suspect that if Al Gore were found bleeding in an alley, he'd answer the question, Who shot you? with "There may come a time when I speak on that...").
Lopez Obrador is of a different breed. At the rally last Saturday in Mexico City, he played video and audio tapes of the evidence of fraud on a screen eighty feet tall. Imagine if Gore had projected the "scrub sheets" of purged Black voters on a ten-story-high screen in front of the White House.
Lopez Obrador put political force behind his legal demands by calling on voters from every state in Mexico to march to the capital. Two million are expected to arrive this Sunday. The result: the word among the political classes is that the election may be annulled. Even the conservative Financial Times has warned Mexico's elite not to "fool itself" by ignoring the demand for a full vote count.
North-of-the-Border Democrats just don't get it. The Republican Party is pushing "provisional" ballots, pushing voter ID requirements, compiling secret challenge lists, scrubbing voter registries and selling us vote-nullifying ballot boxes: they get it completely. The GOP knows the key to their electoral domination is not in winning over their opponents' votes, but in not counting them.
The un-Gore of Mexico City has a lesson for the Blue-party gringos. Either the Democrats demand that all votes count, or the Democrats will count for nothing.
This is precisely why I would prefer Kerry and Gore stand down this go-around. While I agree with their positions to a large extent I am furious with them for accepting the "non-election" results. The time has come for someone with a spine to stand up to the criminal behavior of these opponents of democracy and say "Vota por vota!" Get up you jellyfish!
The Exit polls said he won, but the "official" tally took his victory away. His supporters found they were scrubbed off voter rolls. Violence and intimidation kept even more of his voters away from the polls. Hundreds of thousands of ballots supposedly showed no choice for president -- like ballots with hanging chads.
And the officials in charge of this suspect election refused to re-count those votes in public. Everyone knew full well a fair count would certainly change the outcome.
You've heard this story before: Gore 2000. Kerry 2004.
But Lopez Obrador 2006 is made out of very different stuff than the scarecrow candidates who, oddly, call themselves "Democrats."
For six years now, I've had this crazy fantasy in my head. In it, an election is stolen and the guy who's declared the loser stands up in front of the White House and says three magic words: "Count the votes."
This past Saturday, my dream came true. Unfortunately, it was in Spanish -- but I'll take what I can get. There was Andreas Manuel Lopez Obrador, presidential challenger, standing in the "Zocalo" -- the square in front of Mexico's White House, telling the ruling clique inside, "Count the votes!"
Most important, his simple demand was echoed by half a million pissed-off, activated voters chanting with him, "Vota por vota!" -- vote by vote.
And you know what? I think they are going to have to listen. I suspect that the rulers of Mexico, a vicious, puffed-up, arrogant elite, may well have to count those votes. But, for that to happen, someone had to ask them to do it -- in no uncertain terms.
Traveling the USA, I'm asked again and again 'Why don't Democrats stand up when their elections are stolen?'
The answer: for the same reason jellyfish don't stand up... they're invertebrates.
I'm beginning to find that answer a bit too glib (though darn funny). Because it's not about electoral cojones; it's about a devotion to democracy deep in the bone. Yet weirdly, candidates that call themselves "Democrats" seem kind of, well, indifferent to democracy.
Why? Elections are the radical tool of the working class -- the great leveler of the powerless against the too-powerful. But the candidates themselves, both Republican and Democrat, tend to come from the privileged and pampered class. Votes are just the surfboards on which their ambitions ride.
Right now in Mexico's capitol, nearly a million ballots sit in tied bundles uncounted. That's four times the "official" margin of victory of the ruling party over Lopez Obrador. Supposedly, they're "votos nulos" -- null votes, unreadable. But, not surprisingly, when a few packets were opened, the majority of these supposedly unreadable votes were Lopez Obrador's.
If you think that's a Mexican game, think again. Because that's exactly what happened in Florida and Ohio.
In Florida, 179,855 ballots supposedly showed no vote for President. A closer look by the US Civil Rights Commission statisticians showed that 54% of those Florida "votos nulos" were cast by African-Americans. Did Black folk forget to vote for President, couldn't make up their minds or, as one TV network implied, were too dumb to figure out the ballot? Not at all. Machines can't count some ballots. But people can. For example, several voters wrote in, "Al Gore," which the machines rejected as his name was already printed on the ballot. The write-in could fool a machine but a human has no problem figuring out that voter's intent.
The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago reviewed all 179,855 "uncountable" votes and found the majority attempted to choose Gore. And they would have been counted -- but Florida's Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, ordered a halt.
So Bush was elected not by counting the votes but by preventing their count. And he was reelected the same way in 2004 when a quarter million votes were nullified in Ohio.
But why fixate on Florida and Ohio? Here's a nasty little fact about voting in the Land of the Free not reported in your newspapers: 3,600,380 ballots were cast in the November 2004 presidential election that were never counted. In 2000, the uncounted ballots totaled just under two million.
And where were the Democrats? In 2004, behind the huge jump in uncounted votes was a mass challenge campaign aimed at poor, Black and Hispanic voters by the Republican Party -- pushing these voters, mostly Democrats, to "provisional ballots." They could have been counted, if someone had fought for it. Hundreds of lawyers were on stand-by but the head of the biggest legal team told me in confidence -- and in frustration -- that the Kerry campaign told them to stand down.
Recently, Al Gore was asked if the election of 2000 was stolen. "There may come a time when I speak on that, but it's not now," said the beta dog. (I suspect that if Al Gore were found bleeding in an alley, he'd answer the question, Who shot you? with "There may come a time when I speak on that...").
Lopez Obrador is of a different breed. At the rally last Saturday in Mexico City, he played video and audio tapes of the evidence of fraud on a screen eighty feet tall. Imagine if Gore had projected the "scrub sheets" of purged Black voters on a ten-story-high screen in front of the White House.
Lopez Obrador put political force behind his legal demands by calling on voters from every state in Mexico to march to the capital. Two million are expected to arrive this Sunday. The result: the word among the political classes is that the election may be annulled. Even the conservative Financial Times has warned Mexico's elite not to "fool itself" by ignoring the demand for a full vote count.
North-of-the-Border Democrats just don't get it. The Republican Party is pushing "provisional" ballots, pushing voter ID requirements, compiling secret challenge lists, scrubbing voter registries and selling us vote-nullifying ballot boxes: they get it completely. The GOP knows the key to their electoral domination is not in winning over their opponents' votes, but in not counting them.
The un-Gore of Mexico City has a lesson for the Blue-party gringos. Either the Democrats demand that all votes count, or the Democrats will count for nothing.
This is precisely why I would prefer Kerry and Gore stand down this go-around. While I agree with their positions to a large extent I am furious with them for accepting the "non-election" results. The time has come for someone with a spine to stand up to the criminal behavior of these opponents of democracy and say "Vota por vota!" Get up you jellyfish!
Top 10 Signs You are a Fundamentalist Christian
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
We're Out of What???
In a week of bad news, followed by really bad news, followed by soul crushingly terrible news there is this staggering little piece from the financial sector...
Apparently, we are indeed going to hell, but we can no longer afford the handbasket.
Apparently, we are indeed going to hell, but we can no longer afford the handbasket.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Governor Richardson to Join Heavy Hitters
Can't send a link because you have to subscribe to the Albuquerque Journal online to read it anyway, so I will just read it for you...
Governor Bill Richardson is scheduled to attend two big Democratic Party events this month, designed to showcase the "Who's Who" in the party. Richardson will be the featured dinner speaker July 22 at the biggest fundraiser for the Florida Democratic Party, then he is off to Denver for the Democratic Leadership Council's conference.
Other big party peeps to attend the events include Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Wesley Clark, Evan Bayh, and Tom Vilsack.
Governor Richardson is running for re-election this year in my lovely home state of New Mexico, but it is widely speculated that he is also seeking the Presidency in 2008. I certainly hope this bears out, Governor Richardson's incredible record of public service, sterling resume, and unmatched diplomatic skills may be all that can bring our country back to it's pre-Shrub greatness.
Richardson Takes Snow to the Woodshed
In a snarky little press conference Monday, Tony Snow accused Bill Richardson of being a sycophantic wimp, bringing "flowers and chocolates and lightwater nuclear reactors" to North Korea in an attempt to negotiate a peace treaty, implying that the Bush Administration has done much better with its diplomatic achievements. Richarson fires back that Snow has it wrong (the hell you say?!?!?!? Tony Snow never gets it wrong, and I am going to chop my fingers off now.) saying Madeleine Albright brought the chocolates, Ambassador Robert Galucci brought the reactors." Governor Richardson, though, went in there and brought back our downed pilot...
