Words on A Page

All is welllll....

2006-06-13T18:20:00.000-05:00

All is Welllll...
At least in the world according to Chris...

Ahhh Chris, you never fail to disappoint me. Ever the optimist. Yes, Zarqawi is gone. It only took what 3+ years and how many lives lost to take him out? I could ask the obvious (where's Bin Laden) but I won't. This is WAR right?
I hadn't heard that Rove had been cleared, but doesn't surprise me. Cover ups are easy when you have someone waiting in the wings to take the fall.
Bush in Baghdad? I can't tell you how that excites me. Ahh the possiblities. For democracy and all.

Yes, this is shaping up to be a steller year for the repubs isn't it? Congratulations. It's been a hard won victory.
Sure hope you undersand sarcasm. Cause this is me at my sarcastic best.

On the other hand this may well be a symptom of why I'm having such a hard time summoning up the desire or passion for the political process anymore. Those who see, see all too well. Those who don't, never will. It's like spitting into the wind. Even as a child I was never fond of 'spitz baths'.

2006-06-03T19:18:00.000-05:00

She's Backkkkkkk

I know I've been MIA for awhile now, and I'm so sorry. Funny thing, life got in the way of blogging.
For so long this blog was one of the primary focus's in my life. I thought I was doing something important. I had so much to say. There were times when it was almost an obsession. The blog itself, and those who read it. I remember spending hours here writing, and going from blog to blog, filling up my senses with the words of my fellow flame carrier's. It kept me busy. It enabled me to avoid dealing with the real world. The one I actually lived in.

Then one day, something inside me cracked. Well, actually it was a slow process, little fissures began to develope, each one moving slowly toward the other. Until they finally all met in the middle. I began to see I was using this blog as a means of escape. If I buried my mind into this, I could ignore the reality of my own unhappy life. I know I'm not expressing this well, I suppose misery makes a better story. Alas it is what it is.

These days I find myself spending more time on making the changes in my real life. It's working out rather well. I felt I'd left the blog in good hands. Speaking of which, Scott, where ARE you? I still care deeply about the state of affairs in this great country we call home. It's just that for now I need to try to put my own house in order.

I'm going to try to be around more. I don't want to give this up completely. I've missed all of you, even hardheaded Chris.

So, the Dixie Chicks are back, popular as ever. Dubya, is still around, sinking lower everyday. Lets hope that translates in to major changes come November. Does anyone think Rove or Cheney are going to make it through this term? I predict Rove will be moving out within the year. Cheney will probably go sometime next year. Leaving the way for Condi to step into the VP seat. Ya'll remember I said that!

Well, that's about all I have time for today. Ya'll come now ya hear???

2006-05-11T23:40:00.000-05:00

Just Back from Vacation and I Gotta ease back into it.....

hope there is still somebody out there... (?)

***

This recently from Tom McMahon

Executive Director Democratic National Committee

Alphonso Jackson, the Republican Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, told a story recently during a talk he gave in Dallas. Here's what he said, according to the Dallas Business Journal: Jackson closed with a cautionary tale, relaying a conversation he had with a prospective advertising contractor.

"He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years," Jackson said of the prospective contractor. "He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president.' "I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.'

"He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

You're probably not too surprised to hear that. Frankly, neither am I. And that's the problem.

The Republican culture of corruption has so infected our government that we aren't even surprised to hear a cabinet secretary talk about the "logic" of potentially illegally awarding federal contracts based on political affiliation. That's right -- if this story is true, it is probably illegal. Our taxpayer dollars are required by law to be spent based on merit.

Public pressure for Jackson to resign is already building, and Democrats in Congress are calling for an investigation. You can be a part of the groundswell of support for clean government by demanding Jackson's resignation.

We're shooting for 100,000 Americans sending a clear message to Secretary Jackson that he is not fit to serve. We will deliver your message to him when you sign this petition demanding his resignation: http://www.democrats.org/hudscandal

Jackson summed up what's left of the Republican philosophy of government when he said, "That's the way I believe." The journalist Josh Marshall put it well when he wrote yesterday:

"Just as interesting was Jackson's follow-on statement in which shows his understanding of how government contracting works: political supporters get contracts so they can pump a percentage of the profits back into the political party. Standard machine politics, at best. Organized bribery, at worst. And whatever you want to call it, the guiding principle of all contracting and government spending in the second Bush administration."

That's exactly right. And Jackson isn't the only example of this entrenched Republican corruption. Bush's Republican procurement chief -- the man in charge of spending huge sums of taxpayer dollars -- was arrested and charged with conspiracy in the evolving scandals associated with Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

This kind of mentality must be rooted out. But you don't have to wait until November to send your message that you want change.

Sign this petition now and demand the resignation of Secretary Jackson: http://www.democrats.org/hudscandal

Just like many Americans, the media has come to expect this kind of corruption from the Republicans. But it's up to those of us who want change to build public pressure and ensure that our friends and neighbors know that corruption is a day-to-day reality in Republican Washington.

Sign this petition and send your message to Secretary Jackson -- and then pass this message along to your friends:
http://www.democrats.org/hudscandal

Enough is enough -- and we're not going to stop until we achieve real change.

Thank you,

Tom
Tom McMahonExecutive Director Democratic National Committee

P.S. -- For a helpful guide to the Republican culture of corruption in all its forms, check out our special presentation: http://www.democrats.org/cultureofcorruption

2006-04-29T22:37:00.000-05:00

The Pretender

Tonight while flipping through channels on the TV, I came across coverage of the White House Correspondents Dinner. I listened for a few minutes and thought, "Wow, Dubya's really on a roll here. I actually like him a little bit." Then I realized it was some actor pretending to be Bush. Figures. It takes somebody pretending to be him to make him likeable. At least to me.

2006-04-22T10:20:00.000-05:00

Cost of BushCo's War:

(tax dollars & deficeit paid)

2003: $48 Billion

2004: $59 Billion

2005: $81 Billion

2006*: $94 Billion

(* pending current planned request)

regime change: $282 Billion to date.

(Congressional Reasearch Service's current working assumption is $10 billion/month and does not include future allocations required for military equipment replacement, veteran's medical costs or benefits, etc.)

2006-04-22T08:28:00.000-05:00

Women Represent 60% of Iraq

***

treated better

& civil rights more secure

under Saddam Hussein

***

per new survey of Iraqi women leaders

IRIN is part of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. It recently published the results of a report by a non-governmental organization that concerns itself with women's freedom in Iraq. The report surveyed women in leadership roles in Iraq.

Women represent roughly 60 percent of the Iraqi population. Despite a 25-percent representative presence in parliament, however, they are seldom entrusted with high government positions, while their contribution to political debate is rarely taken seriously.

“When US troops entered Iraq, we thought it would be a great opportunity for Iraqi women to begin having their voices heard,” said Senar. “But we were wrong – the opposite has happened, and we’re losing ground by the day.” Women’s groups point to the new government, many members of which take a conservative view when it comes to the role of women. “When we tell the government we need more representation in parliament, they respond by telling us that, if well-qualified women appear one day, they won’t be turned down,” said Senar, a woman's freedom organization leader in Iraq. “Then they laugh at us.”

“...Women should stay at home with their families. Participating in politics will distance them from their kids,” said Sheikh Marouf Abdel-Kader, a religious leader at one of the mosques in Baghdad.

The new poll of leaders of Iraqi women's-rights groups finds that women were treated better and their civil rights were more secure under deposed President Saddam Hussein than under the faltering and increasingly sectarian U.S. - installed government. “The results show that women are less respected now than they were under the previous regime, while their freedom has been curtailed.”

{Columnist/TV host Bonnie Erbe said of IRIN's reporting of the survey: "Oh, and I'm sure the black-helicopter types, (the guys who go rabid at the mention of the United Nations), will have a field day discrediting IRIN's report. But given that "anti-U.N. types" were the same guys who got us into the Iraq invasion in the first place, who has more credibility now? I vote for IRIN as the lesser of two evils."}

[ -Scottnote: tho they represent 60% of the population no women are in the running for any of the nation's top nine (9) posts in the newly forming government. Gads, if our pre-emptive invasion was not for WMD (increasingly clearer all the time), and it's not democracy or freedom(increasingly clearer all the time), then geez what's left?...............uh...certainly not for large oil company interests seizing control of vast oil resources under Iraq... Bush could not possibly have used the amerikan military and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in a pre-emptive invasion of another country for that? Just couldn't be. ]

2006-04-21T21:24:00.000-05:00

The Day After Follow-up (update 4/24/06)

@ Crooks and Liars

Watch 60 Minutes

this Sunday 7:00 pm ET/PT

airing April 23rd

Former highest ranking CIA officer in Europe: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy." [CBS]

"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," says Drumheller. " The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "

Tyler Drumheller a CIA official who had a top role during the run-up to the Iraqi war charges the White House with ignoring intelligence that said there were no weapons of mass destruction or an active nuclear program in Iraq.

[-Scottnote: Frankly, I can't wait to see BushCo's approval ratings drop still lower. (Foxnews: President Bush’s job approval rating slipped this week and stands at a new all-time low of 33 percent, down from 39 percent in mid-March.) Imagine the coming week after a "60 Minutes" public pounding. Add that to fallout from breaking news that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "leaked" national defense information to a pro-Israel lobbyist in the same manner that landed a lower-level Pentagon official a 12-year prison sentence, according to the lobbyist's lawyer - Pay attention folks these guys are in the process of a slo-mo self-destruct; we may be watching some remarkable history unfolding.]

2006-04-18T12:18:00.000-05:00

So George Bush walks into a primary school...

George Bush walks into a primary school to talk to the kids to get himself a little positive PR. After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand and George asks him his name. "Stanley," responds the little boy. "And what is your question, Stanley?" Stanely says, "I have three 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? And third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? Just then the bell rings for recess. George Bush informs the kids that they will continue afterward. 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 his name. "Steve," he responds. “And what is your question, Steve?" "Actually, Steve says, “I have five 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 hell happened to Stanley?"

2006-04-17T14:07:00.000-05:00

I finally admit it.

I am, in fact, completely confused.

Regarding the discovery this past week concerning Bush's having previously put out erred intel report info establishing the public perception that "mobile weapons labs" existed in Iraq:

According to white house spokesperson Scott McClellan: Bush publicly asserted that erred story because "the declassification process" had not yet been completed on later intel reports that had specifically & unequivocally completely disproved the existence of the same mobile weapons labs. Moreover, unfortunately, Bush could not simultaneously share with the public that the erred story he was telling publicly - had, in fact already been investigated to its end and conclusively disproven - by our own people .......................(?)

Just last week, during the Plame leak gyrations Scott McClellan asserted the defense that Bush in fact has authority to declassify at anytime, at will, anything that Bush elects to declssify and "leak." Don't these two explanations of why/how Bush released publicly the intelligence info he decided to make public - directly conflict with one another?

This is making no sense to me - none whatsoever. How does the logic "NOT"conflict? Has public dishonesty advanced past need for plausibility? What am I missing? Does anyone understand this contradiction? Please deconfuse me? (and C. or phknjrk - where are you when I/we really need you?)

(post re-edited 4/18/06 for clarity & reading ease.)

UPDATE: 4/19/06 : White House Shake Up: Bush "kills his messenger"in Press Secretary Scott McClellan. Perhaps some of BushCo's base will be appeased; the recent white house messaging, containing flagrant disconnects in logic like that mentioned above, can be cleansed thru some sacrificial scapegoate - "Hey, why not jettison McClellan....along with all our dirty bathwater?"

2006-04-16T10:54:00.000-05:00

Bush lowering the S.S. Bushie into the waves with

Still more emphasis on

"You're-doing-a-heck-of-a-job-Rummy!"

Strategy ! ? !

April 15 — For a president who has responded to critics of the war by saying he takes his cue from commanders in the field, not politicians in Washington ...the past week has put the White House in an uncomfortable position. Administration officials acknowledged that unlike past criticisms from lawmakers, comments by a group of retired generals — who say they have only military objectives in mind — could carry extra weight.

The Defense Department has issued a memorandum to a group of former military commanders and civilian analysts that offers a direct challenge to the criticisms made by retired generals about Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. (a.k.a. a public relations talking points sheet).

It is unusual for the Pentagon to issue guidance to retired generals to rebut the arguments of other retired generals. One retired general who regularly attends the Pentagon meetings said Saturday that he found it unusual for the Pentagon to send such a memorandum in the middle of a heated debate - because it was almost certain to appear politically motivated.

A senior Republican Congressional adviser who was granted anonymity for fear that speaking publicly would damage relations with the White House, said of the war: "There needs to be signals sent — major signals — that some things are going to be different. That could, or should, mean that changes must be made. If not, and things go exactly the way they are, our candidates will pay a dear price."

2006-04-15T16:13:00.000-05:00

Newt Gingrich: "Scale back to small force in Iraq"
Former Rebublican House Speaker says:

U.S. made "enormous mistake" in occupation

Stumbled across this from this past week and thought it worthy for sharing. April 11, 2006 Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House, said this past Monday that the United States should pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there.

***

"It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003," Gingrich said during a question-and-answer session. "We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it."

***

"We are at one of those great intersections in history when we as a people are going to have to have a great conversation with each other," Gingrich said. Once Americans have that talk, he added, they will ensure a safe, free and prosperous country. Gingrich spoke about the traits of great leaders such as George Washington, who listened to people to determine what course to take, whether in battle or in legislation."In the American model, power comes from God to you. We then loan it to the government," he said. "The key to a leader is you listen first."

***

[That might be the most insightful vision Newt's had, though he was reiterating George Washington's idea, since Newt's Contract with America . Whatever the case, I can't help but ask myself ...geez, why do I find it so interesting to watch conservatives (including a wave of retired military generals) jumping from the sinking S.S. Bushie? Could it be that as it steamed off over the horizon into it's military odyssey, some 2,000 (plus) dead americans & hundreds of billions of tax dollars ago, those aboard the S.S. Bushie so arrogantly flipped all of the rest of us the bird? And for good measure so condescendingly mooned anyone that questioned the strategy of their "non-plan" or their intelligence sources - as a liar, unpatriotic and terrorist sympathizer? Or, maybe it is in Bush's "stay the course" attitude: "You're doing a heck of a job, Rummy"... as Bush drives our sinking ship down into the waves? I can't decide which of it all might be more amazing. Before W. Bush I could have never imagined such wholesale contempt for this country's values, institutions, resources and public - from any President during the course of my lifetime.]

2006-04-15T11:43:00.000-05:00

Bush Sept 2004: "Taliban no longer is in existence."

***

Since Sept 2004: American soldiers dead

in Afganistan's Operation Enduring Freedom = 141

(by - Scott with credits to georgia10)

September 27, 2004: Bush: "In a different kind of war, we had to recognize that we're not facing a nation; we're facing a group of people who have adopted an ideology of hatred and love to find places where they can hide. They're like parasites. They kind of leech on to a host and hope the host weakens over time so they can eventually become the host. That's why I said to the Taliban in Afghanistan: Get rid of al Qaeda; see, you're harboring al Qaeda. Remember this is a place where they trained -- al Qaeda trained thousands of people in Afghanistan. And the Taliban, I guess, just didn't believe me. And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence."

4/15/06: (ABC) Afghan District Governor killed in ambush: Taliban insurgents gunned down an Afghan district governor in troubled southern Afghanistan in an ambush in insurgency-hit Helmand province, police said. Abdul Majeed, the governor for the province's Baghran district, was killed in his car, district police chief Bahaudin Khan said. "Our district governor was martyred today," he said. A Taliban spokesman, Yousuf Ahmadi, said by telephone the movement was responsible for the attack. He claimed seven police were also killed but this was rejected by Khan. Helmand is one of Afghanistan's most violent provinces and suffers regular attacks by Taliban militants said to be linked to the drugs trade. It is expecting a force of about 3,500 British soldiers to be in place by mid-June, with about 1,000 already in the country. They will take part in counterinsurgency and counternarcotics operations. Several of the province's officials have been assassinated in the past weeks. -AFP

04/15/06 (CNN): 47 killed in attack on Taliban: In some of the fiercest fighting in months, Afghan forces backed by U.S.-led coalition troops killed 41 Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, the governor of Kandahar province has said. At least six Afghan policemen also died in the attacks, which targeted suspected Taliban hideouts in the area where Taliban leader Mullah Omar was born and raised -- about 40 kilometers (25 miles) southwest of Kandahar. Coalition helicopters were used in the operation. He remains at large....

[- Scottnote: I for one can thank god that W. is in charge. I cannot imagine the dilema of this country if someone else had been in charge... someone less competent who, for example, might have evaporate hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in military misadventures and afterward be unable to similarly assert "the Taliban no longer exist". Going back still further - only Bush could assure us 4 years ago that Osama bin Laden would be captured. Gads, imagine the worst case pickle we'd be in if somebody else had simultaneously failed us fighting the terrorist fight in Iraq! Here's to good fortune in having had Bush's paternal hand resolving these political contests he was forced to engage our military in. And looking forward, you'll notice the terrorist government in Iran quickly changed its tune due to both Bush's compelling diplomacy and obvious able military leadership; Iran certainly appears concerned and headed in the right direction anyway.]

2006-04-12T09:42:00.000-05:00

It Depends...On How You Define The Word

***

"Leak" ©

***

a resource watering hole article from Bcgntn

at last... the awaited obligatory post - appreciatively reposted here by -Scott

By February 11, 2004, the President was adamant. He said, "I want to know the truth. "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is."

Our nation's leader assured us, he too wanted to know who released the name of Central Intelligence agent Valerie Plame to reporters. He would take care of him, her, or them. While speaking on the subject, Mr. Bush continued boldly with blood in his eyes, "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

Our fair President stated, "I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job. I want to know the truth." Supposedly unyielding as this Bush Boy is known to be, GW reiterated, "Leaks of classified information are bad things," adding that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information." Our President was now hungry for justice. This and truth are the American way.

Bush the senior knew the importance of Central Intelligence confidences. After all, he had been the CIA Director years ago. While President, George Herbert Walker Bush was among those that strongly supported the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, his son, the Boy Blunder, chose to violate it, stealthily. Up until now, Baby Bush did as neophytes do; he diverted the blame.

However, under sworn testimony, the facts were exposed. Mr. Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr. bore witness. The actual leak was not within the administration; it was the administration. The information was released by our Commander-and-Chief.

Today, this man-boy stood before the public and acted as though all was well, even legal. Mr. Bush stated there was no leak, or were his words, `it depends how you define "leak.' He merely made official and confidential material not be so. As he said this morning, "I wanted people to see what some of those statements were based on. I wanted people to see the truth. I thought it made sense for people to see the truth. That's why I declassified the document.''

If this is so, why did this miracle man not share what was years ago, when it first arose, and more importantly, how does one man get away with violating the law so frequently? Why is Bush never prosecuted, put on trial, impeached, or even censured. We had a TeflonTM President, a man that many labeled, "Slick Willy." Why is Bush, the Boy-Beyond-the-Law?

You might enjoy these resources . . .* A White House Smear, By David Corn. The Nation. July 16, 2003* Filegate: Case closed. BBC* Investigation? No, Bush should pick up the phone, By Josh Marshall,The Hill July 30, 2003* Bush welcomes probe of CIA leak, CNN News. Wednesday, February 11, 2004* Many major media outlets continue to ignore story of missing White House emails. Tuesday, February 7, 2006* Washington Post downplayed possible illegality of Plame outing by ignoring Plame outing. October 19, 2005* CIA 'outing' might fall short of crime, By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY* In Court Filings, Cheney Aide Says Bush Approved Leak, By David Johnston and David E. Sanger, New York Times. April 6, 2006 * White House: Bush did not flip-flop on leaks. CNN News. Monday, April 10, 2006* Bush Says He Declassified Pre-War Intel, By Deb Riechmann. The Guardian. Tuesday April 11, 2006 * Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. The Freedom of Information Center. * Title 50 > Chapter 15 > Subchapter IV > § 421, U.S. Code collection. Cornell Law School * House Provides More Cover For CIA Crimes, By Sam Smith, The Progressive Review. 5/17/99* Remarks on Signing the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. The Freedom of Information Center. June 23, 1982* Will the CIA Protect the White House? By David Corn. The Nation. August 16, 2003* It doesn't look good for Karl Rove, By John Dean. CNN.com, Friday, July 15, 2005* Bush Says He Declassified Intelligence, By Reuters. April 10, 2006
Betsy L. Angert Be-Think
Tags: Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, Bush Says He Declassified Intelligence, Baby Bush Boy Blunder, Current Affairs, Ethics, I. Lewis Libby Jr., Politics, Propaganda and Politics, Teflon™ Presidents, Valerie Plame, Joesph Wilson, CIA (all tags)

2006-04-10T02:59:00.000-05:00

Weekend Away: (Clearing out Gitmo)

by - Scott

I can’t afford the extravagant getaways like Wanda gets... but I got away for a couple half-days and an overnighter this past weekend to a small beachfront cabin hideaway in a tiny place called Seabeck, WA. There's a general store with a cafe, espresso and pizza stands, a marina, and a conference center. It's speck on the Hood Canal with in-your-face scenery of the Olympic Mountains as a backdrop. It was not so much to "escape" life as it was to "defrag” life. Work's been a string of relentless challenges lately.

It drizzled the whole while. Puffy white low clouds moved in and out between mountain ravines. Fishing boats and herons were the fastest moving things around. I got Belgian fries and slopped down tall stout Belgian beer which was all good after hiking moss-muffled oldgrowth forest with "Bob" my lucky orange dog.

But it was still a political weekend - even without an internet. I brought with me some of last week's unread newspapers. And in a hamlet town along the route, I accidentally stumbled across a Libertarian Party meeting of some sort, where I swear I saw in the hallway either our State's former democratic party Governor or it was his twin brother. On arrival at my cabin I discovered in a bookcase a couple of dust-covered hardbacks by Rush Limbaugh - all reaffirming that politics and evil are in fact - everywhere.

So I took away from the weekend McCain is bowing far to the right. William F. Buckley (long-time conservative writer and leader), believes Bush's presidency will be judged entirely upon the Iraq war which is now a failure. Buckley thinks the most important next step is to acknowledge that failure and look for opportunities to cope with it.

I was also reminded that enshrined in the First Amendment are the basics of democracy: freedom of worship, speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition government. None of these exist in a Theocracy where elections are largely charade events offering at best choices between non-democratic alternatives. Obviously BushCo understood “democracy at gunpoint” too tenuous a notion. It’s never been done in an Islamic nation – and where it happens it’s been indigenous leadership. In the example of Turkey, government and religion are highly separated. If there is not civil war and there is “democracy” in Iraq – clearly that it will look more like Iran than Turkey - but certainly nothing like the US of A.

Instead, Bush used his authority to position a invasion dishonestly: latest info reveals that the Pentagon asked for an authoritative judgment from the National Intelligence Council, the senior coordinating body for 15 intelligence agencies, which responded in a memo unequivocally: The Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest. Bush then advanced exactly to the contrary with it as his centerpiece in, for example, his State of the Union Address of January 2003. After that, in concerted actions through BushCo officials, he’d also leak snippets of disproved intelligence evidence to discredit, punish, and seek revenge upon a critic. I say Bush will be lucky if Buckley is right.

But the most enlightening aspect of the weekend was a short interview I read with controversial former Catholic nun Karen Armstrong author of a 1993 best-seller, "A History of God," wherein the religious historian examined the evolution of the idea of God in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. In her 2000 book, "The Battle for God," she wrote about religious fundamentalism:

“…Q: Given that these traditions all emphasize compassion, what accounts for religion being involved in some of history's most violent conflicts?
A: Mostly the conflicts arise out of political ambition, political conflicts. And religion gets sucked into it. If a society is violent, people make their religion violent…”

It’s was perspective that crawled down below the dirt to the roots of Christian fundamentalism - as much as it does to the roots of Islamic fundamentalism. It’s a quick read: if you got minute check it out. [interview]

2006-04-07T16:10:00.000-05:00

Good News/Bad News
at least there's a little of both

I know I've been awol of late. Yes, sometimes life gets in the way of blogging. I've been very, very busy. I can't thank Scott enough for keeping things moving right along here at WOAP. Scott, your the best!!
I just dropped by for a bit of catching up. [Good news]I see poor ole Tom has decided he'd best put his focus on keeping his butt out of jail. [Bad news]Of course if he succeeds at that (and he most likely will) he will forge ahead with his agenda which is to continue to promote a culture of corruption and greed. No big surprise there. If the dragon is not slayed, he will live to fight another day.
Then you have [good news] the recent revelation that the President himself was aware of and approved of the 'leaking' of classified information in order to combat/spite a political opponent. Again, no big surprise. In fact [bad news]the White House is now so secure in their arrogance they aren't even bothering to DENY the alligation. After all they're the people in power they can do whatever the hell they please.
Is the media concerned about this apparent arrogance and lack of shame? Are the people? Clearly not. I see no outrage. Of course it would have been much worse if he (the prez) had been found to be diddling Condi (or a lowly WH aide) but you know, sex is so much ~~worse~~ more important, than national security.
So, while I've been away, I see the status quo has remained in tact. Those in power are abusing it at every opportunity, and everybody else is sitting around whining about it.
Why do I get the feeling the bad news is still winning?
Ya'll keep between the ditches, yah hear!

