Progressive Leader

The Tale of the Long Fall

2007-05-03T14:57:00.000-04:00

It has been quite some time since I'd last posted; and with good reason.

Thanks to my ernest desire to discover exactly how hard it is to shingle a roof, I discovered a nifty way to ellicit the loving and doting nature of my wife.

What?

Yeah, buddy, you read it proper.

After an extreme amount of cursing, sweat induced halucinations and cursing that will surely send me to the land of hotness, I was almost done with my roof. The shingles were mostly removed. And that's saying something, cause the previous owners, in their most anti-zoning rebellious behavior, decided it is better to have two layers of shingles separated by a thick, tarry layer of bitchathane (u either know what I'm referring to or u don't), followed by another two layers of shingles that were about 30 years old. Let me tell ya, I wanted to strangle the former owners cause there isn't a roofing shovel made that can tear that kinda shit up. Nope, it was all by razor knife and hand. In short, it was a fucking nightmare to get about 7 squares of this crap off my roof.

And what do I discover under this mess, but, hard insulation. No 5/8" plywood or other such sheething to properly nail the shingles to, not even any furring strips to act like sheething. In short, no fucking wonder my roof leaked.

So, here's what a typical roof should look like:
shingles
bitchathane or some other water barrier
sheething or furring strips...preferably sheething
insulation
interior roof, otherwise known as the ceiling

And, here's what mine looked like:
shingles - 2 layers
bitchathane
shingles - 2 layers
1.5" hard foam insulation
interior roof

Notice something missing? Yep..and definitely one of the most fundamental of layers. There's this crazy concept of fixing a shingle to the roof so that it fucking stays affixed when there's inclement weather. And let me tell ya, we get our fair share of inclement weather here in New Hampshire. So, when you try to nail a shingle to some foam, guess what, that shingle is gonna move all over the fucking place...hell, it might even grow some wings and fly the fuck off your roof! But, even if it doesn't make like a crazy chicken, the whole time it's moving around, it's creating a bigger and bigger hole in the bitchthane and the foam insulation. Before you know, you've got a leaky fucking roof. The previous owners, in there infinite wisdom, thought, "Hey! Let's save some money and just put a new layer of shingles down." I bet it cost them three times as much money and the roof still fucking leaks. Now I have to deal with it. Can you tell I'm pissed at the previous owners?

Ok, ok, so I got the shingles off, but, on one of the few weekends I have left before the truly cold season starts to hit, the weather turns decidedly....gloomy. Of course, water starts to drip into our lovely log home...creating nice little stains on the ceiling. Great! Something else I'm gonna have to fix. My wife, being the concerned little lady that she is says, "Is there any way you can put a tarp up there?" I respond that it's a little too slick to be safe up there on the roof. But after a few more minutes and a quick inventory of our bucket situation, I decide I have to do something about the water coming in the house cause we don't have enough manpower, nor receptacles for the beautiful torrent of rain inside our home. I get dressed and grab the tarps.

I shimmy my way up the ladder..a solid 25 feet in the air and commence laying the tarps. Now my roof is a two slope thing. Near the edge, the pitch of the roof is quite shallow so it's easy to walk around up there. However, midway between the eave and the ridge, the slope changes to, "wow, I almost need crampons" to climb around up here. I managed to lay ALL the tarps down, ending with the last one at the ridge. So there I am, blue shingle all the way to the eave and I'm at the peak of the ridge. Those of you that have roofed, or have an excellent ability to visualize my decidedly cryptic writing can virtually tell me the rest of this story.

There I sat, and I thought to myself, maybe I should get down on the other side of the roof; it's only an 8 foot drop to the ground and there's no tarp over there, so I should have some decent footing to get down. But, hell, I've been doing this for the better part of a month and I've climbed up and down that ladder and climbed around this roof, that surely, nothing could go wrong. So, I decided to go down the way I came up. But, just to be safe, I'll s t r e t c h down to the transition from steep slope to shallow slope while holding onto the ridge with my right hand. My feet are just mere inches from the transition. So, surely I must be safe?

A moment later I discovered something I wish I'd know as a child: Tarps make damn excellent slip-n-slides when wet.

Upon letting go of the ridge, I picked up speed quicker than a Jack rabbit in a humpin' contest. I went flying off the side of the house, flapped my arms as best I could, and landed in a somewhat parallel position to the ground. And. Man. Did. That. Fucking. Hurt.

I broke my wrist. I broke my back.

I spent the next day at the hospital, all jazzed up on Morphine. And let me say, I was a little disappointed with the drugs. I'd rather smoke weed before taking any of that shit again...well, at least if the intent is to alter my mind.

It is now a good time since that occurred, way back on September 23, 2006. My back is fine, and I'm even a bit sketchy on telling people I even broke my back, cause it's an insult to people with broken backs to say that I broke my back. It was a simple compression fracture and I just had to wear a brace for 8 weeks. Needless to say, I was back up on the roof the following weekend trying to get that damn thing zipped up. It wasn't easy, but I had two of my good buddies helping me since I couldn't bend over, and only had one chicken wing that worked properly. In the end, I had to hire a contractor to come in and finish it up. That's a whole other story too. Let's just say that I hate contractors. Low life, thieving bastards, the lot of them.

In any case, I'm better now. I had a plate and 10 screws installed into my right wrist. It was kinda cool to set off the metal detectors at the airport. And then had all the hardware removed because my right hand constantly hurt. Now, it's all good. I made great friends with my left hand and learned that my wife takes really good care of me when I've taken a flying leap.

There's one really good lesson here and it was posited by my best friends and mentor, Kirk S. Gillis:

"Jerry, for as long as I've known you, every time you've stopped to ask yourself a question as to the best course of action, if it was you and only you involved, you've always made the wrong decision."

So, I guess for some reason, I feel that I can take excessive liberty with my own person, but when it's others safety, I take no risk. Maybe I should treat myself with a little more respect.

Nah, fuck that.

The Maintenance Intense Love Affair

2006-09-14T16:53:00.000-04:00

Okay, so I own a log home. And I love it. It's cozy, comfortable and has that lodge feeling that everyone just loves.

But...

Owning a log home is a serious pain in the ass. Mind you, I've learned a great deal from owning a log home, but I never wanted to become a scholar in log home maintenance, and yet, I have no degree in this lowly field.

It all started after our first, blissful summer in our lovely little home. The previous owners had "preserved" the wood using the time tested technique of simply applying a 50/50 mixture of linseed oil and turpentine to the logs every 2 years. Well, the house is over 30 years old and it's survived all of those New England winters, so it must have been at least adequate.

Well, sure, but not really.

This lovely little mixture, of which they left me plenty, doesn't protect the logs from the harsh UV raining upon us day in and day out. The result? Black logs. Not only black, but the outer 1/4 inch had been so UV damaged that it had converted into a strange type of cellulose sponge that just LOVES to hold water. You heard it right Bub! Water and wood...well, let me just say that there are tons of lovely little 6-legged creatures that view that mix as a huge, freakin' dinner bell. Needless to say, I've spent the last FOUR years experimenting with ways to remove that outer layer of wood. I've tried chemicals (TSP, CPR which works great but my logs are BLACK), pressure washing and straight sanding.

Straight sanding is the quickest when you have damage like mine.

The CPR is awesome...basically a potent (high molar value for you chemist types) mix of hydrogen peroxide. It's not just for teeth and bloody owwies! I'd put this stuff on and it would foam like a horny, rabid dog! The black would just start pouring out of the wood, but yet it was still not right. So I would SCRUB...and I'm not talking about no pansy assed scrubbing, I'm talking about sweating your balls off scrubbing. This method worked quite well, but was damn hard to make any progress. But since this was the very first thing I'd tried, it worked and I was sticking to it..for a while at least. Plus there was one added side effect: I discovered, because of my vigorously high pressure scrubbing, that my second floor joist had been invaded by a sizeable colony of carpenter ants and some other foreign creature that had turned the outer 4 inches of log/joist to a papery pulp. Eeeewwww.

Malathion to the rescue!! But what about that joist? OMFG!! I had a "professional" come out and provide me with an estimate of what it would take to fix this 3 foot section of joist...I about crapped myself when he said it would be at least $28000. He didn't even offer to blow me!

Needless to say, I didn't entertain this guy's special brand of nuttiness but instead turned to my trusty resource, the Internets. Sorry, had to throw in some GWB speak there. Well, it basically came down to saturating the shit out of the joist with a borate mixture that would help prevent any further infestation and then drilling holes in the log about every 4 inches and putting in these nifty little chemical rods (more borate and copper I think) that end up getting leeched into the wood in a petrifying type of way, so they actually provide some structural rehabilitation. As for the big, nasty hole that was exposed to the outside, I sanded it down and made a notch that got filled by a piece of another log...essentially facing the damaged log with a piece of log siding that was about the same depth. In any case, you wouldn't even know it was there. My cost? About $200 for the chemicals, impeller rods and adhesive/caulk that I used to make it all work.

Well, that took 1 summer and I'd only finished 2 and a half walls with 5 more walls to go, and 2 of those walls were 2 stories...needless to say, at the rate I was going, I wouldn't be done for a long time, not to mention I really don't want to spend my summers doing this shit. I put up some 6 mil plastic over the exposed and untreated wood for the winter. What a fucking nightmare that was...nothing like the sound of heavy plastic blowing against the wall in the middle of winter. I had truly made it back to the trailer, while living in a log home.

The following summer, I had the bright idea of using a pressure washer to blow away the damaged parts of the log. This worked great...but...it caused the wood fiber to swell with water and fray. So I'd have to pressure wash followed by some sanding using a disc sander. It seems faster, but not really. It is less strenuous though and that's a plus. I make it through another summer and have finished 3 more walls, with 2 more to go. I've also managed to put the 3 coats of stain on..there was no way in hell I was going to listen to that plastic for another winter. The house is really starting to look killer, but man has it been expensive and time consuming.

The next summer, I begin to completely blow off doing any work. I'm sick of this shit. I wait until OCTOBER when I have a week off between jobs and get an entire wall sanded and stained. I didn't screw around with the pressure washer, just used a disc sander and 16 grit discs. Yep, you heard it right, 16 grit Buddy! That's like gravel glued to some paper. It worked so fast, it was hard to believe I was ever silly enough to not just stick with the old fashioned method: sanding. I also rented a cherry picker since this wall was on a sloping grade and it made my progress so much quicker. But just four days of rental left me $1000 poorer in my savings account.

This summer, I got the remaining wall sanded in one day. I haven't worked on it since and am planning to get it this weekend, then I'll be done.

Did I mention that my roof is leaking and in a fit of caffeine induced enthusiasm, decided that I would rip off my shingles. It's now almost October, and I have only the big blue shingle up there.

Crap. And did I mention that the former owners didn't know dick about roofing?

I'll save that for my next post...in the mean time...raise your glasses to the girls with hot asses!

Wake Up!

2006-03-17T14:40:00.000-05:00

Ok, I am beyond pissed.

Here's why: Pussy Democrats Fail Us Yet Again!

You see, so many of my fellow citizens don't see it happening:

That subtle sucking sound of a country being converted into a fascist, tyrannical, fuck-fest of religious zealots filled with hate and power hungry wolves who ate the Constitution just like they'll eat your children.

Our Democratic representatives in Congress, wallow about in their fear and self-loathing while the masses burn with an intense anger that will only be directed at Them; the ones in DC. They have abandoned us, mewling about that they need to be tough, while the entire time they blatantly demonstrate they are not fit to clean bedpans. They are pussies with spines of...of..well, they don't have spines. I guess those got stolen along with the 2000 election.

Our Republican Benedict Arnolds, legislating away our Constitution in order to protect a self-proclaimed felon. "But what of our Dear Leader, he can't be held accountable!" I tell you here, now, that accountability will come.

Our government, both Left and Right no longer serves any of us. The Right has become the bully, talking of good and walking us into Hades. The Left, like an abused wife, always thinking her abusive husband will change if they'd only not complain as much.

