Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

Is David Paterson’s choice of Kirsten Gillibrand to succeed Hillary Clinton in the U.S Senate a choice for inaction? Given Gillibrand’s enthusiasm for right wing legislation, we can only hope so.

You might think that, with strong Democratic control over Congress and a new Democratic President, Representative Gillibrand would have been enthusiastic to craft legislation in the 111th Congress. So far, however, Gillibrand has not introduced a single bill - not even one to rename a post office somewhere in her district.

Did Paterson want a do-nothing senator representing New York?

Want to know what’s wrong with proposition 8? Ask Simon the Political Tiger.

It’s a matter of the Constitution, see. The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to all people. That means that the law has to give everyone equal status, without discrimination. That includes same-sex couples. If heteros get to marry, then homosexual couples need to be given that same right.

No state has the right, through its legislature or through an electoral proposition, to overrule the Constitution’s equal protection clause. Prop 8 tries to do just that - and that’s what makes it an insult not just to same-sex couples, but to all Americans who believe in the freedoms and rights that the Constitution guarantees.

So far, Palin hasn’t said anything that the Republicans haven’t been saying for the last eight years. She’s proving herself to be little more than a parrot for the same old policies that have been given a nice little mask.

And after all the prep she’s had, they never told her the word is pronounced nu·cle·ar?

Oh no they didn’t!

I am quite disgusted right now.

Democrats to let offshore drilling ban expire

Democrats to let offshore drilling ban expire

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer 15 minutes ago

Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in a months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., told reporters Tuesday that a provision continuing the moratorium will be dropped this year from a stopgap spending bill to keep the government running after Congress recesses for the election.

Republicans have made lifting the ban a key campaign issue after gasoline prices spiked this summer and public opinion turned in favor of more drilling. President Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling in July.

“If true, this capitulation by Democrats following months of Republican pressure is a big victory for Americans struggling with record gasoline prices,” said House GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio.

Democrats had clung to the hope of only a partial repeal of the drilling moratorium, but the White House had promised a veto, Obey said.

The House is expected to act on the spending bill Wednesday. The Senate is likely to go along with the House.

“The White House has made it clear they will not accept anything with a drilling moratorium, and Democrats know we cannot afford to shut down the government over this,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “We look forward to working with the next president to hammer out a final resolution of this issue.”

While the House would lift the long-standing drilling moratoriums for both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, a drilling ban in waters within 125 miles of Florida’s western coast would remain in force under a law passed by Congress in 2006 that opened some new areas of the east-central Gulf to drilling.

Just last week, the House passed legislation to open waters off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil and gas drilling but only 50 or more miles out to sea and only if a state agrees to energy development off its shore. It quickly became clear that measure would not get the 60 votes needed in the Senate.

Republicans called that effort a sham that would have left almost 90 percent of offshore reserves effectively off-limits.

The Interior Department estimates there are 18 billion barrels of recoverable oil beneath the Outer Continental Shelf, about half of it off California.

While the ban on energy development will be lifted if the Senate goes along with the House action, it doesn’t mean any federal sale of oil and gas leases in the offshore waters — much less actual drilling — would be imminent.

The Interior Department’s current five-year leasing plan includes potential leases off the Virginia coast but probably would not be pursued unless the state agrees to energy development. And the state is unlikely to do so without Congress agreeing to share federal royalties with the state.

The congressional battle over offshore drilling is far from over. Democrats are expected to press for broader energy legislation, probably next year, that would put limits on any drilling off most of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Republicans, meanwhile, are likely to fight any resumption of the drilling bans that have been in place since 1981.

John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has promised to make offshore oil drilling a priority if elected president. He has called for developing the oil and gas resources along all of Outer Continental Shelf and for the federal government to share royalties with states who go along with drilling.

Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama has said he would support limited drilling in certain areas — possibly the South Atlantic region — if it is part of a broader energy plan to shift the U.S. away from oil to alternative fuels and more energy efficiency.

The debate over offshore drilling is not expected to subside in the first months of the next presidency — no matter who sits in the White House.

Lifting the drilling ban gives considerable momentum to the underlying bill, which includes the Pentagon budget, $24 billion in aid for flood and hurricane victims and $25 billion in loans for Detroit automakers in addition to keeping the government open past the Oct. 1 start of the 2009 budget year.

But Democrats decided not to use the must-pass measure as a battering ram to carry an extension of unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless past White House veto promises, prompting grumbling among some lawmakers. Efforts to boost food stamps and give states billions of dollars to help with Medicaid bills also fell through.

But the measure would double, to $5.2 billion, funding for heating subsidies for the poor, Obey said.

The measure also would provide more than $600 billion to fund the 2009 budgets for the Pentagon, Homeland Security Department and the Veterans Affairs Department. Nine other spending bills for the 2009 budget year starting Oct. 1 remain unfinished.

Bush had threatened to veto bills that don’t cut the number and cost of pet projects known as “earmarks” sought by lawmakers in half from current levels or cause agency operating budgets, taken together, to exceed his request. Obey said, however, the White House would reluctantly sign the measure.

Democrats have shown themselves to have all the spine of a wet noodle. They’ve got control of Congress and yet they’re still letting Republicans have their way? They’re letting the ban on offshore drilling expire even though we know that all the drilling in the world will do next to nothing to help?

Can we fire all these bastards? Something is very, very wrong when you’ve got one party that’s as red as a stoplight and the only alternative to that way of thinking has turned a pretty dark shade of pink.

With all the talk about Sarah Palin and her latest question-evasions, I thought the economy has been getting less than it’s needed share of coverage. After all, just a couple of days ago the stock market was in a crisis, the DOW dropped around 400 points in a day, AIG pretty much went bankrupt, and gold set a record for most gain in a single day by ground from around $740 bucks a troy ounce to $860 a troy ounce.

More Americans are focusing on the economy, a place where John McCain has admitted he sucks at and Sarah Palin has established herself to be incapable of balancing a budget.

So for this crisis, what is Bush’s solution? Set aside 700 billion dollars to buy shit assets without a plan to have that money paid back.

Here, I’ll let you read for yourself.

Bush team, Congress negotiate $700B bailout.

Bush team, Congress negotiate $700B bailout
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writers 33 minutes ago

The Bush administration asked Congress on Saturday for the power to buy $700 billion in toxic assets clogging the financial system and threatening the economy as negotiations began on the largest bailout since the Great Depression.

The rescue plan would give Washington broad authority to purchase bad mortgage-related assets from U.S. financial institutions for the next two years. It does not specify which institutions qualify or what, if anything, the government would get in return for the unprecedented infusion.

Democrats are pressing to require that the plan help more strapped borrowers stay in their homes and to condition the bailout on new limits on executive compensation.

Congressional aides and administration officials are working through the weekend to fill in the details of the proposal. The White House hoped for a deal with Congress by the time markets opened Monday; top lawmakers say they would push to enact the plan as early as the coming week.

“We’re going to work with Congress to get a bill done quickly,” President Bush said at the White House. Without discussing specifics, he said, “This is a big package because it was a big problem.”

The proposal is a mere three pages long, but it gives sweeping powers to the government to dispense gigantic sums of taxpayer dollars in a program that would be sheltered from court review.

“It’s a rather brief bill with a lot of money,” said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman. “We understand the importance of the anticipation in the markets, but we also know that what we’re doing is going to have consequences for decades to come. There’s not a second act to this — we’ve got to get this right.”

Lawmakers digesting the eye-popping cost and searching for specifics voiced concerns that the proposal offers no help for struggling homeowners or safeguards for taxpayers’ money.

The government must bail out the financial system “because if we don’t, it will have a tremendous impact on American consumers, homeowners, taxpayers and the rest,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in San Francisco.

But, she added, “We cannot deal with this unless this bailout helps families stay in their homes.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. said “we cannot allow ourselves to be in denial about the threat now facing the world economy. From all indications, that threat is real, and the consequences of inaction could be catastrophic. Every single American has a stake in preventing a global financial meltdown.”

The proposal would raise the statutory limit on the national debt from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion to make room for the massive rescue.

“The American people are furious that we’re in this situation, and so am I,” the House’s top Republican, Ohio Rep. John A. Boehner, said in a statement. “We need to do everything possible to protect the taxpayers from the consequences of a broken Washington.”

Signaling what could erupt into a brutal fight with Democrats over add-on spending, Boehner said “efforts to exploit this crisis for political leverage or partisan quid pro quo will only delay the economic stability that families, seniors, and small businesses deserve.”

Bush said he worried the financial troubles “could ripple throughout” the economy and affect average citizens. “The risk of doing nothing far outweighs the risk of the package. … Over time, we’re going to get a lot of the money back.”

He added, “People are beginning to doubt our system, people were losing confidence and I understand it’s important to have confidence in our financial system.”

Neither presidential candidate took a position on the proposal. GOP nominee John McCain said he was awaiting specifics and any changes by Congress.

Democratic rival Barack Obama used the party’s weekly radio address to call for help for Main Street as well as Wall Street.

Their language reflected a tricky balance that politicians in both parties are trying to strike, just six weeks before Election Day: Back a plan that doles out hundreds of billions to companies that made bad bets and still identify with the plight of middle-class voters.

Besides mortgage help and executive compensation limits, Democrats are considering attaching middle-class assistance to the legislation despite a request from Bush to avoid adding items that could delay action. An expansion of jobless benefits was one possibility.

Bush sidestepped questions about the chances of adding such items, saying that now was not the time for posturing. “I think most leaders would understand we need to get this done quickly, and you know, the cleaner the better,” he said about legislation being drafted.

Treasury officials met congressional staff for about two hours on Capitol Hill on Saturday. Discussions centered on how the plan would work, and Democrats proposed adding the executive compensation limits and new foreclosure-prevention measures. Details of those changes were not available Saturday, as staff aides worked to draft them. Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson conferred by phone for about 20 minutes in the afternoon, gauging how the negotiations were unfolding.

Among the key issues up for negotiation is which financial institutions would be eligible for the help. The proposed legislation doesn’t make it clear, leaving open the question of whether hedge funds or pension funds could qualify.

The proposal does not require that the government receive anything from banks in return for unloading their bad assets. But it would allow the Treasury Department to designate financial institutions as “agents of the government,” and mandate that they perform any “reasonable duties” that might entail.

