Sunday, July 08, 2007

Innocence Lost? Hopes for the Tour de France

Matthew Stevenson has written an outstanding article for the International Herald Tribune about a last bastion of innocence in sport: the Tour de France. Disillusioned, He asks: Has it become the Tour de Dope?

Though I am not nearly as knowledgeable, I must admit that sports seems now to have mirrored an international malaise. The real nature of it escapes me as it has most writers. Hoping to write a decent intro for an excerpt from Matthew's article, I was not surprised but saddened to learn that some 85% of athletes of any sport today freely admit that they would take "a potentially fatal drug, if it would guarantee a major championship win." [See: Drugs, Doping and Cheating in Sports] From the same source, a critical look at the fans who seem willing to look the other way should a favorite star use drugs to enhance performance, drive drunk or bet his/her own sport. But, Matthew had hoped the Tour de France was different.

Has it become the Tour de Dope?

By Matthew Stevenson, Published: July 6, 2007

GENEVA: When I moved from Brooklyn to Switzerland in the 1990s, I had to give up baseball. In those offline days, there was neither a North American sports channel nor streaming Internet in Switzerland. I adopted the Tour de France as my summer pastime and have spent many happy July days in its presence: catching snippets on TV, riding my bike to watch it pass, discussing the results with cab drivers and barbers.

The Tour often starts the day my children finish school and ends when the wheat is cut, making me think of it as a medieval harvest festival with jesters on wheels. I still warm to its revolution around France, its rich literature, the mountaintop finishes, the food en route, and the promotional samples thrown to spectators. For me the pleasure of the race has little to do with the winner.

As this year's race approached, however - amid so many revelations about illegal drugs in professional cycling - I had to confront whether I have been cheering for a sport or a freak show.

Recently, Bjarne Riis, who won the 1996 Tour de France, confessed that he had won while riding high. The week before his admission, last year's Tour champion, the American Floyd Landis, sat before a hearing to protest his innocence against the charge that he won the race pumped up on testosterone.

Before the start of last year's Tour, nearly all the top riders were banned, having been linked to a blood-doping investigation in Spain.

Landis's success in 2006 had offered glimmers of redemption. The son of Mennonites from Pennsylvania, Landis came across as the innocent abroad, who as a boy presumably drafted behind buggies. For a few weeks, until the lab report was in, professional cycling dreamed that it could remake its tarnished image with Landis.

Then, when three-time Tour de France champion Greg LeMond agreed to testify, Landis's manager threatened that if Greg went against Floyd, he would reveal that LeMond had been abused as a child.

With such tawdry stories as the prologue to this year's Tour de France, some even suggested canceling it - in effect, sending it to rehab. Since 1903, the Tour has only stopped for the two World Wars.

It may have been nice to think that sitting out the Tour for a year would restore the sport to grace, if not innocence. But the appeal of the Tour has always been its epic qualities. For better or for worse, doping has been as much a part of its chemistry as roadside barbeques and drunken Dutchmen.

A Tour poster from its early decades shows a line of riders smoking cigarettes; the hope was that nicotine would "expand" their lungs. Other stimulants in those formative times included brandy in tea, nitroglycerine, and, yes, heroin. Coffee sometimes came laced with cocaine or strychnine. Later came amphetamines, human-growth hormones and testosterone.

It isn't only the riders shooting up in the shower who have been in on the dark secret of doping. Many race officials, team owners, doctors, coaches and even the press have understood that success in cycling has depended on more than water, bananas and PowerBars.

As a result of the scandals, little excitement surrounds the Tour this year, which has the aura of dog racing. At the same time, I would like to think that the Tour is larger than even its drug culture.

...

Read the entire article at: The International Herald Tribune. I would love to get off into philosophical analogies --but three words "loss of innocence" sums it up. Still, as I have discussed with Matthew, wouldn't it be nice to just spend a nice Sunday afternoon in a non-pretentious ballpark free of colossal, high-tech, multi-media, surround sound scoreboards and enough corporate advertising to finance a moon shot? What's wrong with some peanuts and crackerjacks? Is there nothing worthwhile that is merely enjoyed for its own sake and simple enjoyment, something beyond the reach of big, corporate bucks?


Tour de France 2003 - Armstrong Regains Lead After Fall

Additional resources: Discoveries






Why Conservatives Hate America




Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Saturday, July 07, 2007

Lessons Bush Learned from Hitler

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Bush learned how to slaughter civilians. In Iraq, US troops, commanded by Herr Bush slaughter some 10,000 Iraqi civilians per month. Bush will cite that as proof that his war crime is "winding down" but that's an absurd right wing spin.