Our government has long faltered and has become more blatant and callous about it, but you and I no longer matter. The only thing that matters is power, money and greed. They do not hear our patriotic voices, rising in chorus to protest the evil they wring from our good names.

Things must change or the people will rise...and it may not be pretty.

He Couldn't Manage a Baseball Team, So Why Did Anyone Think He Could Manage a Country?

2006-01-25T13:51:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post Finally Puts Its Critical Thinking Cap On
Bush the Incompetent
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, January 25, 2006; Page A19

Incompetence is not one of the seven deadly sins, and it's hardly the worst attribute that can be ascribed to George W. Bush. But it is this president's defining attribute. Historians, looking back at the hash that his administration has made of his war in Iraq, his response to Hurricane Katrina and his Medicare drug plan, will have to grapple with how one president could so cosmically botch so many big things -- particularly when most of them were the president's own initiatives.

In numbing profusion, the newspapers are filled with litanies of screw-ups. Yesterday's New York Times brought news of the first official assessment of our reconstruction efforts in Iraq, in which the government's special inspector general depicted a policy beset, as Times reporter James Glanz put it, "by gross understaffing, a lack of technical expertise, bureaucratic infighting [and] secrecy." At one point, rebuilding efforts were divided, bewilderingly and counterproductively, between the Army Corps of Engineers and, for projects involving water, the Navy. That's when you'd think a president would make clear in no uncertain terms that bureaucratic turf battles would not be allowed to impede Iraq's reconstruction. But then, the president had no guiding vision for how to rebuild Iraq -- indeed, he went to war believing that such an undertaking really wouldn't require much in the way of American treasure and American lives.

It's the president's prescription drug plan (Medicare Part D), though, that is his most mind-boggling failure. As was not the case in Iraq or with Katrina, it hasn't had to overcome the opposition of man or nature. Pharmacists are not resisting the program; seniors are not planting car bombs to impede it (not yet, anyway). But in what must be an unforeseen development, people are trying to get their medications covered under the program. Apparently, this is a contingency for which the administration was not prepared, as it has been singularly unable to get its own program up and running.

Initially, Part D's biggest glitch seemed to be the difficulty that seniors encountered in selecting a plan. But since Part D took effect on Jan. 1, the most acute problem has been the plan's failure to cover the 6.2 million low-income seniors whose medications had been covered by Medicaid. On New Year's Day, the new law shifted these people's coverage to private insurers. And all hell broke loose.

Pharmacists found that the insurers didn't have the seniors' names in their systems, or charged them far in excess of what the new law stipulated -- and what the seniors could afford. In California fully 20 percent of the state's 1.1 million elderly Medicaid recipients had their coverage denied. The state had to step in to pick up the tab for their medications. California has appropriated $150 million for the medications, and estimates that it will be out of pocket more than $900 million by 2008-09. Before Jan. 1 the Bush administration had told California that it would save roughly $120 million a year once Part D was in effect.

California's experience is hardly unique. To date at least 25 states and the District have had to defray the costs to seniors that Part D was supposed to cover. What's truly stunning about this tale is that, while officials may not have known how many non-indigent seniors would sign up of their own accord, they always knew that these 6.2 million seniors would be shifted into the plan on the first day of the year. There were absolutely no surprises, and yet administration officials weren't even remotely prepared.

No such problems attended the creation of Medicare itself in the mid-1960s. Then, a governmental agency simply assumed responsibility for seniors' doctor and hospital visits. But, financially beholden to both the drug and insurance industries, the Bush administration and the Repsublican Congress mandated that millions of Americans have their coverage shifted to these most byzantine of bureaucracies.

This is, remember, the president's signature domestic initiative, just as the Iraq war is his signature foreign initiative.

How could a president get these things so wrong? Incompetence may describe this presidency, but it doesn't explain it. For that, historians may need to turn to the seven deadly sins: to greed, in understanding why Bush entrusted his new drug entitlement to a financial mainstay of modern Republicanism. To sloth, in understanding why Incurious George has repeatedly ignored the work of experts whose advice runs counter to his desires.

More and more, the key question for this administration is that of the great American sage, Casey Stengel: Can't anybody here play this game?

Big Lies in Support of 'tator Bush - Dick that is

2005-12-23T13:00:00.000-05:00

This has got to be the most dishonest, intellectually bankrupt, egotistical Presidency in the history of history.

There is a reason for the 2nd Amendment...this is it.

By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek

Every holiday season, we on "The McLaughlin Group" hand out news awards. Some categories, like "Biggest Winner," are easy (My choice was Chief Justice John Roberts, with the oil companies as runner-up). Others are a struggle to fill, like who to insult with the “Overrated” award.

In compiling this year’s list, I had the highest number of entries for the category, “Biggest Lie.” I chose the White House declaration that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby had nothing to do with leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent. They were the principal participants in the effort to discredit former ambassador Joe Wilson because he had raised doubts about one of the pillars of their argument for war, namely that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake uranium to make a bomb.

Another favorite—heard all the time from the White House—is that “everybody saw the same intelligence we did.” Members of Congress don’t see the President’s Daily Briefing (one of them was the glossed-over pre-9/11 document that warned “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the U.S.”), and they didn’t see all the qualifying caveats about Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction, or the doubts about the credibility of the sources the administration was relying on.

Bush is good at stating the obviously untrue. “We do not torture,” he declared despite ample evidence to the contrary from Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo to secret prisons in Eastern Europe. Vice President Cheney went to Capitol Hill repeatedly to lobby for the U.S. right to torture, capitulating only when the vote went against him 90 to 9. Sen. John McCain, who was tortured when held prisoner during the Vietnam War, took on Bush’s No. 2 and stood up for democratic principles. It’s a wonder Cheney has any credibility left after assuring the country in May, “the insurgency is in its last throes.”

The revelation that President Bush authorized spying on American citizens without warrants is a late entry to the year’s “Biggest Lies” list. Bush says he bypassed the law because of the need for speed. He may believe that, but the facts say otherwise.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 established a special FISA secret court designed to act expeditiously. The executive branch can tap anybody’s phone and not even get a warrant until 72 hours after the fact. The FISA court isn’t picky; it’s only turned down five requests out of 19,000 in its quarter-century existence. Bush publicly and proudly says he will continue to break the law. The Washington Post reported that one FISA court judge has resigned in apparent protest, and the others are asking why we have a secret court when it is ignored.

Bush’s explanation is riddled with lies. He says our enemies are watching and threatens The New York Times, which broke the spying story, with legal action. It takes a vivid imagination to believe that Osama bin Laden and his buddies are keeping up with the niceties of FISA courts and would otherwise have no idea their phones might be tapped. Bush says he talks to Congress all the time and that there was plenty of congressional oversight. Not true. The Gang of Eight (leaders of both parties in the House and Senate, plus the chair and ranking members of the Intelligence Committees) were forbidden to take notes or discuss what they were told with colleagues or staff. Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller’s hand-written letter to Cheney expressed uneasiness about the program. Rockefeller couldn’t have its legality evaluated by staff. He couldn’t even have the letter typed because of the secrecy. That hardly qualifies as congressional oversight.

The cavalier attitude toward the checks and balance of a democratic society is a pattern with this administration. Bush and Cheney regard Congress and the judiciary as obstacles, not as equal branches of government. The polls show that a majority of Americans no longer trust this team, which is why Bush and Cheney are hitting back hard at their critics. If they lose this round over spying, the spillover effect will be devastating for their war policy and on any domestic agenda they hope to salvage. We have no mechanism to deal with a president who has lost the trust and confidence of the American people and has three years remaining in office. Impeachment is a nonissue; it’s not going to happen with Republicans in control of the House and Senate.

What will happen is more open insurrection on the part of senators—both Democrats and Republicans. Confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito are scheduled to begin the first week in January. In the weeks since being named by Bush, there have been a series of stories about Alito’s early writings as a member of the Reagan administration. Alito wants us to believe he was a callow young thirtysomething who advocated far-right positions to curry favor for a job. The White House is telling senators that Alito didn’t mean all those things he wrote about disregarding privacy rights and overturning Roe v. Wade—another big lie. No wonder this year’s list was so easy to put together.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

Activist Judge?

2005-12-20T12:46:00.000-05:00

Taken from The Narcosphere

Judge in Scooter Libby, Sibel Edmonds cases is redacted in action
By Bill Conroy

What do two of the biggest national-security news stories of the century — the Valerie Plame leak scandal and the legal case of FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds — have in common?
They both are being presided over by the same federal judge in the District of Colombia, Reggie Walton, a Bush appointee to the federal court and a man who appears to have a few well-kept secrets of his own.

All federal judges are required under ethics rules to file what is known as “financial disclosure reports.”

The disclosure statement filed by Walton, which was obtained through the dogged efforts of a conservative watchdog group called Judicial Watch, is curious in what it does not reveal. Remember, this judge is arguably handling two of the most sensitive and potentially far-reaching challenges to the free press and the public’s right to know of our times.

In the Plamegate case, a top White House aid, Scooter Libby, has already been indicted and additional indictments may be forthcoming (Karl Rove?). In addition, a bevy of insider journalists in the media-center establishment have been subpoenaed to testify in the case, and one, New York Times reporter Judith Miller, has already done jail time for her initial refusal to identify her sources on the story.
Edmonds was fired from her job as an FBI translator after blowing the whistle on alleged espionage being carried out by a fellow FBI employee. She was prevented from pursuing a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit filed in 2002 (based on alleged violations of her civil rights) because of the state-secrets privilege claim, a claim upheld by Judge Walton. That claim essentially shut down her ability to present evidence in the case under the smokescreen that it would jeopardize national security.

An appeal in the Edmonds case was recently rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. She now has a separate case pending in federal court in Washington, D.C. Ironically, in both cases, Judge Walton was randomly assigned to hear her complaints at the District Court level. Walton also has randomly been assigned to hear the Plamegate case involving Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

So given the high-stakes poker being played in both these cases, one civil and one criminal, why has no one in the establishment press bothered to ask what is contained in Judge Walton’s financial disclosure statement? After all, his investments and financial backers would be of keen interest in gauging his ability to hear these cases in an unbiased manner, right?

We already know that Walton has been a Bush-team insider for years. He grew up on the hardscrabble side of life in a steel town in Pennsylvania, and by his own admission was arrested three times as a teenager and even witnessed a stabbing while participating in a street fight. After beating the odds and making it through law school, he rose quickly in the Washington legal establishment, earning an appointment from former President Reagan to a District of Colombia Superior Court judgeship. He was later taken under the wing of the self-styled man of virtue William Bennett, serving as a top gun in the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy during Bennett’s tenure there. Then, in 2001, current President Bush appointed him as a federal judge in the District of Columbia.

So it would be natural to suppose that Walton has some loyalty to the Bush administration, but that alone is not proof of bias with respect to the Edmonds and Valerie Plame-related cases.

Still, Edmonds points out that the way Walton landed on her original whistleblower-related case (the one the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear), as well her currently pending case, does seem a bit more than a cosmic coincidence.

“Walton was the original judge on my case (the Supreme Court case), when we filed our case (in District Court in Washington, D.C.) in July 2002,” Edmonds says. “Another judge was assigned to it, then, mysteriously and with no reason, it was transferred to another judge, and then again, a few weeks later, it was transferred to Walton.

“Walton is now assigned to my (new) case, … another random one.”

So Judge Walton seems to be in a critical role in serving as the point man in the federal judicial system for two explosive cases — the Edmonds civil case and Libby’s criminal case — both of which have vast implications for the White House and for the country in general.

So shouldn’t we know who’s buttering Walton’s bread in terms of financial backing? Why have ethics rules mandating such disclosures, if the information is not disclosed in cases, such as these, where the stakes are so high?

Well, it seems, at least according to the only document that Judicial Watch could shake loose in its public-records quest, that Walton doesn’t think so. His financial disclosure statement, the one released for public inspection through Judicial Watch, is completely redacted, every line of it.