The government could contract with private companies to manage the assets it purchased under the rescue.

Paulson says the government would in essence set up reverse auctions, putting up money for a class of distressed assets — such as loans that are delinquent but not in default — and financial institutions would compete for how little they would accept.

I understand the need for quick action in a case like this, but trying to rush through a bill of 700 BILLION dollars with only two days of debate and thus far no assurances that John Q is gonna be able to keep a roof over his head and little or no stipulations as to getting the money back aside from Bush’s word that “we’ll get a lot of it back over time”? Yeah, considering his track record I’m less than reassured.

Actually, I’m horrified.

Oh, I just loved the part about the national debt. From $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion if the bill passes. Whoopie.

In other news; 40 people in a Pakistan hotel were killed by a suicide bomber.

Hi, I’m God. You probably have seen my show on QVC, where I sell Tupperware and collectible figurines. Most people don’t know that I also work part time as a political consultant, though.

In fact, I was hired a few months ago by Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. She wanted some advice on a natural gas pipeline. I told her absolutely not to approve of it, that it was against my will.

But did Sarah Palin take my advice? Oh, no. She got up in front of the Wasilla Assemblies of God church and proclaimed that the natural gas pipeline is the will of God.

I think it’s time to set the record straight, which is why I made the following video podcast. People deserve to know the truth about Sarah Palin, I think.

Dick Morris is a political consultant who is paid to tell candidates how to communicate effectively. In keeping with his skills, Dick Morris came out with a new book a month ago with the easy to understand and remember title of Fleeced: How Barack Obama, Media Mockery of Terrorist Threats, Liberals Who Want to Kill Talk Radio, the Do-Nothing Congress, Companies That Help Iran, and Washington Lobbyists for Foreign Governments Are Scamming Us … and What to Do About It.

What to do about it? Which it does he mean?

Actually, Dick Morris originally wanted to come out with a longer, more convoluted title for his book. The book was supposed to be entitled, Fleeced: How Barack Obama, Media Mockery of Terrorist Threats, Liberals Who Want to Kill Talk Radio, the Do-Nothing Congress, Companies That Help Iran, Washington Lobbyists for Foreign Governments and Little Chipmunks Are Scamming Us … and What to Do About It.

The publisher’s agent worried that the title might make Dick Morris sound a bit kooky, so they changed it.

First thing I see when Yahoo pops on is this little gem of a story.

Bush to lift executive ban on offshore drilling

By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer 24 minutes ago

In another push to deal with soaring gas prices, President Bush on Monday will lift an executive ban on offshore drilling that his stood since his father was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.

The president plans to officially lift the ban and then explain his actions in a Rose Garden statement, White House press secretary Dana Perino said.

There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by former President Bush in 1990. The current president, trying to ease market tensions and boost supply, called last month for Congress to lift its prohibition before he did so himself.

But Perino said Bush no longer wants to wait. She pinned blame on the leaders of the Democratic Congress, noting that no action has been taken on this issue.

“They haven’t even held a single hearing,” Perino said. “So we are going to move forward, and hopefully that will spur action by the Congress.”

Asked if Bush’s action alone will lead to more oil drilling, Perino said, “In terms of allowing more exploration to go forward? No, it does not.”

The president, in his final months of office, has responded to record gas-prices with a series of proposals, including more oil exploration. None would have immediate impact on prices at the pump, according to White House officials, who say there is no quick fix. But starting action now would help, they say.

Bush’s proposal echoes a call by Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, to open the Continental Shelf for exploration. Democrat Barack Obama has opposed the idea and instead argued for helping consumers with a second economic stimulus package including energy rebates, as well as stepped up efforts to develop alternative fuels and more fuel-efficient automobiles.

“If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks,” spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. “But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for thirty years.”

Congressional Democrats have rejected the push to lift the drilling moratorium, accusing the president of hoping the U.S. can drill its way out a problem.

Bush says offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, although it would take years for production to start. Bush also says offshore drilling would take pressure off prices over time. In addition, the president has proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, lifting restrictions on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and easing the regulatory process to expand oil refining capacity.

Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A succession of presidents, from Bush’s father — George H.W. Bush — to Bill Clinton, have sided against drilling in these waters, as has Congress each year for 27 years. Their goal has to been to protect beaches and coastal states’ tourism economies.

Surprise, surprise, an oil barron is gonna lift a ban on offshore drilling and then lay the blame on the Democrats.

“I didn’t wanna do it, they MADE ME do it!” Schoolyard reasoning from our Commander in Theif.

And Obama wants another round of checks? A wonderfully bad idea, if you ask me. Throw money at the problem and see it go straight into the oil companies’ pockets rather than actually providing a meaningful solution to the problem.

Something simple occurred to me this morning: I don’t see any evidence that Barack Obama has gained any voter support as a result of his decision to vote for the rotten FISA Amendments Act.

I’ve been online a lot, looking at what people have to say. I’ve seen a whole lot of Democrats saying that they’re withdrawing support from Barack Obama. I’ve seen some Democrats say that they’re angry, but that they can’t bring themselves to not vote for Obama. I’ve even seen a few ignorant voters say that they don’t understand what the big deal about the FISA Amendments Act is.

You know what I haven’t seen? I haven’t seen any Republicans or independent voters say that they were going to vote for John McCain, but now, because of the FISA Amendments Act, they’re going to vote for Barack Obama. I haven’t seen one single comment like that.

It seems that Obama has abandoned his principles, broken his promise, betrayed the Constitution, and lost a lot of Democratic supporters - all without making so-called “swing voters” like him any more than they did before.

Stupid move, Barack.

At best, I was a half-hearted supporter of Obama’s. I was never overly enthused by him, though there were some periods where I thought I’d be able to call myself an Obama supporter with a measure of dignity. Over the last few weeks, that illusion has been shattered.

For all his talk and all his charm, Obama’s showing me now what I can expect in the future; more of the same old G.W.B. bullshit. As I look on his stances on the FISA amendments and now the faith-based bullshit, I can’t help but be left to reflect on our current situation.

Over the last 8 years, two presidential terms, George Bush has pulled some of the most unlawful actions in American history with impunity. Anything he wanted, he got on a golden platter. Anything illegal he did was turned a blind eye to by those sworn to uphold the rule of the law. I am now convinced that this attitude has forever ruined American politics and will lead us into a new age where corruption runs unchecked.

Obama now knows he’s got a 50-50 chance of getting the presidency and that Americans are pretty pissed at Republicans so the pressure’s pretty well off him now. And he’s been shown that the president can snub his nose at the law and Congress will roll over like the impotent, toothless tiger that it’s become.

And really, what choice do we, the people, have but to grin and bear it? There’s nothing that I know of which can force a reform to the corrupt politicains we now have in office. There’s no third party I can vote for because rarely, if ever, does a third party get on the ballet here in Oklahoma. Any time a third party gets media attention, it seems, it is laughed down until it crawls back under it’s rock.

The only thing I can think of, which I’ve mentioned before, is revoke the guarenteed spots on the ballots for Republicans and Democrats, but I know that won’t happen with the government the way it is now. I honestly want to know what can be done to change the way things are. I know, call my senator and voice my opinion, but even then the shit that shouldn’t be passed through congress is still being passed.

I thought I was going to vote this year, but I’m now seeing myself with the same options as when I thought Hillary Clinton was going to get the nomination; a choice between a Republican and a Republican Lite. Which one will shit on the Constitution less?

Obama, I thought you were the voice of change, I thought you were a voice of hope, but now I see what’s under the sheep’s clothing and I’m not impressed.

Will America ever return to the way it was before Bush got into office?

Immunity, immunity, immunity. I am sick of hearing members of Congress talk about how important it is to protect telecommunications corporations by giving them legal immunity. They say that there ought to be retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that broke the law by handing over huge amounts of private information about the personal communications of millions of Americans to George W. Bush.

Why? Why should telecommunications companies be placed above the law? Why should they be given a get out of jail free card when they break the public trust?

What about us - you know, the customers? Why aren’t members of Congress worried about protecting us?

The telecommunications corporations promised to keep our personal information secret. They entered into legal agreements with us, guaranteeing that we could use their communications services in private, without worrying that people would be able to look through our emails, listening to our telephone calls, and watching us surf the web.

Yet, that kind of spying against us Americans is exactly what the telecommunications corporations did, and it’s what they continue to do. It’s one of the kinds of spying against Americans that now will continue under the FISA Amendments Act.

But, the members of Congress who voted for the FISA Amendments Act don’t seem to care about that. They don’t care that millions of Americans were illegally betrayed. No, all they care aut is the comfort of the big telecommunications corporations.

Luckily, there are a few members of the House of Representatives who have had the integrity to speak up for us, the American people, the customers of the abusive telecommunications corporations. One of those members of Congress is John Hall, who represents the Hudson River Valley in the House of Representatives.

After reading the text of the FISA Amendments Act, Congressman Hall spoke on behalf of the right of customers whose private lives were invaded to seek justice in a court of law:

“The rule of law lies at the core of America’s founding principles, and the language in this bill was too weak to ensue that any breach of our laws that may have occurred under the warrantless wiretapping program will be fully addressed. It is not appropriate to deny Americans the right to pursue these matters in court, or to short-circuit the judicial review that lies at the heart of our system of checks and balances, which is the bedrock of our Constitution. Accordingly, I voted against this bill.”

Thank you, John Hall, for showing that there is at least one member of Congress who remembers that the Constitution was written to protect people, not corporations.

Are you feeling wistful at the news that Barack Obama has clinched the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination? Did you have another first choice? Hillary Clinton, maybe, or Christopher Dodd, or John Edwards? Well, here’s a way to express that wisty feeling while still supporting Barack Obama in the general election:

On this, the day when Barack Obama finally clinches the Democratic nomination, there are two different ways to look at what lies ahead. One way is to say that all the work is finally over. People who follow that way will let the summer begin, and not even think about lifting a finger to support Barack Obama until September.

That’s a tempting way, because it’s an easy way. There’s a problem with it, though: Do you think that John McCain and the Republicans will take that approach?

Don’t you bet on it. The trouble is that, with the long Democratic primary, the Democratic National Committee has almost no money left. The Republican National Committee, on the other hand, has a lot of money - about 40 million dollars on hand.