The US slaughter rate in Iraq had been as high as 30,000 Iraqis per month, 1,000 per day. It was earlier this year that the Lancet study was made public by the British Guardian, which reported the extent to which Bush is "winning" the war against Iraqi civilians.

A monstrous war crime

With more than 650,000 civilians dead in Iraq, our government must take responsibility for its liesRichard Horton
Wednesday March 28, 2007
The Guardian

Our collective failure has been to take our political leaders at their word. This week the BBC reported that the government's own scientists advised ministers that the Johns Hopkins study on Iraq civilian mortality was accurate and reliable, following a freedom of information request by the reporter Owen Bennett-Jones. This paper was published in the Lancet last October. It estimated that 650,000 Iraqi civilians had died since the American and British led invasion in March 2003.

Immediately after publication, the prime minister's official spokesman said that the Lancet's study "was not one we believe to be anywhere near accurate". The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, said that the Lancet figures were "extrapolated" and a "leap".
Not surprisingly, Bush responded: "I don't consider it a credible report". Recent updates to the report now estimate the number of civilian dead at well over one million. Bush calls that "kickin' ass". I call it mass murder, a capital crime perpetrated by George W. Bush. Meanwhile, Sydney Blumenthal says Bush knew Saddam had no WMD.
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.

Sept. 6, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.
As Salon broke that exclusive, we learned elsewhere that Bush was yucking it up with another right wing seed pod --Australia's PM, John Howard.
Today the US President will visit the National Maritime Museum to view the bell. It could be construed as an act of symmetry, given if Howard loses the election, this week would be the last time he and Bush see each other in their respective roles.

This was obviously apparent to Bush, who arrived in Australia in a chipper mood.

"We're kicking ass," he told Mark Vaile on the tarmac after the Deputy Prime Minister inquired politely of the President's stopover in Iraq en route to Sydney.
--By George: now it's all the way with Howard J
Bush deliberately defrauded the troops, the nation, the Congress, the world. He calls it "kickin' ass". I call it a capital crime!

Bush is now criminally culpable, subject to prosecution for capital crimes for the deaths of his every victim on either side. Words cannot describe the venal idiocy of this cretin so at ease with his disconnect with common sense and morality, so comfortable wallowing in the misery his lies have caused and continue to cause. Psychologists use the term "lack of empathy" to describe this pathology, better known among the volk as pure "evil"!

From the Third Reich, Bush learned how to exploit "terrorism" to consolidate his dictatorship. Bush is on the Hitler end of the political spectrum opposing the very principles of our founding. What Bush knows he most surely learned by way of his Grandfather's old trading partner --Adolf Hitler. Hitler's Lesson Number he summed up himself in one sentence.
Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death.
--Adolf Hitler
Bush learned how to rule ruthlessly. Hitler never got more than 37 percent of the vote in several elections called over a short period of time ending with an act of terrorism that Hitler would exploit to consolidate his dictatorship. That act was the Reichstag Fire, Hitler's 911.

It's hard to imagine that anyone would dare go back to the well given the press "Reichstag" gets. Nevertheless, the tactic, having proved successful for Nazis, would be tried again. No one ever accused Bush of being imaginative. His gang would simply repeat a tired, old Nazi tactic and expect the people to go along. And, for the most part, the people did precisely that.

On February 27, 1937, Hitler was having dinner with Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels when the phone rang to inform the future Fuhrer: "The Reichstag is on fire!" At the scene, Hitler and Goebbels, found Hermann Goring, later Hitler’s air minister, shouting "at the top of his lungs", blaming communists for an act of terrorism.

How Hitler became a dictator is recounted in many sources but William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is still among the very best.
From Goring's Reichstag President's Palace an underground passage, built to carry the central heating system, ran to the Reichstag building. Through this tunnel Karl Ernst, a former hotel bellhop who had become the Berlin S.A. leader, led a small detachment of storm troopers on the night of February 27 to the Reichstag, where they quickly scattered gasoline and self-igniting chemicals and then made their way quickly back to the palace the way they had come. At the same time a half-witted Dutch Communist with a passion for arson, Marinus van der Lubbe, had made his way into the huge, darkened and to him unfamiliar building and set some small fires of his own. This feeble-minded pyromaniac was a godsend to the Nazis. He had been picked up by the S.A. a few days before after having been overheard in a bar boasting that he had attempted to set fire to several public buildings and that he was going to try the Reichstag next.

