Disconnected Rumblings

Thursday, April 28, 2005

Is This the End of the World?

Holy CRAP!!!!!!

Buckle your seat belts ladies and gentlemen!!! This is going to be like a nuclear explosion!

Ready?!

I AGREE with the current president. I won't use my usual name for him, but I won't use his "official" name either. You all know who I am talking about. Think landscape, then think about U's, specifically two U's. Ok.

I AGREE with him folks!!!

He gave a speech tonight that I missed because I was out bagging tumbleweeds the size of a small Volkswagen for 2.5 hours today after work. I know you are all disappointed in me for missing a prime time new conference my our president, if nothing else than to make fun of it, but I have just read this article and I must say for once this man has surprised me.

Bush Pitches Less Soc. Sec. for Better-Off

HOLY SH*T! Can you believe this? I would have never predicted that this man would suggest such a logical and decent idea, as to limit the Social Security benefits of the more well to do.

For those not into this whole Social Security debate, a brief recap.

SS is going to run out of its trust fund somewhere around 2042. Once that happens we need to figure out how to get more money into the system to keep paying people the current level of benefits, or reduce benefits in some way. No its not bankrupt. It is an oxymoron to say that this system can go bankrupt, since it is ALWAYS taking in money as long as some people are working, and putting money into the system.

ANYWAYS, the prez has been pushing this idea of private accounts, where workers could divert their SS payments into a private account and invest in the stock market. Problem is this is the opposite of what needs to be done to fix the SS problem. The system doesn't need less money coming in to it, it needs more.

So private accounts are simply a political ideological idea. Ok back to my point.
"President Bush, trying to set off a depth charge under
Social Security negotiations, on Thursday proposed asking future middle and higher-income retirees to accept smaller benefit checks than they're currently slated to receive.

In a prime-time news conference, Bush said a system in which benefits for low-income workers 'grow faster than for people who are better off would solve much of the solvency problem' facing the government retirement program."
Well, so there you go. One point to agree on. Although as I have said before, the devil is in the details.

Apparently he did also say that private accounts MUST be in the solution, which is just stupid. So back to the norm. Way to go idiot!

Ok the END.
posted by digitaljay @ 9:35 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

One Minor Victory

So the Republicans have come to their senses. Even if just for a moment.

Warning: policy discussion ahead.

House Votes to Reverse GOP Ethics Rules

To catch up, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has had allegations leveled at him about improper behavior. Ok overly simplified, but I am going to keep this short. DeLay was admonished twice last year by the House Ethics Committee for previous conduct. So he used his position to basically put new members into the ethics committee who are close to him, having received money from his political fundraising committee (or something of that sort).

Then in January the Republicans changed the Ethics Committee rules so that if the committee was evenly divided on whether to seek an investigation into possible wrong doing, that the case would then be dropped, instead of pursued as it was previously.

What this effectively did was prevent an investigation into Tom DeLay's actions unless one Republican would agree to vote to launch an investigation. Seeing as DeLay replaced two of the members of that Ethics Committee with members more to his liking, getting a Republican to vote for an investigation seemed impossible.

So the Democrats refused to allow the committee to meet. Basically as a protest to these new rules, and the protection of Tom DeLay.

SOOOOOOO!

Finally today the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert brought up for vote to reverse the changes to the ethics rules.

So now let the fun begin! Lets see where this investigation goes. Although I wonder if things are already swept under the rug. Hmmm.

Some reaction:
"'We were absolutely right,' insisted Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. countered, 'When they thought no one was looking, they passed a package that effectively neutered the committee ... to protect one man from investigation.'

Senior committee Democrat Alan Mollohan of West Virginia argued that the Republican rules would have seriously damaged the committee's ability to conduct investigations.

'What is at issue is ... whether the House is going to continue to have a credible ethics process. Nothing less than this is at stake here tonight.'"
In other news:

House OKs Bill Toughening Abortion Consent

Well I had written a alot on this and then blogger just erased everything! Lovely. Well I basically said that I see the slippery slope, that first it was denying federal funds to clinics that perform abortions, or provide information on family planning. Then it was,
"Last year, Congress made it a separate crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman."
Soon enough it will be working to overturn Roe V. Wade, mark my words.

That is enough for tonight.
posted by digitaljay @ 9:06 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

Terrorism Report Suppression

Short post tonight. I just wanted to point out this article:

Data kept out of terror report shows 'dramatic uptick' in attacks
"Data withheld from an annual report on terrorism issued by the US State Department shows a sharp increase in the number of attacks last year in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere, a leading Democratic lawmaker charged.