"I negotiated the release of a downed pilot and a political prisoner and handled a number of diplomatic chores for the administration," Richardson said. "And let's not forget that the president provided a plane for me last October so I could travel to Pyongyang to meet with the North Koreans, conversations that resulted in the North Korean delegation returning to the negotiating table.
"This shows how ungrateful the administration is, despite the progress we were able to make during that visit," Richardson said.
What it really shows is that the Bush administration lacks any ability to secure peace through diplomacy, or to give credit where credit is due.
"I negotiated the release of a downed pilot and a political prisoner and handled a number of diplomatic chores for the administration," Richardson said. "And let's not forget that the president provided a plane for me last October so I could travel to Pyongyang to meet with the North Koreans, conversations that resulted in the North Korean delegation returning to the negotiating table.
"This shows how ungrateful the administration is, despite the progress we were able to make during that visit," Richardson said.
What it really shows is that the Bush administration lacks any ability to secure peace through diplomacy, or to give credit where credit is due.
Don Williams Gives the Devil His Due
Recently the Bush Administration has made some changes...
Behold the mighty changes!
Call me a cynic, but I don't trust this man has "come to Jesus" about his misdeeds and is trying to make amends. I think Karl Rove has seen the handwriting on the wall. Americans are enraged over the actions of the administration and is ready to mete out revenge on the republicans trying to hold onto Congress. Rove knows that if they go down so does he and his evil little puppet. It is time to make the Rethuglicans look good, even if it means taking their hands out of the cookie jar (after all, they have stockpiled enough cookies in their little hidey holes to see them through til November.)
Sadly, they will probably start scaring the sheep again with Mexican lesbian couples sneaking over the border to marry and deliver their anchor babies, so they can steal the jobs of Joe Average and burn our flag while threatening the institution of marriage. I expect the Kool-Aid is already being doled out in churches, though I don't frequent those halls of deception anymore.
It is all too sad, this desperate maneuvering to retain power for the gain of the few. What is sadder is that the many are so eager to hand that power over....
Behold the mighty changes!
Call me a cynic, but I don't trust this man has "come to Jesus" about his misdeeds and is trying to make amends. I think Karl Rove has seen the handwriting on the wall. Americans are enraged over the actions of the administration and is ready to mete out revenge on the republicans trying to hold onto Congress. Rove knows that if they go down so does he and his evil little puppet. It is time to make the Rethuglicans look good, even if it means taking their hands out of the cookie jar (after all, they have stockpiled enough cookies in their little hidey holes to see them through til November.)
Sadly, they will probably start scaring the sheep again with Mexican lesbian couples sneaking over the border to marry and deliver their anchor babies, so they can steal the jobs of Joe Average and burn our flag while threatening the institution of marriage. I expect the Kool-Aid is already being doled out in churches, though I don't frequent those halls of deception anymore.
It is all too sad, this desperate maneuvering to retain power for the gain of the few. What is sadder is that the many are so eager to hand that power over....
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Valerie Plame Sues Cheney, Libby and Rove
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The CIA officer whose identity was leaked to reporters sued Vice President Dick Cheney, his former top aide and presidential adviser Karl Rove on Thursday, accusing them and other White House officials of conspiring to destroy her career.
More...
I hope she is awarded enormous damages.
More...
I hope she is awarded enormous damages.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Liberaltruthsayer's Letter to Jack Cafferty
On today's Cafferty File segment of The Situation Room on CNN Jack Cafferty asked the question: Should President Bush use his first veto against a stem-cell bill?
Well I was delighted that he read my email! I wrote:
He shouldn't, but he will...
I am sure Bush and the Republicans are terrified that through stem-cell research they will find a cure for stupid, hastening the death of the Republican party.
Yeah, it was snarky, but you gotta admit there is a lot of truth there too!
Thom Hartmann: Why is Bush Spying on Democrats
Another excellent piece by Thom Hartmann...
Somewhere there is a man in black reading my emails, IM's and blogs and compiling a file...
They say illegal wiretapping is the most sincere form of flattery!
Somewhere there is a man in black reading my emails, IM's and blogs and compiling a file...
They say illegal wiretapping is the most sincere form of flattery!
Top 100 Executives by Compensation
Well this is the most depressing stuff I have ever read, including my Sylvia Plath phase. My name didn't make the list, but then I haven't linked my Liberaltruthsayer to Paypal...
Gotta stack cheese!
Gotta stack cheese!
Monday, July 10, 2006
Ladies and Gentlemen...Start Your Shredders!!!
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge on Monday upheld the FBI's unprecedented raid of a congressional office, saying that barring searches of lawmakers' offices would turn Capitol Hill into "a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime."
Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan rejected requests from lawmakers and Rep. William Jefferson to return material seized by the FBI in a May 20-21 search of Jefferson's office.
MORE...
Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan rejected requests from lawmakers and Rep. William Jefferson to return material seized by the FBI in a May 20-21 search of Jefferson's office.
MORE...
Another Joke from a Reader
George Bush goes to a primary school to talk about the war. After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand and George asks him what is his name?"Billy", responds the little boy. "And what is your question, Billy?""I have 3 questions. First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Second, why are you President when Al Gore got morevotes? And third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?"
Just then the bell rings for recess. George Bush informs the kiddiesthat they will continue after recess. When they resume George says, "OK, where were we? Oh that's right - question time. Who has a question?" Another little boy puts up his hand. George points him out and asks him what his name is. "Steve", he responds. "And what is your question, Steve?" "I have 5 questions. First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? Fourth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And fifth, what the fuck happened to Billy?"
Just then the bell rings for recess. George Bush informs the kiddiesthat they will continue after recess. When they resume George says, "OK, where were we? Oh that's right - question time. Who has a question?" Another little boy puts up his hand. George points him out and asks him what his name is. "Steve", he responds. "And what is your question, Steve?" "I have 5 questions. First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? Fourth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And fifth, what the fuck happened to Billy?"
From Wikipedia
Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.[1] Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are protected. [2] In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed[3]. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. In many countries, "modern" liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum, from left to right. In the context of economics, the term "liberalism" refers to economic liberalism, which is associated with the political ideology of liberalism itself.
A broader use of the term liberalism is in the context of liberal democracy (see also constitutionalism). In this sense of the word, it refers to a democracy in which the powers of government are limited and the rights of citizens are legally defined; this applies to nearly all Western democracies, and therefore is not solely associated with liberal parties.
A broader use of the term liberalism is in the context of liberal democracy (see also constitutionalism). In this sense of the word, it refers to a democracy in which the powers of government are limited and the rights of citizens are legally defined; this applies to nearly all Western democracies, and therefore is not solely associated with liberal parties.
This Week in Delusional...
Fox's Colby: "[W]hy would North Korea push our buttons ... when they know -- they can see in Iraq -- when we come in, we get the job done?"
Good God, it seems that Faux News actually BELIEVES the bullshit spin.
It is worth noting that Jamie Colby has the product endorsement gig for Kool-Aid.
Good God, it seems that Faux News actually BELIEVES the bullshit spin.
It is worth noting that Jamie Colby has the product endorsement gig for Kool-Aid.
Top 10 Christian Conservative Powerbrokers
The ususal suspects are here, Falwell, Robertson, Dobson and the whole rapture crowd....Thanks again to Alternet for all their truthiness.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
This Joke in My Email this morning...
Donald Rumsfeld briefed the President this morning.
He told Bush that three Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iraq.
To everyone's amazement, all of the color ran from Bush's face.
Then he collapsed onto his desk, head in hands, visibly shaken, almost whimpering.
Finally, he composed himself and asked Rumsfeld, "Just exactly how many is a brazillion?"
He told Bush that three Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iraq.
To everyone's amazement, all of the color ran from Bush's face.
Then he collapsed onto his desk, head in hands, visibly shaken, almost whimpering.
Finally, he composed himself and asked Rumsfeld, "Just exactly how many is a brazillion?"
Friday, July 07, 2006
Ken Lay Lives and Blogs!
Well it seems Mr. Lay has survived his sudden death and crossed over to the Blogosphere...