Take a look here for yourself.

Now, ask yourself, why would that be, and what might lurk in the shadows of Judge Walton’s fiscal closet? If there nothing to hide, then there is nothing to lose by shedding some light on the retractions, is there?

But let’s not jump to conclusions. It’s probably all fine -- just a safety precaution, as the following excerpt from a 2004 Government Accountability Office report explains:

"The Ethics in Government Act requires judges and other federal officials to file financial disclosure reports as a check on conflicts of interest. However, given potential security risks to federal judges, Congress authorized redactions of information that could endanger them. This redaction authority is set to expire at the end of 2005."
That has to be why the big boys in the media have ignored this issue to date, right? After all, there are some things that take precedence over national security and the outing of covert CIA operatives.

If not, and these redactions do not, in reality, protect Judge Walton's security, but rather only his dignity, then we have to wonder why our fearless media leaders have been content to graze on other appetizers.

But not to fear, I'm sure if there is cause for alarm, we'll hear the media-pundit elephants charging through the fields toward this alfalfa patch soon.

In the mean time, let’s keep this whole messy topic between you and me, for now. We wouldn’t want to stir up any disharmony inside the Washington press-corps insiders’ circuit. They’ve got future cocktail parties to attend….

I Want My America Back Too

2005-11-18T15:01:00.000-05:00

As if providing more grist for the mill weren't bad enough...

-------------------------------------------------------------
By James Moore

As congress busied itself last night with cutting programs to the poor to pay for more war and Bush tax benefits for the wealthy, I found myself thinking yet again about the America where I grew up. In spite of our differences in years, our current president and I were coming of age in a nation thriving with prosperity and optimism.

Mr. Bush's father went out to West Texas with a $500,000 grubstake in his pocket from his father the US senator and built and oil company. My dad, home from the same war, had failed miserably trying to grow cotton on someone else's farm in the Mississippi River bottomland in Arkansas. He gave up and went north to the car factories of Michigan. My mother, who was an immigrant, thought that marrying the handsome American in the uniform meant she was bound for Dixie and a life of sipping mint tea on a veranda. Most of what she knew about America had come from the movie "Gone With the Wind." Instead, she found herself crowded into a shack with her in-laws and she spent nights staring at the southern moon passing between the wall and ceiling slats.

A big man, daddy quickly got a job on an assembly line in Flint, Michigan lifting bumpers out of a metal press and stacking them on wooden pallets. Although she already had three children, Ma went to work as a waitress at one of the short order restaurants surrounding the automobile manufacturing complexes. Their tenth and eighth grade educations did not provide them with much more potential. They worked until they could not stand. Eventually, the needs of their six children for food, health care, clothes, and an education far outstripped their ability to provide. Things got worse when daddy endured several years of hospitalization. Ma, though, never gave up in those years and continued carrying hamburgers and open-faced sandwiches to the tables of laborers who left her nickel tips to supplement her $60 a week paycheck.

Fortunately, I was living in an America that realized there might be as much potential in my future as there existed in the son of the oilman out in the desert of West Texas. My country, my government, filled in the spaces that were left empty when my parents' efforts fell short. While George W. was honing his irresponsibility in West Texas in advance of leaving for prep school in the east, my brother and sisters and I were turning to the government to get us food, education, and health care. It's not what my parents wanted; nor did we. We were ashamed. But had no choice. Eventually, though, I got to attend a university because my country offered Basic Educational Opportunity Grants and National Defense Student Loans to those who qualified. And not a minute of any day passes where I am not thankful for where I was born and the fellow citizens of my country who gave me such an opportunity. The fact that I ended up being the author of books and journalism critical of a president trying to take away similar programs from a new generation also seems to me somehow distinctly American.

Last night, 220,000 people were cut from the Food Stamp program. And Democrats considered that an accomplishment. States will now be asked to seek co-payments from Medicaid beneficiaries to supplement a shortfall of federal funding, and congress wants to cut funding for state programs aimed at child support enforcement. No one even seemed particularly disturbed when they debated taking 40,000 children off of the student lunch program at the same time their parents were being dropped from Food Stamp rolls.

The context for all of this goes unnoticed. While we hand out no-bid contracts to Halliburton for billions of dollars we are trimming the budget in the Spaghetti-Os of impoverished children. Food Stamp recipients are being forced to pay for the president's latest $50 billion in tax cuts. Medicaid patients have no choice over a co-pay that will help our president and our congress pay for the current war without end. One estimate I read indicated that the first round of funding for the Iraqi invasion, which was $84 billion dollars, was enough to pay for full health care for every man, woman, and child in America for one year; no deductions, no co-pays. We are not just wasting lives in those ancient deserts.

Capitalism is not a perfect system. Effort does not always produce results. Some of us fail, regardless of how hard we try. The question for our country is whether we ignore the people who have fallen into the ditch or do we stop and give them a hand. And do we turn our backs on their children even though they had nothing to do with the circumstances in which they find themselves? And what do we lose if we walk away from them? There is no way to measure unlived lives or unrealized potential.

I want my America back.
----------------

Me too James. Me too.

Sounds Real Though

2005-11-02T11:44:00.000-05:00

By Andy Borowitz
Newsweek
Updated: 11:09 a.m. ET Nov. 1, 2005
Nov. 1, 2005 - "Commander in Chief" is one of the biggest hits of the fall TV season, but not with President George W. Bush, who today challenged its star, Geena Davis, to a nationally televised debate.

Davis, who plays the first female president of the United States in the series, has seen her ratings rise while Bush's approval ratings have plummeted, apparently drawing the ire of the actual president.

"The president is obsessed with Geena Davis," one White House aide said today. "The other day in a cabinet meeting he pounded his fist on the table and said, 'I'm not going to be outdone by a fake girl president.'"

The aide added, "It drives him nuts that she doesn't have problems like Scooter to deal with."

According to Bush's challenge, issued today, he and Davis would square off in three nationally televised debates on the subjects of economics, domestic policy and foreign policy.

"Her writers can write her a script, and mine will write me a script," the president said. "May the best script win."

But Davis appeared to decline the president's request today, issuing a statement through a network spokesman indicating that she could not participate because she has "important work to do."

Attempting to change her mind, Bush said today he was willing to debate the fictitious president on a complete range of fictitious issues, such as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Elsewhere, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan said that he would step down in 2006, saying that he wanted to spend more time making indecipherable remarks to his family.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

Rat Brains Rule!

2005-10-31T16:10:00.000-05:00

Brain Grown From Rat Cells Learns To Fly Jet
By Philip Sherwell in Washington 12-6-4

It sounds like the stuff of science fiction: a brain nurtured in a Petri dish learns to pilot a fighter plane as scientists develop a new breed of "living" computer. In ground-breaking experiments in a Florida laboratory, however, that is exactly what is happening.
The "brain", grown from 25,000 neural cells extracted from a single rat embryo, has been taught to fly an F-22 jet simulator by scientists at the University of Florida. They hope that the remarkable research into neural computation will help them develop sophisticated hybrid computers, with a thinking biological component.

The brain-in-a-dish is the idea of Thomas DeMarse, a 37-year-old assistant professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Florida. His pioneering work has been praised as a significant insight into one of the universe's most complex devices - the brain - by leading American academics and scientific journals.
The 25,000 rat brain neurons were immersed in a specialised liquid suspension to keep them alive and then laid across a grid of 60 electrodes in a small glass dish, measuring only about an inch across. In the most striking experiment, the brain was linked up to the jet simulator. Manipulated via the electrodes and a desktop computer, it was taught to control the flight path, even in mock hurricane-strength winds. "When we first hooked them up, the plane 'crashed' all the time," said Dr DeMarse. "But over time, the neural network slowly adapts as the brain learns to control the pitch and roll of the aircraft. After a while, it produces a nice straight and level trajectory."

An Open Letter to Al Gore

2005-10-25T16:09:00.000-04:00

From Andy Ostroy's Blog

If you've payed attention at all to Al Gore in these intervening years, then I know you long for high intellect and reasoned perspective that he's displayed. If only he'd been President, I suspect the world would not hate us and Osama would be dead or behind bars; might even have 2000 less dead.

Go sign the petition after you've read the letter!

Dear President Gore:

We the people of the United States of America are frustrated and angry with the present Republican leadership, and believe the country is headed dangerously in the wrong direction. There's been one colossal policy failure after another, and the current administration has perpetuated a culture of cronyism and corruption. We need to restore honesty, respect, integrity and accountability to the White House. And we need thoughtful, innovative, intelligent and moral leadership.

In 2000 you won the popular vote, and many believe the electoral college as well had it not been for political and judicial chicanery both in Florida and in the Supreme Court of the United States. Millions of us still think of you as our rightful president.

The country has changed drastically since 2000. The Iraq war has squandered $200+ billion, thousands of American lives, and untold political capital, with no end in sight. You were solidly anti-war from the get-go. The economy is challenged by unemployment, inflation, historic deficits and debt, skyrocketing gas and oil prices, declining consumer confidence and rising interest rates. You and President Clinton presided over one of the strongest economies in U.S. history. We've been shamed and embarrassed by woefully inadequate natural disaster and terror preparedness. You've been sounding the global warming alarm for years, and have worked hard to protect our precious environment. Your message would resonate quite well with a post-Katrina electorate. And we've been burdened by mounting moral, ethical and legal scandals from the current Republican leadership. Your character, integrity and family values speaks for itself.

There has been overwhelming grass-roots support for your candidacy, Mr. President. America is desperate for change. We want you to finish the successful mission that you and Bill Clinton began in 1992. We've started an online Draft Al Gore petition and we'll be amassing e-signatures from Americans nationwide who are very excited at the prospect of your candidacy. We'll contact you again shortly and keep you appraised of our progress.

Mr. President, America needs you. Please consider our urgent call for 2008. Thank you on behalf of Americans everywhere.

Andy Ostroy
Editor & Publisher
The Ostroy Report
New York, NY

CLICK HERE To Sign the Draft Al Gore Petition

*AOL users: open in MSN Internet Explorer (http://new.petitiononline.com/AG2008/petition.html)
if signature page fails on AOL

WTFU

2005-10-13T09:34:00.000-04:00

Most military people are familiar with such acronyms as WTF, SNAFU and FTN (What the Fuck, Situation Normal All Fucked Up, Fuck The Navy). So, I'd like to create a new one: WTFU.

Wake The Fuck Up!!

For all the mindless masses out there, read what the good Colonel Sam Gardiner (USAF, Ret.) has written, where he has meticulousy identified 50 false news stories
created and leaked by a secretive White House propaganda apparatus, also known as WHIG (White House Iraqi Group -- Dick Cheney, Condolezza Rice, Karen Hughes, Lewis Libby, Karl Rove and other playmates).

Now, WTFU and consider the hell we have reaped because of it.