'According to the data being concealed from the public, global terror attacks were more than three times higher in 2004 than the record levels set in 2003,' Representative Henry Waxman wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asking that the information be restored to the department's annual report 'Patterns of Global Terrorism.'"
So my question is why suppress this report? It doesn't make any sense, if we are going to fight this war on terrorism, we need the data to know if we are making any progress.
"Earlier this month, the US State Department said it had decided not to publish annual statistics on the number of terror attacks and casualties, after discrepancies were found in figures released last year documenting attacks that had occurred in 2003."
Ok so since last year's report had problems, just stop releasing the findings? Nope, not right.

Oh man I wish I had more time to write on a bigger issue. Why republicans think THEY are the victims of the uber powerful Left. But that will have to be later this week.
posted by digitaljay @ 10:29 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Monday, April 25, 2005

The Plan: Part II

"Il Manifesto"

Ok so now that we have established the unfortunate reality that the republican party stands FIRST for big business, atop the shoulders of the lower and middle class, where does this take us for the future?

Wait, stop, let me point something out in that last sentence. My clever visualization about "big business atop the shoulders of the lower and middle class" was not just a witty play on words, it has quite the profound meaning. See, without the lower and middle class, the big business, the corporate elite, would not be where they are today. That is what is missing in this republican agenda, the acknowledgement that big business stands atop the shoulders, of the lower and middle class.

When a tightrope walker is taught to walk that tight rope, they are taught to respect the rope, to never do ANYTHING that would affect that rope adversely and consequentially affect the balance of the tightrope walker, and cause him or her to fall to their possible death. So WHY do big business and their lobby make it policy to treat the lower and middle class as nothing more than dirt beneath their feet? Why? Do they not know that this will be their downfall?

Ok ok, so now the second prong of the republican "Plan" for America is a society where their idea of family, their idea or morality (bent), and their idea of religion is what we base our government and our laws on.

But ah... let me point out the key fallacy here, the almost wanton disregard for logic and reason. The societies that we are currently seeking to dismantle almost universally have as their main tenets the idea of a society, a government, a rule of law that is completely or at least mostly based on religious doctrine. So someone please tell me how it is that we cannot see by example the failure of such governing, or rather the side effects of such a society, and seek not to follow in its destructive footsteps.

The basic philosophy of the republican party is to ease regulations on corporate "morality" and at the same time severely increase the regulations, or rather restrictions and government intervention in the private lives of Americans, when it comes to their idea of "morals".

Why is it that they must work to relax environmental laws at the same time they work to tell us what gender we should marry?

Why is it that they must work to remove our right to sue polluters or bad doctors, and at the same time they work to remove a woman's right to chose what she does with her body?

Why is it they must work to remove monopoly prevention policy with respect to one company owning nearly all tv or radio stations in a market, at the same time that they work to try to censor television and radio, broadcast, and now cable and satellite, to satisfy their idea of morality and decency?

Why? Surely if enough people were paying attention they would see what is going on here.

Soon: Part III: Il Manifesto
posted by digitaljay @ 9:28 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Friday, April 22, 2005

Happy Earth Day

Happy Earth Day everyone!



Is it coincidence?

Bush Defends Environmental Policies on Earth Day
"President Bush, who has come under persistent fire from green groups, defended his environmental policies on Earth Day on Friday, although nature conspired to prevent him from delivering his message in the Great Smoky Mountains....

...Bush had planned to go to the Cades Cove wildlife area in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park to help out on a trail restoration project, but heavy rains forced him to scrap a plan to become the first president since Franklin Roosevelt to stop in the country's most visited park."
I think NOT!

Oh and Happy Earth Day again, and here is the newly passed House energy bill, which gives huge tax breaks and subsidies to the oil, and the like industry, and protects them from lawsuits. Yeah we are on the right track.

Oh and Il Manifesto Part II will be coming next week. Don't be alarmed.
posted by digitaljay @ 8:38 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Thursday, April 21, 2005

The Plan

So what is the plan? Republicans what is the plan for our fine country? You are in nearly absolute power now. So what is the plan. Truly.

Here is what I see.

I see a party, that wants to support, foremost and before all else, BUSINESS. Preferably BIG Business. This seems to dictate all policy. The problem I have with this is that you republicans seem to put business ahead of people. This is wrong, wrong, WRONG!

Business is here to serve the PEOPLE, not a select group of very well to do people. But rather ALL people,

young old,
poor wealthy,
black white,
short tall,
fortunate unfortunate.

ALL PEOPLE! In this country there is no caste system. What a VERY pro business policy framework is doing is creating a society where the middle class is being squeezed out in favor of a neo-class system where the divide between the rich and the poor is more pronounced, and more unfair.

Oh I can hear my Republican friends now saying, "you are talking like a communist". Well you know what, if fairness in society, if helping the downtrodden, if leveling the playing field, if relieving the exploitation of the needy is communist, and anti democratic, then call me a RED BLOODED COMMIE!!!

