Big Thinker, Small Town

Finally, an update

2010-02-27T10:48:00.000-08:00

This is the first post I've made in almost two years. In the meantime, I've stumped for & voted for Obama, & he won the presidency. In his first few weeks, the man was on fire. No one ever did more to put his pen where his ideals were in my lifetime.

But then... he stopped. Not only did he stop, it looked like he was in bed with the evildoers whose names he invoked to get elected. There are so many of these creatures--most of whom would be satisfactorily dealt with in military or criminal court--that I feel he's done a 180. He's not the man I was proud to get in an argument with my uncle over. I can't stand up & defend him.

I wondered, at first, if he just was a big wimp who subscribed to the popular belief that no one was ever wrong & that when two sides fought, they were both at fault. Bah. There is right & wrong. Bush, Cheney, Reagan & their henchmen were all wrong. It's not so far off to believe that 9/11 was a Bush/Hussein conspiracy. I won't get into that, or any of the hundreds of other conspiracy "theories" that are actually "conspiracy facts."

Here's what I want to talk about today, & on another day, I'll vent spleen: Obama subscribes to the oxymoron "clean coal" & is actively working on establishing nuclear plants in beautiful places. I live on Samish Island in NW Washington, & once upon a time, our in-bed-with-the-nuclear-industry governor, Dixy Lee Ray, a purported Democrat, wanted to build a nuclear facility right here on the north end of one of the most beautiful places on earth, among the thousands of herons & bald eagles, deer, rabbits, ducks, swans, frogs, oysters, crabs, clams & more wildlife than you can imagine.

I was part of a group that helped defeat the nuclear industry's plans in Washington State. Their unfortunate, taxpayer-funded (in the dark) nuclear towers bear mute witness to their corruption & our stupidity. It was here in this state that the Mahattan Project had its field day. It was on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation that the first atom bomb was built & dropped on Hiroshima. Upwind from Hanford, the highest incidence of thyroid cancer per capita exists.

No number of scientists--including my niece, Kris, a nuclear engineer who works at Hanford--have figured out what to do with nuclear waste. Plutonium is one of the products of nuclear waste. Plutonium is good for making bombs that killed tens of thousands of people with one shot. The land around Hanford, which butts up against an Indian reservation where no white man has ever walked, is polluted with nuclear waste. The Columbia River, which runs along there, is filled with nuclear waste from the ground water leaching. The salmon are almost extinct.

Obama wants to create more of this waste & destroy more environment with it & the radiation that comes from the creation of nuclear power--a form of energy "too cheap to meter," which was the seductive slogan they used to sell us a bill of goods back in the 1960s. How can he do this? How does this smart guy suffer such extreme tunnel vision that he'll collude with the enemy & destroy the earth.

So, here's the point: Let's say Obama wants to designate $10-billion for site research & development for nuclear sites across America. This is money spent before a dime is spent on construction of nuclear facilities. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn't it? This doesn't include buying into "clean coal," either, which is a huge oxymoron.

So, divide that money amongst the 115,000,000 households in the United States, understanding that a large percent of those homes are rented, not owned, & you end up with an energy division of $86 per. That doesn't sound like much, but the number can easily get bigger. Stay tuned.

The dollars would be used solely for harsh weather abatement--insulation, solar panels, individual windmills, etc. Future construction--most of which is NOT for the common man, but for those who can afford "luxury" condos & apartments--would be required to include these technologies.

These dollars can be matched by state & municipalities. Homeowners could qualify for even more rebates & no-interest loans by submitting their energy bills & dollars used to reduce them. There are so many ways to make sure the dollars get right to the consumers & to the construction workers & energy experts who could help reach energy abatement goals, the surface has not been scratched.

Legislation written in plain language, taking up no more than 200 pages, could take us right to the point. Implementation could start right away. The whole thing could become an entry on the mid-term ballot slip.

Okay, I don't do math that well & I don't argue that well, but here's my bottom line: I plan to build a straw-bale house, which is super-energy-efficient. I plan to use passive solar & wind energy, among any other technology I can find by then, to allow me to live off the grid--or close to it.

But even though I'm willing to take personal responsibility for my carbon footprint, I have no control over what My President is planning to do. He might as well clear-cut the Amazon rainforests while he's at it. He's doing irreparable harm to our world & its ecology by advancing consumption of coal & nuclear energies.

Give the money directly to the consumer, in the form of a coupon that can only be used for energy abatement in the form of constructing new devices & technologies that have absolutely NO effect on our fragile ecosystem. Thats' what the government did with the analog-digital TV switch (which should never have happened, by the way--it sure didn't benefit me, or anyone else I know). Then there were the rebates--one under Bush, one under Obama. The rule was that these dollars should be spent on items that would stimulate the economy, not put in savings. That was the stupidest thing I ever heard.

Nevertheless, this is the opportunity for the government to get OUR money's worth instead of getting us into a boondoggle like the one we suffered here in Washington State.

Don't give it to the Halliburtons of the energy industry. Give it to the homeowners & make sure it's used for energy technologies that are already known to work & already available to the consumer.

I also have a rant about the recent Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to donate to presidential campaigns. Does this mean our next president will be elected by Rupert Murdoch? Is that what you want?

Truth in Justice (& the fix)

2007-04-14T13:01:00.001-07:00

April 14, 2007

E-Mail Identified G.O.P. Candidates for Justice Jobs

By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON, April 13 — A Justice Department e-mail message released on Friday shows that the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales proposed replacement candidates for United States attorneys nearly a year before they were dismissed in December 2006. The department has repeatedly stated that no successors were selected before the dismissals.

The Jan. 9, 2006, e-mail message, written by D. Kyle Sampson, who resigned last month as the top aide to Mr. Gonzales, identified five Bush administration officials, most of them Justice Department employees, whose names were sent to the White House for consideration as possible replacements for prosecutors slated for dismissal.

The e-mail message and several related documents provide the first evidence that Mr. Sampson, the Justice Department official in charge of the dismissals, had focused on who would succeed the ousted prosecutors. Justice officials have repeatedly said that seven of the eight prosecutors were removed without regard to who might succeed them.

Some of the new documents show the department’s acute awareness of individual United States attorneys’ political and ideological views. An undated spreadsheet attached to a Feb. 12, 2007, e-mail message listed the federal prosecutors who had served under President Bush along with their past work experience.

The chart included a category for Republican Party and campaign work, showing who had been a delegate to a Republican convention or had managed a Republican political campaign. The chart had a separate category indicating who among the prosecutors was a member of the Federalist Society, a Washington-based association that serves as a talent pool for young conservatives seeking appointments in Republican administrations.

Taken together, Democrats asserted, the e-mail supported their contention that the ousted prosecutors were dismissed to make room for favored candidates who were chosen on the basis of their political qualifications as much as prosecutorial experience.

The latest collection of documents, the sixth batch produced by the Justice Department in recent weeks, also cast further light on the frantic scramble by the Bush administration since January to contain the public relations damage caused by the ouster of the eight.

The electronic messages, some written as recently as last month, offer a rare and almost contemporaneous account of the tactics used by a sitting administration trying to manage a political firestorm.

One e-mail message shows the White House urging the Justice Department to call Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, to give him information about the placement of J. Timothy Griffin, a former aide to Karl Rove, as the interim United States attorney in Arkansas.

“WH political reached out to Sen. Sessions and requested that he ask helpful questions to make clear that Tim Griffin is qualified to serve,” said a January 2007 e-mail message from Monica Goodling, a former senior aide to Mr. Gonzales, to other department officials. “Here are the talkers on Griffin, as well as a narrative that can be used by staff, and his résumé. I think it would actually be helpful for all of the Rs to have it.”

It was not clear whether the “talkers," shorthand for talking points, were sent to Mr. Sessions and other “Rs,” or Republicans. But Mr. Sessions, in a later hearing on the matter, ran through all of the highlights, praising Mr. Griffin’s résumé, just as the White House and Justice had apparently requested.

Other documents show that Ms. Goodling, the Justice Department’s liaison to the White House, prepared a list of reasons in February to explain publicly why the prosecutors had been ousted.

Notes in handwriting identified by a Justice official as Ms. Goodling’s run quickly through a list of alleged transgressions by the fired prosecutors, like “incredibly fractured office, morale low, lost confidence of her subordinates and superiors,” in describing Margaret Chiara, the former United States attorney from Western Michigan who disputes the claims.

In the case of David Iglesias, who was dismissed as the top federal prosecutor in New Mexico, Ms. Goodling writes of a complaint from Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, a Republican: “Domenici says he doesn’t move cases.”

The e-mail was among more than 2,000 pages of documents released by the Justice Department as part of a continuing outpouring of more than 6,000 pages of e-mail and other internal records produced in the last month in response to requests by House and Senate committees as the furor over the dismissals has grown. Mr. Gonzales is scheduled to appear on Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The Justice Department said that Mr. Sampson’s e-mail message did not contradict either his sworn testimony or the department’s past statements. Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the department, said: “We have consistently stated that, with the exception of Griffin, individuals were not pre-selected for any of the eight U.S. attorney positions prior to asking the U. S. attorneys to resign. The list made public today had previously been shared privately with Congress, and it in no way contradicts the department’s prior statement. The list, drafted 10 months before the December resignations, reflects Kyle Sampson’s initial thoughts, not pre-selected candidates by the administration.”

Mr. Sampson’s lawyer, Bradford Berenson, also denied that the message contradicted Mr. Sampson’s testimony. “Kyle’s testimony regarding the consideration of replacements was entirely accurate,” Mr. Berenson said. “In December 2006, when the seven U.S. attorneys were asked to step down, no specific candidate had been selected to replace any of them, and Kyle had none in mind. Some names had been tentatively suggested for discussion much earlier in the process, but by the time the decision to ask for the resignations was made none had been chosen to serve as a replacement.”

The possible replacements selected by Mr. Sampson — with the exception of Mr. Griffin — never materialized, at least in part because the controversy regarding the ousters has pushed aside consideration of who will fill the vacancies. But it is clear from actions taken over the last two years that Justice officials had placed lawyers from department headquarters, who were known to be loyal to Mr. Gonzales and President Bush, into open posts.

The Jan. 9, 2006, e-mail message was sent by Mr. Sampson to Harriet E. Miers, the former White House counsel, and William Kelley, another White House lawyer. In the e-mail, Mr. Sampson proposed the dismissal of a total of seven United States attorneys and named at least one replacement candidate for each prospective vacancy.

Because of deletions in the e-mail copies turned over to Congress, the document discloses only the names of four United States attorneys slated for removal and five of their possible successors. The names of the replacement candidates, in most cases, are followed by a question mark, suggesting that Mr. Sampson might have been uncertain about them.

The United States attorneys identified for removal are four who were ultimately dismissed: Ms. Chiara in Michigan, Kevin Ryan in San Francisco, Carol C. Lam in San Diego and Mr. Cummins in Arkansas. Justice Department officials have acknowledged that Mr. Cummins was an able prosecutor who was removed solely to make room for Mr. Griffin, a former aide to Mr. Rove, the White House senior political adviser who was appointed to the job on a temporary basis.

“Please treat this as confidential,” Mr. Sampson wrote in the message. He concluded, “If a decision is made to remove and replace a limited number of U.S. attorneys, then the following might be considered for removal and possible replacement.”

Mr. Sampson testified under oath on March 29 at a hearing of Senate Judiciary Committee that he had no candidates in mind to replace any of the fired prosecutors. In his prepared statement, he said that “none of the U.S. attorneys was asked to resign in favor of a particular individual who had already been identified to take the vacant spot.”

At one point in the hearing, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, asked Mr. Sampson, “Did you or did you not have in mind specific replacements for the dismissed U.S. attorneys before they were asked to resign on Dec. 7, 2006.”

Mr. Sampson, testifying under oath, replied: “I personally did not.”

Neil A. Lewis and Scott Shane contributed reporting.

Rupert? What's in your pocket? Let's have a look, shall we?

2006-12-08T10:38:00.000-08:00

People whine on and on about not getting what they need or what they want. Americans, especially, are bound by self-interest when it comes to necessary boycotts that would assert citizen power. If a boycott affects their happiness, they don't do it.

It wouldn't kill you to boycott any entity on the following list.

And if you really cared about the state of our nation and the condition of the world, you would stop buying oil and gas from these evil people, convert to biofuels and/or ethanol, and suffer a little bit because you refuse to go to a movie from the 20th Century Fox family of studios.

So what?

Do you think boycotts don't work? How would you know? When, in your lifetime or 100 years of history, have you seen or known about a boycott? There have been small ones, yes, but a boycott of Rupert Murdoch's holdings would have to be huge before it would hurt him.

And it won't be huge if you continue to whine about getting what you need and what you want.

Oh, and yes, I am boycotting him and have been for more than a year. I do without and I can sleep at night, knowing he's not getting any money from me. There are a number of other businesses I boycott as well, but that's for another blog entry.

And I don't buy gas or oil because I don't drive. I do take buses, and they run on some oil, gas or diesel, but in Seattle and the Puget Sound region, the conversion to biofuels has been fleet-wide. You rarely see a bus that isn't a hybrid, or isn't running on vegetable oil or electricity (in the city proper).

Put your boycott where Rupert Murdoch's mouth is. If you don't, you are an accomplice to the enemy, to the Bush Empire, to the war in Iraq, to the destruction of constitutional rights in America, and to any possibility of freedom and happiness we might have.

Ignorance is no excuse. Get smart.

Rupert Murdoch's empire consists of:

From Wikipedia:

Books
* HarperCollins book publishing company
o ReganBooks
o Zondervan Christian book publisher

Newspapers
* Australia
o The Australian (Nationwide)
o The Weekend Australian (Nationwide)
o The Courier-Mail (Queensland)
o The Sunday Mail (Queensland)
o The Cairns Post (Cairns, Queensland)
o The Gold Coast Bulletin (Gold Coast, Queensland)
o The Townsville Bulletin (Townsville, Queensland)
o The Daily Telegraph (New South Wales)
o The Sunday Telegraph (New South Wales)
o The Herald Sun (Victoria)
o The Sunday Herald Sun (Victoria)
o The Weekly Times (Victoria)
o MX (Melbourne and Sydney CBD)
o The Geelong Advertiser (Geelong, Victoria)
o The Advertiser (South Australia)
o The Sunday Mail (South Australia)
o Messenger Newspapers (South Australia)
o The Sunday Times (Western Australia)
o The Mercury (Tasmania)
o The Sunday Tasmanian (Tasmania)
o Northern Territory News (Northern Territory)
o The Sunday Territorian (Northern Territory)
* Fiji
o Fiji Times (National)
* Papua New Guinea
o Papua New Guinea Post-Courier (National)
* UK newspapers, published by subsidiaries of News International Ltd.
o News Group Newspapers Ltd.
+ the tabloid The Sun
+ the tabloid News of the World
o Times Newspapers Ltd.
+ the broadsheet The Sunday Times
+ the 'ex-broadsheet' (Now in compact form) The Times
+ the broadsheet The Times Literary Supplement
* US newspapers and magazines
o the New York Post
o The timesledger Newspapers
Bayside Times
Flushing Times
Fresh Meadows
Little Neck Times
Jackson Heights
Woodside Times
Richmond Hill Times
Jamaica Times
Laurelton times
Queens village
Astoria Times
Forest Hills Times
o Caribbean Life

Magazines
* SmartSource
* TV Guide, via partial ownership of Gemstar-TV Guide
* The Weekly Standard (Washington, D.C.)
* Alpha Magazine
* Love it! (UK based Magazine)
* InsideOut (UK Based Magazine)
* The Travel Magazine (UK Based Magazine)
* Dannii (UK Based Magazine)

Music
* MySpace Records

Sports
* 50% of National Rugby League (Australia and New Zealand)
* Majority ownership of the Brisbane Broncos, Melbourne Storm and North Queensland Cowboys rugby league teams.

Studios
* 20th Century Fox film production company
* Fox Searchlight
* Fox Television Studios
* Fox Studios Australia, Sydney, New South Wales
* Fox Studios Baja, Rosarito, Baja California
* Blue Sky Studios
* Fox Entertainment Group

TV: Broadcast
* Fox Broadcasting Company (FOX), a US broadcast television network
* My Network TV, a US broadcast television network
* Fox Television Stations Group, a group of owned and operated FOX television stations
* bTV, a broadcast television network in Bulgaria
* b1TV, a broadcast television network in Romania, in partnership with S.C. NEWS ROMANIA S.A.
* Fox Televizija, a broadcast television network in Serbia
* ANTV, a private television station in Indonesia, under the administration and label of STAR TV
* TGRT, a Turkish terrestrial channel
* Imedi Media Holding, a Georgian radio and TV broadcaster part-owned by News Corporation
* ITV, a british broacast television network and the UK's largest advertising revenue based broadcaster 17.5%

Satellite television
* BSkyB, United Kingdom (39.1% holding).
* DirecTV Group, North and South America (38.6% holding)
o DirecTV, the largest U.S. satellite TV provider
o DirectTV Latin America
o Sky+Directv (Brasil) (co-owned with Globopar)
o Sky Mexico
* Foxtel, Australia (25% holding)
* Sky Italia, Italian satellite TV service
* STAR TV, an Asian satellite TV service
* Tata Sky, an Indian DTH TV service (20% holding)
* SKY Network Television , New Zealand (More than 40%)

Cable
* Fox College Sports, College Sports Network that consisits of 3 regionally aligned channels
* Fox Movie Channel, an all-movie channel that airs commercial-free movies from 20th Century Fox film library
* Fox News Channel, a 24-hour news channel
* Fox Reality, a 'Reality TV'-themed channel
* Fox Sports Net, a chain of US regional cable television networks broadcasting local sporting events linked together by national sports news programming. Local channels include "Fox Sports Southwest", "Fox Sports Bay Area", etc. (some affiliates still owned by Cablevision).
* Fox Soccer Channel, a United States digital cable network specializing mainly in soccer.
* Fox Sports en Español, a Spanish-language North American cable sports network; its sports lineup is tailored to appeal to a Latin American audience.
* Fox Sports en Latinoamérica, a Mexico-based Latin American satellite and cable sports network.
* Foxtel (25%), Australia's largest satellite and cable pay TV provider, a joint venture with Telstra and Publishing and Broadcasting Limited
* FX Networks, a cable network broadcasting reruns of programming previously shown on other channels, but recently creating its own programming, including the Emmy Award-winning program The Shield.
* National Geographic Channel (joint venture with National Geographic Magazine) 67%
* National Geographic Channel International 50%
* Fox International Channels
* SPEED Channel
* Fuel Channel
* Big Ten Channel

Internet
* MySpace - Social networking website. (Acquired through purchase of Intermix Media).
* Grab.com - Entertainment/Games. (Acquired through purchase of Intermix Media)
* IGN Entertainment - Internet entertainment portal (Includes the sites IGN, GameSpy, Rotten Tomatoes and Askmen.com)
* News.com.au - Australian-oriented news website
* What if Sports.com
* Scout.com
* Sibeliusmusic.com

Other assets
* (NDS) - Conditional access technology and personal digital video recorders (PVRs)
* Broadsystem Ltd (UK) - Telephony provider for media companies, bought in 1991
* Broadsystem Australia (Australia)
* Broadsystem Ventures (UK) - provider of cheap-rate telephone calls, particularly for customers of Sky Television. Bought outright in 1999.
* Jamba! - Mobile Entertainment/Mobile Handsets Personalization/Games. 51% majority stake acquired through deal with VeriSign in September 2006.

Other links:
Columbia Journalism Review

Purchase of DirectTV

THE MAN WHO RULES THE WORLD

A World of Loopholes, Havens Boosts News Corp.'s Profits

Corporate Connections/Business Interests

He even owns the rights to the Bible, people...

Rupey on MySpace

Thanks for the wonderful cartoon, Barbara.
©1983-2005 Barbara Baryenbruch Luhring (http://www.naotrc.com/pages/politics.html)

No Nuclear Strike

2006-04-18T19:03:00.000-07:00

Women walk past a satirical mural of the Statue of Liberty on the wall of the former U.S. embassy in Tehran, April 16, 2006. REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl

Do you want to live in a world where the United States drops nuclear bombs on another country? No one has used a nuclear bomb in warfare for more than 60 years, and there's a reason for that. The devastation from the explosion and continuing to the fallout is far too great to justify its use.

This joke of a president who is hated by the majority of Americans is threatening to drop the bomb on Iran. Is that okay with you?

NO!!! NEVER!!! FOR GOD'S SAKE, NO!!!

Is the moron just posturing, or does he intend to make good on his threat? Either way, this is not a game.

And the penalty for his evil deeds that have eroded the foundations of our nation so severely, it will take hundreds of years to recover, should be death. He needs to be tried and found guilty of treason, then executed by a firing squad.

This is war--against the fake president.

More on the demise of journalism

2006-04-09T13:15:00.000-07:00

Fake TV News: See It and Stop It!

Source: Center for Media and Democracy, April 6, 2006

Who's behind your news? Without disclosure, you just don't know if the report you're watching about a corporation was secretly funded by and produced for that corporation.

That's what the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) found in our groundbreaking exposé, "Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed." This multi-media report is the culmination of an intensive, ten month investigation by CMD. It provides the most extensive account to date of how corporate-funded video news releases -- fake TV news -- are routinely aired, without disclosure, as though they were independent news reports.

Learn which TV stations we caught and watch footage of the VNRs we tracked, plus see how TV newscasts incorporated them and/or related satellite media tour "interviews," by reading our online report, here: http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary

And then tell the Federal Communications Commission that fake news must stop, by taking part in a joint CMD / Free Press action, here: http://action.freepress.net/campaign/fakenews

“A diverse workforce..."

2006-04-05T15:21:00.000-07:00

Fifth Third Bank Employs No Blacks in Pittsburgh
by Deborah Todd
Special to the NNPA from the New Pittsburgh Courier
Originally posted 3/12/2006

PITTSBURGH (NNPA) – While Fifth Third Bank describes itself as a “diverse workforce of more than 22,000 dedicated and talented individuals,” on its Website, such diversity has yet to reach its Pennsylvania branches.

Representatives from Fifth Third’s main office have confirmed that none of the bank’s five Pennsylvania branches, located in downtown Pittsburgh, Squirrel Hill, Wexford, Murrysville and Cranberry, employ any Black people.

Janet Petro, a media relations associate at Fifth Third, said the reason that none of the approximately 80 employees at the bank’s Western Pennsylvania locations are Black is mostly because of the way employees were brought on staff.

“We had what is called a de-novo entry into this market, which means we had no presence at all in the area, so we offered relocation to current employees in other areas within the bank,” said Petro. “A lot of employees came from the banks in Eastern Ohio.”

In spite of the bank’s equal opportunity employer statement, which says employees and senior managers will “ensure that the equal employment opportunity policy provides optimal results,” the bank made no extra efforts to bring Black employees to an area with a population that is more than 30 percent Black.

Petro admits that there is no real explanation as to why Blacks from within the company did not relocate, but says the bank has also made efforts to hire Black candidates externally.

''We have interviewed several minority candidates and continue to speak to them, (but) it’s a matter of timing because we didn’t have any positions open,'' added Pero.

Petro said that although the initial recruiting effort was not geared toward race, the bank has plans to hire minority candidates in the Pennsylvania branches this year. She also said the bank would seek out businesses and community organizations in Pittsburgh that would introduce them to qualified candidates.

“A plan is currently in place. (While) there are no current open positions as we open new banking centers we will fill the positions accordingly,” said Petro. “We are also looking for partners to help us recruit.”

The only reason we don’t have anyone hired yet is because we haven’t matched the appropriate candidate with the appropriate job skill at this time. We have to have positions open to hire someone.”

Let's build on the momentum and throw the scoundrels out

2006-03-11T22:33:00.000-08:00

Bush Approval Rating Hits All-Time Low in New CBS Poll

By E&P Staff

Published: February 27, 2006 9:20 PM ET

NEW YORK A new CBS News poll released late Monday places President George W. Bush's approval rating at an all-time low of 34% percent. Many in the media had noted a Bush "bounce" earlier in the year, but now his approval rating has plunged 8% in just one month.

The poll also showed that pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high, and 7 in 10 Americans, including 58% of Republicans, opposed the Dubai ports agreement.

In a separate poll, two out of three Americans said they do not think President Bush has responded adequately to the needs of Katrina victims.

And, for the first time in this poll, most Americans say the president does not care much about people like themselves. Fifty-one percent now think he doesn't care.

Just 30% approve of how Bush is handling the Iraq war, another all-time low. "By two to one, the poll finds Americans think U.S. efforts to bring stability to Iraq are going badly – the worst assessment yet of progress in Iraq," CBS observed.

Only 41% say that invading Iraq was "the right thing to do."
Some 54% say we "should have stayed out."

Even on fighting terrorism, which has long been a strong suit for Bush, his ratings dropped lower than ever. Half of Americans say they disapprove of how he's handling the war on terror, while 43% approve.

Vice President Cheney's approval rating, already dismal, still managed to plunge--from 23% in January to 18% now.

Quote of the Century:

2006-03-11T17:11:00.000-08:00

This, regarding the proposed leasing of key U.S. ports to Dubai:

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., was even more blunt, telling the Washington Times that his initial reaction was: "OK, big boy, I'll just vote to override your veto."