Republicans != Traitors
Bush Supporters = Traitors

Truth Part 1
Truth Part 2
Truth Part 3
Truth Part 4
Truth Part 5
Truth Part 6

And from Marion Delgado:

This consortium of neocons, mafia, corporations, religious hucksters, liars, rednecks, military monomaniacs, greedy power sycophants, mooney eyed arm waving death cult christian delusionists, racketeers, amoral opportunist politicians, and their wilfully ignorant acolytes who reflexively believe any propaganda that the collective anus of the above mentioned cast shits on them are the pathological power nexus that rules this nation this day.
Our country is no longer a democracy, nor is it the land of the free and the brave. We are not good, exemplary, inspirational, or any of the adjectives that were heralded by our civics teachers to make us proud to be American. These onetime descriptors of a nation we believed ourselves to be, have lost their meaning. They have become vapid platitudes uttered by black tongued reptilian death merchants not as ideals to live by, but as parsing tools and brand recognition devices to separate and label the public, to turn us against each other and provoke mindless nationalism.
We have become a rogue terrorist nation pretending to be something else, fooling no one but ourselves. We have in five short years become the most reviled and loathed nation in the world. We export more weapons than any other nation. We spend more on our military than all the rest of the world put together. Even so, our bought and paid for shills for the defense industry, I mean, our high minded representatives in congress allocate more and more taxpayer money to this unending black hole.
We have gone from a two party representative democratic republic to a one party menagerie of psychopathic relatively stupid but monied whores and opportunists called Republicans and their fake opponents the jellylike emasculated and equally bought Democrats, all lapping at the feet of private wealthy controllers who want what is yours. Wealth rules this nation now. It always has but now it is touted as the way things should be and is idealized. Everything is to be subordinated to private wealthy interests. The gap between rich and poor is growing annually. The middle class is shrinking as the wealthy elite in this country discovered they have something in common with the pigs that rule third world nations; cheap exploitable labor.
The propaganda this voracious weathy class of pigs produces is amazing in its audacity and arrogance. Aggressive imperial preemptive war and occupation for control of resources is called promotion of democracy nevermind the once vaunted principle of democracy that a people have the right of self determination. We will impose democracy whether they like it or not just so long as that democracy is controlled by us and strictly adheres to the ridiculous and untenable principles of free market capitalism, that is, easily exploited by the wealthy.WMDs, aluminum tubes, yellow cake, Al Queda-Saddam complicity, giant caches of bio or chemical weapons, cartoons of mobile laboratories and drones capable of delivering mass terror to our shores in less than an hour all an elaborate ruse to get the public behind them.In other words they lied to you and manipulated you and have so far soaked you about 350 billion dollars. They have killed 100,000 Iraqis and 2000 of your kids. Hey look at the bright side, Dick Cheney's stock options in Halliburton are worth 3160% more because of those handy no bid contracts they got from him over in Iraq. He sure likes the military at times like these. He didn't like it so much when on three different occasions he wormed deferments from the draft when the Viet Nam war was happening.
Who are these neocons we hear so much about? A bunch of them are ex-Trotskyists who after becoming disillusioned at the prospects of being commisars in the permanent revolution gave up the trappings of leftwing utopia for the wealthier and more promising positions as commisars of the righwing permanent war on terror. Give up the ideology but keep the desire for power and dominance. The other half of the neocons are the pasty inbred spawn of the zionist contingent of the ruling class bent on U.S. imperialism through military aggression to protect and consolidate their wealth and be Israels proxy in the middle east.

I don't agree with everything he states, especially the anti-semitic blather. I also disagree with his decidely socialist view of capitalism...he lives in a wonderland that can not be achieved given the nature of such base, human emotions as greed and jealousy. But, other than that, Yeah!! What he said.

Prescient Words

2005-09-02T14:04:00.000-04:00

From:Patrick Weidinger

What is the world thinking of the U.S., right now? Here we are, the so-called most powerful country on earth, and we are allowing this to happen to our own people. It's Baghdad, May 2003 all over again. Lawlessness as the few peacekeepers that are there are powerless to stop it. "Free people are free to do bad things" said Donald Rumsfeld. Yes, so are poor, hopeless, and down-trodden people, with nothing left to lose. Where is the help? It is day four of this tragedy. It's New Orleans, not like it's Indonesia half a world away. Why is the city still without security? As a professional involved in local emergency planning efforts, the first thing we learn, in post-emergency response training, is to control the scene, to control the perimeter. Until you establish control of the perimeter around the disaster area, and establish control inside it for those who remain, those who need help and assistance, you can't even begin to mitigate the disaster and start recovery efforts. There is no control, there is no perimeter, and there is no one setting it up. This is appalling, unforgivable. This is a gross example of incompetence. And it is firmly laid at the feet of George Bush, the Republicans, and the neocons who feel we can dismantle federal assistance, preparedness, safety and health agencies and programs like FEMA, OSHA, EPA, etc. Who send the National Guard troops we need to control these emergencies to fight a misguided war in the Middle East. Who change environmental laws to allow development and destruction of wetlands. Who fail to fund the repair and strengthening of levees. Who cut Corp of Engineer budgets to send the money to the President's Iraq war. Who dismantle FEMA, rolling it into Homeland Security, without first establishing a person, let alone a sub-agency inside Homeland Security, with the responsibility for national emergency response and preparedness for natural disasters. No one is to blame for the hurricane and its destruction, but these Republican bastards are to blame for this aftermath. Bush is going to the area to have a look around. I want to see if they actually dare let him out of the helicopter or jet to meet with actual people on the ground? I doubt it, they don't dare let this maniac get close to these people, they are likely to tear him to shreds. More likely, they won't let Bush near these people because he is cracking up, the guy is losing it, and the handlers don't dare let Americans see that their so-called decisive, strong leader is actually a shell of a human being. He couldn't face Cindy Sheehan, how can he face this? He can't.

Righteous

2005-08-18T13:46:00.000-04:00

it is a word I love to say. It just rolls off the tongue and pulls at your gut as it emits forth the feeling with which it is imbued.

Righteous is a righteous word!

It is time that all Americans begin thinking and behaving in a righteous manner. Being righteous is not a partisan issue. Being righteous takes courage because it requires the admission of reality. The reality now is such that we can no longer say, with a straight face, that what we've done in and to Iraq is the result of a righteous pursuit of evil; we are and continue to be the evil. And we are not righteous.

When America issued forth her mighty military fist, it was attached to a vile body filled with lies. Lies that created fear and panic amongst citizens who had become blinded by patriotic but unrighteous speeches emboldening us to commit war upon a people that represented no threat. Lies that claimed we were but minutes from annihilation from a far off enemy with made up capabilites. Lies that many of us continue to believe because it is easier to believe than it is to be righteous.

For those of you who serve the President but not your duties as citizens, I ask you, where is your righteousness when asked to serve your country? Where is your decency when supporting the occupation of a foreign land by your neighbors when you yourself have not served a day. Any response that doesn't include, "I just went to the US Army recruiting office" is only an excuse and lacks righteous devotion to your so-called patriotism. Go ahead, continue to "support" the troops, but really, what have you done but support their continued slaughter for nothing but lies?

This adventure that has wasted countless lives and billions of dollars that could have been spent in truly righteous pursuits, will haunt us for generations to come. It pains me every day to think of what we've done to our own country by dividing ourselves into red and blue; aren't we all citizens of the same constitution? Apparently, even something as inflammatory as white crosses dedicated to those who've committed the ultimate sacrifice appears to be treasonous to those who would serve their President but not their country.

America can no longer claim to be righteous, for we are not without guilt nor sin.

You Don't Get A Free Ride

2005-08-11T13:12:00.000-04:00

I was over reading Doc Alterman's blog and came across Siva Vaidhyanathan's post regarding the recent terrorism over in London. Blah, blah, we've heard it all before...or have we?

"Any country that is going to march around the world with guns (or checkbooks) drawn has got to expect someone to bring the fight home these days. Weapons are small and cheap. People, money, and propaganda move freely. And there is really nothing a powerful country can do to ensure that every subway, federal office building, school, bridge, or tunnel will be safe. There are violent extremists everywhere. If we are going to do some stuff in the world, we are going to have to expect stuff to blow up here at home. And a world in which powerful nations do nothing is simply not realistic nor desirable. No president or prime minister is going to admit that to you, of course. Which is why we need the occasional poet, priest, or professor to say it."

Is this such a hard concept for our non-conservative, Republican brethren on the other side of American life to understand? Let me put it a different way, perhaps one that doesn't deal with such abstractions.

If you shit on your neighbors lawn, chances are he's going to come shit on yours, or even worse, leave his shit in a burning bag on your doorstep just after he rang the bell.

Comparison of George to Tony

2005-08-04T14:17:00.000-04:00

As posted by Steven Hart of Highland Park, NJ:

One of the things that redeemed the second season of "The Sopranos," which had gone all wobbly after a good start, was the unblinkingly cruel subplot about David Scatino, a boyhood friend of mobster Tony Soprano, who talks his way into one of Tony's high-stakes poker games and almost instantly buries himself under an unpayable mountain of debts. It quickly turns out that Tony knew about Scatino's compulsive gambling problem, but let him into the game anyway because Scatino and his wife own a successful sporting-goods store. What follows is more frightening than any monster movie. After siphoning out Scatino's bank account (including his son's college fund), Tony and his cronies gorge themselves on the store's credit lines, buying up easily resold big-ticket merchandise and leaving the store awash in hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills. The business dissolves into bankruptcy, taking with it Scatino's marriage (his wife divorces him), his family (his son, cheated out of an Ivy League future, hates him) and a good portion of his sanity. In the end, as he prepares to embark on his new life as a drifter and day-laborer, Scatino asks Tony why he let him destroy himself. After all, haven't they known each other since childhood? Tony replies with the story of the frog and the scorpion. "This is what I am," Tony says. "This is what I do."

What we've just seen is a variation on an old con called a bust-out. Usually it involves con men offering to buy a business, making a partial payment to gain access to the firm's credit and name, and then hollowing out the company's finances by running up the existing credit lines and opening new ones, all of which are maxed out to buy electronic gear and anything else that can be resold quickly at a fraction of its value. For the con men involved in the bust-out, it's all gravy. The phony buyer -- usually a shell company with no discernible assets -- defaults and the business reverts to its original owner, by which time the once-thriving firm has been turned into a rotting hulk ready to have its bones picked clean by creditors.

The Bush family has often been referred to as the WASP version of the Corleones, but the Soprano clan makes for a much better comparison. At its best, "The Sopranos" is an acid mockery of the phony gravitas of the three "Godfather" movies. Where Michael Corleone is heroically evil, an international player who consorts with statesmen and the Vatican before succumbing to his tragic flaw, Tony Soprano is a sewer rat engaged in the grubby business of preying on human weakness and fear — when his fall comes, it will be tragic only to himself. Until then, however, he's going to make as much money as he can for himself and his buddies, and leave the rest of the world holding the bill. I'm not just using hyperbole here. I do think that when honest historians assess the Bush administration, they will find it more useful to treat George II and his Republican cronies as a criminal organization rather than a political party.

The best tool for analyzing Bush's policies is not historiography, but the procedures used by federal agents as they pursue a RICO investigation into a mobbed-up business. Take the money and run. As long as Republicans are in power, that phrase should replace "E Pluribus Unum" on the national seal. It's the natural outcome of a quarter-century of rhetoric about how government is the problem, not the solution; how government doesn't work; how deregulation is the only way to build the economy. If government is nothing but a taxpayer-funded scam, then why not use it to enrich yourself and your buddies? If the very idea of public service as an idealistic calling has been turned into a mealymouthed joke, then where's the shame in abusing power and running the country into the ground? As long as you can convince just over 50 percent of the suckers to vote your way, you can throw yourself a party and leave the world holding the bill. This is what they are. This is what they do.

Didn't they tell you? The recess appointment of John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is all of a piece with this scenario. Even many Republicans find this loudmouthed dolt hard to take; certainly no foreign leader will be able to take him seriously as a player on the world stage. Bolton will face a building full of career diplomats who know his nomination was dead in the Senate, that he had to be smuggled into office under cover of darkness, that the best they can expect is three years of low-down entertainment until the Bushies pack up their swag and head for the hills. If you despise the very idea of the United Nations -- and if your core voting bloc cherishes Satanic conspiracy fantasies about the UN being the Antichrist's method for achieving one-world government -- then an ambassador capable of effective diplomacy is unnecessary. The important thing is that a plum job went to a crony. Sure, he may very well be implicated in the Valerie Plame case, but after a couple of years on the government sugar tit he'll be able to lawyer himself up and hold the prosecutors at bay for a long time.