The coincidence that the Nazis had found a demented Communist arsonist who was out to do exactly what they themselves had determined to do seems incredible but is nevertheless supported by the evidence. The idea for the fire almost certainly originated at the top with Goebbels and Goring. Hans Gisevius, an official in the Prussian Ministry of the Interior at the time, testified at Nuremberg that 'it was Goebbels who first thought of setting the Reichstag on fire' and Rudolph Diels, the Gestapo chief, added in an affidavit that 'Goring knew exactly how the fire was to be started' and had ordered him 'to prepare, prior to the fire, a list of people who were to be arrested immediately after it.' General Franz Halder, Chief of the German General Staff during the early part of World War II, recalled at Nuremberg how on one occasion Goring had boasted of his deed.
At a luncheon on the birthday of the Fuehrer in 1942 the conversation turned to the topic of the Reichstag building and its artistic value. I heard with my own ears when Goring interrupted the conversation and shouted: "The only one who really knows about the Reichstag is I, because I set it on fire!" With that he slapped his thigh with the flat of his hand.
The Rise and Fall of The Third Reich (Touchstone Edition, 1990, p. 192-)
Hitler ordered a round up of the usual suspects, in other words, his opposition, consisting largely of communists whom the Nazis could, with but a shred of credibility, blame for an act of bloody terrorism.

Nazis knew what goppers know now --that frightened and anxious people will willingly surrender the blessings of liberty. From Hitler's experience, Bush learned how to use a "Patriot Act" to crack down on dissent.

Hitler wasted no time. The very next day, he was in President Hindenburg's office urging the aging statesman to issue a patriot act, a decree entitled, “For the Protection of the People and the State.” Justified as a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state,” the decree suspended the constitutional guarantees pertaining to civil liberties:
Patriot Act vs, German Enabling Act:
The Decrees of 1933
(a) The February 28 Decree. One of the most repressive acts of the new Nazi government, this one allowed for the suspension of civil liberties ....The president was persuaded that the state was in danger and, hence, that the emergency measures embodied in the decree were necessary. Even though under Art. 48 of the constitution, the decree would have been withdrawn once the so-called emergency had passed, any hope of this happening was prevented by the establishment of Hitler's dictatorship following the Enabling Act (see below). It was in fact never withdrawn and remained until the end as an instrument of Nazi terror against ordinary citizens who ran foul of the regime.


ARTICLE 1. In virtue of paragraph 2, article 48,* of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against communist acts of violence , endangering the state:
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty [114], on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press [118], on the right of assembly and the right of association [124], and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications [117], and warrants for house-searches [115], orders for confiscation as well as restrictions on property [153], are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.


*Article 48 of the German Constitution of August 11, 1919: If public safety and order in Germany are materially disturbed or endangered, the President may take the necessary measures to restore public safety and order, and, if necessary, to intervene with the help of the armed forces. To this end he may temporarily suspend, in whole or in part, the fundamental rights established in Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 ...........
Patriot Act:
Section 218 which amends the "probable cause" requirement before conducting secret searches or surveillance to obtain evidence of a crime;
Sections 215, 218, 358, and 508 which permit law enforcement authorities to have broad access to sensitive mental health, library, business, financial, and educational records despite the existence of previously adopted state and federal laws which were intended to strengthen the protection of these types of records;
Sections 411 and 412 which give the Secretary of State broad powers to designate domestic groups as "terrorist organizations" and the Attorney General power to subject immigrants to indefinite detention or deportation even if no crime has been committed; and
Sections 507 and 508 which impose a mandate on state and local public universities who must collect information on students that may be of interest to the Attorney General.
Bush learned how to suspend civil liberties after a terrorist attack. It must be noted that Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio is the only candidate for President calling for a repeal of the Patriot Act. That tells me that the Democrats are not up to the challenge of restoring American democracy. The question now is one of some urgency: is it too late to save our nation? Is it too late to stop Bush? Are Americans screwed?

Just as Karl Rove spoke wistfully of a "permanent Republican majority", Hitler planned to establish a "permanent" majority of elected Nazis in the Reichstag. That body would later become Hitler's rubber stamp, passing whatever laws he desired, making all his crimes perfectly legal. Bush's lesson: make legal all the crimes you want and plan to commit; bully Congress into absolving you ex post facto for crimes already committed. Hire Alberto Gonzales to be the "enabler".