Are you that stupid?

2006-03-11T14:17:00.000-08:00

Do you believe this?

Asked about the rift within his own party, President Bush told reporters Saturday that Republicans are united in efforts to win the war on terror, keep taxes low and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. "I've heard all the stories about this rift or that rift. It's typical Washington, it seems like to me. I am looking forward to continuing to work with the leadership in the United States Congress, to pass an agenda that will keep America the economic leader of the world, and will keep this country secure," he said. "And [this] fall, I am looking forward to campaigning with our candidates. I am convinced ours is a party that has an agenda for the future, and ours is the party that has performed."

Who profits from high prices on oil and gasoline?

Who profits from rebuilding Iraq after tearing it down?

Who wants to develop a Republican oligarchy and effectively RULE the United States?

Who issues bogus terrorist warnings every time we forget to be intimidated?

Who sanctioned murder in the form of death penalty executions in Texas, deliberately delayed aid to African-Americans stranded in New Orleans, and dead American soldiers in Iraq?

Who has more money than he can ever spend, but a real lust for power?

Who is so out of touch with humanity that he makes everything into a joke?

Who is eroding the foundations of our Constitutional rights with the Patriot Act, eavesdropping on private citizens and sneaky earmarks in unrelated bills?

Who threatens to veto anything that doesn't go his way?

Who pals around with corrupt lobbyists, legislators, porn stars, criminals and spooks?

Who has made America a laughingstock, a terrorist in the eyes of the rest of the world, a nation of sheep?

Who has an approval rating in the low 30-percentile and support for the war in Iraq hovering around 17 percent?

Who was never elected to office, never able to form a coherent thought, never did an honest day's work in his life and is holding America hostage?Who has distinguished himself as one of the most evil rulers in history, rivaling Hitler's rise to power, with less ideology and more self-serving greed?

One man's name is the correct answer to all these questions. Republicans and Democrats alike have complicitly allowed him to establish a new low in presidential ethics, performance, patriotism, effectiveness and embarrassment. It's time to turn the Republicans out and demand that the Democrats grow a pair and start telling the truth!

If the electorate can't turn the tide in this off-year election, we may not be able to stem the flood of horror that's waiting for us down the road. We must take responsibility for our voting machines so they cannot be corrupted by any political party or machine. We must repeal the Patriot Act. We must DEMAND our freedom and if necessary, take it back by force, because evil people never give up, never return what they have looted, never feel guilty about what they are doing.

It's not about party politics, and yet, we lack the citizen leadership to overturn the two-party system.

But if we don't take back the power, the power will be used against all of us.

That's a reference to a January speech by White House senior political advisor Karl Rove, who urged Republicans to run on national security issues because, he said, Democrats have a pre-September 11 view of the world and Republicans have a post-September 11 view.

Let us RETURN to a pre-9/11 mindset, where we are not ruled by fear, the ultra-rich are not making money hand over fist, and we're not equipping one country with nuclear weapons while we ramp up a phony justification to start war with yet another in the name of oil.

Don't know what you can do? Start by parking your car, or better yet, converting to biofuels. Start by turning off FOX "News" and DirectTV and starving out Rupert Murdoch. Start by turning off your iPods, Gameboys, Xboxes, TiVos, cell phones, chat software, pointless forums where you waste your time arguing instead of acting, and contact your Democratic leaders, caucuses, precinct representatives, elected representatives, friends and family. Refuse to invest in companies that have ties to Halliburton or any other defense contractor.

Stop being such an idiot and start getting involved. This is not just YOUR world; it belongs to all of us, and only by working together can we make a change for EVERYONE.

Will Dick Rove in this Bush? and other puns...

2006-03-10T14:26:00.000-08:00

I've never been more proud to be an American... sniff sniff ...

And I'm sure his Republican supporters are happy to see this President is finally taking domestic policies seriously.

Image copyrighted by a Howard Stern Celebrity journalist (link to blog)

Carey to Attend Next Bush Fundraiser
By: Larissa Gates
Posted: 1:52 pm PST 3-10-2006

CHATSWORTH, Calif. - Mary Carey is scheduled to attend the "United to Victory" dinner with President Bush in Washington next week.

At the invitation of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), the Legend Video contract star will meet and interact with key Congressional leaders and administration officials to discuss advancing our powerful pro-business, pro-family agenda, and meet positive legislative goals.

Carey, who ran for governor of California in 2003, will join Karl Rove, senior advisor to the President, for lunch on Wednesday the 15th, and President Bush for dinner Thursday the 16th. Due to Carey's efforts in starting Mary Carey Production, Inc. in 2005, Carey will also be receiving an award as a 2005 Businesswoman of the Year in California.

"I'm always excited to learn more about what's going on in our nation's capital, since most people in the porn industry think an Iraqi pullout is a form of safe sex," quipped Carey. "Since I'm seriously considering running for governer of California again, I'm going to need a lot of support from Republican lawmakers nationwide - however I can get it."

Carey made national headlines in June of 2005, when she attended a similar dinner with Bush, in which she was accompanied by her former boss and employer, Kick Ass Pictures president Mark Kulkis. The dinner in 2005 was also at the invitation of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).

"I'm really excited to be going back to Washington D.C. to see the President again," said Carey. "Everyone thinks that politicians are stuffy, but we all had a great time last year, and I had fun signing a lot of autographs. Wait till they see that I have lost 20 pounds since the last time they saw me. Here I come Washington!"

You can run, but you can't hide...

2006-03-09T17:23:00.000-08:00

Lobbyist tells magazine that top Republicans who deny knowing him aren't being truthful

By Reuters and The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff worked closely with top Republicans, despite their claims to the contrary, he says in the latest issue of Vanity Fair magazine.

"Any important Republican who comes out and says they didn't know me is almost certainly lying," he is quoted as saying in the magazine's April edition, which goes on sale nationwide Tuesday.

Abramoff pleaded guilty Jan. 4 to fraud charges in connection with a multimillion-dollar purchase of a SunCruz Casinos gambling fleet in 2000. He also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to provide evidence about members of Congress and their aides.

While lawmakers from both parties received campaign contributions from Abramoff or his clients, the lobbyist worked directly only with Republicans and all of his personal donations went to GOP members.

In the Vanity Fair article, Abramoff says President Bush knew him well enough to joke about weightlifting. "What are you benching, buff guy?" Abramoff says Bush asked him.

The president has said he doesn't know Abramoff. "I frankly don't even remember having my picture taken with the guy," Bush said Jan. 26. "I don't know him."

Abramoff wrote to Washingtonian magazine a few days after Bush's comments, saying the president met briefly with him nearly a dozen times and that Bush made joking references to Abramoff's family.

The lobbyist told Vanity Fair that he finds it difficult to believe that Bush doesn't remember the 10 or so photos that the lobbyist and family members snapped with the president and first lady Laura Bush.

"He [Bush] has one of the best memories of any politician I have ever met," Abramoff wrote in an e-mail, according to the magazine. "Perhaps he has forgotten everything. Who knows?"

Abramoff also says he once was invited to Bush's Texas ranch where he would have joined with other Bush fundraisers. Abramoff, an Orthodox Jew, says he didn't go because the event fell on the Sabbath.

He says he sat a few feet from the president during a speech to fundraisers in 2003. Abramoff, the only lobbyist on the dais, says he was seated between Republican Sens. George Allen of Virginia and Orrin Hatch of Utah.

Ties to White House

Three former associates of Abramoff have told The Associated Press that the lobbyist often told them he had strong White House ties through deputy chief of staff Karl Rove. Asked for comment, the White House said Rove and Abramoff were leaders of a young Republicans group decades ago.

"Mr. Rove remembers they had met at a political event in the 1990s," White House spokeswoman Erin Healy has said. "Since then, he would describe him as a casual acquaintance."

According to Vanity Fair, the men's relationship was deeper. After Bush took office, Susan Ralston, Abramoff's administration assistant, assumed the same post with Rove at the White House, where Abramoff met with Rove at least once, the magazine said.

Rove dined several times at Abramoff's former restaurant, Signatures, and was the lobbyist's guest in a luxury box at the NCAA basketball playoffs a few years ago, sitting for much of the game at Abramoff's side, Vanity Fair reported.

Photos with GOP brass

In his plea, Abramoff admitted that he showered golf trips, sports tickets and other gifts on lawmakers in return for actions that would help his clients.

In the article, he complains that politicians who once worked closely with him now claim they never knew him. E-mail and other subpoenaed records will prove otherwise, he says.

The magazine features photographs of Abramoff with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former President Reagan, whom the lobbyist met when he was president of the College Republicans.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman ate dinner at Abramoff's house and forced Clinton administration appointee Allen Stayman out of the State Department as a favor to Abramoff, according to the Vanity Fair article.

Said committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt: "Jack Abramoff is someone that the chairman has known in various capacities during his time in Washington."

Abramoff says that he did not spend much time lobbying DeLay because he knew the congressman would support his issues, but that they talked about other subjects.

"We would sit and talk about the Bible. We would sit and talk about opera. We would sit and talk about golf. I mean, we talked about philosophy and politics," Abramoff says.

Abramoff also says Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., was particularly cooperative.

"Every appropriation we wanted we got," Abramoff says. "Our staffs were as close as they could be."

Spokesmen for DeLay and Burns were not immediately available for comment.

The Abramoff scandal has prompted lawmakers to tighten lobbying regulations and return or donate to charity more than $1 million in campaign contributions.

"The exposure of my lobbying practice, the absurd amount of media coverage, and the focus, for the first time, on this sausage-making factory that we call Washington will ultimately help reform the system, or at least so I hope," Abramoff says.

He blames the Bush administration for the media attention.

"My so-called relationship with Bush, Rove and everyone else at the White House has only become important because instead of just releasing details about the very few times I was there, they created a feeding frenzy by their deafening silence," he says.

"The Democrats, on the other hand, are going overboard, virtually insisting I was there to plan the invasion of Iraq."

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

Is it enough already?

2006-03-08T21:56:00.000-08:00

GOP House panel votes to block ports deal

BY J. JIONI PALMER AND GLENN THRUSH

NEWSDAY WASHINGTON BUREAU

March 9, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A House panel voted Wednesday to scuttle a proposed deal to give control of operations at six American ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, setting in motion a legislative process that could hand President George W. Bush his first significant congressional defeat.

As the House committee was voting, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) tried to force action in the Senate, stealthily inserting an up-or-down vote on the ports into an unrelated ethics bill. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), desperate to delay a vote amid growing opposition to the deal within his own caucus, has scheduled a vote tomorrow to strip Schumer's amendment from the bill.

Ignoring a threat by Bush to veto legislation blocking the ports deal, the House Appropriations Committee voted 62-2 to approve an amendment to block the deal to an emergency spending bill funding military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and additional Hurricane Katrina aid. The bill is expected to be considered on the House floor next week, where it is expected to pass overwhelmingly.

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, who spoke with two of the president's closest advisers within the past few days, said it was too late for the White House or Dubai Ports World to present a compromise that would appease most of his colleagues.

"This train has left the station," said King (R-Seaford). "It appears we're on a collision course. Having said that, it is not in the president's interest to keep this war going on."

Schumer, sensing momentum slipping for a similar Senate vote, jumped up during debate over the ethics bill Wednesday and slipped in his ports amendment before Republican leaders realized what he'd done.

"We want to make sure that there's a vote up or down on this issue," Schumer said. "We believe that a majority of senators, an overwhelming majority, would vote to end the deal."

The gambit took Frist completely by surprise, and the exhausted-looking leader countered by scheduling tomorrow's vote on stripping all amendments, including Schumer's, from the ethics bill.

Victory is hardly assured. Frist needs 67 votes, including 12 from Democrats. And Schumer vowed to continue inserting the anti-DP World provisions into GOP-sponsored bills "until we get a vote on this issue."

Faced with political mutiny by usually steadfast House Republicans, White House officials struggled to downplay the vote, saying they were concerned it would bottle up funding for troops in Iraq and rebuilding the hurricane-hit Gulf Coast.

But the vote sets up a potential showdown with Bush, who has threatened a veto -- which would be his first ever -- of any legislation that blocks the deal. Asked whether that threat still stands, Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, "The president's position is unchanged."

King said if Bush did indeed veto the supplemental budget, "he would be putting the United Arab Emirates in front of the welfare of American troops."

The White House did little to hide its displeasure that House Republicans jumped the gun on the 45-day investigation agreed to by Dubai Ports World, a probe the White House hoped would buy time for passions over the deal to cool so Bush could avoid such a rebuke.

Bush initially thought he could squelch the controversy with his veto threat, but that seemed only to anger some Republicans. Then the company agreed to temporarily hold off the U.S. part of the deal, then to a 45-day investigation. Neither move did anything to stop the momentum for a vote in the House, though it did defuse the issue somewhat in the Senate.

Craig Gordon of the Washington Bureau contributed to this story.

The reason we're in trouble

2006-02-27T17:40:00.000-08:00

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS SENTENCE?

Democrats seek special probe of Bush's NSA program

Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:07 PM ET

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Democratic lawmakers have asked President George W. Bush to order a special probe of his domestic spying program, while a Senate Republican readied legislation that would subject the controversial program to judicial review.

SO, THEY CAN impeach Clinton for no good reason whatsoever, but when they want to investigate Bush, they have to ask him for his permission? Idiots!

AND HERE'S WHY AMERICA IS IN TROUBLE:

Opinion

Jonah Goldberg : More important issues than scapegoating Dubai

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.27.2006

Did you hear the one about Dick Cheney, a priest and a rabbi walking into an Arab-run port? No? Too bad, because the brouhaha that has replaced Cheney-mania is a lot less entertaining.

Last week brought a strange bipartisan convergence over, of all things, the commercial management of U.S. ports.

Bipartisan consensus is often a troubling sign, particularly when it's on an issue few know much about. It was prompted by the Bush administration's decision to defend the bid by Dubai Ports World, based in the United Arab Emirates, to buy the British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which currently runs six U.S. ports.

In response, Republicans and Democrats alike have gone batty. For five years, Republicans have chanted, "Trust the president" on national security. They even won elections on the issue. For nearly five years, Democrats have said President Bush should use more carrots and fewer sticks in his diplomacy in the Muslim world.

But suddenly, nearly all leading Republicans and Democrats — with the laudable exception of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. — now argue that Bush can't be trusted on national security, that our Arab ally the UAE should go suck eggs and that racial profiling of foreign firms is just fine.

HAVE YOU EVER READ a more moronic analysis? This kid is beyond stupid. He's complicit in the coming rape of democracy. And then there's this idiot:

Another day, another White House secret

By Dan Fair
Dawgnet Staff Writer

Sunday, February 26, 2006, 19:16 EST

The sale of operating rights to seven major ports on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts has Washington in a frenzy. The news that these operating rights would be going to a company partially state-owned by the United Arab Emirates outraged both parties in Congress, mostly because two of the Sept. 11 hijackers had ties to the UAE.

The Bush Administration apparently did not think that this sale would be a big deal. The sale was not even initially approved by President Bush, who actually learned of the sale approval from the media.

DOES THIS STUPID KID represent the future of political scientists, who are supposed to document history, among other things?

Why do people believe some things and accept others, when they come from the same source and are obviously such blatant lies?

These kids are so in love with their writing, know so many big words, and think they are so eloquent, they have not bothered to write the most important thing: the TRUTH.

Remember when it used to be funny, how stupid kids were, how they couldn't name the current vice president or find Cuba on a map? Well, this is the culmination of that. These young fools are the product of their American education, and they will soon be the best friend of whatever despot is president next.

WAKE UP, AMERICA

2006-02-25T23:03:00.000-08:00

Is it not enough, what the Bush/Rove Coalition has done to us? Is it not bad enough that our freedoms have been highjacked by the Patriot Act? That our children are being murdered for oil in Iraq? How far are you going to let him go in the name of party politics, Republicans?

What is wrong with our representatives, that this ports deal could ever even be considered?

It's not enough to delay it. It must NOT HAPPEN.

Editorial
The port of chagrin
The plan to allow a state-owned company from the United Arab Emirates to take over management of six U.S. ports should be delayed and thoroughly re-examined. The deal leaves too many unanswered questions.

The imbroglio runs deeper than lawmakers trying to distance themselves from an unpopular, early-lame-duck president, though that is part of it. Ports are among the most vulnerable parts of the national-security infrastructure. Repeated attempts to fund improved port security have only produced fractions of the $7 billion that Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Thomas Collins says is needed to keep ports safe. In that context, Congress needs to know more details. Who hires? What are the screening requirements ? Who provides exactly which elements of security? What mechanisms are in place — let's be honest about this — to assure our enemies cannot infiltrate the system and do us harm?

President Bush did not know of the takeover of the British company by the U.A.E. firm until after the backlash began — then he came out threatening a veto if Congress tried to interfere. Swing first, ask questions later.

That pattern of behavior underscores bipartisan angst over the deal. Forty-five days is the more desirable time for review but this proposal was expedited in about half the time. Underneath every doubter lies a concern that an administration that fumbled the Iraq war and its response to Hurricane Katrina is fumbling again.

Perhaps Dubai Ports World would be a terrific port manager. A global economy requires us to respect a large, international port-management firm. Seattle port terminals are publicly owned but leased to foreign companies that operate cargo terminals, including a Singapore firm and a company partially owned by South Koreans.

The U.A.E., a friendly Arab country, has a mixed record on terrorism. Two 9/11 hijackers came from U.A.E. and laundered some money through U.A.E. banks. On the positive side, the U.A.E. has handed over members of al-Qaida and is a trusted partner for the U.S. military in the Mideast.

Deal backers note a variety of international companies manage ports throughout the world and that is the way of the future. Supporters also say the U.S. wouldn't question a British or German firm and terrorists have spent time in their countries, too.

That is true but there was a time in history when we would have thought twice before allowing a German firm to manage our ports.

Let's begin a long, thoughtful review of this proposal. The burden is on the Bush administration and the foreign company to prove detractors wrong.
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

Delay possible on ports, Dems want probe

2006-02-23T17:05:00.000-08:00

Delay possible on ports, Dems want probe

LIZ SIDOTI

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Bush administration officials opened the door Thursday to a delay in allowing a state-owned United Arab Emirates company to assume significant operations at six U.S. ports as lawmakers pushed for a new 45-day investigation of the deal.

The company, Dubai Ports World, signaled to Congress that it, too, would be willing to accept a short delay while lawmakers review the deal.

"People don't need to worry about security," President Bush said shortly before administration officials who approved the transaction told a Senate committee their 90-day review did not turn up a single national security concern to justify blocking it.

Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, said Bush was willing to accept a slight delay in Dubai Ports World's purchase of terminal leases and other operations at six U.S. ports from a British company.

"There's no requirement that it close, you know, immediately after" a British government review of the $6.8 billion purchase is completed next week, Rove said on Fox Radio's "Tony Snow Show." "What is important is that members of Congress have the time to get fully briefed on this."

Lobbyists for Dubai Ports World indicated that while the company is eager to close the deal, it is willing to agree to a delay to satisfy demands by members of Congress, according to a person familiar with the conversations.

Nonetheless, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada sought quick action on legislation relating to the deal when Congress returns to Washington next week.

In a letter to Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Reid said the administration's handling of the deal "could not be more flawed." Reid said he was alarmed at the failure of the administration to "exercise the full statutory authority to conduct a complete investigation into the potential national security implications of this deal."

Also Thursday, administration officials said that weeks before Dubai Ports World sought U.S. approval for the deal, the UAE contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The administration said there was no connection between the request for U.S. approval of the ports deal and the UAE's contribution.

The White House, which so far has gotten a total of $126 million in international donations, said the UAE's contribution shows the close relationship between the two governments.

The deal allowing Dubai Ports World to take over significant operations at ports from New York to Miami has created an embarrassing standoff between the president and a Congress controlled by his own party.

READ THE REST in the Mercury News, or any newspaper that publishes AP wire stories...

The Naked Truth (self-riposte)

2006-02-23T13:16:00.000-08:00

BY THE WAY... I want to give credit to the brilliant author of the several graphics I've displayed here on my blog, The Wizard of Whimsy. His stuff scares me to death, but I can't look away. I'm hoping to get a pair of these for Christmas!

But let's return to the subject at hand:

Today, following Bush's flip, Cheney flopped. After trying to make Jack Murtha look like a spineless traitor (look in the mirror, Dick), Cheney now tries to make himself look like a reasonable man while continuing his career as Vice Terrorist.

As to suggestions that Bush, Cheney and others in the administration manipulated intelligence to make a stronger case for invading Iraq, "this is revisionism of the most corrupt and shameless variety," Cheney said.

"The flaws in the intelligence are plain enough in hindsight. But any suggestion that prewar information was distorted, hyped or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false," he added.

Right. Add that to the list of Great Lies. Here are many more:

Maxine Waters at last summer's "mock impeachment" proceedings:

"The president is a liar," she continued. "Dick Cheney, the chief architect of the Big Lie, is not only a liar, he is a thief."

The Downing Street Memo:

What about Vice President Dick Cheney’s numerous visits to CIA headquarters, where, according to documented accounts, he attempted to strong-arm analysts into altering their assessments of Iraqi WMD in order to scare the American people and make a stronger case for war?

In other words, we'd hear the Truth, rather than Bush/Cheney/Rove propaganda:

Mr Cheney, speaking to Republican supporters in Des Moines, said his party was better equipped to fight terrorism.

If Mr Kerry were elected, he said, the country risked falling back into a "pre-9/11 mindset", believing that terror attacks were just criminals acts "and that we're not really at war".

Let's go to the roll call, shall we?
Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

Where are those photos proving Iraqi aggression?

That [Iraqi buildup] was the whole justification for Bush sending troops in there, and it just didn't exist," says Heller. Three times Heller contacted the office of Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now vice president) for evidence refuting the Times photos or analysis ? offering to hold the story if proven wrong. The official response: "Trust us." To this day, the Pentagon's photographs of the Iraqi troop buildup remain classified....

He doesn't have a plan, but he wants $87 Billion not to have one

How stupid does Cheney think we are? Apparently, pretty stupid. And maybe we are. Under any normal circumstances (not being ruled by a Republican one-party state), he should have been impeached -- and perhaps imprisoned -- a long time ago.

Vice President of the Apocalypse

Instead of complaining that the vice president is engaging in "scare tactics," the Democrat should be suggesting that Americans ought to be afraid, very afraid, of Dick Cheney.

But how will Halliburton thrive if people know this?

Now President Bush's hand-picked, personal choice to inspect the whole country of Iraq has come to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction.

The same conclusion that David Kay, who was also picked by Bush to inspect Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, said in January of 2004 when he quit the job because he said it was useless to continue when there were no WMD.

And the same conclusion Hans Blix, the lead inspector for the United Nations, said in March 2003 before we invaded Iraq to look for weapons of mass destruction.

And the same conclusion Scott Ritter, who inspected Iraq for the United Nations, said in 2002 prior to the authorization for force was passed by Congress.

And Halliburton is leading the "cleanup" in New Orleans, too

Dick Cheney the politician opposes sanctions against almost all countries; Dick Cheney the businessman profits from working in many of those same countries. Dick Cheney the Secretary of Defense wages war on Iraq; Dick Cheney the businessman gets contracts to cleanup the damages and turns Halliburton into a giant defense contractor. Dick Cheney the government official makes high-level bank contacts; Dick Cheney the businessman obtains huge government loans for his company.

And Satan comes in many forms, comely to behold

In a way, Cheney is a magician by trade, an illusionist. He makes many people believe that they are seeing something that doesn't exist, such as Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. It's quite a skill.

Who invited HIM?

2006-02-07T22:03:00.000-08:00

Bush Gets an Earful at Coretta King's Funeral
By Peter Wallsten and Richard Fausset
LITHONIA, Ga. -- A day of eulogizing Coretta Scott King turned into a rare, in-person rebuke of President Bush, with a succession of civil rights and political leaders assailing White House policies as evidence that the dream of social and racial equality pursued by King and her slain husband is far from reality.

Bush and his wife, Laura, sat on stage as worshippers cheered the suggestions from several speakers that the civil rights movement -- led in the 1960s by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and fostered since his assassination by the widowed Coretta -- remains alive, its goals not fully realized.

Tuesday's service, lasting six hours, much of it carried live nationally on cable television, marked an unusual combination of political pageantry and civil rights history. The spectacle included humor, interpretive dance, gospel and classical music, shouting and testifying, and a list of dignitaries that made room for three former presidents, poet Maya Angelou and crooner Michael Bolton.

But it also included pointed political commentary, much of it aimed at Bush. The president and his wife watched as the sanctuary at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church near Atlanta filled with raucous cheers for their White House predecessors, Bill and Hillary Clinton -- a reminder that five years into his term, Bush and the Republican Party he leads have not found the acceptance across black America that GOP strategists had hoped.

"This commemorative ceremony this morning and this afternoon is not only to acknowledge the great contributions of Coretta and Martin, but to remind us that the struggle for equal rights is not over," said former President Carter, a Democrat and former Georgia governor, to rising applause. "We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, those who were most devastated by Katrina, to know that there are not yet equal opportunities for all Americans."