With that money, within the week, the RNC is going to start sending out vicious attack ads against Barack Obama. They’re going to try to make Obama into mud before he even has the chance to start his general election campaign.

Are you going to let that happen? No? Okay. Then there’s the second way: That way is to get to work NOW, to help the Barack Obama for President campaign hit the ground running, prepared to deal with the nasty Republican attacks to come.

To take this second proactive approach, I suggest two steps:

1. Go to Barack Obama’s official campaign web site and sign up as a volunteer. You don’t need to give money, but giving your time is essential.

2. Get a bumper sticker for your car, a button for your jacket and a lawn sign for your yard. These all spread the message that ordinary people, folks who live in your neighborhood, support Barack Obama. That kind of statement is much more effective than an impersonal television commercial, no matter how slick it is. This campaign is going to have to be a grassroots one, and showing campaign gear is a great way to demonstrate a grassroots Obama presence in your community.

Here are some sources we’ve got for Obama campaign gear:

- Obama 2008 t-shirts made in the USA made over at Skreened

- Campaign Lawn Signs and Banners for Obama

- Obama bumper stickers over at My President and New White House

- Barack Obama campaign buttons and magnets over at Irregular News

Each of these different sources has unique Barack Obama campaign gear so that you can stand out with a pro-Obama message that’s just right for you - to keep. This stuff will have greater historical meaning as the years pass, and you’ll be able to take these things out to prove to your children and grandchildren that you were there, helping to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States.

According to a May 17,2008 AP article, Alabama’s county sheriffs are are given $1.75 per day to feed a prisoner - and are allowed to pocket the difference, if they can do it cheaper.

The report says “critics charge that Alabama, in effect, is paying law enforcement to skimp on food and might be rewarding sheriffs for mistreating prisoners. “It’s a bad system, and it ought not be that way,” said Buddy Sharpless, executive director of the Association of County Commissions of Alabama.

I don’t understand the negative reaction to the fact that Alabama’s county sheriffs are allowed to profit by, in my opinion participating in what amounts to legal graft, by scrimping on food for prisoners. (Alabama jails bank on cheap meals - Law allows sheriffs to pocket leftover food allowance, AP May 17, 2008)

What’s the big deal? Isn’t this exactly what private prisons do? While condemning the practice by county sheriffs, I’m sure Mr. Sharpless would listen attentively to executives from Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) making their pitch to privatize public jails and prisons.

CCA claims to save states and counties money by negotiating a per-head fee for housing and feeding prisoners. They profit by pocketing the difference between what they spend and what they charge the taxpayers. Contracting-out public services had been a gold mine for ARAMARK, too. In addition to prisons, ARAMARK also turns a tidy profit feeding children attending public schools.

I agree with Mr. Sharpless opinion, “It’s a bad system, and it ought not be that way.” As a taxpayer I want to know my dollars are going to provide public services, not lining the pockets of CCA and ARAMARK.

Two sets of financial numbers in the news are the focus of my attention tonight:

First, the price of regular unleaded gasoline where I live is not four dollars per gallon yet. It’s three dollars, ninety nine cents and nine tenths of a cent - a whole whopping tenth of a penny less than four dollars per gallon.

Second, Open Secrets reports a huge difference in the character of the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The amount of money from PACs (political action committees) taken by Barack Obama: $250
The amount of money from PACs (political action committees) taken by Hillary Clinton: $1,216,842

Babe, either you go quietly or we send in the Flying Monkeys.

I am now officially admitting that I am politically depressed.

I think I’ve been politically depressed for several weeks now, but I haven’t allowed myself to acknowledge that depression. The news today puts me over the edge, way past deniability.

Hillary Clinton is releasing advertisements on television that strongly imply that if Barack Obama becomes President, we may likely be attacked by Osama Bin Laden, and Barack Obama won’t be able to handle it. It’s an absurd attack, that preys on the fears of American voters.

The sad thing is that, like the Clinton 3:00 AM telephone call, it works. Voters buy the message. They’re willing to sell their hopes out for the sake of fear. Clinton’s consultants know this, and they’re going whole hog because, above all else, they want to win, win, win.

A few voters get it. They see how despicable this line of attack is. The rest don’t care. They really believe it. It’s these voters, and not even the Hillary Clinton campaign, who depress me.

It depresses me to live in a nation where people are too cowardly to live in freedom, and too lazy to get involved in their own government, and too stupid to tell the difference between a scare tactic and “experience”.

I’m not writing this to try to score points for Barack Obama above Hillary Clinton, and try to affect any election. You know why? I’ve finally realized that I am too little and too powerless to have any affect. In a nation of 300 million people who care more about whether Cameron Diaz and Justin Timberlake have really finally broken up than they do about the Bill of Rights, I’m not going to be heard. I’m not going to make a difference.

If I try, I’m going to fail.

I’m going to keep on trying, just because it’s a damn old habit that I don’t think I can shake. Nonetheless, I no longer have any expectations of success. My voice won’t be heard. Things won’t get better. America is on the way out, and the American government is just going to get uglier and uglier.

Tonight, Pennsylvanians are going to reward Hillary Clinton for her scare tactics. Hillary Clinton will stay in the race, gleefully running around cheering “I won! I won!”

And then we’ll go on to Guam… and Indiana… and Nebraska… and the next state… and all the way to the end… and Hillary Clinton’s tactics of never asking the American people to think big or step out on a limb will be vindicated.

It will be a stalemate, and although Barack Obama will have won the majority of primaries, and have gotten the majority of primary-elected delegates, Hillary Clinton will be made the Democratic nominee, just because she has more powerful people who owe her favors.

We’ll slump on toward Election Day, and maybe Hillary Clinton will win and maybe John McCain will win, but most Americans won’t really care. They’ll just want to make sure that the election coverage on TV doesn’t interfere with their favorite weekly TV show.

I’ll still care, but I don’t expect that this year’s election will change anything. Clinton won’t bring soldiers home from Iraq, and she won’t close Guantanamo, and she won’t have the Patriot Act repealed, and her health care plans will be forgotten within a year, and we’ll continue to watch America slouching into the margins as Bill Clinton has one last fling at sexual independence with some middle-aged barmaid he meets on the outskirts of Peoria.

We had a chance to do something better with this country, but people just don’t give a damn. Damn it all to hell.

Oh, dear Zoroaster wake me up! The ABC News presidential democratic debate, likely one of the last opportunities for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to earn the support of voters, should have been a lively event.

Instead, the first 45 minutes was spent on superficial nonsense like 1960s Weatherman bombings, who’s bitter, Bosnia, and disowned preachers, with followup questions.

Then, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous went hunting for inconsequential distinctions such as who, between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, thinks that Iran should not have nuclear weapons the most.

Help me! I want to care. I want to be motivated. I want to be active and a good citizen, but I have been struck by the ABC News hypno-mind-mister laser beam, which has caused me to hear the words coming out of Clinton’s and Obama’s mouths as if they are spoken in Czech.

Is there an antidote?

The presidential primary in North Carolina comes soon, in less than a month, on May 6. So, is it too late for you to register to vote in the primary? Not at all. The voter registration deadline is this month.

That’s an invitation for election manipulation.

North Carolina’s primary is semi-open, meaning that independents can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary, just by showing up at a polling station on the day of the election and saying which party’s primary they want to vote in.

That’s bad enough, but the election deadline just weeks before the North Carolina presidential primary is practically an invitation for people of one political party to re-register as members of the other party in order to meddle in the other party’s election. This year, with John McCain already selected as the nominee of the Republican Party, there is no reason for North Carolina Republicans to go vote in their own party primary.

Instead, those North Carolina Republicans, along with the state’s mostly right wing independents, can flood into the Democratic presidential primary, and vote for the candidate that matches their values. There’s even the possibility that Democratic voters could be outnumbered by Republicans and independents.

Why would any state arrange for such a corrupt primary election system?

I just saw an article at AfterDowningStreet.org claiming that Hillary Clinton, when employed by the House Judiciary Committee in investigating Watergate, was dishonest and unethical. The writer spoke to, among others, the committee’s chief of staff, Jerry Zeifman. Clinton was working on a memo supporting the position that Nixon had no right to counsel before the committee; Zeifman told her she should read and cite a recent case that gave the opposite precedent; when she finished the memo, he found that she had (a) ignored that case, and (b) removed it from the committee’s files. Apparently, she was taking this position in the first place because her political patron was tied to the Kennedys, who didn’t want Nixon defending himself too well—he could have excused his own abuses of power by digging up JFK’s.

There’s more (including from the chief Republican counsel), but, to me, that’s the worst of it. If this is true, then Clinton probably committed a crime, in order to strengthen her patron’s political standing.

I was deeply disturbed to read this afternoon that Joel Osteen’s megachurch in Houston was an official stop on the Hillary Clinton for President campaign today. Every time I see Joel Osteen, with his insincere smile and gospel of divinely sanctioned wealth, I feel dirty. The man is so slick he fairly drips with snake oil, leaving a trail behind him as he leaves his stadium for Jesus.

Hillary Clinton’s political advisors might want to consider: If you win the Democratic nomination through an appeal to the followers of hucksters like Osteen, you’ll do so without the respect of many Democratic voters outside the Bible Belt. Of course, Democratic politicians have been campaigning on a neglect of Democratic voters for a long time, and getting away with it.

Maybe Clinton’s advisors have calculated that the number of Democrats repulsed by the connection with Osteen will be made up for by the number of evangelical Republicans impressed by it. Within Texas, of course, a Democrat is merely a Republican who has trouble pronouncing the “R” sound, so I suppose the Bible thumping will play well there.

It’s a clear contradiction of the political narrative that’s been presented by faith-based hacks in the Democratic and Republican Party. Even as they have been claiming that the United States is growing more religious, the just-released Pew Forum Religious Landscape Survey shows the opposite. “The biggest gains due to changes in religious affiliation have been among those who say they are not affiliated with any particular religious group or tradition,”, the report on the survey’s results says.

The Pew study contains a category of Americans it calls “unaffiliated”. Included in this group are those Americans who call themselves atheists or agnostics, and those Americans who respond that their religious affiliation is “nothing in particular”. Of this “nothing in particular” group, a little more than half are non-religious (called “secular”), and a little less than half are vaguely religious but not affiliated with any religion.