Two weeks after the Reichstag fire, Hitler requested the Reichstag to temporarily delegate its powers to him so that he could adequately deal with the crisis. Hitler denounced his opposition, shouting at them "Germany will be free, but not through you!” Hitler won the vote 441 to 84. It gave him a two-thirds majority needed to suspend the constitution. On March 23, 1933, the “Enabling Act”--a patriot act -- made Hitler dictator of Germany. It is not recorded whether he said, as did Bush much later: this would be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship ...just as long as I'm the dictator!

Just as Hitler cut a deal with Thyssen, Krupp, I.G. Farben et al, the DUMB-umvirate of Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld carved up the map of the Middle East with big oil and Halliburton. Just as the Middle East is rich in oil, Poland was rich in coal from which synthetic fuels (to drive the Panzers) could be produced.

Bush used Hitler's play book. And, as it was then, it's all about energy. The esteemed historian John Keegan has written that Hitler might have won WWII had he kept Rommel supplied to seize the oil fields of the Middle East, rather than invading Russia. It would have all been over --save for an "insurgency" that most surely would have opposed Rommel.

Bush learned from his grandfather that there is big money -- a killing in fact --in the industrial murder business. Our own Treasury Department is the source for the following information about how US corporations, primarily US Steel, for whom Prescott Bush was banker, helped Hitler arm and wage war on the world while carrying out mass murder throughout Europe. US steel made it possible for Hitler to arm for war, producing the following percentages of war munitions for Hitler and his Nazi war lords: Pig iron 50.8%; Pipe & tubes 45.5%; Universal plate 41.4%; Galvanized sheet 38.5%; Heavy plate 36%; Explosives 35%; Wire 22.1%.
George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.
--
How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power
In effect, Prescott Bush was Hitler’s American banker.

Bush also learned how to outsource murder and atrocity in ways that benefit his right wing supporters. Called "private enterprise", it is, in fact, corporatism, Mussolini's word for farming out the work of killing to partners, robber barons, death merchants and hired murderers like Blackwater! Blackwater is a gang of paid thugs whom National Public Radio charges has strong connections with America's radical, religious, fascist right wing.
NPR: The war in Iraq has been partly outsourced to private military contractors which are performing many of the services that used to be done by the military. My guest, Jeremy Scahill, has written a book about one of those companies, Blackwater, which he describes as "the world's most mercenary army and the embodiment of the Bush administration policy of privatizing military functions." The company, which was founded in 1996, made headlines in 2004 when four of its men were ambushed and set on fire by Sunni gunmen in Fallujah. The charred remains of two of the men were hung on a bridge for public display. The families of the four men are suing Blackwater for wrongful death, raising a lot of questions about accountability and oversight when private contractors play a major role in war. Jeremy Scahill is a Polk Award-winning journalist who is a frequent contributor to The Nation and a correspondent for the radio and TV show, "Democracy Now." Jeremy Scahill -- if you wanted to write about a private military contractor, why did you focus on Blackwater?
Bush is ideologically allied with Hegel, for whom the "state" is "God". That notion opposes every "American" value, including that of truly religious folk who find the equation of "God" with the "state" a blasphemous notion. And so it is, not merely of religion but of reason.

Bushism is anathema to American ideals espoused by real patriots like Thomas Jefferson whom Bush and Dick Cheney would have derided as "pro-French". James Madison who wrote the first draft of our Constitution would have been demonized as "quaint" by idiots like Gen. Hayden and Al Gonzales.

Bush must surely hate our Declaration of Independence. In it, Thomas Jefferson sides generally with "insurgencies" against despots. Bush will, of course, have missed or dismissed obvious analogies to Iraqi civilians upon whom the US has waged not a war --but a crime punishable by death under our own federal statutes!

It was William Pitt, Earl of Chatham in England who denounced the British position in our war of independence. His words ring so very true today, words that Bush must surely hate:
If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms -- never! never! never!

--William Pitt the elder, 1st Earl of Chatham, Viscount Pitt of Burton-Pynsent , byname The Great Commoner, 1708-1778
Bush is blinded by raw, ruthless ambition. Like Dick Cheney and the robber barons of privilege, they are blind to obvious analogy. America is not fighting for freedom against terrorism in Iraq. Rather, Bush embodies monolithic corporate totalitarianism and the theft of Iraq's natural resources. Never mind that Iraq was a sovereign nation that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with 911, Bush's ex post facto lies about it notwithstanding. The record clearly proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush's quarrel with Saddam had to do with the fact that Saddam favored lower prices for oil while Bush, OPEC, and the Saudis in particular favored higher prices.