Because MY values say that helping the least among us is the most important human thing we can do.

So why this attack on the poor, and the middle class? What is the impetus? Help me to understand.

The market.

I understand that your idea, my dear Republican friends, of democracy is that capitalism needs completely free and unfettered business to mature into the "perfect society" you all so invision. But allow me to let you in on something; this system is severely flawed!

If capitalistic systems were allowed to progress without any intervention, the common man would be trampled. If you think this is not important, or is overstated, then you are missing the ultimate point. Step back for a moment, this system was put in place for OUR benefit.

I can not, and I will not understand how you can lose sight of this.

Tomorrow: Part II : Il Manifesto
posted by digitaljay @ 9:36 PM MST | link | 1 comments

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

The Devil in the Details

Well congratulations to the Republicans in the House. Late news, the House voted to allow drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

House Votes for Oil Drilling in Alaska

But see the devil is in the details.
"The House voted late Wednesday to allow oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge as part of a broad energy bill...

...The bill calls for $8.1 billion in tax breaks over 10 years, most of it going to promote coal, nuclear, oil and natural gas energy industries."
But here's the problem, where in this bill is tax breaks for alternative sources of energy that we could use TODAY in new hybrid vehicles, that would REALLY relieve our dependence on foreign oil?
"Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., who offered the ANWR amendment, noted that the bill does nothing to improve the fuel economy of automobiles, which he said use 70 percent of the country's oil, and that it was wrong "to then turn to the wilderness areas and say we need energy."

An attempt to require automakers to increase fuel economy to a fleet average of 33 miles per gallon over the next decade was defeated 254-177.

Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., a co-sponsor of the auto fuel economy proposal, said it would have reduced oil use by 2 million barrels a day — more than could be taken from ANWR — by 2020."
33 MILES per gallon? They couldn't even get an amendment to raise the average fuel economy to 33 miles per gallon?!?! Come ON!

Read THIS, completely.

Imagine: 500 Miles Per Gallon
"Over the last five years, technology has matured in various fields, most importantly in semiconductors, to make possible cars that are as convenient and cheap as current ones, except that they run on a combination of electricity and fuel. Hybrid technology is the answer to the petroleum problem...

...The current crop of hybrid cars get around 50 miles per gallon. Make it a plug-in and you can get 75 miles. Replace the conventional fuel tank with a flexible-fuel tank that can run on a combination of 15 percent petroleum and 85 percent ethanol or methanol, and you get between 400 and 500 miles per gallon of gasoline."
So WHY does this bill, if truly a responsible energy bill to relieve our dependence on foreign energy sources, does it not HEAVILY push refining this technology??
"If things are already moving, why does the government need to do anything? Because this is not a pure free market. Large companies-in the oil and automotive industry-have vested interests in not changing much."
Ah, right, so this would cost money to convert over to new hybrid technology. So that is the reason, ok, well wait a minute, this calls for a little perspective.
"Luft estimates that a government plan that could accelerate the move to a hybrid transport system would cost $12 billion dollars. That is what we spend in Iraq in about three months."
So what about those details? What does this bill actually do? Well here are some of the details.
"House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California accused Bush of trying to exploit people's anxiety over high gas prices to gain support for a bill that she said 'was written by energy lobbyists for the benefit of the energy industry.' She said it would neither lower energy prices nor curtail America's growing reliance on oil imports...

...The House bill also would make it easier to build liquefied natural gas import terminals, even if states or local communities oppose the project...

...protect makers of the gasoline additive MTBE from product liability lawsuits stemming [from] the chemical's contamination of drinking water...

...The bill gives MTBE makers 'safe harbor' and will leave communities and water districts with billions of dollars in cleanup costs, said Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif."
Yeah the devil truly is in the details, but who is paying attention? How can anyone argue that this is a good idea? To exempt MTBE producers from liability for contamination of drinking water? To allow liquefied natural gas terminals EVEN with the opposition of states or local communities? What is this?

Wake up folks, this smells bad. I really don't think these people care about solving our problems. I think they care about giving gold to their lobbying interests.

Our government is in danger.
posted by digitaljay @ 9:38 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Tuesday, April 19, 2005

Bolton Vote on Hold

Well, against the odds, the vote by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on whether to forward the nomination of John Bolton as Ambassador to the U.N. to the full Senate, was delayed at least two weeks.

Senate Panel Delays Vote on Bolton to U.N.

I watched the meeting on C-SPAN today, and it was quite a show. At first the Republican Chairman of the committee tried to force the vote on Bolton immediately. It looked like he might get to do just that, but the Democrats on the committee protested emphatically, leading to impassioned statements from Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, and others. At this point the meeting took an unexpected turn.
"The tide turned when Ohio Republican Sen. George Voinovich spoke for the first time. He did not attend Bolton's two-day confirmation hearing last week but had been presumed to be a supporter.