In a lot of areas of the report, the Pew Forum seems to edge away from reporting on atheists, agnostics and the secular unaffiliated. It’s as if the people at the Pew Forum don’t really know what to make of this group, given that they’re dedicated to examining “religion and public life” - not people who are apart from religion.

Some things are clear, however. Christians are older than the population in general, with fewer adherents of Christianity in the newest generation of adults. Atheists, agnostics, and secular unaffiliated Americans, on the other hand, are more abundant in the new generation of American adults.

In the general population, 20 percent of people are in the age range of 18-29 year-olds. 37 percent of atheists, however, are aged 18-29. 34 percent of agnostics are in that age range, and 29 percent of secular unaffiliated Americans are. No religious group shows anything like that high percentage of representation by the young.

That this age dynamic is a generational shift, and not the reflection of some kind of permanent dynamic in which young people start out as non-religious and then become religious later in life, is indicated by the relatively low percentage of adults leaving the religiously unaffiliated groups.

This is one area in which the Pew Forum does not differentiate between secular and religious unaffiliated. I’m sorry that I can’t fully describe these numbers. Call the Pew Forum to complain. What I can say, based upon their statistics, is that more far people become atheists as adults than leave their atheist identity behind. The same is true for agnostics, and for people who say that their religious affiliation is “nothing in particular”.

The number of people who currently say they were atheists as children is only a third of the number of people who currenly say that they are atheists as adults. Agnostics show a doubling of numbers in the move from childhood to adulthood, and generally unaffiliated Americans show a tripling in numbers. Catholics and Protestants, on the other hand, tend to lose some adherents as they age.

So, it seems that non-religious identity is something that Americans tend to mature into, and Christian identity is something that Americans tend to mature out of - although some members of all groups retain their identity lifelong.

This trend in maturation, combined with the disproportionately young character of non-religious Americans, suggests that the new generation is distinctly more non-religious than previous generations, and that this generation will probably remain more non-religious than its predecessors.

This trend ought to serve as a wakeup call for politicians to pull back on the kind of religious pandering we’ve seen so much of during the 2008 presidential election so far. Atheists, agnostics and non-religious secular Americans make up 10.3 percent of the population.

That means that non-religious Americans are a larger group than Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Unitarians, New Agers, Quakers, Pagans, Wiccans, and religiously-active members of Judaism and Native American tribes combined.

There are almost as many non-religious Americans as there are evangelical Baptists. Episcopals are puny in number compared to non-religious Americans. So are Methodists, Congregationalists, Orthodox Christians, Presbyterians, and Seventh Day Adventists.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both spent a lot of time courting the support of what are called “historically black churches” in the Pew Forum survey. However, non-religious Americans easily outnumber the people affiliated with those churches.

Catholics? Well, yes, Catholics outnumber non-religious Americans a little bit more than two-to-one. However, the Catholic portion of the population of the United States is in sharp decline, whereas the non-religious portion of the US population is strongly increasing.

Pay attention, politicians - non-religious Americans are on the rise. The days when our right to equal protection under the law can be ignored are numbered.

How clean is John McCain? For that matter, how clean is the news media? Bloomberg news, which as a telecommunications company is mixed right up in the very telecom lobbying business it purports to report objectively upon, has quoted “a senior adviser to John McCain” as saying that John McCain is not inappropriately influenced by the large number of lobbyists that he associates with. This “senior adviser to John McCain”, Charles Black, is quoted as saying that “John McCain does no favors for, nor gives no special treatment to, any lobbyists — even if they are a friend of his.”

The thing is, Charles Black isn’t exactly a neutral, objective source in the matter. Charles Black is a top official in the John McCain for President campaign, but what’s more, Charles Black is a lobbyist himself.

Charles Black is the chairman of BKSH & Associates Worldwide, a powerful lobbying company. Here’s what BKSH itself has to say about its lobbying work “BKSH’s capabilities encompass a broad range of economic, social, domestic and international issues. Our professionals have managed “front-page” issues and have worked quietly on behind-the-scenes projects. Our mission can be as targeted as securing the inclusion or deletion of specific language in congressional legislation, or as broad as strengthening the bilateral relationship between a foreign country and the United States.”

Charles Black runs a lobbying firm with the goal of “securing the inclusion or deletion of specific language in congressional legislation”. So, what is he doing serving as a top adviser of the presidential campaign of John McCain, a member of the U.S. Senate? Why is John McCain forming close political alliances with lobbyists who have openly declared their intention to help their corporate clients manipulate congressional legislation?

Furthermore, why does Bloomberg News cite Charles Black, a lobbyist who is professionally dedicated to influencing legislation in Congress through contact with politicians like John McCain, as a credible source to reassure Americans that John McCain does no special favors for lobbyists?

To use lobbyist Charles Black as a source on this story, Bloomberg reporter Edwin Chen makes himself appear either incompetent and naive or as corrupted by the influence of media business lobbyists as John McCain.

Supporters of Hillary Clinton are getting very upset that their candidate, who they thought a few months ago was “inevitable”, is now losing to Barack Obama. They’re using arguments against Barack Obama that just don’t make any sense.

One of my favorite arguments they use is that Barack Obama will never be able to withstand attacks from the Republican Party because the only Republican he’s ever had to run against is Alan Keyes. What these Hillary Clinton supporters don’t seem to understand is that such an argument only works in Hillary Clinton’s favor if Barack Obama is not winning in the electoral competition against Hillary Clinton.

Think about it for just a little bit. If Barack Obama really is such a sissy wimp who will be ripped apart by the Republicans, and Hillary Clinton is such a tough campaigner who can take on anybody, then how come Hillary Clinton is losing to Barack Obama?

Another argument that Hillary Clinton supporters have begun to use that I really don’t like is that Barack Obama will be defeated by the Republicans because he isn’t Republican enough. This argument suggests that the Democrats ought to nominate a Democrat who supports Republican policies, in order to get the Republican vote. It’s the best justification that they can come up with for Hillary Clinton’s vote to help George W. Bush go to war in Iraq.

That argument was used by Thomas Buffenbarger, a Clinton supporter in Youngstown, Ohio who took to the stage at a Clinton rally yesterday to warm up the crowd before Hillary Clinton herself arrived. He didn’t speak much in praise of Hillary Clinton. Instead, he attacked Barack Obama. Here’s a sample Buffenbarger had to say:

“The Barack show is playing to rave reviews sold out at college campuses after college campus. Standing room only crowds to hear his silver-tounged orations. Hope, change, yes we can? Give me a break! I’ve got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak. This guy won’t last a round against the Republican attack machine. He’s a poet, not a fighter.”

This latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing slur ought to sound familiar. It’s the same attack that the Republican Club For Growth used against Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2004. Why are surrogates for Hillary Clinton using Republican attakcs against Barack Obama?

I would like for the Hillary Clinton campaign to come out and explain what it has against lattes, and why Birkenstocks are to be hated. I would really love for Hillary Clinton to explain why she is arranging for people to speak on behalf of her campaign who hate hybrid cars.

I’ve got news for the Thomas Buffenbargers of the Democratic Party: If you think that you can arrange for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination by attacking environmentalists, attacking young people, attacking institutions of education, and for goodness sakes attacking people who like coffee, you’ve got another thing coming.

Me Ooma. Me come from Bloodfang Clan. Me for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton say Obama bad. Hillary Clinton say, “It’s about picking a president who relies not just on words, but on work, hard work, to get America back to work!”

Obama rely on words. Bad man. Bad, bad word man. He no work. Lazy man go Senate take nap. Lazy Harvard Law Review President. Lazy lazy community organizer. Lazy professor use words man! Bad. Obama no smash rocks!

Hillary Clinton no rely on words. Hillary Clinton no talk. Hillary Clinton work. Hillary Clinton be good president smash rocks.

That why Hillary Clinton say — Wait!

Hillary Clinton say?

Hillary Clinton use words! Hillary Clinton rely words! No worky! Hillary Clinton no smash rocks hard work? Hillary Clinton two face word user!

Me Ooma say — Wait!

Ooma say?

Ooma rely words! Bad Ooma! Bad Bad talky Ooma!

Ooma go smash rocks!

The following is from a conversation I had with a white woman, maybe fiftyish.

We need to have a Methodist for President.

First of all it’s not true that Methodists are going to all vote for Clinton. The ones that are voting for Obama have their own reasons.

The country is really messed up after so many years of Bush, so we need someone really pious in the White House. It’s going to take someone really religious, like a Methodist, to straighten everything out.

Did I really have this conversation? No, of course not.

If the statement is true, then it’s a stupid thing said by one person. Is there a trend of such stupid things being said, on the record? Are such things being said by the Clinton campaign? If so, then that’s a worthwhile basis for conversation. If not, then it’s just about as informative as me saying that I had a conversation with a person who said that we should not vote for Bill Richardson because Hispanics should be working at gas stations.

I just found the results of the Green Party caucuses in California on Super Tuesday, provided by the League of Women Voters. I have to say that I’m pretty disappointed in the results.

The candidates who have been out and hustling their way around the Green Party state meetings for months and months now got a minority of the vote.

Cynthia McKinney got 26.0%

Elaine Brown 1,330 got 4.6%

Kat Swift got 3.1%

Kent Mesplay got 2.0%

Jesse Johnson got 1.8%

Jared Ball 467 got 1.5%

Along comes Ralph Nader, waltzing in at the last minute, with his surrogate Howie Hawkins, suggesting that he just might, maybe, run for President, but he’s not sure. How much of the California Green vote did Nader get? 61 percent.

I’m groaning. Ralph Nader fails pathetically in his Green Party presidential run in 1996. So, what does the Green Party do? They nominate him again in the year 2000. Then, in the year 2004, Ralph Nader ran as an independent candidate, courted Republican support, and trashed the Green Party. So, now, in 2008, what are the Greens doing? Nominating Ralph Nader for President again.

Pardon me, is the Green Party really a political party, or is it just a stage upon which we all get to watch the Ralph Nader melodrama unfold in excruciating slow motion?

Liberals may decry Republican double standards, citing the proliferation of prostitution whenever the Republicans are in power. I say,  bring back the hookers.  It lets the interns off the hook.

There were many who said that Bill Clinton’s sexual indiscretions were a personal problem and had nothing to do with the way he was able to govern the country.  I thought that too, until I became part of the federal government through the United State Peace Corps.