Insane tax cuts for the wealthy. Delusional military ventures abroad. From the minute the Bushies took power, their biggest concern has been to break open the cash registers, empty the shelves and open the bank vaults. Stewardship is a joke to them. What we are witnessing may very well be the biggest bust-out in human history. And if you, good citizen, are wondering where you fit into this picture, just cast your mind back to the last episode of the second season of "The Sopranos." One of the closing shots shows us David Scatino in an empty parking lot, tying some gear to the top of his car as he prepares to leave his ruined life behind him. He wanted to play poker with the big boys, so you can say he brought his troubles on himself. A majority of Americans voted for Bush in at least one of the last two elections, so you can say we brought this on ourselves. In Scatino's case, human weakness created a business opportunity for Tony Soprano. America's weakness created a business opportunity for the Republicans. With the national press at a historic low ebb, the Democratic Party flat on its back and the airwaves humming with wingnut propaganda, the pickings couldn't be any richer. They saw their chance and they took it. That's what they are. That's what they do.

From My Mother

2005-08-04T10:22:00.000-04:00

One day a father of a very wealthy family took his son on a trip to the country with the firm purpose of showing his son how poor people live. They spent a couple of days and nights on the farm of what would be considered a very poor family.

On their return from their trip, the father asked his son, "How was the trip?"

"It was great, Dad."

"Did you see how poor people live?" the father asked.

"Oh yeah" said the son.

"So, tell me, what did you learn from the trip?" asked the father.

The son answered:
"I saw that we have one dog and they had four. We have a pool that reaches to the middle of our garden and they have a creek that has no end. We have imported lanterns in our garden and they have the stars at night. Our patio reaches to the front yard and they have the whole horizon. We have a small piece of land to live on and they have fields that go beyond our sight. We have servants who serve us, but they serve others. We buy our food, but they grow theirs. We have walls around our property to protect us! , they have friends to protect them."

The boy's father was speechless.

Then his son added, "Thanks, Dad, for showing me how poor we are."

Isn't perspective a wonderful thing?

It makes you wonder what would happen if we all gave thanks for everything we have, instead of worrying about what we don't have.

Appreciate every single thing you have, especially your friends!

How Is This Possible?

2005-08-03T10:22:00.000-04:00

I am disillusioned.

What the fuck is wrong with half of America? I mean really, how, can any Constitution loving, democracy protecting American vote Republican? Has our sense of right and wrong been so overwhelmed by ideology that it is acceptable to vote for a clearly disingenuous liar and thief such as Jean Schmidt? Her opponent, Paul Hackett, SERVED in Iraq...VOLUNTEERED despite his wife and children. What did she do during that time? Well, she took illegal contributions from a company that resulted in her sponsoring of a bill that directly...DIRECTLY benefitted that same company just months later!! Can you say quid-pro-quo!!?? Here's a link to the explicit charges for which she is being investigated.

What the fuck is wrong with Republicans?!! I can't be more outraged...a man who laid his life and the livelihood of his family on the line for his country was beat in the last few minutes of this election by some bitch who couldn't give a fuck about her constituents or their problems.

Even worse, there's serious talk, yet again about voting problems in OH-2 that occurred, literally, in the last couple hours of the counting....system crashes, that when brought back up, had good ol' Jean up by 4% instead of down by 2% at the end of the count. Check out how many votes go her way in the last 22 minutes of the election. I mean, it's not like Ohio has had problems in the past...oh wait, yes they have!!

I don't know...it's possible that there isn't anything here...but the fact that so many people no longer trust the voting process bodes dark times ahead.

Anger and disenfranchisement will lead to revolution.

This American Life

2005-07-25T12:56:00.000-04:00

This past week has been rough. I hate my job with a passion; Dilbert has nothing on the soulless company in which I'm currently employed. So I've been searching for a new job and have found a couple, but it seems that these potential employers have a penchant for lying. I mean, why would I (or them for that matter) waste my time with the whole pain in the ass, interview process if they can't even meet my salary requirements? Astonishing. I've been offered two different architecture positions, and each one has flat out lied to me about what they were willing to pay me. What the fuck? It speaks volumes about American ethics in business when this type of behavior begins to become common place.

Anyhow, I was driving home from Albany, NY this past weekend after a second interview in which they offered me the job, and then informed me that they couldn't even come close to my salary requirements. I was in a foul mood and feeling very absorbed by my problems and just hating life in general. But then, I was saved.

I love NPR (WBUR is the best NPR station around). I can't imagine my life without NPR. It is a Godsend and I contribute often every year because of their dedication to truth and everything else that America stands for. I was driving along, sulking when Ira Glass begins his radio show, "This American Life". After listening to the humorous, touching and human stories, I realized that my problems are really nothing compared to the crap that so many others around our country and planet must live and deal with every day. "This American Life" truly helps me to get in touch with MY humanity and more importantly helps me to see myself as a citizen in the HUMAN community.

If you listen to NPR, give them money if you can. If you can't, please continue to listen. If you don't listen to NPR, then start; even if you're a conservative because you won't get lies and propaganda on NPR, just the reality that the vast majority of people find themselves immersed.

And if you're NPR station carries "This American Life", then do yourself a favor and take an hour to listen, you'll be better because of it, and with any luck, you too will find more of your humanity.

Here's some links:

This American Life
WBUR with Internet Streaming
Find your local NPR station

Redneck Liberal

2005-06-30T15:17:00.000-04:00

I have recently discovered that I am a liberal redneck, much to my chagrin.

Ok, so maybe rednecks don't use words like chagrin, so I guess I'm a bit more educated than your average redneck, but what can I do, ignore my brain...not likely, considering I'm a redneck.

So what makes a redneck?

Well, these are some of my redneck characteristics:

Big Assed Truck, with a lift and Big Assed Tires!

I own guns...in fact, I like 'em quite a bit and feel that I'm holding up to my responsibilities to this great country and it's Constitution by implementing the 2nd Amendment...I hate the fucking NRA though...those fuckers don't represent me in the least!

I've rolled far too many vehicles while 4x4ing, while, yes, drinking beer.

I've been known to dip a bit of Scoal...usually while drinking beer.

I've lived in a trailer and those were some of the best times of my life!

I have multiple cars in disrepair on blocks (well jack stands).

I like to wrestle when drinking beer...it's just damn good fun!

I have very strong opinions and won't hesitate to let you know about 'em...I am, however, open to reasoned debate, but that does require a partner with reasoning capabilities, not religious, subjective desperation.

I love my wife dearly, but certainly do like the naked ladies! Grrrr!

I ride my Harley with passion and feel that life has zero problems when I'm on her!

I curse like a sailor...well, I served in the US Navy, so maybe I got it from there...NOT...I've always fucking cursed, bitches!

I'm sure there are many more redneck attributes I have...my wife could probably rattle 'em off like the guest list at our wedding.

There are other attributes that some would say are required to be a redneck, like, not being a Yankee or a Liberal, but every proper redneck knows the answer to that one, "Yeah, fuck off!"

So, big fucking deal, right? Who the fuck cares if you're a redneck?

Well, for the longest time I looked down on redneck's. In fact, I've been a complete hypocrite about looking down on them...and...I'm sorry. I preach open-mindedness and objectivity ALL THE TIME, but here I've been stereotyping and assigning and maligning red-state, brain-washed motives and methods to ALL rednecks.

It just aint so.

My little brother (he's not so little) sent me to a website that was having a very heavy discussion on Evolution and it's proper place in the school. No big deal really, other than the fact that this website was a redneck's dream!

Here's the site...PLEASE, if you have the least interest in bow hunting, go check these great bunch of people out.

Well, my brother wanted me to offer my opinion and maybe a bit of insight...I do have 8 years of school and a deep, deep interest and love of science...but when I saw the website, I immediately thought, "Oh boy, here we go. This is gonna be a bunch of ignorant fuck rednecks, screaming about science disrupting their God given world view."

But boy was I wrong...way wrong. I read the discussion and was absolutely astonished and a bit ashamed, because this was one of THE most reasoned, thoughtful and compassionate discussions I'd ever read. Period. Even liberal web sites will get inflamed over such a discussion, yet here these guys were, with many different opinions both for/against Evolution, for/against Creationism being taught alongside Evolution, etc conducting reasoned discussion. In short, I had to reconstruct my world view of rednecks. Now, I'm sure that not everybody in the discussion is a redneck, but after talking with my brother about this, it appears that most of 'em are. I have rarely been involved in a discussion as compelling and FUN. Everyone was flat out courteous and respectful. What d'ya wanna bet that they drive well too? I can't apologize enough.

I only wish our leaders were rednecks.

Them and Us

2004-11-03T16:00:00.000-05:00

Dr. Alterman, always on the button:

They don’t care that Iraq is turning into murderous quicksand and a killing field for our children. They don’t care that the Bush presidency has made us less safe by creating more terrorists, inspiring more anti-American hatred and refusing to engage in the hard work that would be necessary to make a meaningful dent in our myriad vulnerabilities at home. They don’t care that he has mortgaged our children’s future to give trillions to the wealthiest among us. They don’t care that the economy continues to hemorrhage well-paying jobs and replace them with Wal-Mart; that the number without health insurance is over forty million and rising. They don’t care that Medicare premiums are rising to fund the coffers of pharmaceutical companies. They don’t care that the air they breathe and the water they drink is being slowly poisoned and though they call themselves conservatives, they don't even care that the size of the government and its share of our national income has increased by roughly a quarter in just four years. This is not a world of rational debate and issue preference.

It’s one of “them” and “us.” He’s one of “them” and not one of “us” and that’s all they care about. True it’s an illusion. After all, Bush is a millionaire’s son who went to Yale and Harvard and sat out Vietnam, not even bothering to show up for his cushy National Guard duty, and succeeded only in trading on his father’s name and connections in adult life. But somehow, they feel he understands them. He speaks their language. Our guys don’t. And unless they learn it, we will continue to condemn this country and those parts of the world it affects to a regime of malign neglect at best—malignant and malicious assault at worse.

So, we will now reap what has been sown. Although I had thought that we already were with the Far-Right ideology and Far-Left spending habits of C-plus Augustus. Apparently, for them, reality bites.

More Lack of Accountability

2004-10-19T14:33:00.000-04:00

Here is an article that was run in today's LA Times:

When will Republicans open their eyes to the shame of their candidate. Even if you don't feel that they couldn't have prevented 9-11, they should not be suppressing a Congressionally requested report. Period.

ROBERT SCHEER

The 9/11 Secret in the CIA's Back Pocket

The agency is withholding a damning report that points at senior officials.
Robert Scheer

October 19, 2004

It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. Although the report by the inspector general's office of the CIA was completed in June, it has not been made available to the congressional intelligence committees that mandated the study almost two years ago.

"It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed," an intelligence official who has read the report told me, adding that "the report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward."

When I asked about the report, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said she and committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) sent a letter 14 days ago asking for it to be delivered. "We believe that the CIA has been told not to distribute the report," she said. "We are very concerned."

According to the intelligence official, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17-month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been "stalled." First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman of the Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief by President Bush.

The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specific than the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointed Sept. 11 commission and Congress.

"What all the other reports on 9/11 did not do is point the finger at individuals, and give the how and what of their responsibility. This report does that," said the intelligence official. "The report found very senior-level officials responsible."

By law, the only legitimate reason the CIA director has for holding back such a report is national security. Yet neither Goss nor McLaughlin has invoked national security as an explanation for not delivering the report to Congress.

"It surely does not involve issues of national security," said the intelligence official.

"The agency directorate is basically sitting on the report until after the election," the official continued. "No previous director of CIA has ever tried to stop the inspector general from releasing a report to the Congress, in this case a report requested by Congress."

None of this should surprise us given the Bush administration's great determination since 9/11 to resist any serious investigation into how the security of this nation was so easily breached. In Bush's much ballyhooed war on terror, ignorance has been bliss.

The president fought against the creation of the Sept. 11 commission, for example, agreeing only after enormous political pressure was applied by a grass-roots movement led by the families of those slain.

And then Bush refused to testify to the commission under oath, or on the record. Instead he deigned only to chat with the commission members, with Vice President Dick Cheney present, in a White House meeting in which commission members were not allowed to take notes. All in all, strange behavior for a man who seeks reelection to the top office in the land based on his handling of the so-called war on terror.