'I don't feel comfortable voting today,' Voinovich said."
At this point I could hear all the jaws in the room drop to the floor! This is then followed by Republican Senator Hagel to say much the same, that he was not comfortable voting at this point, and even saying that he might not support the nomination should it make it to the full Senate floor.
"After the meeting, Voinovich said he had planned to support Bolton but changed his mind after an impassioned critique from Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. Voinovich said he does not fear retribution from the White House, which had counted on solid Republican support on the committee.

'The passion on the other side on this, I don't think is political,' Voinovich told reporters. 'I think they raised some legitimate issues. I think we ought to find out what they are..."
Yeah, its about time someone pointed this out. And while I obviously am not much of a fan of Voinovich, its about time that someone blew through the cynical senators and admitted that the allegations may have some merit, and not simply be politically motivated. This is important.

Tomorrow.... DeLay
posted by digitaljay @ 8:48 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Monday, April 18, 2005

Bolton Vote Due Tomorrow

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to vote on whether to forward John Bolton's nomination for Ambassador to the U.N. to the full Senate. As I have mentioned several times in the last week, this nomination is especially grievous. This man is the absolutely worst possible man for this VERY important position. To refresh your memories see this and this from previous blog entries.

Now while the vote is scheduled tomorrow, more about this man has come to light. The following letter was sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from Melody Townsel who worked for US AID. You really should read the entire letter, to get the most possible context out of this, but I will quote a few key statements.
"Dear Sir:

I'm writing to urge you to consider blocking in committee the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.

In the late summer of 1994, I worked as the subcontracted leader of a US AID project in Kyrgyzstan...

...After months of incompetence, poor contract performance, inadequate in-country funding, and a general lack of interest or support in our work from the prime contractor, I was forced to make US AID officials aware of the prime contractor's poor performance...

...I met with US AID officials and expressed my concerns about the project - chief among them, the prime contractor's inability to keep enough cash in country to allow us to pay bills, which directly resulted in armed threats by Kyrgyz contractors to me and my staff.

Within hours of sending a letter to US AID officials outlining my concerns, I met John Bolton, whom the prime contractor hired as legal counsel to represent them to US AID. And, so, within hours of dispatching that letter, my hell began."
Well ok, you are probably thinking, so what? What kind of hell could Bolton possibly level onto this woman? Right? Well buckle your seat belts because this isn't just trying to get someone fired, but this is close to physical abuse.
"Mr. Bolton proceeded to chase me through the halls of a Russian hotel - throwing things at me, shoving threatening letters under my door and, generally, behaving like a madman. For nearly two weeks, while I awaited fresh direction from my company and from US AID, John Bolton hounded me in such an appalling way that I eventually retreated to my hotel room and stayed there. Mr. Bolton, of course, then routinely visited me there to pound on the door and shout threats.

...I returned to my project to find that John Bolton had proceeded me by two days. Why? To meet with every other AID team leader as well as US foreign-service officials in Bishkek, claiming that I was under investigation for misuse of funds and likely was facing jail time. As US AID can confirm, nothing was further from the truth.

He indicated to key employees of or contractors to State that, based on his discussions with investigatory officials, I was headed for federal prison and, if they refused to cooperate with either him or the prime contractor's replacement team leader, they, too, would find themselves the subjects of federal investigation. As a further aside, he made unconscionable comments about my weight, my wardrobe and, with a couple of team leaders, my sexuality, hinting that I was a lesbian (for the record, I'm not)...

...As a maligned whistleblower, I've learned firsthand the lengths Mr. Bolton will go to accomplish any goal he sets for himself. Truth flew out the window. Decency flew out the window. In his bid to smear me and promote the interests of his client, he went straight for the low road and stayed there."
All I have to say, is if this man ultimately becomes our representative to the U.N. then basically we are slapping the international community in the collective face. We are implicitly telling them that we don't give a damn about making a REAL effort to reach out to them and repair the strained ties, and finally work together as we MUST to truly defeat the terrorists that plot our collective destruction.

No I am NOT being dramatic, we must do this. We MUST work with everyone's help to defeat this clear and present danger to our country and to the world.

Microphone off.
posted by digitaljay @ 9:02 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Friday, April 15, 2005

Hilarious!

And now for something completely different!

Zoo Wants Chimpanzee to Stop Smoking

I'm not kidding.
"A South African zoo is trying to persuade its star chimpanzee to kick a bad smoking habit.