Carter, who has had a strained relationship with Bush, drew cheers when he used the Kings' struggle as a reminder of the recent debate over whether Bush violated civil liberties protections when he ordered warrantless surveillance of some domestic phone calls and e-mails.

Noting that the Kings' work was "not appreciated even at the highest level of the government," Carter said: "It was difficult for them personally -- with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretapping, other surveillance, and as you know, harassment from the FBI." Bush has said his own program of warrantless wiretapping is aimed at stopping terrorists.

The most overtly partisan remarks came from the Rev. Joseph Lowery, a King protege and longtime Bush critic, who noted Coretta King's opposition to the war in Iraq and criticized Bush's commitment to boosting the poor.

"She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar," he said. "We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we knew that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war, billions more, but no more for the poor."

As the barbs flew, Bush seemed to take the heat in stride, smiling at times, giving Lowery a standing ovation and even pulling the civil rights leader in for a bear hug.

The president himself received polite applause before and after his seven-minute eulogy, in which he said he attended the service "to offer the sympathy of our entire nation at the passing of a woman who worked to make our nation whole."

"As a great movement of history took shape, her dignity was a daily rebuke to the pettiness and cruelty of segregation," the president said.

Sitting with Bush on the stage by King's flower-draped casket were three ex-presidents: Clinton, Carter and the president's father, George H.W. Bush, along with one potential future presidential candidate, Sen. Clinton, a Democrat from New York.

The appearance by Bush, who decided over the weekend to rearrange his schedule and attend the service, came as his approval rating among blacks has slipped to the low single digits in some surveys -- a direct response, some strategists believe, to the government's failed response in the wake of Katrina.

Civil rights leaders and Democrats have also criticized Bush's proposed new budget plan announced this week, which would increase defense spending while maintaining tax cuts for wealthier Americans and reducing aid to the poor.

For Bush, the service offered a rare face-to-face encounter with some of the traditional, liberal civil rights leaders, such as Lowery, that he has avoided since taking office. While Bush has never addressed an NAACP convention as president, he has instead sought to build black support by reaching to more conservative pastors and business leaders sympathetic to his entrepreneurial vision of government.

New Birth and its pastor, Bishop Eddie Long, have been at the center of those outreach efforts, with Long and other leaders of black "megachurches" meeting on several occasions with Bush at the White House to discuss directing money to faith-based charities, combating AIDS in Africa, poverty and other topics.

But as the speeches continued Tuesday, the scene reflected the uphill struggle that Republicans have faced in courting blacks, even before Hurricane Katrina focused attention on black poverty.

But for all of the bare partisanship, the service offered light moments and conviviality.

Former President Bush poked fun at Lowery, joking that he used to keep a score card in his Oval Office desk of their interactions. It was Lowery 21, Bush 3, he said, adding: "It wasn't a fair fight."

The elder Bush, who as a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1964 campaigned against the Civil Rights Act pursued by the Kings, acknowledged that the service was an unusual experience.

"I come from a rather conservative Episcopal parish," Bush said. "And I haven't seen anything like this in my life."

For the assembled politicians, the applause was most thunderous for Bill Clinton. Sen. Clinton stood at his side at the podium as he spoke, and her brief comments later focused on how Coretta King had taken up the mission of her husband.

-- L.A. Times story

America: Freak Show?

2006-01-23T00:10:00.000-08:00

The New York Times editorializes about the trend on television to make freaks of people, while the most-emailed photo over the Christmas holiday was of a deformed, one-eyed cat that died the day after it was born.

January 22, 2006
Editorial
Family Values on Fox

The news that "American Idol" has started a new season with ratings even more enormous than last year's reminds us of an old query. In a nation with a disquieting surplus of moral arbiters, why isn't there a call to clean up television programs that specialize in humiliating the weak? People devote untold hours to worrying about the sexual orientation of cartoon characters, but nobody seems disturbed that more than 30 million American households watch a "family" show that picks out hapless, and frequently helpless, contestants solely for famous and powerful judges to make fun of them on national television.

"American Idol" is known, even among those who have never seen it, as a talent show in which a dozen or so young pop singers compete to win a recording contract and a national profile. But it begins every season with several weeks of early elimination rounds in which judges pick the handful of contestants who will make it to the finals from a preselected mixture of very talented and very terrible singers. The very terrible have reason to hope that, having come so far, they might actually be as good as they imagined in their dreams.

Most of them are extremely young, naïve and deluded. Many appear terribly vulnerable and some seem to border on mentally impaired. The fun is supposed to come from seeing the celebrity judges roll their eyes, laugh, and tell them that they are tone-deaf, fat, funny-looking or, in the case of one young man, "atrocious" and "confused." (The cameras followed him out of the audition room, the better to make sport of him crying with his family.) The producers so treasured the comment of one judge, Simon Cowell, who said an overweight woman would require a bigger stage in Hollywood, that they used it to promote the segment.

In many ways, all this is just a much more expensive, glittery version of the old "Gong Show" from the 1970's. But the targets of that less hypersuccessful program were generally older and frequently more cynical. And, of course, the whole thing happened in a different era, when family values was not an overriding obsession.

No one wants to censor Fox's money machine, but it does seem peculiar that a nation so torn apart over what message gay marriage or prayer in school will send to impressionable youth is so unified in giving a pass to a program that teaches young people that it's extremely cool to be mean.

When I want advice on how to be unethical, I'll contact Karl

2006-01-22T13:56:00.000-08:00

Rove Attacks Democrats for Wanting to `Cut and Run'

Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Karl Rove, President George W. Bush's top political adviser, criticized Democrats for wanting to ``cut and run'' in Iraq and said Bush and the Republicans better understand how to make the country stronger and safer.

``We have a loud chorus of Democrats who want us to cut and run in Iraq,'' Rove, 54, said in a broad attack at the winter meeting of the Republican National Committee in Washington.

``The U.S. faces a ruthless enemy and we need a commander in chief and Congress who understand the nature of the threat and gravity of the moment America finds itself in,'' Rove said. ``President Bush and the Republican party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats.''

The speech, to about 270 party members, was Rove's first public address since November. He didn't mention the political scandals that hang over the capital, choosing to focus on three areas where he said the parties differ -- national security, the economy and the courts -- in what may be a precursor of the party's platform in this year's mid-term elections.

``Republicans and Democrats have deep differences about our nation, where it is going and what needs to be done to make it stronger, better and safer'' Rove said in a speech interrupted several times by applause.

Radical Position
Without citing any Democrats by name, Rove blasted ``one radical position'' calling for ``an immediate stand-down of U.S. troops in Iraq and withdrawal by the end of April.'' Democratic Representative John Murtha, a Vietnam War veteran who voted in favor of the Iraq war, in November called for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, saying they could be out of the country in as soon as six months.

``To retreat before victory has been won would be a reckless act, and this president and our party will not allow it,'' Rove said, drawing a round of applause.

Rove ignored the legal problems that have ensnared some prominent Republicans. I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, was indicted in October on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. He has pleaded not guilty. Rove himself remains under investigation in the probe, which centers on the leaking of Central Intelligence Agency Valerie Plame's name after her husband criticized the Bush administration.

Defending Surveillance
Former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been indicted on alleged campaign finance violations, and lobbyist Jack Abramoff has pleaded guilty in a federal corruption probe.

President Bush ordered the White House staff in November to take refresher classes on ethics rules and both political parties are striving to be labeled the party of ``reform'' by proposing new regulations on lobbyists.

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman did touch on the scandals in a speech before Rove's. While ``I'm loyal to the members of our party,'' Mehlman said, ``if Republicans are guilty of illegal or inappropriate behavior, they should pay the price and they should suffer the consequences.''

Rove defended the warrantless surveillance by the National Security Agency as necessary ``to protect American lives'' and said it was ``both legal and fully consistent with'' the Fourth Amendment and the protection of civil liberties.'

The Republicans' winter meeting is designed largely to energize party members for the November congressional elections.

Inevitably, there was also talk of future presidential elections. Mehlman drew laughter during a rules committee session yesterday when he said the group was extremely important because it will set the rules for the selection of the party's 2012 nominee. ``And George P. Bush's presidential campaign will be watching what you are going to do,'' Mehlman said.

George P. Bush is the eldest son of Florida Governor Jeb Bush and President Bush's nephew. In 2012, he will turn 36, one year older than the Constitution requires for the presidency.

Last Updated: January 20, 2006 15:00 EST

Ave Maria!

2005-12-22T18:40:00.000-08:00

After Maria Cantwell put the kibosh on Ted Stevens' sneaky maneuvering to slide drilling for oil in Alaska's wildlife preserve under the radar in a defense bill, he said:

"I'm going to go to every one of your states, and I'm going to tell them what you've done," he told colleagues who voted against the measure. "You've taken away from homeland security the one source of revenue that was new ... I'm sure that the senator from Washington [Cantwell] will enjoy my visits to Washington." The American Petroleum Institute also condemned the Senate, saying "its refusal to seize this opportunity does a disservice to American consumers and fails to acknowledge that the consequences of inaction are adverse and significant."

Yes, Ted, I'm sure every elected representative from coast to coast is just shaking in their boots.

Not only did Cantwell do the right thing, but she also gave us--and Mother Earth--a lovely little Christmas gift.

What a woman! You go, girl.

Just say no to oil

2005-12-20T12:23:00.000-08:00

Despite the best efforts of a group of morally bankrupt Republicans, a majority of the Senate saw through the sham and voted down a proposal to drill for oil in Alaska's wildlife refuge.

Unbelievably, the proposal's authors had attached provisions to it which would supposedly have given funding to victims of Hurricane Katrina and a 3 percent pay raise to soldiers in Iraq. So if they voted it down, those same con men would have said they had voted AGAINST hurricane victims and supporting troops! Unbelievable.

In fact, drilling in Alaska would only benefit the companies who are already raping the land and sending the profits to their rich stockholders, as seen in the graphic below. They want OUR permission to allow THEM to have all the oil, and then they'll turn around, with the blessing of their mascot, George W. Bush, and overcharge at the pump.

Why would we EVER authorize any bill that would make the rich richer and give them more power to make us poorer? Why do we allow rich lumber companies to strip our mountains naked of trees? Why do we pay for DirectTV so Rupert Murdoch can put more billions into his phony Fox News Network and delude more people?

These are serious questions and before we can live once again in freedom and democracy, we are going to have to learn to boycott the King and toss his overpriced commodities into a proverbial Boston Harbor to show our refusal to cooperate.

Cantwell leads the fight against drilling and we all win

(excerpted from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer)

Stevens defended sticking ANWR into the defense bill, shortly after Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington denounced it as "a sweetheart deal around federal laws" by the oil industry and its congressional allies.

Cantwell and other senators complained that adding ANWR to the defense bill could violate a key congressional rule prohibiting unrelated additions to budget legislation.

"A lot of Republicans have told their leadership that they oppose this move," Cantwell said in an interview. "But I don't know if that will translate into votes."

The Senate and House must agree on a final defense spending bill by Dec. 31.

Cantwell is leading the Democrats and some moderate Republicans in the charge against ANWR drilling, and the group is threatening to filibuster.

She said she intends to debate the "secret" manipulation of congressional budget rules and "Machiavellian" maneuvers that led to ANWR landing in the defense bill after being pulled from earlier legislation.

The House previously tried to stick it in a wider budget bill aimed at cutting the deficit.

"This is an affront to the process, a backdoor way of doing things," she said. The House's work on the defense bill technically ended Friday afternoon with an agreement by House leaders from both parties. ANWR was not in the bill at that time. But later members heard that Stevens and Young wanted to add the ANWR measure.

"I hung around all this weekend, waiting to see what they were doing," Cantwell said.

Senate Blocks Bid to Allow Arctic Oil Drilling

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 22, 2005;
Page A10

Lawmakers have feuded over drilling in Alaska's wilderness for a quarter-century, ever since Congress in 1980 passed a law saying only it could determine whether drilling was permissible in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In 1995, the leaders of the new Republican majority in Congress thought they finally had succeeded in a long-sought goal by passing a bill permitting oil drilling in the refuge. But President Bill Clinton vetoed the measure under prodding from environmentalists.

Emboldened by their electoral gains and President Bush's reelection in 2004, Republicans thought they had gained enough clout on Capitol Hill this year to muscle the measure through as part of the annual budget process.

But yesterday, proponents were thwarted once again. Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) hoped he had his adversaries cornered when he attached the drilling plan to an essential measure to fund ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But two Republicans joined 42 Democrats in filibustering the defense bill that would have authorized drilling.

Yesterday's procedural vote -- in which drilling supporters failed to gain enough votes to end the filibuster and force action -- gave environmentalists a rare legislative win on Capitol Hill, and it ensured that a 1.5 million-acre, oil-rich stretch of the Arctic will remain untouched for the immediate future.

The refuge, which has at least 5 billion barrels of oil beneath its surface, shelters birthing caribou as well as musk oxen and millions of migratory birds each year.

"This is the greatest environmental victory of the year," said Lydia Weiss, a lobbyist for the advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife. "We are thrilled the Senate did not go down the slippery slope of holding a defense bill hostage over this toxic legislation."

The failure of drilling advocates to push forward a measure that has spent so long on the brink of passage highlights some complicated politics within the Republican Party. GOP leaders had to back down earlier this year when moderate Republicans in the House protested a move to add it to a comprehensive budget bill.

But Stevens, the Senate's most influential drilling proponent, refused to back down, tacking the measure onto the defense spending measure. His blunt lobbying tactics were even directed toward his GOP colleagues. In an e-mail, he said that if the defense bill failed to go through this would upend the budget process generally -- endangering favored projects in their states.

The warning worked with moderate GOP Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine.), who issued a statement yesterday after the vote saying that she worried an impasse over the defense appropriations bill would endanger subsidized low-income heating funds.

Two key Republicans, Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) and Mike DeWine (Ohio), were unmoved, arguing that Arctic drilling would not solve the nation's energy problems.

"We've got to find other ways to be energy independent," DeWine said in an interview.
Stevens's year-end maneuvering also infuriated Senate Democrats: At one point during Sunday night's debate, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) refused to allow Stevens to respond to criticism. Yesterday, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) said Stevens was to blame for holding up money for the military.

"I am not the one threatening support for our troops in the middle of a war," Lieberman said.

These senators were bolstered by environmental groups' ambitious media and grass-roots lobbying campaign this week, which featured full-page ads in eight national, regional and Capitol Hill newspapers, and thousands of phone calls to key senators. Former president Jimmy Carter plotted strategy with Reid last weekend and spoke yesterday with Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who voted against the Arctic measure.

The American Petroleum Institute condemned the Senate action, saying "its refusal to seize this opportunity does a disservice to American consumers and fails to acknowledge that the consequences of inaction are adverse and significant."

And even the refuge's most passionate advocates said they expected another drilling fight next year.

"We've been arguing about ANWR for the 21 years I've been here, it's not going to go away," said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "I'm confident we will see another debate on ANWR."

From "Tennessee Guerrilla Women"

2005-12-19T17:38:00.000-08:00

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Quote of the Day: Impeachment is No Joke

"If we take back the House, there's a solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this president."

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA)

Kerry was speaking to his base at a campaign reunion Christmas party. Reportedly, the senator added, "Don't tell anyone I said that."

After the story broke, Kerry's spokesperson explained that Kerry was only joking. Yeah, but we're not laughing until after the impeachment.

Hat tip to Wonkette

Freedom for everyone but us?

2005-12-19T11:59:00.000-08:00

From the Journal Standard Online edition:

Monday December 19, 2005
Freedom for everyone but us?

The issue: Liberty vs. national security debate heats up

Our view: There must be limits to what we sacrifice in the name of protecting our borders.

On Friday, perhaps not coincidentally, two stories raised the stakes in the running liberty vs. security battle. The first was a bombshell dropped by the New York Times, detailing the Bush administration's decision to allow the National Security Agency to spy on American citizens starting in 2002, without court-ordered warrants. E-mails, phone conversations - it's all fair game for the feds, apparently.

"...blind trust
in government
is a woefully
inadequate
safeguard..."

Hundreds, and perhaps thousands of Americans, have been targets of snoops, and for all we know, they are still snooping. Previously, according to the Associated Press, the NSA limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained orders for such investigations through a confidential surveillance court.

Hours after the story broke, the Senate wisely rejected a proposal to re-authorize and make permanent troubling elements of the Patriot Act that vastly expanded government power over individuals following the Sept. 11 attacks.

As we try to coax Iraq onto the path of freedom, are we so willing to suspend our own constitutional liberties at home? Extra-legal spying on our own people with no oversight. Making lists of peace group members, including Quakers. Holding people indefinitely in secret places. Paying the media to plant propaganda, even as we lecture the Iraqis on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom from the kind of illegal search and seizure tactics that are a hallmark of all tyrannical regimes.

Sure, some temporary concessions were necessary to protect our borders and our security after the 2001 attacks, a time of great fear and insecurity. We and most Americans support investigating terror suspects using whatever means necessary - as long as we remain true to our democratic ideals and allow some type of oversight beyond the president's supreme say-so.

But Friday's news of unprecedented federal spying on ordinary Americans - with virtually no judicial oversight - exposed the lengths to which some will go to use fear to rationalize more intrusion on the lives of Americans, and drew fire from both sides of the political aisle.

“I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care,” said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, during a debate over the Patriot Act extension.

Indeed, when it comes to the wholesale expansion of government power, blind trust in government is a woefully inadequate safeguard compared to the American system of checks, balances and constitutional protections that are being so casually sacrificed in the name of “national security.”

W: Be afraid... be VERY afraid!

2005-12-18T18:08:00.000-08:00

Watching this asshole on television, where he can command 30 minutes of airtime on a Sunday night to peddle his lies to the misinformed and the gullible, I am amazed at his unwavering belief in the power of his own evil.

He takes in vain everything we hold sacred: democracy, civil rights, our Constitution, a sound foreign policy, a sounder domestic policy. He uses the hot-button words to convince the innocent, the naive and the gullible that maybe he's not quite as evil as they were starting to think he might be.

Make no mistake. This man is evil. He is the embodiment of evil. He and his confederates have a stranglehold on the veins and arteries of our national neck, and they are squeezing tighter all the time.

The rest of the world despises us--not because we are taking a brave and unpopular position--because we are allowing the embodiment of Satan, the Devil, Lucifer, Odin, or whatever King of Darkness you embrace, to murder, maim, dismember, disenfranchise, steal, rape and ruin IN THE NAME OF OIL.

IN THE NAME OF MONEY.

IN THE NAME OF POWER.

The Bushreich had plans in place long before 9/11. The Bushreich CREATED 9/11. It doesn't matter who piloted the jets, nor does it matter if the jets masked an explosive device planted in either or both of the Trade Center towers. None of that matters. It doesn't matter that the hole in the Pentagon was not made by a jet plane. It doesn't matter that Saddam Hussein was killed in his headquarters, and not found in a spider-hole. None of their games, none of their mighty feats of prestidigitation, no amount of smoke and mirrors will turn our eyes away from the truth: The United States has been highjacked and has become a dictatorship, with an impotent Congress and a culpable media, an extreme version of The Emperor's New Clothes, but for every pair of eyes that see clearly, there are 1,000 pair that are blinded by denial.

It's not our fault. But we ARE at fault. We have allowed ourselves and our children to become addicted to media and technology and drugs and alcohol and sex, and these addictions have taken away our power. Every Playstation, every X-Box, every cell phone adorned with bells and whistles, every online chatroom and internet messenger program, every website full of porn or sex or glittery shopping, every household that buys a TiVo instead of having dinner together, the "right" clothes for kids to wear to school instead of 30 minutes a day at the dinner table, every bottle of rotgut, every rock of cocaine, every $300 spent on a little bag of weed, every prescription filled to dull the senses, every dollar spent to acquire or control or impress, every Hummer or BMW or Mercedes or SAAB, every lustful need to be famous, to be better, to leave an unremarkable identity behind, every act of sex paid for, every hand raised to beat another down, every moment of road rage, every firing, shutdown, divorce, estrangement, abandonment... every moment spent trying to be someone else... every replication of a genius who came before... every time we abdicate our own responsibility to blaze our own trail, build life from scratch, and shareShareSHARE with one another, as if we were true citizens of the world and not just overprivileged, arrogant, anaesthesia-filled Americans... gives Evil a place to thrive.

When art is doing what it should, it provides a place or offers a tool for human expression, and it is wholly dependent on its consumers, its patrons and everyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear. It speaks to all in a way that cannot be ignored, and it inspires in its truth.

And even though I don't think Paddy Chayefsky could have imagined the horror of the twists and turns when he wrote the prophetic and utterly inspired script for NETWORK, no one has ever said it better than he, not George Orwell or Nostradamus or your friendly neighborhood psychic, when he put these words into the mouth of Howard Beale, charismatic madman and voice of reason:

I don't have to tell you things are bad.
Everybody knows things are bad.

It’s a depressión. Everybody’s out
of work, or scared of losing their job.

The dollar buys a nickel’s worth.
Banks are going bust. Shopkeepers
keep a gun under the counter.
Punks are running wild, and nobody
knows what to do. There’s no end to it.

We know the air is unfit to breathe
and our food is unfit to eat.

We sit watching our TVs while some
local newscaster tells us that today
we had homicides and violent
crimes, as if that’s the way it should be.

We know things are bad.
Worse than bad. They’re crazy.

Everything is going crazy,
so we don’t go out any more.

We sit in the house,
and the worid we live in gets smaller.

All we say is "Please, at least
leave us alone in our living rooms."
"Let me have my toaster and my TV and
I won’t say anything. Just leave us alone."

Well, I’m not going to leave you alone.
I want you to get mad!

I don’t want you to protest or riot. I don"t
want you to write to your congressman.

I don’t know what to do about the
depressión, the inflation and the crime.

All I know is that first
you’ve got to get mad!

You’ve gotta say "I’m a human being,
goddammit! My life has value!"

So... I want you to get up now.

I want all of you
to get up out of your chairs.

I want you to get up right now
and go to the window,
open it and stick your head out and yell

"I’m as mad as hell and I’m not
going to take this any more!"

- I want you to get up right now...
...and stick your head out and yell
"I’m as mad as hell and I’m not
going to take this any more!"

Then we’ll figure out what to do about
the depressión, inflation
and the oil crisis.

But first get up out of your chairs, open
the window, stick your head out and yell
"I'm as mad as hell and I'm not
going to take this any more!"

But first you’ve gotta get mad!
You’ve gotta say
"I’m as mad as hell and I’m not
going to take this any more!"

Get up. Get up...
Stick your head out of the window. Open
it, stick your head out and keep yelling
"I'm as mad as hell.
I'm not gonna take this any more!"

Just get up from your chairs right now...
... and stick your head out
and yell and keep yelling...

Tomorrow, think of Howard Beale's altar call and stop getting mad at your kids, your neighbors, that moron who cut you off in traffic, and channel your anger into a force for change. Refuse to take it any more. Get mad. Make yourself a sign and head to the mall or some public gathering place and sit down and DON'T STOP until you are elbow-to-elbow with thousands of others, inspired by you and Howard Beale, who refuse to take another minute of the Bush Regime and its violations of our freedoms.

I'm talking to YOU. Don't let yourself imagine your actions won't make any difference. ONLY your actions will make a difference.

Don't let evil wipe out every iota of good.

Get mad, and let the Bushreich know you're mad, and you are not going to take it anymore.

Daily OM: Beings of Light

2005-12-18T06:15:00.000-08:00

December 19, 2005
Beings Of Light
Human Angels
During each of our journeys, there are those inevitable moments when someone comes into our life at precisely the right time and says or does precisely the right thing. Their words or actions may help us perceive ourselves more clearly, remind us that everything will turn out for the best, help us cope, or see us through difficult situations. These people are human angels - individuals designated by the universe to be of service to those in need at specific points in time. Some human angels make a commitment before their births to make a positive contribution to the world at a particular moment. Others were chosen by the universe. All human angels, however, come into our lives when we least expect them and when we can most benefit from their presence.

A few of the human angels we may encounter are in professions where helping others is an everyday occurrence. But most of them are regular people, going about their daily lives until called upon to be in the right place at the right time to bring peace, joy, help, or heal someone when they most need it. You may have met a human angel in the form of a teacher who gave you a piece of advice that touched your soul and influenced your path. The person that momentarily stopped you to say hello on the street, delaying you long enough to avoid an oncoming car or a collision, is also a human angel. They may offer nothing more than a kind word or a smile, but they will offer it when you can draw the most strength and support from their simple action.

You may be a human angel yet not know it. Your fate or intuition may guide you toward other people's challenging or distressing situations, leading you to infer that you simply have bad luck. But recognizing yourself as a human angel can help you deal with the pain you see and understand that you are there to help and comfort others during their times of need. Human angels give of their inner light to all who need it, coming into our lives and often changing us forever. Their task has its challenges, but it is they that have the power to teach, bring us joy, and comfort us in times of despair.

SIGN UP HERE to receive a daily meditation from Daily OM.

Sometimes, DEMOCRACY WORKS!

2005-12-16T19:03:00.000-08:00

YOU DID IT! The Patriot Act Will Not Move Forward Today

To see how your senators voted, CLICK HERE.

If your Senator(s) voted for freedom and against the cloture motion:

Thank you for taking a courageous stand from freedom by opposing cloture. Job well done!