TIVO ALERT: Richardson on Sunday's Meet the Press
Governor Bill Richardson will be a guest on Sunday's Meet the Press to discuss North Korea this Sunday Morning (consult local listings). Governor Richardson has had extensive diplomatic experience in dealing with North Korea and bringing them to the table for peace talks. Yet another stellar reason for the Democratic Party to nominate him for President in 2008....
For more on Richardson and N. Korea...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec05/nkorea_10-24.html
Bush Sought Domestic Call Records Pre-9/11
Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say
June 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.
The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.
``The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,'' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. ``This undermines that assertion.''
The lawsuit is related to an alleged NSA program to record and store data on calls placed by subscribers. More than 30 suits have been filed over claims that the carriers, the three biggest U.S. telephone companies, violated the privacy rights of their customers by cooperating with the NSA in an effort to track alleged terrorists.
``The U.S. Department of Justice has stated that AT&T may neither confirm nor deny AT&T's participation in the alleged NSA program because doing so would cause `exceptionally grave harm to national security' and would violate both civil and criminal statutes,'' AT&T spokesman Dave Pacholczyk said in an e-mail.
U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller and NSA spokesman Don Weber declined to comment.
Pioneer Groundbreaker
The NSA initiative, code-named ``Pioneer Groundbreaker,'' asked AT&T unit AT&T Solutions to build exclusively for NSA use a network operations center which duplicated AT&T's Bedminster, New Jersey facility, the court papers claimed. That plan was abandoned in favor of the NSA acquiring the monitoring technology itself, plaintiffs' lawyers Bruce Afran said.
The NSA says on its Web site that in June 2000, the agency was seeking bids for a project to ``modernize and improve its information technology infrastructure.'' The plan, which included the privatization of its ``non-mission related'' systems support, was said to be part of Project Groundbreaker.
Mayer said the Pioneer project is ``a different component'' of that initiative.
Mayer and Afran said an unnamed former employee of the AT&T unit provided them with evidence that the NSA approached the carrier with the proposed plan. Afran said he has seen the worker's log book and independently confirmed the source's participation in the project. He declined to identify the employee.
Stop Suit
On June 9, U.S. District Court Judge P. Kevin Castel in New York stopped the lawsuit from moving forward while the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Washington rules on a U.S. request to assign all related telephone records lawsuits to a single judge.
Robert Varettoni, a spokesman for Verizon, said he was unaware of the allegations against AT&T and declined to comment.
Earlier this week, he issued a statement on behalf of the company that Verizon had not been asked by the NSA to provide customer phone records from either its hard-wired or wireless networks. Verizon also said that it couldn't confirm or deny ``whether it has any relationship to the classified NSA program.''
Mayer's lawsuit was filed following a May 11 USA Today report that the U.S. government was using the NSA to monitor domestic telephone calls. Earlier today, USA Today said it couldn't confirm its contention that BellSouth or Verizon had contracts with the NSA to provide a database of domestic customer phone call records.
Jeff Battcher, a spokesman for Atlanta-based BellSouth, said that vindicated the company.
``We never turned over any records to the NSA,'' he said in a telephone interview. ``We've been clear all along that they've never contacted us. Nobody in our company has ever had any contact with the NSA.''
The case is McMurray v. Verizon Communications Inc., 06cv3650, in the Southern District of New York.
June 30 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.
The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.
``The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,'' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. ``This undermines that assertion.''
The lawsuit is related to an alleged NSA program to record and store data on calls placed by subscribers. More than 30 suits have been filed over claims that the carriers, the three biggest U.S. telephone companies, violated the privacy rights of their customers by cooperating with the NSA in an effort to track alleged terrorists.
``The U.S. Department of Justice has stated that AT&T may neither confirm nor deny AT&T's participation in the alleged NSA program because doing so would cause `exceptionally grave harm to national security' and would violate both civil and criminal statutes,'' AT&T spokesman Dave Pacholczyk said in an e-mail.
U.S. Department of Justice spokesman Charles Miller and NSA spokesman Don Weber declined to comment.
Pioneer Groundbreaker
The NSA initiative, code-named ``Pioneer Groundbreaker,'' asked AT&T unit AT&T Solutions to build exclusively for NSA use a network operations center which duplicated AT&T's Bedminster, New Jersey facility, the court papers claimed. That plan was abandoned in favor of the NSA acquiring the monitoring technology itself, plaintiffs' lawyers Bruce Afran said.
The NSA says on its Web site that in June 2000, the agency was seeking bids for a project to ``modernize and improve its information technology infrastructure.'' The plan, which included the privatization of its ``non-mission related'' systems support, was said to be part of Project Groundbreaker.
Mayer said the Pioneer project is ``a different component'' of that initiative.
Mayer and Afran said an unnamed former employee of the AT&T unit provided them with evidence that the NSA approached the carrier with the proposed plan. Afran said he has seen the worker's log book and independently confirmed the source's participation in the project. He declined to identify the employee.
Stop Suit
On June 9, U.S. District Court Judge P. Kevin Castel in New York stopped the lawsuit from moving forward while the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in Washington rules on a U.S. request to assign all related telephone records lawsuits to a single judge.
Robert Varettoni, a spokesman for Verizon, said he was unaware of the allegations against AT&T and declined to comment.
Earlier this week, he issued a statement on behalf of the company that Verizon had not been asked by the NSA to provide customer phone records from either its hard-wired or wireless networks. Verizon also said that it couldn't confirm or deny ``whether it has any relationship to the classified NSA program.''
Mayer's lawsuit was filed following a May 11 USA Today report that the U.S. government was using the NSA to monitor domestic telephone calls. Earlier today, USA Today said it couldn't confirm its contention that BellSouth or Verizon had contracts with the NSA to provide a database of domestic customer phone call records.
Jeff Battcher, a spokesman for Atlanta-based BellSouth, said that vindicated the company.
``We never turned over any records to the NSA,'' he said in a telephone interview. ``We've been clear all along that they've never contacted us. Nobody in our company has ever had any contact with the NSA.''
The case is McMurray v. Verizon Communications Inc., 06cv3650, in the Southern District of New York.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Ken Lay Dead at age 64
Just one week before he was due to be sentenced Ken Lay dies in Colorado of an apparent massive heart attack. Skeptics and conspiracy theorists alike were quick to question the truthfulness of the heart attack story and are calling for an autopsy. One, a victim of the Enron scam, who wished to remain anonymous was quoted as saying, "Everyone knows the guy didn't even have a heart!"
Sentencing will continue as scheduled, Las Vegas oddsmakers calling it an even bet whether Lay is sentenced to minimum security "country club" hell, or federal "pound me in the ass" hell.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
A Republican Worth Listening to....
The Honorable Rep. Ron Paul
Republican from Texas
Finally, a Republican who isn't so caught up in partisanship and self interets. Read and enjoy....
Monday, July 03, 2006
Britons tire of cruel, vulgar US: poll
The beautiful part of this poll is the fact that just one percent of those polled believe Bush is a great leader, proving once again that every village needs an idiot...
US judge faces year in jail for getting pumped up at murder trials
Apparently a judge in Oklahoma (deviant capitol of the world I am sure) couldn't keep his hands off his penis pump during trials...gives new meaning to "All rise..."
Big Mess O' Potamia: Al-Zarqawi's Speed Dial
The Bush Administration has repeatedly denounced critics of the war by citing the big success story, that of the instillation of a new government. It would seem, however, that we may be vesting our faith in the wrong hands....
This morning's email exchange between me and mi amigo Scott...
Scott wrote:
Remember, if you will, the stories about the Democratic insiders who, after Sept. 11, told reporters they were relieved that George Bush was the president and not Al Gore -- not, as it happened, because they thought Bush would do a better job, but because they realized (quite correctly) that Republicans would never have rallied around Gore the way that Democrats were willing to get behind Bush in a time of grave national crisis. That they would, more than likely, have tried to seize political advantage from it by the same kind of absurdist machinations that drove Clinton's impeachment. Strangely enough, many conservative organs touted this news story as "proof" they had done the right thing, and that Bush was the right man for the job.In fact, it has been a longstanding contention of mine that if Sept. 11 had occurred on Al Gore's watch, Congress would have long ago convened impeachment hearings that would have been a classic Fox News show trial. Dan Burton would have been out in his back yard flying model airplanes into watermelons, and Ken Starr would have found reasons to issue a detailed 9,000 page report on Tipper and Al's sex life, which armchair psychiatrists like Charles Krauthammer, William Safire and Andrew Sullivan would have pronounced as the deep psychological root of the Sept. 11 attacks. At the end of the impeachment process, the Scalia Five would have issued a ruling allowing Congress to name a Republican as Gore's replacement.