Think of this: Monika Lewinsky was an employee, an intern.  Bill Clinton was her boss.  Is any employee ever really free to turn down the boss?    And when the CEO of a corporation is doing something, can the rank and file ever really say there is anything wrong with someone else doing it?

The culture within the federal government during the time I was associated with it said no.  If you turn down one of those Washington types, the current wisdom went,  your career wouldn’t last. Maybe that’s why the Peace Corps publicizes it’s surveys about “feelings” instead of the actual number of assaults or its fifty percent attrition rate, which they try to hide from the public.  Sexual harassment within the agency is a totally taboo subject–the people most likely to do it are the same people responsible for reporting and stopping it. Maybe that’s why Peace Corps volunteers feel pressured to find a romantic interest with local clout as soon as they are in country. Or why the Peace Corps–and Chris Dodd–worked so hard to defeat the Peace Corps Safety and Security bill that would have established an Ombudsman for volunteers as well as an independent Inspector General.

Can you imagine–the IG, the guy responsible for oversight of the agency, reports to the agency’s director.  That might be all right for agencies where those making judgments have some job security in the form of civil service protection, but Peace Corps is under a five-year rule. Most employees have their contracts renewed every two and a half years, up to a maximum of five years, a good formula for producing rubber stamps.

Bill Clinton didn’t just have an affair, like former President Harding and presidential hopeful McCain.  He got involved with an employee, and he got away with it, creating a predatory atmosphere for female employees throughout the federal system.  His actions paralyzed his administration and its ability to enact any of its ideals in his second term.  Hillary Clinton did not have any good options.  If she stood by her man, she would be an enabler of something corrosive in the political system.  If she didn’t, she would lose everything she had worked for in her entire political life, as well as the opportunity to make a difference in the future with her considerable talents. I have nothing but admiration for the way Hillary Clinton has carried herself and served the country.  But I have a bad taste in my mouth about bureaucrats who are sexual predators and the corporate cultural that lets them get away with it.

Let’s get that out of the government offices and back into the brothels where it belongs.

The headline was the first thing that struck me as off-target: “So many questions, so little time”. The article was about the 2008 presidential election. Reading that headline, I thought, it’s been over a year since the current presidential candidates declared their intention to run. Who hasn’t had the opportunity to consider questions about the qualifications and agendas of the candidates?

Oh, but that’s not what the writer, NBC News political editor Chuck Todd, was talking about. On the eve of Super Tuesday, Chuck Todd is in no mood to talk about substance. Here are the questions Todd had on his mind:

- Is Hillary Clinton perceived as the defacto incumbent in this race?
- What will have a greater impact on viewers Tuesday night? The dead even delegate fight between Clinton and Obama? Or the potential for one Dem to win a plurality of states by 52-48 while still splitting the delegates evenly?
- What if Obama wins California narrowly plus a bunch of other swing states but trails in the delegate count by, say, 50? Will the media treat Obama as the winner of Super Tuesday because of an upset California win? Or what if Clinton wins a majority of states, including California, Missouri and Arizona but the delegate count is basically even (another likely outcome)? Will Clinton be treated as the winner?
- The question is, who will come out on top?
- In how many states will John McCain break the 50 percent threshold and should that matter?
- How valuable will Mike Huckabee be for McCain?
- What about Obama’s percentage in New York vs. Clinton’s percentage in Illinois?
- Could Obama net a greater share of delegates out of Illinois than Clinton does out of New York?
- Assuming he believes he’s the presumptive nominee after Tuesday night (and he needs a victory in California to lay claim to that title), how will he begin to position himself for the general election?
- Will he continue to try to make the case to conservatives that he’ll look out for their best interests or will he start to make an appeal to the middle?
- And at what point does McCain pick his Democratic foe? Will McCain’s camp attempt to influence the other primary and if so, how?

What a boring, insipid bunch of questions.

Chuck Todd is treating the Super Tuesday presidential primaries as if they’re the Super Bowl, and that it’s just a game, and that the ideas promoted by candidates don’t matter, except inasmuch as they help a candidate win.

How spiritless.

You’d think that the political editor for NBC News would have more on his mind than who wins. You’d think he’d be able to keep in mind what politics means, and consider the likely impacts of the candidates’ proposed policies.

You would think that, if you didn’t know how NBC News and the rest of the mainstream news media work. The last thing they want to do is encourage their viewers to think about things of substance… that might cause them to ignore the commercials.

In his latest eruption of idiocy, Bill Clinton says of his wife Hillary, “She and John McCain are very close. They always laugh that if they wind up being the nominees of their parties, it would be the most civilized election in American history and probably put the voters to sleep.”

Ha. Ha. Ha… What?!?

Since when would it be a good thing to put the voters to sleep?

This statement by Bill Clinton is doing Hillary Clinton no favors. It exhibits everything that’s wrong with the Hillary Clinton campaign. As a senator, Hillary Clinton has made cozy allegiances with Republicans, and voted along with them to advance their agenda.

Hillary Clinton has become “very close” with John McCain, and will be civilized if she runs against him for President, but she treats Barack Obama like a dog, with robocalls that slur “Barack Hussein Obama”.

Why the hell would Democrats want a presidential nominee who treats Republicans with kid gloves, but attacks fellow Democrats with savagery?

Bill Clinton’s comment is also a not very subtle warning to the activist progressive Democratic grassroots: The Clintons will run a “civilized” campaign, which means that the backbone gets thrown out the window. Uppity grassroots Democrats who demand strong action against the Republicans will not be tolerated. Progressives will be shut out of the process. This confirms my suspicion that Bill Clinton is determined to keep new Democratic voters out of power.

Hey, if you want a Democratic presidential nominee who will go soft on the Republican agenda, and follow the Joseph Lieberman path of giving a big hug John McCain and his plans for an American presence in Iraq of 50 years, then Hillary Clinton is a good pick for you.

If you want a Democratic presidential nominee who will actually represent Democrats, then you’ll need to vote for someone else.

As for myself, let me make this clear, Bill Clinton: This Democrat will not go to sleep.

En lieu of the recent posts on the main blog about the FISA ordeal, I thought I should share this little story I came across when I logged on to Yahoor today.

(Link)

Senate delays eavesdropping vote
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 39 minutes ago

The Senate on Thursday signaled support for granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the government conduct warrantless eavesdropping, a sign that the contentious provision may be headed for approval next week.

On a strong 60-36 vote, senators rejected an amendment that would have killed the immunity provision and strengthened the powers of a secret court to oversee the surveillance of phone calls and e-mails that involve people inside the United States.

Further action on the legislation was delayed until Monday, pushing Congress closer to a Feb. 1 deadline for enacting a new law. If a new law is not signed by the president by then, some eavesdropping practices that are now legal would be prohibited.

The Bush administration is insisting that any new law also protect from potentially crippling civil lawsuits those telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on Americans after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, R-Nev., blamed Republicans for the delay, saying they were trying to block a series of amendments majority Democrats sought to offer.

“It appears the president and Republicans want failure. They don’t want a bill,” Reid said.

The draft bill, written by the Senate Intelligence Committee, would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The law, first enacted in 1978, dictates when federal agents must obtain court permission before tapping phone and computer lines inside the United States to gather intelligence on foreign threats. Agents may tap lines outside the country without court oversight.

It was the second time in six weeks the Senate had taken up the FISA modernization bill, only to see action stymied. Reid abruptly closed down debate in December when it became clear the Senate couldn’t finish work before the holiday break.

Most vexing to the intelligence agencies, without an extension of the law the government would return to needing individual court orders to listen in on any communication that passes through U.S. telecommunications switches and computer servers — even those that are between people who are outside the country. This is not required by FISA, according to legal experts, but became the practice over time to provide firms with legal protections.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, and Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., on Thursday proposed extending the existing law for 30 days to buy the Senate additional time to produce a bill. The House completed its version of the bill last fall.

In a move to resolve the immunity issue, the key impasse on the legislation, the White House ended months of resistance Thursday and agreed to give House members access to secret documents about its warrantless wiretapping program.

The Bush administration is trying to persuade the House to agree to retroactively shield from liability those companies that helped the government eavesdrop on Americans without the approval of the FISA court. About 40 such civil lawsuits are pending against telecommunications firms, and the administration says if the cases go forward they could reveal information that would compromise national security. It also contends that the companies could be bankrupted if the lawsuits are successful.

The companies were helping the administration carry out the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, a still-classified effort that intercepted communications on U.S. soil without oversight from the FISA court from Sept. 11, 2001, to Jan. 17, 2007.

Reyes and Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House intelligence panel, requested access to the White House documents in May. House Democrats say they will not support telecom immunity without seeing them first. Some senators were given access to the documents last fall.

The documents include the president’s authorization of warrantless wiretapping, Justice Department legal opinions going back to 2001, and the requests sent to the telecommunications companies asking for their assistance.

I’m trying really hard to be surprised these days…really hard…

I’ve got a theory about Bill Clinton’s obnoxious behavior, coming up with inaccurate and crude slurs against Barack Obama. I think he knows that he looks like a jerk, and I think he knows that it disgusts voters, and I think that’s exactly what he wants.

The Hillary Clinton for President campaign has never sought to build a real network of grassroots support - not of the kind we saw developing in 2004. They know too that Barack Obama is attracting new voters to the presidential primaries, and that new voters are those who are the most likely to lose their resolve and not show up to vote when they become discouraged.

Hillary Clinton’s support, on the other hand, tends to come from the institutional Democratic Party and its extensions at the state and local level. Longtime Democrats who have been regular voters are more likely to support a candidate who reminds them of Democrats in the past, rather than someone who challenges Democrats to break with the past.

If voters are getting turned off by Bill Clinton’s smarmy attacks against Barack Obama, and want to stop participating in the 2008 presidential primary elections, it’s more likely that those who walk away in disgust will be Barack Obama’s supporters. I think that Bill Clinton knows that, and is purposefully trying to create low voter turnout in the Super Tuesday primaries, so that Hillary Clinton can win.

Consider how, every time that one of Bill Clinton’s stupid comments gets publicity in the news, he doesn’t apologize and back off. He comes out the next day and says something even more outrageous. Bill Clinton knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s trying to drive everyone out of the Democratic primaries except for the people who are supporters of the establishment Clinton machine, and will put up with anything that Bill Clinton does.