Stay strong, support the bipartisan filibuster and vote NO on any Patriot Act reauthorization bill that does not include real reforms.

If your Senator(s) voted against freedom and for the cloture motion:

The Patriot Act must be fixed. Change your vote and support reforms to protect freedom and civil liberties of innocent Americans.

The Patriot Act reauthorization bill fails to protect the privacy of ordinary Americans because it does not require that the government have any connection between the records they want and a suspected foreign terrorist.

The reauthorization bill actually makes the Patriot Act worse by making it nearly impossible to overturn a gag order that accompanies these secret demands and allowing sanctions against business people who don’t turn over sensitive records sought with these secret fishing expedition orders.

Call now! Fill in your information below to look up your Senators. Then, send your friends to http://action.aclu.org/call, or click here to send them a Patriot Act eCard.

Five-minute emergency: CALL YOUR SENATORS

2005-12-14T19:23:00.000-08:00

Call Your Senators Now: Last Chance to Stop Sham Patriot Act Reauthorization Bill

We don't NEED the "Patriot Act. " We NEVER needed the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was maneuvered into law by the Bushreich in an attempt to capitalize on our collective fear following the World Trade Center destruction.

The "Patriot Act" is nothing more than a blank check the government can use to buy information on YOU. Because it exists, anyone in the government, for the flimsiest of reasons, can demand that your doctor, your psychiatrist, your lawyer, your priest turn over PRIVATE documents containing the most intimate details of your life. The government can do anything it wants to with this information, and can use it as an excuse to bug your phone, put you under photo surveillance, or jail you without charge.

Do you think the government wouldn't find anything to harm you if it pried into your personal affairs? Just ask anyone who's been unfairly stalked by the FBI or CIA. Even a man as decent and important as Martin Luther King, Jr., was obscenely put under surveillance by the government, his most intimate moments recorded to serve their evil ends.

But even if it had never happened, it would still be important to do away with the Patriot Act because it ERODES the very foundations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. No presidential administration--including Richard Nixon and Co.--in our entire history has committed more human rights violations or done more to make the principles of democracy meaningless.

Stop the Patriot Act. IT ONLY TAKES A MINUTE TO PHONE YOUR SENATORS!

Click here to learn how.

Rice rejects EU protests over secret terror prisons

2005-12-03T17:33:00.000-08:00

From the UK Guardian Unlimited
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will inflame the transatlantic row over America's alleged torture of terror suspects in secret jails by telling Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and other European officials to 'back off'.

State Department officials have hinted that Rice's response to Straw and other European ministers will remind them of their 'co-operation' in the war on terror. She is expected to make a public statement today stressing that the US does not violate allies' sovereignty or break international law. She will also remind people their governments are co-operating in a fight against militants who have bombed commuters in London and Madrid. She will drive home her message in private meetings with officials in Germany and at the EU headquarters in Brussels.

READ MORE HERE

Rice faces growing anger over claims of CIA abductions
By Anthony Browne in Brussels and David Charter in Washington

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, the US Secretary of State, will try to dismiss mounting concern over alleged CIA human rights abuses in Europe when she embarks on a four-day tour of the Continent today.

It is alleged that the CIA runs a secret global abduction and internment operation of suspected terrorists, known as “extraordinary rendition”, which since 2001 has captured about 3,000 people and transported them around the world.

Mr [Stephen] Hadley (President Bush’s National Security Adviser) told CNN that Dr Rice would not comment on specific CIA operations. “Obviously if there are these types of intelligence operation going on, they are the kinds of thing that one cannot talk about. Why? Because the information would help the enemy.”

About a dozen European governments have launched internal investigations into allegations that the CIA used their airports covertly to move terrorist suspects around the world, including to and from the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

READ MORE HERE

Leaving IS an "exit strategy..."

2005-12-02T18:49:00.000-08:00

-- IN IRAQ --

30,000 IRAQI TROOPS KILLED
and 90,000 SERIOUSLY INJURED Aug. 2003

26,994 IRAQI CIVILIANS KILLED
and 48,589 SERIOUSLY INJURED Nov. 2005

2,083 U.S. TROOPS KILLED
and 7,347 SERIOUSLY INJURED Nov. 2005

200 OTHER COALITION TROOPS KILLED
and 600 SERIOUSLY INJURED Nov. 2005

106 U.S. CIVILIANS KILLED
and 191 SERIOUSLY INJURED Nov. 2005

176 OTHER COALITION CIVILIANS KILLED
and 317 SERIOUSLY INJURED Nov. 2005

U.S. and coalition deaths and injuries listed above include deaths and injuries reported in all of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," which is the Pentagon's public-relations name for the invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq. U.S. and coalition deaths and injuries included in the above numbers may have occurred in neighboring or nearby nations, in support of OIF.

Purification by fire

2005-12-02T13:20:00.000-08:00

MARK HARRISON / THE SEATTLE TIMES

Tribal members at the Lummi reservation watch the destruction of a house Thursday that had been used in drug dealing. "This is only the beginning of the trying to destroy what is wrecking our families," said Dorothy Charles, a spiritual leader.

FROM THE SEATTLE TIMES, 12/02/2005:
Of 170 babies born on the reservation in 2003, 28 are believed to have been affected by alcohol or drugs.

An 18-month-old picked an Oxycontin pill off the floor in her home and was killed by an overdose of the prescription painkiller, known here as Hillbilly Heroin.

A 2-month-old was found dead in a baby swing surrounded by drug abusers. And on and on and on.

The Lummi have responded, beginning in 2002 with a communitywide, anti-drug program that has thrown everything at the drug problem, from detectives and prosecuting attorneys to drug testing, surveillance cameras -- and even banishment of dealers from the reservation.

Caught red-handed

2005-11-25T19:52:00.000-08:00

So, Idaho and Utah are the only true believers, and Wyoming is on the fence?

Even Texas and Florida have gone blue?

Well, don't get too cocky, America. You can be certain the Bushies will pull something out of their collective arse just in time for the off-year elections.

But what would happen if Americans were prepared for anything the Bushreich tried to throw its way, and a serious, patriotic, principled impeachment was possible?

What can YOU do to make sure the real Axis of Weasels doesn't spin blue America into a stupor before it's too late?

Can we turn this around?

The time is right for revolution.

Thanks to the Daily Kos for the graphic. As far as I know, it originated there.

Happy Thanksgiving, World

2005-11-24T16:41:00.000-08:00

Shame? Or regret at being caught?

2005-11-23T02:05:00.000-08:00

You can bet this is just the tip of the corrupt Republican iceberg. The two-party system has nothing to do with ideology anymore. Are there any honest, caring Republicans in Congress? Or are they all on the take, like their Feckless Leader, George "Karl Rove" Bush?

Make it so

2005-11-22T22:15:00.000-08:00

New Orleans: LAND OF OPPORTUNISTS

2005-11-21T14:21:00.000-08:00

This vision was laid out in uniquely undisguised form during a meeting at the Heritage Foundation's Washington headquarters on September 13. Present were members of the House Republican Study Committee, a caucus of more than 100 conservative lawmakers headed by Indiana Congressman Mike Pence. The group compiled a list of thirty-two "Pro-Free-Market Ideas for Responding to Hurricane Katrina and High Gas Prices," including school vouchers, repealing environmental regulations and "drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." Admittedly, it seems farfetched that these would be adopted as relief for the needy victims of an eviscerated public sector. Until you read the first three items: "Automatically suspend Davis-Bacon prevailing wage laws in disaster areas"; "Make the entire affected area a flat-tax free-enterprise zone"; and "Make the entire region an economic competitiveness zone (comprehensive tax incentives and waiving of regulations)." All are poised to become law or have already been adopted by presidential decree.

Republished on 11/21/05

Your Tax Dollars At Work

2005-11-19T22:51:00.000-08:00

It's not bad enough that the Bushreich enacted the unconstitutional Patriot Act. That SAME corrupt administration will also sell you this CD-ROM telling you how to use the Patriot Act to spy on others.

Bush wants to extend the Patriot Act for 7 more years. Why? Because, you know, the terrorists might get away, right? The terrorists that only W can see and hear (when he looks in the mirror). You know, those terrorists who threaten American liberties (like our constitutional right to privacy) and our freedom (from unreasonable search and seizure), those pesky terrorists who only seem to appear when W needs a diversion.

But don't take MY word for it:

When the federal government issues a terrorist warning, presidential approval ratings jump, a Cornell University sociologist finds. Interestingly, terrorist warnings also boost support for the president on issues that are largely irrelevant to terrorism, such as his handling of the economy.

...."Results showed that terror warnings increased presidential approval ratings consistently," says [researcher Robb] Willer. "They also increased support for Bush's handling of the economy. The findings, however, were inconclusive as to how long this halo effect lasts."

The entire study is on file HERE.

We should have known when departing rat, Tom Ridge, alluded to it following his resignation in February 2005:

Posted 5/10/2005 11:21 PM
Ridge reveals clashes on alerts

By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.

Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled.

His comments at a Washington forum describe spirited debates over terrorist intelligence and provide rare insight into the inner workings of the nation's homeland security apparatus.
Ridge said he wanted to "debunk the myth" that his agency was responsible for repeatedly raising the alert under a color-coded system he unveiled in 2002.

"More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it," Ridge told reporters. "Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert). ... There were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said, 'For that?' "
================================================
YOU HAVE TO SLOG THROUGH HIS BLOG to find the 13 "coincidental" terror alerts listed by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, but here are a few of them:

December 17th, 2003. 9/11 Commission Co-Chair Thomas Kean says the attacks were preventable. The next day, a Federal Appeals Court says the government cannot detain suspected radiation-bomber Jose Padilla indefinitely without charges, and the chief U.S. Weapons inspector in Iraq, Dr. David Kay, who has previously announced he has found no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, announces he will resign his post.

December 21st, 2003. Three days later, just before Christmas, Homeland Security again raises the threat level to Orange, claiming "credible intelligence" of further plots to crash airliners into U.S. cities. Subsequently, six international flights into this country are cancelled after some passenger names purportedly produce matches on government no-fly lists. The French later identify those matched names: one belongs to an insurance salesman from Wales, another to an elderly Chinese woman, a third to a five-year old boy.

July 29th, 2004. At their party convention in Boston, the Democrats formally nominate John Kerry as their candidate for President. As in the wake of any convention, the Democrats dominate the media attention over the ensuing weekend.

Monday, August 1st, 2004. The Department of Homeland Security raises the alert status for financial centers in New York, New Jersey, and Washington to orange. The evidence supporting the warning - reconnaissance data, left in a home in Iraq, later proves to be roughly four years old and largely out-of-date.

June 26th, 2005. A Gallup poll suggests that 61 percent of the American public believes the President does not have a plan in Iraq. On the 28th, Mr. Bush speaks to the nation from Fort Bragg: "We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we'll fight them there, we'll fight them across the world, and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won."

June 29th 2005. The next day, another private pilot veers into restricted airspace, the Capitol is again evacuated, and this time, so is the President.

On May 10th of this year, after his resignation, former Secretary of Homeland Security Ridge looked back on the terror alert level changes, issued on his watch.

Mr. Ridge said: "More often than not we were the least inclined to raise it. Sometimes we disagreed with the intelligence assessment. Sometimes we thought even if the intelligence was good, you don't necessarily put the country on (alert)... there were times when some people were really aggressive about raising it, and we said `for that?'"

But, if merely a reasonable case can be made that any of these juxtapositions of events are more than just coincidences, it underscores the need for questions to be asked in this country - questions about what is prudence, and what is fear-mongering; questions about which is the threat of death by terror, and which is the terror of threat.
===============================================
When was the last time Al-Qaeda, or any other supposed Islamic terror group or figure, actually attacked America? If you believe Al-Qaeda (and not W and his evil cohorts) flew planes into the World Trade Center more than 5 years ago, what have those terrorists done since then?

Those "terrorists" have done nothing. No bridges blown up, no airplanes hijacked, no water supplies tainted with anthrax, no targeting of American freedoms.

The Bushreich, on the other hand, can't seem to stop trying to scare us to death--or at least, into a state of frenzied cultural obedience. Why? It's easy enough to answer that question, isn't it?

Who profits from terror?

Who profits from invading Iraq?

Who profits when gas prices go up?

Who profits so handsomely that he can afford to spend an entire year of his five-year tenure on the job "on vacation?"

It's all about who profits. You can put the wheels in motion to end the obscene profiteering of the Bushreich and all its rich friends by calling your elected representatives and instructing them to vote against extending the life of the Patriot Act. That'll show the REAL terrorists that we will NEVER give up our rights and our freedom for any reason.

No MORE blood for oil

2005-11-19T21:53:00.000-08:00

Call your elected representatives. They're finally governing with PASSION. Give them something to feel passionate about. Register your opinion, whether you're Republican or Democrat. Let's nudge this argument out into the light.

FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES:

The battle came as Democrats accused Republicans of pulling a political stunt by moving toward a vote on a symbolic alternative to the resolution that Mr. Murtha offered on Thursday, calling for the swift withdrawal of American troops. Democrats said the ploy distorted the meaning of Mr. Murtha's measure and left little time for meaningful debate.

The measure's fate was sealed - and the vote count's significance minimized - when the Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, criticized the Republican tactics and instructed Democrats to join Republicans in voting against an immediate withdrawal.

"Just when you thought you'd seen it all, the Republicans have stooped to new lows, even for them," said Ms. Pelosi, who assailed Republicans as impugning Mr. Murtha's patriotism.
The battle boiled over when Representative Jean Schmidt, an Ohio Republican who is the most junior member of the House, told of a phone call she had just received from a Marine colonel back home.

"He asked me to send Congress a message: stay the course," Ms. Schmidt said. "He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do."

Democrats booed in protest and shouted Ms. Schmidt down in her attack on Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Vietnam combat veteran and one of the House's most respected members on military matters. They caused the House to come to an abrupt standstill, and moments later, Representative Harold Ford, Democrat of Tennessee, charged across the chamber's center aisle to the Republican side screaming that Ms. Schmidt's attack had been unwarranted.

House Democrats greeted Mr. Murtha with a standing ovation on Friday as he entered the chamber.

"This is a personal attack on one of the best members, one of the most respected members of this House, and it is outrageous," said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts.

"You guys are pathetic!" yelled Representative Martin Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts. "Pathetic."

Then Mr. Murtha, who normally shuns publicity, gave an impassioned 15-minute plea for his plan to withdraw American troops, who he said had become "a catalyst for violence" in Iraq. The American people, Mr. Murtha thundered, are "thirsty for some direction; they're thirsty for a solution to this problem."

The House action comes just days after the Republican-controlled Senate defeated a Democratic push to have Mr. Bush describe a timetable for withdrawal. Underscoring unease by both parties about the war, though, the Senate then approved a Republican statement that 2006 should be a year in which conditions were created for the Iraqi government to take over more security duties in the country and allow the United States to begin withdrawing.

Even as Republicans sought to make political hay from Mr. Murtha's plan, Democrats defended him as a patriot.

"I won't stand for the Swift-boating of Jack Murtha," said Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004. Mr. Kerry, who is also a Vietnam veteran, was dogged during the campaign by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that challenged his war record.

Bush talks, Karl Rove's lips move...

2005-11-18T17:00:00.000-08:00

The Dirty Dozen: 12 Links to Karl's naughty bits on the Internet:
1. The receiver under The Moron's jacket during the debates:
A third big question is why the media -- and the Kerry campaign -- have stayed away from this story, refusing to press the president for an explanation of the bulges in his three suit jackets. Several calls to the Kerry campaign press office for a response to this and earlier articles on the topic went unanswered.

2. The "Rat List"
One Texas lobbyist who has been both an ally and adversary of Rove down through the years remarked, "It is in Karl's nature to engulf and devour and control and to rule." A Republican friend and staunch Bush ally observed, "The problem with Karl is that his enemies list never ends. Once you're on it, it does not end."

3. Dan Rather took the bait and lost:
Bush and Rove win – in eight big ways. I don’t have proof, certainly – but one way or another, I know that Karl Rove is behind the latest Dan Rather/CBS/60 Minutes controversy, just like many are certain he was behind the Swift Boat Vets For Bush. He’s dirty – yet brilliant. The President’s enemies be forewarned: Rove’s coming for you next. And he’ll leave without a trace.

4. Using the "Patriot" Act to build a dossier on YOU, too
Capitol Hill Blue reports that the White House has made use of the Patriot Act to gather personal information about political enemies such as Ambassador Wilson, Valerie Plame, Michael Moore, Senator Barbara Boxer, Joe Conason and "left-wing bloggers like Markos Moulitsas Zúniga (the Daily Kos) and Ana Marie Cox (Wonkette)."

5. "Enemies of the State" lose the right to free speech
The list includes information on members of Congress, local, state and federal officials and many media figures and ordinary citizens who have had the temerity to question Bush's reign. Some notables said to appear prominently on the list are filmmaker, Michael Moore, outspoken Senator, Barbara Boxer, and news bloggers behind the sites, Daily Kos and Wonkette.

6. Twin sons of different mothers? More like Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee
"Bush is in pretty deep with Karl," said Doug Wead, a longtime associate of the Bush family. "There's something beyond like-and-dislike there. This is a symbiotic relationship."

7. How far will they go to protect their wealth and power?
The morning of his first scheduled under-oath testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on the secret Iran initiative [Director of the CIA William Casey] was struck by seizures in his CIA headquarters office in Langley, Virginia, and underwent speech-incapacitating left-brain surgery shortly thereafter. Had he lived to testify, according to life-long friend and counsel Milton Gould, Casey would have told the 'entire truth.' He died on May 6, 1987." ...some "conspiracy minded" folks suggested at the time that this was simply a hi-tech version of the mob cutting out an informer's tongue.

8. Fear can be a great motivator
But that kind of argument isn't very "Roveian" anyway. It's too raw and full of truth. Rove has this knack of finding a way to destroy you personally that some Americans can swallow as "reasonable" for the express purpose that you are telling the truth.

9. It's not over until the fat boy stops singing
it is amazing how karl rove has flown off the media's map. well, much like hitler cowering in his bunker as the forces of democracy and freedom tore his empire to shreds, so too are pure simple truth and cold, hard facts laying siege to w and his scum-laden administration.

10. Terror Alert Level: Red at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
What are the odds? On Thursday, we reported on the amazing coincidence that the terror alert covering the New York subway system had grabbed headlines away from bad news about President Bush’s abysmal poll numbers (and the breaking news that Karl Rove had been called to testify, for the fourth time, before the Treasongate grand jury).

11. Visions of a fat boy with acne, halitosis and a tiny "endowment"...
In a 700-word article that Slater said wasn't the most significant thing he'd written about Rove, he referred to questionable campaign tactics attributed to Rove: teaching College Republicans dirty tricks; spreading a rumor that former Texas Governor Ann Richards was too tolerant of gays and lesbians; circulating a mock newspaper that featured a story about a former Democratic governor's drinking and driving when he was a college student; spreading stories about Texas official Jim Hightower's alleged role in a contribution kickback scheme; and alerting the press to the fact that Lena Guerrero, a rising star in the Texas Democratic Party, had lied about graduating from college.

12. The Real Terrorist is the one who governs with Fear:
Is it just me or does this administration make you want to forsake your inherent optimism, rationality and general trust in the triumph of people's better natures and become a full blown conspiracy theorist? I mean, part of me thinks, hell, they'd do anything to maintain power -- is it really just a coincidence that 14 times in the last three years, a terror alert, a warning, an arrest...something to remind us of the ongoing terror threat (code for "Bush is a strong leader") has come directly on the heels of negative press for the president?

Don't mess with the man's blood money

2005-11-18T15:20:00.000-08:00

Right Wing Gang Bang
How quickly they turn on the ones they formerly embraced
And the murderers defend the murderers
By dragging a hero's name through the mud
Like they did to John Kerry
In the 2004 Presidential Campaign
And they did to John McCain
Because he had the courage to speak

Bushreich house organ, Scott McClellan, said Murtha's call for troops to start pulling out immediately after the Dec. 15 Iraqi elections is "baffling," and compared his position to that of liberal filmmaker Michael Moore and the "extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party."

Murtha has served in the military, first in Korea, then in Vietnam. He has two Purple Hearts and attained the rank of Colonel. He supported Bush's decision to invade Iraq. He is known as a Democrat and a Hawk. He is qualified to make wartime judgments. Bush is not.

George Bush is a well-known coward.

Scott McClellan is a liar.

Dick Cheney is a lawbreaker, a coward and a carpetbagger.

Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest... soft hands, black hearts, would never lay down their lives for another, no matter who it was.

And President Rove, the most evil of them all, is the man behind the curtain who pulls all the levers and strings and scripts their hate speech to polarize the crowd...

You'd think Murtha had flown a plane into some tall buildings in Manhattan, the way the Bushreich is trying to paint him as the enemy.

Because violating human rights, profiting from murder and being evil aren't grounds enough...

2005-11-15T13:11:00.000-08:00

Aren't you tired of being called a traitor?

2005-11-14T21:04:00.000-08:00

Bush will stop at nothing in his attempts to divert attention away from his evildoings. But it's not working anymore. Even the blindest of us all are now seeing the light:

Another Set of Scare Tactics

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Mr. President, it won't work this time.

With a Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll finding 57 percent of Americans agreeing that George W. Bush "deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq," the president clearly needs to tend to his credibility problems. But his partisan attacks on the administration's critics, in a Veterans Day speech last week and in Alaska yesterday, will only add to his troubles.

Bush was not subtle. He said that anyone accusing his administration of having "manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people" was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will," Bush declared last week. "As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them."

You wonder: Did Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel in the Valerie Plame leak investigation, send the wrong signal to our troops and our enemy by daring to seek the indictment of Scooter Libby on a charge of perjury and obstruction of justice? Must Americans who support our troops desist from any criticism of the use of intelligence by the administration?

There is a great missing element in the argument over whether the administration manipulated the facts. Neither side wants to talk about the context in which Bush won a blank check from Congress to invade Iraq. He doesn't want us to remember that he injected the war debate into the 2002 midterm election campaign for partisan purposes, and he doesn't want to acknowledge that he used the post-Sept. 11 mood to do all he could to intimidate Democrats from raising questions more of them should have raised.

The big difference between our current president and his father is that the first President Bush put off the debate over the Persian Gulf War until after the 1990 midterm elections. The result was one of most substantive and honest foreign policy debates Congress has ever seen, and a unified nation. The first President Bush was scrupulous about keeping petty partisanship out of the discussion.

The current President Bush did the opposite. He pressured Congress for a vote before the 2002 election, and the war resolution passed in October.

Sen. Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat who is no dove, warned of rushing "pell-mell" into an endorsement of broad war powers for the president. The Los Angeles Times reported that Sen. Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, protested in September: "We're being asked to go to war, and vote on it in a matter of days. We need an intelligence estimate before we can seriously vote." And Rep. Tom Lantos, a California Democrat, put it plainly: "This will be one of the most important decisions Congress makes in a number of years; I do not believe it should be made in the frenzy of an election year." But it was.

Grand talk about liberating Iraq gave way to cheap partisan attacks. In New Mexico, Republican Steve Pearce ran an advertisement against Democrat John Arthur Smith declaring: "While Smith 'reflects' on the situation, the possibility of a mushroom cloud hovering over a U.S. city still remains." Note that Smith wasn't being attacked for opposing the war, only for reflecting on it. God forbid that any Democrat dare even think before going to war.

Marc Racicot, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, said about the late Sen. Paul Wellstone's opposition to the war resolution: "He has set about to diminish the capacity of this nation to defend itself. That is a legitimate issue." Wellstone, who died in a plane crash a few days before the election, was not intimidated. But other Democrats were.

The bad faith of Bush's current argument is staggering. He wants to say that the "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and Senate" who "voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power" thereby gave up their right to question his use of intelligence forever after. But he does not want to acknowledge that he forced the war vote to take place under circumstances that guaranteed the minimum amount of reflection and debate, and that opened anyone who dared question his policies to charges, right before an election, that they were soft on Hussein.

By linking the war on terrorism to a partisan war against Democrats, Bush undercut his capacity to lead the nation in this fight. And by resorting to partisan attacks again last week, Bush only reminded us of the shameful circumstances in which the whole thing started.

=========================================

Okay, enough with the "misled." Can you say "lied?" Of course you can. He lied. He's always lied. And he will keep on lying until we stop allowing pollsters to use the word "misled."

Stay tuned.

IMPEACH THIS IDIOT

2005-11-11T17:36:00.000-08:00

Click on the idiot in the picture to be taken to a petition you can sign to impeach him. It takes about 20 seconds. You can do it.

DO IT. NOW. The world has suffered enough at the hands of this lying, evil man.

Let the sun set on the Bush Empire

2005-11-11T16:24:00.000-08:00

Imagine if they'd raised gas prices BEFORE Katrina...

2005-11-10T18:17:00.000-08:00

Profits not a windfall, oil executives declare at Senate appearance

By H. Josef Hebert
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Oil executives sought to justify their huge profits under tough questioning Wednesday, but they found little sympathy from senators who said their constituents are suffering from high energy prices.