I wrote:
You are so right. It astounds me, the shameful maneuverings that today's Republicans are willing to go through, and the laughable justifications for such contortionism. I ask Charles often, "Do you really think that a blow job was worth impeachment, but Bush should continue his Presidency?" To which he always replies, "Clinton commited perjury, rule of law, people go to jail for 10 years for perjury, blah blah blah..." Now I still maintain that perjury is a stretch for what Clinton did, and that he was an idiot for doing what he did to begin with, but that notwithstanding you can't make a sheep step back, put DOWN the Kool-aid for a minute (oh that tasty, tasty Kool-Aid) and reason this through. They can't see the bigger issues, the implications for our nation. Bill Clinton's behavior was reckless and destructive, but his circle of destruction was fairly limited in scope, he only really hurt himself, his family, and Monica Lewinsky. It was Ken Starr who took Clinton's behavior and used it as a weapon against our nation, raising the moral outcry and bringing impeachment charges that ultimately divided the nation into two factions: the first being normal, rational people who perhaps, perhaps not, have made a few sexual missteps in their lives, but know that there is a difference between personal and public misdoings, and the second being haughty, self-righteous pinheads who probably and sadly have never made any sexual missteps, in their own eyes anyway, and view personal indescretion as a major character flaw. These people won't be happy until Jesus Christ is President, but are quite pleased that he has sent an ambassador in his absence.
Scott wrote:
Remember, if you will, the stories about the Democratic insiders who, after Sept. 11, told reporters they were relieved that George Bush was the president and not Al Gore -- not, as it happened, because they thought Bush would do a better job, but because they realized (quite correctly) that Republicans would never have rallied around Gore the way that Democrats were willing to get behind Bush in a time of grave national crisis. That they would, more than likely, have tried to seize political advantage from it by the same kind of absurdist machinations that drove Clinton's impeachment. Strangely enough, many conservative organs touted this news story as "proof" they had done the right thing, and that Bush was the right man for the job.In fact, it has been a longstanding contention of mine that if Sept. 11 had occurred on Al Gore's watch, Congress would have long ago convened impeachment hearings that would have been a classic Fox News show trial. Dan Burton would have been out in his back yard flying model airplanes into watermelons, and Ken Starr would have found reasons to issue a detailed 9,000 page report on Tipper and Al's sex life, which armchair psychiatrists like Charles Krauthammer, William Safire and Andrew Sullivan would have pronounced as the deep psychological root of the Sept. 11 attacks. At the end of the impeachment process, the Scalia Five would have issued a ruling allowing Congress to name a Republican as Gore's replacement.
I wrote:
You are so right. It astounds me, the shameful maneuverings that today's Republicans are willing to go through, and the laughable justifications for such contortionism. I ask Charles often, "Do you really think that a blow job was worth impeachment, but Bush should continue his Presidency?" To which he always replies, "Clinton commited perjury, rule of law, people go to jail for 10 years for perjury, blah blah blah..." Now I still maintain that perjury is a stretch for what Clinton did, and that he was an idiot for doing what he did to begin with, but that notwithstanding you can't make a sheep step back, put DOWN the Kool-aid for a minute (oh that tasty, tasty Kool-Aid) and reason this through. They can't see the bigger issues, the implications for our nation. Bill Clinton's behavior was reckless and destructive, but his circle of destruction was fairly limited in scope, he only really hurt himself, his family, and Monica Lewinsky. It was Ken Starr who took Clinton's behavior and used it as a weapon against our nation, raising the moral outcry and bringing impeachment charges that ultimately divided the nation into two factions: the first being normal, rational people who perhaps, perhaps not, have made a few sexual missteps in their lives, but know that there is a difference between personal and public misdoings, and the second being haughty, self-righteous pinheads who probably and sadly have never made any sexual missteps, in their own eyes anyway, and view personal indescretion as a major character flaw. These people won't be happy until Jesus Christ is President, but are quite pleased that he has sent an ambassador in his absence.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
The Greatest Thing I Have Read Online
The Political and the Personal by Dave Neiwert
This is so good I couldn't help myself. Stroll on over to Orcinus to check out the best blog I have ever seen. I was going to post something ELSE of his but this is just the best, most eloquent writing I have seen in ages! You will want to run out and buy all Dave Neiwert's books, and I am sure he would appreciate it if we all did just that.
This is so good I couldn't help myself. Stroll on over to Orcinus to check out the best blog I have ever seen. I was going to post something ELSE of his but this is just the best, most eloquent writing I have seen in ages! You will want to run out and buy all Dave Neiwert's books, and I am sure he would appreciate it if we all did just that.
Koizumi Tours Graceland, Michael and Lisa Marie Together Again
From left: Bush, Koizumi, Lisa Marie Presley, and Michael JacksonIsn't it great that these kids reconciled...makes you feel all warm and fuzzy all over.
what??? you mean that's Priscilla? YIIIIIIIKES!
Friday, June 30, 2006
My Rant
As the wife, sister, daughter-in-law, daughter, grand daughter, and friend to many MANY continued republicans and Bush supporters, you can imagine my daily frustration and angst. I do try so very hard to understand, as these are not stupid people, nor are they selfish or cruel, uncaring about the world, unconcerned about the environment, untroubled about the cost of lives of this war. I don't get it. Let me repeat... I DON'T GET IT!!!!!
Lets suppose you grow up in a republican family, being taught the traditional values of republicanism (pre-Falwell-Christian Coalition-neocon crap): smaller, less intrusive government, less government spending, individual responsibility...perfectly respectable philosophies that I happen not to agree with, but they tend to not be overly judgemental "values" of people, except the occasional loud mouth. You trust in your country, you raise your flag on the appropriate days, you vote. You eat three squares, you signal at the light, basically a good neighbor and responsible member of the community. Over the last decade you see a pronounced shift in the ideology of your party. More emphasis on the politics of rhetoric, more chiches and soundbites designed to evoke emotional images of a simpler time..."FAMILY VALUES," yet your party leaders are repeatedly found to not have such scrupulous behavior of their own. Hypocrites like Newt Gingrich, who during the impeachement of President Clinton was banging a lot more than the gavel. As the years go by you see your party slide farther and farther into a highly nationalistic, dogmatic, and despotic snarl...the government becomes infiltrated from top to bottom with snarlies, and you see your country slide economically, politically, and diplomatically farther down than it has ever been. You know that your party is the one in power, you know that your President is the one calling the shots...the stupid, stupid shots. You see the cronyism, you know about the subversion of congress, the signing statements, and when your frustrated wife (ok maybe this is personal) brings them up to you, you nod...yes, yes, it looks very bad, I agree...but yet in the booth, that sacred beautiful voting booth you reach up and pull the RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
Your wife, bewildered, stunned, shocked, and weeping, "Dude, what the fuck?"
I just don't get it. Enlighten me.
Lets suppose you grow up in a republican family, being taught the traditional values of republicanism (pre-Falwell-Christian Coalition-neocon crap): smaller, less intrusive government, less government spending, individual responsibility...perfectly respectable philosophies that I happen not to agree with, but they tend to not be overly judgemental "values" of people, except the occasional loud mouth. You trust in your country, you raise your flag on the appropriate days, you vote. You eat three squares, you signal at the light, basically a good neighbor and responsible member of the community. Over the last decade you see a pronounced shift in the ideology of your party. More emphasis on the politics of rhetoric, more chiches and soundbites designed to evoke emotional images of a simpler time..."FAMILY VALUES," yet your party leaders are repeatedly found to not have such scrupulous behavior of their own. Hypocrites like Newt Gingrich, who during the impeachement of President Clinton was banging a lot more than the gavel. As the years go by you see your party slide farther and farther into a highly nationalistic, dogmatic, and despotic snarl...the government becomes infiltrated from top to bottom with snarlies, and you see your country slide economically, politically, and diplomatically farther down than it has ever been. You know that your party is the one in power, you know that your President is the one calling the shots...the stupid, stupid shots. You see the cronyism, you know about the subversion of congress, the signing statements, and when your frustrated wife (ok maybe this is personal) brings them up to you, you nod...yes, yes, it looks very bad, I agree...but yet in the booth, that sacred beautiful voting booth you reach up and pull the RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.