In September, the New York Times reported that several family members met with Goss privately to demand the release of the CIA inspector general's report. "Three thousand people were killed on 9/11, and no one has been held accountable," 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser told the paper.

The failure to furnish the report to Congress, said Harman, "fuels the perception that no one is being held accountable. It is unacceptable that we don't have [the report]; it not only disrespects Congress but it disrespects the American people."

The stonewalling by the Bush administration and the failure of Congress to gain release of the report have, said the intelligence source, "led the management of the CIA to believe it can engage in a cover-up with impunity. Unless the public demands an accounting, the administration and CIA's leadership will have won and the nation will have lost."

Bush Administration - Planning Is Our Forte!

2004-10-19T13:50:00.000-04:00

Yet another example, with real investigative journalism even, where the Bush Administration completely abrogated its reponsibilities to protect American lives; those of its soldiers.

Bush Hates Soldiers

The ill-gotten Presidency prefers to see Americans attacked and killed while terrorists are created in a chaotice Iraq. No really. In fact, they plan to get elected on it. I can not say anything more about these irresponsible, arrogant bastards.

How To Create Terrorists 101

2004-10-18T09:52:00.000-04:00

If you haven't yet heard of Sy Hersh's latest book, "Chain Of Command" then please take the time to read this exerpt from the book.

Chain Of Command

While we soak in our media's serious lack of any substantive reporting, real journalists such as Seymour are attempting to inform the American public. I fear, however, that our love of unreality television and an attention span that could be described as Attention Deficit Disorder, will only serve to keep those responsible, aka THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, from bearing the consequences of their actions. I can't begin to explain how angry this makes me. Now, don't get me wrong. I believe that we should be taking extreme measures to ensure that we capture/kill the people responsible. But I also KNOW that torturing the innocent will surely create more enemies of our Liberty bound ideals.

For those of you reading, which I suspect are few, that are Republican in nature, then please don't disregard these statements as if they were unimportant. Simply ask yourself an honest question:

Where does the buck stop when serious transgressions against the interests of our nation have occurred?

Despite the numerous mistakes made by the current administration, NOT ONE PERSON has been held accountable! How can this be!!?? If this were an Al Gore administration and the same transgressions had occurred, Republican's would be HOWLING!!

Fucking hypocrites. Worried about cum on a blue dress, but calm when lies and blatant disregard for long established treaties have and will continue to result in the death of innocent Americans.

Iraq In the Back

2004-10-15T13:41:00.000-04:00

So here's the deal, my compatriots. I love my country dearly. I have served in my country's military, in part, because I do love my country. I support the troops incontrovertably. Being anti-Republican doesn't make me, or any other citizen a traitor.

Here is what traitors do:

Traitors send our troops to war WITHOUT the proper gear to begin with. Traitors send our troops to war WITHOUT the proper manning levels in order to guarantee a non-violent aftermath. Traitors IGNORE their military and bureacratic advisors because the reality doesn't play well. Traitors arrest our already stressed National Guard members for following regulations.

Click here to find out why troops are getting arrested in Iraq.

Not only do these soldier patriots have to deal with Iraqi's trying to kill them on an hourly basis, but suddenly they have to worry about whether their own vehicles will kill them? Come the fuck on! I've been in the military, and when a piece of equipment is deemed unsafe, that's because it IS unsafe. The military will push their soldiers and equipment to the breaking point before shit is considered unsafe. So why the fuck are these soldiers getting arrested!!!??? I know an order is an order, but no order is going to impede the ability to make common sense decisions. So suddenly, we're going to force our soldiers into becoming martyrs? For what purpose? Doesn't that sound oddly familiar; martyr? I guess the playing field gets leveled by the day.

I hate what George Bush is doing to this country and to our troops.

SINclair - Repug Bullshit

2004-10-15T13:17:00.000-04:00

Sinclair's sin (by David Shuster)

Imagine if the CBS television network pre-empted "60 Minutes" this Sunday and broadcast Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." Many of you might be thrilled. But many of you would be disgusted and outraged, calling it a deliberate, misleading, and unfair ploy to impact the presidential election at the very end.

The Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. isn't CBS. But Sinclair does own 62 television stations, including 35 affiliated with the major broadcast networks. (20 Fox stations, 8 ABC, 4 NBC, and 3 CBS.) And Sinclair is ordering all of its stations to pre-empt regular programming and run, as early as this weekend, a partisan documentary about John Kerry titled "Stolen Honor."

The film attacks Kerry for his anti-war activism after he returned home from Vietnam more than 35 years ago. Mark Hyman, a spokesman for Sinclair, says "the documentary is just part of a special news event that we're putting together." Actually, it's not a news event. The film was released, (and picked apart) at a press conference five weeks ago.

Some of my colleagues have made an issue out of Sinclair's partisan history. 97 percent of their political contributions have gone to Republicans, they sent a team to Iraq to find the "good news" the rest of the media wasn't reporting, and etc.

But my issue with Sinclair is in regards to this film... and Sinclair's intention to run the film "as is." Without a major overhaul, this film should be rejected... and it has to do with journalism's requirement that you "get the facts right."

"Stolen Honor" has several prominent factual errors: First, former America POWs are quoted on camera as saying "we stayed two more years because of the demonstrators like Fonda and Kerry... I figure they owe us two years." I have no doubt that some POW's feel that way. But the fact is, the war stopped in 1973 when the Nixon administration negotiated an end. History shows it was the lack of a settlement before then, not the protests, that kept the North Vietnamese fighting.

Secondly, part of John Kerry's testimony as depicted in the film starts in mid-sentence. "They cut off ears, limbs, heads..." This editing makes it seem that John Kerry was making the allegations, when the sentence actually begins with Kerry saying, "They said they..." The difference is crucial. In reality, as opposed to this film, John Kerry always attributed those dramatic allegations to the testimony of other US soldiers.

Thirdly, the film only features POWs who say John Kerry's name was invoked by north Vietnamese prison guards. But we've spoken to dozens of POWs who spent years in Vietnamese prison camps and say they never heard John Kerry's name mentioned once.

Balance requires these opposing voices be included in a "journalistic film." But, alas, this isn't journalism that Sinclair is practicing.

Some of you might be thinking, "Well, wait a second, Michael Moore splashed his anti-Bush film in movie theaters across the country." That's true. But there is a huge difference between forcing voters to buy a ticket to watch a partisan film... and showing something partisan over the free television airwaves. If Sinclair wants to sponsor "Stolen Honor" in movie theaters across the country, more power to them. But television stations are a different matter regardless of your political leanings. Because remember, if it is Sinclair and "Stolen Honor" this Sunday, would you be comfortable with CBS and "Fahrenheit 9/11" next Sunday?

I Love Daily Kos

2004-10-15T09:36:00.000-04:00

The tremendously inciteful and intellectually stimulated people over at Daily Kos have really got something going on over there. Please, go check them out. If you're a Republican, don't bother; the facts may steam up your rose colored glasses. For you conservatives, however, take the time to open your mind to something other than the over-adulterated comedy that passes for news on Fox.

Here's the link:

Here's a small sample of the real world kids:

Rock the Vote versus the RNC
by kos
Thu Oct 14th, 2004 at 23:02:34 GMT

Ed Gillespie, of the RNC, is threatening Rock the Vote. The GOP is asking the Rock the Vote group to "cease and desist" its suggestion that the government may bring back a military draft.

"Your "Draft Your Friends" campaign is being conducted with malicious intent and reckless disregard for the truth," Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie told the nonpartisan group in a letter Wednesday.

Rock the Vote has linked draft concerns to its appeal to register young voters. The group has produced a public service announcement warning of the possibility of a draft, and its Web site tells visitors "You have been drafted" to report to a polling place.

Republicans contend the draft talk is a Democrat-inspired scare tactic to drum up votes against President Bush .

And Rock the Vote has fired back:

Dear Chairman Gillespie,
The letter I received from you yesterday was quite a surprise. It struck us as just the sort of "malicious political deception" that is likely to increase voter cynicism and decrease the youth vote. In fact, it is a textbook case of attempted censorship, very much in line with those that triggered our organization's founding some fifteen years ago.

I am stunned that you would say that the issue of the military draft is an "urban myth"that has been "thoroughly debunked by no less than the President of the United States."

I have some news for you. Just because President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary Rumsfeld, and for that matter Senator Kerry, say that there is not going to be a draft does not make it so. Just because Congress holds a transparently phony vote against the draft does not mean there isn't going to be one. Anyone who thinks that the youth of America are going to take a politician's word on this topic is living on another planet.

By your logic, there should be no debate about anything that you disagree with. There's a place for that kind of sentiment (and your threats), but its not here in our country.

There are questions that the politicians are running away from. How long can we keep 138,000 U.S. troops or more on the ground in Iraq? What if full-scale civil war erupts there, as the CIA has warned is a realistic possibility? Would the next President be faced with a choice of pulling out of Iraq rather than institute a draft? Would women be drafted? What exactly would the draft-age be?

According to the Pentagon's own internal assessment, there are "inadequate total numbers" of troops to meet U.S. security interests. The current issue of Time magazine reports that, "General John Keane, who retired last year as the Army's No. 2 officer, says the continued success of the all-volunteer military is not guaranteed" Keane has told Congress that adding more than 50,000 troops to the Army would require thinking about a return to the draft."

But you want young people to believe that the draft is just an "urban myth." I was expecting that you were going to present some facts to back up your assertion. But, instead, you have demanded that we stop talking about it.

Poor GOP, its voter supression and censhorship efforts are being exposed. What to do, what to do...

Doesn't that kick ass! Gotta love those Republican Libertay and Democracay seeking, lip-serving, choad puffers.

Woohooo...Fuck 'em If They Don't Like Our Liberal Spending

2004-10-14T17:56:00.000-04:00

Yippeee! Woohooo! We've set another record!

Yep, boys and girls, we're getting fucked. Hard. Right now. Can you feel it?

Check it out!

The Congressional Budget Office just released the Treasury Departments fiscal responsibility numbers, and guess what!? Yep, you got it. Fucked again.

Who's fault is it? Well certainly not C-plus Augustus Bush, I mean, he doesn't make mistakes unless you count the people that he'd appointed who were just trying to help him out by feeding him a little reality. Nope. Not him. That would be one of those so-called "exaggerations". Smirk, smirk.

Surely, it can't be the Republican controlled House. I mean, they're conservatives right? They use to have this Contract With America thingy that they liked to harp about, swearing that they were beholden to balance the budget. Nah, not their fault. Besides, there's no blue dress - smoking gun here.

Maybe it's the Republican controlled Senate? Nah, couldn't be. Hell, they'd just as soon short change the country on education or first-responders before over-spending. Besides, they're too busy trying to amend the Constitution so that glorious document can finally embody some discrimination. And geez, too bad John Kerry's preventing them from doing their real job, like funding the budget for next year.

If it's not this Republican controlled government, then who is it? Yep, them fuckin' Liberal's. It's their fault! Rat bastards, stealing from babies again.

At last, someone to blame.

I Can Beat You with One Hand Tied Behind My Back! Or Was That Your Hand?

2004-10-14T13:28:00.000-04:00

OK, due to some minor bitching from Jay, I now have to post something. Whatever.

Has everyone heard about the Republican's belief in spreading Libertay and Democracay? Check this shit out! Why pay lip service to Democracy when you can just go about stealing elections?

I worry about our country. It is split down the middle politically and culturally. Is this the start of a new revolution? Will we, once again, have to fight the demons of greed and lust for power for power's sake? I hope not. Until then, I'll keep buying guns. Woohoo! Guns! I love 'em!

Ok, so I'm lacking any sort of journalistic writer capability right now. But that's okay, cause I LOVE GUNS!

Just kidding, well not really, but whoever heard of a left-wing nutbag? Shit, I guess I'll have to become a Republican now.