Charlie, a grown male chimp and the Bloemfontein Zoo, has been picking up cigarettes thrown to him by visitors and smoking them -- a habit he probably picked up by observing humans, zoo officials told the SAPA news agency on Thursday."
The kicker in this article I think is this last little bit.
"Charlie is not the only smoking chimpanzee. A zoo in the Chinese city of Zhengzhou reported last year that one of its chimps had taken up smoking and was desperately bumming cigarette butts off visitors."
Oh man the picture in my head of a chimp desperately bumming cigarettes off of visitors just cracks me up.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming. (Don't smoke kids!)
posted by digitaljay @ 9:51 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Thursday, April 14, 2005

Bankruptcy Bill Passes

Well the bankruptcy bill has passed the House, and now it goes the shrub for his John Hancock.

Bankruptcy Bill Passes; Bush Expected to Sign
"Lawmakers voted 302 to 126 for the bill, which is identical to a measure the Senate passed last month. It would make the most significant changes to bankruptcy law since 1978. Its passage by Congress marks a coup for executives in the credit card, retail and auto financing industries who have pushed it for nearly a decade. They argue the changes are necessary to weed out abusers of the system who use Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection to shirk debts they can afford to pay."
Is this a good thing for us? Or is it a good thing for the credit industry who already have us ALL by the balls?
"Consumer advocacy groups and many Democrats, who fought the legislation... arguing that lenders' liberal credit policies and aggressive sales practices have been equally responsible for putting many Americans over their heads in debt. They say the new legislation would be too harsh on individuals driven into debt by job loss, sickness, divorce or military duty. That is especially unfair, they say, because the bill would preserve loopholes that enable wealthy individuals who file for bankruptcy to shield unlimited amounts of money in complex trusts and in multimillion-dollar homes in states including Texas and Florida."
Seems to me, we are being taken advantage of. I don't know enough of the details, but why can't we close the loopholes, and make it harder to cheat the bankruptcy system, AND lasso the credit industry's predatory tactics all at the same time? Why does it seem that this bill and its authors care more about the credit industry than about the people whose lives can be ruined by financial destruction?

I think we really need to ask that question, and then ask what direction our republican congress is taking this country in, and is it really the direction we want to go in?

Either side of this argument, we can not afford to be complacent anymore, we CANNOT!
posted by digitaljay @ 9:49 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Wednesday, April 13, 2005

DeLay AGAIN?!

Sheesh, this guy is just continuing to take up space in my blog. But ah I must report it.

The latest from capitol hill:

DeLay Apologizes for Schiavo Case Rhetoric

Yeah it looks like DeLay has realized the shit storm around him, and it trying to soften the blow. Well good luck you bastard!

You know it must be bad when even shrub is distancing himself from you. Although apparently you two haven't really gotten along all too well in the past.
"...White House spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush considers the Texas Republican, who is battling ethics allegations, a friend, but suggested that the majority leader is more of a business associate than a social pal.

'I think there are different levels of friendship with anybody,' McClellan said.

...

Bush and DeLay have had a prickly relationship going back to Bush's assertion in 1999 that House Republicans were trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. When Bush pushed the House to pass a tax benefit for low-income families with children in 2003, DeLay told reporters, 'Last time I checked, he didn't have a vote,' referring to the president."
Well well well, apparently shrub has a decent bone in his body, correctly pointing out in 1999 the real motives of the republicans in the House.

Anyways, back to the point.
"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay apologized Wednesday for using overheated rhetoric on the day Terri Schiavo died, but refused to say whether he supports impeachment of the judges who ruled in her case.

...

DeLay seemed at pains to soften, if slightly, his rhetoric of March 31, when Schiavo died despite an extraordinary political and legal effort to save her life.

'I believe in an independent judiciary. I repeat, of course I believe in an independent judiciary,' DeLay said.

At the same time, he added, the Constitution gives Congress power to oversee the courts.

'We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse,' DeLay said."
Well softening a little, yeah. I wasn't aware that he "set up" the courts, I thought it was the presidents of the time. But I guess they do approve or disapprove, but anyways. At least he claims that he believes in and independent judiciary, that is somewhat comforting.

But the best news is that DeLay now says that he is ready to lay it out there to the ethics committee.
"DeLay said at the news conference that he was eager to appear before the leaders of the House ethics committee and give 'everything I have' in connection with allegations of misconduct."
Well great. Except that DeLay has replaced the ethics committee members who voted for his censures, with members more to his liking, and had the republican house change some of the ethics rules.

Lovely.

And the game goes on.
posted by digitaljay @ 10:01 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Tuesday, April 12, 2005

DeLay Blame Dems Plan

Ok I am being lazy this week. Sorry.

DeLay Urges GOP to Blame Dems Over Ethics
"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, hoping to hold support among fellow Republicans, urged GOP senators Tuesday to blame Democrats if asked about his ethics controversy and accused the news media of twisting supportive comments so they sounded like criticism.