Bush is anti-American. Bush is not fighting for Americans in Iraq. He is fighting to further enrich corporate fascist powers who would enslave you! Bush has more in common with Hitler and Stalin than with Madison or Jefferson.

The American republic at the time Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence was the latest development in a liberal trend that had begun with the English Civil War. Certainly, Oliver Cromwell dismissed Parliament in a fit of pique; certainly he arrogated unto himself the powers of an absolute dictator but stopped short of taking the title. He was, he said, a Lord Protector. Charles I was most certainly England's last absolute despot in the Hobbesian, Hegelian sense of the word.

Friday, July 06, 2007

Democrats Fight Heroically for the Moral Middle Ground!


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is wrong about Bush when she says he is not worth impeaching. He is not worth not impeaching and neither is the rest of his junta. At a time when the only scientific study of Iraqi deaths now estimates almost a million Iraqi civilians are dead as a direct result of the evil, criminal conspiracy of a handful of administration miscreants, it is unthinkable that Democrats should try to triangulate a moral middle ground.

The legal standard to begin criminal charges is probable cause. Probable cause will normally empanel a Grand Jury with sweeping subpoena powers. In the case of Dick Cheney, there is often an open and shut case in the public record. Specifically, his participation with George W. Bush in a fraud perpetrated upon the America people. Not a mere felony under RICO statutes, this fraud amounts to high treason. The conspirators have been named: Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld.

Representative Dennis Kucinich has most certainly learned by now how lonely it must be to have courage. Kucinich has moved to impeach Dick Cheney.

Throw these liars out of office. Demand that they be impeached. Demand that the Congress act now!

Nancy Pelosi is playing cynical politics with this issue. Bush is not worth impeaching, she says. If he's not worth impeaching, then he is most certainly not worth the deaths of some one million innocent Iraqi civilians [See: Iraqi Deaths Due to Invasion]. He is most certainly not worth the lives of US service personnel sacrificed for Bush's psychotic delusions of vainglorious conquest. He is most certainly not worth the harms done the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the rule of law. He is most certainly not worth the betrayal we have suffered, the lies we have endured, the threats we must survive. Bush is not worth another hour, another minute in the White House.

It is clear to the world that a prima facie case --for which the penalty is death --can be made against the lot of them: George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld! To play politics at this tragic, crucial moment in our history is cynical, cruel, unforgivable. If Pelosi will not move, then she risks being considered an accessory to Bushco's perpetual betrayal of the American people.

Discoveries






Why Conservatives Hate America




Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine

Thursday, July 05, 2007

How Bush Sold Out America

Bush is an ideological hit man for a radical, extremist cabal that hates America and the Constitution. Bush was put into office to pull off a job: execute a contract on the very source of our freedom, the Bill of Rights. Bush's mission: do a job on American freedom, rollback the achievements of the Supreme Court, secure a dictatorship for the blessings --not of liberty --but of big, fat, juicy defense contracts.

So far, Bush has done a splendid job for an unholy alliance of corporatist fascists, radical fundies, and simple crooks like Jack Abramoff who were just in it for quick bucks. Pat Robertson took it all seriously, thinking Bush to be on a mission from God to murder Hugo Chavez and to allow black people to die of criminal neglect in times of natural disaster.

Bush hates what America stood for. In several acts of high treason, Bush has deliberately subverted the principles upon which our late republic was founded! He made his preferences known very early on.
This would be a whole lot easier if this was a dictatorship...heh heh heh ...just so long as I'm the dictator!
At the time Bush said that, America was holding on by a thread. Just one more vote on SCOTUS would give conservatives the dictatorship Bush dreamed of. Too much could go wrong for Democracy and did. It was called Bush v Gore, a political and disingenuous decision that did not even address the issues cited as compelling the case.
When the court was finally forced to conjure a point of law in its desperate search for a reason for the stay to save the Bush presidency, the justices (probably Scalia) hit upon the argument that the Florida Supreme Court violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protecion clause — that Florida's voters were being treated unequally by the lack of a standard in counting ballots. The bitter irony of this decision, as Bugliosi points out, is that "the equal protection clause ... was tailor-made for blacks" after the Civil War, intended to ensure the civil rights of former slaves. In the present case, the black vote was the most likely to be negated by the court's decision to end the recount.