Your wife, bewildered, stunned, shocked, and weeping, "Dude, what the fuck?"
I just don't get it. Enlighten me.
Canada's Border Control Problems
This little beauty came my way via email, friend of a friend of a friend...and thus I must credit the cosmos... Canada's Border Problems....
Canada is busy sending back Bush-dodgers. The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration.
The unflinching arrogance of the Bush Administration is prompting the exodus among liberal citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray, and agree with Bill O'Reilly
Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists, and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. "I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry "He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left. Didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"
In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields. "Not real effective," he said. "The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk"
Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves. "A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a drop of drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though."
When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about the Bush administration establishing re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR.
Liberals have turned to sometimes-ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers. "If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age," an official said.
Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies. "I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors does one country need?"
In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada, Vice President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the administration would take steps to reassure liberals, a source close to Cheney said. "We're going to have some Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we might put some endangered species on postage stamps. The president is determined to reach out."
I have already warned my mother in law that should we elect another rethuglican (she is one) I will be headed north, over the border, putting my son in a dress, and converting to Quakerism...No one is going to draft my gay canadian quaker son!
Thursday, June 29, 2006
BP Unit Charged with Price Manipulation
WASHINGTON - Detailed allegations by federal investigators that BP traders illegally manipulated propane prices in 2004 could hurt the oil and gas industry's image at a time when consumers and Congress are upset about soaring energy costs and record profits.
Executives from BP PLC and other major oil companies have testified before Congress and stressed in TV interviews that today's sky-high prices for gasoline and other fuels are the result of market forces beyond their control — not improper behavior on the part of industry.
"Well, that's going to be a tough sell when you have headlines showing that they caught you manipulating the market," said Phil Flynn of Chicago-based Alaron Trading Corp.
Even though a nine-month probe concluded last month by the Federal Trade Commission found no widespread effort by the industry to inflate gasoline prices, Flynn said "everybody is going to use this one incident as proof positive that the big oil companies are manipulating every market. It's going to be guilt by association."
MORE...
High Court Blocks Gitmo Tribunals
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday strongly limited the power of the Bush administration to conduct military tribunals for suspected terrorists imprisoned at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The 5-3 ruling means officials will have to come up with a new policy to prosecute at least 10 so-called "enemy combatants" awaiting trial -- it does not address the government's ability to detain suspects.
MORE...
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Odd News From Down Under
America is far from cornering the market on freaks, as evidenced by the story of this pediatrician and a mail box....
Dems Vow: No Pay Raise for Congress Sans Min Wage Increase
Give 'em Hell Harry Reid, D. Nevada
"We're going to do anything it takes to stop the congressional pay raise this year, and we're not going to settle for this year alone," Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said at a Capitol news conference.
"They can play all the games the want," Reid said derisively of the Republicans who control the chamber. "They can deal with gay marriage, estate tax, flag burning, all these issues and avoid issues like the prices of gasoline, sending your kid to college. But we're going to do everything to stop the congressional pay raise."
Harry Reid may just be the sole reason Conservatives fight so hard to ban cloning.
Senate Rejects Flag Desecration Amendment
By a one-vote margin the Senate rejected an Amendment to the Constitution to prohibit the burning of the flag. While I do not like the image of a burning flag personally, the notion that the government can ban us from doing so because it is an expression of anger or vitriol or hate flies in the face of everything I know about our constitution. I will take the flag burning issue a lot more seriously when the Senate bans display of the Confederate flag, the wearing of white or red robes and hoods, the use of the swastika, the shaving of one's head as a display of racial superiority (how exactly DOES that work?)
My good and brilliant friend Scott emailed me in the wee hours about this:
"The American flag stands for the fact that cloth can be very important. It is against the law to let the flag touch the ground or to leave the flag flying when the weather is bad. The flag has to be treated with respect. You can tell just how important this cloth is because when you compare it to people, it gets much better treatment. Nobody cares if a homeless person touches the ground. A homeless person can lie all over the ground all night long without anyone picking him up, folding him neatly and sheltering him from the rain."
"School children have to pledge loyalty to this piece of cloth every morning. No one has to pledge loyalty to justice and equality and human decency. No one has to promise that people will get a fair wage, or enough food to eat, or affordable medicine, or clean water, or air free of harmful chemicals. But we all have to promise to love a rectangle of red, white, and blue cloth.
Betsy Ross would be quite surprised to see how successful her creation has become. But Thomas Jefferson would be disappointed to see how little of the flag's real meaning remains."
So send me your comments about this, and I will post them.
Take THAT Big Tobacco
Excerpt: Steer clear of smokers and any of their drifting fumes. That's the advice of the surgeon general, who on Tuesday declared the debate about the dangers of secondhand smoke over.
Gee I wonder how long it will be until Surgeon General Richard Carmona is asked to step down from his position. Big Bakky just won't sit still for this one. People gots to have their smokes! Well I find Carmona's independent spirit refreshing, and I wish him the best of luck in the private sector.
Put down the cigs people, you know they are bad for you, you know they are bad for the people around you, and you know that there are countless products on the market to help you quit. I quit five years ago after stupidly smoking since a teenager, and I know it is hard. But it is stupid to know something is terrible for you and the people you love, and to continue to do it.
Gee I wonder how long it will be until Surgeon General Richard Carmona is asked to step down from his position. Big Bakky just won't sit still for this one. People gots to have their smokes! Well I find Carmona's independent spirit refreshing, and I wish him the best of luck in the private sector.
Put down the cigs people, you know they are bad for you, you know they are bad for the people around you, and you know that there are countless products on the market to help you quit. I quit five years ago after stupidly smoking since a teenager, and I know it is hard. But it is stupid to know something is terrible for you and the people you love, and to continue to do it.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
You Must Visit This Blog
http://liberaljournal.blogspot.com/ This is a terrific blog by a terrific blogger....thanks so much for all your help and support NM!!!
Rushing to the Pokey
Rush Limbaugh's detention at a West Palm Beach airport begs the question...why on earth would this man risk his freedom to carry an illegally labeled bottle of Viagara around in his luggage? Was he trying to avoid embarrassment? Brilliant move! Sorry, call me insensitive, but I am going to giggle over this story for some time to come.
Oh, and with his wiener on the fritz Rush is going to have to do his time on the bottom bunk....way to go Rush!
Monday, June 26, 2006
This Guy for US Senate in Connecticut
Yeah, I know I am in New Mexico. I know I can't vote for him, but I think Jeff Bingaman needs a new friend in the Senate, and this is the guy. It is refreshing to hear Democrats claim their name, to be proud of their liberalism. I am sick of Joe "DINO" Lieberman!!!! Plus he has a really great campaign ad:
What is wrong with this picture???
It is hard to tell what life form Ann Coulter may have been derived from. Where would she get gloves?
Click Here for Christmas in June!
Santa Arrived early for me this year, bringing me this juicy story. Read around the right leaning apologism, Rush is hopped up on hillbilly heroin and the "little blue pill" too!
Friday, June 23, 2006
David Letterman's Top 10 Signs The Government is Spying on You
Top Ten Signs The Government Is Spying On You
10. Post office wall has several photos of you sleeping
9. Your houseplant occasionally sneezes
8. Domino's keeps delivering to unmarked van parked across the street
7. Birthday card from your mom has several words blacked out
6. You get nominated for "Outstanding Lead Performance in an NSA Surveillance Video"
5. Your dishwasher functions are "Wash," "Rinse" and "Record"
4. Local news only reporting things that happen in your living room
3. Every time you say goodbye on the phone, you hear a strange voice say, "Roger that, Chico"
2. You googled a recipe for humus and the FBI raided your house
1. Suddenly discover there's an antenna bolted to your ass
10. Post office wall has several photos of you sleeping
9. Your houseplant occasionally sneezes
8. Domino's keeps delivering to unmarked van parked across the street
7. Birthday card from your mom has several words blacked out
6. You get nominated for "Outstanding Lead Performance in an NSA Surveillance Video"
5. Your dishwasher functions are "Wash," "Rinse" and "Record"
4. Local news only reporting things that happen in your living room
3. Every time you say goodbye on the phone, you hear a strange voice say, "Roger that, Chico"
2. You googled a recipe for humus and the FBI raided your house
1. Suddenly discover there's an antenna bolted to your ass
Another Fun Bush Quiz...Quotes!