2006-04-07T10:13:00.000-05:00

U.S. State Department

Re: United Nation's Human Rights Council:

"We have better leverage from outside..."

How in the h*ll did this great country ...ever... get to such a place...?

Concerning "leverage"... leverage for advancing...?

Sweet Jesus... what's next ?

(a guest post by -Scott)

[source] United Nations, Apr 07, 2006: Under fire from human rights groups for its treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons, the US has decided against contesting for the newly established 47-member UN Human Rights Council. [meaning: the US would not run in an election to become a member of the UN's Human Rights Council.]

Announcing yesterday that it would not contest [run in] the May 9 elections for the body, the United States held out the hope it might do so next year even as its diplomats said that the US could be more effective from the outside. Diplomats and human rights group closely watching the developments leading to the formation of the Council suggested that the US had calculated it might not win in the elections, which are being conducted through secret ballot.

The US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, acknowledged that this was a concern but asserted that it would have better leverage by not being in the Council. [?]

Although the decision did not come as a surprise, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he was disappointed and said he hoped that Washington [i.e., Bush] would continue to support the Council, which replaces the much criticised Human Rights Commission, and fight [run in] the elections next year.

India, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Iran and Jordan are among 42 candidates who have so far officially made it known that they would contest [run in] the elections in which each candidate requires 96 votes in the 191-member General Assembly to get elected. With the exception of the United States, all other permanent members of the Council - Britain, France, Russia and China - are in the fray.

2006-04-06T11:15:00.000-05:00

Pre-trail Solitary Confinement at Guantánamo

What's the Confusion all about in

Bush's Morphing Military Tribunal ?

(a guest post by -Scott)

ALLEGED al-Qaida terrorist Omar Khadr protested his pretrial solitary confinement at his war-crimes court on Wednesday, and the Marine colonel overseeing the case agreed to take evidence on the Toronto teen's claim. (source)

Khadr was 15 years old when he was captured by US military forces. His lawyers believe that trying him for crimes allegedly committed as a juvenile violates international law. If convicted, Khadr would face life in prison.

Marine Col. Robert S. Chester is supposed to be presiding over a panel hearing allegations that the accused Canadian, who is now 19 years old, committed a war crime by killing a U.S. Army medic in a 2002 firefight in Khost, Afghanistan. Instead, he agreed to take briefs and possibly call witnesses on Khadr's complaint that guards had placed him in punitive isolation at the Pentagon's detention center for terrorist suspects.

The youth had been held in barracks-like communal captive quarters at the sprawling prison camp until March 30. He was then moved to the Camp 5 prison, housing 80 captives in single-occupancy cement cells.

Camp spokesman Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand disputed the defense team's characterization that the youth was held in "solitary confinement." Camp 5 captives can call to others on their cellblocks - unless guards turn on a fan that muffles their noise.

***

[-Scott Note: In which case they would be in solitary confinement - (?) - nice dodge Cmdr! Let's see... prior to any fair trial assertaining guilt or non-guilt - for an indefinate period, in this American system outside our borders, our prison guards choose between roasting the accused alive in a small concrete oven w/o air circulation (in Cuba) or they submit the accused to solitary confinement. All of course, being in the new American spirit and our manner of operating outside our borders to which we find ourselves defending from world objection - and threat of terror?]

***

Khadr asked Wednesday for Canadian attorneys to join his defense team. Chester then angered Khadr's Pentagon defense attorney, Marine Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, questioning why he had not formally asked the war court to bring the lawyers from Canada. Vokey created an uproar by slamming his hand on a podium and yelling in frustration at Chester's questioning: "There are no rules here! The rules keep changing!"

Pentagon defense lawyers have protested the evolving rules for the first U.S. war-crimes tribunal since World War II, contending that it is not governed by existing military or civilian law.

***

[Scott Note: While I'm open to suggestions otherwise...one might draw some conclusions from the seconf part of this story... either the military defense attorney (appointed by the military tribunal) to defend the accused 1.) is not "equipped" himself to understand what he could be doing on behalf of the accused or 2.) he has not been equipped with information from the tribunal to understand what he could be doing on behalf of the accused, or 3.) in fact, he is a competent fully-equipped defense attorney unable to follow Bush's military tribunal's changing rules... You get to decide. Whichever - it does not bode well for any juriprudence in Bush's "parallel" wholly self-executing tribunal system as another component of his larger Perpetual Oil Wars.]

2006-04-04T01:24:00.000-05:00

Top Law Firms Join Forces

in Landmark Detainee Case

(a guest post by - Scott)

As follow up to my recently posted article I wondered what these people, including three dozen power law firms were thinking in assuming the role of terrorist sympathizer.

Background: The Perkin's Coi defense team argued to the Court that Bush's military commissions violate both the Geneva Conventions and federal statutes that limit the jurisdiction of commissions and provide important protections – such as the accused's right to be present at trial – to defendants subject to prosecution before these tribunals.

Here's what I found:

Tony Mauro of the Legal Times (source) wrote:

"More than three dozen briefs have been filed on Hamdan's side, largely arguing that the military tribunals established by the White House to try the detainees are illegal...."

"...The blue-chip firms are all in this case, and it's the senior partners who are involved very often," said David Remes, the Covington partner who coordinated the amicus curiae effort for Hamdan. "This is not a tousle-haired, wild-eyed group of lawyers..."

"...Adds New York University Law School professor Burt Neuborne, who also filed a brief for Hamdan: "This is not noblesse oblige by the big firms. It is an extraordinary no-confidence vote by the establishment bar in what the administration is trying to do here." Neuborne said the only recent parallel was the effort 50 years ago by New York firms to help desegregate public schools..."

"..."It goes to the foundation of our system," said Schneider. "These people were taken into custody and hadn't been given an opportunity to defend themselves."

Remes of Covington Burling said he thinks that is why so many large firms -- or at least committed lawyers within those firms -- were drawn to the case. "It sounds clichéd, but it's true; this case is about the rule of law," said Remes. "This is a power play by the administration to escape meaningful judicial review..."

"...But Neuborne sees the Guantanamo effort as different, and more widespread. "The centrist establishment bar has rallied to this as a defining issue," he said. "The government has gone too far..."

"..."This has nothing to do with 9/11 or supporting terrorism," said Paul Saunders, a Cravath partner who wrote a brief in Hamdan. "This case raises probably more fundamental issues of jurisprudence than any other case I can think of -- whether the president has the power to create a parallel system of courts that is self-executing..."

"...Remes' brief filed on behalf of former U.S. military officials argues that if the United States ignores Geneva rules, U.S. soldiers will be at risk at the hands of enemies..."

Detainee's Military Lawyer: (source) Navy Lawyer Charles Swift Battles Bush in Guantanamo Bay Case

Navy Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift "...As a military officer, I deeply respect the president...'' Swift said in an interview at his northern Virginia office. "...But I also believe it's my duty as a military officer to point out when he is wrong...''

:...Swift last year told a Senate panel he viewed the prosecutor's request to help secure a plea as "...a clear attempt to coerce Mr. Hamdan into pleading guilty...'' by threatening him with the loss of his legal representation.

...When the Defense Department refused to let Swift and his fellow defense attorneys hold a news conference to denounce the tribunal system, he decided he would simply present his case to reporters one-by-one, making himself the public face of the lawsuit.

"I am incredibly proud of military justice as a whole,'' Swift said. He has been passed over for promotion once, meaning he will have to leave the service if, as he says he expects, he is passed over a second time later this year. He says he has no misgivings about the effect the case has had on his career. "If you start thinking about your career over your duty,'' he said, "it's time to get out.''

The Court's opinion is expected in early July.

2006-04-02T09:34:00.000-05:00

A Living Breathing Document

(a guest post by -Scott)

***

A Preamble to Jiggling the 'ol Thinker

(tune linked - speakers up!)

2006-03-30T14:43:00.000-06:00

It's what makes us better than them.

(a guest post by -Scott)

****

I thought I'd share an article in it's entirety that was written by a friend, Danny Westneat, who is a columnist for the Seattle Times:

"Seattle's largest law firm, Perkins Coie, is what back east they call a "white shoe" firm, named for the preppy shoes popular with Ivy Leaguers in the '50s.

It means staid. Corporate. Aligned with power. The firm's top client for nearly a century has been Boeing. Says Harry Schneider, 52, an attorney there for 27 years: "We're not generally known for representing prisoners."

So what are they doing defending Osama bin Laden's former chauffeur?

For the past two years, four Perkins Coie lawyers have logged roughly 2,500 hours — about a third of their total workload — working at no charge for a prisoner they've never met.

That the prisoner is bin Laden's former driver and bodyguard has thrown this establishment firm into the middle of a heated debate about the war on terrorism — and even led to veiled questions about the firm's patriotism.

On behalf of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, accused of being an al-Qaida terrorist, the lawyers have sued our own government. Including our commander in chief. At a time when he says we're at war.

"Of course we knew this wouldn't be popular with everyone," Schneider said, adding the firm thought "long and hard" about getting involved. "Ultimately, we decided the issues at stake were too important to be ignored."

The attorneys insist they're no radicals. They say they're fighting for what is supposed to be one of our core values — that everyone, even the enemy, has a right to a fair trial.

The government doesn't see it that way. This month, a top U.S. official at Guantánamo made waves when he suggested big law firms that represent defense contractors such as Boeing shouldn't let their lawyers work for suspected terrorists.

The message to Perkins Coie was clear: You're either with us, or you're with them.

Threats aside, the real issue is: How should we bring suspected terrorists to justice? Send them to special military tribunals, at which they forfeit many of the rights U.S. courts grant to defendants? Or try them more like we do our own citizens?

In 2001, President Bush decided terrorists are not subject to the usual rules of war, such as the Geneva Conventions. He also denied them the protections of U.S. criminal law because they're not Americans.

Unilaterally, without asking Congress, Bush formed the military tribunals. Hamdan, captured in Afghanistan in 2001, is slated to be tried for conspiracy before a military panel in which the Defense Department will pick the judge and jury and forestall any chance for appeal to an independent body.

This is wrong and actually un-American, the Perkins Coie lawyers argue. Even if it turns out Hamdan is guilty. "You can't subject him to the laws of war without also giving him the protections of the laws of war," said Charles Sipos, 33, also of Perkins Coie. "Do that and our whole system breaks down."

The case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this week. The other local attorneys working on it are Joe McMillan, 46, of Perkins Coie, and David East, 30, formerly of Perkins and now of Seattle firm McNaul Ebel.

When Perkins Coie started representing Hamdan, in early 2004 at the request of a Georgetown law professor, Neal Katyal, "we were all alone, with a very unpopular defendant," Schneider said.

***

But since then, virtually the entire legal establishment has rallied to its side. More than 30 legal briefs were filed before the Supreme Court on Hamdan's side, many of them from the country's bluest of blue-chip law firms. All argue essentially the same thing: Railroad these prisoners and you undermine the very values we're supposedly fighting for.

I find all of this extraordinary, and hopeful. Not just that we live in a country where we can challenge our leaders in court. But that it's a major branch of the power elite — a corporate-law firm such as Perkins Coie — that is leading the charge. For free.

Yes, they're helping a suspected terrorist. But it's not an example of "you're with us or you're with them." It's what makes us better than them. "

2006-03-27T09:36:00.000-06:00

Understadning "How" Bush Does What Bush Does

As Opposed To

Understanding "Why" Bush Does What Bush Does

***

(a guest Post by - Scott)

***

I've been seeing this exchange around a lot. I had to re-post it in case someone has missed it. I believe it is compelling on its face. It also so clearly represents, for me, the part about "How Bush Does it". The dynamics happening inside the dialogue appear so transparent and so easy to me that I cannot imagine how any could tolerate it. (Unless one did not care what was happening in the dialogue.)

Q: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?
THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise -- in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist -- is that -- I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --
Q: Everything --
THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.
Q: -- everything I've heard --
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people. Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --
Q: They didn't do anything to you, or to our country.
THE PRESIDENT: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where al Qaeda trained --
Q: I'm talking about Iraq --
THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans. I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences --
Q: -- go to war --
THE PRESIDENT: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

*****
Bush responded to the substance of an important direct question, (a seemingly important question still being asked because it has not been directly responded to adequately... "Why did you invade Iraq?"), in the status quo, a single, small, unsupported ambiguous quip: "...I also saw a threat in Iraq."

The "how" he does it per the forensics team at Podunt Post: First, jump topic on undesirable direct questions by inserting a clarification of the question that does not answer the question itself. When done with that, adjust topic by explaining reasoning behind an unasked question, (for example, explain emotive reasoning for invading a different country.) When eventually brought back to the topic question asked, respectfully use the questioner's first name to hold the questioner in check, and proceed to elaborate further on the unasked question. In buttoning it all up: connect the elaborate response to an unasked question to the direct question being asked with something unapproachable like..."I also saw a threat in Iraq." Lead the line of questioning to its conclusion by beginning the next sentence with, "Therefore,.." as if the avoided question had been directly and thouroughly addressed, and shut the thing down immediately by asserting everyone approves and everyone, (those listening to the response to an unasked question), has benefitted as a result.

Sweet.

It seems like the media ought to be able to develop some "counter-strategy". However, I imagine employing any effective counter strategy would get one ejected from the Q&A venue by one's employer - if not Bush's handlers.

2006-03-25T15:38:00.000-06:00

Barbara Bush's Hurricane Katrina Generousity

Given on Conditional Terms:

~ Her Donation Must be Spent on Her Son's Business

****

Some critics might say donations by the Bush family - to a tax-deductible charitable fund - shouldn't be required to benefit the Bush family. [source] Far more likely than some foul play intensional tax avoidance... those connected to the Bush family are so completely removed from any meaningful spirit of philanthropy... they might not be able to imagine how anyone might take issue with that clever investment strategy.

***

I began raising money for charitable organizations when I was 15 years old. Since, I have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for more than a dozen different charitable causes in my lifetime. Never, in all that experience, has a donor ever so much as "hinted" at the availability of any kind of kick-back. Nor have I heard from any fundraising peers of anyone hinting at any sort of kick-back for a charitable contribution.

***

My facing east toward Washing DC and shouting as loud as I can "SHAME ON YOU!" at Mrs. Bush - although appropriate - seems like a pathetically inadequate response. After all, her family also initiated an unprecedented pre-emptive strike attack into a war that has killed and wounded people numbering in the hundreds of thousands depleting this country of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, etc., etc., etc.

***

So, to spite her charitable contribution differently, I resolved on making my own "good cause" online contribution:

April 29th will be the Democratic Party's first-ever National Neighbor-to-Neighbor Organizing Day. The day is designed to test the organization and build new relationships among volunteers with door-knocking events in communities across America. In a 50-State Strategy, thousands of volunteers are slated to start the conversation to recruit hundreds of thousands committed to change this year.

***

Before I contributed $200 online an hour ago I took care to ensure that no part of my contribution be spent at a business owned by my family. Then I wrote to about twenty of my friends and requested that they match my contribution. I felt much better. And if she pisses me off again in responding to the publicity on her generous gift – I'll be sufficiently inspired to make myself whole once again by being out door-knocking and chatting with my neighbors.

***

3/27/06 UPDATE: Ignite, (Barabara's son Neil's business), has been under scrutiny since its inception in 1999. Background reports show that the company received it's initial funding from, for example, foreign oil sources, (and for any drinking the BushCo Kool Aid... this is just another disinterested foreign oil concern investing itself, like they do, in American children's software start-up companies. It's certaininly not oil influencing our President), as well as computer magnates and friends of the Republican family.

***

The scrutiny was over whether or not a local school district violated district policy by allowing the Bush's son's private bisiness to host a promotional event on campus.

***

Susan Ohanian, a former public school teacher and Vermont-based author who tracks educational issues, said she was stunned by Bush's donation. "The public has a very hard time understanding that some money is not worth it," she said. "I've never heard of anything like this so blatant: Pull at your heart strings with Katrina victims and then make sure your son profits from it."

2006-03-25T09:09:00.000-06:00

Plucking Chords of Terror in My Heart

(a guest post by - Scott)

The nightmare inside my nightmare...

A new season of "The Next Generation" (in its political verison)

***

Pierce Bush

Some veiwers may find the substance of this trailer offensive; veiwer discretion is advised. Content includes a political horror ripening on the family tree.

credits to wonkette

2006-03-22T22:21:00.000-06:00

Iraq veteran clears path to run for US Congress

Tammy Duckworth, the best known of at least a dozen Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who are running for Congress, has cleared the way for a November showdown by narrowly winning a hard-fought Democratic primary in her Illinois district.

Almost all the war veterans running for the first time in 2006 are Democrats. As candidates, they will help the party criticise the war without appearing unpatriotic.
[source]

The only question I have, is what the democrats are going to do to screw this one up?

2006-03-19T14:52:00.000-06:00

The Patriot Act Board Game

With Free Home Version linked below!

(a guest post with prize inside by - Scott)

A gaming statement on the erosion of civil liberties in America since 9-11 under the watchful eye of the Bush Administration. The game actually utilizes sourced information about the Act and many of the “hypothetical situations” in the game are based on real life events.

The object of the game: The last player to maintain his or her civil liberties wins!

The playing board consists of spaces marked FBI, Homeland Security, Airport Security Screening, Pro War and Anti War spaces and a Free Speech Zone. What happens to the players on each space depends on their Security Profile and how many Civil Liberties they are in possession of. Sample game play: If a player lands on "Go to GTMO", or draws a card with the same command, or loses Civil Liberties due to die roll, the player will wind up in Guantanamo Bay Detention and will continue to lose Civil Liberties until the proper roll is achieved. Etc.

So get ready to laugh, cry and trample the Constitution!

Easy to read graphic “storyboard” summary (click me first!)

Three (3) page explanation of the game (click me next!)

Print the game board itself on your own printer - and play immediately (click me last!)

Print the game's cards (updated for 2006!) (oops - change that - click me last!)

2006-03-18T10:14:00.000-06:00

Can You Say "Permanent Bases"?
The American Press Can't

(a guest post by - Scott)

I found this article (excerpted below) interesting written by Tom Engelhardt at tomdispatch.com he explores some interesting realities of our ongoing base building in Iraq -

"One of the enduring mysteries of this war is that reporting on our military bases in Iraq has been almost nonexistent these last years;

***

especially given an administration so weighted toward military solutions to global problems;

especially given the heft of some of the bases;

[note: with small-town feel: Of the 20,000 troops at Balad, (a US base that serves in a support role), only several hundred have jobs that take them off base. Most Americans posted here never interact with an Iraqi, and some never see one, said Army Lt. Col. Larry Dotson, who is effectively the city manager. The closest some troops here come to experiencing the Iraq seen on the evening news is the miniature golf course, which mimics a battlefield with its baby sandbags, little Jersey barriers, strands of concertina wire and, down at the end of the course, what appears to be a tiny detainee cage. Balad has distinct neighborhoods. The southwest part, home to thousands of civilian contractors, is called "KBR-land," a reference a Halliburton subsidiary construction company. There are a Subway, a Pizza Hut, a Popeye's, an ersatz Starbucks called "Green Beans" that serves up triple lattes, and a 24-hour Burger King.]

especially given the fact that the Pentagon was mothballing our bases in Saudi Arabia and saw these as long-term substitutes;

especially given the fact that the neocons and other top administration officials were so focused on controlling the so-called arc of instability (basically, the energy heartlands of the planet) at whose center was Iraq;

and especially given the fact that Pentagon pre-war planning for such "enduring camps" was, briefly, a front-page story in a major newspaper."

Tom concludes with "....It may be hard to do, given the skimpy coverage, but keep your eyes directed at our "super-bases." Until the administration blinks on them, there will be no withdrawal from Iraq."

[Scottnote: I concur with those expecting Rethuglican rhetoric of Iraq troop reduction reaching heightened furry just about the time we reach the peak "hard-sell" marketing period of Fall elections. Once there, expect again proposed "conditioned" troop withdrawals - for soon but later - (like early 2007.) I'm adding this component to my prior predictions on Fall election headlines - that still being we can anticipate hearing from some Rethug directed agency about a new frightening domestic threat(s) that sharply contrasts with the current "soft-sell" period's "Look no threats and no worries and Bushie...you're doing a great job!"]

Waiting to Exhale

2006-03-17T22:43:00.000-06:00

Waiting to Exhale
we're losing the battle, can the war be far behind

I know it's been a while since I posted. Thanks to all of you who've emailed asking if everything is alright. I can't say there's anything specific wrong, I'm just going through a case of the blahs. When I read things like this,
Bush report reiterates strike-first policy and this Congress Opens Wallet. I feel so, hopeless.
I can see another useless, senseless, war on the horizon. Our troops serving in Iraq are ill-equipped, and understaffed, yet Congress can find the money for everything except them. On top of that NO ONE seems the least bit concerned that the arrogant, chickenhawk, idiot in the White House is gearing up for another war. Where the hell does he expect to find the troops to fight this war? Why is NO ONE asking the important questions? Like why is this scenario, which is all to familiar to the one building up to a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, not being questioned by our Senators and Representatives? Where are the people who are suppose to be protecting OUR interest?
I guess I'm just tired. Tired of the rhetoric, tired of the bull, tired of the phoney posturing by this administration, but most of tired of the lazy, lethargic, heads-in-the-sand people who call themselves 'patriots'. What is it going to take to wake these people up?

I want to extend a special thank you to Scott for keeping things going here at WOAP. He's been a Godsend. Thank you Scott! And, again thanks to all of you who continue to stop by and to add your thoughts to the soup. Hopefully I'll get my second wind soon and be back in full force. Until then, keep up the good fight. God knows somebody's got to.

2006-03-15T21:45:00.000-06:00

We found it!

A Best Website Name Winner!

(a guest post by -Scott)

****

( Content?.... Who cares! )

The League of Guest Poster at Podunt Post announces the following website has been named the "Best Website Name" contest winner.

Using unbiased purely scientific criteria we've got a winner folks:

sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com

2006-03-15T09:03:00.000-06:00

FBI "Infiltrating" American Groups;

Latest Revealed Targets: Legal Pacifists (?)

The Threat: Anti-War Views (?)

Just released internal FBI agency documents secured under the Freedom of Information Act has shed some light on our FBI agency's concerns and operations related to threat priorities.

Apparently just prior to the invasion of Iraq - a peace group's activities that were infiltrated and under surveillance, included:

1.) Disbursing leaflets in downtown Pittsburgh that communicated Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
2.) Cooperated in sponsoring a public event to promote understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims.
3.) Expressed anti-war views.

Spokesperson for the FBI defended the program, classified as top secret, saying the FBI's infiltration and surveillance was acting with all appropriate authority.

FBI basics: from the FBI's website:

What is the FBI?: "...It has the authority and responsibility to investigate specific crimes assigned to it... "

What is the mission of the FBI?: "...The mission of the FBI is to uphold the law through the investigation of violations of federal criminal law; to protect the United States from foreign intelligence and terrorist activities; to provide leadership and law enforcement assistance to federal, state, local, and international agencies; and to perform these responsibilities in a manner that is responsive to the needs of the public and is faithful to the Constitution of the United States."

Who is the head of the FBI?: "...The FBI is headed by a Director who is appointed by the President..."

I guess we can all sleep better now.

2006-03-11T08:12:00.000-06:00

The Government is looking at him:

Should He Be Concerned?

( a guest tip by - scott )

***

One of our own regulars at Podunt Post recently posted this very interesting article. You decide whether or not its beginning to get just a little closer to home:

*****

kissfan's article posted at home on kissfan's own Truespeak

******

kissfan's article posted at Daily Kos (with added reader survey and some interesting comments - click "View Comments" just below the poll at the end of the article.)

*******

I recommend, if you have a moment, that you check out his post.

2006-03-10T13:40:00.000-06:00

A Naming Contest!
(a guest post by - Scott)

***

I thought it would be fun to take a breather with this very important video snippet.

Better still, (and in keeping with the obligatory political theme) I thought it might also be interesting to re-name this video appropriately ~ in naming it according to recent political events. We're looking for the "symbolism" here folks.

If you've recently needed opportunity to stretch out creatively - this is it. Or, if you've been looking for that juggler guy who opened for Michael Jackson on the "Victory Tour". Well, you found him.