Officials said DeLay recommended that senators respond to questions by saying Democrats have no agenda other than partisanship, and are attacking him to prevent Republicans from accomplishing their legislative program."
Way to go ASS! You are SOOO going down! Nothing can save you now. I hope you take all those gay hating, bible thumping, deficit spending, lying, cheating, republican extremists with you!

We need to exorcise the demons!
posted by digitaljay @ 10:30 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Monday, April 11, 2005

UNbelievable

For those that do not know, today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has begun hearings on whether to pass the nomination of John Bolton for the position of Ambassador to the UN, to the full Senate for a vote.

Since I am a political geek, I have been watching the hearings replay on C-SPAN all night. So I must keep this short, as I am still watching it. This is a VERY important issue. For those who are not familiar with John Bolton, and the position that he is nominated for, take a look at this link to an earlier blog post.

It has come to light that the nominee MAY, have tried to have two intelligence analysts removed because he disagreed with their intelligence analysis.

Bolton Faces Opposition from Government Officials
"President George Bush's controversial choice for America's ambassador to the UN faces possible rejection at Senate confirmation hearings next week as Democrats explore allegations that he bullied US officials into supporting Washington's foreign policy positions.

...Democrats on the committee who oppose him began researching claims that Mr Bolton may have more than once pressured officials at the State Department to support administration views on Iraq and other issues."
This is extremely upsetting to me, at a time when there have been serious questions about how this administration possibly distorted intelligence on Iraq's WMD, that this man who possibly has bullied intelligence analysts into changing their assessments, would be nominated to the U.N., not to mention his obvious disdain for the U.N. as well.
"Among those accusing Mr Bolton is Carl Ford, a former chief at the department's bureau of intelligence. He is expected to tell the committee that Mr Bolton distorted intelligence gathered on Iraq's weapons programmes and other matters to make it fit the administration's goals.

Senators will also hear allegations made by another State Department official, Christian Westermann, that Mr Bolton ignored his advice that testimony he was about to make to Congress two years ago warning that Cuba was developing biological weapons went beyond available evidence."
If these accusations are true, it is DEEPLY disturbing that this president would nominate someone like this to head the U.N..

That's all I have to say at the moment, I am going to go back to watching this hearing.
posted by digitaljay @ 9:39 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Friday, April 08, 2005

FDR: Socialist

From Sirotablog:

shrub apparently called FDR, the architect of Social Security, a socialist.

And not in a complimentary way. He also,
"...spoke against Social Security, unemployment insurance, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and other New Deal innovations."
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.
"Bush has been trying to eliminate Social Security for a long time. In 1978, he supported privatization by claiming the system would go bankrupt by 1988 - a complete lie."
More on this next week.
posted by digitaljay @ 9:58 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Curveball Returns to Disconnected Rumblings

Ok, this is VERY interesting. Read this article.

Officials Ask Why Iraq Details Surface Now

If you don't want to read the whole thing, I will pull out important passages.
"The CIA and members of Congress said they want to know how a presidential commission unearthed details on intelligence failures about Iraq's prewar weapons programs that previous investigations missed.

Of particular interest is information that emerged in last week's report about how doubts were handled regarding a leading source on Saddam Hussein's alleged mobile biological weapons labs - an Iraqi scientist who defected to Germany, code named 'Curveball.'"
Further, it has been revealed that this "curveball" was a drunk, and a known liar, and was disavowed by the German security apparatus.

The Curveball the Goofball
From this article, a direct quote:
"As the commission report notes, a Defense Department employee at the C.I.A. met with him and 'was concerned by Curveball's apparent 'hangover' during their meeting' and suspicious that Curveball spoke excellent English, even though the Foreign Service had told U.S. intelligence officials that Curveball did not speak English.

By early 2001, the C.I.A. was receiving messages from our Foreign Service, reporting that Curveball was 'out of control' and off the radar. A foreign intelligence service also warned the C.I.A. in April 2002 that it had 'doubts about Curveball's reliability' and that elements of the tippling tipster's behavior 'strike us as typical of individuals we would normally assess as fabricators.'"
Wow! And this is the person who we relied on for our intelligence on Iraq's weapons program?
"'It was an unhappy surprise to the [CIA] director that his first understanding of this issue was when he first read' the commission's report, Millerwise said Wednesday."
Now WAIT A MINUTE! Why are all the people supposedly in the known on intelligence issues, claiming that this is the first time they are hearing this? Something is really fishy here!

To prove to my detractors that I DO actually do something on this blog, yeah I am looking at you Rep Bud, I want to now take you back, way back. Back to nearly where I started this blog back in July of 2004.