By way of public notice, I have just finished and posted a message to the all of the members of Unity08 only “Delegate Committee” group that I know of: u08delegatecouncil@yahoogroups.com. In this message, I suggested that we, as duly registered Unity08 “Delegate” continue to meet online to form the consciousness of Unity08, as it were,  and to follow the finally ownership of Unity-8 email lite. I happen to be it belongs to all of the registered delegates of Unity08. In this message I have also called for “u08delegatecouncil”  members to start thinking about the possibility of forming an authentic “online” political party that did, in fact, represent the voices of its registered membership.

At this time, I would like to invite all “duly registered Unity08 “Delegates” to become members of u08delegatecouncil and help us move forward with this effort.

 ex animo

davidfarrar

I’m rolling my eyes at the headline in the New York Times today that reads: “Calls Grow for Bloomberg to Make Up His Mind”.

Where? Where are these calls growing for Michael Bloomberg to make up his mind about whether he’s going to run for President or not?

I haven’t heard any such calls. No one I know is growing impatient, longing to hear what Mike Bloomberg will decide to do in 2008. There never has been any clamor for Michael Bloomberg to do anything among the people I know.

It seems to me that the only people who are calling for Michael Bloomberg to do anything are a bunch of Bloomberg’s fellow media tycoons and power brokers. Maybe they’re calling each other in a heated fury of anxiety, wondering if their favorite billionaire will represent their interests as President. I don’t know. I don’t have their telephone numbers.

But “Calls Grow for Bloomberg to Make Up His Mind”? Give me a break, New York Times.

I know that Bloomberg’s people have been planting little seeds in the ears of reporters, trying to create the impression that the “right” people are backing Bloomberg, but when it comes to the nearly 300 million of the rest of us who are not the “right” people, Michael Bloomberg could move to Antarctica and study penguins for all we care.

I’m still lazy, so here’s another comic;

The recently budding elitist echo story about how great it would be if a billionaire could run for President on the basis of his having a lot of money and the support of a group of powerful Washington D.C. insiders is based upon the assumption that the American people have very short memories. Given my experience in discussing political issues with other Americans, that’s a pretty safe assumption. It’s a sadly calculating foundation for a presidential campaign, though.

The billionaire is, of course, Michael Bloomberg. Think about it now… as you’ve gone about your daily business, have you ever heard anybody say, “Oh, if only Michael Bloomberg would run for President!” Of course you haven’t. That’s why Bloomberg will need his billions of dollars to spend on television advertisements, to try to convince you that you’ve just been dying to hand over power to him.

The thing about Michael Bloomberg, is that for all his talk about “unity”, he complains a lot about problems made by bad people. Which bad people? Well, Mikey never says, exactly… because… he’s one of them.

Today, at Politico, Bloomberg was quoted as whining, “People have stopped working together, government is dysfunctional. … There’s no accountability today,!”

The government is dysfunctional? Michael Bloomberg helped to put the government into place, remember? He sent out his New York City police to infiltrate groups of anti-Bush protesters, to spy on them and bring the information back to New York City Republican headquarters. He did it for George W. Bush, his big buddy in the White House.

Remember 2004. George W. Bush and Michael Bloomberg were the best of friends. It’s only since the Republican Party became unpopular that Bloomberg has tried to re-cast himself as an independent.

Independent. Oh, sure. A big city mayor with immense personal riches and Wall Street connections who first was a Democrat, and then a Republican, and then neither. When Mike Bloomberg says “independent”, what he means is “opportunistic”.

Opportunistic, like a rat jumping from a sinking ship, now telling us that he’s been with us all on dry land all along.

Beware of billionaires who complain that the system isn’t working. Their idea of a solution will be worse than the problem.

In 1972 I was 21 years old,  town campaign manager for the McGovern Presidential campaign,and as idealistic and devoted to McGovern as any young Obama supporter today.  What a high we experienced the night that McGovern won the nomination; what disappointment we felt the night of the election.  In time, information was discovered that the Republicans had hoped for, indeed, planned on a McGovern candidacy, as they viewed him as the weakest candidate. Yes, McGovern enjoyed tremendous support from a new generation of young voters; and yes, we couldn’t have made the Republicans — and I do mean Richard Nixon et al — happier.

One of the most disillusioning revelations post-election 1972 was that many Republicans had influenced the outcome of primaries by registering as Democrats precisely in order to vote for McGovern. It was, in fact, the first time that voters were allowed to switch their party on primary day in NJ, and the Republicans evidently took advantage of it. Over time, I learned the painful truth that political decisions do not necessarily reflect the will of the supporters of any position or candidate; elections and voters can be and are manipulated in many ways. Voter idealism is an opportunity for exploitation by manipulators with less than idealistic goals.

In 2008, I see this blind idealism again in the young, first-time-voters and caucus participants in Iowa and elsewhere. And it raises for me the same concerns that I wish I had seen in 1972 but could only perceive and understand retrospectively some years later.

Specifically, I find it alarming that, as of January 2nd,  70-something-% of Iowans who supported Obama and were polled were first time caucus-participants. 20% were reported to be Republicans who planned on changing party to support Obama in the caucus. And I believe around 30-40% were Independents who had not been drawn into a caucus ever before.

While this all sounds quite positive for Obama, lets stop and consider, first of all, that 20% of his supporters are Republicans. How likely is it that Republicans in Iowa — a state which has never elected a woman governor, congressman or senator, no less a Black one — are switching parties to vote for the first serious Black Democrat contender? Were they closeted progressives all these years, just waiting for the most sincere and true Democrat for change to run? If so, how did they miss Howard Dean in 2004? I think that the 20% Republican support can be explained as well if not better by the hypothesis that the Republicans are again trying to tip the caucus in favor of a candidate who ultimately would have great difficulty in winning the national election.

The 30-40% Independents who have never before found a candidate of either party to support at a caucus are equally, if not more, suspect. Mind you, these are people who would have not even come out  to support Iowa favorite son Tom Harkin when he ran in the past in Presidential primaries. Most Independents I know are proudly and stubbornly independent — they’re suspect of politics in general, eschew registering allegiance to ANY party, Dem, Repub or 3rd party, and do not mind one bit not being able to choose a party candidate during the primaries by maintaining their independent status. Are we to believe, without question, that such a large number of Independents have somehow shaken loose from their prized independent status because Obama is such a great candidate? I don’t think so.

Which brings us down to the great NON-QUESTION of the 2008 primaries: are Caucasian Americans really ready to vote for a Black/minority president? Well maybe this is less of a non-question than it is the non-discussed question of the season. Listening to a panel of supposed election experts from the far-right Enterprise Institute discussing possible primary outcome scenarios, I was almost convinced, as they insisted, that there just was no reason at all to think that race would influence voter preferences. I actually had to stop and think: wait a minute, there still is a serious underclass in the U.S., isnt there? and that underclass contains most of the 16% of Americans who are Black, right? (As Obama correctly noted recently, there are still more college-age young Black men in prison than there are in college — a statistic that has not changed since I first heard it reported 20 years ago.)  Of course other minorities are found in the underclass, but the majority of Blacks are found there.

Who keeps Blacks in the underclass? Certainly predominately white communities, companies, law firms, professional schools, etc.  But it happens daily in many ways and is ignored and hence implicitly supported by most Caucasian Americans.  Support for Obama is very real in some sectors, very politically correct in others. Don’t tell me that MANY Americans, of both parties, have not considered the possibility of and experience some trepidation when they envision a government dominated by Black Americans.

I’m not saying I’m among them. But when it comes to evaluating Obama’s true chances for winning a national election that requires winning the hard South and Conservative Western states, one simply can’t ignore the issue of race and how it could influence the outcome of the election.

Prove me wrong. Let’s start a real discussion of this important issue NOW, while the primary season is in its infancy. Let’s be conscious of the possibility of cynical manipulation of our youngest and often our most idealistic voters. Let’s pick a presidential candidate with our eyes, ears and minds open to the most critical question of electibility in November 2008.

It looks like Hillary Clinton is going to come in third in the Iowa caucuses - a humiliation, given that she was, just a month or so ago, described as the “inevitable” Democratic candidate. Furthermore, she’s not even close to Barack Obama - more than eight percentage points behind.

Heads are going to roll in the Clinton for President campaign. Don’t expect Hillary Clinton to give up yet, but DO expect some of her staff to get canned.

And Bill Clinton? What is Bill Clinton going to be doing tonight?

“Honey, I’ve got to go fill up the car with gasoline, before the hundred dollar a barrel oil drives the price above four dollars per gallon. I’ll be back soon… in March or so. Save me a Snickers Bar.”

John Edwards supporters ought to be ashamed of themselves for bragging about the endorsement from Ralph Nader. Have they forgotten how Ralph Nader threw the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush? Now that Ralph Nader is endorsing John Edwards, a vote for Edwards is practically a vote for Bush.

Besides, John Edwards has really put all of his cards on the table. It’s Iowa or nothing for John Edwards, because he’s invested his campaign’s wealth there, organizing in the caucuses. If John Edwards doesn’t get first place in Iowa today, his campaign is dead in the water.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, doesn’t need to win Iowa at all in order to win the Democratic presidential nomination. Even if she comes in third place in the Iowa caucuses, it’s a sign of strength in her campaign, which invested little in Iowa.

Which kind of leader would you rather have for President - the kind who loses in second place, or the kind who wins even in third place? Hillary Clinton is the clear choice for voters today.

In one of the most surprising endorsements of the 2008 presidential election, Ralph Nader has thrown his support to John Edwards for President, just a couple of days before the Iowa caucuses. The reason for Nader’s endorsement is very clear: Hillary Clinton is heavily associated with big corporate interest groups, and John Edwards offers the strongest voice in this year’s elections against corporate influence over America’s democratic government.

Nader said of Senator Clinton, “She has experience in the Senate, and what that experience has meant is going soft on cracking down on corporate crime, fraud, and abuse, soft on cutting tens of millions in corporate subsidies.” Yes, Hillary Clinton has experience, but it’s the wrong kind of experience - like her experience on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart.

Hillary Clinton is the wrong choice for the Democrats, and John Edwards is the strongest alternative.