As an incentive for your participation and for recognition of the deeper creativity required in competing at this level, Podunt Post will be awarding to the best "name submission" its first annual "Podunt Post Award for Exemplary Political Translation". Not something everybody has; there will be only one offered each year. Experts have projected that this rare award will quickly become a valuable collector's item. There will also be a digital ribbon of “Participatory Podunt Courage” awarded for all completed entries.

Logistics for viewing:

You'll need to enable cookies for this video to load properly....and turn and your speakers up. The music is critical to the clip - and - it's fun.

*** The link is here and on the photo above:
http://marketplace.espeakers.com/movie.php?sid=5290&aid=10558
***

If you have trouble using the address - go to his website: http://www.chrisbliss.com/ click on Video Press Kit, and then on the soon-to-be-internally-and-exclusively-at-Podunt Post-re-named video currently called "The Big Finale".

Small print: Name submission entries should be posted to Podunt comments immediately below. In the event of a tie - readers will vote to determine the winner. Multiple entries are very encouraged.

And, enjoy the show!

2006-03-04T09:51:00.000-06:00

Oil Break Point

Always Look for The Opportunity in The Chaos

(a guest post by - Scott)

***

So I picked up a book in the new release section in the airport news stand earlier this week written by Peter Tertzakian, “A Thousand Barrels a Second ; The coming oil break point and the challenges facing an energy dependent world".

Tertzakian writes about something he calls the “break point”. In the evolutionary cycle of energy supply and demand he has named the milestone place where the status quo is shaken at its core. His analysis examines the energy cycle from a historical and global perspective - in great detail. I was fascinated by his observations of the whaling industry that tapped oil for illumination. (There’s lots of numerical data for the numbers fanatics too.)

He goes on to forecast the next “break point” happening before the end of this decade. It will force a re-structuring of energy supplies and consumption – especially with regard to oil.

He suggests the experience felt at the break point and after it, in something else he calls the “rallying cry” (of which his book is a part of) and then the “rebalancing” will be different globally from nation to nation according to situational circumstances.

He suggests the experience is felt in four broad chronological phases with overlap:

1.) complaining and paying up
2.) conserving and being more efficient
3.) adopting alternative energy sources
4.) making societal, business, and lifestyle changes

He concludes that moving ourselves through the process to our “rebalance” is not (NOT) something that should be left to the markets and business people and further there is no need to wait for the break point to take action. Markets and business people do not move fast enough nor are they without conflicted interests. He suggests oil is a political commodity now and that, historically, energy sources become “political commodities” at their break point.

In my estimation ~ his rallying cry represents 250 pages or so of support for a new front line Democratic Party platform component for 2008: to advance this country on a new path - that being a SUBSTANTIVE AND SERIOUS national program to reduce our fossil fuel dependency. I'm sugesting directing SIGNIFICANT resources at this objective on the scale of, for example, our program to build an Interstate Highway system. This would represent, in part, the Dems “answers” and “solutions” that the Repugs, given the opportunity and influence they have enjoyed, have largely ignored or gestured only some modest interest in. Our incumbent oil-led leaders are ineffective, non-responsive or offer us only an attempted anecdotal sound bite now and then.

***

And okay okay I’ll step off this particular soap box – for a small while anyway.

2006-03-01T07:15:00.000-06:00

The American People

Bush: "They know the difference."

(a guest post by - Scott)

During the first quarter of the past century British foreign policy approached oil with an eye toward oil’s military significance. It came to control three quarters of world oil reserves outside the USA. The British however blew it in Saudi Arabia the 1930’s backing the King rather than the Ibn Saud who would win that country’s war and after invite American oil companies in, who during the mid 1940’s were eventually joined by US initial meaningful government participation.

US foreign policy concerning oil security however historically largely depended upon the control of oil maintained through US oil company business dealing – not government involvement. A handful of US oil companies controlled nearly 50% of world oil production in the 1950’s but only 10% today. Their influence has diminished while US dependency on fossil fuels has increased substantively to now roughly 90%; the US government has necessarily become inextricably involved. (France is 57% fossil fuel dependent, for example.)

Non-OPEC exporters are at full production with no excess capacity. Only OPEC’s slim margin of excess production buffers the world from an oil crisis. World demand is increasing.

***

At the peak of US oil production and at the time of the energy crisis of 1973 President Nixon said,

“There are only 7% of the people in the world living in the United States and we use 30% of all the energy. That isn’t bad; that is good. That means we are the richest strongest people in the world and that we have he highest standard of living in the world. That is why we need so much energy, and may it always be that way.”

In 1980 after Khomeini dethroned the Shah, President Carter said in his State of the Union address

“An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary including military force.

In 1990, then Defense Secretary for the United States, Dick Cheney, said of Saddam Hussein who threatened Saudi Arabia after invading Kuwait,

“We’re there (in Kuwait) because the fact of the matter is that part of the world controls the world supply of oil, and whoever controls the supply of oil, especially if it were a man like Saddam Hussein with a large army and sophisticated weapons, would have a stranglehold on the American economy and on – indeed on the world economy.”

President Bush said January 10th, 2006,

“The American people…know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people.”

Not because of oil? Oh, right.

[Source for quotes above: Ted Koppel article, (former anchor for “Nightline” and current managing editor of the Discovery Channel), whose larger article suggests there is no reason to be coy about why the US is in Iraq, “It’s about the oil.”]

Liberal moonbats and a growing number of unpatriotic repugs believe the Bush Administration might just sort of call off this expensive misadventure at "freedom"; the US might either accept defeat and bravely admit mistakes were made, or fake some sort of glorious victory, whatever, but in any case - just leave.

However, the darker more probable reality is that BushCo has little reason to grant oversight of this strategic power, wealth and leverage to ordinary people in Iraq living above it all on the planet's surface. Very little reason.

That folks would be our job - to provide the political reason and to support the meaningful exploration and development of all energy alternatives reducing our fossil fuel dependency. It's not going to happen in the planning rooms at BushCo - being completely tied to oil.

Developing alternative energy sources might represent this country's best option diminishing terrorism. And it won't happen overnight or without commitment and cost.

Is it too bold to suggest this might represent an interesting major component for a political platform for Dems in 2008? Imagine if this country had spent the hundreds of billions of dollars we've spent on these initial "Oil Wars" differently - like on the development of infrastructure for alternative energy sources. Obviously, that dialogue, to be successful, would first require this country's public acknowledging the "why" we are in Iraq today. Maybe Bush was right and the American people would know "the difference" when they saw it?

And so it begins....

2006-02-23T13:29:00.000-06:00

And so it begins...
Shocked? No. Concerned? Yes.

South Dakota lawmakers have voted to outlaw nearly all abortions, setting up the first direct legal attack on Roe v. Wade by a state in 14 years.

Abortion rights advocates across the country reacted with outrage and dismay. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which runs the sole abortion clinic in South Dakota, said it was bracing to fight the move in court immediately, if the governor signs it.

"This represents a monumental step backward for personal privacy for [all] women," said Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America.

Some opponents of abortion rights celebrated what they called a bold and brave move and lauded South Dakota for taking the lead in what they said they hoped would become a series of states to challenge Roe, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal.

The shifting makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, the opponents said, offered a crucial opportunity, the first since at least 1992.

"It is a calculated risk, to be sure, but I believe it is a fight worth fighting," State Senator Brock Greenfield, a Republican who is also director of South Dakota Right to Life, told his colleagues in a hushed, packed chamber here.

After more than an hour of fierce and emotional debate, the senators Wednesday rejected exceptions for incest or rape or for the health of a mother and voted, 23-12, to outlaw all abortions, except those to save a mother's life.

They also rejected an effort to allow South Dakotans to decide the question in a referendum and an effort to prevent state tax dollars from financing what is certain to be a long and expensive court battle.[source]

So, if you live in South Dakota, and your a woman, you lawmakers will be making this decision for you. The only question is how soon will we be saying if you live in the U.S., your lawmakers will be making this decision for you?

I am certain anti-abortion proponents everywhere are cheering. They have no idea what the real underlying issue is here (well either that or they just don't care). This is NOT just about abortion. This is about the individual's right to privacy. The right of an individual to make his/her own health decisions.
Let me put it this way. What happens when the state of South Dakota decides that anyone needing life support no longer qualifies as a living human being and should be taken off life support and their organs passed on to those who need them? Or, lets say they decide that anyone ON life support is a living being and cannot be taken off such life support? Let's go one step further, what if they decide smoking/drinking/overeating/ect., is bad for your health and should be illegal. ANYWHERE. Even in your home? Oh, and don't forget they will have the right to have cameras in your home to make sure you're not breaking the law.
Think it can't happen? Wait and see.
This is but one step in the process. So many have already gone unnoticed.
I thought Republicans were all about LESS government in our private lives. Of course I also thought they were all about conservative spending. (In all fairness they do believe in cutting spending. On social/ entitlement programs.)

I'm kind of wondering how long it will be before I have to shut down this blog. After all I can't afford to be classified as a terrorist. [Bush Tags Bloggers As Potential Terrorist. There are other indications that the Bush administration deems bloggers well within the reach of any definition of terrorist, if for no other reason than the crime of dissent and criticism. There are also indicators that relevant parties would be somewhat prepared to assist in the nabbing of terrorist bloggers.]
Yeah, I know, that's not going to happen, this is America. Right?

2006-02-21T23:39:00.000-06:00

Stirring the Coals & Pressurizing Iran

Rice seeks $75 million "Emergency Funding"

(a guest post by - Scott)

***

The wasington post (feb 16th 2006) reported Rice's stated objectives, at the recent Senate Hearing, were in expanding radio and television broadcasts into Iran and promoting internal opposition to the rule of religious leaders. Apparently it's an emergency freedom thing and thus needing emergency funding.

"Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who has called for $100 million to promote democracy in Iran, applauded the initiative as the "absolutely right move at this point in time." ...Brownback said the administration had been "very methodical" in fighting terrorism. "The first step was Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now you're seeing an increasing focus on Iran."

Apparently practice makes perfect regarding the terrorism-freedom thing they have down pretty well now. However, in the article Martin S. Indyk, (Saban Center on Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution), said:

"The democratic forces the (Bush) administration wants to support have failed in the past to take on the clerics and have little basis of support -- and would be tainted by U.S. aid. "It's hard to see how $75 million makes a dent in that political reality."

That would very likely be because this particular $75 million little to do with terrorism or a US interest in Iranian freedom and democracy. It was, potentially, an expensive publicity stunt staged for the benefit of the american public and a confrontational gesture designed to escalate and rachet up tensions with Iran.

The Bush Administration's focus was challenged by Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) at the Senate Hearing who blamed the Bush administration for Hamas winning recent Palestinian legislative elections. He said:

"The whole year, 2005, nothing was done, opportunities missed, and now we have a very, very disastrous situation of a terrorist organization winning an election," Chafee asserted. Rice acknowledged the victory of Hamas is "a difficult moment" in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, but she said it was due to a backlash against the ruling party, not a failure of U.S. policy."

Meanwhile the washington post also reports U.S. and Iraqi authorities also reported discovering an apparent twenty-two (22)-man death squad/platoon/company operating within the ranks of the police force of Iraq's newly made free and democratcic country's Interior Ministry. Apparently, other Iraqi troops prevented the gang/clan/bevy (?) of Highway Patrol Officers (we all know what a clump of 22 police officers looks like anyway) from killing a Sunni Arab man the officers had arrested, an American military spokesman said Thursday. The article also reports,

"American military authorities have vowed to make 2006 "the year of the police," working more closely with the ministries' personnel and improving training standards."

It's a catchy concept phrase anyway. Though it begs the question - uh, so...what was it we were doing in 2005 with the hundreds of billions of US tax dollars spent or borrowed from our grandkids (that were not part of the $8.8 billion "lost") - if not working with the ministries' personnel and training?

***

In Turn...Iranian leader urges Muslims to fund Hamas Government

***

The Washington Post and The Associated Press reported today:

Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called on Muslim nations Monday to fund the new radical Islamic Palestinian government, defying efforts by Israel and Western donors to isolate the government led by Hamas, designated a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice headed to the Middle East with a warning to countries not to help Hamas, a political party which won a large parliamentary majority in democratic elections last month.

In case anyone might be confused about US policy regarding advancing and funding "democracy" in the Middle East: You're not alone but we might assume it has very little to do with the aspect of freedom and democracy.

Unanswered Questions....