Back to the Future (or the past rather)

DIRECT QUOTE from this very blog on July 13, 2004:
"t r u t h o u t - Fearing 'Powers That Be,' CIA Fell for 'Curveball'
This story is a scary inside look into just how our government gets its intelligence and then uses it as reason to launch a war against a country killing thousands of innocent civilians and over 900 of our fine American soldiers to date! I can't tell you how angry this makes me. I have completely lost all trust in our ability to lead the world when we use such shoddy intelligence to start such a costly war. If we do not kick Bush out of office in 2004 then this country truly is lost. I will make it my mission to get as many people to look at what is truly going on, not just what the mainstream media is showing you."
Here is an archived link to that story that I mentioned in July.

Fearing 'Powers That Be,' CIA Fell for 'Curveball'

Quote from the article:
"CIA Was Warned About Defector's Unreliability
By Bob Drogin
Los Angeles Times

Sunday 11 July 2004

The only American who met a now-discredited Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball" repeatedly warned the CIA before the war that the Baghdad engineer appeared to be an alcoholic and that his dramatic claims that Saddam Hussein had built a secret fleet of mobile germ weapons factories were not reliable."
What is going on here?! How can no one be on top of this?! Hello???? Main-stream Media, where ARE YOU?!?!?!?!?! Call these people out. I don't believe this. Someone is not telling the truth if some little blogger like me can point to direct evidence that not only did the CIA know of this curveball, but surely members of Congress must have known about this, since it was written in the L.A. Times back in July. If inside intelligence info is written about in the L.A. Times, one would think that it would be quite common knowledge inside the "intelligence" community, and if not know already by our legislative (Congress) and executive (Prez) branches, then surely once it was in a high profile newspaper they would know.

So I ask everyone, what is the true story here? Why are people trying to muddy the waters on this very important point. I don't want to lose focus on the fact that still stands that APPARENTLY we relied on this UNRELIABLE source for our intelligence to take us into war and to now have over 1500 of our countrymen dead now.

Further on the CURRENT reactions to this NEW report.
"According to the report, CIA officials tried to tell the agency's top officials that Curveball was a suspected fabricator and may have been mentally unstable. The new information includes an alleged warning in a late-night phone call to the agency's former director, George Tenet.

Tenet and his top deputy have both released statements emphatically denying that they received such warnings. Tenet called it 'deeply disturbing' that the information didn't get to him.

Levin wants Tenet to testify under oath. 'I don't think the intelligence committee was given some of that detail on Curveball, but I think it should have been,' Levin said.

'Tenet said he doesn't remember,' [Senator] Levin said. 'Hey, these are life and death decisions. This is what we tell the world. That's not good enough. ... Where is the responsibility?'"
EXACTLY.
"The report said CIA officials contended that they tried to raise warnings about Curveball. One unnamed CIA division chief claims to have called Tenet at midnight the night before former Secretary of State Colin Powell gave his address to the United Nations, which provided the Bush administration's case for invading Iraq. The division chief recalled telling Tenet that foreign intelligence officials were concerned about Curveball's credibility."
Oh MY!

Note to Mainstream Media:

Please don't gloss this over, be what you are supposed to be, a 4th estate, hold their feet to the fire, get to the truth, save this democracy before we tumble all the way down the rabbit hole!
posted by digitaljay @ 9:27 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Tuesday, April 05, 2005

Worst 2nd-Term Prez EVER!

Well it just keeps getting better these days.

Gallup: Bush Approval Rating Lowest Ever for 2nd-Term Prez at this Point

"NEW YORK It's not uncommon to hear or read pundits referring to President George W. Bush as a 'popular' leader or even a 'very popular' one... ...Perhaps they need to check the latest polls.

President Bush's approval rating has plunged to the lowest level of any president since World War II at this point in his second term, the Gallup Organization reported today.

All other presidents who served a second term had approval ratings well above 50% in the March following their election, Gallup reported...

...Bush's current rating is 45%. The next lowest was Reagan with 56% in March 1985.

More bad signs for the president: Gallup's survey now finds only 38% expressing satisfaction with the 'state of the country' while 59% are 'dissatisfied.' One in three Americans feel the economy is excellent or good, while the rest find it 'only fair' or poor...

...Here are the approval ratings for presidents as recorded by Gallup (all for March):

Truman, 1949: 57%.

Eisenhower, 1957: 65%.

Johnson, 1965: 69%.

Nixon, 1973: 57%.

Reagan, 1985: 56%.

Clinton, 1997: 59% .

Bush, 2005: 45% ."
And in the immortal words of the Comicbook Guy on the Simpsons; shrub is the, "Worst 2nd-term President EVER!!"
posted by digitaljay @ 9:08 PM MST | link | 1 comments

Monday, April 04, 2005

More Irresponsible Comments

Just when you thought there wouldn't be anymore, another Congressman has made some irresponsible comments.