"Working people struggle with high gas prices, and your sacrifice, gentlemen, appears to be nothing," Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., told the executives, citing multimillion-dollar bonuses the officials are receiving amid soaring prices at gasoline pumps and predictions of more of the same for winter heating bills.

During the joint hearing of the Senate Commerce and Energy and Natural Resources committees, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, an industry ally, told the executives that the No. 1 question asked at his recent town-hall meetings was "about you and your profitability. And I must tell you, it's not terribly fun defending you."

The executives represented five major companies that, along with their global parent corporations, earned more than $32.8 billion during the July-September quarter. Consumers, meanwhile, saw gasoline prices soar beyond $3 a gallon after supply disruptions caused by hurricanes.

Lee Raymond, chairman of ExxonMobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, acknowledged that high gasoline and home heating prices "have put a strain on Americans' household budgets," but he defended his company's profits. Petroleum earnings "go up and down" from year to year and are in line with other industries when compared with the industry's enormous revenues.

It would be a mistake, Raymond said, for the government to impose "punitive measures hastily crafted in response to short-term market fluctuations." They would probably result in less investment by the industry in refineries and other oil projects, he said.

ExxonMobil earned nearly $10 billion in the third quarter. Raymond was joined at the witness table by the chief executives of Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP America and Shell Oil.

But senators pressed the executives to explain why gasoline prices jumped so sharply after Hurricane Katrina, when prices at the pump in some areas soared by $1 a gallon or more overnight.

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., asked why the industry didn't freeze prices, as it did after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

We had to respond to the market," replied Chevron Chairman David O'Reilly.

Raymond said that after Sept. 11 "the industry wasn't concerned about whether there was adequate supply," as it was after this year's Gulf storms. By keeping prices higher, adequate supplies were assured, he maintained.

Democrats said that during the storm some ExxonMobil gas station operators complained the company had raised the wholesale gas price 24 cents a gallon in 24 hours.

Raymond said his company issued guidelines "to minimize the increase in price" but added, "If we kept the price too low we would quickly run out [of fuel] at the service stations."

"It was a tough balancing act," said Raymond, who said ExxonMobil was not price gouging.

The hearing was delayed initially as Democrats tried unsuccessfully to have the five oil executives take an oath before testifying, implying they otherwise wouldn't be truthful.

Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, reacted testily when Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., asked for a vote on whether to ask the executives to testify under oath. Stevens ignored her, and then snapped, "There will be no vote ... It's the decision of the chairman, and I have made that decision." When she moved for a vote, he interrupted, "That's the last we're going to hear about that, because it's out of order."

Cantwell didn't get much satisfaction from oil executives, either. When she told the executives that she wanted "just a yes-or-no answer" to whether their companies exported fuel before Hurricane Katrina, Raymond responded, "Well, senator, there are no easy yes-or-no answers in this business."

A number of Democrats have called for windfall profits taxes on the industry. Other senators, including Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., have said it may be time to enact a federal law on price gouging.

Some Republican and Democratic legislators have suggested that the oil companies should funnel some of their earnings to supplement a federal program that helps low-income households pay heating bills. That got a cool reception from the executives.

"As an industry we feel it is not a good precedent to fund a government program," said James Mulva, chairman of ConocoPhillips.

The head of the Federal Trade Commission said a federal price-gouging law "likely will do more harm than good."

"While no consumers like price increases, in fact, price increases lower demand and help make the shortage shorter-lived than it otherwise would have been," FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras told the hearing.

"That's an astounding theory of consumer protection," replied Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.
Mulva of ConocoPhillips said, "We are ready to open our records" to dispute allegations of price gouging. ConocoPhillips earned $3.8 billion in the third quarter, an 89 percent increase over a year earlier. But Mulva said that represents only a 7.7 percent profit margin.

"We do not consider that a windfall," he said.

Chevron's O'Reilly attributed the high energy prices to tight supplies even before the hurricanes struck. He said his company is "investing aggressively in the development of new energy supplies."

Shell earned $9 billion in the third quarter, said John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil, but he said its investment in U.S. operations over the past five years was equal to its income from U.S. sales.

"We respectfully request that Congress do no harm by distorting markets or seeking punitive taxes on an industry working hard to respond to high prices and supply shortfalls," he said.
To the visible shock of some Republicans, all five executives said under questioning by Wyden that they don't need the $2.6 billion in tax credits contained in energy legislation that President Bush signed over the summer. Wyden plans to try to revoke those tax credits.

Material from the Los Angeles Times, Knight Ridder Newspapers and Seattle Times staff reporter Alicia Mundy is included in this report.

United States of America: The only recourse

2005-11-09T14:38:00.000-08:00

DARIO LOPEZ-MILLS / AP

The Legendary K.O. says it plainly

2005-11-09T14:27:00.000-08:00

DOWNLOAD this if you haven't already heard it: Kanye West "Gold Digger" Remix

Kanye: [abandons teleprompter] "I hate the way they portray us in the media. You see a black family and they say we are looting, you see a white family and they say they are looking for food. And, you know, its been five days because most of the people ARE black. And even for me to complain, I would be a hypocrite because I would turn away from the TV because it's too hard to watch. I've even been shopping before even giving a donation, so now I'm calling my business manager right to see what is the biggest amount I can give. And just to imagine, if I was down there and those are my people down there. If there is anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help about the way America is set up the help the poor, the black people, the less well off as slow as possible. Red cross is doing as much as they can. We already realize a lot of the people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way. And now they've given them permission to go down and shoot us.

Mike Myers: [stands frozen in horror, decides to pretend nothing happened and stick with the teleprompter]

Kanye: George Bush doesn't care about black people.

Barbara Bush: "So Many Of The People In The Arena... Were Underprivileged Anyway, So This Is Working Very Well For Them"...

DUH!!!!

2005-11-04T12:19:00.000-08:00

Are King George's and President Rove's ignorant masses of subjects finally catching on?

These MURDERERS turn our sons and daughters into barbarians (see "Jarhead" with Jamie Foxx and Jake Gyllenhaal, or just watch the evening news...) and when sane, life-loving people protest, they are called UNAMERICAN, UNPATRIOTIC.

There is no greater traitor, no one more worthy of hatred, impeachment, indictment for human rights violations and FRAUD than George W. Bush.

NOTE: NBC News reports the numbers at 36% and 64%. The AP report below is from a random newspaper search.

November 4, 2005 Poll: Bush at his lowest rating
President's job approval falls to 37% amid mounting miscues

By Tom Raum
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's job approval has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency amid worries over the Iraq war, a fumbled Supreme Court nomination, the indictment of one White House aide and uncertainty about another.

Concerned that the president has lost his footing, some influential Republicans are urging Bush to shake up his staff and bring in new blood. A new AP-Ipsos poll found Bush's approval rating was at 37 percent, compared with 39 percent a month ago.

About 59 percent of those surveyed said they disapproved.

The intensity of disapproval is the strongest to date, with 42 percent now saying they "strongly disapprove" of how Bush is handling his job -- twice as many as the 20 percent who said they "strongly approve."

A year after his re-election, Bush's second term has been marred by rising U.S. casualties in Iraq, a failed attempt to restructure Social Security, Hurricane Katrina missteps, rising fuel costs, and the forced withdrawal of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers.

In the AP-Ipsos poll, nearly one in five Republicans disapproved of Bush's handling of his job, compared with nearly nine in 10 Democrats. Nearly seven in ten independents disapproved.
The president has lost support from some key groups of constituents over the past year.

He's dropped 16 points in his approval rating with men in that time, 18 points with people who have a high school education or less, 16 points among Southerners and 13 points among Republicans.

The poll was conducted by telephone from Oct. 31 to Nov. 2 among 1,006 adults nationwide.

The margin on sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points

It said Libby on the label...

2005-10-28T17:24:00.000-07:00

Executive Privilege

2005-10-28T17:10:00.000-07:00

Maybe she's just not that smart

2005-10-18T18:03:00.000-07:00

I needed some comic relief following Bush's latest moronic move, so i went HERE. That blog is just an extension of the four columns by Maureen Dowd where she parodies Harriet Miers.

I also read commentary by people gathered at Right Wing News, a proudly conservative blog and dozens of interviews with people of all stripes who are concerned about Miers' nomination.

The overarching impression I am left with is that no one thinks she's particularly smart, but they don't want to say that out loud, so they just talk about her career and hope the reader will reach that conclusion independently.

But the most shocking comments of all I've read come not from justices and judges and lawyers and conservatives, but from Tucker Carlson, an interviewer, in his interview with Robert Bork:

CARLSON: Yes. A fascinating point, brought up this morning by Charles Krauthammer in his column in the Washington Post. He said that, for four years, Meirs has been immersed in the war and peace decisions while working at the White House — questions of prisoner detention, prisoner treatment, war
powers et cetera — and he makes the point, if she does reach the Supreme Court, he’ll have to recuse herself from judging the constitutionality of these decisions because she will have been party to making those decisions. She won’t be able to weigh in on these vital questions of American life. Is that true, do you think?

BORK: I’m not sure that it is true. Justice Robert Jackson advised President Truman and President Roosevelt on issues like that, and then changed his mind when he got on the Supreme Court in the Steel Seizure case, which held illegal President Truman’s seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War. So I’m not sure that having participated in the decision at the executive branch level disqualifies you from deciding the issue as a judge.

CARLSON: Right. I don’t think it should either.

You don't have to be a legal genius to know that Krauthammer is right. If key members of the Bush Administration, including its military strategists and advisors, ever find themselves before the Supreme Court of the United States, they simply could not be judged by one of their cronies. And as a journalist, Carlson should not only know this, but should not cave in when momentarily dazzled by an irrelevant citation by a prominent judge.

As usual, Black Americans are ahead of the trend...

2005-10-16T20:05:00.000-07:00

...with the exception of Michael Steele, the Republican attorney general of the state of Maryland, who is taking great delight at whatever Dick "Dick" Cheney is saying here. A breakdown of a recent NPC-WSJ poll reveals that, among Black Americans, Bush's approval rating is only 2 percent.

Read what Oliver Willis has to say about it and the MSNBC story itself.

PELOSI FOR PRESIDENT

2005-09-10T20:28:00.000-07:00

The leaders of our nation of sheep have distinguished themselves by their complicity with the evil forces that control the government (namely George Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and friends, those who profit financially off the blood of child soldiers and innocent Iraqis and the working poor who can't choose NOT to buy gasoline for their cars).

Nancy Pelosi distinguishes herself by speaking her mind while the cowardly who are supposed to represent the people sit on the sidelines wetting themselves.

Five years of the Bush Regime (including the year's-worth of vacation days he's racked up as Emperor of America) has succeeded in achieving the primary directive of Karl Rove: to establish a Republican fiefdom, bastardizing the pure and good motives of American Republicans in order to--literally--rule the world.

While hundreds of thousands of people suffer, George the Idiot Prince and his merlinic sidekick, the Wizard Rove, and all their friends appointed to rule every aspect of government sit in vaults, counting their gold as it amasses from strategically inflated crude oil prices combined with the ashes of anihilated alternative energy companies.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't say this, but she is the only representative brave enough to say ANYTHING at all.

There's no point in wagging a finger at Bush. He's laughing at you and checking out his billions of dollars-worth of wealth. You cannot shame a person who has no shame. He has no conscience. He was born to rule and he will do anything to make that happen.

A million African-Americans could have been wiped out in the wake of Katrina and George Bush wouldn't have shed a tear. As Kanye West and Chris Rock both point out, and as all feeling people know deep in their souls, George Bush hates everyone except himself. And if Katrina has shown us one thing more nakedly than anything else, it is that George Bush DOES hate black people even more than he hates Democrats, democracy, the poor and anyone else he can't exploit.

If he can't make a profit from exploiting a group, he'll do what he can to make sure you don't thrive, or even survive.

He doesn't lose any sleep over this. He only surrounds himself with the symbols of his success--idleness, sloth, waste, and gold.

Again, Pelosi didn't say that; I did. But at least she's talking, and people are listening, and I wish her the best and the greatest momentum as the next election year rolls around.

And if you want to put an end to the obscenity that is America today, you will too.

An Essay on Death and President Bush

2005-08-17T11:15:00.000-07:00

An Essay on Death and President Bush by E.L Doctorow

I fault this president (George W. Bush) for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our twenty-one year olds who wanted to be all that they could be.

On the eve of D-day in 1944 General Eisenhower prayed to God for the lives of the young soldiers he knew were going to die. He knew what death was. Even in a justifiable war, a war not of choice but of necessity, a war of survival, the cost was almost more than Eisenhower could bear.

But this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the WMDs he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man. He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the thousands of dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be. They come to his desk not as youngsters with mothers and fathers or wives and children who will suffer to the end of their days a terribly torn fabric of familial relationships and the inconsolable remembrance of aborted life. They come to his desk as a political liability which is why the press is not permitted to photograph the arrival of their coffins from Iraq.

How then can he mourn? To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that rather than controlling terrorism his war in Iraq has licensed it.

So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice. He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options, but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to.

This president knew it would be difficult for Americans not to cheer the overthrow of a foreign dictator. He knew that much. This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing --- to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends. A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children.

He is the President who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead; he does not feel for the thirty five million of us who live in poverty; he does not feel for the forty percent who cannot afford health insurance; he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills --- it is amazing for how many people in this country this President does not feel.

But he will dissemble feeling. He will say in all sincerity he is relieving the wealthiest one percent of the population of their tax burden for the sake of the rest of us, and that he is polluting the air we breathe for the sake of our economy, and that he is decreasing the safety regulations for coal mines to save the coal miners' jobs, and that he is depriving workers of their time-and-a-half benefits for overtime because this is actually a way to honor them by raising them into the professional class.

And this litany of lies he will versify with reverences for God and the flag and democracy, when just what he and his party are doing to our democracy is choking the life out of it.

But there is one more terribly sad thing about all of this. I remember the millions of people here and around the world who marched against the war. It was extraordinary, that spontaneously aroused oversoul of alarm and protest that transcended national borders. Why did it happen? After all, this was not the only war anyone had ever seen coming. There are little wars all over the world most of the time.

But the cry of protest was the appalled understanding of millions of people that America was ceding its role as the last best hope of mankind. It was their perception that the classic archetype of democracy was morphing into a rogue nation. The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war.

The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble.

Finally the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail: How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective war making, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.

E.L. Doctorow

Unafraid to blow the whistle

2005-08-07T07:15:00.000-07:00

By Deborah Hastings
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- In the world as Bunnatine Greenhouse sees it, people do the right thing. They stand up for the greater good, and they speak up when things go wrong. She believes God has a purpose for each life, and she prays every day for that purpose to be made evident.

She is praying her heart out these days, because she is in a great deal of trouble.

Bunnatine "Bunny" Greenhouse is the Principal Assistant Responsible for Contracting ("PARC" in the alphabet soup of military acronyms) in the Army Corps of Engineers. Lest the title fool, she is responsible for awarding billions upon billions in taxpayers' money to private companies hired to resurrect war-torn Iraq and to feed, clothe, shelter and do the laundry of American troops stationed there.

She has rained a mighty storm upon herself for standing up, before members of Congress and live on C-SPAN, to proclaim things are just not right in this staggeringly profitable business.

She has asked many questions: Why is Halliburton -- a giant Texas firm that holds more than 50 percent of all rebuilding efforts in Iraq -- receiving billions in contracts without competitive bidding? Do the duration of those contracts make sense? Have there been violations of federal laws regulating how the government can spend its money?

Halliburton denies wrongdoing. "These false allegations have been recycled in the media ad nauseam," the company said in response to a list of e-mailed questions from The Associated Press.

Bunny Greenhouse now may lose her job -- and her reputation, which she spent a lifetime building.

She is a black woman in a world of mostly white men; a 60-year-old workaholic who abides neither fools nor frauds. But she is out of her element in this fight, her former boss said.

"What Bunny is caught up in is politics of the highest damn order," said retired Gen. Joe Ballard, who hired Greenhouse and headed the Corps until 2000. "This is real hardball they're playing here. Bunny is a procurement officer, she's not a politician. She's not trained to do this."

Stirring the pot

Greenhouse has known for a long time that her days may be numbered. Her needling of contracts awarded to Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) predated the Iraq war, beginning with costs she said were spiraling "out of control" from a 2000 Bosnia contract to service U.S. troops. From 1995 to 2000, Halliburton's CEO was Dick Cheney, who left to run for vice president. He maintains his former company has not received preferential treatment.

She since had questioned both the amounts and the reasons for giving KBR tremendous contracts in the buildup to invading Iraq. She was ignored at first, she said. She then was cut out of the decision-making process.

On Oct. 6, she was summoned to the office of her boss. Maj. Gen. Robert Griffin, the Corps' deputy commander, was demoting her, he told her, taking away her Senior Executive Service status and sending her to midlevel management. Griffin declined to be interviewed.

Her performance was poor, according to a letter he presented. This was a surprise. Her previous job evaluations had been exemplary, she said.

If she didn't want the new position, she could retire with full benefits, the letter noted.

Over my dead body, Greenhouse said.

She has hired lawyer Michael Kohn. Two weeks after Greenhouse's trip to the woodshed, Kohn wrote a letter to the acting secretary of the Army, requesting an independent investigation of "improper action that favored KBR's interests."

The status of an independent investigation by the Defense Department is unclear. "As a matter of policy, we do not comment on open and ongoing investigations," said Lt. Col. Rose-Ann Lynch, a Pentagon spokeswoman.

Halliburton also is under federal investigation for alleged favoritism by the Bush administration. FBI agents questioned Greenhouse for nine hours in November about that probe. In March, a former employee was indicted for taking bribes while working for KBR in Iraq.

Company spokeswoman Melissa Norcross said KBR has "delivered vital services for U.S. troops and the Iraqi people at a fair and reasonable cost, given the circumstances."

Going after the big boys

When Ballard hired Greenhouse in 1997 she was overqualified -- three master's degrees and more than 20 years of contracting experience in private industry and the military.

"She is probably the most professional person I've ever met," Ballard said.

Ballard used her, he said, to help him revolutionize the Corps -- by ending the old-boys practice of awarding contracts to a favored few, and by imposing private-industry standards on a mammoth, 230-year-old government agency.

"The Corps is a tough organization. And I'll tell you, it's not easy to be a woman in this organization, and a black one at that," said Ballard, who was the first black leader of the Corps.

He is not optimistic about her future.

"I think you can put a fork in it," he said. "Her career is done."

At Corps headquarters, few speak to her, she said, and her bosses write down what she says at departmental meetings.

In a city where politics is everything, including blood sport, she refuses to play.

"I have never gone along to get along," she said.

Her contracting staff was reduced sharply, she said, and her superiors have gone behind her back, most notably in issuing an emergency waiver -- on a day she was out of the office -- that allowed KBR to ignore requests from Department of Defense auditors who issued a draft report in 2003 concluding KBR overcharged the government $61 million for fuel in Iraq.

The Army Corps of Engineers declined to comment on Greenhouse's complaints. "It's a personnel matter," Corps spokeswoman Carol Sanders said.

"They want me out," Greenhouse said.

A list of one

Greenhouse is mandated by Congress to find the best quality at the cheapest price from the most qualified supplier. Over her objections, KBR was awarded three multibillion-dollar contracts, two without competitive bidding.

Greenhouse's most strenuous complaints were over the Restore Iraqi Oil contract, estimated at $7 billion, originally planned to handle oil-field fires that might be started by Saddam Hussein's troops. When that didn't happen, it morphed into an agreement to repair oil fields and import fuel.

KBR was given the contract in March 2003. In Greenhouse's view, that process violated federal regulations concerning fair and open bidding. Halliburton denies that.

Later, she would tell Democratic members of Congress: "The abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have ever witnessed during the course of my professional career."

At the Corps, Greenhouse said she was told KBR was the only qualified firm.

With the country on the brink of war, she reluctantly signed the RIO contract.

Greenhouse grew up in the segregated South. Her brother is Elvin Hayes, the Hall of Fame basketball player. She's a registered independent. Her husband, Aloyisus, is retired after a career as a senior Army procurement officer. They have three grown children.

No matter what, Bunny Greenhouse's faith still beams.

"I simply believe that we have callings and purposes in this life. I walk through this life for a purpose. I wake up every day for a purpose. And every day I say, 'Here I am. Send me.' "

BOYCOTT AirAmerica RADIO

2005-07-30T23:16:00.000-07:00

Well, if there was ever a reason to become a conspiracy theorist, this has to be it.

I've only been listening to AirAmerica for a few months, but I've been heartened by it. They are every bit as hyperbolic as Rush Limbaugh and as rabid as Karl Rove, but they bring a whole different voice to the issues.

As of Thursday, 7/28, they've added Jerry Springer.

No serious, dedicated, positive force in broadcasting could possible give air to Jerry Springer, after all the years of irresponsible, dishonest, peurile, sensationalistic television he contributed to the dumbing down of America.

I don't care if he's a Democrat (I'm NOT, so why would that appeal to me, or to any free thinker who votes with an independent mind and heart?) or mayor or born-again radical. It is just so typical of everything that's wrong with America that the most negative forces are rehabilitated for entertainment's sake. Murderers get interviewed, write books, embezzlers get away with it all, criminals make deals and are given tributes in movies, or walk out of courtrooms, guilty as sin but free as birds.

Ah, hell with it. I'm not going to rant on. If you're smart, you already know what I mean.

But I am turning AirAmerica OFF, and I have written to them informing them so. I'm sure they won't shed a tear. They'll probably have a laugh about how upset I am. They are now part of the problem and I won't support them ever again.

They have betrayed me and every other one of their listeners, and for what? What's up, Al? How is AirAmerica now a better choice than the O'Reilly Factor? It's all the same crap, all about ratings and cultural obedience and leading lambs to the slaughter. Was this just a dog and pony show, you and Bill?

You KNOW the power of the media, the power of radio, and the influence of AirAmerica.

Thanks for guaranteeing us another four years of the Bush Reich (same sheep, different clothing).

I'm done.

Who is the most admired American?

2005-07-28T13:44:00.001-07:00

I'm gonna say Martin Luther King, Jr.

There is no person, alive or dead, in the history of America, who has touched more lives, made a bigger difference, changed the course of history and brought so little shame upon himself and his beliefs.

He was consistent, principled, brilliant, humble, giving and willing to make the ultimate sacrifice so the division between Americans could be bridged.

No one is more worthy of praise and remembrance than this man.

No one's fight is more worthy of emulating today.

The Revolution is Here... did your invitation get lost in the mail?

2005-07-27T16:59:00.000-07:00

These are a few of the things we need to keep in mind at all times:

1. The masses are controlled by the media.
2. The media is controlled by the current administration and its friends.
3. Mudslinging is the only effective form of communication.
4. Any beliefs we had about honor and fair play have been disproved in 2000 and 2004.
5. Nice guys finish last.
6. There's a sucker born every minute.
7. Fight fire with fire.
8. Iraq is Iraq and Iran is Iran, and we have no business in either place--or for that matter, in any place other than our own backyard.
9. If you strike the king, you must kill the king.
10. We get the government we deserve.
11. The backlash is a long time coming.
12. Outside of America, the world is entirely different.
13. We must not fear, and we must be ready to die fighting, not whining.
14. If you can't do anything about domestic and foreign policy, adopt a poor family and do something about that.
15. Yes, your government is out to get you.
16. The revolution is here, now.

You say your quest is to bring it higher
Well I never seen change without a fire
But from your mouth I have seen a lot of burning
But underneath I think it's a lot of yearning
Your face, the colours change from green to yellow (TO ORANGE TO RED.... ed. note)
To the point where you can't even say hello
It's so much easier to stay down there guaranteeing you're cool
Than to sit up here exposing myself trying to break through
Than to burn in the spotlight, turn in the spitfire
Scream without making a sound, be up here and not look down
because we're all afraid of heights

-- On the Radio (Remember the Days), Miss Nelly Furtado

TO DO NOTHING IS TO SPIT IN THE FACE OF THOSE WHO HAVE GIVEN EVERYTHING FOR FREEDOM... (so sez i)

think about it.

RSVP

President Rove's Last Stand?

2005-07-27T16:53:00.000-07:00

Ah, if only this could be true...

We always need poetry, but now we need more

2005-07-26T17:19:00.000-07:00

Apologies to those who have seen this before. It's been around for a while, but it's new to me:

THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES.

By Robert Bly

In reality, the horrible event called the Bush presidency is over now. It remains only to start the sort of planning that enabled MacArthur to retrieve what he could from the fall of Manila. Elaborate failures in high places have happened before. It’s a repeating event in American history, and in the history of every nation.

President Bush has not really registered the failures in his life. When his early oil venture failed, he was bailed out by the Saudi oil family or by his father. But when he bets all his money on a lunatic invasion of Iraq, no one can bail him out. During his debates with Kerry, no one could bail him out. When Kerry told him, in front of millions of people, that the war was wrongly begun, wrongly planned, wrongly carried out, he had to resort to making faces.

There is only so much the Saudi oil family can do.

It has become clear that the Emperor has no clothes. The Grimm Brothers fairy story tells us that if the Emperor’s people report that the Emperor is well-dressed, all the people standing around will swear they see the same thing. But his nakedness became visible during those amazingly vivid Bush-Kerry debates. The Emperor’s lack of clothes is part of a larger failure.