2006-02-17T01:39:00.000-06:00

Unanswered Questions
and why so few dare to ask

A few weeks after Election Night 2002, Roxanne Jekot, a computer programmer who lives in Cumming, Ga., began fearing demons lingering in the state's voting machines. The midterm election had been a historic one: Georgia became the first state to use electronic touch-screen voting machines in every one of its precincts. The 51-year-old Jekot, who has a grandmotherly bearing but describes herself as a "typical computer geek," was initially excited about the new system. "I thought it was the coolest thing we could have done," she says.
But the election also brought sweeping victories for Republicans, including, most stunningly, one for Sonny Perdue, who defeated Roy Barnes, the incumbent Democrat, to become Georgia's first Republican governor in 135 years, while Rep. Saxby Chambliss upset Vietnam veteran Sen. Max Cleland. The convergence of these two developments — the introduction of new voting machines and the surprising GOP wins — began to eat away at Jekot. Like many of her fellow angry Democrats on the Internet discussion forums she frequented, she had a hard time believing the Republicans had won legitimately. Instead, Jekot began searching for her explanation in the source code used in the new voting machines.
What she found alarmed her. The machines were state-of-the-art products from an Ohio company called Diebold. But the computer code — which a friend of Jekot's had found on the Internet — was anything but flawless, Jekot says. It was amateurish and pocked with security problems.
"I expected sophistication and some fairly difficult to understand advanced coding," Jekot said one evening this fall at a restaurant near her home. But she saw "a hodgepodge of commands thrown all over the source code" — an indication, she said, that the programmers were careless. Along with technical commands, Diebold's engineers had written English comments documenting the various functions their software performed — and these comments "made my hair stand on end," Jekot said. The programmers would say things like "this doesn't work because that doesn't work and neither one of them work together." They seemed to know that their software was flawed.
To Jekot, there appeared to be method in the incompetence. Professional programmers could not be so sloppy; it had to be deliberate. "They specifically opened doors that need not be opened," Jekot said, suggesting the possibility that Diebold wanted to leave its voting machines open to fraud. And, ominously, the electronic voting systems used in Georgia, like most of the new machines installed in the United States since the 2000 election, do not produce a "paper trail" — every vote cast in the state's midterm election was recorded, tabulated, checked and stored by computers whose internal workings are owned by Diebold, a private corporation. Jekot was particularly alarmed — and outraged — to learn that company CEO Walden O'Dell is one of the GOP's biggest fundraisers in his home state of Ohio and nationally.
~~~~~~~

Jekot says: "since October 2005:
1. We paid the taxes on our home (of 12 years) through an escrow account maintained by the lender. Despite that, the State foreclosed on and sold the home, and forced us to move to the above rental
2. The license plates on our vehicles have been cancelled/suspended
3. My drivers license has been suspended
4. Our voter registration has been moved to inactive status

Do these people have no shame?? Why should they? They're in power, so, they don't have to have any shame.

Thanks to Gypsy for this information.

2006-02-15T07:27:00.000-06:00

Preemptive Attacks on Iran's Nuclear Facilities

Effect and Cause

The Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) was established in 1989 and strives to combat the spread of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). CNS has a full-time staff of more than 40 specialists and over 50 graduate student research assistants located in offices in Monterey, CA, Washington, DC, and Almaty, Kazakhstan and has built a larger worldwide community of nonproliferation experts, publishing both on-line and print resources and maintains comprehensive databases on WMD developments and nonproliferation regimes - on all aspects of WMD.

CNS has a research story, updated through: 20 January 2006, which is a chronology of key events related to the Implementation of IAEA Safeguards in Iran that was compiled at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies.

The concluding viewpoint of another CNS research story including details and footnotes on Iran WMD wraps like this:

"An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in Bushehr, Arak, and Natanz, could have various adverse effects on U.S. interests in the Middle East and the world. Most important, in the absence of evidence of an Iranian illegal nuclear program, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by the U.S. or Israel would be likely to strengthen Iran's international stature and reduce the threat of international sanctions against Iran. Such an event is more likely to emboldenand expand Iran's nuclear aspirations and capabilities in the long term."

Regardless of IAEA findings, the U.S. is advancing the specter of nuclear weapon proliferation as a pretext for intervention. It represents a deja vu strategy strikingly similar to the strategy invoked in the previous Bush WMD campaign ramp-up to the War on Iraq.

In an unrelated article 18 Jan 18, 2006 in the Energy Bulletin, "The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse", by Krassimir Petrov, Petrov writes on a little-recognized version of cause for the Iraq War - one with with an interesting twist - that may be still more import - as it relates to Iran:

"Two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi "Euro" accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished—he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and accordingly the American Empire."

Back ground: A similiar potentially significant topic related to currencies, in the making for several years, is that Iran intends to create an Iranian Oil Bourse. (The word "bourse" refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.) This portends that competition would arise between the Iranian Oil Bourse and London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), as well as the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX). Please note that both the IPE and NYMEX are owned by U.S. corporations.]

Petrov's article goes on to share:

"The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate “nuclear” weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam’s, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system."

The Bush administration could undertake a desperate military strategy to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions while simultaneously attempting to prevent the Iranian oil Bourse from initiating a euro-based system for oil trades. The later might require attacks or forced "regime change" and the U.S. occupation of Iran. The US public, of course, has no specific interest in protecting a dollar from a bourse, or any oil company interests related to aspects of control - it would no doubt instead needed to be ramped-up through a balanced media-fed diet of other food groups like Iranian "axis of evil", terrorist and nuclear threat. Maybe even bin Laden could be reported as discovered hiding in one or six different Iranian nuclear facilities ? ( and remember - you read it at Podunt Post first!)

***

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes... known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." - James Madison in Political Observations in the year 1795.

2006-02-14T09:51:00.000-06:00

Debating "The Déjà Vu War" on Iran?

Pat Buchanan: “Fine, we accept.”

(a guest post by - Scott)

Pat responded yesterday in "The American Conservative" on the challenge of debating a Deja Vu War with Iran. His sparring partners might be more interesting - this time around.

He writes: "In the run-up to war in Iraq, "The Weekly Standard" was the voice of the “cakewalk” crowd clamoring for “Action This Day!” Cawing and cawing, in the end they got, and we got, the war they had craved."

“No voice in America was more resolute that the war would be an historic blunder than ours. From our first issue in 2002 until the 3rd Division stepped off, we warned this was an unnecessary war. Though Saddam was a monster, we said, he was no threat to us. But a U.S. invasion would radicalize Islam, increase terror, and leave our troops mired down in a nation whose people would come to hate us. We scoffed at the utopian blather about democracy breaking out as propagandistic nonsense.

Enraged, National Review read us out of the movement. In a cover story, “Unpatriotic Conservatives,” NR charged three editors and four of our writers with harboring a treasonous desire for a U.S. defeat. Said NR, all seven of us “hate” President Bush and “hate” America. A year later, William F. Buckley Jr. conceded that, had he known what he later learned, he, too, would have opposed the war.”

“Conservatives must raise the ever-relevant question: Cui bono? Who would benefit from a U.S. war with Iran? Who is prodding us into it? Are they looking out for America first?”

“Conservatives will demand that Congress, this time, debate, and, if we are going to war, declare war. That would force us to focus on what the real threat is and whether we cannot find some accommodation with these people, as we did with Stalin, Mao, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev. We never fought Russia and we need not fight Iran, unless they start the fight.”

If interested, the full article is here: http://amconmag.com/2006/2006_02_13/buchanan.html

2006-02-11T22:14:00.000-06:00

The Truth Shall Set You Free
or not

"Michael Brown, head of the federal disaster agency at the time of Hurricane Katrina,charging that the White House knew New Orleans' protective levees had broken far earlier than it they acknowledged.
Testifying to a Senate committee yesterday, Mr Brown said that by the evening of Monday 29 August, his Fema agency had reported to superiors that catastrophic floodwaters were pouring into the city, that fires were breaking out and large numbers of people were stranded.
Mr Brown placed the bulk of the blame for the administration's botched response on a "dysfunctional" Department of Homeland Security. Its obsession with terrorism, he said, had reduced natural disaster relief to the status of "stepchild" of the DHS, set up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks."

Even as it was defending itself on that front, the White House came under unprecedented attack from a top former CIA official for its misuse of intelligence to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"Official intelligence was not relied upon in making even the most significant national security decisions," Mr Pillar writes in the new issue of the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs. "Intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made ... and the intelligence community's own work was politicized."

Further evidence that the administration had manipulated intelligence came in documents showing that Lewis Libby, Vice-President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, told prosecutors he had been "authorised by superiors" to leak classified intelligence to reporters in the early summer of 2003, as it became increasingly evident that contrary to White House claims, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.

In a separate embarrassment, former lobbyist Jack Abramoff has claimed that he met Mr Bush "almost a dozen times", and had even been invited in 2003 to the President's ranch in Texas for a thank-you meeting for campaign contributors.
In fact Mr Abramoff has emails he received from President Bush where the President clearly was familiar enough with Abramoff to make jokes and comments regarding his (Abramoff's) family members.[source]

Hypocrisy, Republican is thy name.
Will this be enough to free some of the diehard Bush people from their delusions? Only time will tell.

2006-02-10T16:21:00.000-06:00

Wiretapping Pays Off
the super-secret State of the Union Address

You REALLY have to watch this video. ;)

Maybe that warrentless wiretapping thing isn't so bad after all. How else could we have gotten this super-secret, for 'their' eyes and ears only video?

2006-02-09T09:31:00.000-06:00

Murtha

...Still Needing to be Point Man

(guest post by - Scott)

The second-highest ranking Republican in New York State government, Joseph Bruno, called on President Bush to pull the troops out of Iraq, warning that the American military is incapable of putting an end to the violence wracking the country. He said the bloodshed in Iraq was over religion and predicted it would continue for decades. "Bruno is running away from the president," said Henry Sheinkopf, a veteran political consultant in New York City. "He's got to save his majority."

Just a couple days before his flip regarding what to do about Iraq- on CBS's "60 Minutes" Jack Murtha predicted the "vast majority" of U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by year's end if not sooner.

Regarding Murtha’s more recent appearance on "60 Minutes", a conservative newspaper, with deep connections to wealthy conservative money, the Pittsburg Tribune-Review, in an editorial recently wrote/concluded (in an interesting 180-degree change of heart regarding Murtha in November 05… at the time Murtha changed the issue debate, on a natonal level, from "were we wrong to go into Iraq?" to "what do we do now?"), : “Jack Murtha predicted the "vast majority" of U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by year's end if not sooner. We hope he's right. The time has come.”

I say Murtha has influence. I also say he represents the kind of leadership point guy the left needs to rally around in a big way right now.

2006-02-07T09:38:00.000-06:00

Excited For Halliburton

Contract Award New Detention Centers in the US

(guest post by -Scott)

Halliburton, (Dick Cheney’s Halliburton with net profits of over $2 billion last year) , landed a still another big new government contract a couple weeks ago. These guys are hot!

I’m pretty excited about this one. The company’s press release says the contract has: “…a maximum total value of $385 million…”

While the contract was open to competitive bidding, the New York Times story reported, Halliburton’s subsidiary company, “KBR” was, again, the only bidder. That aspect, (there being no other bidders), seems to be a consistent fact of Halliburton’s awarded contracts lately – I wonder why? Have its business competition surrendered? (Somebody check this - please?)

Halliburton's subsidiary "KBR" would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space, company executives said. They would be located on unused military properties and could contain up to 5,000 people.

This represents contract infrastructure for constructing large detention centers on US soil - for essentially whatever purpose detention centers might be deemed necessary. Just some handy spare detention centers - nothing to get excited about.

Anyway, I am beside myself in celebration of another one-bidder government contract awarded Halliburton - especially a package like this. ~ Amazing frankly.

2006-02-06T15:08:00.000-06:00

The Path of [Self] Destruction

Cuba plans large anti-U.S. rally

Cartoon Protests turn deadly

Iran thumbs nose at 'resoloutions'

Deficit to hit $423 Billion

THIS folks is the REAL State of the Union.
The United States, and Americans are hated throughout the world in ways and at levels never seen before. It's moving closer and closer to our home shores everyday.
There's a war of religions being mounted and the religious right in this country is fast becoming the American Taliban.
Despite all the booming economy we're not just maintaining a record deficit, it's continuing to grow at record levels. While unemployment appears to be down that's actually misleading. The rise in employment levels is directly tied to the ongoing rebuilding of the Gulf Coast. These aren't permanent jobs.
Three quaters of our National Deficit is owned to China. China, people.
To put this in simple language. How long do you think your bank would let you operate with an overdrawn account?
Do I think George W. Bush is personally responsible for every thing that is wrong in this country? Of course not. But you know what? The buck has to stop somewhere. And in my opinion it stops at the Oval office. An office he occupies. That cocky, cowboy attitude that he brought into the White House and into Congress has infected the consciousness of not just this country but the world at large. Talk about your ~~Dumbfuck Mountains~~ Brokeback Mountains!

What is it going to take to wake up the sleeping, the apathetic, the silent majority?
How many have grown complacent with the status quo? How many people now believe that we're so screwed it's not worth the effort to put up a fight? How many believe their vote no longer counts?
How do we reach these sit-back-and-do-nothings?
For starters, we realize, and accept the fact that we face gargantuan odds. That we're not the biggest or best equipped 'army'. Then we resolve to go to war with the army we have and we fight. We get out there and we wage battle against those who have led us down this path of destruction.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have our work cut out for us. The hijackers have overtaken our country. They have weapons we don't. They have the controls, we don't. The odds are against us. But we can't let this ship go down without a fight.
So, we dig in, dig down, use whatever means is available to us, and we fight!
Let's Roll!!

2006-02-04T11:59:00.000-06:00

ROUND-UP OF SNIPPETS FROM
LAST WEEK'S FINANCIAL NEWS

~ with context, the news and a perspective ~

(a guest post by -Scott)

Debt & Deficits

The "US National Debt"

is the total amount of money owed by the US government to everybody

The "Federal Budget Deficit"

is the yearly amount that spending exceeds revenues.

If one adds up the federal budget deficits and subtract the federal budget surpluses during the past 200+ years one will solve for the amount of the the current US National Debt.

The US National Debt as of 04 Feb 2006 as I drank my morning coffee was:

$8,205,145,984,276.79 = ($8.2 trillion dollars)

***
Each and every US citizen's share (my share) of our borrowed National Debt is roughly $27,493

***

This year we are programmed to borrow about $390 billion more:

On to last week's news:

BUDGET CUTS:

The Republican-led House approved a $39 billion budget-cutting measure to slow the growth of benefit programs such as $11.9 billion in cuts to the student loan program, federal child support enforcement programming and for allowing states to reduce Medicaid coverage and charge increased fees for the beneficiaries for the Medicaid program understood to benefit the poor and disabled. A Congressional Budget Office study on the effects projected that much of the Medicaid savings would accrue because new co-payment requirements would drive tens of thousands of beneficiaries out of the program.

Robert Bixby, Executive Director of the Concord Coalition, a bi-partisan group advocating for a balanced federal budget, said lawmakers were "nibbling around the edges" of entitlement costs. "Spending has gone up dramatically in this administration and taxes have gone down dramatically," Bixby said. "My definition of fiscal responsibility is: Are you paying for the government that you want? And we're not."

TAX CUTS:

The Republican-led Senate passed $70 billion in tax cuts Thursday. The Republican led House version of the bill advances a top GOP priority, a two-year extension of the Bush administration's previous tax cut on investment income. Republicans expect the final version of the bill will extend tax cuts for capital gains (profits from sales of capital assets) and dividends (profits from owning stock) understood to benefit wealthier individuals and businesses.

MILITARY SPENDING:

The White House said it planned to ask Republican-led Congress for an additional $70 billion after Congress last approved $50 billion in December to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Roughly 80% will goes for Iraq which has so far cost an estimated $250 billion since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

*****

- Scott view: The "bottom line" numbers are this: A $128 billion federal budget SURPLUS program under the Clinton Administration in 2001, has been followed each year by Bush and a Republican controlled Congress, with a federal budget DEFICIT program of, for example, at least $337 but potentially more this year. That 5-year overall program swing represents a $465 billion program swing into the red (a bad thing). The "Pay as you Go Tax-and-Spend" program was allowed to expire. Bush and a Republican-led Congress have expanded government spending while adjusting spending and taxing according to their priorities. Meaning, "Pay as you go tax and spend" was replaced by an "Assess Differently then Borrow-and-Spend Significantly More than Tax" program.

***

On Monday Bush willpubliclyy renew a call for "spending restraint" in sending off his proposed fiscal 2007 budget to Congress. For anyone interested, the Concord Coalition has issued a briefing called Seven Signs of Fiscal Sense: What to Look for in the President's Budget. The Concord Coalition describes themselves as a nonpartisan grassroots organization dedicated to informing the public about the need for generationally responsible fiscal policy.

2006-01-31T22:43:00.000-06:00

The State of the Union
what is the status of freedom,morality, and hope in America

"We will lead freedom's advance..." President George W. Bush in his state of the Union address, January 31, 2006

Meanwhile outside the Senate chamber of the nation that will "lead freedom's advance", Peace Mom Arrested
" Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address."

Make no mistake, I don't agree with everything Mrs. Sheehan has said and done. But I believe to the core of my being in her RIGHT to voice her opinion. Even if that means wearing a t-shirt that bears an anti-war slogan.
Tell me again what her son (and thousands of others like him) died for? What's that you say? He died defending freedom? Am I wrong in assuming that 'freedom' includes being able to wear whatever you want to a State of the Union address. I guess she should have stayed nicely tucked away in one of those 'free speech zones' that were set up for protestors. Somehow I thought this entire country was a free speech zone.
So much for leading the advance of freedom. Maybe we need to start taking a little closer look at the status of freedom here at home.

"Defining moral commitments..."---Yes lets do define what 'moral' means to George W. Bush and republicans, as they try yet again to make men like Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, and Bob Ney, disappear into the woodwork.

"the U.S. can be a "hopeful society" Tell that to the families along the Gulf Coast as they struggle to rebuild their lives. To the Americans who lose their jobs as they look to rebuild their careers and our soldiers in Iraq as they try to rebuild a nation. Tell that to the Fourty-eight million Americans who have no health insurance and no access to decent, affordable health care. To the millions of Americans who go to bed at night wrapped up in layers of clothing because they can't afford heat. And the millions of elderly who have to choose between paying their utilities, buying their medications or eating.

By all means lets talk about moral commitments and being a hopeful society. Lets talk indeed.
Lets talk about change, and just how much we need a change of leadership in this country. That's MY State of the Union address!

Defining Moments

2006-01-29T15:19:00.000-06:00

Defining Moments
will you remember this day

There are certain moments in history that as they happen they're barely noticed. It isn't until many years later that their impact on our lives and the lives of those who will follow us are fully understood. I believe tomorrow will be one of those days.
The nomination of Samuel Alito will go to the Senate floor for a debate and then for an up or down vote. A few ragtag democrats will attempt to mount a filibuster, but they will be quickly overruled by the majority and Alito will be confirmed. There won't be much fanfare. The general public will hardly take notice. Yet this will be one of those defining moments.

"His background, record and silence on a number of questions speak volumes about his likely performance on the court," ( Thomas Mann, a Brookings Institution scholar.)
"I expect him to settle comfortably on the right of the court and write careful and intelligent decisions that support his longstanding ideological views and values," Mann said.[source]

This man holds within his hands the ability and I believe the will, to change not only the face of the Supreme Court but the way our country is governed.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., predicts that an effort to try to block a final vote on Alito would fail on Monday. [source]
To more effectively oppose Supreme Court nominees in the future, Democrats need to convince the public "their values are at stake" rather than use stalling tactics said Sen. Obama, who opposes Samuel Alito's confirmation.
Sen. Obama thinks Democrats need to do a better job of persuading the American people directly. As in winning elections. I agree.

Until we can come together, work together, and win back the majority in the Congress, moves like a filibuster are not much better than expecting an umbrella to protect you in a hurricane.
Somehow this reminds me of Rumsfield's comment," you go to war with the army you have". That's what this filibuster is. The Democrats are fighting with the army they have. Small as it is they are still fighting. In the face of certain defeat, they will still stand and be heard.
Some will call it politics. Others will call it grandstanding. Call it whatever you wish. The fact is tomorrow a small group of men and women will stand up and remind us all, just what this country is all about.
I for one will be proud of them. I'll be watching on C-SPAN. Because this is one of those moments I feel should not go unnoticed. If ever we become so complacent that we lie down in defeat before the battle is fought, then we have lost all that we stand for.
To those men and women who will stand and speak tomorrow, I say thank you. Thank you for reminding us that we are a country where the minority can still be heard. Thank you for reminding me that every voice counts. Even mine. And that every one of us has the ability to make a difference. We may not win, but we will NOT go quietly into that dark night.

2006-01-28T10:08:00.000-06:00

Score Cards
(guest post by -Scott)

" Staying the Course "

Results of Bush's War on Terrorism

2003 world incidents of terrorism: 1,898

2004 world incidents of terrorism: 2,640

2005 world incidents of terrorism: 4,483

( Covers both domestic and international incidents of terrorism. )

SOURCE: The National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism

*****

" Staying the Course "

Recent Results in Bush's Push

to a Democratic Middle East

Egypt: militant Muslin Brotherhood in Egypt wins significant gains in elections.

Lebanon: militant Hezbollah wins significant gains in elections.

Iran: a newly elected President of Iran: When recently responding to the question of what measures have you adopted to ward off threats by the US and Israel?

"A global front against oppression and hegemony is now taking shape and all noble nations, justice seeker, and thoughtful individuals are gradually putting hands in hand to shape up a vast front against the hegemonic system and mentality." - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 1/20/06.

Iraq: Shi'a majority backed by militia with close ties to Iran wins significant gains through elections.

Palestine: militant Hamas wins significant gains through elections

*****

2006-01-27T17:26:00.000-06:00

Some Gave All

Twenty years ago,(January 28,1986) space shuttle Challenger blew apart into jets of fire and plumes of smoke, a terrifying sight witnessed by the families of the seven astronauts and by those who came to watch the historic launch of the first teacher in space.

I recall with aching clarity exactly where I was on that cold January morning. Living in Fairbanks, Alaska, working as a school crossing guard. It was a cold clear morning, the temperature was in the negatives, my son Robby, who was only 2 at the time, lay asleep in the back seat of our station wagon (you know, the car families drove before mini vans took over). The car was running, so it would stay warm inside, I listened to the radio as I waited for each group of kids to come along. I remember the countdown, although to be honest I wasn't really paying that much attention. It wasn't a big deal in the overall scheme of my life.
I remember the chill that ran down my spine when the announcer said, "Oh dear God!". Then there was this long minute of silence, when he spoke again there was a tremble in his voice. It was clear he was having a hard time maintaining his composure. It was heartbreaking. I had to get out to help a few late stragglers cross, I remember feeling weak, shaking. Their bright, happy little faces had no idea the tragedy that had just befallen our nation. Our world.
As I look back I realize it wasn't the event itself that shook me so much as it was the feeling of being an unseeing witness to death. One moment they were there, bright, shining with hope, and excitement, the symbol of exploration and adventure. The next they were gone.

"It was one of those defining moments in your life that you will always remember," said U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who had flown on the shuttle mission preceding Challenger. "Because in 1986, the space shuttle was the symbol of technological prowess of the United States and all the sudden it's destroyed in front of everybody's eyes."

On board that morning was the first civilian in space. How appropriate that it should be a school teacher. A builder and shaper of young minds. Christa McAuliffe joined flight commander Dick Scobee, pilot Mike Smith and astronauts Ellison Onizuka, Judy Resnik, Ron McNair and Greg Jarvis.

Today I take my hat off to the crew of the Challenger, to all those who have gone before them and who have come after. It is through their sacrifice that we may one day see human life expand from our little planet into the universe and beyond. They too served their country. They too gave their all.

2006-01-25T16:11:00.000-06:00

State of the Union
reality-v-spin

Soon the President will deliver his annual 'State of the Union' address. As gut wrenchingly boring as it will be we all need to take the time to watch and listen. As he stands before us, a nation he has sworn to serve with dignity and honor, he will tell us all is well here in the land of Oz. The economy is booming, we're on the verge of seeing his tax cuts becoming permanent, the Patriot Act needs to be made permanent, and Alito needs to be confirmed. The war he will tell us is moving right along. Iraq is well on her way to becoming an independent country, a thriving democracy.
When you hear these things said to you by your Commander in Chief,(one only need watch him to understand why the acronym COC is SO appropriate here) a man YOU may well have voted for, not once but TWICE. Try remembering a few things.
Our nation now has the highest national debt it has EVER known. EVER. Our children won't have to worry about it. Nope it will our grandchildren who are left to deal with this monumental debt. Yes, there will be those who will tell you it's no big deal. Just ask yourself if it's no big deal why can't we get it paid down? If the economy is booming then why are we seeing Ford Motor Company announcing they will be laying off 30,000 employees over the next few months?
Ask yourself is the Patriot Act really vital to our security or is it just another means of chipping away at the Constitution? Placing more and more power in the executive branch of the government. That's the President by the way. If your a Republican ask yourself if you really want to entrust that kind of power to the next President. Who by the way, just might be another Clinton.
About those tax cuts. Have YOU benefited from them? Do you personally know anyone who has? Or are you and your family still struggling just to make ends meet?
Now, lets talk about Iraq. Lets start with this exert from a story by CNN reporter Michael Holmes.
"It was January 27, 2004, my third "tour" of Iraq. I'm now nearing the end of my fifth, and the sad reality -- for me, at least -- is this place seems less secure each time I've come. More necessary security, more danger, a greater likelihood you could get killed doing your job.

I've had my share of risky assignments, from Afghanistan to Gaza and the West Bank, Rwanda to Romania during the 1989 revolution. None come close to the daily feeling here that anything could happen to you, at any time."

Now add this,
"Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.
Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. "You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue,"[source]

Do they look like THEY believe this administrations claim that all is getting better? Do YOU?
The next time someone mentions supporting the troops, remember that report by a Mr Krepinevich.
While your at it, remember that now on an almost daily basis we are seeing the ongoing saga with Iran. Condlazza Rice is traisping her way around Europe and the Middle East talking tough talk about what "Iran has to do...". I can't help but wonder just what Ms Rice is going to be doing when Iran tells her she can take her ultimatum and stick it where the sun don't shine? Will she strap on military garb and put her butt on the front lines? Will Bush, or Rumsfield, or Cheney, or Rove? Will THEIR children? No. No, they'll expect you and me to send OUR children, and grandchildren. Just like they expect our children and grandchildren to shoulder the responsibility for country so deep in depth, we owe our souls to China.

This man who stands before you, who told you he was going to be a "uniter" not a divider. He was going to bring honor and dignity to the White House, and he is standing there lying to you. Oh they won't call it lies. No, it's perceptions. It's spin. Of course when Clinton lied about Lewinski that was perception and spin too. Did YOU give HIM a break? Did his lie cost anyone other than himself a single thing?
Speaking of honor and dignity, take a look at the scandal involving numerous Senators and Congressmen. Ask Jack Abramoff if he was greasing the palms of republicans AND democrats? Why would he? Democrats had no power to do him any good. Again, just try reality. Take a look at Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay and Bob Ney.
It's time for a good old fashioned house cleaning in the halls of Congress. A good many people need to be sent home and maybe to the penalty box (jail). This is an election year. If your state has Senators and Congressmen up for election, take the time to take a long hard look at them. Are they REALLY serving YOUR best interest? Or their own? If all politicians are corrupt then it's time we put a stop to it. Kick them out of office, and keep kicking them out, until they get the message.

"IF" you live in Alabama and you are even thinking of voting for Roy Moore, please let me know because we need to have a very long talk about voting responsibly. Bob Riley is an excellent governor (yes I KNOW he's republican). To even consider replacing him with Roy Moore is sheer idiocy. Seriously. Sorry if that offends you, but this is OUR state we're talking about here.

2006-01-24T13:48:00.000-06:00

Roe-v-Wade
just who's choice is it?

As we mark the anniversary of Roe-v-Wade this week, we are facing the real possibility that this may be the last year this landmark ruling will stand.
The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe vs. Wade on Jan. 22, 1973, and abortion has been legal in the United States ever since. But efforts to restrict or outlaw the procedure have been just as enduring. Many are convinced the appointment of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court all but insures this controversial decision will be overturned.

This is such a difficult topic, and not just for me. People feel passionately about abortion. As they should. As for me, I'm strongly anti-abortion, but equally strong in my pro-choice stance. Abortion is bad, and the ideal number of abortions is zero. By conceding that, we don't end the debate, we narrow it. Once we agree that the goal is fewer abortions, the only thing left to debate is how to get there. As a politician might put it: "My opponent and I are both pro-life. We want to avoid as many abortions as we can. The difference is, I trust women to work with me toward that objective, and he doesn't."[source unknown]

What bothers me most about this issue is the hypocracy on both sides.
Anti-abortionist will tell you it's all about the 'sanctity of human life'. Yet they have no problem handing out death sentences or sending men and women into war, to die for the 'cause' de jour. Nor do they exhibit much concern for that life they've deemed most valuable once it's taken it's first breath. In other words they're all for forcing that drug addicted, homeless woman (or any woman for that matter) to have a baby she neither wants, nor can afford, but it's not their problem what happens to that 'precious life' once it's a living breathing human being. By large they abhor welfare (entitlement) programs and the idea of a national insurance program is equally abhorent to them. Which leads me to believe it isn't so much about the sanctity of life as it is about punishing women for having sex. Any woman. Because even married women who have sex and get pregnant (even if they were using protection and it failed) should be forced to carry every pregnancy to term. No matter if it destroys her mentally or emotionally. She should have thought of that BEFORE she lay down and gave her body away.
Then you have the pro-choice crowd. They will tell you every woman should have the right to make this most personal decision herself. This is the most personal of all personal decisions. Those same people will turn right around and sit idly by while a man decides to end the life of his comatose wife. Even as her parents and family beg him to simply turn her welfare over to them and allow them to care for her. They're devoutly anti-death penalty, which is punishment for having committed a crime, but have no problem with ending the life of a fetus even in the last tri-mister of pregnancy.

Our planet is overpopulated. The population keeps growing. Overpopulation is one of the biggest threats to this planet and will be the issue of the 21st century. The number 1 environmental issue facing mankind is overpopulation. But, will unlimited access to abortion help to resolve that issue? Maybe not. Look at China. A country where abortion is not only legal but state sanctioned and still they have the largest population in the world.[source]
There are people who believe abortion is murder. I'm not one of them. One can hardly argue that we are at least killing something when we abort. However, as a society, we make choices of life and death all the time. For example, we let people in Africa starve to death. Is that murder? I think it's comes closer to murder than abortion.
There are those who say their faith tells them abortion is immoral. Okay, fine. That's your opinion. Your entitled to your OPINION. You are NOT entitled to force that opinion on ME or any other woman.

The bottom line seems to be not the morality of abortion, not the sancitity of life, but WHO gets to make the decision about that life and the life of the woman in who's body that life resides. Anti-abortionist say they, and the government should get to make that decision. Pro-choicers say only the woman and her doctor should have any say in that choice. Regardless of her age, or her reason(s).