Laugh or cry, I did a little of both...
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushismsquiz.htm?lastQuestion=14&answers=3&submit=Next+Question+%3E%3E&ccount=5
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushismsquiz.htm?lastQuestion=14&answers=3&submit=Next+Question+%3E%3E&ccount=5
How Loyal are You to Bush? Take the Quiz
Quote:
Your score is 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. You hate Bush with a writhing passion. You think he is an idiot, a liar, and a warmonger who has been an utterly incompetent, miserable failure of a president. Nothing would give you greater pleasure than seeing him impeached and run out of the White House, except maybe seeing him dragged away in handcuffs.
I can't imagine what one question I was forgiving of him on!
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushgames/
Your score is 1 on a scale of 1 to 10. You hate Bush with a writhing passion. You think he is an idiot, a liar, and a warmonger who has been an utterly incompetent, miserable failure of a president. Nothing would give you greater pleasure than seeing him impeached and run out of the White House, except maybe seeing him dragged away in handcuffs.
I can't imagine what one question I was forgiving of him on!
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushgames/
Have Fun with Dress-Me-Up Bush
http://www.eneaies.com/satira/bush_dressup/bush_dressup.htm
Use caution, artist's rendering is anatomically generous with the S.C.R.O.T.U.S....some things you just can't "unsee".
Many thanks to reader Eliza for contributing this fun fun thing, and please keep them coming!!!
Use caution, artist's rendering is anatomically generous with the S.C.R.O.T.U.S....some things you just can't "unsee".
Many thanks to reader Eliza for contributing this fun fun thing, and please keep them coming!!!
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Dick Cheney: The Dark Side
This PBS Frontline edition is available for ONLINE viewing today, Thursday June 22, at 5pm Eastern time.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
Be sure to take the time to watch this excellent study on our national intelligence.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
Be sure to take the time to watch this excellent study on our national intelligence.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Who said it? Coulter or Hitler...take the quiz!
What a fabulous quiz this is..... be sure to share your score with me!
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jac3he/GiveUpQuiz/gradequiz.php
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jac3he/GiveUpQuiz/gradequiz.php
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
My Favorite New Children's Book
My girls really love reading this book, the oldest and second take turns reading it to the younger ones. I think it peeves my conservative husband, which makes it an even better book. I really recommend this to all my readers....http://littledemocrats.net/
Occupation in Iraq by Thom Hartmann
There is no longer a war against Iraq.
It ended in May of 2003, when George W. Bush stood below a "Mission Accomplished" sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and correctly declared that we had "victoriously" defeated the Iraqi army and overthrown their government.
Our military machine is tremendously good at fighting wars - blowing up infrastructure, killing opposing armies, and toppling governments. We did that successfully in Iraq, in a matter of a few weeks. We destroyed their army, wiped out their air defenses, devastated their Republican Guard, seized their capitol, arrested their leaders, and took control of their government. We won the war. It's over.
What we have now is an occupation of Iraq.
The occupation began when the war ended, and continues to this day. According to our own Pentagon estimates, at least ninety five percent of those attacking our soldiers are Iraqi civilians who view themselves as anti-occupation fighters. And last week both the Defense Minister and the Vice President of Iraq asked us for a specific date on which the occupation would end.
The distinction between "war" and "occupation" is politically critical for 2006 because wars can be won or lost, but occupations most honorably end by redeployments.
We won World War II and it carried Roosevelt to great political heights. We lost the Vietnam War and it politically destroyed Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jerry Ford. And as we fought to a draw in Korea, it so wounded Harry S. Truman politically that he didn't have a strong enough base of support to run for re-election against Dwight D. Eisenhower.
American's don't like to lose or draw at a war. Even people who oppose wars find it uncomfortable, at some level, to lose, and Republican strategists are using this psychological reality for political gain. When wars are won - even when they're totally illegal and undeclared wars, like Reagan's adventure in Grenada - it tends to create a national good feeling.
On the other hand, when arguably just wars, or at least legally defensible "police action" wars, like Korea, are not won, they wound the national psyche. And losing a war - like the German loss of WWI - can be so devastating psychologically to a citizenry that it sets up a nation for strongman dictatorship to "restore the national honor."
On the other hand, an "occupation" is something that logically should one day end, and, if it's an expensive occupation in lives or money, will find popular support to end as soon as possible.
The various colonial powers of Europe ended their occupations of most of Africa, for example, and there was no national emotional pain associated with it. Churchill's withdrawal from Uganda increased his popularity with Brits.
While Americans hate to lose wars, we're generally pleased to wrap up occupations. We had no problem with ending our occupation of The Philippines, numerous South Pacific islands, and the redeployment of our troops stationed in nations conquered in World War II (Japan and Germany) from broad-based "occupation" to locally based "assistance." (Although we still have troops in Japan and Germany, neither country has been functionally "occupied" by us since the late 1940s and the "legal" occupation of both ended shortly thereafter. It should also be remembered that not a single American life was lost because of hostile fire in either brief post-war occupation.)
If Democrats can succeed over the next three months in making it clear to average Americans that the "War In Iraq" ended in 2003, and that we're now engaged in an "Occupation Of Iraq," then Democratic suggestions to end or greatly diminish the occupation will take on a resonance and cogency that will both help them in an election year, and help to bring our soldiers to safety and Iraq to stability.
On the other hand, if Democrats are perceived as pushing for America to "lose the war in Iraq," they will be vilified and damned by Republicans and many swing voters, and could thus lose big in 2006.
The "War" is over. The Occupation has now lasted 3 years and one month - far longer than necessary.
Here's a "for example" scenario - fictitious at this moment - of how Democrats should play it out:
[Tim Russert]: So, Senator Reid, what do you think of this most recent news from the War In Iraq?
[Senator Reid]: The war ended in May of 2003, Tim. Our military did their usual brilliant job, and we defeated Saddam's army. The Occupation Of Iraq, however, isn't going so well, in large part because the Bush Administration has totally botched the job, leading to the death of thousands of our soldiers, and dragging our nation into disrepute around the world. I'd like to see us greatly scale down the current Occupation of Iraq, redeploy our Occupation Forces to nearby nations in case we're needed by the new Iraqi government, and get our brave young men and women out of harm's way. Occupations have a nasty way of fomenting civil wars, you know, and we don't want this one to go any further than it has.
[Tim Russert]: But isn't the War In Iraq part of the Global War On Terror?
[Senator Reid]: Our Occupation Of Iraq is encouraging more Muslims around the world to eye us suspiciously. Some may even be inspired by our Occupation of this Islamic nation to take up arms or unconventional weapons against us, perhaps even here at home, just as Osama Bin Laden said he hit us on 9/11 because we were occupying part of his homeland, Saudia Arabia, at the Prince Sultan Air Force Base, where Bush Senior first put troops in 1991 to project force into Kuwait and enforce the Iraqi no-fly zone. The Bush policy of an unending Occupation Of Iraq is increasing the danger that people will use the tactic of terror against us and our allies, and, just like George W. Bush wisely redeployed our troops from Saudi Arabia, we should begin right now to redeploy our troops who are occupying Iraq.
[Tim Russert]: But the War...
[Senator Reid]: Tim, Tim, Tim! The war is over! George W. Bush declared victory himself, in May of 2003, when our brave soldiers seized control of Iraq. That's the definition of the end of a war, as anybody who's ever served in the military can tell you. Unfortunately, our Occupation Of Iraq since the end of the war, using a small military force and a lot of Halliburton, hasn't worked. We should take Halliburton's billions and give them to the Iraqis so they can rebuild their own nation, the way we helped Europeans rebuild after World War Two. And go from being an occupying power to being an ally of Iraq and the Iraqi people, like we did with Japan and Germany.
[Tim Russert (bewildered)]: I can't call it a war anymore? We have to change our NBC "War In Iraq" banners and graphics?
[Senator Reid (patting Russert's hand)]: Yes, Tim. The war is over. It's now an occupation, and has been for three years. And like all occupations, it's best to wrap it up so Iraq can get on with their business. I'm sure your graphics people can come up with some new logos that say "Occupation Of Iraq." It'll be a nice project for them, maybe even earn them some much-needed overtime pay. The "War In Iraq" graphics are getting a bit stale, don't you think? After all, soon we'll be able to say that we fought World War II in less time than we've been in Iraq. Wars are usually short, but occupations - particularly when they're done stupidly - can be hellish.
[Tim Russert (brightening)]: Ah, so! Now I get it! I even wrote about wars and occupations in my book about my dad. Thanks for coming on the program today and clarifying this for us.
If the Democrats don't shift the discussion from "war" to "occupation," the Republicans will succeed in painting them as being "in favor of losing a war," which will destroy their electoral possibilities.
Instead, every time a Republican or a member of the press uses the Rove slogan "War in Iraq," Democrats need to correct them by saying, "You mean the Occupation of Iraq..."
Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the Air America Radio network and Sirius. http://www.thomhartmann.com/ He's also a former marketing and communications senior executive, NLP Trainer, and consultant to government agencies and companies including many in the Fortune 500. His most recent books include "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," "What Would Jefferson Do?" and "Ultimate Sacrifice." His next book, due out this autumn, is "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It."
It ended in May of 2003, when George W. Bush stood below a "Mission Accomplished" sign aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and correctly declared that we had "victoriously" defeated the Iraqi army and overthrown their government.
Our military machine is tremendously good at fighting wars - blowing up infrastructure, killing opposing armies, and toppling governments. We did that successfully in Iraq, in a matter of a few weeks. We destroyed their army, wiped out their air defenses, devastated their Republican Guard, seized their capitol, arrested their leaders, and took control of their government. We won the war. It's over.
What we have now is an occupation of Iraq.
The occupation began when the war ended, and continues to this day. According to our own Pentagon estimates, at least ninety five percent of those attacking our soldiers are Iraqi civilians who view themselves as anti-occupation fighters. And last week both the Defense Minister and the Vice President of Iraq asked us for a specific date on which the occupation would end.
The distinction between "war" and "occupation" is politically critical for 2006 because wars can be won or lost, but occupations most honorably end by redeployments.
We won World War II and it carried Roosevelt to great political heights. We lost the Vietnam War and it politically destroyed Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Jerry Ford. And as we fought to a draw in Korea, it so wounded Harry S. Truman politically that he didn't have a strong enough base of support to run for re-election against Dwight D. Eisenhower.
American's don't like to lose or draw at a war. Even people who oppose wars find it uncomfortable, at some level, to lose, and Republican strategists are using this psychological reality for political gain. When wars are won - even when they're totally illegal and undeclared wars, like Reagan's adventure in Grenada - it tends to create a national good feeling.
On the other hand, when arguably just wars, or at least legally defensible "police action" wars, like Korea, are not won, they wound the national psyche. And losing a war - like the German loss of WWI - can be so devastating psychologically to a citizenry that it sets up a nation for strongman dictatorship to "restore the national honor."
On the other hand, an "occupation" is something that logically should one day end, and, if it's an expensive occupation in lives or money, will find popular support to end as soon as possible.
The various colonial powers of Europe ended their occupations of most of Africa, for example, and there was no national emotional pain associated with it. Churchill's withdrawal from Uganda increased his popularity with Brits.
While Americans hate to lose wars, we're generally pleased to wrap up occupations. We had no problem with ending our occupation of The Philippines, numerous South Pacific islands, and the redeployment of our troops stationed in nations conquered in World War II (Japan and Germany) from broad-based "occupation" to locally based "assistance." (Although we still have troops in Japan and Germany, neither country has been functionally "occupied" by us since the late 1940s and the "legal" occupation of both ended shortly thereafter. It should also be remembered that not a single American life was lost because of hostile fire in either brief post-war occupation.)
If Democrats can succeed over the next three months in making it clear to average Americans that the "War In Iraq" ended in 2003, and that we're now engaged in an "Occupation Of Iraq," then Democratic suggestions to end or greatly diminish the occupation will take on a resonance and cogency that will both help them in an election year, and help to bring our soldiers to safety and Iraq to stability.
On the other hand, if Democrats are perceived as pushing for America to "lose the war in Iraq," they will be vilified and damned by Republicans and many swing voters, and could thus lose big in 2006.
The "War" is over. The Occupation has now lasted 3 years and one month - far longer than necessary.
Here's a "for example" scenario - fictitious at this moment - of how Democrats should play it out:
[Tim Russert]: So, Senator Reid, what do you think of this most recent news from the War In Iraq?
[Senator Reid]: The war ended in May of 2003, Tim. Our military did their usual brilliant job, and we defeated Saddam's army. The Occupation Of Iraq, however, isn't going so well, in large part because the Bush Administration has totally botched the job, leading to the death of thousands of our soldiers, and dragging our nation into disrepute around the world. I'd like to see us greatly scale down the current Occupation of Iraq, redeploy our Occupation Forces to nearby nations in case we're needed by the new Iraqi government, and get our brave young men and women out of harm's way. Occupations have a nasty way of fomenting civil wars, you know, and we don't want this one to go any further than it has.
[Tim Russert]: But isn't the War In Iraq part of the Global War On Terror?
[Senator Reid]: Our Occupation Of Iraq is encouraging more Muslims around the world to eye us suspiciously. Some may even be inspired by our Occupation of this Islamic nation to take up arms or unconventional weapons against us, perhaps even here at home, just as Osama Bin Laden said he hit us on 9/11 because we were occupying part of his homeland, Saudia Arabia, at the Prince Sultan Air Force Base, where Bush Senior first put troops in 1991 to project force into Kuwait and enforce the Iraqi no-fly zone. The Bush policy of an unending Occupation Of Iraq is increasing the danger that people will use the tactic of terror against us and our allies, and, just like George W. Bush wisely redeployed our troops from Saudi Arabia, we should begin right now to redeploy our troops who are occupying Iraq.
[Tim Russert]: But the War...
[Senator Reid]: Tim, Tim, Tim! The war is over! George W. Bush declared victory himself, in May of 2003, when our brave soldiers seized control of Iraq. That's the definition of the end of a war, as anybody who's ever served in the military can tell you. Unfortunately, our Occupation Of Iraq since the end of the war, using a small military force and a lot of Halliburton, hasn't worked. We should take Halliburton's billions and give them to the Iraqis so they can rebuild their own nation, the way we helped Europeans rebuild after World War Two. And go from being an occupying power to being an ally of Iraq and the Iraqi people, like we did with Japan and Germany.
[Tim Russert (bewildered)]: I can't call it a war anymore? We have to change our NBC "War In Iraq" banners and graphics?
[Senator Reid (patting Russert's hand)]: Yes, Tim. The war is over. It's now an occupation, and has been for three years. And like all occupations, it's best to wrap it up so Iraq can get on with their business. I'm sure your graphics people can come up with some new logos that say "Occupation Of Iraq." It'll be a nice project for them, maybe even earn them some much-needed overtime pay. The "War In Iraq" graphics are getting a bit stale, don't you think? After all, soon we'll be able to say that we fought World War II in less time than we've been in Iraq. Wars are usually short, but occupations - particularly when they're done stupidly - can be hellish.
[Tim Russert (brightening)]: Ah, so! Now I get it! I even wrote about wars and occupations in my book about my dad. Thanks for coming on the program today and clarifying this for us.
If the Democrats don't shift the discussion from "war" to "occupation," the Republicans will succeed in painting them as being "in favor of losing a war," which will destroy their electoral possibilities.
Instead, every time a Republican or a member of the press uses the Rove slogan "War in Iraq," Democrats need to correct them by saying, "You mean the Occupation of Iraq..."
Thom Hartmann is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show carried on the Air America Radio network and Sirius. http://www.thomhartmann.com/ He's also a former marketing and communications senior executive, NLP Trainer, and consultant to government agencies and companies including many in the Fortune 500. His most recent books include "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection," "We The People: A Call To Take Back America," "What Would Jefferson Do?" and "Ultimate Sacrifice." His next book, due out this autumn, is "Screwed: The Undeclared War on the Middle Class and What We Can Do About It."
New Church Leader a Liberal Woman
Newly elected leader of the U.S. Episcopal Church Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Monday she believed homosexuality was no sin and homosexuals were created by God to love people of the same gender.
It is a refreshing departure from the overtly homophobic rhetoric touted by most religious and political leaders, perhaps a sign of level-headedness to come from a more enlightened Christian movement.
Congratulations, Bishop Jefferts Schori, and best of luck leading your church...