We all know the invasion of Iraq was a hare-brained act, a colossal mistake. The dissolving of the Iraq army was another mistake, which Bremer himself admitted last week. But President Bush will not admit his mistakes.

It’s hard to believe that the President and the voters cannot see Disaster when it’s brought up close to their faces. Our nation with its collapsing schools, its failing factories, its huge increase of poverty, is a sight just as vivid. If voters can close their eyes to this daily disaster, why not to the huge disaster happening to the United States Army?

Hoping for the best is an adolescent characteristic. Closing your eyes to your own addiction is a childish response. Choosing a self-deceptive hero in a crisis and thanking him for lying to you about the world belongs to that Disneyland immaturity for which the theme parks are famous.

Leaders need an instinct for truth. Not to be able to take in truth leads to artificial universes, to hundreds of soldiers in the coffin and millions of demoralized citizens.

During a few months in 2000 and 2001, the New York Times Magazine was full of essays arguingthat the United States was the natural inheritor of the Roman and British empires. Our production capacity, the military bases we have all over the world, our elaborate economy, make us a natural to take over the reins of empire, and drive the teams of empire horses. The argument seemed so logical at the time. But it turns out we can’t control the horses.

Given our ruined schools,our devastated Flint, Michigans, our millions of working people worried over the next paycheck, how could we possibly create the ingenious, studious, many-sided intelligences needed to guide an empire?

After a few months of grandiosity and falling statues, the test results come in. After rumsfelding our way down the river, the waterfall suddenly appears. George W. Bush is not exactly a fool; he is a representative of our enlarged ability to lie to ourselves. SUVs represent our ability to lie to ourselves about the abundance of oil. Many Democrats drive SUVs.

We have all participated in the national illusion and self-pleasing prevarication that a C-student can guide the country in a time of complicated issues, that a mule can win the Kentucky Derby, that a man who doesn’t read books can guide the fate of nations. Mark Twain in Huckleberry Finn gives a metaphor for all that in his pair the Duke and the King. They pretend to be secret royalty, but Mark Twain knows they would eventually be hurried out of town in tar and feathers. In Iraq, we are the King and the Duke; let’s stop lying about it.

We’ll be lucky to get out of town alive.

(Originally appeared in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2004)

Call and Answer

Tell me why it is we don’t lift our voices these days
And cry over what is happening. Have you noticed
The plans are made for Iraq and the ice cap is melting?
I say to myself: Go on, cry. What’s the sense
Of being an adult and having no voice? Cry out!
See who will answer! This is Call and Answer!

We will have to call especially loud to reach
Our angels, who are hard of hearing; they are hiding
In the jugs of silence filled during our wars.

Have we agreed to so many wars that we can’t
Escape from silence? If we don’t lift our voices, we allow
Others (who are ourselves) to rob the house.

How come we’ve listened to the great criers Neruda,
Akhmatova, Thoreau, Frederick Douglass and now
We’re silent as sparrows in the little bushes?

Some masters say our life lasts only seven days.
Where are we in the week? Is it Thursday yet?
Hurry, cry now! Soon Sunday night will come.

crazy

2005-07-23T05:02:00.000-07:00

who's crazy?
show of hands please

i see blood on at least one

who's considered
suicide by cop

and you've never even broken a law

who's experienced
poverty of thought

in a lusty economy

whose loins have burned with
sexual torment

lying in bed

whose life resembles
oprah for days

and nights so long

who would rather be awake
than dreaming these days

of white tile and attics

who just checked into the bughouse
for the 4th time in a decade
only to be told
"you're perfectly normal."

where is the king of hearts
where is that quiet french village
where clothing is pretense
and innocence is

not an issue

who lives in America
separated and lost

Why the "Patriot Act" is wrong

2005-07-07T11:32:00.000-07:00

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article I.
Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 2
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section 3
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section 5
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section 6
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section 7
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Section 10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article II.
Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two-thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice-President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article III.
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article IV.
Section 1
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Article V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Article VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. Go Washington - President and deputy from Virginia New Hampshire - John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman Massachusetts - Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King Connecticut - Wm Saml Johnson, Roger Sherman New York - Alexander Hamilton New Jersey - Wil Livingston, David Brearley, Wm Paterson, Jona. Dayton Pensylvania - B Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris Delaware - Geo. Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco. Broom Maryland - James McHenry, Dan of St Tho Jenifer, Danl Carroll Virginia - John Blair, James Madison Jr. North Carolina - Wm Blount, Richd Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson South Carolina - J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler Georgia - William Few, Abr Baldwin Attest: William Jackson, Secretary
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment XI
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Amendment XII
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Amendment XIII
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XIV
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Amendment XV
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Amendment XVII
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Amendment XVIII
1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Amendment XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XX
1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
Amendment XXI
1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Amendment XXII
1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
Amendment XXIII
1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XXIV
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XXV
1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Amendment XXVI
1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Amendment XXVII
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Provided by USConstitution.net

---------------------------------------------------
[Note: Repealed text is not noted in this version.
For an annotated version ofthe Constitution, visit http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html ]

A much better blog...

2005-07-05T15:25:00.000-07:00

... and a great resource on censorship. Just click on the photo, below.

On what planet would it ever be appropriate to put anyone in jail, just for being stupid, vulgar, or obscene?

And speaking of stupid, vulgar and obscene, what's up with this? If memory serves, this site was devoted to publishing embarrassing gaffes committed almost every time Shrub opens his mouth to speak (without Karl Rove's voice on his earpiece to guide him).

Making fun of an elected official is illegal?

Remember, censorship comes in subtle forms, including denying or withholding promised funding, refusing to publish as contracted, and enforcement of impossible "requirements" that are mandatory before one is allowed to publish.

More later...

An All-American rant by Anon.

2005-07-04T19:38:00.000-07:00

Over the next few days, there's going to be all sorts of self-congratulatory editorials in newspapers all around the United States, marveling over the fact that the country will be 229 years old. The usual clichés will be dragged out, on how this nation was conceived in liberty (actually, it wasn't; in truth, the fact that it explicitly was not "in liberty" is why it was conceived, but that's a side issue) and all these truths are self-important, strife, misery and the pursuit of sappiness, in the name of the fodder, the gold coast, and Mastercard, forever and reruns, amen.

What you most likely WON'T see in all these editorials is discussion of individual liberty, what it means, and what it really takes to secure it. Papers will mention Ben Franklin and Patrick Henry without really discussing what they really had in mind for their countrymen.
Here are some of the things about liberty that the papers won't mention. You don't have to respect and obey your elected officials. In fact, you're much better off if you treat them the same way you would treat a suspected shoplifter in your store; watch them closely, expect them to try to rip you off, and bust them when they do.

"My country right or wrong" is utter bullshit. If, in your best opinion, your country is wrong, then it's your duty to try to set it right. When I hear someone say "My country right or wrong," I immediately think this is a person who lacks the moral courage to support right and oppose wrong. The original phrase, by Carl Schurz, a 19th-century writer and office holder, was; "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right; when wrong, to be put right." See the difference?

"Majority rules" is just another form of tyranny. The founders knew this, and devoted (wholeheartedly, if imperfectly) government power to protecting the rights, not of the placid majority, but of the minorities of all kinds. Rights that exist only until you need them are not rights at all, and so if you base your notion of freedom on the self-reassurance that they haven't come for you yet, then you are not free.

You can have as many gods before you as you want. One, hundreds, or none; it's all the same in the eyes of liberty. If you have a god that you like to putter around with and prop up into a universe-encompassing power, that's fine, but don't expect the government to help you in that endeavor. Similarly, you can take the name of the lord any way you damned well please. The notion of blasphemy is incompatible with a free society.

The military is a dangerous tool, not an idol. The founders dreaded the establishment of a permanent standing army, because it is the nature of military leadership to despise and scorn freedom and democracy. That is why they placed the military under civilian control, and hoped mightily that civilian control would never devolve to a child who wanted to dress up and play soldier. If the morass of Iraq has one beneficial lesson to teach, it is that the military has feet of clay, and the child in the white house has a head of clay. If you believe the military should be above reproach, then that's exactly what you get: a military that is above reproach. And there is nothing more dangerous or destructive in all the world.

If you tell people whose views you don't like to shut up, you just stepped on your own rights. Jonathan Swift wrote of how people who broke their eggs at one end persecuted people who broke their eggs at the other end, but what Swift didn't mention was that society is fickle. The same laws that afflict one set of egg eaters while comforting the other in one generation will be used to opposite effect in the next. Any move to denigrate the rights of others will inevitably be used to denigrate yours in time.

"Common sense" is a term meaning "what the herd believes." One
reason America has a representative democracy in a constitutional republic is because the herd rarely if ever knows what the fuck it's talking about. That's why we have elected reps to do that. Yes, we're hiring shoplifters to watch the store. So no system's perfect.

Any politician who waves the flag or the cross in your face should be booted out of office and never taken seriously as a political candidate again. No politician ever has the right to tell you how you should love your country, let alone stand up for your country. (Loving your country and standing up for your country have the same moral origins, but in an honest person often have opposite results), and CERTAINLY no politician has the right to tell you what God thinks you should do about your country.

Capitalism made America strong, but it never made it free. Quite the opposite, in fact. Contrary to what "free market" advocates claim, capitalists hate competition and attempt to quash it. They hate any form of accountability that might hurt profits, and that includes paying damages for any injury done to you by their desire to maximize profits. The rich aren't "the enemy" but they certainly are not your friends: when, as often happens, your interests and theirs are not in harmony, they won't hesitate to leave you holding the short end of the stick. Nor does immense wealth bestow wisdom, compassion, or ove of freedom on big business. Anyone who says it does is just advocating privatized tyranny, as opposed to the regular kinds fabricated by church or state.

Finally, you'll see a lot of mention this Fourth of July about the Declaration of Independence. Which is fine: it's the sort-of anniversary of the signing of that particular document that is being celebrated, after all. But the Declaration is really nothing more than a bitch-sheet against King George III of England, who was already too crazy to know what it said. He's dead, and nearly all the items complained about in the Declaration are now moot. The only group trying to pretend it has any real relevancy today are the religious whacks, who take one vague reference to a deistic "creator" and try to pump it up into proof positive that the United States was supposed to be a theocracy.

If you want to celebrate America's real birthday, wait until September 17th. It was on that date, in 1787, that the Constitution was written. It, and not whines about the price of tea, is what America is really all about.

If, on the other hand you don't want to dwell on the Big Issues this warm, sunny weekend, and you just want to snarf hot dogs, watch fireworks, and enjoy the freedoms the Constitution defends, then go on and have a Happy Fourth of July!

You're free to do so.

An easy way to be active

2005-07-01T00:57:00.000-07:00

It's hard to know what to do, hard to know what will be effective if you DO invest some time in political reform.

Here's an easy way to register your opinions, using a trusted resource to do so: ACLU

Carpe diem!

Read 'em and don't weep

2005-06-30T20:04:00.000-07:00

TAKE ACTION. Here's something you can do to help enlighten the unaware. Go HERE, vote for the ad you believe is most effective, and then send the link to as many people as you can.

The ads are reproduced here, for your convenience:

What do you do, who do you appeal to, when your government has lost all integrity? The Patriot Act was put into play while everyone was too stunned to realize how UNpatriotic it actually is. The "Patriot Act" is a tool that is being used to gather PRIVATE, protected information from the citizenry.

THIS IS WRONG, even if the government claims it's essential to protect all Americans from terrorism. America was founded on principles of freedom, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights has existed and grown stronger over the years in order to protect even more freedoms and level the playing field.

The Bush Reich is dissolving the line between private and public, as if we were subjects under a totalitarian state that claims all power and all rights.

The Bush Reich has blown away the boundary between church and state by funding "religious" (read: Christian) programs that reward celibacy under the pretense of sex education. This is not the government's business.

I just discovered that the Bush Reich is also funding special HUD housing programs that serve "faith-based and other community-based organizations." Where is the housing for the homeless heathens? Who will fund programs that will allow mortgage or other housing programs for recovering addicts, alcoholics, prostitutes and the mentally ill? According to THIS, " ...CFBCI is committed to helping fulfill President Bush's vision of mobilizing the armies of compassion to strengthen America's communities."

All of this is hubris, not compassion; fearmongering, not protecting.

You only have to make one commitment

to spend five minutes

sending emails

or signing petitions

or leaving a voice message for your elected representatives

one time

one day at a time.

REGISTER YOUR RAGE

REFUSE THE INVADERS OF YOUR PRIVACY

DEMAND THAT YOUR GOVERNMENT SERVE ITS CITIZENS, RATHER THAN DOING FAVORS FOR PERSONAL FRIENDS.

Please, don't just sit there. Do Something NOW.

DECLARE WAR ON THE "PATRIOT" ACT

2005-06-11T13:58:00.000-07:00

Saturday, June 11, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

GOP chairman halts Patriot Act hearing
By Mike Allen
The Washington Post

Republican James Sensenbrenner walked out.

WASHINGTON — The Republican chairman walked off with the gavel, leaving Democrats shouting into dead microphones at a raucous hearing yesterday on the USA Patriot Act.

The House Judiciary Committee hearing at which the two sides were accusing each other of being irresponsible and undemocratic came as President Bush was urging Congress to renew those sections of the post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism law set to expire in September.

The hearing's announced topic was the Patriot Act, which granted broad new powers to federal law enforcement after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Republicans presented several witnesses who supported the administration's call for reauthorizing the legislation. But when four witnesses picked by the Democrats began broad denunciations of Bush's war on terrorism and the condition of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., showed his pique.

He urged witnesses to "wrap it up" and repeatedly told Democratic committee members their time for questioning had expired. "We ought to stick to the subject," the chairman scolded at the end. "The Patriot Act has nothing to do with Guantánamo Bay. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with enemy combatants. The Patriot Act has nothing to do with indefinite detentions."

"Will the gentleman yield?" Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, asked.

"No, I will not yield," replied Sensenbrenner. He completed his reproof of the witnesses and left the hearing room.

Democrats said the episode was another example of Republicans trying to stifle dissent over Bush's approach to counterterrorism.

At one point in the two-hour hearing, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., accused Amnesty International USA of endangering the lives of Americans in uniform by referring to the prison at Guantánamo Bays as a "gulag."

Sensenbrenner refused to allow the Amnesty representative, Chip Pitts, to respond until Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., raised a "point of decency."

As Sensenbrenner left, Nadler continued talking and received hearty applause when he said that "part of the problem is that we have not had the opportunity to have hearings on all these other administration policies that have led to abuses."

"The other thing that I wanted to say ... ," Nadler continued. Then his voice faded out.

"I notice that my mike was turned off," Nadler said, speaking up, "but I can be heard anyway."

The other witnesses for the Democrats were James Zogby of the Arab American Institute, Carlina Tapia-Ruano of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and Deborah Pearlstein of the U.S. Law and Security Program.

Congress is debating what changes it should make when reauthorizing the Patriot Act, which expanded the power of the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies to intercept information and data and share information obtained through foreign and domestic surveillance.

For the second day in a row, meanwhile, Bush said federal, state and local law-enforcement officials will be hamstrung if Congress fails to renew and make permanent the Patriot Act, set to expire at the end of this year. [ED. NOTE: LET IT DIE!]

"The Patriot Act has made a difference for those on the front line of taking the information you have gathered and using it to protect the American people," Bush told employees at the National Counterterrorism Center, in McLean, Va. [ED. NOTE: THIS IS A LIE]

Material from The Associated Press is included in this report.
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company

2005-05-22T14:11:00.000-07:00

Sunday, May 22, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 a.m.
Supreme Court ruling due on use of eminent domain
By Kirstin Downey
The Washington Post

NEW LONDON, Conn. — Seven years after a real-estate agent came knocking at her door to tell her that her house was being condemned by the city to make way for a luxury hotel and office complex, Susette Kelo, a 48-year-old nurse, is still seething with rage.

Perched stiffly at the kitchen table of the cozy Victorian cottage she refurbished "from the concrete in the basement to the shingles on the roof," Kelo pours out the story of how she has fought the city and state, taking her case all the way to the Supreme Court. "I don't like to be pushed around," she said.

One woman's anger and determination could affect urban-revitalization projects across the country. She and her backers say the government has overstepped its authority; those on the other side say such actions are needed for the public good.

Kelo's lawsuit, filed with eight neighbors and financed by the libertarian advocacy group Institute for Justice, alleges that New London's plan to redevelop the waterfront area where Kelo lives is unconstitutional because the government wants to take her land for private redevelopment, not public use, as the Fifth Amendment permits.

While the Constitution grants governments the power to take land for public use, it specifies only that owners be given "just compensation" for their loss. Through the years, the people on the losing end of the arrangement have disliked it; the people deciding what needs to be taken have defended it.

There is little dispute over many kinds of public land use, such as that for schools, roads and water-treatment plants. In the past five decades, however, municipalities have expanded the interpretation of "public use" to include revitalizing dilapidated downtowns, removing urban blight and boosting tourism and tax revenue.

Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony Williams, president of the National League of Cities, said he is worried that the case could interfere with "the critical need of cities to use this tool — reluctantly — for public purpose and benefits."

Williams said the success of the Kelo lawsuit represents the growing political strength of what he views as radical property-rights activists.

"Some of these people wouldn't use eminent domain to build a highway or a railroad," Williams said.

The Institute for Justice says it accepts the use of eminent domain for roads, schools and parks and opposes it for privately owned, for-profit operations. Lawyers there say they have taken Kelo's case because they think it represents a classic case of excessive use of government power. "It's an unholy marriage between land-hungry developers and tax-hungry local governments," said John Kramer, an institute spokesman.

Institute officials say they found 10,282 incidents of filed or threatened condemnation procedures in which land was given to private, for-profit parties, such as Target or Costco stores or casino parking lots, between Jan. 1, 1998, and Dec. 31, 2002.

The Kelo case arose when New London, an old and scruffy city seeking to jump-start its economy, turned to urban redevelopment. Once a whaling center second only to New Bedford, Mass., and then a shipping and manufacturing hub, New London slowly has lost its industrial and commercial base.

In 1997, Pfizer, the giant pharmaceutical firm that makes such drugs as Zoloft, Viagra and Celebrex, began discussions with state and local officials about a $300 million research plant that would bring 2,000 jobs. It was the first time a major manufacturer had expressed interest in moving to New London in more than 100 years.

In a March 1999 letter, George Milne, president of Pfizer's Central Research Division, wrote that the company's New London expansion "requires the world-class redevelopment planned for the adjacent 90 acres," which included Kelo's neighborhood, encompassing about 115 properties. Milne said Pfizer needed a 200-room waterfront hotel, a conference center, a physical-fitness area, extended-stay residential units and 80 units of housing.

Kelo learned about the government's plan for her property when a real-estate agent showed up on her doorstep in early 1998, telling her that her home was scheduled for demolition and that she should sell quickly. Kelo bought the two-bedroom, one-bathroom house for $53,000 in 1997. The real-estate agent offered her $68,000. Kelo told the agent to get off her property. Other area residents were easier to persuade.

The issue of compensation was a sticking point. When Kelo bought her house, the Fort Trumbull area was run-down, wedged between a decommissioned military installation and a ramshackle marina, near a malodorous sewage-treatment plant. But by the time demolition of the neighborhood began, there was a blue-chip corporate-research center and an attractive waterfront park with bike trails and green lawns. The sewage smell had abated. And when Pfizer decided to build a state-of-the-art day-care center for children of its employees, the corporation bought homes near its compound, paying prices considerably higher than the previous going rates. One house reportedly sold for $400,000. Kelo said the final government offer she received was $125,000.

In a statement, Pfizer said it is not a party to the suit and has no stake in its outcome. It said it had been a "good citizen" in New London and is now the city's largest taxpayer.

Kelo decided to fight the condemnation and received support from area activists who also opposed the project. With the backing of the Institute for Justice, Kelo and eight other property owners sued and won at the Connecticut Superior Court, but the city appealed to the state Supreme Court, which sided with the city. The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments on the case in February, and a ruling is expected this spring.

In the meantime, New London's financial plight has worsened. In a recent budget statement, city manager Richard Brown reported that the city lost $1 million in expected tax revenue, partially because the Fort Trumbull neighborhood that once had paid taxes has been destroyed. The city's budget had relied on projected building-permit fees that never materialized. Homeowners likely will face higher taxes, city officials said. The city took another blow this month, when the Pentagon announced plans to close the U.S. Naval Submarine Base, one of the city's largest employers, eliminating 7,096 military jobs and 952 civilian jobs.

For Kelo, not much of a victory is possible. Her house faces a gated state park with the modernist, six-story Pfizer research headquarters looming overhead. The blocks where her neighbors lived are a flattened expanse of dusty, rock-strewn soil with a handful of remaining structures poking out desolately. A nearby vacant lot is a dumping ground for smashed and abandoned buses and burned-out cars.

"It was always a quiet neighborhood," Kelo said. "Now it's just quieter. I don't like the fact they're all gone, but what can you do?"

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company

Finally! It's 50/50

2005-04-30T12:34:00.000-07:00

Gallup: 50% of Americans Now Say Bush Deliberately Misled Them on WMDs
By E&P Staff
Published: April 26, 2005 11:45 AM ET

NEW YORK Half of all Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Organization reported this morning.

"This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003," the pollsters observed. "At that time, 31% said the administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004.

"Also, according to the latest poll, more than half of Americans, 54%, disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 43% approve. In early February, Americans were more evenly divided on the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, with 50% approving and 48% disapproving.

Last week Gallup reported that 53% now believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "not worth it." But Frank Newport, editor in chief at Gallup, recalled today that although a majority of the public began to think the Vietnam war was a mistake in the summer of 1968, the United States did not pull out of Vietnam for more than five years, after thousands of more American lives were lost.

E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)

THANKS TO Charles Mingus III, who keeps me informed.

2005-04-28T17:40:00.000-07:00

click on Condi to go to this great site... one of my new favorites.

2005-04-24T18:51:00.000-07:00

More comic relief...

NEWS FLASH: Unusually important television

2005-04-11T21:36:00.000-07:00

For people in my neighborhood who get KCTS-TV, PBS Channel 9 out of Seattle, don't miss:

NEXT EPISODE
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
10:00 PM
Channel: 9

Karl Rove--The Architect

*Letterbox/Widescreen Where Available*

President George W. Bush called him 'the architect' of his re-election victory. He has been Bush’s chief strategist from the beginning, but Karl Rove is much more than a political guru - he is also the single mostpowerful policy advisor in the White House. FRONTLINE and The Washington Post join forces to trace the political history and modus operandi of the man who has been on the inside of every political and policy decision of the Bush administration, including the current battles onSocial Security, taxes and tort reform. For Rove, observers say, enactment of the Bush agenda is a way to win the biggest prize of all - a permanent Republican majority.

Goin down the road feeling bad...

2005-04-11T19:15:00.000-07:00

Well cowpokes, it's that time, at last... last chance for sasparilla for the next 200 miles...

The first vinyl record I bought was RUBEN AND THE JETS, by The Mothers of Invention, back in 1969. The last vinyl record I bought was something by Beck which I have mislaid, maybe 4 years ago.

I have gotten rid of a lot of my vinyl records over the years--traded or sold--leaving me with only about 250 albums. Most are rock 'n roll, I guess. Got a lotta jazz, too, several classical albums and a pretty good assortment of bluegrass.

A lot of my records are rare. I have that Blind Faith album, you know, the one with the totally high naked girl holding the hood ornament to a 49 Chevy in her hands? Got it.

Now it's time for me and my vinyl records to say goodbye. I'm tired of toting them around and I guess I'm old enough to be willing to part with them now. I have made a commitment NOT ever to need to store anything again, except for my Christmas ornaments, so there's no way I'm going to store these records to hand down to my grandkids.

Anyway, the covers are all only in fair to good condition. Flood, schlepping, rubbing and cats sharpening claws on spines have taken their toll.

However, most of the platters themselves are in excellent to near-mint condition. It was my habit, whenever I bought a record, to immediately tape it on reel to reel or cassette and play that version of it only, keeping the vinyl for a master.

Want my list? Email me here and I will send it. I've got some really good, very cool stuff.

The politically correct Jane Fonda

2005-04-07T11:57:00.000-07:00

Jane Fonda has always been on the leading edge of every event she lived. She's a woman who is impossible to ignore, and almost impossible to mock.

Whether you are stunned by her acting, her beauty, her youth, her intellect, her strength of survivorship, her frankness, her personal ethics, her sense of irony, her fame--inherited and earned--or her adaptiveness, Fonda embodies some quality for everyone to admire.

I've been dismayed (although it's no business of mine whatsoever) at some of the turns her life has taken over the last 20 years. I guess she is a heroine to me, and beginning with the Jane Fonda Workout books and tapes, I began to forget what it was I admired about her.

That's a pretty typical dynamic "fans" or followers experience when an exemplar changes drastically. Longevity is met with scorn. Familiarity breeds contempt. Only the good die young.

But nothing has disappointed me more than her apparent need to pile on--along with her conservative, warmongering critics--and disavow the personal bravery and integrity she demonstrated when she went to Vietnam during the height of the war.

I'm not going to pontificate about that period of murder, genocide and obscenity that wiped out tens of thousands of boys in my age group--not to mention the millions of innocent Vietnamese mothers, babies, grandparents, fathers, sisters and brothers.