I purpose the following, the next time you are confronted with this issue ask yourself the following.
If you are against abortion, are YOU willing to take that woman into your home, support her, provide for her medical care. Once the child is born will YOU take it, raise it, insure it's health care, it's education, meeting all it's needs until it reaches the age of 18? If not, then shut the hell up and mind your own business.
If your pro-choice and you want this woman to decide what's best for her, ask your self, how did she get to this point? Could she have done more to prevent this unwanted pregnancy? Is this her first abortion? Is she using abortion as a means of avoiding responsibility for her own careless actions? If she's further along that 8 weeks ask yourself why did she wait so long to face up to the situation and make a decision? Has she even considered the possibility of adoption? Does she understand what an abortion is? What really happens when that life is sucked from her body?
Because these are questions that need to be answered. We should never become complacent about an act of such significance.

2006-01-23T11:12:00.000-06:00

Crude Quagmire in Freedom & Religion
(guest contributor -Scott)

After eliminating the weapons of mass destruction threat the US purpose and policy doctrine adjusted. It says that the US would have gone in anyway to “liberate” the Iraqi people into freedom and democracy – in general - even if Iraq’s primary export was anchovies rather than serving as second largest proven oil reserve in the world.

The only ones looking beyond that present asserted doctrine of truth is a tiny clump of conspiracy theorists, some partisan lunatics, a handful of un-Americans and a few misguided terrorist enablers. These misfits would ask if oil might not have had anything to do with it. They would question the noble purpose of giving the gift of freedom and democracy to the Iranian masses – an unconscionable insult that none should introduce into any dialogue of respectable truths.

(For this posting I would ask readers please put aside existing bias stemming from understandings that prior to elected Bush and his father were both chief executives of their own oil companies. The Royal Family of Saudi Arabia directed at least $1.4 billion in investments and contracts to companies in which the Bush’s and their associates held prominent positions. Vice President Dick Cheney is former CEO of Halliburton, the US’s largest oil-services company, and Condoleezza Rice is a former director of Chevron Texaco and an oil supertanker is named after her. All that - off the table please.)

Nevertheless, inherent in the “gift of freedom reasoning” is a fundamental problem at the core of our military quagmire; its the small issue of creating a free democratic Iraq with a Shi’a majority. Iraq’s Shi’a majority has close ties with Iran which is 90% Shi’a. Iran would, of course, also be an “axis of evil” for about 3 years and inextricably connected to Iraq by many substantive mutual interests and geographic adjacency.

Iran controls 10% of the proven world oil reserves from which it currently produces 30% of the world’s needed oil as OPEC’s second largest producer. (note: it holds the world’s second-largest reserve of natural gas too.) Analysts have suggested Iranian oil production has been considered untouchable by economic sanctions – too many depend upon it. Analysts estimate gasoline prices in the US would double and 1 million jobs would be lost if Iran halted oil production. Nevertheless sanctions were proposed to the United Nations (UN) in the past couple of weeks by Bush’s Cheney and Britain’s Blair, (re-establishing Iran as still being an evil empire axis.)

For “three birds with one stone” contextual background: only six (6) world nations reported revenues in 2003 higher than US-based ExxonMobile - who also earned the world’s highest profits. (There were 185 nations reporting lower annual revenues than Exxon.) The next-highest oil revenue giants were British-based “Shell” and “British Petroleum”(BP). Oil companies have economic interests impacted by UN policy. Those economic interests would be larger than most member nation interests. Oil companies don’t (yet) hold seats or vote at the UN - but they have politicians who do.

Iraq also shares borders with Saudi Arabia, which holds 25-30% of proven world oil reserves and world leading oil exporter. Saudi Arabia’s Shi’a minority are appallingly repressed by a US-backed Royal Family, (described as a fundamentalist tyranny), connected to the Bush Family (and associates) through private investment. If freedom for Iraq’s Shi’a majority was “genuine” the political effects will reach across its border into the concentration of Shi’a in eastern Saudi Arabia. It is difficult to imagine Bush, (of all people), acting to destabilize the Saudi Family rule, i.e., spreading the gift of democracy and freedom there.

The US may maintain major concentrations of forces in the Middle East for a very long time. So long as the US has substantive forces in Iraq, its interests, (which include oil interests), will retain control of access and flow of oil. Regarding the sideshows: as long as our fledgling democracy needs protection from both an insurgency and our “axis of evil” next door in Iran, (see: threat of suspected WMD), and while Al Qaeda runs about uncaught threatening…it seems reasonable, if not sort of certain, we’d continue beholden to camp out in that quagmire. In this is a suggestion that if this nation’s Truth were instead a framework focused on solving oil-related challenges - those paying costs of this war may be motivated to consider other solution sets – no?

2006-01-23T01:28:00.000-06:00

EXTRA! EXTRA!
read all about...

Here at The Podunt Post we are going to try something new over the next few weeks. Hopefully it will work out well and become permanent.

I firmly believe now is the time for using the immense talent, excellent thinking and writing skills that are abound in the blogosphere. This election year is an opportunity for "we" the people to step up, take a stand and fight like hell to get as many democrats back into the halls of Congress as we can.

This includes the commenters who do not have a blog. People like Scott for example. Scott is a frequent commenter here at the Post, and I have invited him to join me as a regular contributor to this blog. I believe Scott has a great mind and a plethora of ideas to share with us.

It is my hope that between the two of us we can keep the good work going and address as many of the relevant issues as possible. I also hope that in some small way we may inspire others to join the fight.
Scott, welcome aboard.

2006-01-21T09:45:00.000-06:00

My Lai Massacre
least we forget, not all who serve, serve with honor

Wanda,
Recently, the second of three of our greatest war heroes passed away.

The three were helicopter crew involved in war efforts of the villages of central Vietnam known collectively as My Lai that have been stamped by history as places of horrific acts of war. Many women and children , the estimates are 300 to 500, were slaughtered by American G.I.s on March 16, 1968.

As a "search and destroy" mission unfolded it soon degenerated into the massacre of apparently unarmed civilians including women, children, and the elderly. Charlie Company, a unit of the US Eleventh Light Infantry Brigade, was ordered into combat by Captain Ernest Medina. The average age of soldiers in Charlie Company was twenty years old. The 150 soldiers, led by Lt. William Calley, stormed into the hamlet, and four hours later many civilians -- unarmed women, children, and old men -- were dead. Charlie Company had not encountered a single enemy soldier, and only three weapons were confiscated. The only American casualty was a soldier who shot himself in the foot.

Charlie Company met no resistance; there were no Viet Cong soldiers at My Lai. Calley then ordered the slaughter of the civilians. People were rounded up into ditches and machine-gunned. They lay five feet deep in the ditches; any survivors trying to escape were immediately shot. When Calley spotted a baby crawling away from a ditch, he grabbed her, threw her back into the ditch, and opened fire. Some of the dead were mutilated by having "C Company" carved into their chests; some were disemboweled. One GI would later say, "You didn't have to look for people to kill, they were just there. I cut their throats, cut off their hands, cut out their tongues, scalped them. I did it. A lot of people were doing it and I just followed. I just lost all sense of direction."

Flying high above the slaughter was helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson, our hero.

Sickened by what he was witnessing, Thompson set down his aircraft and began to rescue the Vietnamese survivors. He ordered his machine gunner to open fire on any American soldiers who continued to shoot villagers. In one ditch, Thompson pulled out a three-year-old child, almost smothered in blood, but not injured. After he radioed for help from other helicopters, an enraged Thompson reported to his section leader and in graphic detail told of what he had seen. Soon afterward, Charlie Company was ordered to stop killing civilians.

Cover up of the massacre began immediately. Reports on the My Lai operation stated that it was a stunning combat victory against a Viet Cong stronghold. Stars and Stripes, the army newspaper, ran a feature story applauding the courage of the American soldiers who had risked their lives. Even General William Westmoreland sent a personal congratulatory note to Charlie Company. An initial investigation into My Lai was swift and definitive: My Lai was a combat operation in which twenty civilians had accidentally been killed.

Two separate investigations uncovered the horror of My Lai. The soldiers of Charlie Company were extensively interviewed. An army photographer, who had been at My Lai, produced pictures of the carnage. In addition, it was learned that hundreds of civilians had also been killed by other army units, at My Khe and Co Luy. Details of the investigations were leaked to the press, and an interview with William Calley, by freelance reporter Seymour Hersch, put My Lai on the front pages of American newspapers.

Eighty soldiers were initially under investigation for the My Lai massacre. Twenty-five officers and enlisted men, including Lt. Calley and his superior officer Capt. Medina, were eventually charged with crimes. Only six cases were ever tried. In some cases, the evidence was overwhelming; some of the defendants admitted killing the civilians. But only one soldier, William Calley, was found guilty of murder. Calley's life sentence was subsequently reduced to twenty years, then reduced again to ten years. In 1974 he was paroled after serving three years under house arrest.

However, all that seems to have been forgotten.

I believe a small acknowledgement to the three-man crew of the helicopter that intervened - would be a good post as a memorial and tribute of the death of the second crew-member.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre

Hugh Thompson, Jr. - Warrant Officer (recently passed away on January 6th 2006)
Lawrence Colburn - Helicopter Gunner
Glenn Andreotta - Helicopter Crew Chief (died 1968)
Just an idea.

Thanks

- Scott
__________

In these arduous times the one universal message we hear is 'support the troops'. Often in our zeal to show support we forget that those troops are human beings. Human beings subject to the same feelings and emotions as the rest of us. People capable of great acts of heroism or great acts of folly. Much depends on their leaders, and much depends on the morals and values of the people from which they come.
I wish I could say I can't imagine my own sons evesuccumbingng to the 'peer pressure' that would lead any one of them to participate in such an atrocity as occurred at My Lai, but I can't. I've seen what can happen to people, especially young people, when they are caught up in the heat and the passion of rightous indignation. Lives can be forever altered. Even destroyed. Even the best of men can be led down the path to ineqity. The strength must lie with those who lead.
The leaders of men failed that miserable day in March of 1968. Our country failed to recognize and punish the horrors that were perpetrated by our own countrymen.

You might think we learned a lesson that day. Clearly we have not.
Any person who steps over that line, be he/she a soldier, Marine, or whatever branch of military they represent, should be held accountable. From the lowest ranking soldier all the way to the TOP.
The next time someone talks to you of innocent lives being taken by terrorist, remember that day in March and remember, at one time "WE" were the terrorist.

2006-01-19T00:31:00.000-06:00

Strange Bedfellows
there is a place where the right meets the left

For the past few weeks FOX News's Bill O'Reilly has been on a crusade to force the state of Vermont to deal with what he calls a "outrage". I have to say, I hope he succeeds.
Earlier this month Judge Edward Cashman sentenced 34-year-old Mark Hulett to 60 days in prison for raping a six-year old girl over a four year period. Hulett is set to get out March 4th. It was only recently discovered that Hulett's best friend is also accused of abusing the little girl. 33-year old Derek Kimball has been charged with sexual assault. No trial date has been set. So, not only did Hulett rape the girl himself, but it appears he set up another man to do the same thing. And Hulett gets 60 days.
SIXTY DAYS? You have to be kidding me.

While he (O'Reilly) says this is not a liberal versus conservative issue he points out that Vermont House Speaker Gaye Symington, is a democrat. In all fairness he did also mention that the judge himself is a registered republican and the governor of Vermont, Jim Douglas, is also a republican. As is Judge Amy Davidson, who is Cashman's superior and whom has the power to remove Cashman from criminal cases and place him in civil court. Which would certainly be appropriate considering Judge Cashman said he no longer believes in punishment as a solution to this type of crime.
There aren't a lot issues on which I would agree with O'Reilly*, but this is most definitely one of them. The idea that a man could rape and molest a child for four years and walk out of jail in 60 days stuns and disgusts me. What human being could ever believe such a sentence is 'justice'?
Like O'Reilly (dear God did I really just write that) I am sick and tired of child abusers, child molesters, and child rapist getting away with their crimes and being allowed right back out on the streets to further pursue potential victims. Frankly I don't give a damn about them being 'treated'. I want them locked up. For a long time.
I sincerely hope that O'Reilly is successful in his quest. But I have my doubts. I guess this is one of those good news/bad news scenario's. The good news is O'Reilly has dug his heels in an doesn't appear to be giving up anytime soon. The bad news is the state of Vermont doesn't seem to give a damn what O'Reilly thinks. The superior Judge in the case has taken no action to remove Cashman. The Vermont legislature has taken no action to impeach Cashman, and while the Governor has asked for Cashman to resign, he's taken no action to expedite that request. Depending on your point of view this could also be good news. At least for those who don't like O'Reilly. The sad fact is while this may be a prime example of the total lack of power that O'Reilly wields, it's also a horrible miscarriage of justice.
Like O'Reilly I believe every state should adopt and enforce Jessica's Law . We as a people and a nation must act to protect our young, and to insure that those who abuse them are punished to the full extent of the law.
_____________

Editors note: I share Mr. O'Reilly's view on border control and on the ongoing contraversy over the spying authorized by the President and carried out by the NSA.
To quote Mr. Selfaggrandizing himself, "many Americans [also] want the president to obey the law. And the fact is the Bush administration could have had their cake, their taps, and listen, too, if they had applied for warrants within 72 hours after the surveillance. So I'm kind of glad the ACLU has filed a lawsuit because I think that the country should have this debate."

2006-01-17T00:00:00.000-06:00

Freedom or Security
"Most people want security in this world, not liberty" H.L. Mencken, Minority Report, 1956

"This is no time for men who oppose [this administrations*] Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of a republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves, as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world, but we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
The actions of the [current administration*] junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He (they*)didn't create this situation of fear; he (they*) merely exploited it — and rather successfully. Cassius was right. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves."
Good night, and good luck." Edward R. Murrow (March 9, 1954)
*******

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same. Al Gore 2006**

We on this continent should never forget that men first crossed the Atlantic not to find soil for their ploughs but to secure liberty for their souls. ~Robert J. McCracken

Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves. ~Author Unknown

Liberty has never come from the government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance. ~Woodrow Wilson

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin,

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. ~James Madison, speech, Virginia Convention, 1788

We have enjoyed so much freedom for so long that we are perhaps in danger of forgetting how much blood it cost to establish the Bill of Rights. ~Felix Frankfurter

Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks. Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools. And their grandchildren are once more slaves. ~D.H. Lawrence, Classical American Literature, 1922
******

This is not the first time our nation has faced the threat of those "who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety,..."
There have always been men who would use whatever threats (fabricated or real) they could capitalize on in order to garner their own power. Few have been so bold and arrogant as this administration and the leaders of the current Republican Party. Their insatiable appetite for power continues to exhibit itself at every turn. If ever there was a time we needed a hero (or heroes) it is now. The spirits of our forefathers cry out for men and women who will step up and defend that they fought so valiently for. It is imparitive that we remember "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
Al Gore's speech today at the Constitution Hall in Washington D. C., was I believe a call to arms for those who will take up the cause and stand and fight. I implore all who have a love for freedom, liberty and domcracy to join this fight. We must use whatever means available to us. Even if your only weapon is a blog and your amunition only words on a page. It is up to "WE" the people to answer this call.

Freedom is that moment between when someone tells you what to do or what to think, and when you decide how to respond.
____________

* [my words]
** Thanks to Andante for this quote. You can find a link on her site for the speech in it's entirity.

2006-01-15T00:00:00.000-06:00

A Series of Unfortunate Events
or an intelligence community mired in mishaps and failure

Late Friday evening the media started broadcasting that Al-Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, had been killed in an CIA-operated attack upon the village of Damadola in the Bajaur area in northwest Pakistan.
I woke up this morning to find Airstrike misses Al-Qaeda chief.
"Four Hellfire missiles at a mud-walled compound. Three houses were razed to the ground and 22 people died."
As the dead were buried yesterday amid angry scenes, villagers confirmed that their Eid guests had included four men who had come from Afghanistan. But they insisted that the four were not high-level Al-Qaeda officials as claimed. "We live on the border and all have friends and relatives on both sides," said one villager.

"US officials said the raid was based on "good reporting" of ZawahiriÂ's presence in the village at a dinner celebrating the Muslim Eid holiday."

Wasn't it just a little over a week ago that this US air strike hits Iraqi family, occurred?
" US military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Barry Johnson said the men, who ran into the house after digging a hole, were assessedd as a threat to civilians and military forces. But he did not confirm the number of casualties or whether a roadside bomb has been found. "

"Local police chief Colonel Sufyan Mustafa said he believed there were no anti-US insurgents present in the house.

"Even if there had been, why didn't they surround the area and detain the terrorists instead?"

It seems to me this war has been nothing if not a series of unfortunate events.
Events apparently precipitatedd by faulty intelligence.

"We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and intends to use them..."
"We know Saddam is seeking to acquire yellow cake uranium..."
"The insurgency is in it's last throes..."

I understand that in war there is collateral damage (unintentional harm to persons or property as the result of military action), but frankly I'm starting to wonder, what the devil is up with our intelligence community? Are the people we're relying on to provide the intelligence to win this 'war on terrorism', with us, or against us? Because they're really starting to make us (primarily our troops) look like a bunch of careless, clueless, idiots.
Is this steady stream of bumbling mishaps a symptom that the intelligence community needs a massive overhaul? Wait, wasn't that supposed to have ALREADY been done? Weren't there medals given out to the leaders of this community for their 'great work'?
I'm a firm believer in the theory that an army is only as good as it's leader. No matter how you slice it (or spin it) we all know where the buck stops. Surely even the 'right' understands if we're going to win this 'war' we've got to start getting it right. A lot more often.

Until they do, how do we know we can take these claims seriously?
Iran's Leader Shrugs Off Sanctions Threat
Iran's Leader threatens retaliation if the US and EU continue to try to block nuclear programe

Can we really contemplate yet another war based on what might well be even more faulty intelligence?

******

By the way, just in case anyone should think "I" don't notice when someone on the left makes an ass ofthemselvesf (a la Pat Roberston style). I think Harry Belafonte (Belafonte Says Bush Is 'Greatest Terrorist in the World,) should be locked in a room with Pat Robertson and let them have at each other. This just goes to show both sides have their idiots suffering from hoof-IN-mouth disease.

2006-01-11T17:43:00.000-06:00

Breaking News
things you should be paying attention to

Pitt and Jolie: Beautiful Baby?

Extra, Extra, stop the presses! Brangelina are having a baby!
What we've all suspected and speculated endlessly about is true. The beautiful people are reproducing. It's time to celebrate.

Generating a less 'spectacular' amount of attention is Alito Turns Aside Democrats' Criticism .

If you counted the hits each story received, Brad and Angelina would almost double Alito's.
Of course those of us who are active in the political blogosphere are aware of what's going on. Individually and collectively we're jumping up and down, screaming at the apathetic masses, "Hello! Pay attention here! THIS is important!" A hell of a lot more important than the fact that two of the rich and famous are procreating.

Brad and Ange, don't WANT our attention. Not surprisingly neither does Alito. Nor do the Republicans. They're perfectly happy that the majority of Americans are more interested in lifestyles of the rich and famous than in the confirmation hearings of a man who presence on the Supreme Court will impact not only us, but our children and our children's children.
When Alito says "If I'm confirmed I'll be myself." , they KNOW damned well what he means. So do those of us paying attention.
"WE" know that means Alto will continue to be anti-choice, pro-discrimination (supported by his membership in a controversial Princeton alumni group that opposed admission practices that resulted in rising numbers of women and minority students at the Ivy League school) and pro-big business (ie: rulings in cases involving a black man accused of murder, a retarded man who had been sexually molested and an injury at a coal worksite, you know like the one in West Virginia. Where in each case, Alito had made rulings that favored the powerful at the expense of the powerless. I wonder if the families of those 12 dead men are paying attention to this man whose history shows, would most likely rule against them should they choose to pursue legal action against the careless and irresponsible owners of the coal mine in which their loved ones died?).
There is increasing evidence that Judge Alito has a skewed view of the allocation of power among the three branches - skewed in favor of presidential power. In the memo, which he wrote as a lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department, Judge Alito argued that the attorney general should be immune from lawsuits when he illegally wiretaps. Judge Alito makes another bald proposal for grabbing power for the president. He said that when the president signed bills into law, he should make a "signing statement" (such as he did just recently with the new law crafted banning torture) about what the law means. By doing so, Judge Alito hoped the president could shift courts' focus away from "legislative intent" - a well-established part of interpreting the meaning of a statute - toward what he called "the President's intent."
One issue that should loom largely in these hearings is the balance between presidential authority in wartime and the liberties the Constitution gives American citizens. This administration seems to believe that the president's authority, in wartime, is absolute. Apparently Alito agrees.
We are living with an executive branch on the verge of being out of control. The hubris of this administration must have our forefathers literally trying to claw their way out of their graves. Putting Alito on the bench will all but assure Bush and company they rule, imperially.
Unfortunately the majority of Americans won't bother to notice, (or care) until sometime late in October of 2008 when some [trumped up, pre-planned] terror attack occurs and the President declares a state of emergency, then declares martial law and postpones (indefinitely) national elections. He will of course be backed up by a Republician controlled Congress and the Supreme Court.
By then Brad and Ange may be on child number two, living happily in ANOTHER country (most likely France), and for the rest of us poor saps it will be too late.
I suppose we can always hope one of those countries we've so graciously spread democracy to, will step forward and come to our rescue. But, I doubt it. I suspect they'll all be sitting around their dinner tables laughing their asses off at the country that literally let freedom slip right past them.
Good night and good luck America. We're going to need it.

2006-01-09T22:35:00.000-06:00

New California?
forget Canada I'm moving to New California!

A few days ago I received the following email. Most of you have probably already seen it, but I just had to share it with you anyway. It's just chock full of facts and good ideas. Twould only that it could be so.

Dear Red States:

We're ticked off at the way you've treated California (all the blue states for that matter*), and we've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us.

In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

To sum up briefly:
You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states.
We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

We get Elliot Spitzer. You get Ken Lay.

We get the Statue of Liberty. You get OpryLand.

We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.

We get Harvard. You get Ole' Miss.

We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs.

You get Alabama.

We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition's, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and antiwar, and we're going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals.

They have kids they're apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don't care if you don't show pictures of their children's caskets coming home We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we're not willing to spend our resources in Bush's Quagmire.

With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country's fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 95 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all

living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Caltech and MIT.

With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

We get Seattle, Hawaii and Yosemite, thank you.

Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we're discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals than we lefties.

By the way, we're taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.

Sincerely,

the happy citizens of New California.

Oh yeah, I am so moving to Washington state. I have some good friends on Whidbey Island (although one of them is a republican, I might be able to convert her) maybe they will put me up.
I just have one question. All that good pot we're taking. Is that going to be legal for personal use?

2006-01-05T18:24:00.000-06:00

Line of the Week
and the winner is...

LETTERMAN: I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap, but I don't know that for a fact.

O'REILLY: Sixty?

Apparently even O'Reilly was shocked that it was only 60%.
You can read the full exchange here...The Culture War Plays Out on 'Letterman'

I've never been a big fan of Letterman's, but I have to say, after this exchange with O'Reilly I may have to start watching him a little more often.

2006-01-03T14:58:00.000-06:00

Let's Make a Deal
Will it be door number one, two, or three?

Abramoff Cops a Plea

"Lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty Tuesday to federal charges of conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud, clearing the way for him to cooperate in a massive government investigation of influence peddling involving members of Congress."

You know there are people all over D.C. scurrying to find a way to cover their collective asses. The excrement is about to hit the fan and a whole bunch of folks are going to get splattered. Some are estimating anywhere from twenty to sixty people could be impacted. Including (dare I say 'hopefully') none other than 'the hammer' himself, Tom DeLay.
I don't know enough about all the players in this dirty little game of politics as usual to say whether or not there are any Democrats involved. Jane, over at Firedoglake seems to think "They're not". I'm not going to quibble with Jane on this one. Not just because I hope she's right, but because Jane does her research on these things and I trust her instincts. In fact if your not really sure what this whole bugaloo is about take a hop over to her blog and you'll find everything you ever wanted to know about Jack Abramoff and his band of dirty politicians.
Truthfully I don't care if it's Republicans exclusively or a mix of the two parties. I'm ready to see these politicians held accountable for selling out to big business. The people of their respective states elected these men (and women) to represent their (the people's) interest in Washington. Instead they sold out to the highest bidder. I want to see them sent home (or to the hoosegow) with their tails tucked between their legs. They exemplify the epitome of dirty politics.

I heard someone on ~~FAUX~~ FOX News say "this could be the biggest scandal of the last decade...". I can think of only one thing that could make this better. That's if one of those [dirty] politicians decides to try and save his own ass by giving up the evidence that proves the election of 2000 was stolen by the use of rigged voting machines in Florida. Now THAT would be the scandal of the century!

2006-01-01T00:05:00.000-06:00

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!
from my corner of the world to yours!!

2006--Year of the Dog

We live in a crazy, mixed up world.
Floods and mudslides in California. Wind and fire in Oklahoma and Texas. Hurricanes, tornados, blizzards. Mother Nature seems to have her britches in a bunch.
We have wars and rumors of wars. Some that have been going on since what seems like the beginning of time. Most with no end in sight.
There's a [pseudo] cowboy in the White House, and a [pseudo] terminator masquerading as Governor of California.
The right thinks THEY are God's chosen people. The left thinks the right are a bunch of hypocrites. Nobody wants to give an inch. The only two men in all of politics (McCain & Lieberman) who seem to be the least bit willing to see the other sides 'side' are both looked upon with disdain and disrespect by their own 'side'. Compromise has become a dirty word.
Still we carry on. We get up every morning, Follow our morning routine, then head out to jobs and life at large.
We keep hoping some how life's dealer will deal us a winning hand this round.
As long as there's air to breath, food to eat, and shelter from the storms, we carry on.
Eternal optimism.

So, as we begin another year, one I believe may be pivotal in our nations future, I wish for each of you joy, peace, happiness, hope and prosperity.

"May the road rise up to meet you, may the wind be ever at your back. May the sun shine warm upon your face and the rain fall softly on your fields. And until we meet again, May God hold you in the hollow of his hand."

2005-12-30T00:00:00.000-06:00

The Prophesy
"...and I Did Not Speak Out"*

The Heretik has an excellent post on the importance of keeping records and the importance of remembering the "parallels of yesterday to today". Just go read it.
Bobby over at BBWW has an equally provoking post on the same issue. [*"Then they came for me --"]

Even more frightening is the fact that there are those who actually believe what this administration has done is not only acceptable, but necessary. It's all about the 'war on terror' they say.
The nifty thing about this 'war on terror' is the elusive definition of terror.(the terror of jackboots pounding down the street, or that little terror of a child)

With terrorism there is no specific enemy, no specific country, and no limit on the crimes that might be considered terroristic. (It's one of those pornography like things, I can't define it but I know it when I see it.)
I have a friend who fondly referes to her grandson as 'the terrorist'. And I'm sure there are days when he strikes fear in the hearts of his many little girl sisters and cousins. Does that make him a true terrorist? Only in the spectar of his little domain. There's just so many reasons you could call someone a 'suspected terrorist'. With just the right amount of spin it can be applied to anyone, anyplace or anything.

Equally true is there is no 'winning' the war on terror. It's a war that can go on indefinitely. By simply redefining the definition of the word terror/terrorist. Much like they redefined the 'reasons' we invaded Iraq.
The masters of spin have found their pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
The only question is how far will they go before enough Americans wake up and stop empowering them?
I believe the elections of '06 will be a telling indicator. Either the tide will turn and enough people will 'speak out' by removing as many from Congress as possible, or their takeover will be a fait accompli.

2005-12-26T16:38:00.000-06:00

PaTATOE/PaTAHTOE
how do YOU define 'terrorist'

" Did any right minded (i.e. not a retard) really think that the government is not using the Echelon program to collect intelligence on people..."[Chris]

No Chris, there aren't many of us (un)right-minded people out here who haven't suspected for years that the government was using whatever means available to them to spy on US. Oddly enough it was all those 'right'-minded people who were calling "US" paranoid moonbats. Isn't it interesting now that the truth has come out, all of a sudden all those 'right'-minded people are calling "US" crazy for NOT knowing it was going on?
These people are the masters of spin. They can take any revelation and turn it into a 'right' minded idea.
So, lets see how they can 'spin' this one.

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so." -- George Bush, April 20, 2004[Crabletta]

Now tell me how he isn't flat out LYING in that statement? He KNEW as he was speaking he was lying. He KNEW there were wiretaps being done daily without the benefit of any kind of court order.
If I ever had any doubts he KNEW the intelligence over WMDs in Iraq was being skewed and falsified, this would have erased them. He isn't a dumbass being misled by those he trust, he's a co-conspirator.
Of course I expect those 'right'-minded people to back him up. That's what they do.
I wonder, has it ever occurred to them, what they are doing is bit by bit giving away the rights and freedoms our forefathers fought so hard to garner for us? Is this the legacy we're leaving OUR children? That ours, was the generation that allowed freedom and liberty for all, to slip right through our fingers? Think about the world OUR children will be living in. Will they be forced to take up weapons against their own government to win back what we have allowed to be stolen?

Terrorism is being used as an excuse. An excuse this administration and their party have been milking since September 11th.
Yes there are terrorist out there, and they are succeeding. With the help of OUR very own government. The problem is the term/title "terrorist" can be applied very liberally. Would you believe there were people who actually tried to suggest the striking transit workers in New York, were no more than 'terrorist' holding the city hostage? Now just suppose our government decided those transit workers and their union were in essence 'terrorist'? Then they decided they needed to start wiretapping their phones and hacking their emails? After all they might be conspiring with other international organizations to put the city of New York at risk for an 'attack' by Al Qaida. Think that's a bit farfetched? Think again.
Karen Hughes (you know her, the Presidents 'right'hand woman) had the audacity to imply that people who support freedom of choice/abortion are terrorist. Maybe the government needs to step in and start wiretapping Womens Health Clinics where abortions are performed. Reading the emails of doctors who are know to perform abortions. Do your really believe it's not already being done?
As you can see it is far too easy to apply the title of 'terrorist' to anyone or any situation to allow our government to use it to justify their actions.
The people we have entrusted with our government are turning us into a country who's willing to sacrifice freedom and democracy for some small measure of so called safety. How far into the future do we have to look before we see our government has become the ultimate 'terrorist' organization?

In Iraq they protested when they suspected election irregularities.[Thousands Protest]
In Iran they are standing up against their governments attempt to control the airwaves.[Where Freedom Starts]
Meanwhile here in the US (land of the free, home of the brave and a beacon of democracy) we let the [not]'right' continue to define what is legal, what is acceptable and even what we will be watching or listening to on OUR televisions and radios.
When will the people of this country begin to care enough to take it to the streets? Maybe we can learn a lot from those to whom our government claims to be trying to spread democracy.
Hopefully we will learn it before it's too late.

2005-12-24T16:25:00.000-06:00

I Bring Unto You Tidings of Great Joy