Senator Links Violence To 'Political' Decisions
"Sen. John Cornyn said yesterday [today] that recent examples of courthouse violence may be linked to public anger over judges who make politically charged decisions without being held accountable."
Now this in itself is irresponsible, but he goes on.
"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have."
Ok, now to me this is irresponsible at best, and inciting violence against judges at worst. Either way it is WRONG! Rep. Conyers had, this to say, and I think he says it best.
"This apparent effort to rationalize violence against judges is deplorable. On its face, while it contains doubletalk that simultaneously offers a justification for such violence and then claims not to, the fundamental core of the statement seems to be that judges have somehow brought this violence on themselves. This also carries an implicit threat: that if judges do not do what the far right wants them to do (thus becoming the 'judicial activists' the far right claims to deplore), the violence may well continue.

If this is what Senator Cornyn meant to say, it is outrageous, irresponsible and unbecoming of our leaders...
...there is no excuse, no excuse, for a Member of Congress to take our discourse to this ugly and dangerous extreme.

My message is not subtle today. It is simple. To my Republican colleagues: you are playing with fire, you are playing with lives, and you must stop."
Like I said, what Cornyn said is wrong! This needs to stop, and it needs to stop immediately. These Republican representatives are walking a fine line, or as Rep. Conyers said, they are "playing with fire". WE THE PEOPLE can not let this continue. I implore all of you to fight this fundamentalism, to fight this dangerous rhetoric, and demand your representatives are a picture of the utmost responsibility!

Are union is in danger, I don't mean to be overly dramatic, but it has begun, these people want a theocracy, and they are beginning that process. Make no mistake, they are not out to make sure judges are not activists, and politically motivated, but as Rep. Conyers said, they are making sure that no judges remain in our high courts that would rule against THEIR political ideology!

FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!!!

Where do you start? Fight power with knowledge, that is the first step.
posted by digitaljay @ 9:07 PM MST | link | 0 comments

Friday, April 01, 2005

DeLay Dead Wrong!

Tom DeLay is biting off more than he can chew. Now that Terri Schiavo has passed away DeLay is setting his sights on the courts.

DeLay Targets Legal System in Schiavo Case
"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on Thursday blamed Terri Schiavo's death on what he contended was a failed legal system and he raised the possibility of trying to impeach some of the federal judges in the case.

'The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior,' said DeLay, R-Texas."
This is wrong on so many levels! First of all this comes off as a physical threat to the judges involved in this case. And may I point out that several of these judges are conservative in their politics.

But after the killing of a federal judge's family in the last month, one has to be especially careful of incitement. Tom DeLay is not a conscientious leader, he is possibly inciting violence against federal and state judges. That is not right, no matter WHAT they may rule on any particular case.

So why is Tom DeLay doing this? I believe it is a calculated effort. I think it is not a coincidence that the only branch of government where the Republicans do not have a real control is the judicial branch. So I think this is why for some time now the right has been attacking the judiciary, calling many judges "activist judges" who rule against their right-wing ideology.

So that is why it is vitally important that Democrats retain their filibuster powers to prevent this administration from stacking the courts with far right "activist judges". That's right I am hijacking their language. Deal with it!

Read up on what is happening in the Senate to try to get rid of the filibuster. I think this is a good quote from the article I linked above on this issue.
"'[The filibuster] underscores the genius of the founders of this great nation,' said People for the American Way president Robert Neas. 'It forces Republicans and Democrats to sit down and work things out.'...

...'I like that my party controls the White House and the Congress,' he [Ted Nonini - Republican firefighter] says. 'But I also know that our democracy works best when both parties are speaking out and being heard.'"
Yes I know the filibuster has been used for bad things in the past, such as Strom Thurmond using the filibuster to rally against the 1957 Civil Rights act. But that is not a good enough reason to abolish it.

You know why? Because eventually the Republicans are going to find themselves in the minority, and they won't be too happy when they can not employ the filibuster for something they feel they need to stand against. And that is the point here, if 41 Senators are willing to ban together and filibuster, then most of the time it is a stand that is worth the fight.

In this case it is worth the fight because we can not let the Republicans take control of EVERY branch of our government. They are already removing most obstacles to their ultimate power, working to chip away at checks and balances. It is not right. We need to recognize this, and stand up and say NO, you will NOT dismantle our great country's system of government, they will NOT trample our constitution because it doesn't fit them. We are the people, and WE control the government. Not a select few.

You know for a party that preaches personal responsibility, it AMAZES me, ABSOLUTELY AMAZES me that when it comes to the people in power, there is NO personal responsibility at ALL! Like the report I mentioned yesterday, once again, NO one responsible in this administration, NO!

More on that report to come.
posted by digitaljay @ 10:02 PM MST | link | 2 comments