But Jane Fonda's attempt to distance herself from her rage and her foolish bravery just reinforces my most pessimistic views of the world. Her efforts to put a different spin on her courageous journey into North Vietnam are especially sad against the current backdrop of a war even more evil than the one that nearly evaporated my generation.

However, having now seen her on television in three interviews where she plugs her autobiography and her new movie, I am noticing that, if one reads between the lines, you'll see that she's really not apologizing at all.

Why our nation of sheep chooses to go after Fonda, rather than stringing up and dismembering Richard Nixon back in the day when he could still experience this worthy excruciation, is just one more ironic homage to the power of propaganda.

But while she declaims with her words in interviews, Fonda lays it down in her book, using a handful of Nixon's own perverse words--"I just want to think BIG!!!!"--as undeniable evidence that her words and actions were not only appropriate, but directly proportional:

A month after Tom Hayden and I became lovers, in spring 1972, reports began to come in from European scientists and diplomats that the dykes of the Red river delta in North Vietnam were being targeted by US planes. The delta is below sea level but, over centuries, the Vietnamese people had constructed - by hand! - an intricate network of earthen dykes and dams to hold back the sea, a network 2,500 miles long. The stability of these dykes became especially critical as monsoon season approached. The Red river would begin to rise in July and August. Should there be flooding, the rice harvest would be ruined, and the mining of the Haiphong harbour would prevent food from being imported. People would starve.

The Nixon administration and its US ambassador to the UN, George HW Bush, would vehemently deny what was happening, but the following are excerpts from transcripts of conversations between President Nixon and top administration officials:

April 25, 1972
President Nixon: "We've got to be thinking in terms of an all-out bombing attack [of North Vietnam] ... Now, by all-out bombing attack, I am thinking about things that go far beyond ... I'm thinking of the dykes, I'm thinking of the railroad, I'm thinking, of course, the docks ..."

Kissinger: "... I agree with you."

Nixon: "... And I still think we ought to take the dykes out now. Will that drown people?"

Kissinger: "About 200,000 people."

Nixon: "No, no, no ... I'd rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?"

Kissinger: "That, I think, would just be too much."

Nixon: "The nuclear bomb, does that bother you? ... I just want to think big, Henry, for chrissakes."

That May I received an invitation from the North Vietnamese in Paris to make the trip to Hanoi. Tom felt strongly that I should go. Perhaps it would take a different sort of celebrity to get people's attention. Heightened public attention was what was needed to confront the impending crisis with the dykes. I would take a camera and bring back photographic evidence (if such was to be found).

In a very real sense, you had to be there to understand what was at stake, and why the deafening outcry of protest and the willingness of the REAL American patriots to die in efforts to stop this war was not only necessary, but politically correct.

The evil old guard, populated by greedy "big thinkers" like Nixon, was a more dangerous and destructive enemy than any specter of Communism. Dupont and Goodyear and myriad corporate interests managed to be served up platters of dollars, drenched in the blood of baby boomer boys and girls, effectively ending the Age of Aquarius or any hope of innocence any child would ever have from that time forth. The old guard needed to be destroyed. Protesting was self-defense.

Unfortunately, the old guard was far more resilient than my generation was effective. If you're wondering why America is still so backward in the realm of civil rights, constitutional and religious freedoms and love for mankind, think of this: some 50,000 kids were killed in Vietnam, and in the years following that war, another 50,000 destroyed themselves via suicide, PTSD, alcoholism and drug addiction, a direct result of the betrayal and alienation of hawks and exploitation by moneymongers.

So, Jane Fonda is on a book tour, apologizing for sitting in the turret of a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft weapon and giggling. Big deal, I say.

The sad thing about her little act is how much was made of it, and how it was used in efforts to impeach the antiwar movement, and widen the divide between the peaceniks at home and their friends and relatives in the jungles of Vietnam.

If she's sorry for giving the corrupt government additional ammunition to use against its citizens, there is still no point in her apologizing.

Her honesty and bravery are the things I want to remember, sitting at home feeling helpless, then watching Fonda put herself in harm's way and on the government's enemies list. She has paid for this, over and over, and undeservedly.

In the end, it turned out she was right. We all agreed the war in Vietnam was unjust and wrong. The veterans and the protesters came together--what was left of them--and created alliances for peace, vowing never again to fight in such a war. We were right. Nixon and his predecessors were wrong.

And today, those who refuse to embrace this war are right again. But who will be as brave as Jane Fonda, and go to Iraq to show the world the other side of the story? As she has mentioned, the villification of her position in the 70s was so thorough, she can no longer effectively protest against any war. She'd be booed and laughed off every stage by stupid sheep who believe what they are told, not what is the truth.

I know I'm not good at talking about this kind of stuff. I know I sound preachy and strident. I know Jane Fonda chose a slippery stage upon which to demonstrate the truth about Vietnam. But none of that matters.

Nothing is important except restoring society and community to sanity and killing off the old guard--for good, this time.

Slings and arrows

2005-04-06T19:46:00.000-07:00

I have been waiting for the first report of some stupid kid hurting someone with a slingshot; I'll explain, after you read this, from the KOMO4-TV website in Seattle, today:

4-Year-Old Injured After Someone Slung Rocks At Cars In Redmond
April 6, 2005

REDMOND - Someone is targeting drivers on the Eastside.

Two cars driving northbound along Avondale Road in Redmond had their windows busted out by flying rocks Tuesday evening around 6 o'clock. A 4-year-old boy in one of the cars suffered minor cuts to his face from flying glass.

Redmond police say due to the damage to the side windows and the speed at which the rocks crashed into them, they are investigating the possibility that wrist rockets -- basically a high-end sling shot -- were used.

They also believe it was a random act, but are hoping people either saw someone with those wrist rockets around the area, or have other information helpful to the case.

If so, please call the Redmond Police tip line at 425-556-2581.
=====================================================
=====================================================
Now, to answer the question, Why were you waiting, Diane?...

Maybe a week ago I started seeing this ad on television for Starburst candy. In the ad, one male is shooting a piece of candy at another male, using a slingshot. When the candy hits the target's face, he falls down, stunned. An older man runs up from behind, sees the candy stuck to the target's cheek, grabs it, and runs off.

Okay, aside from the fact that the ad is stupid and dull, shall we talk about the lethality of slingshots?

At that range, a slingshot could be as lethal or maiming as a gun. Think Starburst would ever show their candy being shot from a 9mm handgun into someone's mouth, missing the target, and sticking harmlessly to his cheek? I think not.

This is an example of phony violence creating a danger. In violent films, like Martin Scorsese's TAXI DRIVER, the power of the gun was demonstrated in sickening detail. If the camera had stayed on the bodies as they were shot so people could watch a human life twitch away in those few involuntary contractions that follow death, it would have been even more accurate and sobering.

These "humorous" demonstrations of violence are far more dangerous than graphic gunplay. What this ad has done is to perpetuate a dangerous stereotype: that slingshots are kid's toys and are harmless. I can't count the number of boys I know who broke windows and killed small animals with slingshots. And let's not even talk about David and Goliath!

The "wrist rocket" mentioned in the news story above is a highly stabilized slingshot with lots of torque and excellent aiming potential. It's like a hybrid, the mating of a slingshot and a crossbow. It is not a toy. It is a weapon. It is more dangerous than a b-b gun, probably on par with a .22 rifle.

Bobby Kennedy was killed by an assassin carrying a .22 caliber handgun.

My brother's eye was shot out in childhood by a b-b gun. We were all standing there watching it happen, no parents at home. The screaming, the writhing, the depth of agony he suffered--I've never seen anything like it since. I never want to see anything like it again.

Toy weapons are NOT TOYS. Showing a person shooting a slingshot directly into the face of another person is beyond irresponsible.

The laws of physics, coupled with simple components found in nature, can create a lethal object. Does anyone remember, 10 or 20 years ago, the kids who were dropping regular ol' rocks from an overpass above a freeway here? One person was killed when one of the rocks went through his windshield as he sped by at 60mph. The rock blew up his brain.

It would not surprise me one bit to discover that the little morons who are shooting out these moving car windows were inspired by that Starburst commercial. I'm not blaming television for the bad behavior of children, but I am saying, straight out, that Starburst should be held responsible for its deliberate misrepresentation of the power of the slingshot in its advertising.

If and when it comes down to some parent deciding to sue Starburst because his/her kid accidentally killed someone with a slingshot after seeing that ad, I won't be surprised or sympathetic.

There's no excuse for it.

Crazy like a .... FOX?

2005-04-03T09:25:00.000-07:00

Sunday, April 03, 2005, 12:00 A.M. Pacific

Guest columnists
Why media ownership matters

By Amy Goodman and David Goodman
Special to The Times

George Bush must have been delighted to learn from a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll that 56 percent of Americans still think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the start of the war, while six in 10 said they believe Iraq provided direct support to the al-Qaida terrorist network — notions that have long since been thoroughly debunked by everyone from the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee to both of Bush's handpicked weapons inspectors, Charles Duelfer and David Kay.

Americans believe these lies not because they are stupid, but because they are good media consumers. Our media have become an echo chamber for those in power. Rather than challenge the fraudulent claims of the Bush administration, we've had a media acting as a conveyor belt for the government's lies.

As the Pentagon has learned, deploying the American media is more powerful than any bomb. The explosive effect is amplified as a few pro-war, pro-government media moguls consolidate their grip over the majority of news outlets. Media monopoly and militarism go hand in hand.

When it comes to issues of war and peace, the results of having a compliant media are as deadly to our democracy as they are to our soldiers. Why do the corporate media cheerlead for war? One answer lies in the corporations themselves — the ones that own the major news outlets.

At the time of the first Persian Gulf War, CBS was owned by Westinghouse and NBC by General Electric. Two of the major nuclear weapons manufacturers owned two of the major networks. Westinghouse and GE made most of the parts for many of the weapons in the Persian Gulf War. It was no surprise, then, that much of the coverage on those networks looked like a military hardware show.

We see reporters in the cockpits of war planes, interviewing pilots about how it feels to be at the controls. We almost never see journalists at the target end, asking people huddled in their homes what it feels like not to know what the next moment will bring.

The media have a responsibility to show the true face of war. It is bloody. It is brutal. Real people die. Women and children are killed. Families are wiped out; villages are razed. If the media would show for one week the same unsanitized images of war that the rest of the world sees, people in the U.S. would say no, that war is not an answer to conflict in the 21st century.

But we don't see the real images of war. We don't need government censors, because we have corporations sanitizing the news. A study released last month by American University's School of Communications revealed that media outlets acknowledged they self-censored their reporting on the Iraq invasion out of concerns about public reaction to graphic images and content.

The media organizations in charge of vetting our images of war have become fewer and bigger — and the news more uniform and gung ho. Six huge corporations now control the major U.S. media: Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (FOX, HarperCollins, New York Post, Weekly Standard, TV Guide, DirecTV and 35 TV stations), General Electric (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Telemundo, Bravo, Universal Pictures and 28 TV stations), Time Warner (AOL, CNN, Warner Bros., Time and its 130-plus magazines), Disney (ABC, Disney Channel, ESPN, 10 TV and 72 radio stations), Viacom (CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Pictures, Simon & Schuster and 183 U.S. radio stations), and Bertelsmann (Random House and its more than 120 imprints worldwide, and Gruner + Jahr and its more than 110 magazines in 10 countries).

As Phil Donahue, the former host of MSNBC's highest-rated show who was fired by the network in February 2003 for bringing on anti-war voices, told "Democracy Now!," "We have more [TV] outlets now, but most of them sell the Bowflex machine. The rest of them are Jesus and jewelry. There really isn't diversity in the media anymore. Dissent? Forget about it."

The lack of diversity in ownership helps explain the lack of diversity in the news. When George W. Bush first came to power, the media watchers Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) looked at who appeared on the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC. Ninety-two percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male, and where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, there was even less diversity of opinion on the airwaves. During the critical two weeks before and after Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations where he made his case for war, FAIR found that just three out of 393 sources — fewer than 1 percent — were affiliated with anti-war activism.

Three out of almost 400 interviews. And that was on the "respectable" evening news shows of CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS.

These are not media that are serving a democratic society, where a diversity of views is vital to shaping informed opinions. This is a well-oiled propaganda machine that is repackaging government spin and passing it off as journalism.

For the media moguls, even this parody of political "diversity" is too much. So as Gen. Colin Powell led the war on Iraq, his son, Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), led the war on diversity of voices at home.

In the spring of 2003, Michael Powell tried to hand over the airwaves and newspapers to fewer and fewer tycoons by further loosening restrictions on how many media outlets a single company could own. Powell tried to scrap 30-year-old rules that limited the reach of any television network to no more than 35 percent of the national population, and limits on cross-ownership that, for example, prevented newspapers from buying television or radio stations in the same city. The new rules would have allowed a broadcast network to buy up stations that together reached 45 percent of the national population.

The attack on the existing media-ownership rules came from predictable corners: Both Viacom, which owns CBS, and Rupert Murdoch's conservative FOX News Channel were already in violation, and would be forced to sell off stations to come into compliance with the 35-percent limit. The rule change would enable Murdoch to control the airwaves of entire cities. That would be fine with Bush and the Powells, since Murdoch is one of their biggest boosters.

Murdoch declared in February 2003 that George W. Bush "will either go down in history as a very great president or he'll crash and burn. I'm optimistic it will be the former by a ratio of 2 to 1." Murdoch leaves nothing to chance: His FOX News Channel is doing all it can to help.

It looked like Powell, backed by the Bush White House and with Republican control of Congress, would have no trouble ramming through these historic rule changes. The broadcast industry left nothing to chance: Between 1998 and 2004, broadcasters spent a boggling $249 million lobbying the federal government, including spending $27 million on federal candidates and lawmakers.

This would normally be called bribery. At the FCC, it's just business as usual.

You would think that FCC deregulation, affecting millions of Americans, would get major play in the media. But the national networks knew that if people found out about how one media mogul could own nearly everything you watch, hear and read in a city, there would be revolt. The solution for them was simple: They just didn't cover the issue for a year. The only thing the networks did was to join together — and you thought they were competitors? — in a brief filed with the FCC to call for media deregulation.

And then, something remarkable happened: Media activists — an unlikely coalition of liberals and conservatives — mounted a national campaign to defeat Powell and stop the corporate sell-off. The FCC received 2 million letters and e-mails, most of them opposing the sell-off. The Prometheus Radio Project, a grass-roots media activism group, sued to stop the sale of our airwaves, and won in federal court last June. These are hopeful signals that the days of backroom deals by media titans are numbered.

Powell announced his resignation as chairman of the FCC in January. Arguably the worst FCC chairman in history, Powell led with singular zeal the effort to auction off the public airwaves to the highest corporate bidder. In so doing, he did us all a favor: For a brief moment, he pulled back the covers on the incestuous world of media ownership to expose the corruption and rot for all to see.

Kevin Martin, Bush's newly appointed FCC chairman, will, according to an FCC insider, be even worse than Powell. Leading conservative and right-wing religious groups have been quietly lobbying the White House for Martin to chair the FCC. Martin voted with Powell on key regulations favoring media consolidation, and in addition has been a self-appointed indecency czar. The indecency furor conveniently grabs headlines and pushes for the regulation of content, while Martin and the media moguls plan sweetheart deregulation deals to achieve piecemeal what they couldn't push through all at once. This is the true indecency afflicting media today.

The major media conglomerates are among the most powerful on the planet. The onrush of digital convergence and broadband access in the workplaces and homes of America will radically change the way we work, play and communicate. Fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP) from the regional Bells, Voice over IP (VoIP) telephony, bundled services from cable companies, and increased capacity in satellite and wireless technologies will transform the platforms on which we communicate.

Who owns these platforms, what is delivered over them and, fundamentally, in whose interest they work are critical issues before us now. Given the wealth of the media companies and their shrewd donations into our political process, the advocates for the public interest are in far too short a supply.

A blow against media ownership consolidation — now or in the future — will have far-reaching implications, as critical information gains exposure to a caring, active public. Instead of fake reality TV, maybe the media will start to cover the reality of people struggling to get by and of the victories that happen every day in our communities, and in strife-torn regions around the globe.

When people get information, they are empowered. We have to ensure that the airwaves are open for more of that. Our motto at "Democracy Now!" is to break the sound barrier. We call ourselves the exception to the rulers. We believe all media should be.

Amy Goodman, host of the award-winning radio and TV news show "Democracy Now!," and her brother David Goodman, a contributing writer for Mother Jones, are authors of "The Exception to the Rulers: Exposing Oily Politicians, War Profiteers, and the Media That Love Them," which was just released in paperback by Hyperion.

AND SPEAKING OF MEDIA BIAS AND CONTROL, BUY THIS DVD!

In spite of its own well-intentioned bias, OUTFOXED is required

viewing for anyone who is unhappy with the credibility gap

between what one KNOWS is true and what the media

TELLS us is true.

I bought my copy for a few bucks, used, on Amazon.com.

It is well-worth its retail price, and I hope this documentary

will be screened in schools all over America

as part of essential curricula.

MAKE IT HAPPEN

Buy a copy for your middle school

and high school libraries

Buy a copy for your public library

Buy a copy for your place of worship

Buy a copy for your local internet café

Set up a viewing at your local community college

Make sure everyone you love and respect sees this film!

-- diane

A collage of thoughts...

2005-04-01T18:42:00.000-08:00

I notice things. Sometimes I don't notice something soon enough, and when I do, I wonder how it got by me... not to mention a few billion other people.

So, here are two things I've noticed and questions arising from them:

When was the last time you saw a gas commercial? Remember the funny little cars with dirty engines that wanted Techron gasoline? Remember the ads for BP? When gas cost 19 cents a gallon, not only was there a "put a tiger in your tank" commercial on t.v. every fifteen minutes, but you also got free glassware with every fillup!

What is so different about the economy that gasoline companies don't need to advertise their fuel anymore, now that it costs $2.25 a gallon?

What happened with the telephone wars? Remember deregulation? Remember MCI and Sprint and AT&T and a million other companies competing for your long-distance dollars? Man, they were annoying. When did they go away, and why?

I remember someone warning about telephone deregulation, saying, "If these utilities are allowed to deregulate, your phone bill is going to cost more than your mortgage."

Anyone reading this have a phone bill bigger than a mortgage? For that matter, are you even lucky enough to have a mortgage?

I saw something on television on Sunday, I think, where a woman was saying the gap between the rich and the poor hasn't been this wide in 800 years. That takes us back to the 13th century, the "High" Middle Ages, masters and serfs, caste systems, the Crusades against Islam, the rule of Genghis Khan, the voyage of Marco Polo to "discover" China, an incredible time of religious turmoil for Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and Jews and the birth of universities in Europe.

Following a great deal of growth and enlightenment, the gap between rich and poor was somewhat narrowed by the arrival of bubonic plague in the 14th century, which wiped out 1/3 of Europe's entire population over a five-year period of time.

Poets, prophets and pundits, draw your lines from Column A to Column B and render significant the tsunami, the AIDS crisis, religious intolerance, warring maniacs and extreme poverty. Time to re-read "Cat's Cradle" and ask ourselves: Is mass destruction of people and places the only way to save what is left of civilization?

Waterfront Streetcar update

2005-03-23T11:33:00.000-08:00

Is there hope for a compromise?

Aerial view of the proposed Seattle Art Museum Olympic Sculpture Garden

The news today revolves around an idea to extend the streetcar tracks a few blocks, allowing it to run through the SAM's sculpture park, and that the maintenance barn be sited at that farther location.

SAM's website is officially taking a pro-streetcar stance, although there are no partnership offers on the table, as SAM stands firm in its decision to raze the maintenance barn and begin construction this fall.

Important note: To answer the question, what's the big deal about the barn? I have included bits from today's Seattle Times that explain the special features of the trolley barn.
================================================

SAM hopes to begin construction this fall where the barn now sits.

City and county officials, appreciating public support behind both the trolley and the sculpture park, will consider the conflict at a Regional Transit Committee meeting March 30.

Platforms and pits

It is not the shell of the maintenance barn that makes replacing it expensive, but rather its guts.
Fundamental to the facility are its concrete platforms, thick enough to support heavy cranes that lift the streetcar off its wheels, a process necessary for maintenance. The barn also has two pits where workers inspect and adjust brakes from the underside, part of daily maintenance. Also fundamental is an overhead power-supply network, necessary because the cars run on electricity.

"The notion that we can build a quick-and-dirty fix is a fallacy," Desmond said. "Any temporary replacement still would have to be a substantial maintenance facility."

It would cost several million dollars, although Metro officials are reluctant to estimate because cost would depend on a number of factors, such as the price of the land. Riley said laying new track, also necessary for any replacement facility, is expensive at about $1,000 a linear foot.

"The farther we have to move it, the more track we have to lay, the greater the cost," she said.

SAM officials wonder whether a replacement barn could be built a couple blocks north, on the opposite side of the sculpture park. They say the streetcars could run beneath the same bridge as will the Burlington Northern trains.

A 1999 museum fund-raising brochure, touting the project as "Seattle's last chance for a downtown park," includes a photo of a vintage streetcar, proclaiming that the trolley would provide transportation to the park.

SAM director Mimi Gardner Gates has written an open letter on the museum's Web site (www.seattleartmuseum.org) that reiterates the museum's support for the streetcar: "SAM believes that like art, the streetcar enriches the experience and charm of our waterfront community," she wrote.

-- Seattle Times, 03/23/05

SAM has always envisioned visitors arriving by streetcar —In fact, the existing location at Broad Street is incorporated into the design of the park and the design allows for the possible extension of the streetcar line north through the park.

SAM continues to support the efforts of the City and King County to identify a solution for relocating the streetcar maintenance facility currently on the site so that the streetcar remains up and running.

-- Seattle Art Museum Website

Everything you know is wrong!

2005-03-13T12:08:00.000-08:00

Remember that line from Firesign Theatre? How can something so ridiculous be so true?

I'm going to be writing more and more about the topic of the Death of Journalism, which has really been on life support for a couple of decades now. I feel comfortable in saying, without hyperbole, that the Bush administration pulled the plug on journalism and buried it in a shallow grave.

But I want to focus on the main cause of death and specifically, an effective propaganda tool employed consistently by Bush and his cronies.

From the obvious complicity of Sinclair Broadcasting (FOX "News," its alias) to planting stooges in the White House Press Corps, the Bush Regime is not making news--it is creating it.

To learn more, you may want to read the following posts, archived here under February 2005:

What would have happened...
How stupid does he think we are? How stupid ARE we?
The difference between journalism and Bush's talking heads

In those postings you will read

That the Bush administration paid commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote the "No Child Left Behind" program;
That the Bush administration gave Maggie Gallagher a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's marriage initiative, which she then promoted in her syndicated column as if she were not being paid to plug it;
That common shill, Jeff Gannon, posed as a journalist in a presidential news conference, asking whether President Bush could work with Democrats, describing them as "people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality."

These are not journalists reporting facts. These are operatives, hired hands, who are heading real journalists off at the pass in order to advance Bush's plans and to control what you, as citizens, actually hear reported as fact.

In the words of syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr., "A government that is allowed to create its own reality is a government that can get away with anything."

Does anyone reading this still doubt the possibility that voting machines were manipulated, as well as major media outlets, on Election Day 2004 and 2000, in order to ensure that the outcome would favor Bush, no matter how you voted?

And that was only the beginning. If you read the news as it's reported, you will find little tidbits every day that smell awfully funny, such as this "reporter's" question of Condoleezza Rice, an unelected official who will surely be the next President of the United States (with the Bush family's hand up her back, moving her mouth) if people don't get smart VERY quickly. In a Washington Post story published today, it was reported that Rice won't rule out running for president in 2008. As she was being questioned by the media, this was observed:

Some political operatives relish the idea of Rice taking on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., in 2008. One of the Washington Times questioners said, "You could save us from Hillary."

No journalist would have said this, even in fun. Only a Bush shill would have made that statement, hoping to plant fear in the hearts and minds of all readers. The "Washington Times'" credentials have always been questionable at best, but with this statement, they make their agenda perfectly clear.

There was also a story in the New York Times today which dissects one aspect of the Bush Propaganda Machine: its use of pre-fabricated "news stories" handed out to media outlets for publication, which are frequently run "as-is," with no verification of the "facts" therein.

Sunday, March 13, 2005
In Bush's agencies, P.R. blurs into news
By David Barstow and Robin Stein
The New York Times

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for U.S. farmers.
To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety actually was a public-relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.

Under the Bush administration, the federal government aggressively has used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations long have distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. At least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgment of the government's role in their production.

NOW, DO ANY OF YOU STILL THINK "Wag the Dog" was an entertaining but hyperbolic little movie, but that NO ONE would ever actually get away with controlling the media?

Think again.

WHAT IS YOUR PASSION?

2005-03-12T00:12:00.002-08:00

Very few persons, comparatively, know how to Desire with sufficient intensity. They do not know what it is to feel and manifest that intense, eager, longing, craving, insistent, demanding, ravenous Desire which is akin to the persistent, insistent, ardent, overwhelming desire of the drowning man for a breath of air; of the shipwrecked or desert-lost man for a drink of water; of the famished man for bread and meat…

-- ROBERT COLLIER

Demolish the Seattle Space Needle

2005-03-09T11:23:00.000-08:00

Now that I have your attention...