St Luke, Chapter 2
2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2:2 And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.

2:3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David)

2:5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

2:6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

2:8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

2:9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

2:10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

2:11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

2:12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

2:13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,

2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

2:15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

2:16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
*******

O come all ye faithful,
Joyful, and triumphant,
O come ye, O come ye
To Bethlehem!
Come and behold Him
Born the King of angels!

O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
O come, let us adore Him,
Christ the Lord!

Today as we who are Christians celebrate the birth of our Savior, I can't help but think of the millions of poor, broken, and lonely (for many whom there is no room for them in the inn). These are the people that God has instructed us to reach out to. To spread the message of hope and salvation.
As my heart aches for each of these, I find that I still feel gladness and joy. For I have been blessed with the joy of knowing each and every one of you who finds the time in your busy lives to visit my little place on the world wide web. You have made me laugh, you have made me cry but most of all you have made me a part of something greater than any one of us alone. Thank you all so very much for the joy and happiness you have brought into my life.
Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanza or the Winter Solstice, my wish for each of you is that God may bless you with peace, comfort and joy, this holiday season and throughout the coming year.

2005-12-22T00:05:00.000-06:00

Senate Approves Patriot Act Extension, Kills Alaska Drilling
and a Merry Christmas to you Mr President

"This day is something of a turning point certainly in this Congress and maybe in future Congresses," said Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat. "I think we basically had three home runs today."

No oil drilling in Alaska, and having to agree to an extension on his Patriot Act (after he SWORE he wouldn't extend it).
Gosh but Gdubya is certainly having a hard time getting his 'expectations' met these days. Don't you just know he's stomping his feet and having one hell of a temper tantrum?

My Christmas wish is that it only gets worse for him (and his band of ~~merry men~~ rich, good ole white boys) in 06!

Merry Christmas
to all and to all a good night!

2005-12-19T13:04:00.000-06:00

Compassionate Conservatism?
talk about somebody stealing Christmas

I wonder as Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson continue their tirade about Christmas being stolen, if they think about the millions of families for whom Christmas is a nightmare of unmet expectations and denial of the basice simple human needs? Of course not. Because for people like O'Reilly and Gibson, Christmas isn't about celebrating the birth of the Christ child, or helping the poor, the young and the elderly. No,it's all about making people say "Merry Christmas", whether they want to or not. It's all about wielding their power and influence to force retailers to spew out those two words, despite the fact that a good many of holiday shoppers are NOT of the Christian faith. Not that there's anything wrong with wishing someone a "Merry Christmas", but it should be a personal choice, not one forced on people everywhere.
Do O'Reilly and Gibson really care about who's really stealing Christmas and from whom it's really being stolen? I doubt it. Because if they did, they'd be raising hell over this...
House approves $39.7 billion spending cuts
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives on Monday narrowly voted to cut $39.7 billion from federal spending over five years, including health care and other social welfare, as part of a conservative push to contain these growing programs.
By a vote of 212-206, the House, at the end of a rare overnight session, approved the spending cuts, which were opposed by Democrats.
Democrats criticized spending cuts to student loans, child care and other programs. Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, the senior Budget Committee Democrat, complained that Republicans were negotiating last-minute deals to help medical equipment manufacturers and suppliers, while maintaining reductions in some programs for the poor.

Rep. Chet Edwards , a Texas Democrat, said, "This bill under the Republican leadership makes Scrooge look like a philanthropist."

A large chunk of the spending cuts, about $11.2 billion over five years, would come from Medicare and Medicaid, the health-care programs for the elderly and poor.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning economic analysis group, said the bill would raise co-payments for many Medicaid beneficiaries, as well as the premiums they can be charged to enroll in Medicaid in the first place.

Additional savings would come in student loan programs, which Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy , a Democrat, called "the biggest cuts to student aid programs ever."

Democrats argued that the spending cuts were falling disproportionately on the poor as Republicans also were pushing through Congress tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
*******

It seems to me the real Grinches here are the Republicans who are giving the nations poor and elderly a lump of coal in their stockings for Christmas this year.
Then again there's really nothing new about that is there? After all it's what the party of compassionate conservatives have been doing for years. Robbing the poor and giving to the wealthy. In all fairness I have to admit, conservatives are compassionate. At least for those of their own social and financial classes.

And a Merry [freaking]Christmas every *#@!&^*%$**&^&%$#@ Congressman/woman who voted 'yae' on this budget bill. May God see that each of you receives exactly what you deserve this Christmas.

2005-12-16T02:47:00.000-06:00

Miracle on ~~34th~~ 16th Street

Bush accedes to McCain in backing ban on torture

WASHINGTON -- President Bush yesterday agreed to accept Senator John McCain's bill barring US officials from abusing terrorist suspects, with the White House reversing course after months of resistance when it became clear that its refusal to endorse a torture ban left the president politically isolated.
The agreement brings to an end an extended standoff between Bush and McCain, an Arizona Republican who was Bush's rival for the presidency in 2000. The White House relented under intense pressure from Congress and the international community.

Well I'll be a monkeys uncle! I guess miracles do happen. Don't you just know Dick Cheney is one pissed puppy?

Now if we can just get them to start working on that
border problem.
In my opinion it's time to close our borders. Put up a 10 foot high wall, with barbed wire and guard posts at 300 yard intervals. Start hitting employers who hire illegals with heavy fines.
Of course that may cause some problems for the republicans, (Immigration May Again Drive a Wedge Between GOP, Latinos), but hey, when your fighting a war on terrorism you gotta do what you gotta do. Right?

By the way did anyone else notice that the President was quick to defend Tom DeLay, but has yet to come out and defend Scooter Libby, or anyone involved in the whole White House Leak fiasco? And isn't it nice he thinks Rumsfield is doing a "great job". Of course the last guy he said that about was Michael Brown. Just before Brown handed in his resignation. Could there be hope of a repeat scenario?

What about that CNN poll that says it's gonna be Hillary-v.-Rudy in 08? [source]
If that's the case, I guess we'd all best get used to saying President Giuliani. Sorry dems, I just don't think the Hillster can pull it off. I don't think any woman can.
Personally I'd rather see the Democrats take back Congress in 06, than worry about who's gonna be the next President. A Democratic controlled Congress with Giuliani as President would be acceptable with me.
So, what do YOU think?

2005-12-13T17:55:00.000-06:00

When did Republicans and Democrats switch parties?

Back in Lincoln's time republicans were, well decidely more like democrats. If you've studied much history, you know this to be true. Who would have ever thought it would take a democrat to finally turn the national deficit into a national surplus? And who would have ever believed a republican would send it spiraling so far out of control?

What has happened to the people who call themselves conservatives? I always thought Republicans were the party of the people who wanted LESS government interference in their private lives. LESS government regulating what we as private citizens could do, say, think, read, watch on TV, eat, drink, smoke, or whom we have sex with. That and LESS government spending. Keeping a tight reign on the fiscal budget. Which would ultimately mean lower taxes.
Aren't Republicans suppose to be all about personal responsiblity? Taking care of yourself and your family. Minding your own business and letting your neighbors mind theirs?
When did all these people who call themselves conservative suddenly become so interested in what everyone else is doing? Not just interested either. They darn well want to dominate what other people do. All the way from whom we sleep with to how we express our wishes during the holiday season. What is up with this intense desire to legislate and regulate every aspect of our lives?

"I'm convinced that conservatives, the people who say they want less government and more freedom, either have a highly-developed sense of irony or none whatsoever.[Bobby]

If I want to acknowledge the holidays (and there IS more than one you know, the season starts with Thanksgiving, lasts through New Years, and encompasses Hanukah, Kwanza, and Christmas) by greeting people with "HAPPY HOLIDAYS", is that NOT my personal right? If I want to watch porn, eat McDonalds, and dress like a two dollar whore, is that NOT my right? Mind you I only do ONE of those, but if I wanted to don't I have every right to do all of them?

What in the world is going on when the two men in Congress (John McCain/ Joe Lieberman) who seem to be able to see and understand the other side's point of view, are both detested by a good many in their OWN party? Has bipartisianship been reduced to two individuals? If so, then what hope do we have of ever again being a united country?

I want to offer up some advice here, to those on both sides of the fence. First all you might want to do some research on your party of choice. You may find they haven't always reprsented what you think they do. Secondly, once you realize you have more in common with the other side than you ever thought you would, you might consider being less 'partisian' and more open to hearing what their saying. Maybe then we can all learn a little give and take.

Well, it's a thought.

2005-12-12T06:27:00.000-06:00

We Need A Hero
not a chickenhawk playing GI Joes

I've been experiencing a bit of writers block lately. Therefore I thought I'd share a little some thing I came across while surfing the good ole WWW. Hopefully I'll be back to my usual witty and brilliant self soon.
******

A couple of weeks ago I received a wall calendar from my insurance company, USAA. I've been doing business with them since I was a second lieutenant in training at Chanute Air Force Base in Rantoul, Illinois ("shoot me, don't Chanute me"), and I like the calendars they send their clients

At least, I liked the calendar until this year, when I opened the calendar to its first month--December, 2005--and saw a picture of a deployed soldier in desert cammies, sitting in front of a tent reading a letter from home, with this caption:

"It is easy to take liberty for granted, when you have never had it taken from you." -- Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States

Normally a quote from someone connected to the military would include the department, years of service, and highest rank. But Dick Cheney didn't serve in the military. He had "other priorities"--things to do, people to see, unpleasantness to avoid--that made it terribly inconvenient to send his hiney into the military in service to his country, let alone serve in the bloody conflict we were entangled in back in the 1960s.

For August, 2006, the USAA calendar shows a combat helicopter with a quote from Norman Schwarzkpof: "It doesn't take a hero to order men into battle. It takes a hero to be one of those men who goes into battle." I doubt anyone within USAA strategically placed this quote in response to Cheney's words. But it is ironic to compare the words of a real war hero with the empty word pudding of a man who would live to send young people into a battle he would never have chosen (or been willing )to have fought.[source]
*****

If I were Cheney I'd be ashamed to even look our troops in the face. I'd be ashamed that I, who had 'better things to do' and never gave a single hour much less day of service to my country, had been so gung ho to send men and women in to fight and die in an unmitigated and unnecessary war. I'd damn sure be too ashamed to put my face on any military related publication. But then I am a person of integrity. Clearly another trait lacking in Cheney's makeup.

2005-12-09T13:35:00.000-06:00

THE LEADER
**cough, cough, snicker, snicker**

Patient and steadfast by all he must bear,
Ready to accept every challenge with care.
Easy in manner, yet solid as steel,
Strong in his faith, refreshingly real,
Isn't afraid to propose what is bold,
Doesn't conform to the usual mold,
Eyes that have foresight,for hindsight won't do,
Never back down when he sees what is true,
Tells it all straight, and means it all too,
Going forward and knowing he's right,
Even when doubted for why he would fight,
Over and over he makes his case clear,
Reaching to touch the ones who won't hear,
Growing in strength, he won't be unnerved,
Ever assuring he'll stand by his word,
Wanting the world to join his firm stand,
Bracing for war, but praying for peace,
Using his power so evil will cease:
So much a leader and worthy of trust,
Here stands a man that will do what he must.

Notice the first letter of each line?

I blame Karl Rove for this one. I can see him sitting awake at 3 in the morning, wanting to finish the poem, and thinking: "What rhymes with unnerved?" Then saying "Screw it. Word will work." and finishing off the remaining six stanzas. Pure genius! [ Rooster Cashews]

I have little doubt that Karl Rove could have been the author of this little ditty. While he may have used Gdubya's name, you know he was thinking of himself. Although he might want to reconsider a few of those lines.
Starting with Growing in strength, he won't be unnerved. Since the man can hardly make it through a press confrence without putting his foot in his mouth and his popularity is dropping by leaps and bounds, one can hardly say he won't be unnerved, and he's growing in strength. Then there's Bracing for war but praying for peace. What a farce! More like Praying for war, even just a little piece! Of course lets not forget Ever assuring he'll stand by his word. Sure just the way he stood by his promise that "anyone in this administration involved in this leak will be fired". Not anyone charged or convicted but "involved". Yep he sure stood by his word on that one didn't he? Lastly there is the one line that rings loud and clear, Here stands a man who will do what he must. Oh so very true. He will do whatever it takes (even if that means slandering REAL genuine war heros, using inflated or outright falsified intelligence to make the case for war,and when his poll numbers drop low enough, just watch him do what he must in order to keep his warm comfy seat in the WH), yes there is little doubt this is a man who will do what he must. Yep that would be our [Chickenhawk] Fearless (what's to be afraid of when your ass is safe and highly protected) Leader.
That people actually admire this man boggles the mind.
Truthfully I don't think he's a bad guy, I just think he's, well, a putz.

2005-12-04T01:31:00.000-06:00

Politically Incorrect
can we talk here

On June 8, 1969, President Richard M. Nixon announced the withdrawal of 25,000 American troops from Vietnam. Within the next few months, he would declare that tens of thousands more were coming home.
President Bush may not know it yet -- or, then again, he may -- but in Iraq he is about to do a Nixon. Psychologically and politically, the withdrawal phase has already begun. Militarily, the pullback will start within weeks, or at most months, of the Dec. 15 Iraqi parliamentary elections.[source]

If ever there were proof that politics reigns supreme in these United States this would be it. I don't remember what the underlying cause was that brought about the United States involvement in Vietnam. I'm sure the fear of the spread of communism was a strong factor. I do know Richard Nixon eventually bowed to political pressure and agreed it was time to bring our troops home. Much as Bush is doing now.
I'm equally unsure what the REAL reasons were that lead to our invasion of Iraq. There are plenty of theories, but we probably won't know for a very long time. If ever. Whatever those reasons, if President Bush genuinely believed he was doing the 'right' thing, no amount of political pressure would prevent him from staying the course . After all what does he have to loose? He's not going to be running for office again. His political career has peaked. How hard can it be to stand your ground when you've nothing to loose? Instead he has done much as he did with the Social Security issue. He claimed he had the high ground. He claimed he'd be victorious. Then he stopped talking about it. Living up to his legend as a chickenhawk.

There are those who will of course blame Democrats. It would be fair to say a good many Democrats have suddenly started standing up and making their feelings known. Too bad they didn't have the backbone or courage to do so in March of 2003. Had they, we wouldn't be where we are today. I can count on one hand the number of Democrats who voted against invading Iraq. And have fingers left over. Where were John Murtha, John Kerry, Ed Kennedy, and Hillary Clinton when that critical vote was taken? They exhibited no more courage than Bush is now.

I look at Iraq today and I wonder what the future holds for those who's country we have so torn asunder. Oh, I know, we've done so much for them. They're having free elections now. They are rid of a tyrannical ruler. A man who not only allowed but encouraged rape, murder and torture of his own people. Are they better off? Only time will tell.
All of a sudden I'm hearing hardline supporters of the war, declare, the Iraqis have got to step up to the bat, they've got to learn to defend themselves.... I guess it's easy to 'get tough' when you know your not the one whose going to be living with the daily reality of death. Just as it was easy to invade a country that had done nothing to bring about such an invasion.

The majority of the people of this country did nothing to stop our President and our government from declaring war and are just as guilty of he and his cohorts of the damage that has been done. Many share the responsibility and the shame.

I have little doubt that over the coming year we will see a good many of the troops returning home. After all mid-term elections are coming up in 06. Senators, and Representatives are feeling a bit insecure about their warm cozy little seats of power in D.C.. For as much as they've spouted the party line about this war being about spreading democracy, and freedom, they aren't willing to risk THEIR jobs/careers, much less their lives. Iraq will just have to find a way to survive on their own.
If you think I'm only referring to Republicans you'd be wrong. In fact I believe every single Senator, or Representative who voted "yes" to the invasion of Iraq, and has only NOW found the balls to stand up and say, this was wrong and we need to get our troops out should be vote OUT. Because if it is wrong now, it was wrong then, and if it was right then, it's still right now.

I started this blog because I believed we were doing the wrong thing in Iraq. I did not believe there were WMD's. I did not believe Iraq or Saddam had any connection to the events of Sept 11th. I did not believe Saddam Hussein was a threat to anyone other than the people of Iraq. That alone was not, in my opinion, enough to warrent an all out invasion by US forces. Many counties have tryanical rulers. China and North Korea just to name a few. I have been very vocal in my stance. I can't remember waivering. Now, I find myself torn. For many months I have called for the return of our troops. With that reality now on the horizon, I find myself looking toward Iraq and feeling shame. Shame for what we've done, and shame for what we are about to do. Shame that men who swore to uphold the honor of our country have instead brought so much dishonor. But most of all shame that so many Americans apparently have no problem with that. Politics is a dirty business and it is we the voters who have allowed it to come to this.

2005-11-30T02:27:00.000-06:00

The Reason for the Season
just who is the Grinch stealing Christmas...

My favorite holiday is over. Now comes the season I most dread every year. With all the media hype about how the 'left' is trying to steal/destroy Christmas, I thought I'd share my own personal feelings with you. Just in case your interested.
Did you know more people commit suicide during the 'Christmas' season, than any other time of year? More people suffer from depression during the 'Christmas' season than any other time of year. More people spend money they don't have and can't afford to spend between now and December 25th, than any other time of year. For millions, probably tens of millions this 'season' is a miserable, lonely, desperate time of year. Trust me when I tell you I can understand why many, many people would gladly see Christmas just go away.

Now, you may think I hate Christmas. I don't.
The truth is I love Christmas. I love the feeling I get when I walk into a church and see the manger, with Mary, Joseph, and the animals. I love the story of the birth of Jesus. I love the idea that a poor and simple young girl, could be chosen by God to be the Mother of his son. That a young man could have such deep faith that he would accept this young girl and her child, that he could love and care for a child not of his own seed. This is a story not only of faith, but of love, trust and hope. Myth or reality, it may be the most beautiful story ever told.

THIS howEVER is NOT the Christmas celebrated by the vast majority, and certaninly not by corperate and mainstream America. They use this special day/season as an excuse. An excuse to shame/badger/encourage us to shop, shop, shop, spend, spend, spend. Charge up credit cards those credit cards, go into debt, and spend more money than we make, buying toys and whatknots for kids and adults already far too spoiled by way too many toys and whatknots. Women (and i'm sorry if that insults women but I don't know too many men who do so) will start their shopping as early as July or August, just to insure their kids/grandkids/nieces/nephews/husbands/friends,ect get the best presents. These days Christmas is all about the glorification of the almighty dollar and greed. It is no longer about the birth of Jesus, or the celebration of a great Christian event. If it were, there'd be a whole lot fewer people celebrating. Ask yourself, in your many preparations for the 'season', when was the last time you seriously gave thought to Jesus?

Even worse is that Christians are as responsible for the desecration of this holiest of holidays as the secular in our society. I wonder how many even read the story of Christ's birth to their children or families on Christmas eve or Christmas day? Do their children even know who Jesus is, or what he represents? Or why this day is set aside to celebrate his birth?
At least with Halloween there's no denying that it is what it is. Which may explain why so many in our society have turned away from the 'religious' connotation of Christmas. We should be ashamed for using the heart of Christianity as an excuse to display our greed.

If you have the means, and can afford to do so, by all means, go out and spend to your hearts content. Shop until you drop. Charge up those credit cards, buying more toys, more clothes, more gadgets and dodads, for people who already have more gadgets, dodads, socks, ties, shirts, sweaters, and toys than they know what to do with. It's your money, you earned it, you have a right to do with it whatever you please. But don't call it celebrating Christmas because your not.

If you genuinely want to 'celebrate' Christmas, then do it by doing something that honors the memory of the man who's birth it represents. A man who stood for love, compassion, and forgiveness. Do something for someone who REALLY needs it. Buy clothes for children who have so few. Buy the ingredients for a meal and give them to someone who has little hope of having one. Help out at homeless shelters. If you need to buy toys, try buying them for the children who have no toys. If nothing else try cleaning and boxing up some of the many toys (or clothes) hardly played with by your own children and donating them. Look beyond your own family circle and you will find a world of people you can help. That is after all the true Christian spirit is it not?

I suspect when Jesus looks down upon us during the Christmas season, he probably feels much like the writer of the following [now famous] email did.
"The majority of the world [still] has different practices other than "christmas" which is an ancient tradition that has its roots in Siberian shamanism[search]. The colors associated with 'christmas' red and white are actually a representation of the aminita muscaria mushroom[search]. Santa is also borrowed from the Caucuses[search], mistletoe from the Celts, yule log from the Goths, the time from the Visigoth and the tree from the worship of Baal. It is a wide wide world."
Most of all "HE" knows what's in your heart and why your celebrating. Call it whatever you wish, "HE" knows what it really is. The celebration and glorification of greed.

Frankly I'm thinking of starting a movement. I'll call it taking the Santa Factor out of Christmas. I'm guessing Wal-Mart, Target, Sears, JC Pennys, credit card companies, ect. aren't going to like that idea one darned bit. But if it works, there will be a lot more people ready and willing to celebrate the real meaning of Christmas.
And a to you and yours from this Bama Belle's house!

2005-11-25T01:56:00.000-06:00

Sanctimonious, Contemptible, Nauseating, Despicable
a ~~rose~~ Hypocrite by any other name...

"One might also argue," Vice President Cheney said in a speech on Monday, "that untruthful charges against the commander in chief have an insidious effect on the war effort." That would certainly be an ugly and demagogic argument, were one to make it. After all, if untruthful charges against the president hurt the war effort (by undermining public support and soldiers' morale), then those charges will hurt the war effort even more if they happen to be true. So one would be saying in effect that any criticism of the president is essentially treason.

Lest one fear that he might be saying that, Cheney immediately added, "I'm unwilling to say that" -- "that" being what he had just said. He generously granted critics the right to criticize (as did the president this week)."[source(this is an excellent article and you should read it if you have the time)]

Well shucks damn, ain't it nice of them to generously grant us the right to practice our Constitutional right to free speech!
Of course Cheney and Bush don't have to make the accusation that any criticism of the president is essentially treason, they have more than a few of their fellow republicans to make that assertion for them.
The arrogance of these people is unfreaking believable. They go around spouting their BS about wanting to spread democracy and freedom to the Middle East (actually that only applies to countries who's leaders are not bosom buddies with BushCo) and they have the audacity to assume they have the right to generously grant the citizens of this country that very same freedom and democracy.

2005-11-23T15:22:00.000-06:00

Happy Thanksgiving
from Podunt to your corner of the world

May your day be filled with love, peace, compassion, family and friends.
May your mind, body, and soul, be filled with the love you've so kindly shared with me.

There are many things for which I have to be thankful, not the least of which is all the wonderful people who so have so kindly and generously visited my little blog, and who've allowed me to be a part of their blogging community. I want you all to know that I value each and every one of you, and your opinions (okay, maybe some more than others). I hope you all will have a very blessed Thanksgiving!

2005-11-22T15:39:00.000-06:00

Their Finest Hour
the chickenhawks dance

This past weekend we saw Republicans at their best. The administration has been under serious pressure for the past few weeks to come up with some kind of realistic plan for an exit strategy for our troops in Iraq. The emergence of Rep. John Murtha (D. PA) and his demand that the administration come up with an immediate withdrawal plan (immediate meaning within the next six months) prevoked House Republicans into pulling an unprecidented 'showdown' stunt (an they call democrats 'drama queens'). Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) introduced a measure called House Resolution 571 which called for the immediate termination of the deployment of US troops in Iraq. Take note here it was a REPUBLICAN who introduced this resolution, not a Democrat. While Murtha had introduced a detailed measure that called for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date,", Hunter's measure was a 'stunt' and was designed to embarrass Murtha and critics of the war. And like the measure itself, it failed. In fact what it did do is rip away the 'veneer' of so called patrotism of the republicans and allowed the world to see that for this administration/party it's all about their in your face, we got the power attitude.
When Rep Jean Schmidt stood on the House floor and said that Rep Danny Bubp (R.OH) a colonel in the Marine Corps Reserves, told her to tell U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., that "cowards cut and run, Marines never do." She was booed off the House floor. I guess Ms Schmidt and Mr Bubp failed to do their homework before making their accusations (although later Bubp was said to be distancing himself from Ms Schmidt's remarks). Had they done so they would have known that Murtha is a decorated Vietnam veteran, a veteran MARINE Corps Reserve Colonel, and the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. Not a wise move for one Marine to call a fellow Marine a coward. Espcially when one of the two is a decorated war hero while the other is a mere 'reservist'.
Not that decorated war hero's are off limits to Republicans. In fact, decorated war veterans seem to be a prime target of this chickenhawk adminstration/Republican party. I will never forget the slander and trash talking the Bush campaign waged against John McCain in 2000. They called him unstable, claiming his years as a POW had left him with an uncontrolable temper. They claimed a child adopted by McCain and his wife ( a black child) was actually McCain's 'love child' from an illicit affair. All of it LIES. Of course I don't have to remind anyone of the lies and halftruths that were slandered against John Kerry during the Presidential campaign. Nor of their smear campaign against former Georgia Senator Max Cleland. No, it's very clear what Republicans think of those who were too stupid to get themselves deferments (some got as many as FIVE) or have rich daddies and mommies who could get them cushy jobs in the 'Guard' so that they wouldn't have to risk life and limb in Vietnam.
I suspect years from now when some soldier who's currently putting his/her life on the line in Iraq, comes home and runs for public office, they will find a way to discredit his/her time in the military as well. Oh wait, they already did that. That's how [that bitch] Jean Schmidt (QUEEN of the CHICKENHAWKS) got herself elected.
The way I see it, the message republicans are sending to the troops is, "stay over there as long as WE (the CHICKENHAWKS) think you need to be there, fight for your life (and limbs), give all you have to give, and then give some more, and when you do get to come home, don't expect us to honor you and treat you like some special kind of war hero (whether alive or in a pine box). And if you should decide at some point to go into politics don't think for a minute that we won't use anything and everything we can against you, including your 'military service'."

Yep, I'd say this is the Republican Party's finest hour.

2005-11-21T22:36:00.000-06:00

Thank You For Being A Friend

I want to take this opportunity to say thank you to all of you who sent such inspiring messages my way.
I have no idea how it happened but somehow the comments moderation option was activated in my haloscan account. I should have known something was wrong when there were no comments from Chris! After all he can't resist an opportunity to 'set me straight'. Thanks so much to Gypsy for the email that made me realize something was rotten in ~~Denmark~~ haloscan. And again thanks to all of you for your encouraging comments.

2005-11-19T16:24:00.000-06:00

Is This The End

Okay, I surrender. It's been almost two weeks and not a single visitor or comment. Looks like my little blog has died. Therefore I shall bid you (ah, hello there are no 'you's' out there) adieu!

2005-11-15T17:58:00.000-06:00

No Easy Answers

My troubled relationship with my oldest son and my daughter is no secret to those who know me. Over the years I've questioned every decision I ever made in regards to how I raised [all] my children. Should I have been stricter? Was I too strict? Did I try too hard to protect them or not hard enough? Most puzzling of all was the question that I have never found an answer for. How can children raised by the same parents turn out so differently?
Then I discovered blogging. Through blogging I have come to realize there are many parents just like me out there. I've discovered sons and daughters raised by some of the most decent, salt of the earth people, have brought heartache, disappointment and sadness to their parents. The children of ministers, teachers, doctors, farmers, and plain ole ordinary Joes * Jane's, have taken the road less traveled and made mistakes that have broken our hearts.
I remember when Columbine happened, I like many others felt that in some way those boys parents were partially responsible. Had they paid more attention to what was going on in the lives of their sons, maybe so much tragedy could have been avoided. But then I read things like this [ No Easy Answers in PA. Case]. These two young people had it all. Their parents provided them with all their basic needs,both physical and spiritual. Even luxuries that many other children never have. If ever there were ideal parents it was Michael and Cathryn Lee. Five children, all home schooled, all raised in a deeply religious home. The very epitome of the all American [Christian] family. A family now torn asunder by a young man they allowed into their young daughter's life. A young man who himself came from a good Christian home and who was also home schooled.
So, the eternal question rears it's ugly head. How is it that children raised in the same home, with the same values, same atmosphere, can take such different paths in their lives?
Maybe it's not within our power to control the fate of our children. Maybe their destinies are set long before we are entrusted with their lives. Maybe despite all we do, good or bad, they will ultimately make their own choices, and live their own lives. Based not solely on what we taught them but a sum total of all that surrounds them. For whatever reason, some will choose to follow the well chosen path. The path that leads to maturity, to growth, to a deep sense of what is right and what is wrong, and to choosing the former. Others will choose the path less taken. The path littered with heartache, broken dreams, and shattered lives.
I suppose there should be some comfort in that knowledge. I find little. If we as parents can't be the strongest influence in the lives of our children, if we truly have very little control over their future where does the future of mankind stand?
Maybe in the end it really is the battle between good and evil. And all we can do is do what we can and leave the rest up to God.

Hello? God, we need help down here. God? Are you there?

2005-11-14T00:26:00.000-06:00

Much like Steve over at The Yellow Doggeral Democrat , I don't think that ~~FAUX~~ FOX Cable News talk show host Bill O'Reilly is really a terrorist sympathizer . At least not at first. Then I read the context of his nasty little rant.
After giving the idea some time for thought,I've decided, I'm not so sure. I suppose it is possible that under the right circumstances he [Bill O'Reilly] could well be considered a terrorist sympathizer . I have to say that depending on where and whom the terrorists target might be, he [Bill O'Reilly] might not only sympathize with the terrorist but might even be willing to offer up suggestions of possible targets.
I tell yah, it's getting harder and harder these days to determine just who the terrorist sympathizers really are.
Is it just me or are the neocons literally coming apart at the seams?

2005-11-09T17:40:00.000-06:00

The Observer

1. The people that ran on the premiss "THEY" were the party of higher morals and values are currently being ordered by their leader to take ethics classes. [ Bush orders his staff to get a refresher course on ethics rules.]
Isn't this akin to closing the barn door AFTER the horse got out?

2. The President who swears "WE DO NOT TORTURE" is being made to look like a fool and a liar by his #2 man [Cheney Asks GOP Senators to Help with Torture Ban]
(There's still the lingering question of does Cheney's penchant for torture, have anything to do with Scooter Libby's hobbling around on crutches these days?)

3. The party that refers to themselves as conservatives is being lead by the biggest spendthrift in the history of our country. [Bush Borrowed More Than All Previous Presidents Combined]
I guess they don't mean fiscal when they say conservative.
Thanks to Cappy for this info.

4. If you're a judge who contributes to the democratic party you can't be a fair and imparticial judge of a [scoundrel] republican charged with money laundring. HOWever if you're a judge who contributes to republicans [New Judge for DeLay Case Will Stay] you CAN be a fair and imparticial judge. Do I even NEED to say the word HYPOCRITE?

5. If you go after politicians for breaking the law in the name of politics as usual then your criminalizing [conservative] politics [Conservative Politics Being Criminalized]. Which of course is MUCH worse than criminalizing SEX as republicans did when they went after Clinton.

6. Voters in Utah lead the nation in supporting Mr. Bush and his misbegotten war, but are dead last in actually serving in the military that fights and dies in that war. Of course it should be no big surprise that chickenhawks would support a fellow chickenhawk.[Utah - Chickenhawk Capital of the United States] Man! Talk about your 'birdflu' epidimic!!

2005-11-08T15:25:00.000-06:00

I'm Against It
but...