Post VP Debate Fact Checks

2004-10-06T09:53:00.000-04:00

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST

Sen. John Edwards and Vice President Cheney clashed repeatedly in their debate last night, making impressive-sounding but misleading statements on issues including the war in Iraq, tax cuts and each other's records, often omitting key facts along the way.
advertisementEarly in the debate, Cheney snapped at Edwards, "The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11. In fact, monkeys will fly from my ass!" But in numerous interviews, Cheney has skated close to the line in ways that may have certainly left that impression on viewers, usually when he cited the possibility that Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001, met with an Iraqi official — even after that theory was largely discredited.

On Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet The Press" that "it's been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack. It has also been pretty well confirmed that I'm a fan of nose shaving! Can't let that thing get too long!" On March 24, 2002, Cheney again told NBC, "We (Me & Donny "The Mad Bomber" Rumsfeld) discovered fabricated ... the allegation that one of the lead hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had, in fact, met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."

On Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney, again on "Meet the Press," said that Atta "did apparently travel to Prague. ... We have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer a few months before the attacks on the World Trade Center. We also have credible, validated evidence that he was not even on the Continent at that time. But we felt that evidence of this type didn't warrant any consideration since it would prevent us from bombing women, children and puppies." And a year ago, also on "Meet the Press," Cheney described Iraq as part of "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

In the debate, Cheney referred to Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as having "an established relationship with al Qaeda" and said then-CIA Director George J. Tenet talked about "a 10-year relationship" in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. What Tenet cited were several "high-level contacts" over a 10-year period, but he also said the agency reported they never led to any cooperative activity.

Edwards, for his part, asserted that the war in Iraq has cost $200 billion "and counting," an assertion that Cheney called him on. Cheney said the government has "allocated" $120 billion. As of Sept. 30, the government has spent about $120 billion, and it has allocated — or plans to spend — $174 billion. The tab should run as high as $200 billion in the next year once other expected supplemental spending is added. Hmmm, it's all so big, does it really matter whether it's $120 billion or $200 billion? Either way we've been fucked!

Cheney suggested that an agreement had been reached on debt relief for Iraq, saying that "the allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive Iraqi debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion, by one estimate (mine...hee hee, I just made that up.)" While there are reports of some sort of agreement, no plan has been made public. Cheney also said that allies had contributed $14 billion in "direct aid." Actually, $13 billion was pledged, but only $1 billion has arrived.

Cheney also said Iraqi security forces have "taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent." The United States does not keep track of Iraqi casualties, either civilian or in the security services. Recently, a senior U.S. official in Baghdad estimated that 750 Iraqi policemen have been killed but has no estimate of those wounded. The United States as of yesterday has had 1,061 deaths and 7,730 wounded. Wow, can you believe it! Iraqis have taken 50 percent of the casualties! Too bad 45% of those casualties were caused by our weapons!

Misleading statements over voting recordsCheney and Edwards tangled repeatedly over each other's voting records, or the record of presidential challenger John F. Kerry. But many of these votes took place long ago and appear to have little relevance to current issues. Edwards cited a long list of conservative votes by Cheney, made decades ago when he was a House member from Wyoming.

Cheney said Kerry once vowed to allow a veto by the United Nations over U.S. troops. This refers to a statement made nearly 35 years ago, when Kerry gave an interview to the Harvard Crimson, 10 months after he had returned from the Vietnam War angry and disillusioned by his experiences there. Doesn't anyone remember the Pentagon Papers? The fuckers knew we were sliding downhill in Vietnam and covered up the facts. I'd be disillusioned too!

Cheney said Kerry's tax-cut rollback would hit 900,000 small businesses. This is misleading. Under Cheney's definition, a small business is any taxpayer who includes some income from a small business investment, partnership, limited liability corporation or trust. By that definition, every partner at a huge accounting firm or at the largest law firm would represent small businesses. According to IRS data, a tiny fraction of small business "S-corporations" earn enough profits to be in the top two tax brackets. Most are in the bottom two brackets.
Edwards asserted that "millionaires sitting by their swimming pool ... pay a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving" in Iraq. President Bush last year cut the tax rate on dividends to 15 percent, whereas most soldiers would be in a 15 percent tax bracket — and pay an effective rate much less after taking deductions for children and mortgages. Another rabbit down a hole here. It doesn't matter how low your taxes will go if the deficit is allowed to swallow our future!

Edwards also asserted that "the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary." But Bush simply endorsed such an amendment that had already been introduced on Capitol Hill.

Cheney continued to charge that Kerry voted 98 times to raise taxes. But FactCheck.org — a nonpartisan group Cheney cited actually it was FactCheck.com that Cheney cited, although I bet he wishes he'd said FactCheck.org! FactCheck.com is operated by Cheney's nemesis, George Soros! Now there's some irony! during the debate as a fair data checker — says nearly half were not for tax increases per se and many others were on procedural motions.
Both candidates promised to cut the deficit in half in four years. Yeah, good luck with that!Independent budget experts say neither the Republican nor the Democratic ticket can make good on that promise unless it scales back funding promises made during the campaign. The Kerry health care plan, for instance, could cost as much as $1 trillion, experts say, which would eat up most if not all of the revenue generated by raising taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year. Edwards said the Democratic ticket is willing to scale back programs to make the numbers work.
Bush is digging an even deeper hole because he likes to dig, experts say, because he has promised to partially privatize Social Security, which carries a transition cost likely to be much bigger than that of Kerry's health care plan.

Edwards asserted that "in the last four years, 1.6 million private-sector jobs have been lost." The actual number is close to 900,000 and will likely shrink further when Friday's jobs reports is released, though Bush is the first president in 72 years to preside over an overall job loss.
Edwards also misleadingly charged that the Bush administration is "for outsourcing of jobs." The Bush-Cheney ticket has not advocated sending jobs overseas, though administration officials have talked about how outsourcing can be good for the U.S. economy, a position many private economists echo. However, the RNC has outsourced their call center operations. It's good for the American economy to send money out of the country!

Cheney charged that Kerry and Edwards oppose the No Child Left Behind education law, which imposes new accountability standards on public schools. Both senators voted for the law and support some modifications and billions of dollars to fully fund the education program.
Edwards claimed that part of Halliburton Corp.'s money in Iraqi contracts should have been withheld because the company is under investigation. Some funds were withheld but then paid out after an Army audit studied the matter.

Rate the Debate - Kerry Outclasses Dubya

2004-10-01T10:21:00.000-04:00

OK, so yesterday's post turned out to be a little less insightful than I'd have thought. It turns out that the questions and responses actually did help to enlighten the citizenry a bit on the positions of the two candidates. While it wasn't an actual debate per se, it did accomplish the goals of a debate.

It appears to me, and others according to the initial polls, that Kerry handily won the debate. He used his time wisely, didn't blow on endlessly and held himself in a Presidential manner. Only the most partisan of idealogues could state otherwise. President Bush, it appeared to me, had a very difficult time connecting the thoughts in his head to the tongue in his mouth. The side-shots of the President were devastating...he really must learn to control that smirk.

However, as to the substance and factually correct statements that were made, here are some observations:

Kerry stated that the President had cut the funding for the program that is responsible for gathering and securing nuclear material in the former Soviet Union / Russia. This is not factually correct. During the first year of President Bush's term in office, Donald Rumsfeld attempted to cut the funding for this program. However, he was met with such resistance from such a wide array of people that he was soundly defeated. Despite this correction of the facts regarding Senator Kerry's statement, his assertion that it will take 13 years to attain the goals of the program is correct.
President Bush's statement that Poland was involved in the 3 weeks of war in Iraq is factually incorrect. While Poland is a member of the "Coalition of the Willing", they did not take part in the assault that actually invaded Iraq. They do have troops on the ground now, albeit a very small number compared to the United States (2400 troops vs 125,000 troops).

There is one item where I felt Kerry made a terrible mistake and I'm not certain whether or not the media will pick up on it, but Kerry twice made statements to the affect that President Bush ordered troops to secure only the Oil Ministry Building rather than secure additional resources such as nuclear materials, etc. While some investigation does show that there were indeed some low level radioactive materials located about the country, these materials were not involved in a nuclear weapons program. Despite this fact, simply mentioning the word nuclear in this context implies that WMD's did exist in Iraq and therefore support the President's original assertion for going to war. The vast majority of citizens will not understand the subtle difference and the media will not be party to educating them should this story find legs.

All in all, I'm excited to see that Kerry didn't fall flat on his face. Despite the fact that I didn't support him in the Democratic primaries, I certainly feel that he would be a better President than George W. Bush.

Debate? What Debate?

2004-09-30T10:12:00.000-04:00

Tonight, as you all may well know, will be the first of three, so-called debates. While I am certainly excited to get to see the two candidates verbally joust, I really don't think that we're going to see anything different. I mean, really, since the two candidates have 31 pages of rules that were negotiated, we've not ended up with a debate at all, but more of an interview between the moderator, Jim Lehrer, and each of the candidates. Honestly, it makes me ill. Neither of the candidates can directly engage the other, which is what debate is supposed to be about. However, much like our leaders inability to give meaning to any sort of definition whether it be WMD, democracy or WAR, debate has now been changed to mean propaganda.

Do we really expect to hear anything different? Will Dubya take any responsibility for the failures that he was warned to expect? Will Kerry, aka the windbag, be able to actually say something that the average guy can relate? Not likely.

So tonight, as you chew on your grilled cheese sandwiches, take notice of the immitation flavor for that is exactly what you'll see tonight: imitators.

UPDATE: CHECK OUT THIS RELATED STORY BY GERSH KUNTSMAN OF NEWSWEEK: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6115913/site/newsweek/

A Conservative Paper with a Mind Not Owned by Big Media

2004-09-29T13:54:00.000-04:00

I really can't improve upon this endorsement, made by George Dubya's hometown paper in Texas. Let the truth be told!

The Lone Star Iconoclast

Kerry Will Restore
American Dignity
2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:

Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.

Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans’ benefits and military pay.

Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.

Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.

Give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.

Involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and

Take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the United States, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

These were elements of a hidden agenda that surfaced only after he took office.

The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.

Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.

Four items trouble us the most about the Bush administration: his initiatives to disable the Social Security system, the deteriorating state of the American economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and Iraq.

President Bush has announced plans to change the Social Security system as we know it by privatizing it, which when considering all the tangents related to such a change, would put the entire economy in a dramatic tailspin.

The Social Security Trust Fund actually lends money to the rest of the government in exchange for government bonds, which is how the system must work by law, but how do you later repay Social Security while you are running a huge deficit? It’s impossible, without raising taxes sometime in the future or becoming fiscally responsible now. Social Security money is being used to escalate our deficit and, at the same time, mask a much larger government deficit, instead of paying down the national debt, which would be a proper use, to guarantee a future gain.

Privatization is problematic in that it would subject Social Security to the ups, downs, and outright crashes of the Stock Market. It would take millions in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system, and, unless we have assurance that the Ivan Boeskys and Ken Lays of the world will be caught and punished as a deterrent, subject both the Market and the Social Security Fund to fraud and market manipulation, not to mention devastate and ruin multitudes of American families that would find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and isolation.

Kerry wants to keep Social Security, which each of us already owns. He says that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be solvent through 2042, with use of its trust funds. This would give ample time to strengthen the economy, reduce the budget deficit the Bush administration has created, and, therefore, bolster the program as needed to fit ever-changing demographics.

Our senior citizens depend upon Social Security. Bush’s answer is radical and uncalled for, and would result in chaos as Americans have never experienced. Do we really want to risk the future of Social Security on Bush by spinning the wheel of uncertainty?

In those dark hours after the World Trade Center attacks, Americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. We were ready to follow Bush’s lead through any travail.

He let us down.

When he finally emerged from his hide-outs on remote military bases well after the first crucial hours following the attack, he gave sound-bytes instead of solutions.

He did not trust us to be ready to sacrifice, build up our public and private security infrastructure, or cut down on our energy use to put economic pressure on the enemy in all the nations where he hides. He merely told us to shop, spend, and pretend nothing was wrong.