Monday, June 19, 2006
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Worst Email I Ever Got
Believe me, when I saw this thing in my INBOX my first thought was this has to be the worst possible news you can get from your doctor....
Astro Alert: Uranus Turns Retrograde
Dear Cara,
Rest up while you can! On June 19, Uranus turns retrograde, bringing his flair for the unusual to a planet near you. Until the ruler of rebellion returns to direct motion on November 20, you may notice an increase in personality transformations or oddball news reports; indeed, the conventional wisdom for the next few months is 'Expect the unexpected.' Now, those of you with well-worn PDAs and perfectly up-to-date planners might find that advice less than reassuring. But the key to success these days is to go with the flow. That mind of yours is brimming with untapped talents and innovative ideas, and Uranus is bound and determined to set them free!
Start unleashing your inner trailblazer with a free sample Revelations Reading.Uranus established his reputation as our solar system's renegade long ago. But this planet is very much a rebel with a cause, namely humanitarianism, creativity and breaking with tradition. During his retrograde journey, that energy -- which typically plays out on a more collective scale -- is focused inward. Is there a cause you want to get involved with? a pottery class you've had your eye on? a certain bohemian side of yourself that you haven't seen in a while? Seize this chance to celebrate your individuality and move beyond the status quo.
Reveal your full potential -- including talents that might surprise you! -- as you enjoy 20% off your full-length Revelations Reading.Of course, a period known for erratic, unusual behavior might not be the best time to act on every brilliant idea. But these upcoming months are your golden opportunity to think outside the box in ways that the 9-to-5 world of convention doesn't always allow. Experiment with new modes of expression to find the one that suits you best (pens, food, clothes, music ... no doubt you have ample tools all around you). By late November, you may find that you're ready to share what you've learned with the world.
Here's to making Uranus's retrograde period the start of something much bigger!
Sincerely, The Astrology.com Team -->
http://www.astrology.comhttp://shop.astrology.com
P.S. Hoping to tap into your inner actor? novelist? globe-trotter? Find daily inspiration for all your wishes in Astrology.com's Wishing Dictionary ... You might just come out of this retrograde with a brand-new lease on life!
Pass it on! Forward this offer to a friend.
Your personal information is safe and secure on Astrology.com.
MANAGE YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS:To unsubscribe, click here and follow the unsubscribe instructions.To manage your subscriptions to iVillage Group commercial mailings, please click here.Further information can be obtained by emailing mailings@astrology.com. If you need to email us, please include the following line in your reply. email recipient: caracompton11@comcast.net Astrology.com, c/o iVillage Inc, 500 Seventh Avenue, 14th Floor, New York, NY 10018, U.S.A. annmn:[742Hu$042Hu$52DMG00120000042Hu$0mGsHeGsIs] --- annmn:[742Hu$042Hu$52DMG00120000042Hu$0mGsHeGsIs]
--Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.2/357 - Release Date: 6/6/2006
Friday, June 16, 2006
Happy Birthday Paul!
Hey Paul, Happy Birthday! And for the record, I still need you and I will still feed you, but I hope you like peanut butter...
The Next President of the US...This Guy? You BET!
That's right, Governor Bill Richardson of this blogger's homestate of New Mexico. Sure we are a small state with only five electoral votes, but we have something no one else does, the nimble-minded, ethical, and progressive Governor Bill Richardson. Governor Richardson has done wonderful things for New Mexico, encouraging industry and development, slashing taxes that affect every New Mexican by removing sales taxes on food and medical care, bolstering education spending, and improving transit issues in the busiest corridors of NM traffic with a brand new and expanding light rail system. When I left New Mexico in 1996 for Missouri New Mexico was under Governor Gary Johnson, and things went from poor to poorer, from bad to worse. Bill Richardson has in his first term brought innovation and creative thinking back to State Government, and when I moved back last fall I noticed dramatic improvements in education, economic development, and general optimism among New Mexicans. I am proud to support Governor Richardson for re-election this year, but I am among many who hope that he doesn't complete his term and chooses to run for the Presidency. It is time for optimism to be restored to America, and Governor Richardson is just the man to do it.Run Bill Run!!!!
The Taint in Washington Video Clip
The Daily Show was never funnier than the night when Ed Helms explained to Jon Stewart about the level of taint in Washington, DC. Sit back, relax, and enjoy the poli-sci lesson....
Ann Coulter: Great Big Skanky Whore or World's Greatest Big Skanky Whore?
Excerpt:
In an email interview with John Hawkins at the Right Wing News web site, Coulter was asked, among other things, to offer short comments on several individuals. After harmlessly dismissing former Ambassador Joseph Wilson as the "World's most intensely private exhibitionist," she said of Rep. John Murtha, the hawkish ex-Marine and now antiwar congressman: "The reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'"
The following quotes are examples of Coulter's flamboyant and often inflammatory polemical style. Some view these quotes as humorous examples of tongue-in-cheek hyperbole or satire, while others take them more seriously. Coulter herself once stated, "Liberals love to pretend they don't understand hyperbole." [citation needed] However, she has also stated, "I believe everything I say." [37]
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Ann Coulter
"We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." - on the 9/11/01 attacks, in which her friend Barbara Olson was killed, from her syndicated column [38] September 13, 2001
"The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth. The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet—it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars—that's the Biblical view."[39]
"I have to say I'm all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the 'hood to be flogged publicly."—MSNBC March 22, 1997
"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64—the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."—[40] May 17, 2003
"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do. They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now."—(from Slander, pp. 5-6; published June 2002)
"The Times was rushing to assure its readers that 'prominent Islamic scholars and theologians in the West say unequivocally that nothing in Islam countenances the Sept. 11 actions.' (That's if you set aside Muhammad's many specific instructions to kill nonbelievers whenever possible)"—How to Talk to a Liberal, 2004.
"In the history of the nation, there has never been a political party so ridiculous as today's Democrats. It's as if all the brain-damaged people in America got together and formed a voting bloc." - Jan 12, 2006 [41]
"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' crème brûlée. That's just a joke, for you in the media." - January 26, 2006 [42]
"One [cartoon] showed Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from the gates of heaven, saying "Stop, stop -- we ran out of virgins!" -- which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. Another was a cartoon of Muhammad with horns, which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular -- oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence...Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back." - February 8, 2006 [43]
"Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran. - February 15, 2006 [44]
"You don't want the Republicans in power, does that mean you want a dictatorship, gay boy?" - February 24, 2006 [45]
Alitos Gestapo
Excerpt:
Dissenting justices predicted that police will now feel free to ignore previous court rulings requiring officers with search warrants to knock and announce themselves to avoid running afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
"The knock-and-announce rule is dead in the United States," said David Moran, a Wayne State University professor who represented Hudson. "There are going to be a lot more doors knocked down. There are going to be a lot more people terrified and humiliated."
We knew if Bush was elected it would be bad. We knew if he was re-elected it would be FAR worse. We stupidly handed over every single body of government to the Republican party, and it defanged the only entity, the congress, that stood a chance of fighting back for us. Now our goose is officially cooked.
Dissenting justices predicted that police will now feel free to ignore previous court rulings requiring officers with search warrants to knock and announce themselves to avoid running afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
"The knock-and-announce rule is dead in the United States," said David Moran, a Wayne State University professor who represented Hudson. "There are going to be a lot more doors knocked down. There are going to be a lot more people terrified and humiliated."
We knew if Bush was elected it would be bad. We knew if he was re-elected it would be FAR worse. We stupidly handed over every single body of government to the Republican party, and it defanged the only entity, the congress, that stood a chance of fighting back for us. Now our goose is officially cooked.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Newtie for President 2008-The Dream
A chilling announcement at the Brookings Institute Luncheon yesterday from Newt Gingrich, architect of the "Contract on America," and fearless leader who once suggested that the children of people who could not support them without public assistance be put into orphanages where more suitable people could adopt them, that he plans to run for the presidency barring the announcement of a candidate he likes.
"If at that point there's still a vacuum . . . then we'll probably do something," Gingrich said, prompting the enthusiastic campaign slogan:
Gingrich Sucks 2008
The announcement has prompted the corporate endorsements of Hoover, Bissell and Dirt Devil, the latter announcing that final touches are being made to the designs of a new vacuum model, the "Newtie" which sucks equally hard whether upright or hand held. Go Dirt Devil!
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