John Gibson [source] is one of ~~FAUX~~ FOX New's many 'fair and balanced' (NOT) right wingnut, talk show hosts (I refuse to call these guys news journalist . To do so insults true journalist everywhere) says he's against torture, but ahh he's against outlawing it. Well damned skippy if I don't think he's described to a "T", "MY" postition on abortion. I'm against it. I think it's deplorable, but ahh I'm also against outlawing it. Think that will go over with the "Pro-Life" crowd? I'm thinking not.

See what John's really saying here is that he doesn't have the(Dick Cheney's) balls to step up and say he's all for torturing the hell out of anyone they (CheneyCo) deem needs torturing. Instead, he does that straddle the fence thing they (neocons) are so quick to accuse others of doing.

Once again we see how the right thinks it's okay for them to be both for/against and against/for something at the same time. Can anyone say flipflop/hypocrite?

Incidently I can't help but wonder if Cheney's penchant for torture has anything to do with Scooter Libby hobbling around on crutches these days.

2005-11-06T00:01:00.000-06:00

FOX NEWSTension and frustration between U.S. military forces and the Iraqi government is rising two-and-a-half years after the U.S invasion, said an Iraqi with a unique perspective on the problem – the country’s president.
In an exclusive interview Saturday with FOX News, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (search) said the American military commanders with whom he has spoken agree to give Iraqi forces a larger role in defending their country, but do not follow up with action.

"We ask them for things to change, they agree, and then nothing happens," Talabani said.[source]

Readers advise the president

(CNN) -- "Bring home the troops. Shake up the White House staff. Focus on issues at home..."
Bring home the troops.
An anonymous U.S. soldier serving in Pyongtek, South Korea, said the president should show "humility to the U.S. soldiers in both Iraq and Korea and let them come home ... and be with their families."

Mr. President, I supported the Iraq war for getting rid of terrorists, WMD and Saddam [Hussein]. Please justify the cause again and tell all Americans the plan to get out of Iraq. Spend that money to provide jobs, health care and medical research. Make this a land of peace and hope for all again.
Dee, San Francisco, California

I would start with forming an exit plan in Iraq, then reach out to his oil buddies and get the prices down, then nominate a Supreme Court justice that will not divide the country but rather unite, and finally put together a drug plan that really helps our seniors, not the drug companies. Very simple, Mr. President, just keep your promises.
Michael Seibert, Buffalo, New York

If we go on like this for much longer, it will be a long time before the American people trust the government to our side again. The Democrats aren't going to remain more hapless than the Republicans forever, and the denial in which too many Republicans wish to live in right now does the cause of conservatism no good.
Anonymous Republican

To sum things up, the newly elected 'President' in Iraq is unhappy with U.S./coalition troops in Iraq. According to [even] FOX News, polls show an increasing number of Americans are unhappy with the ongoing stalemate in Iraq and the current administrations failure to show any signs of an exit strategy. More and more Americans are waiting for Mr Bush to live up to his promise to unite the country, bring integrity, and morality back to the White House, and to make domestic concerns a priority.
George W. Bush is a man in denial. Recently he was given a reality check by his own party, and if he continues with his stubborn, arrogant, attitude of staying the course both he AND his party just may well be in for a BIG reality check come this time next year.

As for me, I'm torn. Do I want Bush and the republicans to continue behaving like bulls in a china shop, thereby forcing voters to give them a one way ticket home. Even though the continuation of such a course is detramental to the health of our country? Or do I want them to get a clue, and start really listening to the voices of Americans, not only on the right, but the left and in the middle.
If I dig down deep, I have to admit, as much as I've love to see democrats take back the Senate, Congress, and even the White House, I'd be happy if republicans would stop acting like their God's chosen people and have carte blanche to do as they see fit. There is nothing more frightening than a man or a group of people who think they alone have all the 'right' answers.

2005-10-31T16:09:00.000-06:00

Bush nominates Alito to Supreme Court
Conservatives, liberals ready for heated debate

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Conservatives lauded President Bush on Monday for his choice of Judge Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, while liberals signaled a contentious confirmation hearing is ahead for the nominee.

Alito, a 55-year-old judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, is a favorite of conservatives, many of whom objected when Bush nominated White House legal counsel Harriet Miers at the beginning of the month. [source]

Via Green Thoughts .

Here are some highlights of Alito's time on the court and as a federal prosecutor in Newark:

• In 1991, Judge Alito agreed with most of the Third Circuit in the Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania v. Casey decision upholding a law that imposed several limits on abortion. The law required girls younger than 18 seeking abortion to get their parents' consent or a court order saying such approval was not necessary, and it also required all women seeking abortions to be counseled about the procedure and wait 24 hours before they could have the procedure. ( I would have voted the same)

But Judge Alito broke with the majority in asserting that Pennsylvania could also require women to notify their husbands before having abortions. This dissent is often cited by conservatives as evidence that the judge shares their beliefs. The late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist quoted Judge Alito in his own dissent in this case when it came before the Supreme Court, which also upheld the other portions of the law by a 5-to-4 vote.( I would have gone with the majority on this one. There would need to be some language addressing the needs of women in abusive marriages before I could agree with the idea of a woman being 'required' to notify her husband. Also it would have to be 'notify' and not have his consent and or permission)

• In 2000, Judge Alito joined the majority when it struck down New Jersey's ban on the so-called partial birth abortions in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer. In a concurring opinion, Mr. Alito echoed the majority in arguing that abortion limits must have an exception for the preservation of the health of the mother, because previous Supreme Court rulings required that they do so.( I concur)

First Amendment cases

• Judge Alito wrote a unanimous Third Circuit's opinion that struck down a Pennsylvania school board's antiharassment policy, which he said was so far-reaching that it would punish students for "simple acts of teasing and name-calling."(Personally I think we could use some guidelines regarding "simple acts of teasing". Especially among school children)

• In 1999, the judge wrote a unanimous opinion on behalf of the majority saying the Newark police department had wrongly fired two Muslim officers for refusing to shave off their beards, which the two maintained they were required to wear because of their religious beliefs. (I would have voted the same)

• Judge Alito wrote for the majority in another 1999 decision upholding a Jersey City holiday display that was being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union. The decision cited that the display, which had been modified after previous displays were deemed unconstitutional, was acceptable because it "contained not only a crèche, a menorah, and Christmas tree, but also large plastic figures of Santa Claus and Frosty the Snowman, a red sled, and Kwanzaa symbols on the tree." ( Same here, sounds like everyone and every thing has some representation in the display, so just let it be)

On four out of six, I would have concurred with Alito.
Before I decide a full blown battle is in order, I need more info, anyone care to enlighten me?

2005-10-30T03:15:00.000-06:00

Harriet Miers and Hypocrisy
do as I say not as I do...

As John R. Tunis once wrote, "Losing is the great American sin." But Harriet Miers, who is undoubtedly a hurting victim in this whole melodrama and deserving of compassion and kindness, is not the loser. No, the losers are those mostly conservative posturers and pretenders who now stand exposed as political hypocrites.

Who said repeatedly some variation of "every judicial nominee and the American people and the president deserve a fair up-or-down vote?" If you answered virtually every Republican senator, especially Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Bill Frist of Tennessee, you would be more than right.

In addition to that "up-or-down vote," every judicial nominee, according to those same honorable folks, was entitled to a fair committee hearing. Every judicial nominee, it turns out, except Miers. She didn't even get the hearing, let alone "the fair up-or-down vote" she deserved.[source]

In the next few days President Bush will once again submit a nominees name. Odds are it will be someone highly controversial to the Democrats and Independents. When they question the nominees qualifications, or their record, the right will once again start crowing their "every judicial nominee deserves a fair up-or-down vote" rhetoric. When the Dems say this nominee is not someone they can approve of and turn to their only remaining source of power, the filibuster, the right will scream FOUL! But this time, their claims will fall upon deaf ears. Because the American public will remember EXACTLY how they, the Presidents own party, torpedoed his first nominee.

I feel badly for Ms Miers. I was one of the many on the left who felt she really did deserve an up-or-down vote, and would have been fine with her being approved. However she did serve a very important purpose. Her nomination pulled back the curtain on the hypocrisy of the right, and exposed them for what they are. It is clear now to all who are paying attention, the right is nothing more than what they self-righteously accused the left of being. Crooks, liars, and hypocrites.

Never again can they hold themselves up as the party of higher morals, values, and integrity. All their pseudo-Christian posturing will be for naught. The light has been shined deep into the very core of their party and what we found was a rotten stench that is emanating throughout Washington D.C., our country and the world.

At last they stand exposed.

2005-10-28T02:23:00.000-05:00

When the Devil Comes Knocking
GOP's Right Wing Rejoices in Post-Miers Clout

Back in 2004, the Republicans were reveling in their new found power. They not only had a hold on the White House, but Congress as well. Yep, they were going to set things back in order after years of Democratic rule. There was just one small technicality, and they pooh-poohed it as being nothing much to worry about.
Yesterday morning the devil came a calling. He was collecting his dues. Conservative republicans had turned to the far right for their help in getting a firm hold on power. They figured after the election, when they were securely hunkered down in the oval office, they'd cut the far right loose. No harm no foul. NOT!
When push came to shove the whole world got a ringside seat in seeing who REALLY controls the The New Republican Party. And it ain't the middle of the road folks. Nope it's the Rick Santorums and the Sam Brownbacks.
And all those republicans who supported Bush, not because he was a born again Christian on a mission from God, but because he was a tough Texan, who was gonna clean out the trash in Washington, are now going to have to deal with the same people who they suckled up to, to get where they are.
Guess what, James Dobson, and David Keene are the new power brokers in the Republican Party and they're not giving up one inch of the power they've earned.
"It was the very extreme wing of the president's party, and that brought about the [Harriet Miers] withdrawal ," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "If the president continues to listen to that extreme wing on judicial nominations or everything else, it can only spell trouble for his presidency and for America."[source ]

George Bush got his reality check this week. And it shows he's over drawn his account.
So suck it up folks cause your party now belongs to the far right Christian fundamentalist. And the devil is collecting his dues.
Soon your going to have to choose between the likes of Dobson, Keene, and Falwell, and Clinton, and Dean. Damn that's gotta suck for you guys.

2005-10-26T12:30:00.000-05:00

With Friends like this,,,
who needs enemies

There's so much I could say about Dick Cheney. But this says it so much better... Cheney again at center of drama.

"It should surprise nobody that Vice President Dick Cheney is at the center of another firestorm. He's got his hands in just about everything at the White House."

The White House, The CIA, The FBI, can the Supreme Court be far off?

This what happens when the man you ask to find the best, most qualified, candidate for VP recommends himself, and you take him at his word.

This is a man who's made a career out of riding other people's coattails. Bush is just another in the long line of horses to which he's hooked his wagon. Fortunately for the country, Bush Sr. was able to control Cheney, and keep him in line. With Bush Jr. he's been like a fat kid in a candy store. He's had no restraints, his manipulation of the man in oval office has been unparalleled. He along with his sidekick Rove have been the power behind the throne.
Now that the Devil has come to collect his dues, Bush Jr, had better hope Cheney doesn't take him down that long and winding road with him. If he's half as smart as Harriet Miers says he is, Bush will use this opportunity to cut both his puppet masters loose. In fact if the entire Republican Party has half a brain they will throw these two to the wolves. No two men ever deserved it more.

It's showtime at the ~~Apollo~~, White House. Will it be Hamlet, The Comedy of Errors, or Much Ado About Nothing, that's offered up for our viewing pleasure? Only time will tell.

2005-10-24T16:19:00.000-05:00

Document dispute snags Miers nomination
that old bait an switch

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Monday he will not give senators internal White House documents about the work Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers has done as Bush's counsel.
Bush's statement sets up a standoff that could sink the Miers nomination because senators won't be able to determine on what issues Miers worked and thus won't be able to figure out on what future cases Miers would need to disqualify herself, if she wins confirmation to the high court.[ source ]

There have been those who from the beginning said Miers was never meant to be the 'real' nominee. They speculated that she was merely an opening act for the actual nominee. I have to concede things are shaping up to look like those sooth-sayers may have earned their title with this one. The first hint of suspicion came with the oddly vitriol reaction of the right. No, she isn't the most qualified nominee Bush could have chosen. But, it was no big shock for me that he would select someone he knew well and who had served him loyally for many years. Bush'preponderancece' for cronyism is ledgendary. How could anyone have been surpised by his choice? While Democrats appeared conciliate, many Republicans displayed outright anger and indignation. More than one Bush supporter made disparaging remarks questioning Bush's ability and his IQ. Quite a shock, coming from the crowd that values faith in one's leader above all else. Strike one.
Then came those leaks by James Dobson, that Rove has 'assured' him Miers was the right woman for the job. He alluded to knowing things he maybe shouldn't know . His stamp of approval seemed to only make the situation worse. Those far right fundamentalist weren't being so easily mollified. Dobson be damned they wanted assurance this nominee was going to be the one thing they'd been preaching they wanted to put a stop to. An activist judge. She had to show some indication of her willingness to not only address Roe-v-Wade, but to actively pursue such a course. They didn't want to hear she was pro-life. They wanted to hear she was dyed-in-the-wool, unswerveing ANTI-ABORTION. Since the lady clearly isn't giving that info up, Strike two.
Now comes the announcement that the White House won't be forthcoming with any records or documents from her time working as their counsel. Is this Strike three?

Are the only remaining questions, which axe will fall first, the Miers nomination or the 'leak' indictments? And of course WHO's the real nominee? Anyone care to speculate?

My predictions...
Indictments will come first. In a matter of days Miers will ask for her name to be withdrawn. Before the pot begins to boil on the indictments front, Janice Rodgers Brown (or someone even worse, if that's possible) will be put up as the next nominee.

For once I hope I'm wrong. Especially about Miers's nomination. I know very little about the lady, but the sight of Bush standing up to his party and the far right is a view I'm enjoying. Now that he appears to be out from under Rove's thumb (and maybe Cheney's as well) he's beginning to show some backbone and genuine character. I must admit I'm feeling just the tiniest bit of, dare I say admiration, for the guy.
In my humble opinion this may well be the defining moment of Bush's presidency. Will he kowtow to the power brokers in his party, or will he stand, alone if necessary, for what he believes in? Is he a man who will cave under pressue, or is he a man of his convictions? Will he move to issue pardons left and right if there are indictiments of some his most loyal supporters? Or will he allow those who broke the law to be held accountable? Yes, I think the next few weeks will be a true insight into the real moral center of the man we call our President.
Believe it or not, I hope he proves to be the man he's always claimed to be. A man of faith, and a man of integrity.

2005-10-22T03:06:00.000-05:00

I HAVE HAD IT
and I'm not going to take it anymore

Have you ever been so mad you literally wanted to beat someone? I mean really beat them. Kick, slap, punch, pull their hair. Just beat the living crap out of them?
Yeah, I've got serious anger issues. I know it's not good Christian-like behavior. I know God in his infinite wisdom is not going to be happy with me. It won't be the first time. You can bet (oops, another 'no no') it won't be the last.

AN Y WAY, (ooo Piggy's fav word) I've been in a mood lately. You know, one of those pissy/bitchy moods where everything seems to rub you the wrong way. Some might call it PMS. My family might call it PBS (you figure it out). Then yesterday morning I read David's post and I started feeling a little better. Maybe the world isn't so phucked up after all.

It didn't last long, because THEN, I read THIS !
That sorry piece of human excrement has the unmitigated gall to freaking plead innocent??? What part of you DID IT does she NOT get? People SAW her. They SAW her cold-bloodedly stand on that pier and throw those innocent little babies in that deep, dark water. She dropped them in, one at a time, then stood there and watched as they drowned. She was their Momma. They trusted her. And she killed them. Now she has the nerve to plead INNOCENT?
I am SO SICK of this. What kind of a sick world do we live in where this woman can stand up in a court of law and claim innocence? It's gone too far. We as a society have let it go too damn far.
I don't want to hear that God, the devil, 'voices' (or post-partum depression) told/made her to do it. Bullcrap! I'm sick of the Andrea Yate's and Susan Smith's getting away with cold blooded murder, of children. THEIR own children. I'm tired of the John Couey's, and the Joseph Edward Duncan's, raping, torturing, and murdering OUR children. I'm sick of hearing excuses, and I'm sick of us, ALL of us sitting back and letting people like this thrive in our society.
I know, your thinking what can I do? That's way out in California. Well here's what you can do, you can take 20 or 30 minutes out of your busy day and write you Senator, your Congressman, your Governor, your President, and tell them you are sick and tired of people getting away with murder (and other crimes). You can tell them if they want YOUR vote, they'd darn well better start stepping up and doing something about the criminals in our society. Tell them your tired of people who break the law being let go on technicalities. Let them know that SOMEONE is going to start being held accountable. If not the criminals then the politicians (who often are both). Because we are not going to take it anymore. Then write about it in YOUR blog, get the word out. Encourage others to do the same. Believe me if they hear this from enough people, they'll start paying attention.

Yesterday afternoon I sent out a dozen emails. Today I'm mailing at least as many letters. Because I for one and not going to just keep sitting back and whining about the mess our society is in, I'm going to do something. At least I'm going to try.
Now if you all want to all chip in and buy me a plane ( train or bus) ticket to California, I might even do more than that. Just let me in a room with that bitch. Five minutes is all I need.

2005-10-19T14:16:00.000-05:00

Harriet Miers
Jerry Falwell or Jimmy Carter?

One of the things that commends Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court is her religion. So said President Bush, who has made no bones about his own religion and its importance in his life. But if, as he said, "part of Harriet Miers's life is her religion" and his important aide Karl Rove attested to her bona fides to at least one Christian conservative leader (James Dobson), then can she be rejected on the same account? Simply put, if Dobson is assured, why should I not be scared to death?

After all, to say someone's a Catholic (or in Miers case an evangelical Protestant) tells you virtually nothing about him/her. Is he/she a Ted Kennedy Catholic or a Rick Santorum Catholic? Is Miers a James Dobson, Jerry Falwell Christian, or a Jimmy Carter Christian?

The president has stupidly opened a Pandora's box -- and all sorts of ugly questions may pop out. For example, should the government fund churches? Can military (or college) chaplains proselytize the unchurched? Should gays be "reprogrammed," and should the government recommend only abstinence as a way to avoid teenage pregnancy? These are all positions taken by many fundamentalist religious leaders. Are they Miers's? Is anyone going to ask?

What I do find disturbing is the idea that one's qualification for a Supreme Court Justice should be determined on where they stand on one issue. Has anyone ask where she stands on the 2nd Ammendment? What about the 1st Ammendment? Are these rights so trivial that they take a distant seat to Roe-v-Wade?

Can Miers set her beliefs aside? Will the law take precedence? When it comes time to argue a case, will she simply say "I believe what I believe -- and that's all there is to it." I kind of doubt it, but I would like to be reassured. Bush has done his nominee no favor -- especially to suggest that one closed mind has recommended another.

[Editors note::The bulk of this post is taken from Faithful to Whom? , an op-ed Columist for The Washington Post]

2005-10-18T02:42:00.000-05:00

"Intelligent" Design?
maybe it's not so "intelligent"

For the past few years there's been a progressive effort to apply religious teachings to what is often called the real world. There's a strong ongoing debate concerning the teaching of intelligent design in public schools or "balancing" it with evolution.
Personally I've always believe that the 'evolution' of humankind was a combination of God's creationism and the natural evolution of the species. God did indeed create the first beings but man himself evolved from that original creation. This , in my opinion is the only realistic and logical explanation.
Otherwise what you have is something I'd have a difficult time reconciling.
Lets look at what the theory of 'intelligent design' is at it's core.

Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.

That's one rib, one woman, right?

Okay lets move forward, Adam and Eve have done the deed. We have Cain and Able. Able it would appear is a hard working, decent sort a guy, who loves his God, and builds a lovely alter to honor him. Cain on the other hand, is at best not as talented at alter building as his brother. When Cain sees how impressed God is with his sibling, he gets all pissed off and kills his brother in a fit of rage. Now, that's murder, right? Yet does God banish Cain from the family compound? Does he have Daddy Adam lock Cain up 'for life' or worse give him the 'death' sentence for his crime? He does not. But that's a topic for another day.
Moving on, along comes Seth. Which makes Seth and Cain, literally the 'fathers' of the human race.
Now, here's my question. Where's the Mother?
Were there daughters born (of Adam and Eve) that are not mentioned?
The problem here is no matter whether there were daughters we don't know about, or worse there were no daughters and Eve remained the only woman, what you have is NOT a pretty picture.
THIS is the problem with Intelligent Design. If you are going to teach the 'theory' of man being created by God, then you are going to have to teach our children that the human race has it's roots founded in incest. Because in order for Seth and Cain (that brother killer) to have children they had to have to had sexual relations with their [previously unmentioned] sister/sisters, or their Mother.
Do we really want to teach our children that the very roots of our race are a murderer and incestuous brothers/Mother/sisters?
The 'theory' of evolution is starting to look a whole lot more attractive and simple. Don't ya think?

Of course there is that alternative that far too many [pseudo] Christians appear to apply to any Bible related subject that doesn't appeal to them. Just ignore it.
If the Bible teaches adultery is a sin. Ignore it.
If the Bible teaches greed and gluttony are sins. Ignore it.
If the Bible says it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. Ignore it.
If the Bible says blessed be the poor, and meek shall inherit the earth. Ignore it.
On the other hand if the Bible says a man shall not lie with another man, that's the gospel and cannot be ignored.
That is precisely why those who are non-Christian hold those who are, in such disregard.

No wonder they don't want their children being taught religion/intelligent design in public schools.

editors note: This post was inspired by a post found at Adgitadiaries.

2005-10-16T06:39:00.000-05:00

Republican-v-Democrat
in independent point of view

To be fair, Republicans do have a vision. They have a plan. They see the United States as the last, greatest super power. They see us as the last bastion of Christianity. Their plan is to take over not just this country but as much of the world as possible To spread their idea of democracy. Except it's not really democracy. Because in their vision, there's only ONE party. Their own. Their plan is to make this a reality by eliminating as much as possible of the power the Democrats and Independents have. By controlling not only the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government, but the media as well.

Republicans feel threatened by the two party system. They fear democrats and their ideas/ideals. Republicans want all the power, they want to have the only voice, the only vote. They want to do away with the time honored tradition of the filibuster because it keeps them from running roughshod over the Senate.
They have to make themselves believe the middle and the left are evil. They hate them because they stand for the real American dream. The ability of the poor and disadvantaged to rise above their birth and join the ranks of the powerful and the wealthy.
Republicans have this pious, self-righteous attitude. They think they and they alone know what 'God' wants and how good decent people should live their lives. Whether all the people agree with that or not. Does this maybe remind you of another party from the past?
Democrats? Well their vision of America has never changed.
Our forefathers came to this country to escape a society run by the church. They came here seeking the right to live their lives independent of government interference. They were progressives. They desired change. They wanted freedom from oppression. I can't help but believe those original Americans would more strongly identify with the ideals of the democratic party.
You would be hard put to find a democrat (or independent) who would wish to see the demise of the republican party. They understand the need for diversity and the need for more than one party, so that everyone can have some level of representation. On the other hand we constantly hear republicans talking about how democrats need to be delegated to non-participating status. Why is that? Why do republicans feel the need to diminish anyone who does not share their beliefs?
Democrats merely want their fair share of the pie. They don't want to own the show they just want to be part of the process. They want equal rights for ALL people, not just the [Christian] white heterosexual, and the wealthy. They want fair wages, fair housing, fair health care. They want not just freedom OF religion but FROM religion as well. The very ideals that this country was founded on.
The problem for Democrats is they don't seem to be able to find a strong leader to carry their message to the people.
Democrats= The ink is black, the page is white, together we learn to read and write.
Republicans= You're either with us, or we'll kick your ass until you are.
Yep, that's it in a nutshell. At least in MY opinion.

2005-10-12T06:13:00.000-05:00

The Truth Shall Set You Free
or not

There's been a lot of discussion about Tom DeLay and his current problems. His supporters want to make this all about political harassment. His detractors want to nail him to the wall. I just want to understand what's going on. So, here's what I see.

The indictments handed down by the Travis County (Austin) grand jury describe a scheme to circumvent Texas law by a state political action committee established and controlled by DeLay.

Here's how it worked: This committee {Texans for a Republican Majority} solicited $155,000 in corporate contributions from companies such as Sears Roebuck and Bacardi, and sent that money, along with another $35,000 (for a total of $190,000), to a subcommittee established by the Republican National Committee to help local and state candidates. Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC) also sent along a list of seven state candidates in Texas who were to receive this $190,000.
The Republican National Committee then sent checks totaling the exact $190,000 amount to these seven candidates out of one of its non-corporate accounts.

The allegation is that DeLay and two of his employees "washed" this $190,000 in corporate money through the Republican National Committee, having the RNC make contributions that would have been illegal had they been made directly by TRMPAC.[ source ]

The two aides being charged are very closely tied to DeLay's political activities, and it is possible that one or both of them are now cooperating with the prosecution. Which explains why more than one Grand Jury was impaneled. In the original investigation, one or both of the aides refused to 'testify' . By the time the second GJ was impaneled, one or possibly both aides had decided it might be to their benifit to fess up. The third GJ was for additional charges. There were not repeated attempts to 'get' DeLay.

These are FACTS. Supported by the indictment documents.

Now for opinions.
Is it possible that it's merely a coincidence that the exact amount of money sent to the RNC was the exact amount given to the campaign's of the exact same seven candidates that were on the list? Well in that almost anything is possible, yes, it's possible. That will be up to a jury to decide.
Is it also possible that DeLay was unaware of what was going on? Again, anything is possible. But seeing that the two other individuals being charged swear he knew, it's highly unlikely. Again, this is for a jury to decide.
That is if the case ever makes it to court. Because this is politics and there is one very powerful politician involved, it's entirely possible that through legal manuvers and technicalities, a jury will never have the opportunity to hear the case.
If I were DeLay, I wouldn't be worried. People in Texas worship the man. They may have to go through three quarters of Texas's population before they can find 12 people to make up a fair and impartial jury.

Finally, the claim that Ronnie Earle (the Prosecutor in this case) is a partisan Democratic hack doesn't hold water. Earle has indicted both Democrats (12) and Republicans (3) over the years, and is not universally loved by members of his own party for that reason.
Try as hard as they might, DeLay's supporters and his legal team can't make this about Ronnie Earle. This is about Tom DeLay and his actions as part of Texans for a Republican Majority.

DeLay deserves his day in court. If he has broken the law then he should be held accountable. The public deserves straight information about what happened in this case. And that's a FACT.

2005-10-09T01:09:00.000-05:00

A Fair Up or Down Vote
or hypocrites in action

For months now all we've heard from the right is how Bush's judicial nominees deserve a fair up or down vote . The commenters here were adamant, as President, Bush had to the right to have his nominees approved after a fair vetting by the Senate. They (Republicans) were so incensed by threats from Democrats to filibuster questionable nominees, they went so far as to attempt to do away with that time honored tradition. It was President Bush's right to nominate whomever "HE" felt was the best person for the job. Democrats had no right to stop him from his appointed duties. I can distinctly remember thinking this is going to bite them in the ass, mark my words.
Karma is a bitch.
From stage left [sic] enters Harriet Miers. She is, in President Bush’s words, "the best person I could find". Far be it for me to say he didn't look very far. Why should I? The right is screaming it loudly enough for all to hear and see. "Bush may as well appoint his chauffeur head of Nasa (or his horse trainer head of FEMA*) as put Miers on the Supreme Court," exploded the right-wing blowhard Ann Coulter. Then there's Trent Lott, about as hard right as you can find, a man who once publicly regretted the end of racial segregation and ran the Republican Senate: "Is she the most qualified person? Clearly, the answer to that is ‘no’!" Conservative columnist George Will put the case with more restraint but, in some ways, more viciousness. President Bush, he wrote, "has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections"**.[ source ]

What the heck happened to "as President he has the right to have his nominees approved"? What happened to the nominee deserves "a fair up or down vote" ?
We in the center and on the left have been saying this** for five years. Is this tiny little woman, who never harmed a soul in her life, what it took for the right to wake up?
I've seen a few of those ads they aired back during the Robert's hearings. Funny thing is I don't think those ads are aimed at Democrats these days.

Cronyism is nothing new to politics. Most non-conservatives would have said that Bush had taken it to a new level. But hey that's one of the priviliges of being the guy at the top. Right? Maybe this is another one of those 'time honored traditions' the Republicans might want to think about doing away with. Maybe someone should float the concept that a person has to actually have some experience and be at least minimally qualified to hold the position their being appointed too. I'm just saying it could be auspicious for both sides.

To be honest, I don't know any more about Ms Miers than I did about John Roberts. I don't think anyone does. Well, other than maybe the President. So what makes her so much more a threat than Roberts? Why ARE the neo-cons all up in arms over her nomnation as opposed to his? Is it because she's a woman? Is it because she's never been married (thus all those nasty rumors regarding her sexuality)? Is it because she thinks George Bush is the smartest man she knows? I have to admit that one gives me pause for thought as well.

Or is it because lately George has been showing signs of at long last being out from under the thumb of his puppet masters and making the BIG decisions on his own. I'm not even going to get into those nasty rumors about his sobriety. Suddenly he's become a lot less easy to manipulate and control. After all he's got nothing left to loose. It's not like he's going to be running for any public offices any time soon. Could the REAL George Walker Bush be taking center stage? I have to admit I'm starting to like the guy a whole lot more these days. I love that he's found the balls to piss off people left AND right.
Whatever the reasons, it's time for the right to fall in line. Folks you elected him. You put him in office. You gave him the power. Now do what you've been telling the rest of us to do since November of 2000, shut the hell up and live with it .
Frankly, I'd kinda get a kick out of seeing Ms Miers join Mr Roberts on the court. It could lead to years of entertainment watching her come into her own. Who knows maybe she knows something about George that we don't. If she turns out to be a flaming full on conservative, so what? That's what we were gonna get anyway. If not, if she like many before her takes the job very seriously and shows herself to be able to make rational decisions based on The Constitution rather than her personal beliefs, then all the better for all of us. I say, lets give the lady her up or down vote then give her the approval she deserves. After all the President has the right to have his nominees approved. Right?

Yep, Karma is a bitch.

2005-10-06T11:24:00.000-05:00

Humpty-Dumpty Sat on A Wall
Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall

And then all the walls came tumbling down...
DeLay, [Successor] Blunt Swapped Donations
"WASHINGTON — Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes."

"...said Don McGahn, a lawyer for DeLay. "It just shows that donors don't control funds once they're given."

"These people clearly like using middlemen for their transactions," said Lawrence Noble. "It seems to be a pattern with DeLay funneling money to different groups, at least to obscure, if not cover, the original source," said Noble, who was the Federal Election Commission's chief lawyer for 13 years, including in 2000 when the transactions occurred.
"And at the same time, you see Delay and Blunt trying to hide the root of their funding."

I guess Lawrence Noble, like Ronnie Earle in Texas, is a partisian hack trying to bring down a great man.

I don't doubt this is politics as usual. I don't doubt there are democrats who do the same thing. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be held accountable. All of them. If DeLay has to be the poster boy, so be it. Let them all fall, starting at the top. Or as near to the top as you can get. It's time for this house of cards to come tumbling down. Regardless of party affiliation.

2005-10-03T22:47:00.000-05:00

Down for the Count
stick a fork in me I'm done...

I'm sick. The cold from hell has desended upon my house. I'm going to bed. If I live I'll see ya'll in a few days. If not, well hell what do I care what happens if I'm not around to bitch about it.
Until I return you can feast upon this...

You are a
Social Moderate
(50% permissive)

and an...
Economic Liberal
(20% permissive)

You are best described as a:

CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRAT

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