There have been many battles over landmarks in Seattle, including plans to tear down the Monorail, bulldoze the Pike Place Market, raze Pioneer Square, and demolish the Center House and other 1962 World's Fair relics. In these cases, demolition was headed off by citizens who stepped up with strong arguments and willing investors.

Not all private preservation efforts have been effective. One man's efforts to save the historic ferry, the Kalakala drove him deeply into debt. And preservation and restoration efforts also can take a toll on other valued properties unfortunate enough to stand in their way.

The current plan to do away with the Waterfront Streetcar so the Seattle Art Museum can install a public sculpture garden is so ridiculous, it shocks me to think we even have to discuss it. The streetcar itself was already the subject of a major preservation battle. The decision to consider it a treasure was a no-brainer, and it is one of the jewels that glitter in Seattle's crown.

I usually speak for historic architectural preservation, which has long been a passion of mine. But sometimes I see the wisdom in demolition, and I am not wedded to every single old redbrick building simply because it has history.

But Seattle's history has so far been documented brilliantly by its preservation decisions, from Underground Seattle to the statue of Lenin to the future argument our great-grandchildren will wage over whether to save the EMP or tear the eyesore down. What we save speaks to the identity of Seattle. Our emotional attachments, expressed in monuments, define Seattle.

In the business of real estate development, which can be cutthroat and avaricious, much is made of "street appeal." I want to share a passage here from The Dharma Bums by Jack Kerouac, where he describes his impressions of Seattle in 1956, first from the ferry that brought him to our town, and the next day, from street level:

IN THE DEEPENED DUSK fog ahead the big red neons saying: PORT OF SEATTLE. And suddenly everything Japhy had ever told me about Seattle began to seep into me like cold rain, I could feel it and see it now, and not just think it. It was exactly like he'd said: wet, immense, timbered, mountainous, cold, exhilarating, challenging. The ferry nosed in at the pier on Alaskan Way and immediately I saw the totem poles in old stores and the ancient 1880-style switch goat with sleepy firemen chug chugging up and down the waterfront spur like a scene from my own dreams, the old Casey Jones locomotive of America, the only one I ever saw that old outside of Western movies, but actually working and hauling boxcars in the smoky gloom of the magic city.

I immediately went to a good clean skid row hotel, the Hotel Stevens, got a room for the night for a dollar seventy-five and had a hot tub bath and a good long sleep and in the morning I shaved and walked out First Avenue and accidentally found all kinds of Goodwill stores with wonderful sweaters and red underwear for sale and I had a big breakfast with five-cent coffee in the crowded market morning with blue sky and clouds scudding overhead and waters of Puget Sound sparkling and dancing under old piers. It was real true Northwest.

Kerouac's description is hauntingly accurate for anyone who's lived in the Northwest long enough to experience Seattle on a soulful level. We have lost much of what he described, but our character is much the same.

The waterfront streetcar is one of Seattle's funky little treasures, a thing of "useless beauty." It is one of the cheapest thrills you can get for a buck, getting on board outside the Elliott Bay Bookstore and riding on skinny, hard wooden seats, bell happily dinging away, heading down to the waterfront.

Photo by Steve Ringman, The Seattle Times, 03/11/05

One of my greatest joys is taking the streetcar or going to the Pike Place Market for produce shopping, or visiting the Fremont Troll and watching and listening to the tourists as they oooo and ahhhhh over Seattle. These little things make the difference between a livable city and a strip mall.

Stuart Eskenazi, in today's Seattle Times, reveals that there is a streetcar preservation effort underway:

Walt Crowley, president and executive director of the nonprofit that runs HistoryLink, said City Councilman George Benson, who championed the vintage streetcar line launched in 1982, told him before he died last October that he feared the sculpture garden threatened the future of the streetcar.

"He said, 'I'm counting on you to make sure it doesn't,' " Crowley said. "So that's what we're doing."

The form letter pays tribute to Benson: "Creating a 'choice' between Waterfront Streetcar and sculpture garden is a false dichotomy which can easily be resolved in a way that preserves both and honors the memory and legacy of one of Seattle's most beloved public servants. We urge all parties to find a 'win-win' solution quickly."

More information can be found by going to History Link . Take a moment to go there and read about this important historic preservation effort.

More on torture and the ACLU lawsuit against Rumsfeld

2005-03-03T20:01:00.000-08:00

Listen, people, what is wrong with us? How can any American believe torture is ever okay?

How can we practice torture and consider ourselves any better than Adolf Hitler?

Pro-torture comments, wrapped in the flag

Even more important than being an American is remembering that you are a citizen of the world. What pain and evil we allow in our lives seeps into the lives of everyone else in time.

Support the ACLU and its lawsuit against Rumsfeld, which is an effort to shed light, not heat, on an important human rights issue.

This is something everyone should be able to agree on, no matter what your political leanings.

Can Bush Be Both Ignorant and a Liar?

2005-03-03T19:56:00.000-08:00

Yes. There's no reason for Bush-bashers
to choose between the two.
----------------------------------------------------
By Timothy Noah
SLATE Magazine

Is President Bush a liar? The New York Times' David Rosenbaum examined this question with a surfeit of post-Howell-Raines fair-mindedness in the June 22 "Week in Review" section. His bottom line: "[A] review of the president's public statements found little that could lead to a conclusion that the president actually lied" in two particular instances. The first was when Bush claimed he knew Saddam Hussein to possess large quantities of chemical and biological weapons. The second was when Bush claimed that his tax cut would provide tax relief for everyone who pays income taxes. In both instances, Chatterbox is baffled by Rosenbaum's doubt. Read the rest of this story.

2005-03-03T19:53:00.000-08:00

Don't you wish we had billboards like these in town, with an inspirational statement on each one?

The importance of wit

2005-03-02T23:39:00.000-08:00

I want to share a little comic relief from a hilarious Academy Awards essay written by Brangien Davis and published in the Seattle Times.

Her story, titled "Oscars: 10 ways it's better in sweats than silk," compares the benefits of watching the Oscars from home to Davis's own recent experience of attending the ceremony in person. Here's Reason #8:

8. At home, your fellow audience members acknowledge your existence.
Whether you're at an Oscar viewing party or watching at home with your cat, some kind of eye contact is likely to be a part of your evening. Not so at the Academy Awards. If you aren't there to "be seen," you aren't seen at all. I entered the theater inches away from Johnny Depp and did I even get a hello? No. (Which, upon further reflection, is probably best since had he done so I might have passed out.)

You can read the entire account online

I dropped Brangien a note thanking her for her piece and she replied, including a link to her own venture, Swivel, a literary humor magazine devoted to women and wit. You can find it on local newsstands and in bookstores.

Laughter creates positivity, and the more positively you think, the more you increase your productivity and strength.

Don't forget to laugh, especially in the hard times.

(Thanks to Brangien Davis, for everything)

No, we won't all be enjoying surf and sun

2005-03-02T20:51:00.000-08:00

I exchanged a few sentences with a young man on the bus about the greenhouse effect. He made it clear, in just a few words, that he thought the greenhouse effect would make the Puget Sound area less rainy, and we'd have more sun, more summer, and that that wouldn't be a bad thing at all.

I remember thinking that 25 years ago when I first heard about the greenhouse effect. But there is no excuse for anyone being so misinformed today. Scientists not only have shared copious information designed to raise our awareness about this globe-destroying climate change, but they have been measuring it from here to Antarctica to the polar ice caps: The warming of the oceans

In short, the earth is dying and the human race will die with it.

Everything we did--all our great history, architecture, technology, art, literature--will be wiped out, along with all the people who populate the planet. It will be as if we were never here, except for the fact that the earth will be uninhabitable for the life form we are.

Why is this happening? Because we must drive our cars. We are entitled to drive our cars. As long as we have a the proper licenses and insurance and reasonably follow the rules of the road, we will not allow anyone to control how much we drive or how far we go.

It doesn't matter how much we have to pay for gas, either. We will find a way to drive our cars because the automobile has become as necessary an accessory upon leaving the house as putting on one's pants.

Indoors we sit in front of television screens or computers or video game boxes or stereos, sedentary consumers of electricity that's created by technology that also contributes to the greenhouse effect.

We buy products in paper boxes made from trees, in factories that use power generated by technology that further contributes to the greenhouse effect. From cellophane wrappers to styrofoam cups to plastic grocery bags to plastic rings that hold six-packs together, everything that is used in packaging and then tossed into landfills... well, I think you see where I'm going.

We're destroying the earth at a pace that far outstrips any evolutionary trend to date. Is it too late to reverse the trend?

(Thanks to Ron for the BBC link)

Butter for my oatmeal

2005-03-02T00:20:00.000-08:00

Today I traveled on buses for hours, running errands all around Seattle, from Capitol Hill to the airport to West Seattle for groceries, then home again. And in all my travels I encountered wonderful people with whom I conversed and/or eavesdropped on, basking in the glow of rich, wonderful dialog.

On one bus, idled at a time point, the bus driver was talking on his cell phone to a friend. He said, "I've heard 'first things first,' and that's good, but I have also heard 'feared things first,' and that's how I live--I do the hardest things first, and then the rest of my day is great."

I met a woman, poor like me, telling me about her day so far as she peeled this wonderfully fragrant tangerine on a bus bench. "I went to worksource and signed up for job training and I start April 1st. Then I went to the store and got some butter for my oatmeal, because I've just got to have butter on my oatmeal. Today I'll have a corndog for lunch, and I also got a hunk of sausage so I'll have some meat for dinner, and then I'll be hungry and broke again."

The bus driver inspired me. The woman on the bus bench warmed my heart. In both cases, their joy cost somewhere between zero and a buck or two to achieve. The joy each of them gave to me was like a string of pearls.

The fragrance of that tangerine... every time i smell one from now on I'll see an image of a fat pat of butter melting over a steaming bowl of oatmeal.

ACLU files lawsuit against Rumsfeld, alleging torture

2005-03-01T15:28:00.000-08:00

This morning, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit charging that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld bears direct responsibility for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody. The lawsuit seeks a court declaration that Secretary Rumsfeld violated the U.S. Constitution and international laws.*

The New Face of America?

* reprinted from a communication from
Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director, ACLU

What would have happened...

2005-02-27T17:51:00.000-08:00

... if "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore's magnum opus, had aired on national--or even cable--networks a day or two before the last presidential election?

Los Angeles Times report

I would surely like to have had the chance to find out. And so would others:

John McCain comments on CNN

(Thanks to Valleri for additional links)

Poised for the fight

2005-02-26T12:53:00.000-08:00

In 2008, the wave of events that began as a conservative backlash (in response to the election of Bill Clinton) will have its most crucial effect. Either it will make landfall as a devastating tsunami, wiping out the spirit and will of so many that a state of pure citizen-serfdom will result, or its force will be deflected back onto itself, causing an ideological undertow whose effects can only result in a dynamic, conflicting, global society.

Or somebody may, at last, push the button down and all of us--conservatives, liberals, undecideds, visionaries, revolutionaries, prophets, murderers, demagogues, statesmen, dictators, ideologists, seminarians, priests, rabbis, healers, saints, sociopaths, innocents et. al.--will become part of the planet's next evolutionary compost pile.

It could go either way, but having lived through a few backlashes so far--post-WWII baby boom, 1950s paranoia and gullibility, early 1960s manifest destiny, 1960s revolutions, birthings, slapback, genocide of my generation, 1970s complacency, go-go 1980s, the insulated 1990s leading to isolation via computer and video games, computers, the Internet, and the new prudishness disguised as sexual posturing--I'm investing in creating the undertow.

To that end, I'd like to suggest--no, I DEMAND--that you, as a citizen of Planet Earth, make a commitment to a) learn, b) share knowledge and c) make a stand.

It's okay if you choose, instead, to do nothing. Mother Earth will make us all irrelevant in the end. It may be seductive to imagine relaxing, counting your days, planning your personal paradise, taking care of you and yours as if you had no responsibility to your brothers and sisters across the world.

If you choose that path, you're just taking up space and resources, freeloading, depleting, claiming your personal entitlement as if being born were a ticket on a free ride. That is who you are. Deal with it, admit it, but don't pretend you are anything more than an irresponsible, parasitic presence here and just one more zombie, dead spirit in greedy body, and your life is and will be counted as useless and futile.

In the end, you really can't get away from simply checking box Yes, No or None of the Above. Actions have consequences, and so does inaction. Either way, what you choose will have its intended effect.

I recommend holistic education, no matter what your point of view or personal philosophy. Read everything you can take in, no matter what source, about world politics and society, and as often as possible, check the "facts" and opinions presented therein. Do not accept as gospel any single thing you read. Remember that all words and thoughts come from human minds and hands, and they are just as human as you are.

Write. Even if you don't write, WRITE. Allow your feelings and ideas a way out of your body and mind and express them. Writing them down helps you become aware of them, and allows you to speak them and share them with others.

When you share, remember it's a 2-way street. One gives, one receives. Listening is just as important as speaking.

Accept conflict gladly. Life is conflict, from the day we are born until the day we die, so don't eschew it all. Embrace it in order to defuse it and view it as what it is: the other side of the coin known as Harmony.

Express your opinion, then live it. Take a position. Take action. Live life as if it were your only chance at consciousness. Live it like it's a gift. We're all just visitors here, after all. Wake up and participate and see the sights, interact, give and receive, help, support, and most of all, nurture.

I have added a list of blogs and resources to my home page. These are only a starting point. Take it all in, use your good sense to allow your brain to interpret and understand it all, and do something every day with the information.

2008 will be here before you know it. Be prepared, be ready, and best of all, be part of its result.

How stupid does he think we are? How stupid ARE we?

2005-02-25T03:10:00.000-08:00

Editorials & Opinion:
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Leonard Pitts Jr. / Syndicated columnist

Planting a stooge in press corps not out of character for Bush

Weeks later, I'm still waiting for a good explanation of what Jeff Gannon was doing in the White House. And for you to be upset about it.

Gannon is the fellow who made himself memorable during last month's presidential news conference by asking about Democratic pessimism regarding the nation's economy. Specifically, he asked if President Bush could work with "people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality."

The unusually partisan phrasing prompted reporters and liberal groups to ask the same question: Who is this guy? Well, it turns out that Gannon is not really Gannon. James Guckert says he prefers that pseudonym for "commercial" reasons. It also turns out that a company he owns is the registered owner of several sexually suggestive Web addresses.

Hotmilitarystud.com, to name just one.

Most curious of all, though, is that it turns out he is not really a reporter, at least not if that term still denotes a disinterested observer of events. Rather, Guckert writes for a Web site, talnonnews.com, which is linked to another site, GOPUSA.com. That site serves, as you might gather, to promote the Republican Party.

Guckert resigned last week, saying he and his family have been threatened and harassed. If true, that is deplorable.

But it's also deplorable that he was ever seated in the White House briefing room. As to how that happened, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan has pleaded ignorance, saying that, "In this day and age, when you have a changing media, it's not an easy issue to decide, to try to pick and choose who is a journalist."

Which is patently ridiculous. Contrary to the press secretary's Hamletlike agonizing, it's not all that hard to know who is and is not a reporter. If an individual reports for a recognized media outlet that observes customary standards of journalistic integrity — even if it tends to view the world through a conservative or liberal editorial prism — that person is a reporter.

But if the person works for an outlet that simply promotes, or advocates for, one political party or another, then the line between reporter and shill has been well and truly crossed.
It's not brain surgery. So you'll have to forgive me for not extending the benefit of doubt to McClellan. My problem is that he speaks for an administration with a long record of manipulating truth and propagandizing the public.

These are the folks who pay pundits to say nice things about them. The ones who pressure scientists to change science that conflicts with political goals. The ones who ignore their own experts when confronted with information they'd rather not believe. And this is a president whose news conferences occur with only slightly more frequency than ice storms do in Key West, who ducks hard questions posed by actual reporters, preferring to bat slow pitches tossed by average citizens pre-screened for their support.

So planting a party stooge among the real reporters hardly seems out of character.

The thing is, a government that is not scrutinized by an energetic and adversarial press is a government that is not accountable for its actions. A government that is allowed to create its own reality is a government that can get away with anything.

So where is our outrage?

Frankly, the only thing more galling than the brazenness with which the White House abrogates the public's right to know is the sheeplike docility with which we accept it, with which we become complicit in our own hoodwinking.

When the history of this era is written, people will wonder why we didn't challenge its excesses, why we didn't know the things we should have. If you're still around, remember the uproar you do not hear right this moment and tell them the truth.

Ignorance was easier.

Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.'s column appears Sunday on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is: lpitts@herald.com

The difference between journalism and Bush's talking heads

2005-02-25T00:26:00.000-08:00

Leave no ethics behind
Monday, January 10, 2005
San Francisco Chronicle

THE REVELATION that the Bush administration paid commentator Armstrong Williams $240,000 to promote the "No Child Left Behind" program is disturbing on several counts.

No journalist worthy of the title should ever engage in such a deal. The sleaziness is not diminished by Williams' explanation that Bush's education policy was "something I believe in." He did not even bother to disclose the financial arrangement. It became public only after USA Today discovered it through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Williams' willingness to accept payment for commenting on NCLB and for interviewing outgoing Education Secretary Rod Paige on TV and radio spots would have been a serious ethical violation, even if the dollar amount were small.

Williams is the host of TV and radio shows and a frequent contributor of op-ed pieces to newspapers.

We're also outraged as taxpayers. A nation with a deficit in the hundreds of billions should not be enlisting high-priced public-relations firms -- such as the one that sought out Williams -- for such propaganda campaigns.

Federal education dollars would be better spent in the classroom, where they could be generating results worth touting -- without having to provide any payola to so-called journalists.

No pundit left behind
After Armstrong Williams pocketed $240,000 from the Department of Education, he conducted a flattering interview with Education Secretary Rod Paige for Sinclair Broadcasting.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

By Eric Boehlert
Jan. 12, 2005
Salon.com

Sinclair Broadcasting made headlines last year by aligning itself with partisan, conservative forces and pushing a political agenda.

In May, the media conglomerate refused to air "Nightline" when Ted Koppel read aloud the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. (Antiwar propaganda, Sinclair executives claimed.) Then, in late fall, Sinclair pushed forward a one-sided, anti-John Kerry documentary on the eve of the election. In both cases, while ignoring charges of bias, Sinclair bosses seemed to relish their time in the spotlight.

But now Sinclair is getting burned by one of its conservative stars and the media company is running for the shadows. In the wake of news that its on-air mainstay, conservative talk-show host and syndicated columnist Armstrong Williams, pocketed $240,000 from the Department of Education in exchange for hyping a White House education initiative, Sinclair is going out of its way to distance itself from its prime-time pundit. The company has also asked Williams to clear up the misleading impression that it carries his syndicated TV show on dozens of its stations.

Columnist was paid to back Bush on marriage

Howard Kurtz
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush's push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families.

"The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples" and "educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage," she wrote in National Review Online, for example, adding that this could "carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children."

But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president's proposal. Her work under the contract, which ran from January through October 2002, included drafting a magazine article for the HHS official overseeing the initiative, writing brochures for the program and conducting a briefing for department officials.

"Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it?" Gallagher said yesterday. "I don't know. You tell me." She said she would have "been happy to tell anyone who called me" about the contract but that "frankly, it never occurred to me" to disclose it.

Being true to yourself...

2005-02-24T22:58:00.000-08:00

...sometimes requires quite a bit of artifice.

I just returned from Denny's, where I retreated after finding out the Home Depot had changed its hours and closed two hours earlier than it used to. I'd walked up there to buy a new lock for my door and a bag of plaster for my sculpture--a work in progress for the last 30 years or so.

There was a man there, Black guy, mid-50s or so, my age, very good-looking, cell phone, elbow brace over his jacket sleeve, pack of More menthol cigarettes he had to go outside to smoke, missing his left canine upper, gold wire around his right bicuspid and it flashed when he smiled. He told the waitress some dumb story about a baseball game attended by a bunch of mental patients, and when the peanut man came by and yelled, "PEANUTS!" they all stood up and peed.

I said, "You're lyin'" and smiled, expecting him to admit to the joke. But he looked at me as if to say, "What? How dare you!" and I backpedaled quickly. He claimed the story was gospel and I left it at that.

We talked more. I told him the joke about the two brothers who had decided to start swearing one day because they felt--at the ages of 5 and 7, respectively--that they were men now and it was time to prove it. Big brother says, "Okay, when we go down to breakfast, let's both swear in front of Mommy. I'll say 'hell' and you say 'ass,' okay?"

They went down and Mommy asked big brother, "You want some corn flakes for breakfast today?" And he said, with great indignation, "HELL NO, I WANT CHEERI-OS!" Mommy moved quickly, smacked him upside the head and told him to go stand in the corner, where he ran to, crying. Then she turned her angry glare at the little brother, and asked, "Well, what do YOU want for breakfast?" Little brother said quickly, "I don't know, but you can bet your ASS I'm not gonna ask for Cheeri-os!"

He told me that he had been a cook for many years at the Outback Steak House, making $17 an hour, until one day a kid walked in with an A.A. degree and a certificate awarding him a chef's status. He was hired at $27 an hour and Quentin, the man telling the tale, was let go.

He then enrolled in a cooking program at North Seattle Community College, where he has been for about 18 months. He will graduate with his A.A. degree and chef's certificate at the end of the summer, 2005--if he lasts that long.

His problem is that he has some friction with the male instructor, who, when he is talking to students, is fond of putting his hand on their arms, around their waists, or on their shoulders. Quentin doesn't like this and has told him so. He has several theories as to why the instructor continues to touch him and the other students, but rather than going through channels to deal with Mr. Grabby, instead he's let it affect his achievement in class.

The instructor has countered with a complaint against Quentin, saying he senses aggression in his manner and has complained to the administration. This may affect Quentin's ability to finish the program. He is being called in to the President's office, he says, to have a chat. Seems unlikely he'd be seeing the president over this, but that's what he tells me.

Anyway, I said to Quentin, "If I were you, I'd just walk into the President's office and say this: I want this man to stop putting his HANDS on me. Can you take care of that for me?, and then, after he had agreed, I would shake his hand and leave." I advised him not to engage anyone in any struggles, but simply to state his demands and set his boundaries and leave it up to them to obey.

Why do people waste so much time allowing others to influence how they live their lives? That's not who we are. That's not being true to oneself.

It is hard to be true to yourself these days. It's been hard for a while now. But sometimes being true to yourself only means tuning out those noises that would distract you into being something you are not.

I hope Quentin is true to himself. And I hope he finishes school and gets a job cooking for $27 an hour.

NONCOOPERATION

2005-02-23T15:12:00.000-08:00

Join the groundswell of noncooperation. Be ready for the day when the majority of Americans will strike, refusing to work to support the Bush Regime.

It's only an idea right now, and not an original one. But it is easier to pull off, less time-consuming, less expensive, and more powerful than any march on Washington or WTO protest in the streets of Seattle.

Get ready. Noncooperation is coming.

TURN OFF THAT DAMN T.V.

2005-02-23T15:10:00.000-08:00

Television is not reality. Reality is the time you waste watching television.

DO SOMETHING

2005-02-23T15:04:00.000-08:00

Get off your complacent ass and do some little thing every day. You have the time. Exercise your power.

Contact your representative every day via telephone or email and register your comments about current or proposed legislation.

It's not hard.

Drop a coin into the hand of a beggar every day, or send some charity a buck or two--every day--instead of buying some useless, disposable, littering thing for yourself or your kids.

Refuse the bag at McDonald's or the grocery store. Refuse all excessive packaging.

If you don't believe your one little action will make a difference, look at the gubernatorial race in Washington State.

Which is more boring?

2005-02-23T14:11:00.000-08:00

Watching Riverdance, or being a Riverdance dancer?

Could Condi Rice Be President?

2004-11-27T18:23:00.000-08:00

HERE'S A LITTLE EDITORIAL COMMENT from me:

Condoleeza Rice is the most dangerous political figure on the horizon. She is especially dangerous because her demeanor is like a little bunny rabbit with those big cute teeth and that wiggly nose.
Read everything you can find on her and tell your family and friends. Especially read the raves you'll find in the conservative media, like so, from NewsMax:

Could Condi Rice Be President?
How much do you know about the most powerful woman in America?

Surprisingly little, unless you read the recent issue of NewsMax Magazine just out to subscribers and news stands across the country.

Our special report is called Condi’s Values, and it will knock your socks off. Click Here Now for this report.

Already there is talk of President Condoleezza Rice. NewsMax delves into her growing popularity – why she has even been talked about as a possible replacement for Vice President Dick Cheney – and a presidential candidate in her own right!

The media portray Rice as simply a loyal aide to President Bush.

But NewsMax Magazine goes far beyond that in our special report to find out what really drives the national security adviser. (You can get your copy of this report by clicking here.

...read the rest here: http://www.newsmax.com/adv/condi/

I have something to say

2004-10-31T13:43:00.000-08:00

My first posting:

today is hallowe'en 2004. the presidential election will be held in two days. the world is about to implode. i have something to say, and it's about time i started saying it.