Though some Green Party activists are still trying to draft Ralph Nader for President in 2008, it’s becoming very clear that Ralph Nader will not run, and that, if he does, almost nobody will vote for him. Endorsing John Edwards was the best play for influence that Nader could make.

Back in 1998, asked by the Arkansas Democrat Gazette why he left being a Southern Baptist preacher to become a politician, Mike Huckabee said, “I hope we answer the alarm clock and take this nation back for Christ.”

I’m confused. Mike Huckabee and his ilk say that the United States is a Christian nation. If that’s true, why do they need to take the United States back for Christ?

Furthermore, I’d like to know who Mike Huckabee thinks he’s taking the nation back from. It seems that Mike Huckabee thinks that Non-Christians should have America taken away from them.

Finally, what “alarm clock” is Mike Huckabee talking about? Is he one of those people who thinks that the End Times of Armageddon are just around the corner? How is that a part of his decision to enter politics? Does Mike Huckabee intend to pursue public policies from the White House that are designed to facilitate the End Times in order to bring Jesus back from the dead in the End Times?

It appears that Mike Huckabee’s design upon entering politics was theocratic from the start.

(Source: Arkansas Democrat Gazette, June 8, 1998)

Will the Clinton for President campaign have any staff left at the end of this week? I ask this question in light of last week’s discovery of the Clinton campaign’s shameful activities spreading malicious rumors about Barack Obama.

Barack Obama has become more successful with voters than Hillary Clinton, as voters have considered Senator Clinton’s questionable connections with corporate interests, and her less-than-progressive voting record in the Senate, including Clinton’s infamous vote to help George W. Bush start the war in Iraq.

In response, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has started spreading false rumors about Barack Obama’s religion, which shouldn’t even matter, and about Barack Obama’s behavior as a teenager, which has even less relevance.

When Clinton’s campaign was caught pushing these false rumors around, it fired a couple of staffers, as scapegoats, blaming the trouble on them. Hillary Clinton wouldn’t take responsibility herself. Besides, those campaign staffers were only fired after the story went public.

You don’t see Barack Obama engaging in this sort of skullduggery. He might criticize Hillary Clinton, but it’s on the issues. That’s why I support Barack Obama for President, not Hillary Clinton.

There’s only 24 hours left to help Beth raise funds for her PA 18 race against naughty Tim, whether it be 5, 10, or 25 dollars to help Tim start packing. Please consider helping out PA-18 because this is sadly our current Congressman in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUT3BEfcl-s

oh wait and also here on KDKA news:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hwh-OCFCOTc

You can help us change direction and priorities by donating the the Hafer campaign at:
www.gecturf.com/bhafer

Your donation is greatly appreciated in these last 24 hours!!!
Check out Beth’s recent labor endorsement at www.midatlanticlabor.org

Hello Everyone,

The online fundraiser for Beth Hafer, leading candidate in the PA 18th District starts at midnight tonight and lasts until 11:59pm on November 29th.  Please consider giving 5, 10, or 25 dollars to help us get the change we sorely need in leadership in PA-18.  Check out the challenge BELOW! With your help we can keep the great momentum going:

http://www.gecturf/bhafer

Also, for those of you who want to check out her webpage: www.haferforcongress.com to read about her recent CWA endorsement as well as events coming up in the Keystone state.  Your help is greatly appreciated! 

November 25, 2007 - Sunday

1700 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3875
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28530

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 77327
(MAXIMUM): 84244
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $471,621,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

November 23, 2007 - Friday

1699 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3874
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28530

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 77323
(MAXIMUM): 84240
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $471,065,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

November 20, 2007 - Tuesday

1696 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3873
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28489

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 77305
(MAXIMUM): 84222
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $470,210,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

I have decided to come unhinged. Over the last few years, as things have gotten worse and worse, I have become increasingly serious, and dedicated to getting the word out.

I’ve watched as more and more Americans just tune out. The more outrageous the abuses of our government get, the less they pay attention. The more blatant Bush’s crimes have become, they less they care. The more bizarre the distortion of our democracy becomes, the more they pretend that nothing has changed.

I’d say that it seems that Americans are in training for living under totalitarian rule… except that tonight, I’m too tired to say that.

My sense of normalcy has been shredded by the way that most Americans shrug off what it has meant to be an American, and accept a monstrous replacement. The new normal is insane, and so tonight, I am insane.

I feel that my efforts to communicate warnings to other Americans have been about as effective as the voice of a microscopic organism. So, in this video, I speak in my true voice for these irregular times: The voice of Herman, the Activist Protozoan, who clamors in vain in the effort to convince multicellular organism to take action. That’s about as effectual as I’ve been, in my little bitty marginal pool of slime.

I guess Beth Hafer, the leading Democratic candidate to take on Tim Murphy in the PA 18th Congressional is having an online 72 hour fundraiser on November 27th to the 29th.  Help western PA with a 72 hr version of small change for bigger change.

The link is: http://www.gecturf.com/bhafer/

Seems like there has been alot of excitement and a great reponse for Democrat Hafer, who has great views on immediately changing course in Iraq and supporting working families instead of the large interest groups and CEOS (like Tim).  Tim Murphy recently voted against the Bridge fund to change course in Iraq from occupation to transition, as well as a program geared at providing assistance for those workers who lose their jobs as a result of bad trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA.  This war has costed Pennsylvania alot and we’ve lost over 202,000 good paying manufacturing jobs because Tim Murphy chose to rubber stamp President Bushes anti-worker policies.  Hafer’s successful first quarter was comparable to freshmen Congressmen Altmire and Murphy. 

Jesse

Westmoreland Co. PA

November 17, 2007 - Saturday

1693 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3867
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28489

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 77225
(MAXIMUM): 84140
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $469,377,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

November 16, 2007 - Frinesday

1691 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3865
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28451

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 77213
(MAXIMUM): 84128
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $469,081,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

Read this one. Last week, on “60 Minutes,” one of Bush’s LIES, that’s LIES, not faulty intelligence, LIES, was clearly exposed. Three weeks before the invasion of Iraq, the primary source for “intelligence” about chemical weapons of mass destruction was exposed. Not after the invasion but before.

Faulty Intel Source “Curve Ball” Revealed

60 Minutes: Iraqi’s Fabricated Story Of Biological Weapons Aided U.S. Arguments For Invasion

(CBS)*Did Saddam Hussein have weapons of mass destruction? No, he did not. We’ve known that for some time now. So where did the intelligence come from that he was building up his arsenal? Fantastically, the most compelling part came from one obscure Iraqi defector who came in and out of history like a comet. His code name, ironically, was “Curve Ball” and his information became the pillar of the case Colin Powell made to the United Nations before the war. Who is Curve Ball and how did he fool the world’s elite intelligence agencies?

…

U.N. inspectors in Iraq visited a suspected WMD location — Djerf al Nadaf, Curve Ball’s secret site. And what did they find there? A wall — the very wall that had appeared on the overhead imagery back in 2001. Curve Ball had claimed the mobile bio-weapons trucks entered through doors at one end of a warehouse.

“When the inspectors examined the facility, they found that this was an impossibility,” explains Jim Corcoran, whose job it was to relay intelligence to the inspectors in Iraq.

Corcoran learned the wall blocked any entrance to the warehouse. As for Curve Ball’s hidden doors at the other end that would allow the trucks to exit?

“Again, there was a wall there, no doors. And outside there was a stone fence that would have made it impossible for this to have occurred,” Corcoran says.

Corcoran knew Djerf al Nadaf was of great importance, so he sent inspectors back 20 days later to take samples, to see if any traces of biological agents were there. “They proved negative,” Corcoran tells Simon. “There was nothing there.”

But the inspectors’ findings in Iraq made no impact; the war began three weeks later.

RED DAVE

November 7, 2007 - Wednesday

1683 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3857
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28385

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 76226
(MAXIMUM): 83042
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $466,567,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

‘lo and behold, what do I find when I wake up and log into Yahoo this morning?

(link)

Bush vetoes water projects bill
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer 22 minutes ago

An increasingly confrontational President Bush on Friday vetoed a bill authorizing hundreds of popular water projects even though lawmakers can count enough votes to override him.

Bush brushed aside significant objections from Capitol Hill, even from Republicans, in thwarting legislation that provides money for projects like repairing hurricane damage, restoring wetlands and preventing flooding in communities across the nation.

This level of opposition virtually assured that Bush would have a veto overridden for the first time in his presidency. He has used the veto very sparingly for most of the time he has been in office, but has made more use of it recently.

“When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

“More than two years after failing to respond to the devastation and destruction of Hurricane Katrina, he is refusing to fund important projects guided by the Army Corps of Engineers that are essential to protecting the people of the Gulf Coast region.”

The $23 billion water bill passed in both chambers of Congress by well more than the two-thirds majority needed to vacate a veto and make the bill law.

Bush objected to the $9 billion in projects added during negotiations between the House and Senate. He hoped that his action, even though it is sure not to hold, would cast him as a friend to conservatives who demand a tighter rein on federal spending.

But Bush never vetoed spending bills under the Republican Congress, despite budgetary increases then, too. Attempting to demonstrate fiscal toughness now, in the seventh year of his presidency, carried the risk being criticized for doing too little, too late or as waging a transparently partisan attack against the Democrats who now run Capitol Hill.

The president took the gamble, making it part of a broader effort to more pointedly and frequently take on Democratic leaders.

The legislation originally approved by the Senate would have cost $14 billion and the House version would have totaled $15 billion. Bush and a few Republicans complained that the final version was larded with unneeded pet projects pushed by individual lawmakers — sending the overall cost of the bill much higher.

“Only in Washington could the House take a $14 billion bill into a conference with the Senate’s $15 billion bill and emerge with a compromise that costs taxpayers over $23 billion,” said White House press secretary Dana Perino.

She also said Bush vetoed the bill because it is “fiscally irresponsible” and falls outside the scope of the Army Corps’ mission.

Critics noted that the bill piles more work on the Army Corps of Engineers, which already has a backlog of $58 billion worth of projects and an annual budget of only about $2 billion to address them.

If Bush is overridden, the measure would give a green light to projects in virtually every state. It only authorizes the projects; the actual funding must be approved separately.