~~~~~~

Or create your own topic for discussion.

2005-09-29T05:43:00.000-05:00

One Nation, Indivisible
is it even possible anymore?

Republicans are now facing the same accusations of arrogance that plagued Democrats in their final days as the majority party. Valid or not these circumstances are the inevitable manifestation of a party drunk with power.
What began eleven years ago with talk of building a "permanent majority'' , has now evolved into an open struggle over what the GOP stands for and how or "IF" it can maintain its advantage.

While DeLay and company call THIS the actions of "unabashed partisan zealot,'' others call it "the beginning of the unraveling of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives,'' .

The bottom line is ""The Republican's behavior has not stood up to the test of integrity,'' "We are finally seeing the duplicity and hypocrisy of Republican leaders. They are absolutely drunk with power.''

I believe a good many Bush/DeLay/Republican supporters have already come to realize what a monumental screwup this administration and current Congress are. They don't need the media or the left to keep beating them over the head with the obvious. Admitting the people you voted for have failed is hard. We on the left know this all too well.
What's needed now is for someone to step forward and pick up the slack. Put an end to the party bashing and come up with realistic solutions to the problems we as a nation face. The war in Iraq, the rising cost of fuel, the re-building of New Orleans, the failure of national agencies to responds in a state of emergency, are just a few of the vital issues that need to be addressed.
Now more than ever we need political leaders who can bring us together. The opportunity is nigh, will there be someone to fill the void? Will the people of the United States even attempt to come together or have we gone too far down that road to ever turn back again?
If your a Democrat/liberal/Independent can you name even one Republican you'd trust to lead us back to the middle ground and begin the restoring of our greatness as a country and a people? What about the Republicans/conservatives? Is there a Democrat you'd trust?
Has party alliance become more important and more defining than nationality? Are we truly a nation indivisible or are we already too deeply divided to ever see that kind of unity again?

2005-09-28T06:38:00.000-05:00

FOR SALE
slightly used country, can be had by the highest bidder

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has contributed $1.25 million of his own money to a committee pushing a bill that would change how legislative districts are redrawn.[ source ]

The measure, which Schwarzenegger helped qualify for the November 8 special election ballot, would strip redistricting authority from the Legislature and turn it over to a panel of retired judges.

Steve Poizner, a Silicon Valley billionaire, said Tuesday he donated another $1.25 million to the effort after Schwarzenegger asked him to serve as chairman of the Yes on Proposition 77 committee.

"The huge dollar amounts being put in by both the governor and Poizner demonstrate what we've been saying all along," said Paul Hefner, spokesman for the No on 77 committee. "This is a political power grab by one set of politicians wanting to rewrite the constitution to get an advantage over another."

Schwarzenegger's aides have said that he intends to donate as much as $4.5 million from his personal fortune to support his ballot measures.
~~~~~~

First they claim the courts are being overrun by liberal judges who want to make law rather than intrepret it. Then they turn around and they want to turn the authority to redraw voting districts to.... JUDGES?

Someone tell me again how this country isn't being bought and sold by the wealthy.
Those middle class folks that are blindly following the Republican party thinking they somehow represent higher morals and values, had better wake up and pull their heads out of their asses, and soon or there's not going to be a middle class. We will have that ownership society that Bush is always talking about. They (the wealthy) will be the owners and the rest of us will be the owned. Is that what you want for YOUR children and grandchildren? What a wonderful future your insuring for them.

2005-09-24T15:55:00.000-05:00

Support Tropps
giving more than just 'lip service'...

Jake is a regular commenter here at Words. You may have noticed he doesn't have a blog. That's mostly because he doesn't have time. Jake is an active duty service member. He served in Iraq for 9 months and was sent home due to an injury. He still has many friends and a brother serving there. He posts under a pseudonym and uses my ISP so as to stay as anonymous as possible. Why? Because as a member of the armed forces he is strictly forbidden from making any disparaging remarks about the Commander in Chief (Bush) or from revealing the status of any ongoing war efforts. Despite what some may say, all members of the military are made very aware of what the consequences of speaking out against the President or the war in Iraq would be.
I am proud to provide him with a place to voice his feelings and his personal observations. I would gladly go to jail before revealing his identity. As would any member of my family. This is how we show our support for the men and women serving in this illegal and ungodly war. By allowing them an outlet for the truth to be told.
Last week a close friend of Jake's was killed in action. I didn't have the privilege of knowing this man, but as I listen to Jake speak of him I know he was a good, decent, loyal, and very patriotic man. I also know he hated what was happening in Iraq and what is happening here in this country as a result of Iraq. He was not alone, NOR was he in the minority.
He left behind a small child who will never know him. Who's memories will fade with time and 'Daddy' will never come home. He won't understand for many years and by then the sense of abandonment he feels will be deeply ingrained in his subconscious. There are thousands of children just like him all over this country.
Jake commented that he could share with you the stories of the horror that is happening, but far too many don't want to hear. He could tell you the truth about what is really going on but you probably wouldn't believe him (well some would). It's just so much easier to appease your conscience by continuing to believe the lies of Bush, Rumsfield, & Co.
Karena has an excellent post today [No One Dares] on that very topic. Check it out if you dare to know a small portion of the 'truth'.
Today while our nation is yet again seeing a part of America destroyed by Mother Nature's terrorism. While thousands march on Washington in protest of an illegal war. [ source] Our esteemed President is hiding out yet again (much like he did on Sept 11th["In Colorado, Bush paused briefly to autograph a photograph of him, in a stop at the ruins of the World Trade Centre three days after the September 11 attacks,]). This time in Colorado.[ source ] I'm sure he's safe and secure in those underground tunnels. Hiding out from two very angry ladies (Rita and Cindy) and from reality. It's just such a shame we can't lock him up in those tunnels and leave him there. Of course that would put him far too close to that 'launch' button, and those 'dry dunks' can get hard to handle from time to time, so maybe not.
On an even less hopeful/cheerful note..."Cheney's aneurysm surgery a success..." This man has to be the devil himself, or else the cat with nine lives.
Yeah, I know it's unchristian and mean of me to wish ill upon another human being, but what the heck, he has no problem sending thousands of men and women to die in his quest for 'mo money'/spoils of war, why should I feel guilty about wishing him the same fate? This world would be a much safer place if he and Rove should meet their maker (whomEVER that might be) sooner rather later.

2005-09-20T01:30:00.000-05:00

Iraq, the new Afghanistan
"UN: Iraq is al-Qaeda's new training ground*...

" A United Nations panel of experts issued a report Monday saying there is no shortage of recruits for terrorism worldwide and that Iraq has provided new training ground for them, replacing al Qaeda bases lost in Afghanistan."

So, let me see if I can sum this up a bit. After five years of Republicans being in power, four years after 9/11, and three years of war, we are no safer, and no better off than we were to begin with. Recruiting of terrorist continues, as strong if not stronger than before. While there have been no incidents in the US, terrorist attacks are up worldwide. It would serve well to note that prior to 2001 the last attack here in the states was in 1993, so there was a seven year lapse in between the two. One can't say if there have been any attacks that were actually prevented, or not.
Our military ran Al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan and right into Iraq. We didn't put them out of business, we simply helped them relocate.
The party who claimed to be tough on terrorism has accomplished exactly what?
Not only can they not say they have actually prevented any terrorist attacks, but in light of the aftermath of Katrina, they also cannot claim to be ready to respond should an attack occur.
And at what cost? The loss of almost 2,000 American lives, and countless Iraqi, and Afghan lives.
Oh yes, Bush Co has made the world a much safer place. NOT!

Yet Republicans and Bush supporters still stand steadfastly behind this man and his party. I can't help but wonder how these people sleep at night. Have they no conscience or compassion for the loss of lives they are responsible for? Do they not understand the blood is on their hands? Do they not realize the God they all claim to believe so strongly in, is going to hold them accountable?
Apparently DE`NILE (yes I know it's spelled incorrectly) is not just a river in Egypt.
~~~~~~

[* source ]

2005-09-15T00:01:00.000-05:00

Stare Decisis
upholding the law-vs-making new law

I'll admit I haven't gotten too emotionally involved in the John Roberts nomination and subsequent Senate hearings. Primarily because my common sense tells me it's already a done deal. With the Republicans controlling Congress there is no doubt he will be confirmed. I have watched a few minutes here and there of the hearings, but mostly to see the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in action.
I tend to rely on my gut in sizing up people. Despite the perfunctory objections by democrats, Judge Roberts doesn't set off my inner 'neo-con-dar' (like gay-dar but applies to neo-cons). I think he's probably the best we could have hoped for all things considered.
If I had any doubts they were pretty much erased last night while viewing Real Time with Bill Maher. Yes, I watch him. I also watch The O'Reilly Factor. One evens out the other. George Carlin was one of Bill's guest last night and his assessment of Judge Roberts was enlightening and well, kind of comforting. If you know George, then you know he's about as far left as it gets. Then again, he's not a big fan of Michael Moore's either. Go figure.
Anyway, George said, when the question concerning Roberts was brought up, "I think he tends to be of the "stare decisis", ilk." (stare decisis:"to stand by things that have been settled. The doctrine under which courts adhere to precedent on questions of law in order to insure certainty, consistency, and stability in the administration of justice with departure from precedent permitted for compelling reasons) That's been my opinion as well. Now I know we could both be wrong, and I don't know what George is basing his opinion on, but I'm basing mine on the words out of Judge Roberts' mouth.
For example, when asked whether the president had the power to authorize torture, Roberts said that "no one is above the law and that includes the president." Roberts also said he admired the approach of Justice Robert Jackson, who joined the high court in 1941 after serving as attorney general.

"Although he had strong views as attorney general, he recognized, when he became a member of the Supreme Court, that his job had changed and he was not the president's lawyer, he was not the chief lawyer in the executive branch," Roberts said. "He was a justice sitting in review of some of the decisions of the executive."

These two statements tell me that if Judge Roberts is an honest man, a man who stands by his word, he will not be swayed by political pressure, but will uphold the law of the Constitution to the best of his ability. For this reason, I will give him the 'yea' nod.

I realize this puts me at odds with more than one of my fellow liberal bloggers, but I have to go with my instincts. Besides, if George Carlin can give him a 'yea', who am I to argue?

I suspect their (the SC) next case is already shaping up.
Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional

Less than half an hour after a U.S. District Court judge in California issued his opinion, Roberts told Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, that the high court often has been at odds over the extent government could "endorse" the free exercise of religion. I think that statement could be quite telling.
Frankly I don't see the pledge as an 'endorsement' of religion. I see it as more of a patriotic activity. That was certainly the way I felt as a school child reciting it. The words 'under God' had no impact on me whatsoever.

I can't help but wonder if President Bush's nomination of Roberts won't one day be remembered as his subtle way of thumbing his nose at the religious right and their never ending attempts to tighten their grip on the Republican Party?
Now wouldn't that be a hoot? One worthy of his trademark smirk!