Rather than using the billions of dollars expended on the invasion of Iraq to shore up our boundaries and go after Osama bin Laden and the Saudi Arabian terrorists, the funds were used to initiate a war with what Bush called a more immediate menace, Saddam Hussein, in oil-rich Iraq. After all, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction trained on America. We believed him, just as we believed it when he reported that Iraq was the heart of terrorism. We trusted him.

The Iconoclast, the President’s hometown newspaper, took Bush on his word and editorialized in favor of the invasion. The newspaper’s publisher promoted Bush and the invasion of Iraq to Londoners in a BBC interview during the time that the administration was wooing the support of Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Again, he let us down.

We presumed the President had solid proof of the existence of these weapons, what and where they were, even as the search continued. Otherwise, our troops would be in much greater danger and the premise for a hurried-up invasion would be moot, allowing more time to solicit assistance from our allies.

Instead we were duped into following yet another privileged agenda.

Now he argues unconvincingly that Iraq was providing safe harbor to terrorists, his new key justification for the invasion. It is like arguing that America provided safe harbor to terrorists leading to 9/11.

Once and for all, George Bush was President of the United States on that day. No one else. He had been President nine months, he had been officially warned of just such an attack a full month before it happened. As President, ultimately he and only he was responsible for our failure to avert those attacks.

We should expect that a sitting President would vacation less, if at all, and instead tend to the business of running the country, especially if he is, as he likes to boast, a “wartime president.” America is in service 365 days a year. We don’t need a part-time President who does not show up for duty as Commander-In-Chief until he is forced to, and who is in a constant state of blameless denial when things don’t get done.

What has evolved from the virtual go-it-alone conquest of Iraq is more gruesome than a stain on a White House intern’s dress. America’s reputation and influence in the world has diminished, leaving us with brute force as our most persuasive voice.

Iraq is now a quagmire: no WMDs, no substantive link between Saddam and Osama, and no workable plan for the withdrawal of our troops. We are asked to go along on faith. But remember, blind patriotism can be a dangerous thing and “spin” will not bring back to life a dead soldier; certainly not a thousand of them.

Kerry has remained true to his vote granting the President the authority to use the threat of war to intimidate Saddam Hussein into allowing weapons inspections. He believes President Bush rushed into war before the inspectors finished their jobs.

Kerry also voted against President Bush’s $87 billion for troop funding because the bill promoted poor policy in Iraq, privileged Halliburton and other corporate friends of the Bush administration to profiteer from the war, and forced debt upon future generations of Americans.

Kerry’s four-point plan for Iraq is realistic, wise, strong, and correct. With the help from our European and Middle Eastern allies, his plan is to train Iraqi security forces, involve Iraqis in their rebuilding and constitution-writing processes, forgive Iraq’s multi-billion dollar debts, and convene a regional conference with Iraq’s neighbors in order to secure a pledge of respect for Iraq’s borders and non-interference in Iraq’s internal affairs.

The publishers of the Iconoclast differ with Bush on other issues, including the denial of stem cell research, shortchanging veterans’ entitlements, cutting school programs and grants, dictating what our children learn through a thought-controlling “test” from Washington rather than allowing local school boards and parents to decide how young people should be taught, ignoring the environment, and creating extraneous language in the Patriot Act that removes some of the very freedoms that our founding fathers and generations of soldiers fought so hard to preserve.

We are concerned about the vast exportation of jobs to other countries, due in large part to policies carried out by Bush appointees. Funds previously geared at retention of small companies are being given to larger concerns, such as Halliburton — companies with strong ties to oil and gas. Job training has been cut every year that Bush has resided at the White House.

Then there is his resolve to inadequately finance Homeland Security and to cut the Community Oriented Policing Program (COPS) by 94 percent, to reduce money for rural development, to slash appropriations for the Small Business Administration, and to under-fund veterans’ programs.

Likewise troubling is that President Bush fought against the creation of the 9/11 Commission and is yet to embrace its recommendations.

Vice President Cheney’s Halliburton has been awarded multi-billion-dollar contracts without undergoing any meaningful bid process — an enormous conflict of interest — plus the company has been significantly raiding the funds of Export-Import Bank of America, reducing investment that could have gone toward small business trade.

When examined based on all the facts, Kerry’s voting record is enviable and echoes that of many Bush allies who are aghast at how the Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy.

The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.

John Kerry has 30 years of experience looking out for the American people and can navigate our country back to prosperity and re-instill in America the dignity she so craves and deserves. He has served us well as a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and has had a successful career as a district attorney, lieutenant governor, and senator.

Kerry has a positive vision for America, plus the proven intelligence, good sense, and guts to make it happen.

That’s why The Iconoclast urges Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country.

The Iconoclast wholeheartedly endorses John Kerry.

Republicans at the trough -- heeerree piggy piggy!

2004-09-28T13:17:00.000-04:00

A few weeks ago, a long-time friend of mine engaged me in a discussion about the flow of tax dollars to those less fortunate. One of the fundamental misperceptions that exists among conservative minded individuals is that their taxes are going to responsibility shirking, welfare dependent, jobless and non-job-seeking, liberal loving leeches.

Okay, so maybe that's a bit strong, but the sentiment is definitely there. While, as a progressive I believe in a fiscally responsible government that doesn't view deficit spending as a bottomless wallet, I also believe that we have a responsibility to provide bootstraps to those less fortunate to allow them to further their interests, both economic and political. Of course there will always be people that are more than willing to jerk the system around, but these are people in a very small minority and are anecdotal at best.

So here's the low-down: the Tax Foundation has recently released an enlightening report detailing which states benefit from federal tax and spending policies, and which states foot the bill. Essentially, it is a report that puts some measurable numbers on how wealth is redistributed around the county.

Since this submission is attacking a fundamental misconception that Republicans have regarding the usage of their tax dollars, let's divide the country into Red States and Blue States, where each state's color is defined by how that state's year 2000 presidential electoral votes were cast. For example, Texas went for Bush and would therefore be considered a Red State. Conversely, California went for Gore and would be a Blue State. Here's a pic of our beautiful country, neatly divided into the Red and Blue states we've so come to love.

According to the report, 32 states and the District of Columbia receive MORE tax dollars by the way of federal spending than they PAY in taxes creating a positive flow of tax dollars to those states.

Of the 32 states (and DC), 76% (25/33) voted for the Republican candidate in the year 2000. In fact, 85% (17/20) of the states that received the LARGEST amount of tax payer dollars cast their electoral votes for the Republican candidate. Here is a list of states receiving a positive flow of tax payer dollars. The states highlighted in bold are Red States.

Top 10 States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

D.C. ($6.17)
North Dakota ($2.03)
New Mexico ($1.89)
Mississippi ($1.84)
Alaska ($1.82)
West Virginia ($1.74)
Montana ($1.64)
Alabama ($1.61)
South Dakota ($1.59)
Arkansas ($1.53)

In contrast, of the 16 states that receive less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes, 69% (11/16) are Blue States that voted for the Democratic candidate in 2000. In fact, 79% (11/14) of states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States. Here is a list of states that supply the tax payer corn feed for the federal trough. The states highlighted in bold are Blue States.

Top 10 States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

New Jersey ($0.62)
Connecticut ($0.64)
New Hampshire ($0.68)
Nevada ($0.73)
Illinois ($0.77)
Minnesota ($0.77)
Colorado ($0.79)
Massachusetts ($0.79)
California ($0.81)
New York ($0.81)

"OK, so what?" you ask. Here's the pincer: Democratic, socially liberal fiscal policies are directly benefitting the very people that don't agree with those policies. How is that for irony?

Road Rage

2004-09-28T10:17:00.000-04:00

Hello everyone in Bloggsville!

This is my first post and true to my nature, I will not be discussing politics directly as the title suggests, but rather take a more mundane and tortuous path to the arena of political discourse.

This past weekend, my buddy Jay and I went on our yearly camping trip. We were short by one person, as our nefarious DWPMF brother Marcelle was not able to make it. He was mightily missed, but the show must go on! While camping, we typically engage in massive, binge drinking and general discussions of porn, bitches and ho's (sorry Ma!). That's not to say that our conversations are not enlightening, but simply that we tend to commune with nature in a more animanly manner. But I digress. While driving back from the black wasteland of the previous three days, Jay and I began to discuss the nature of road rage. Now, for those of you that know me, road rage is an addiction that I too often succumb. Well, here's the bottom line:

In America, as population density has increased, our ability to offer courtesy as a normal trait of communication between strangers has declined.

As courtesy has declined with regards to strangers, the level of selfishness has increased. In fact, it may even be a converse relationship although I have no proof of this statement.

Road rage REQUIRES communication amongst strangers.

Generically speaking, road rage requires a cause. I mean, really, whoever suffered through the adrenaline rush of road rage on a long, lonely road? Couldn't the driver of a vehicle be considered mentally unstable if he suddenly engaged in road rage all on his own? Both of these questions really get at the crux of the issue. You see, Jay is a firm believer that road rage is caused not by some courtesy lacking dumb-ass, but is rather caused by the person experiencing said dumb-ass' behavior. Now, while I agree that none of us can blame our emotions or lack of self-control on someone else, I can equally state the exercise of self-control would never become an issue if it weren't for the initial cause of the exercise; the other driver's selfish behavior. How we choose to react is subsequently open to argument.

This past summer, my wife and I did a bit of travelling. We were fortunate enough to be able to visit friends and family in Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado and Utah. It was refreshing to get to drive out West again. People are generally and overtly more courteous. If I were driving in Boston and came upon someone enforcing the speed limit (which no-one even remotely follows) in the fast lane (that'd be the far left lane for all of you New Englanders), my neighborly Bostonian would ensure that I knew, that they knew they were now impeding my progress. As is often the case, this behavior can be further manifested by the middle-finger and general ranting that follows when I am forced to pass on the right. I hate to pass on the right because if I'm passing you on the right, it means you are in the wrong fucking lane forcing me to pass on the right. Conversely, out West, people act genuinely embarrassed if someone is forced to pass them on the right.

Ultimately, all this angst could be dispensed with by simply introducing a little courtesy into our daily driving. However, being courteous doesn't also give you a pass to be a dumb-ass. For instance, stopping in the middle of the damn road where no stop-sign, traffic light or other traffic maintenance device exists to let someone into the flow of traffic is not courteous, it's being a dumb-ass. Wouldn't it be nice if we all had some standard rules of behavior?

When entering a flow of traffic, speed up to the flow, don't make the flow slow down for you. This will make merging so much easier on you AND your fellow drivers.
Stay out of the fast lane unless you're passing. Ignore this rule if in a traffic jam.
Don't enforce the law as it applies to motorists. You'll only create a bigger problem. Hell, if you feel strongly about it, hang up your damn cell-phone and actually use it for something other than an excuse to endanger other people and call a cop.
When two lanes merge into one, take your fucking turn instead of cutting off some poor ol' lady that has irritable bowel syndrome and wants to get to her destination just as much as you.
And the biggest rule of all! Don't engage other motorists in argument. The 2nd amendment still applies and you don't know shit about that twitchy fucker in the other car.

So what does any of this have to do with politics? Democratic, political discourse follows a similar paradigm to that governing interaction between strangers. If we are unable to discuss issues without a modicum of courtesy, we end up in a rage. Rage is unhealthy, both for the individual and the Republic. The type of blither that is produced by big media and consumed by the majority of our countrymen does nothing to inform our compatriots, but does everything to inflame our brethren. Similar rules should apply to political debate as they do to driving courteously.

When discussing politics, take turns and don't cut off people. Their opinion matters just as much as yours.
When merging into a discussion you know nothing about, get up to speed before making statements that are subjective rather than objective.
Don't enforce your opinion. This is not to say that you can't argue in an ardent manner, but that the Thought Police should exist only in Orwell's fiction.

So there it is, the relationship between road rage and politics!