The authorizations include:

_$3.6 billion for major wetlands and other coastal restoration, flood control and dredging projects for Louisiana, a state where coastal erosion and storms have resulted in the disappearance of huge areas of land;

_nearly $2 billion for the restoration of the Florida Everglades;

_nearly $2 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers to build seven new locks on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers;

_$7 billion for various projects related to hurricane mitigation in Mississippi and Louisiana, including assuring 100-year levee protection in New Orleans;

_hundreds of smaller dredging, wetlands restoration and flood control projects across the country.

The Congressional Budget office says the bill includes projects that, if fully funded, would cost $11.2 billion over the next four years and $12 billion in the decade after that. The bill also calls for increased oversight of the Corps, requiring an outside review of water construction projects.

The veto was Bush’s fifth. Four of those have come since Democrats took over Congress in January, but this one was unusual because it also pits the president against a sizable number of lawmakers from his own party. Previous Bush vetoes include two of bills allowing expanded federal research using embryonic stem cells, and a spending bill that would have required troop withdrawals from Iraq.

Last month, Bush vetoed a major expansion of a children’s health insurance program, also over objections from some Republicans. But he has far more partisan unity on that issue than on the water projects bill. It was the first time Bush went into a veto knowing it was a futile effort. This turns the tables somewhat on him, as he has been criticizing Democrats almost daily for wasting time by passing legislation they knew he would not accept.

Isn’t it funny that now that there’s a Democratic majority in Congress Bush is finally taking the packaging off his veto pen? Ain’t it also funny that Bush considers things that will cost around 14 billion over the next 14 years to help fix some badly needed things is “fiscally irresponsible” and yet I just found an article that report economists are speculating that the war in Iraq could balloon to over $1 TRILLION dollars. Whether that is true or not that same article is reporting that the daily cost is over $200 million a day.

Which is fiscally irresponsible? Adding in things to help protect American citizens from natural disasters and restore the environment for $14 billion, or continue an occupation of a foreign nation that serves as nothing but a black hole for the economy and is turning this into the most expensive military campaign in American history?

You want to be fiscally responsible? Pull troops out of Iraq and STOP GIVING TAX BREAKS TO COMPANIES FOR OUTSOURCING AMERICAN JOBS!

October 31, 2007 - Wednesday

1676 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3839
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28276

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 75971
(MAXIMUM): 82776
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $463,594,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

I could have a big, long wish list for the Democrats in Congress, and fill up a screen here with it, no problem. However, if I had to prioritize my concerns about the inaction of Congress, I could quickly list them as follows:

1. I want my freedom back
2. I want the environmental crisis to be confronted with without further delay
3. I want an end to war

It’s with that focus that I created this video, All I Want From Congress is My Freedom Back. It’s part of my ongoing experimentation with Anime Studio 5, as I slowly work out the glitches of the software, and explore what it’s able and not able to do.

Discovery with this project: With a distorted voice, the lip synching feature doesn’t work well at all. You’ll see that clearly, if you watch the video. I screened out the music for purposes of lip synching, so I know that’s not the problem.

October 30, 2007 - Tuesday

1675 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3839
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28276

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 75971
(MAXIMUM): 82776
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $463,314,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

October 28, 2007 - Sunday

1673 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3839
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28276

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 75900
(MAXIMUM): 82703
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $463,764,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

October 27, 2007 - Saturday

1672 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3839
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28276

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 75775
(MAXIMUM): 82560
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $463,485,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

October 26, 2007 - Firday

1671 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3838
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28276

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 75759
(MAXIMUM): 82542
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $463,194,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

October 24, 2007 - Wednesday

1669 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3836
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28276

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 75598
(MAXIMUM): 82368
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $462,626,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

October 23, 2007 - Tueday

1668 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3834
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28276

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 75564
(MAXIMUM): 82331
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $462,345,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

I really didn’t think they could be this out of touch with the American people.

GOP Rivals Argue Who’s Most Conservative

GOP rivals argue who’s most conservative
By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press WriterMon Oct 22, 6:31 PM ET

Republican front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney defended their conservative credentials in the face of pointed attacks from campaign rivals Sunday night in the most aggressive debate to date of the race for the White House.

“You’ve just spent the last year trying to fool people about your record. I don’t want you to start fooling them about mine,” Arizona Sen. John McCain bluntly told Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson made Giuliani his target, saying the former New York mayor supported federal funding for abortion, gun control and havens for illegal immigrants.

“He sides with Hillary Clinton on each of those issues,” added Thompson, referring to the New York Democrat who leads in the polls for her party’s presidential nomination.

The clashes in the early moments of a 90-minute debate prompted former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to say he wanted no part of a “demolition derby” with others of his own party. “What I’m interested in is fighting for the American people.”

Whatever their disagreements among one another, the eight rivals agreed on one issue. They took turns criticizing Clinton, the Democratic front-runner.

Asked whether she was fit to be commander in chief, Romney replied, “I’d vote no.”

Giuliani said he agreed with one thing the former first lady said recently. “I have a million ideas. America cannot afford them all,” he quoted her as saying as laughter filled the debate hall. “I’m not making it up.”

McCain said Clinton had recently tried to spend $1 million on a Woodstock Museum, commemorating perhaps the most famous counterculture event of the 1960s.

“Now my friends I wasn’t there. I’m sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event,” he said.

“I was tied up at the time,” he deadpanned, and the audience rose to applaud the reference to the five and a half years McCain spent as a prisoner of war during Vietnam.

The debate was the first since Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas dropped out of the race, winnowing the field. The remaining rivals stood on a stage at a resort 10 miles from Walt Disney World, fielding questions at an event broadcast by Fox News Channel.

The leadoff Iowa caucuses are scheduled for Jan. 3, 2008, for Republicans. In their most recent debate, Oct. 9, Giuliani and Romney swapped charges with each other, vying for primacy in the race.

This time they largely ignored each other. Instead, Giuliani’s lead in the nation polls, as well as Romney’s perceived strength in early voting states, made them obvious targets for McCain and Thompson.

The first question went to Giuliani, asked whether he was more conservative than Thompson. “I can’t comment on Fred,” the former mayor said.

He then added that he had brought down crime, cleaned up Times Square, cut taxes and eliminated the city’s deficits. “I think that was a pretty darned good conservative record,” he said.

Giuliani took a more conservative position on gay marriage than he has thus far, saying he would support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage if states begin to legalize it.

Giuliani lived with an openly gay couple after separating from his second wife, Donna Hanover, and one member of the couple said at the time that Giuliani promised to marry them if gay marriage was ever legalized.

Attacked by the former Tennessee senator moments later, Giuliani fired back at his antagonist. “Fred has problems, too,” he said. He said Thompson was the “single biggest obstacle” in the Senate to legislation limiting the ability of individuals filing lawsuits to recover unlimited damages.

“He stood with the Democrats over and over again” on the issue, Giuliani added.

Thompson said he believed states should decide whether to limit lawsuits in their own states.

Republicans in Congress tried for years to pass legislation that would cap damages in lawsuits, but never succeeded before losing their majority to Democrats in 2006.

Romney was asked about McCain’s earlier claims that he had shifted positions on a number of issues to appeal to conservative Republicans.

The former Massachusetts governor responded that he was proud of his record, particularly since the state had an overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature. “I fought to make sure we kept our taxes down. I fought for pro-growth strategies. I cut taxes,” he said.

Moments later, though, McCain personally turned on Romney.

“Governor Romney, you’ve been spending the last year trying to fool people about your record. I don’t want you to start fooling them about mine,” he said.

Saying he would run on his record as a conservative, McCain added, “I don’t think you can fool the American people. I think the first thing you’d need is their respect.”

Coming up next, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain debate the looming threat of of a domino effect of the Red Menace. Stay tuned!

October 21, 2007 - Sunday

1666 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3832
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28276

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 75449
(MAXIMUM): 82193
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $461,815,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

October 20, 2007 - Saturday

1665 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3832
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28276

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 75383
(MAXIMUM): 82126
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $461,513,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

October 19, 2007 - Friday

1664 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3830
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28276

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 75288
(MAXIMUM): 82027
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $461,233,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

October 18, 2007 - Thursday

1663 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3829
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28171

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 75164
(MAXIMUM): 81902
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $460,946,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

October 14, 2007 - Sunday

1659 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3826
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28171

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 74983
(MAXIMUM): 81710
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $459,845,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE

I caught this when I came online today and it got me to grin a bit.

[b]Dems: Override children’s health veto[/b]
By MARY CLARE JALONICK, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 51 minutes ago

Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana asked his colleagues on Saturday to override President Bush’s veto of legislation that would expand a popular children’s health insurance program.

“Every Republican must decide whether they will stand with the president and his veto, or stand with our children and their right to a healthy future,” Baucus said in his party’s weekly radio address.

House Democrats have scheduled for this week a vote to override the president’s veto of legislation that would increase spending for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by $35 billion over five years. Bush has called for a $5 billion increase.

The effort is not expected to succeed. An override requires a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate, and the earlier House vote fell about two dozen votes short. The Senate approved the increase by a veto-proof margin.

The program provides health insurance to children in families with incomes too great for Medicaid eligibility but not enough to afford private insurance. Bush has said the bill is too costly, goes beyond the program’s original intent and shifts too much insurance burden onto the government rather than private providers.

Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said Tuesday that Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt had called him seeking to compromise on the bill, but he refused.

“We want to prevail,” Baucus said then.

He said Saturday that the president is telling millions of parents that they don’t deserve the same basic care for their kids that Bush had for his.

Are the Democrats finally growing a spine? Maybe not, but I still hope they can override this veto.

October 13, 2007 - Saturday

1658 days into the war

U.S. MILITARY DEATHS IN IRAQ: 3823
U.S. MILITARY WOUNDED IN IRAQ: 28171

IRAQI CIVILIAN DEATHS
(MINIMUM): 74983
(MAXIMUM): 81710
(LANCET ESTIMATE) 600,000

COST OF THE WAR SO FAR (ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST MILLION): $459,548,000,000

Please note that the above figures, from the IBC website, are NOT estimates of total Iraqi civilians killed as a result of the US invasion and its aftermath. Rather, they are a count of Western-reported verifiable violent deaths, and likely to be a small percentage of the true figure. Les Roberts, author of the Lancet Report, believes the actual number may now be as high as 1,000,000.

RED DAVE