--Howard Garcia, In Bush v. Gore, Supreme Court Conservatives Brought Disgrace on Their Institution

That SCOTUS' citation of the 14th was just a ruse is proven by the fact that the court's decision offers up a "remedy" that doesn't even address the 14th. How bloody cynical can you get?
...leading professors of constitutional law such as Ackerman and New York University's Ronald Dworkin, [believed that ] naked political self-interest drove the Court's five conservatives to halt the recount ordered by the Florida supreme court. It was not, as the majority opinion stated, that in violation of well-settled Equal Protection jurisprudence the Florida recount in a variety of ways debased or diluted the weight of citizens' votes. Nor was it as the majority held that under Florida law as interpreted by the Florida supreme court (in response to a question posed to it by the U.S. Supreme Court) no time was left to conduct a constitutionally proper recount because December 12 was the outside deadline for Florida to choose its presidential electors. All that was window dressing.

--The continuing controversy over Bush v. Gore

In Bush v Gore, the conservatives sold out America, the Constitution, and stuck us with a would be dictator of no talent, no intellect, no humanity! Bush is not redeemed by his megalomaniacal ambitions, his vainglorious dreams of world conquest for Jesus and Jews of a neocon persuasion. Not elected, Bush DOES NOT represent the people of America.

I know how we came to this. The American people must bear awesome responsibility. The American people had not been vigilant. Ignorance of the Constitution is widespread throughout every demographic segment. Our history, the very principles of our founding, was and continues to be all but ignored in far too many school districts. A brief civics lesson may be in order.


PBS "The Supreme Court" Episode One

I wish the excerpt had been longer. The end observation is witty but not historically accurate and, I am sure, it was not intended to be. The significance of Marbury v Madison is that it established the principle of Judicial Review, the right and the power of the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by the Legislative. The Constitution does not expressly authorize judicial review although the founders had thought about it. Justice Marshall settled the issue with Marbury v Madison.
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts pro- [5 U.S. 137, 177] hibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

--Justice John Marshall, Marbury v Madison
The right wing must hate the principle of "popular sovereignty" because they have been attacking it since the founders wrote "We the people..." European style monarchies were often epitomized by Louis XIV who summed up his position succinctly: L'Etat! C'est Moi! Bush has assumed as much power with considerably less style. He is content to role up absolute rule in just two words, unitary executive, a euphemism for dictatorship.


How Bush Packed the Court

Mention the term popular sovereignty in America and you get funny looks. Are you talking about 'soverignty's" new video?. The idea that the people themselves are sovereign seems as abstract as relativity, string theory, or curved space-time. The idea that a Bill of Rights is a check on the unbridled power of government over individual liberties seems, to use Alberto Gonzales' term, quaint.



"Just One More Vote Needed"

I cannot imagine Alito, often called "Scalito", defending the rights of mere people against a Moloch of Bushco's devising. The following video had been unavailable but is apparently back on line. It is a must see. I suggest that you follow to YouTube, utilize keepvid.com to download and keep it.

The idiocy and the absurdities never seem to stop. This just in...

Iraq like historic US war, says Bush

Jim Gerstenzang in Martinsburg, West Virginia
July 6, 2007

THE US President, George Bush, has compared the war in Iraq with the US war for independence in his Fourth of July speech.

Like the revolutionaries who "dropped their pitchforks and picked up their muskets to fight for liberty", Mr Bush said American soldiers were fighting "a new and unprecedented war" to protect US freedom.
What an idiot! The following is the best analogy to the American war of independence. It is from William Pitt the Elder, Earl of Chatham, on the floor of the Parliament, urging the British government to get out of America.
My Lords, this ruinous and ignominious situation, where we cannot act with success, nor suffer with honour, calls upon us to remonstrate in the strongest and loudest language of truth, to rescue the ear of Majesty from the delusions which surround it. You cannot, I venture to say, you cannot conquer America.

" What is your present situation there? We do not know the worst; but we know that in three campaigns we have done nothing and suffered much. - You may swell every expense, and strain every effort, still more extravagantly; accumulate every assistance you can beg or borrow; traffic and barter with every pitiful German Prince, that sells and sends his subjects to the shambles of a foreign country.

Your efforts are forever vain and impotent-doubly so from this mercenary aid on which you rely; for it irritates to an incurable resentment the minds of your enemies, to overrun them with the sordid sons of rapine and of plunder, devoting them and their possessions to the rapacity of hireling cruelty! If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms-never-never-never.

--William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (1708-7, On Affairs in America 1777.
DiscoveriesAnd something completely different. This might have been one of my hang outs somewhere between downtown Houston and Gilley's.

I'll have a Dos Equis! Yeeeeee hawwwww!






Why Conservatives Hate America




Spread the word:

yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine