Monday, October 31, 2005
Lines
I only liked one line today and that was from my mom and how Alito was originally nominated to the Federal Court by Bush's father:
What is clear to me is that we have a government that represents a very small minority of Americans. Since the vast majority of Americans are not religious extremists or corporationists, it is time to speak up and ask: "Hey, aren't you my president too?" "Aren't you supposed to consider the vast majority of Americans in addition to the small minority?" "Aren't you supposed to stop campaigning at some point and actually govern?"
Clinton said "fight or find something else to do". I'd like to see a whole lot more fighting from a whole lot more people.
Clinton also said "reporters let officials get away with saying things that aren't true so stories include comment from both sides". I found that particularly interesting given the Sunday talk shows that allowed republicans to talk about how charges of perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice are really ok and the news shows this morning that found it very normal that an extremist is nominated to the Supreme Court rather than someone who might be able to bring the country together--no consideration to the thought that Bush should govern the entire country for a change. That, and a quote from Edward R. Murrow I heard yesterday:
There is nothing equal or logical about the republican talking points on either the Bush Administration CIA outing scandal (and we should call it that because neither Plame nor Wilson created the scandal, Bush and his gang did) or the nomination of the extremist Sam Alito. Since the media provides equal space and time to the illogical, the vast majority of the American people who are not now represented in the federal government need to see the line for what it is and vote accordingly.
If Bush ever had an original thought, it would die of loneliness.
What is clear to me is that we have a government that represents a very small minority of Americans. Since the vast majority of Americans are not religious extremists or corporationists, it is time to speak up and ask: "Hey, aren't you my president too?" "Aren't you supposed to consider the vast majority of Americans in addition to the small minority?" "Aren't you supposed to stop campaigning at some point and actually govern?"
Clinton said "fight or find something else to do". I'd like to see a whole lot more fighting from a whole lot more people.
Clinton also said "reporters let officials get away with saying things that aren't true so stories include comment from both sides". I found that particularly interesting given the Sunday talk shows that allowed republicans to talk about how charges of perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice are really ok and the news shows this morning that found it very normal that an extremist is nominated to the Supreme Court rather than someone who might be able to bring the country together--no consideration to the thought that Bush should govern the entire country for a change. That, and a quote from Edward R. Murrow I heard yesterday:
I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story, two equal and logical sides to an argument.
There is nothing equal or logical about the republican talking points on either the Bush Administration CIA outing scandal (and we should call it that because neither Plame nor Wilson created the scandal, Bush and his gang did) or the nomination of the extremist Sam Alito. Since the media provides equal space and time to the illogical, the vast majority of the American people who are not now represented in the federal government need to see the line for what it is and vote accordingly.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Mere wires and lights in a box
Today, I went to seen Good Night and Good Luck, the highly stylized movie directed by George Clooney about Edward R. Murrow's 1953 showdown with Senator Joe McCarthy during the height of the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings. The movie was mostly a character study of Murrow and producer Fred Friendly. David Strathairn did a pretty good job in portraying the seemingly calm and cool, but chain smoking Murrow.
The showdown begins when the US Air Force releases Lieutenant Milo Radulovich because his father had some tie to his then-communist Serbian homeland and Radulovich refused to denounce him. Radulovich was given no trial and not even allowed to see the charges against him. Murrow and Fred Friendly, played by Clooney in bad glasses, took up the story at their own personal expense ($3000) to the annoyance of their bosses and sponsor, Alcoa. McCarthy responds by privately threatening Murrow through associates and, instead of shrinking from the confrontation, Murrow with Friendly pursue McCarthy further by airing a program that is basically McCarthy in his own words. Murrow invites McCarthy to respond in person on a later show and he does, but his response is nothing more than a public attack upon Murrow's own patriotism. Sort of like if Scooter Libby actually tried to defend himself by attacking Tim (Little Russ) Russert, we all know that McCarthy has met his match. Others finally gain courage to fight McCarthy and the rest is American History 101.
The movie shows the eventual recoil by CBS executives and Murrow's eventual fall to the Sunday afternoon television wasteland so CBS could pursue more illuminating programming like The Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres. Murrow, who got his broadcasting start and hero credentials on radio from London during the Blitz, eventually moved on to write and narrate CBS Reports: "Harvest of Shame", a documentary on the plight of migrant farm workers, and in 1961, became head of the United States Information Agency, which eventually became the Voice of America. He died in 1965 of lung cancer.
Fred Friendly went on to become president of CBS News leaving only when CBS executives chose to air a rerun of I Love Lucy rather than Senate Vietnam War hearings.
All the great quotes, still applicable today, are in the movie:
and about television:
I did not dislike the movie, but found nothing really special about it. It is a decent character study of a very decent man and his very decent sidekick. While I liked that the movie did not get all sappy and rah rah good guys, if you don't know the story of Murrow and McCarthy, you might get lost as, other than the main characters, it is difficult to determine who exactly is who. Strathairn's performance is well-done understated and Clooney's is in his usual easy and sweet style. Chicago's Rose Abdoo (my former co-worker at the Royal George Theatre) looks great as '50s-styled Millie Lerner, but we never really find out who exactly Millie Lerner was and what she was doing at CBS. There is a side story about a married couple working together in breach of CBS policy that presumably is there to add to the '50s feeling and at least we see one of my favorites, Robert Downey Jr. is finally working again.
I give the movie 3 cat treats.
This morning, I flipped around the Sunday morning talkshows for fallout from Friz Friday and saw so much excusemaking that perjury is not as bad as the actual outing of a CIA agent and emphasis on discussions of what Bush should do now to maintain his position and power, that all I could think of was the term "morally bankrupt". No one said that Rove, Cheney, and Bush should resign for sending the country to war based on a lie. No one I saw on television said that Congress should investigate although I received an email stating that Democrats Waxman and Conyers have called for a renewed investigation. Sadly, republicans are republicans before they are Americans. Since the days of Murrow and Friendly, television has pretty much been reduced to wires and lights in a box, but what does that make our Congress?
The showdown begins when the US Air Force releases Lieutenant Milo Radulovich because his father had some tie to his then-communist Serbian homeland and Radulovich refused to denounce him. Radulovich was given no trial and not even allowed to see the charges against him. Murrow and Fred Friendly, played by Clooney in bad glasses, took up the story at their own personal expense ($3000) to the annoyance of their bosses and sponsor, Alcoa. McCarthy responds by privately threatening Murrow through associates and, instead of shrinking from the confrontation, Murrow with Friendly pursue McCarthy further by airing a program that is basically McCarthy in his own words. Murrow invites McCarthy to respond in person on a later show and he does, but his response is nothing more than a public attack upon Murrow's own patriotism. Sort of like if Scooter Libby actually tried to defend himself by attacking Tim (Little Russ) Russert, we all know that McCarthy has met his match. Others finally gain courage to fight McCarthy and the rest is American History 101.
The movie shows the eventual recoil by CBS executives and Murrow's eventual fall to the Sunday afternoon television wasteland so CBS could pursue more illuminating programming like The Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres. Murrow, who got his broadcasting start and hero credentials on radio from London during the Blitz, eventually moved on to write and narrate CBS Reports: "Harvest of Shame", a documentary on the plight of migrant farm workers, and in 1961, became head of the United States Information Agency, which eventually became the Voice of America. He died in 1965 of lung cancer.
Fred Friendly went on to become president of CBS News leaving only when CBS executives chose to air a rerun of I Love Lucy rather than Senate Vietnam War hearings.
All the great quotes, still applicable today, are in the movie:
I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story, two equal and logical sides to an argument.
We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep into our own history and our doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy's methods to keep silent. . . . There is no way for a citizen of a Republic to abdicate his responsibility.
We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
He (McCarthy) did not create the situation of fear, he merely exploited it – and quite successfully.
and about television:
This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire, but it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box.
I did not dislike the movie, but found nothing really special about it. It is a decent character study of a very decent man and his very decent sidekick. While I liked that the movie did not get all sappy and rah rah good guys, if you don't know the story of Murrow and McCarthy, you might get lost as, other than the main characters, it is difficult to determine who exactly is who. Strathairn's performance is well-done understated and Clooney's is in his usual easy and sweet style. Chicago's Rose Abdoo (my former co-worker at the Royal George Theatre) looks great as '50s-styled Millie Lerner, but we never really find out who exactly Millie Lerner was and what she was doing at CBS. There is a side story about a married couple working together in breach of CBS policy that presumably is there to add to the '50s feeling and at least we see one of my favorites, Robert Downey Jr. is finally working again.
I give the movie 3 cat treats.
This morning, I flipped around the Sunday morning talkshows for fallout from Friz Friday and saw so much excusemaking that perjury is not as bad as the actual outing of a CIA agent and emphasis on discussions of what Bush should do now to maintain his position and power, that all I could think of was the term "morally bankrupt". No one said that Rove, Cheney, and Bush should resign for sending the country to war based on a lie. No one I saw on television said that Congress should investigate although I received an email stating that Democrats Waxman and Conyers have called for a renewed investigation. Sadly, republicans are republicans before they are Americans. Since the days of Murrow and Friendly, television has pretty much been reduced to wires and lights in a box, but what does that make our Congress?
More on Harry and Louise in my Electric Bill
See my Saturday, October 15th post. I was correct, it is a Harry and Louise moment. Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity (CORE) is running television commercials and sending out direct mailings to convince Illinois residents to pressure their elected officials to allow ComEd to begin purchasing electricity from its spinoff, ExGen, in what is called a reverse auction which would put rates at market price in a monopoly market. Remember we have already paid for the generators through rate hikes when ExGen was party of ComEd. They want us to pay for them again and again and again.
This is not CUB (the real consumer advocacy group) trying to protect consumers. The word "consumers" in the name CORE is an Orwellian, Bushwellian term. Make no mistake, CORE is funded by ComEd. These are the people behind CORE. It's a who's who list of corporate CEOs, not consumers, including John T. Hooker, Senior Vice President of Legislative & External Affairs, ComEd.
CORE is funded by ComEd according to its spokesperson, Avis LaVelle.
CORE is also trying to smear Governor Blagojevich and Attorney General Lisa Madigan for their efforts to save us from an Enron-type situation saying they are causing the high prices and cry they cannot make enough to survive. However, their stock "has risen 68 percent in the last two years, compared with 23 percent for the benchmark Standard & Poor's 500 index."
We are told that we are going to have one of the most energy expensive winters ever and CORE wants to make it worse. Let's support our elected officials in their efforts to stop ComEd and CORE bleed us dry and keep Harry and Louise out of our living rooms. Those two are a menace.
This is not CUB (the real consumer advocacy group) trying to protect consumers. The word "consumers" in the name CORE is an Orwellian, Bushwellian term. Make no mistake, CORE is funded by ComEd. These are the people behind CORE. It's a who's who list of corporate CEOs, not consumers, including John T. Hooker, Senior Vice President of Legislative & External Affairs, ComEd.
"CORE is a ComEd front group that is trying to mislead people into supporting a massive rate hike at a time when the company has record earnings," said David Kolata, executive director of CUB. "They are not being honest."
CORE is funded by ComEd according to its spokesperson, Avis LaVelle.
CORE is also trying to smear Governor Blagojevich and Attorney General Lisa Madigan for their efforts to save us from an Enron-type situation saying they are causing the high prices and cry they cannot make enough to survive. However, their stock "has risen 68 percent in the last two years, compared with 23 percent for the benchmark Standard & Poor's 500 index."
We are told that we are going to have one of the most energy expensive winters ever and CORE wants to make it worse. Let's support our elected officials in their efforts to stop ComEd and CORE bleed us dry and keep Harry and Louise out of our living rooms. Those two are a menace.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
More peeling the onion
The best quote I've seen on Patrick Fitzgerald:
It seems the best approach is the Patrick Fitzgerald method: Take your time, don't say anything bombastic or too revealing, chip away at the truth, let the momentum build, stay humble. If ever there was a hero who arrived just in time, it is him.~~John Hamilton at Seeing the Forest
Friday, October 28, 2005
We have found traction
CNN Aaron Brown's show is now reading parts of the Downing Street memo and describing how the administration "cherry picked" intelligence to make their case for war. Is that enough traction for you, Dan Profit?
NOTE: It was CNN Presents: "Dead Wrong: Inside An Intelligence Meltdown" I don't think it made the CIA look nearly as bad as the Bush Administration. It looks like it was a rerun from August. Fitting to show it again last night. I followed it up with the 11:00pm CDT showing of Keith Olbermann's Countdown and went to sleep happy.
NOTE: It was CNN Presents: "Dead Wrong: Inside An Intelligence Meltdown" I don't think it made the CIA look nearly as bad as the Bush Administration. It looks like it was a rerun from August. Fitting to show it again last night. I followed it up with the 11:00pm CDT showing of Keith Olbermann's Countdown and went to sleep happy.
No need to be mad, it was never going to be Fitzmas
Some folks are upset about the lack of Rove indictment and the indictment against "Scooter" is for perjury, obstruction of justice and false statements. I am not. Fitzgerald is doing his job and his job is to vindicate the public interest relative to the fact that Plame was outed. His job is not to determine whether or not the Iraq War should have been started based on the intelligence. That is the job of Congress. His job is not to comment on politics either. That is the job of the leaders of both political parties and the American people.
As Fitzgerald stated this afternoon in his press conference, the prosecutor starts with a fact--Plame was outed. Then he has to gather facts on whether a crime was committed, who committed it, can it be proven and should it be charged. He brings those facts to the Grand Jury to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to bring an indictment.
The statute making it a crime to out an undercover CIA agent requires that the party charged appreciated that the information about Plame was classified. In this case, the indictment basically states that the obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements prevented the Grand Jury from having enough evidence to make such a finding. It is serious because it subverts the Grand Jury system.
Now, Fitzgerald and his team have to prepare for trial and do their discovery to determine Scooters guilt or innocence on the charges of the indictment. He or another prosecutor and another Grand Jury (or the extension of the Grand Jury for some things) can still obtain the evidence needed to determine if someone else violated the particular statute for outing an undercover CIA agent or even some other statute. That's peeling the onion. It's a slow and smelly process, but that is the way good lawyers proceed with a case. If he took a shortcut and sliced through the onion bringing an indictment on the outing statute while failing to have enough evidence (because of the alleged counts) to prove that Scooter appreciated that the Plame information was classified--the intent required under the criminal statute, the case could be compromised legally and the political fallout would be compromised too.
Interestingly, Fitgerald said that his job is to vindicate the public interest and not prosecute a specific statute. So, if Scooter is convicted and goes to prison for the counts of the indictment, the public interest for the entire scenerio is vindicated as to Scooter. When your are in prison, it really doesn't matter what it's for, it only matters that you have the sense to change your name from Scooter to something you won't get beat up over.
But, in all seriousness, the question of the propriety of the use of available intelligence to bring us to war in Iraq is still out there and Congress needs to do its job and investigate that. If they do not do that job, we need to call them on that. Understanding the true nature of our current leaders and their followers and voting them out of office is the job of the American people and we need to do our job or be called on that. We make our own holidays.
As Fitzgerald stated this afternoon in his press conference, the prosecutor starts with a fact--Plame was outed. Then he has to gather facts on whether a crime was committed, who committed it, can it be proven and should it be charged. He brings those facts to the Grand Jury to determine whether or not there is enough evidence to bring an indictment.
The statute making it a crime to out an undercover CIA agent requires that the party charged appreciated that the information about Plame was classified. In this case, the indictment basically states that the obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements prevented the Grand Jury from having enough evidence to make such a finding. It is serious because it subverts the Grand Jury system.
Now, Fitzgerald and his team have to prepare for trial and do their discovery to determine Scooters guilt or innocence on the charges of the indictment. He or another prosecutor and another Grand Jury (or the extension of the Grand Jury for some things) can still obtain the evidence needed to determine if someone else violated the particular statute for outing an undercover CIA agent or even some other statute. That's peeling the onion. It's a slow and smelly process, but that is the way good lawyers proceed with a case. If he took a shortcut and sliced through the onion bringing an indictment on the outing statute while failing to have enough evidence (because of the alleged counts) to prove that Scooter appreciated that the Plame information was classified--the intent required under the criminal statute, the case could be compromised legally and the political fallout would be compromised too.
Interestingly, Fitgerald said that his job is to vindicate the public interest and not prosecute a specific statute. So, if Scooter is convicted and goes to prison for the counts of the indictment, the public interest for the entire scenerio is vindicated as to Scooter. When your are in prison, it really doesn't matter what it's for, it only matters that you have the sense to change your name from Scooter to something you won't get beat up over.
But, in all seriousness, the question of the propriety of the use of available intelligence to bring us to war in Iraq is still out there and Congress needs to do its job and investigate that. If they do not do that job, we need to call them on that. Understanding the true nature of our current leaders and their followers and voting them out of office is the job of the American people and we need to do our job or be called on that. We make our own holidays.
Here's the indictment
Skippy has some interesting insights.
Sirens still blaring outside on LaSalle and the Street is a huge mess.
Sirens still blaring outside on LaSalle and the Street is a huge mess.
Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago on C-Span
This is sort of mixed up. Typing fast in real time, sorry.
5 Counts against Libby.
1 Obstruction of Justice.
2 Perjury
2 False Statements
Fitz explains that Mrs. Wilson was an agent, that info was classified and not well known by her friends and neighbors (as alleged by republicans).
Fitz explains the essence of an investigation.
Sox stuff blaring in the background (my background, not Fitz's).
Importance of witness telling the complete truth in national security area.
Oct 2003, FBI interviewed Libby; focused on what he knew about and said about Mrs. Wilson. Gave FBI compelling story. End of chain of phone calls and Russert told him all reporters know Mr. Wilson's wife works for CIA. Passed it on to other reporters, Matt Cooper and Judy Miller. Said it was his understanding info gotten from reporter, not personally known by him to be true, passed on to reporters. Made clear not sure it was true and only passing on from reporters to other reporters. But, learned from VP earlier...but forgot. But none of this was true. Libby discussed half dozen times with others before conversation with Russert.
Indictment alleges he learned the info about Mrs. Wilson at least 3 times from gov't officials--including someone in VP office. Discussed at least 3 times with other gov't officials. Then discussed with CIA briefer, leaking info. Discussed with White House Press Secy. Libby was telling Fleischer something Monday what he claims to have learned on Thursday. Seven discussions before discussed with Russert. Where he gets in trouble is not in talking about this with other officials, but when he talked to Cooper and Miller about info he learned from the other officials; the story with Russert and only reporting to reporters what other reporters told him not being true.
Also testified that he did not know Mr. Wilson had a wife after the discussions described above clearly showing he did in fact know.
Changed attribution of the info.
Mr. Libby's story at tail end of chain of phone calls not true.
Sox stuff again blaring in background.
Secret grand jury investigation because it's the rules and because it is wise.
Now, investigation and trial, different rules.
Damage done to the entire nation.
This country takes its law seriously and all citizens bound by the law. Officials must follow the rules. Anyone involved in trial appreciate values and dignity and let justice process the system.
He will not accept the notion that charges of obstruction of justice and perjury are not real charges. When a government official fails to be candid to a grand jury in matters of national security, they are serious felonies and interest of public to punish this.
We have to let the lawyers be lawyers and peel the onion as my friend and favorite attorney Marc always says.
Fitz is a class act.
More fireworks here on LaSalle...Fitz still answering questions...this is creepy.
5 Counts against Libby.
1 Obstruction of Justice.
2 Perjury
2 False Statements
Fitz explains that Mrs. Wilson was an agent, that info was classified and not well known by her friends and neighbors (as alleged by republicans).
Fitz explains the essence of an investigation.
Sox stuff blaring in the background (my background, not Fitz's).
Importance of witness telling the complete truth in national security area.
Oct 2003, FBI interviewed Libby; focused on what he knew about and said about Mrs. Wilson. Gave FBI compelling story. End of chain of phone calls and Russert told him all reporters know Mr. Wilson's wife works for CIA. Passed it on to other reporters, Matt Cooper and Judy Miller. Said it was his understanding info gotten from reporter, not personally known by him to be true, passed on to reporters. Made clear not sure it was true and only passing on from reporters to other reporters. But, learned from VP earlier...but forgot. But none of this was true. Libby discussed half dozen times with others before conversation with Russert.
Indictment alleges he learned the info about Mrs. Wilson at least 3 times from gov't officials--including someone in VP office. Discussed at least 3 times with other gov't officials. Then discussed with CIA briefer, leaking info. Discussed with White House Press Secy. Libby was telling Fleischer something Monday what he claims to have learned on Thursday. Seven discussions before discussed with Russert. Where he gets in trouble is not in talking about this with other officials, but when he talked to Cooper and Miller about info he learned from the other officials; the story with Russert and only reporting to reporters what other reporters told him not being true.
Also testified that he did not know Mr. Wilson had a wife after the discussions described above clearly showing he did in fact know.
Changed attribution of the info.
Mr. Libby's story at tail end of chain of phone calls not true.
Sox stuff again blaring in background.
Secret grand jury investigation because it's the rules and because it is wise.
Now, investigation and trial, different rules.
Damage done to the entire nation.
This country takes its law seriously and all citizens bound by the law. Officials must follow the rules. Anyone involved in trial appreciate values and dignity and let justice process the system.
He will not accept the notion that charges of obstruction of justice and perjury are not real charges. When a government official fails to be candid to a grand jury in matters of national security, they are serious felonies and interest of public to punish this.
We have to let the lawyers be lawyers and peel the onion as my friend and favorite attorney Marc always says.
Fitz is a class act.
More fireworks here on LaSalle...Fitz still answering questions...this is creepy.
Fireworks over the Chicago River
Almost jumped out of my skin and yelled "What the..." and my coworkers came running into my office. I have the office in the corner closest to the festivities.
Got C-Span working!!!!
A caller suggested that the 2000 deaths in Iraq are OK because more folks die in car crashes here every day.... sheesh....
Got C-Span working!!!!
A caller suggested that the 2000 deaths in Iraq are OK because more folks die in car crashes here every day.... sheesh....
Sox driving by in trucks now
more crowd screaming, but the ticker tape has run out.
Having touble getting C-Span 2 to work!!! Blast!!!
Having touble getting C-Span 2 to work!!! Blast!!!
Shower of Ticker Tape and Sirens
Crowd pretty much solid down LaSalle Street. Raining paper.
Take me out to the ballgame.
Take me out to the ballgame.
More from LaSalle Street
They screaming and singing crowd is now packed from LaSalle and Wacker to LaSalle and Lake with pockets of packedness in places south on LaSalle. The stage is in the street at the corner of LaSalle and Wacker. There are folks on the roof on the building across the street from my window.
Scooter's in trouble and Rove is not indicted, but may be in more trouble than it seems now having turned down a plea on perjury.
and 161,000 soldiers are now in Iraq.
What a strange and surreal day on LaSalle Street.
Scooter's in trouble and Rove is not indicted, but may be in more trouble than it seems now having turned down a plea on perjury.
and 161,000 soldiers are now in Iraq.
What a strange and surreal day on LaSalle Street.
On LaSalle Street Today
The Sox parade is going to be happening right under my widow here in an hour or so. I can hear the screaming and the music from the 22nd floor and see hundreds of people gathering along LaSalle. As I walked to the office this morning I saw the Chicago Police opening and searching the trunks of all the cars parked on the east/west streets where they cross LaSalle. There is no privacy in Bush's America. There is a large screen on the corner of LaSalle and Wacker, but I cannot see what is being shown on it. Like to think it's Rove being perp walked after indictment, but that's unlikely as it looks like he'll escape that today. Scooter is going to be the sacrificial lamb and learn the lesson that when you lie down with dogs....
There is a lot of shredded paper on our roof (ha, ironic given the lack of paperwork available on Miers, the investigation of the outing of Plame coming out of the US Attorney for Chicago, and the republicans propensity for shredding--not to insinuate that Fitz would shred as he is the last one who would, but Rove, Cheney, Libby are another story of course), so soon it will be raining down past my window. There looks to be several hundreds of people. Begs the question of why Chicagoans are so enthusiastic about the victory of a wealthy corporation and its wealthy employees who did not even care enough to stick around Chicago until Monday when the parade was originally scheduled, and not so interested in the destruction of our Constitution and dead American soldiers and Iraqi children, but I supposed it's stupid to ask at this point as the answer is obvious and human nature has been that way for hundreds of years if not forever. I guess people need some happiness in their lives even if it's sort of fake.
We just found out we are locked in the building now. Good quote from one of my co-workers who is a north sider Cub fan: "We're trapping in a building surrounded by south siders."
More in a bit...
There is a lot of shredded paper on our roof (ha, ironic given the lack of paperwork available on Miers, the investigation of the outing of Plame coming out of the US Attorney for Chicago, and the republicans propensity for shredding--not to insinuate that Fitz would shred as he is the last one who would, but Rove, Cheney, Libby are another story of course), so soon it will be raining down past my window. There looks to be several hundreds of people. Begs the question of why Chicagoans are so enthusiastic about the victory of a wealthy corporation and its wealthy employees who did not even care enough to stick around Chicago until Monday when the parade was originally scheduled, and not so interested in the destruction of our Constitution and dead American soldiers and Iraqi children, but I supposed it's stupid to ask at this point as the answer is obvious and human nature has been that way for hundreds of years if not forever. I guess people need some happiness in their lives even if it's sort of fake.
We just found out we are locked in the building now. Good quote from one of my co-workers who is a north sider Cub fan: "We're trapping in a building surrounded by south siders."
More in a bit...
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Kind of funny in an ironic way
The South Coast Today reprinted a WSJ article by Murray Hiebert about Congress' dealings with China. Here is an interesting quote:
Wonder why Kirk was not concerned in October 8, 2002 when he advocated heading into needless conflict with Iraq over non-existent WMD.
Illinois Republican Rep. Mark Kirk heads the 35-member U.S.-China Study Group. He says his group's main goal is to "reduce needless conflict with China based on wrong information."
Wonder why Kirk was not concerned in October 8, 2002 when he advocated heading into needless conflict with Iraq over non-existent WMD.
Hey Hey Hey Good Bye
Na na na na
Na na na na
Hey Hey Hey
Goodbye...
...and I'm not talking about the Astros...
Harriet Miers withdraws from Supreme Court contention.
Na na na na
Hey Hey Hey
Goodbye...
...and I'm not talking about the Astros...
Harriet Miers withdraws from Supreme Court contention.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Peace in Deerfield, Illlinois
Several good people of Deerfield met at the corner of Waukegan and Deerfield Roads to honor the memories of the over 2000 American soldiers who have been killed in Iraq. They were met by favorable horn honks from passing autos and lots of peace signs out the windows on this chilly night.Candles were lit and the names of the soldiers from Illinois were read aloud. Signs stated Not One More.
Today John Kerry spoke at Georgetown about the Iraq War, the decepton that got us into it and a plan for pulling out and moving forward.
To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays.
He called for a withdrawal of troops over a reasonable time frame. He also took his share of responsibility as a Senator who voted for the war resolution. Here is what Karen from the DCP who attended the rally reported:
I felt that was a moment, for me, when a lot of the anguish of the past year settled down. He focused on the future--what we have to do from this moment on. I came to realize, as I listened, that what I have been missing is that simple taking of responsibility for bad judgments, and the totally adult focus on how we fix it.
And the fix is not simple; it unfurled before us in a dizzying array of steps, actions, coalitions, and rewards and consequences.
John Kerry is a thorough-minded and tough thinking guy. It is not in his nature to pat us on the back and tell us he has all the answers. He went over his proposals as a teacher would, making sure we could follow the logic behind his plan as well as the specifics of the plan itself.
The gist of it that we need both " a political settlement AND the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks."
I think that is what the people of Deerfield, Highland Park and Chicago at vigils morning the 2000 dead want, a taking of responsibility and a reasonable plan to do what is best for both America and Iraq. The Bush, Kirk and Co. "stay the course" (in quotes because those are the exact words Patrick Magnuson, Kirk's aid used when we visited him last month in DC) strategy is just not best for anyone except the major corporations taking advantage of taxpayers and making billions.A couple of hecklers drove by our group. One yelled out that we were Muslims another that we were hippies. They don't want to hear from us because they don't want to question their "woo hoo, we win" outlook of the world. That outlook was the same outlook that prevented Johnson and Nixon from timely ending the Vietnam war over 30 years ago. They were afraid of looking like losers. But, this isn't the Sox battling the Astros. It's real people, real lives and real deaths.
Peace in Highland Park, Illinois
Ross Nickow reports:There were more than 100 people in very chilly weather. A NSPI representative spoke, as did 2 moms of active soldiers. We read the names of Iraqis as well as soldiers from IL killed in the war, each followed by the toll of a bell. Taps was played
2000 Dead on a Lie
We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.
We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese or American.
We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how monies from American taxes were used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by the flag, and blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search and destroy missions, as well as by Viet Cong terrorism - and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.
We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.
We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.
We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.
Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.
Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."
We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....~~John Kerry, 1971
Not many have read the larger quote from John Kerry before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee back in 1971, so here it is. Notice how the details of the war Kerry describes are strangely familiar to Bush's war in Iraq. In 1971, Kerry was giving the government the full benenfit of a doubt when he said mistake because he could have easily said lie. The lie was in fact proven when the whole world did not fall like dominos after the fall of South Vietnam.
Today, under Bush, there is no benefit of a doubt to give. We know the Iraq War was based on a lie. The evidence is there. The Downing Street Memo is there. The Niger forgeries are there.
As we await indictments of some of our nations leaders today, the news began this morning with the 2000 dead in Iraq and the Plamegate investigation. Couric and Lauer played Plamegate for Dummies to try to explain to us and ostensibly themselves. Is the mainstream media waking up?
Last night, I went to see a discussion about the mainstream media vs. alternate media, the internet. The speakers were Tribune columnist Phil Rosenthal (recently of the Sun Times) and Dan Profit of the Illinois Leader on the internet. Rosenthal seems like a nice guy stunned that anyone would ask him the question because he is struggling with his own media demons after the indictments at Hollinger and Profit was simply relieved to be able to keep his answers to the media community and talk about Swift Boat Veterans as the news of the day forgetting that was over a year ago.
Both Rosenthal and Profit struggled with questions about media integrity and the effect of corporate ownership and focused on how to make alternative media profitable. Rosenthal brought it down to basics saying that the media that will win out will be the media that gives consumers the information they need that no one else gives them. He's probably right. I would add the cheapest.
The talked about the watered down homogenized world view given by the mainstream media vs. the slanted bloggers who don't claim to be anything but. Rosenthal reminded us that a press telling both sides of the story is a relatively new idea that grew up from the notion that you will sell more papers if you can sell to both sides. He may be partially correct about the economic side, but he forgets the early media regulation of television requiring fairness and public interest programming that we allowed our leaders to throw away on promises of cheaper cable that also turned out to be lies.
When Profit spoke solely on the topic of media he was informed enough but he soon ruined his presentation with tired republican talking points about how the corporate media does nothing to supress stories about the lies leading up to the Iraq War and the Downing Street Memo claiming that the stories simply did not have traction (but then later said they supressed republican stories). He actually said that the media only covers republicans because only republicans have ideas, ignoring the 2000 dead and pending indictments. I guess if you only read republican blogs, you probably don't know the news of the day. I would have felt sorry for Dan Profit, sitting up there on a stage either not knowing or pretending to not know what has and is happening this week, had his party's arrogance, ignorance or dishonesty not had the awful consequences that it has had in 2000 dead Americans over 40,000 wounded Americans and an untold number of Iraqi deaths.
Yep Dan, only republicans have ideas like these, expensive, bad and deadly.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Was Kirk a mindless follower on Iraq WMD?
Reader, Anne Wedner stated in the comments to the previous post:
Kirk did make a speech on the floor of the house in October 2002 suggesting he knew something about WMD in Iraq. Here is a quote from that speech:
Who knows what Mark Kirk knew or if he even wanted to know anything, except that using any information from anywhere to shill for Bush's war would further his career. We don't fully understand Kirk's military role in Iraq and he's not been talking much about it, but to remain silent and allow others to suggest that he served in Iraq when his Operation Iraqi Freedom service was supposed to have been all stateside in order to smear Paul Hackett running for Congress in Ohio.
As for Kirk's leaders in the White House, we may find more out about that today. Something about the Niger yellowcake story out of Italy has got Talking Points Memo and Rawstory all aflutter. Since I cannot confirm from my little computer in the IL Tenth, I'll direct you to those sites to read the latest.
...Mark Kirk promoted his special intelligence background and his wisdom on all things military as he advised the President to go to war in Iraq. Of course, it seems that the war in Iraq had less to do with intelligence on WMD and more to do with what? But, the net of it is that Kirk is either a part of the bad intelligence and lies that drew our country into a poorly executed war without strategy or he's just a mindless follower of the hard right wing of the Republican party. Either way, we should expect more from our Representative.
Kirk did make a speech on the floor of the house in October 2002 suggesting he knew something about WMD in Iraq. Here is a quote from that speech:
Despite promises not to acquire or test nuclear components, Iraq has a large nuclear weapons complex. Saddam Hussein regularly makes reference to his "nuclear mujahadeen" and UNSCOM reports over 40,000 Iraqis work on the nuclear weapons program. British intelligence services report that Iraq stepped up purchases of nuclear weapons material over the last 14 months. The New York Times recently reported Iraqi agents attempted to purchase 114,000 parts of a nuclear centrifuge to refine fissile material for a nuclear bomb. In September, the British International Institute for Strategic Studies reported that absent the Gulf War, Iraq would have had nuclear weapons by 1993 and could now possess a weapon within months of obtaining fissile material.
Who knows what Mark Kirk knew or if he even wanted to know anything, except that using any information from anywhere to shill for Bush's war would further his career. We don't fully understand Kirk's military role in Iraq and he's not been talking much about it, but to remain silent and allow others to suggest that he served in Iraq when his Operation Iraqi Freedom service was supposed to have been all stateside in order to smear Paul Hackett running for Congress in Ohio.
As for Kirk's leaders in the White House, we may find more out about that today. Something about the Niger yellowcake story out of Italy has got Talking Points Memo and Rawstory all aflutter. Since I cannot confirm from my little computer in the IL Tenth, I'll direct you to those sites to read the latest.
Kirk invites the district to play Where's Waldo
Kirk says he's been here listening to us. His most recent newsletter says this:
I know a lot of people, seniors and veterans, who have been looking for information on the prescription drug benefit and haven't seen Kirk or been invited to any of his forums and I know a lot of people who have tried to make appointments with him who have been put off with calls unanswered.
I really don't think Mark has been travelling throughout the Tenth District discussing much of anything with anyone except his closest supporters. What I do know is that he was recently in the Chinese press on his failure to get Chinese appreciation day passed; that he went to Texas to bring water because there were thirsty people in New Orleans; that he cancelled a meeting on the new Navy housing at Ft. Sheridan; that he voted in favor of the prescription drug benefit that really only benefits prescription drug companies; that my parents are seniors in the district and have not been invited to a forum to discuss the benefit; that you cannot find an article or press release about these forums other than what is contained in Kirk's recent newsletter (and I even did a search of all Pioneer Press papers since the beginning of the year); that Kirk has visited with very controlled audiences of business and military supporters; that Kirk failed to attend the dedication of the free speech area in Highland Park and that he refused to meet with residents supporting Cindy Sheehan.
So when and where has our Waldo been in the district?
I don't really feel good about the pictures in his newsletter. If you are a district resident not closely connected to Kirk or the republican party, but have attended one of his Medicare forums, please send in your own pictures and stories so the rest of the district can play along like we used to do in the Trib comics section when Waldo was somewhere in his red and white striped shirt on the beach or at the mall or the amusement park or the museum....
Over the past few months, I traveled throughout the Tenth District discussing these new benefits under Medicare with seniors, veterans and others eligible for coverage. As we move into the enrollment phase of this important program, please call upon my district office at 847-940-0202 for any assistance you may need.
I know a lot of people, seniors and veterans, who have been looking for information on the prescription drug benefit and haven't seen Kirk or been invited to any of his forums and I know a lot of people who have tried to make appointments with him who have been put off with calls unanswered.
I really don't think Mark has been travelling throughout the Tenth District discussing much of anything with anyone except his closest supporters. What I do know is that he was recently in the Chinese press on his failure to get Chinese appreciation day passed; that he went to Texas to bring water because there were thirsty people in New Orleans; that he cancelled a meeting on the new Navy housing at Ft. Sheridan; that he voted in favor of the prescription drug benefit that really only benefits prescription drug companies; that my parents are seniors in the district and have not been invited to a forum to discuss the benefit; that you cannot find an article or press release about these forums other than what is contained in Kirk's recent newsletter (and I even did a search of all Pioneer Press papers since the beginning of the year); that Kirk has visited with very controlled audiences of business and military supporters; that Kirk failed to attend the dedication of the free speech area in Highland Park and that he refused to meet with residents supporting Cindy Sheehan.
So when and where has our Waldo been in the district?
I don't really feel good about the pictures in his newsletter. If you are a district resident not closely connected to Kirk or the republican party, but have attended one of his Medicare forums, please send in your own pictures and stories so the rest of the district can play along like we used to do in the Trib comics section when Waldo was somewhere in his red and white striped shirt on the beach or at the mall or the amusement park or the museum....
Monday, October 24, 2005
Rosa Parks Has Died
I'll ask because Ms. Parks no longer can:
Will this country ever have the serious debate about racism that it needs to help its working people finally get past their vulnerability to the race-bating divide and conquer tactics of the rich and powerful and stop voting against their self interest because of some perceived threat by people of color?
Will this country ever have the serious debate about racism that it needs to help its working people finally get past their vulnerability to the race-bating divide and conquer tactics of the rich and powerful and stop voting against their self interest because of some perceived threat by people of color?
Presidential Pardons
With all the talk of indictments and the republicans indictment of Clinton's pardons, I thought I'd explore the law of the Presidential Pardon.
The President's pardon power is established under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2:
The idea of the Presidential Pardon came out of the Revolution and American feelings about the kingdom they rejected. To the framers at the Constitutional Convention, pardons were for the little guys, the disenfrancheised caught up in legal struggles over relatively minor offenses and often facing the death penalty. In England, a pardon by the King was the often only way to avoid an unjust punishment. In Federalist 74, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
Some in the Constitutional convention believed that Congress should have the pardon power or at least Senate approval should be required, but others argued that the pardon had to be readily accessible to someone suffering from injustice. In Federalist 74, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
The President alone handled pardons until 1865 when the the office of Pardon Clerk was created. Its duties were transfered to the the Attorney in Charge of Pardons in 1893, which eventually became the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of the Pardon Attorney.
Title 28 governs the submission, consideration and award of pardons, but its rules are merely advisory. Section 1.2 of Title 28 recommends the following eligibility standard:
The Pardon Attorney is supposed to take these standards into account when deciding whether or not to recommend a pardon to the President:
1. Post-conviction conduct, character, and reputation.
2. Seriousness and relative recentness of the offense.
3. Acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement.
4. Need for relief.
5. Official recommendations and reports.
The details of these standards can be found at the above link.
The Jurist, out of the University of Pittsburg School of Law has a FAQ on Presidential Pardons. Someone asked them if George W. Bush was likely to grant many pardons. This is what they said (scroll down):
We'll see.
The President's pardon power is established under the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 2:
The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
The idea of the Presidential Pardon came out of the Revolution and American feelings about the kingdom they rejected. To the framers at the Constitutional Convention, pardons were for the little guys, the disenfrancheised caught up in legal struggles over relatively minor offenses and often facing the death penalty. In England, a pardon by the King was the often only way to avoid an unjust punishment. In Federalist 74, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
In seasons of insurrection or rebellion, there are often critical moments, when a well-timed offer of pardon to the insurgents or rebels may restore the tranquility of the commonwealth.
Some in the Constitutional convention believed that Congress should have the pardon power or at least Senate approval should be required, but others argued that the pardon had to be readily accessible to someone suffering from injustice. In Federalist 74, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
As the sense of responsibility is always strongest in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives, which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations, which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection, that the fate of a fellow creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution: The dread of being accused of weakness or connivance would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind.
The President alone handled pardons until 1865 when the the office of Pardon Clerk was created. Its duties were transfered to the the Attorney in Charge of Pardons in 1893, which eventually became the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of the Pardon Attorney.
Title 28 governs the submission, consideration and award of pardons, but its rules are merely advisory. Section 1.2 of Title 28 recommends the following eligibility standard:
No petition for pardon should be filed until the expiration of a waiting period of at least five years after the date of the release of the petitioner from confinement or, in case no prison sentence was imposed, until the expiration of a period of at least five years after the date of the conviction of the petitioner. Generally, no petition should be submitted by a person who is on probation, parole, or supervised release.
The Pardon Attorney is supposed to take these standards into account when deciding whether or not to recommend a pardon to the President:
1. Post-conviction conduct, character, and reputation.
2. Seriousness and relative recentness of the offense.
3. Acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and atonement.
4. Need for relief.
5. Official recommendations and reports.
The details of these standards can be found at the above link.
The Jurist, out of the University of Pittsburg School of Law has a FAQ on Presidential Pardons. Someone asked them if George W. Bush was likely to grant many pardons. This is what they said (scroll down):
No. For one thing, his father issued very few (77) when he was in office. For another, during his prior term as Governor of Texas, George W. issued fewer pardons than any Texas Governor since the 1940s (16 up to January 2000, as opposed to 70 for his immediate predecessor Ann Richards, 822 for 2-term governor Bill Clements, and 1048 for John Connally, Texas governor from 1963-69).
In a January 2000 interview with reporter Jay Root of the Austin Star-Telegram, governor Bush explained that his low number of pardons "comes not from political calculation but from pardoning Steven Raney in 1995 for a 1988 marijuana conviction. A few months after being absolved of his crime, the unpaid Ellis County constable was caught stealing cocaine from a drug bust. 'That caused a complete review of the process,' Bush said. 'I have nothing against pardoning. I just haven't been very aggressive on it. There's no philosophical reason. It's just that it kind of slowed us down initially. I said, `Whoa!' because it was a pretty rough story."
If anything, the Clinton pardon controversy will make President Bush even more cautious.
We'll see.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Tenth Dems Annual Event
I am often asked if I have noticed anything in particular about successful politicians that makes them successful. Yes, I answer, their ability to make you feel special. The John's Kerry and Edwards could do that. Ted Kennedy did that with me back in Iowa 2003. Hillary is the master. I saw it again tonight in group mode with Russ Feingold. He made an entire congressional district feel special.Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the keynote speaker at the Tenth Dems annual event. He talked about the 50 state strategy, working in the rural areas of Wisconsin and working in central Florida, Alabama and Texas. Feingold is committed to bringing help and hope to Democrats in areas formerly left to republicans. Feingold thanked our district which heavily supported him in his last race and talked about how exciting it is to see such a large and strong group of Democrats in our district.
Feingold was also talking about gaining support for his bill requiring a timetable to have our troops leave Iraq (S. Res. 171) and about guaranteed health care for all Americans. Feingold thought these years of his life were going to be spent supporting President Kerry in helping the country do good within and around the world, but now finds himself working to bring Democrats back to power and bring our government back in line with the wishes of the people.
After Feingold left for the Sox game, Mitch Miller of W. Deerfield Township talked about the work we can do within the district to help out Democratic candidates and Tenth Dems organization. He reiterated the Tenth Dems mantra "Voting is not enough." Then, we got a chance to schmooze around with each other and some prospective candidates. Zane Smith was there. He has already announced as a candidate. Dan Seals and David Robin were also there, not yet announced, but willing to step up to the plate. I got a chance to talk in depth with Seals and found him to be (tall) articulate and thoughtful in his responses. He seems like a moderate with whom the district would be happy. Robin is extremely knowledgeable on the issues and well spoken. I simply cannot wait for a debate!It was also fun to talk with Alex Armour of the 9th and Jan's office, Nancy Shepherdson from EDDI, Sharyn Elman running for State Rep in the 62nd District in Lake County and the army of 1oth regulars and newbies.
Saturday, October 22, 2005
NSPI dinner honors Tenth District Resident and teaches about our future Death Star
The Tenth District connection to this year's annual NSPI dinner was the honoring of the Tenth's very own Marianne Wood. Wood was honored along with Dickelle Fonda, Linda Englund and Pat Vogel for their participation in the vigil at "Camp Casey" in Crawford, Texas. Wood went to Crawford as a last minute idea and although she had, as she says "no flesh at stake" having no child in Iraq as the other hororees, she was inspired by Cindy Sheehan to work for a better world for her 8-year-old daughter. She stressed the importance of our talking about the war, even with people who might disagree with us.
About 200 were in attendance even though the White Sox started the World Series, the evening started off with some gentle anti-war songs and an invocation by Rev. William Sheridan of St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church. Jack Kelly, NSPI President, spoke about NSPI's accomplishments throughout the year including the signature ad signed by 436 people and 15 churches and organizations, 8 demonstrations and vigils to raise awareness about Bush's strategy to "stay the course" when it would be a better idea to change the course and 3 public forums educating the community about issues of war and peace.
NSPI Board Member and Tenth District resident, a NSPI board member introduced the evenings 4 honorees by noting that Bush did not have the common decency to even consider Cindy Sheehan's question: for what nobel cause did her son die in Iraq, and pointed out that the 4 women honored by NSPI were inspired by Sheehan's question and compelled to do more than contemplate the answer.
The keynote speaker was Theresa Hitchens, Director of the Center for Defense Information in Washington DC. She talked about the administration's desire to weaponize the heavens. Bush is expected to soon create a new US space policy, giving up over 40 years of the notion that space is to be used for the peaceful betterment of all humanity. Under the new policy, space would be considered a resource from which to fight wars. Currently, space is militarized in that satellites are used to help find downed aircraft and personnel, but it has never been weaponized in the sense of using it to shoot missles from or through and establishing space control and dominance of the earth.
Hitchens described how the Air Force and Donald Rumsfeld intend to use space as a weapon. One way is to create weapons to take down satellites of other countries and third party providers of communications and commercial uses. One could stop international commerce by destroying satellites used for banking, internet and industry. There are also space-based weapons including a project called "Rods from God", sort of a real life version of the children's "religious" computer game, Smite Thee (which my regular readers know all about), but instead of a just, wise and all-knowing God, you get the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney making the decisions of who to smite. These so-called "Rods from God" are space-based precision-guided weapons made of cylinders of tungsten, titanium or uranium that are to be hurled at surface targets.
One of the main problems with space weapons are that they are expensive. Not just regular old too much defense spending expensive, but ridiculously we all end up as slaves to pay for them and they still break the budget expensive. Another problem is the space junk they create. In space, objects move so fast that a small speck of a paint chip has actually created a large ding in the space shuttle. Just blowing up our own satellites for practice and testing could create so much space junk that it eliminates our ability to use satellites in space, as they are now used for communication and commerce, for decades. Weaponization of space by the US would also create a political firestorm within the US and abroad at a time when there are already so many difficulties within our country and with our allies.
There is already a smaller program that the administration claims is not weapons testing, but could be used for that purpose. We are now experimenting with a tiny satellite that maneuvers around larger satellites. Now, it is being used to take pictures of the larger satellite, but the maneuvers also test our ability to use the little satellite to take out the larger one. Hitchens said that the administration is using a lot of smoke and mirrors in its approach to the testing of space weapons.
Hitchens closed by commenting that the US is the leader in space and if we decide to use it as a weapon, that will open the door to other countries weaponizing space. A missile that could be manufactured by N. Korea could contain enough sand or gravel to take out our satellites. She left us with the question: would our satellites be safer with space weapons or without them? Without them, of course.
Mark Kirk is on the Foreign Operations and Science Committees. Perhaps we need to contact him to tell him we have no interest in changing our country's long time policy to keep space for the peaceful betterment of all humanity.
About 200 were in attendance even though the White Sox started the World Series, the evening started off with some gentle anti-war songs and an invocation by Rev. William Sheridan of St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church. Jack Kelly, NSPI President, spoke about NSPI's accomplishments throughout the year including the signature ad signed by 436 people and 15 churches and organizations, 8 demonstrations and vigils to raise awareness about Bush's strategy to "stay the course" when it would be a better idea to change the course and 3 public forums educating the community about issues of war and peace.
NSPI Board Member and Tenth District resident, a NSPI board member introduced the evenings 4 honorees by noting that Bush did not have the common decency to even consider Cindy Sheehan's question: for what nobel cause did her son die in Iraq, and pointed out that the 4 women honored by NSPI were inspired by Sheehan's question and compelled to do more than contemplate the answer.
The keynote speaker was Theresa Hitchens, Director of the Center for Defense Information in Washington DC. She talked about the administration's desire to weaponize the heavens. Bush is expected to soon create a new US space policy, giving up over 40 years of the notion that space is to be used for the peaceful betterment of all humanity. Under the new policy, space would be considered a resource from which to fight wars. Currently, space is militarized in that satellites are used to help find downed aircraft and personnel, but it has never been weaponized in the sense of using it to shoot missles from or through and establishing space control and dominance of the earth.
Hitchens described how the Air Force and Donald Rumsfeld intend to use space as a weapon. One way is to create weapons to take down satellites of other countries and third party providers of communications and commercial uses. One could stop international commerce by destroying satellites used for banking, internet and industry. There are also space-based weapons including a project called "Rods from God", sort of a real life version of the children's "religious" computer game, Smite Thee (which my regular readers know all about), but instead of a just, wise and all-knowing God, you get the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney making the decisions of who to smite. These so-called "Rods from God" are space-based precision-guided weapons made of cylinders of tungsten, titanium or uranium that are to be hurled at surface targets.
One of the main problems with space weapons are that they are expensive. Not just regular old too much defense spending expensive, but ridiculously we all end up as slaves to pay for them and they still break the budget expensive. Another problem is the space junk they create. In space, objects move so fast that a small speck of a paint chip has actually created a large ding in the space shuttle. Just blowing up our own satellites for practice and testing could create so much space junk that it eliminates our ability to use satellites in space, as they are now used for communication and commerce, for decades. Weaponization of space by the US would also create a political firestorm within the US and abroad at a time when there are already so many difficulties within our country and with our allies.
There is already a smaller program that the administration claims is not weapons testing, but could be used for that purpose. We are now experimenting with a tiny satellite that maneuvers around larger satellites. Now, it is being used to take pictures of the larger satellite, but the maneuvers also test our ability to use the little satellite to take out the larger one. Hitchens said that the administration is using a lot of smoke and mirrors in its approach to the testing of space weapons.
Hitchens closed by commenting that the US is the leader in space and if we decide to use it as a weapon, that will open the door to other countries weaponizing space. A missile that could be manufactured by N. Korea could contain enough sand or gravel to take out our satellites. She left us with the question: would our satellites be safer with space weapons or without them? Without them, of course.
Mark Kirk is on the Foreign Operations and Science Committees. Perhaps we need to contact him to tell him we have no interest in changing our country's long time policy to keep space for the peaceful betterment of all humanity.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Diary of a Democrat with a DemoCat
The title link is William Rivers Pitt's rendition of his day as a Plamegate Junkie. It's great reading. (He has a cat!)
Here's my morning:
4:32am: Detect wiskers brushing against face.
4:32 1/2: Push DemoCat away.
repeat for next hour.
5:32: Get up and do 60 situps and 30 reverse sit-ups.
5:38: Brush teeth.
5:40: Go into kitchen, take one extra-strength Pepcid with a full glass of water (needed since Bush v. Gore), pick up old cat food and water dishes. Take out new water dish, fill and put on mat on floor.
5:45: Take shower and dream that when I get out I will turn on the news and hear Hosea Sanders say: "It was all a mistake and Al Gore became president in 2000. Since he did not get to serve his first term, he's being sworn in now. Joe Lieberman decided he doesn't want to be vice president, so they're giving it to John Kerry because he really won Ohio."
6:10: Having showered, combed out hair and washed face, trudge over to office and turn on computer. Vow just to look and not blog or I'll be late for work (again).
6:10 1/2: Hear loud meow coming from bedroom.
6:11: Go into kitchen, very happy I finally went grocery shopping last night, put marble rye into toaster and put a few Rice Krispies into a bowl with the banana I have to eat every day since August 20th post.
6:15: Go back to computer, log on to find that again on cnn.com News=Weather. DemoCat finds me and jumps on my lap and starts nosing the already catspit streaked monitor.
6:20: Push DemoCat off lap, get up and go to kitchen to retrieve marble rye toast and spread with cream cheese (Philadelphia Regular, the other stuff is junk!)
6:21: Go back to computer and find DemoCat is back on my lap nosing the keyboard keys.
6:22: Go to MSNBC.com to find that News=Weather, with a side story on Bush's life after Rove. Here and I thought he could only divorce Laura... or Condi... or Harriet.
6:23: Go for some real news by checking Truthout.com, Buzzflash.com and Rawstory.com. Big picture of Judy Miller looking annoyed on Rawstory. Ugh. She still thinks she's a journalist. Meirs is already lying and her confirmation hearings haven't even started. Sadly she's not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to use the Constitution as a shield from meaningful questioning. I hate to see a woman come off so badly, even a republican woman. (Still no story that Al Gore is being sworn in, but there is a source of oxygen on the moon. Good, we may need it if the neo-cons are allowed to complete their mission on earth.) Buzzflash is pissed off at William Kristol and providing lifeblood for Plamegate junkies. Oh, now conservatives are mad at Ann Coulter. What took them so long? Truthout has a picture of a sweet looking little girl from Kashmir waiting for help after the earthquake. Delay is out on bail after having taken that creepy looking smiling mug shot. Still no word on Gore being sworn in.
6:31: Check email and see that Ohio Steve has sent me title link. My cousin who works for the American Cancer Society sent me an article about Christians who think that the new vaccine to prevent cervical cancer is un-Christian and my cousin asks: "What is wrong with these people!"
6:33 Check out Kos and Skippy. Another republican being indicted in Kentucky. When you think you have monopoly on truth, you'll do anything to get elected, but anyone who thinks they have the monopoly on truth only has the monopoly on arrogance. Skippy compares Pat Fitzgerald with Ken Starr.
6:35: Decide to shameless copycat Will Pitt article for the blog today with DemoCat on lap still nosing the keyboard keys.
6:55: Check back to cnn.com to see if Gore is standing in front of John Roberts with his hand on the bible.
6:45: Turn on TV and no Hosea saying it was all a mistake and Gore is president, but someone is on talking about the White Sox (again).
6:45 1/2: Wonder if I am still in denial.
6:47: Check my blogpoll on Delay's mug shot smile. Only 2 votes so far.
7:04: Finish this blog...and oy...I'm going to be late for work (again).
Here's my morning:
4:32am: Detect wiskers brushing against face.
4:32 1/2: Push DemoCat away.
repeat for next hour.
5:32: Get up and do 60 situps and 30 reverse sit-ups.
5:38: Brush teeth.
5:40: Go into kitchen, take one extra-strength Pepcid with a full glass of water (needed since Bush v. Gore), pick up old cat food and water dishes. Take out new water dish, fill and put on mat on floor.
5:45: Take shower and dream that when I get out I will turn on the news and hear Hosea Sanders say: "It was all a mistake and Al Gore became president in 2000. Since he did not get to serve his first term, he's being sworn in now. Joe Lieberman decided he doesn't want to be vice president, so they're giving it to John Kerry because he really won Ohio."
6:10: Having showered, combed out hair and washed face, trudge over to office and turn on computer. Vow just to look and not blog or I'll be late for work (again).
6:10 1/2: Hear loud meow coming from bedroom.
6:11: Go into kitchen, very happy I finally went grocery shopping last night, put marble rye into toaster and put a few Rice Krispies into a bowl with the banana I have to eat every day since August 20th post.
6:15: Go back to computer, log on to find that again on cnn.com News=Weather. DemoCat finds me and jumps on my lap and starts nosing the already catspit streaked monitor.
6:20: Push DemoCat off lap, get up and go to kitchen to retrieve marble rye toast and spread with cream cheese (Philadelphia Regular, the other stuff is junk!)
6:21: Go back to computer and find DemoCat is back on my lap nosing the keyboard keys.
6:22: Go to MSNBC.com to find that News=Weather, with a side story on Bush's life after Rove. Here and I thought he could only divorce Laura... or Condi... or Harriet.
6:23: Go for some real news by checking Truthout.com, Buzzflash.com and Rawstory.com. Big picture of Judy Miller looking annoyed on Rawstory. Ugh. She still thinks she's a journalist. Meirs is already lying and her confirmation hearings haven't even started. Sadly she's not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to use the Constitution as a shield from meaningful questioning. I hate to see a woman come off so badly, even a republican woman. (Still no story that Al Gore is being sworn in, but there is a source of oxygen on the moon. Good, we may need it if the neo-cons are allowed to complete their mission on earth.) Buzzflash is pissed off at William Kristol and providing lifeblood for Plamegate junkies. Oh, now conservatives are mad at Ann Coulter. What took them so long? Truthout has a picture of a sweet looking little girl from Kashmir waiting for help after the earthquake. Delay is out on bail after having taken that creepy looking smiling mug shot. Still no word on Gore being sworn in.
6:31: Check email and see that Ohio Steve has sent me title link. My cousin who works for the American Cancer Society sent me an article about Christians who think that the new vaccine to prevent cervical cancer is un-Christian and my cousin asks: "What is wrong with these people!"
6:33 Check out Kos and Skippy. Another republican being indicted in Kentucky. When you think you have monopoly on truth, you'll do anything to get elected, but anyone who thinks they have the monopoly on truth only has the monopoly on arrogance. Skippy compares Pat Fitzgerald with Ken Starr.
6:35: Decide to shameless copycat Will Pitt article for the blog today with DemoCat on lap still nosing the keyboard keys.
6:55: Check back to cnn.com to see if Gore is standing in front of John Roberts with his hand on the bible.
6:45: Turn on TV and no Hosea saying it was all a mistake and Gore is president, but someone is on talking about the White Sox (again).
6:45 1/2: Wonder if I am still in denial.
6:47: Check my blogpoll on Delay's mug shot smile. Only 2 votes so far.
7:04: Finish this blog...and oy...I'm going to be late for work (again).
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Marshall Plan for Iraq?
Between scandals, indictments, arrest warrants and the like, republicans are patting themselves on the back for the 99% yes vote on the Iraqi Constitution. A result like that in a third world Central American country in the '60s and '70s would have been laughed at in the US, but since Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004, it's just par for the course. The "bananarepublicans" are in control in Iraq as well as here at home and there's the rub. If we continue to look like small time dictators, will we ever earn the respect of the Iraqi people and, more importantly, will the government we create for them ever have their respect and ultimate love and loyalty?
One way to diffuse the situtation would be for the Americans to fulfill their promises to rebuild the country and bring its people back to a normal standard of living, if not better. One of Mark Kirk's justifications for his support of the Iraq War was the success of the Marshall Plan in Europe after World War II despite early warnings of failure. This is what Kirk said in a 2004 interview on BBC Radio 4 (note: BBC, in England, not anywhere near the Illinois Tenth District):
That sounds all well and good. Success in Europe and Japan was built on feeding and clothing the people and helping to rebuild. Iraq has to be similarly supported and rebuilt, but we are not getting solid results in Iraq in the reconstruction effort.
Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on National Security held a hearing on the reconstruction effort in Iraq and, specifically, the use of the $20.9 billion dollars requested from and granted by Congress in 2003 for reconstruction. The hearing, led by republican Chris Shays, deemed the reconstruction effort a failure compared to the administration's early promises for the funds earmarked for oil production and electricity and potable water provision. Here is the report on the reconstruction effort.
Basically, little of what was promised has been furnished and the quality of what has been furnished is not as promised. The administration bragged and Kirk repeated the notion that Iraqi oil production was going to pay for the reconstruction. This is what the report said about oil production:
Things are not much better in electricity and water provision:
In the hearing, witnesses also discussed failures in school rebuilding, protection for our troops and accounting for seized assets.
One of the major problems identified in the hearing was the security problems that have required 25% of the budget to be shifted from reconstruction efforts to security. The other major problem identified was the poor performance and overcharging by the no-bid private contractors chosen by the administration.
This is no post WWII style Marshall plan for Iraq, but a Marshall plan for connected US corporations. Our taxpayer money is being squandered and we are not getting results in Iraq. I would expect Mark Kirk to be screaming at the administration and demanding changes post haste. He sold this war to his district on the idea that we would turn Iraq into the heart of democracy in the Middle East. He admonished us that our skepticism was based on "closet racism" and appealed to our interest in human rights. However, there was no racism among the the naysayers. They were rightly concerned that we were not going to provide what is needed in Iraq and the administration's lack of concern for the Iraqi deaths and the difficulty of life that we have created and currently maintain through malfeasance is the real racism and withholding of human rights.
The hearing was mostly attended by Democrats. Few republicans show interest in Iraq or the real lives of Iraqis and, strangely, show little interest in our ultimate success in the nationbuilding they started. They are probably too busy consulting their attorneys.
One way to diffuse the situtation would be for the Americans to fulfill their promises to rebuild the country and bring its people back to a normal standard of living, if not better. One of Mark Kirk's justifications for his support of the Iraq War was the success of the Marshall Plan in Europe after World War II despite early warnings of failure. This is what Kirk said in a 2004 interview on BBC Radio 4 (note: BBC, in England, not anywhere near the Illinois Tenth District):
I have just reviewed some of the press reporting from 1946. The great War correspondent John Dos Passos [spelling corrected]… reported to the American people in January of 1946 that the US occupation of Germany had failed, that the
Germans hated us, the French hated us more, that everyone thought we were liberators and now we were just looters. The title of the article was ‘America’s occupation of Germany has failed’. For us, if the 24 hour news channels had been in Japan or Germany during the occupation they would have said ‘This is an impossible dream, to turn the German people and the Japanese people into liberal democrats is crazy. The Germans invaded their neighbours three times in each generation, the Japanese have been a dictatorship for 4,000 years.’ And yet now Germany and Japan, because of this steady commitment, are now the heart of a democratic part of Asia and a democratic Europe.
That is what we are moving towards here in the Middle East. Every single nay-sayer in the world will say, with a kind of closet racism, that Arabs are not capable of democracy, like they used to say Japanese could never be democrats or the Germans could never be democrats. And I think we have to rise to what Abraham Lincoln called ‘the higher angels of our nature’. That everyone deserves human rights… Who thought that this was going to be easy?
That sounds all well and good. Success in Europe and Japan was built on feeding and clothing the people and helping to rebuild. Iraq has to be similarly supported and rebuilt, but we are not getting solid results in Iraq in the reconstruction effort.
Yesterday, the House Subcommittee on National Security held a hearing on the reconstruction effort in Iraq and, specifically, the use of the $20.9 billion dollars requested from and granted by Congress in 2003 for reconstruction. The hearing, led by republican Chris Shays, deemed the reconstruction effort a failure compared to the administration's early promises for the funds earmarked for oil production and electricity and potable water provision. Here is the report on the reconstruction effort.
Basically, little of what was promised has been furnished and the quality of what has been furnished is not as promised. The administration bragged and Kirk repeated the notion that Iraqi oil production was going to pay for the reconstruction. This is what the report said about oil production:
However, oil production and export levels have actually dropped below pre-war levels. In March 2003, Iraq produced 2.6 million barrels of oil per day and exported 2.1 million barrels per day. By August 1, 2005, production levels remained below 2.4 million barrels per day and export levels remained below 1.7 million barrels per day. From January 1, 2005, through August 1, 2005, Iraq had to spend $3 billion to import fuels because it still cannot produce enough refined petroleum products, like gasoline, for domestic use.
Things are not much better in electricity and water provision:
Administration officials promised to increase peak electricity output to at least 6,000 megawatts. But Iraq has never come close to achieving this objective. By August 26, 2005, Iraq’s peak output was just 4,635 megawatts, only slightly above the pre-war level of 4,400 megawatts. Actual summer demand was 8,600 megawatts, leading State Department officials to concede that "[w]e’ll never meet demand." In August 2005, Iraqis living in Baghdad had just two hours of power followed by four hours without power throughout the day.
In the water sector, Administration officials promised to ensure that 90% of Iraqis had access to drinkable water. Yet today just 66% of Iraqis now have access to drinkable water. Even the Iraqi ministries now say that they are "disappointed with the broken promises and lack of progress on existing projects."
In the hearing, witnesses also discussed failures in school rebuilding, protection for our troops and accounting for seized assets.
One of the major problems identified in the hearing was the security problems that have required 25% of the budget to be shifted from reconstruction efforts to security. The other major problem identified was the poor performance and overcharging by the no-bid private contractors chosen by the administration.
This is no post WWII style Marshall plan for Iraq, but a Marshall plan for connected US corporations. Our taxpayer money is being squandered and we are not getting results in Iraq. I would expect Mark Kirk to be screaming at the administration and demanding changes post haste. He sold this war to his district on the idea that we would turn Iraq into the heart of democracy in the Middle East. He admonished us that our skepticism was based on "closet racism" and appealed to our interest in human rights. However, there was no racism among the the naysayers. They were rightly concerned that we were not going to provide what is needed in Iraq and the administration's lack of concern for the Iraqi deaths and the difficulty of life that we have created and currently maintain through malfeasance is the real racism and withholding of human rights.
The hearing was mostly attended by Democrats. Few republicans show interest in Iraq or the real lives of Iraqis and, strangely, show little interest in our ultimate success in the nationbuilding they started. They are probably too busy consulting their attorneys.
Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Who is fooling whom?
Kirk's army of blog writers and letter writers have really gone after the recent Tenth Dems poll. You know the one completed by the reputable firm of Penn, Schoen & Berland that shows that Kirk, while popular when no one knows what he is about, loses popularity in the light of truth about his voting record.
Lots of the Kirk writers claim that this poll was push polling. Push polling is an attempt to change subjects opinions, not the testing of a real political message, even if negative. The best example of push polling comes from Bush's 2000 primary campaign when his pollsters in South Carolina asked respondents "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" That was completely untrue and an attempt to race bate an already racially charged population to kill McCain's chances in the 2000 republican primary. In fact, McCain had adopted a girl from Bangladesh.
The Tenth Dems poll had no such untrue allegations and used no such baiting techniques. It simply stated Kirk's voting record and asked respondents if, when they learn about the particular votes, they are more or less likely to vote for him. When voters learn of Kirk's voting record they are less favorable of him and less likely to vote for him. That is not push polling. It's simply stating the facts of his voting record. Voters are supposed to know about that. Kirk would rather they did not because his record does not reflect the values of his district, but his attempt to bolster a political career in the Bush/Delay republican party.
Down to the nitty gritty, it is true that Kirk is popular. He beat Lauren Beth Gash, Hank Perritt and Lee Goodman and still polls well when people do not know about his votes. No news. But, the poll shows that Kirk's support is soft and trending downward and that people in the district are unhappy with his votes regarding the Iraq War, Terry Schiavo, energy and the environment.
Interestingly, and perhaps even surprising, is how well proposed Democratic candidates did against Kirk, and that's even before the campaign has gotten started. Zane Smith has shown real strength against Kirk. When asked "if the election was held tomorrow, who would you vote for?" Zane Smith beats Kirk 37% to 35% with 28% not sure.
Kirk can get his army of writers to discredit the poll, but who is he fooling? What he really needs to do is examine the votes that have so angered his district that would take him down from bettering Goodman by 28% to down by 2% against Smith before the campaign has even begun. The Illinois Tenth is a really sophisticated and independent district and if Kirk is relying upon voter ignorance to stay in Congress, he is fooling only himself.
Lots of the Kirk writers claim that this poll was push polling. Push polling is an attempt to change subjects opinions, not the testing of a real political message, even if negative. The best example of push polling comes from Bush's 2000 primary campaign when his pollsters in South Carolina asked respondents "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" That was completely untrue and an attempt to race bate an already racially charged population to kill McCain's chances in the 2000 republican primary. In fact, McCain had adopted a girl from Bangladesh.
The Tenth Dems poll had no such untrue allegations and used no such baiting techniques. It simply stated Kirk's voting record and asked respondents if, when they learn about the particular votes, they are more or less likely to vote for him. When voters learn of Kirk's voting record they are less favorable of him and less likely to vote for him. That is not push polling. It's simply stating the facts of his voting record. Voters are supposed to know about that. Kirk would rather they did not because his record does not reflect the values of his district, but his attempt to bolster a political career in the Bush/Delay republican party.
Down to the nitty gritty, it is true that Kirk is popular. He beat Lauren Beth Gash, Hank Perritt and Lee Goodman and still polls well when people do not know about his votes. No news. But, the poll shows that Kirk's support is soft and trending downward and that people in the district are unhappy with his votes regarding the Iraq War, Terry Schiavo, energy and the environment.
Interestingly, and perhaps even surprising, is how well proposed Democratic candidates did against Kirk, and that's even before the campaign has gotten started. Zane Smith has shown real strength against Kirk. When asked "if the election was held tomorrow, who would you vote for?" Zane Smith beats Kirk 37% to 35% with 28% not sure.
Kirk can get his army of writers to discredit the poll, but who is he fooling? What he really needs to do is examine the votes that have so angered his district that would take him down from bettering Goodman by 28% to down by 2% against Smith before the campaign has even begun. The Illinois Tenth is a really sophisticated and independent district and if Kirk is relying upon voter ignorance to stay in Congress, he is fooling only himself.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
REP after Kirk again
Republicans for Environment Protection are going after Mark Kirk again for his recent bad votes on the environment. Now, they are passing around a mailing to send to his office. The mailing asks "Congressman Kirk, Can We Count on You?" They are concerned about Kirk voting for Delay's bill to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling.
I don't blame them for asking. Kirk has been voting with Delay a lot and did vote for the "Gasoline for America’s Security Act of 2005” (H.R 3893) despite the fact that it completely decimates the Clean Air Act and cheats taxpayers to boot.
They have a detachable card with some pretty good talking points. One of my favorites is:
However, I do have a tip for them. While I am in no way an expert on FEC law, I do think that they have violated it by not attributing their mail piece to their organization. You know, the old "paid for by... and not authorized by and candidate or candidates committee".
republicans violating campaign finance laws?....no, I'm shocked.
I don't blame them for asking. Kirk has been voting with Delay a lot and did vote for the "Gasoline for America’s Security Act of 2005” (H.R 3893) despite the fact that it completely decimates the Clean Air Act and cheats taxpayers to boot.
They have a detachable card with some pretty good talking points. One of my favorites is:
Congressment should represent the wishes and interests of those who elect them, not give in to pressure from people like Tom Delay, who have very different agendas.
However, I do have a tip for them. While I am in no way an expert on FEC law, I do think that they have violated it by not attributing their mail piece to their organization. You know, the old "paid for by... and not authorized by and candidate or candidates committee".
republicans violating campaign finance laws?....no, I'm shocked.
Is Mark Kirk NF in Congress?
When I was in high school, we had a term "NF". It meant no friends. We mostly used it to kid around with our friends, for example, if someone was sitting at a lunch table alone, we'd say something like "hey, are you coming over here to sit, or do you want to be NF?"
Well, someone mentioned to me today that they think Kirk might be lacking friends in Congress. Why? Because they never let his bills out of committee. Nothing Kirk has introduced in the 109th Congress has made it out of committee.
Don't start writing me that I'm wrong. This comes from the page from Thomas Legislative linked from Kirk's very own house site. Nothing he has introduced in the 109th Congress that I can see ever made it out of committee. He did a little better in the 108th Congress, but really only getting a few amendments to other folks bills passed.
Kirk cannot even seem to get his appreciation to China passed and with the amount of our debt owned by China (see this too), one would really think he should be able to get his republican collegues to agree to appreciate them. After all, it is their deficit.
Mark, maybe if you introduced legislation that actually helped someone get health care or food and shelter after an emergency instead of following the republican rush to sell it's soul to multinational corporations and foreign countries you would not be alone at the lunch table.
Well, someone mentioned to me today that they think Kirk might be lacking friends in Congress. Why? Because they never let his bills out of committee. Nothing Kirk has introduced in the 109th Congress has made it out of committee.
Don't start writing me that I'm wrong. This comes from the page from Thomas Legislative linked from Kirk's very own house site. Nothing he has introduced in the 109th Congress that I can see ever made it out of committee. He did a little better in the 108th Congress, but really only getting a few amendments to other folks bills passed.
Kirk cannot even seem to get his appreciation to China passed and with the amount of our debt owned by China (see this too), one would really think he should be able to get his republican collegues to agree to appreciate them. After all, it is their deficit.
Mark, maybe if you introduced legislation that actually helped someone get health care or food and shelter after an emergency instead of following the republican rush to sell it's soul to multinational corporations and foreign countries you would not be alone at the lunch table.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Out and about in the district
Went canvassing the fighting 427 yesterday on a beautiful afternoon after a Bears win. Ok, the men I spoke to were unanimous that the Bears win was unimportant because it was against the Vikings and they are just plain old worse than the Bears who are also pretty bad. At least that was the sentiment in the precinct. I am genetically incapable of caring about football from my mother's side (sorry dad).
No one was talking about Rove, Miller, Plame, Abramoff or even Cindy Sheehan. They were talking about the environment. Folks are concerned about the recent energy legislation that decimates the Clean Air Act (H.R. 3893). This is the legislation that used the tragedies of huricanes Katrina and Rita to mislead Americans that we have to abandon environmental protection for our own good. The law basically enriches the oil companies by discouraging conservation and energy independence and waiving most of the Clean Air Act for the building of new refineries. Building of new refineries will be financed by the taxpayers so the already profit rich oil companies can soak consumers first for the refinery and then for the gas it sells.
Voters in our area are aghast that Kirk voted for this legislation and understand that now it will be up to our state legislators and governor to protect our environment, and that we will have to hope that the state legislatures and governors of our neighboring states do the same because pollution just does not stop at the border.
Environmental concerns sure made my job easy because one of my missions was to collect signatures for the ballot petition of our State Rep. Karen May. May is working tirelessly to stop mercury contamination of our lakes and streams and is sponsoring a forum on the topic on Tuesday November 1st 2005, 07:00pm at the Highland Park Country Club. David Kirby, the author of "Evidence of Harm," will be the keynote speaker. Kirby has investigated the issue of whether mercury containing vaccines may cause autism in children. Also speaking about the effects of mercury poisoning in children will be Dr. Anju Usman and Bruce Nilles of the Sierra Club will talk about mercury from coal-fired plants.
It was a great afternoon talking to my neighbors and how many precincts can brag that they have a grade school named South Park (no joke!).
No one was talking about Rove, Miller, Plame, Abramoff or even Cindy Sheehan. They were talking about the environment. Folks are concerned about the recent energy legislation that decimates the Clean Air Act (H.R. 3893). This is the legislation that used the tragedies of huricanes Katrina and Rita to mislead Americans that we have to abandon environmental protection for our own good. The law basically enriches the oil companies by discouraging conservation and energy independence and waiving most of the Clean Air Act for the building of new refineries. Building of new refineries will be financed by the taxpayers so the already profit rich oil companies can soak consumers first for the refinery and then for the gas it sells.
Voters in our area are aghast that Kirk voted for this legislation and understand that now it will be up to our state legislators and governor to protect our environment, and that we will have to hope that the state legislatures and governors of our neighboring states do the same because pollution just does not stop at the border.
Environmental concerns sure made my job easy because one of my missions was to collect signatures for the ballot petition of our State Rep. Karen May. May is working tirelessly to stop mercury contamination of our lakes and streams and is sponsoring a forum on the topic on Tuesday November 1st 2005, 07:00pm at the Highland Park Country Club. David Kirby, the author of "Evidence of Harm," will be the keynote speaker. Kirby has investigated the issue of whether mercury containing vaccines may cause autism in children. Also speaking about the effects of mercury poisoning in children will be Dr. Anju Usman and Bruce Nilles of the Sierra Club will talk about mercury from coal-fired plants.
It was a great afternoon talking to my neighbors and how many precincts can brag that they have a grade school named South Park (no joke!).
Sunday, October 16, 2005
A midterm convention and an idea
Walter Cronkite thinks that the Democrats should have a midterm convention to draw up a platform. I started thinking about that a lot because, as an Illinois delegate to the 2004 convention, I am one of the people he proposes should be there.Cronkite's reasoning for a midterm convention is that the Democrats should use it to highlight the differences between Democrats and Republicans and to showcase the Democratic vision. Cronkite goes on:
In sharp contrast to the secrecy of the Bush administration, it would let the public, if only remotely, share in the construction of the Democratic platform.
In thinking about Cronkite's proposal, I reflected back on the 2004 Convention. While it was a great experience for me, I was disappointed on the meaninglessness of the votes for President and Vice President and the lack of participation most delegates had in creation of the platform. It simply appeared on the internet weeks before the convention and we never even got to vote on it. It was done by insiders and was a fait accomplis before we even landed in Boston. I wrote this back on July 31, 2004:
Maybe we need to be creative and come up with something for the future that will get out the message to more voters and in a way that will be more meaningful and helpful to them.
At the time, I was not so sure how we could create a convention and platform with more grassroots participation. Now, I have an idea or really a twist on someone else's idea. Last year I participated in an internet writing contest on the issue of the Iraq War. (I cannot remember the name of the group that sponsored this internet event. Please let me know if you know about it.) The goal was to come up with a policy statement about the war. It went something like this:
People were divided up into groups and were given questions to answer in essay form. At the end of a specified time, each person was asked to rank the answers of group members. The top 2 or 3 answers were chosen and all group members were asked to edit them. Then, the group ranked the edited versions and the top 2 or 3 were chosen and the writers of those went on to the next round. My essay was chosen to move to the next round, but unfortunately, the sponsor of the event had server problems on subsequent scheduled day and I was unable to participate in the rescheduled event. However, I was impressed with the way it allowed participation of a large number of people in policymaking.
So, we could start the midterm convention in a manner similar to what I described above with delegates initially choosing a platform issue from a list or be assigned and placed into district, state, region and then national groups competing and helping to edit each others work. The essay winners of competing versions would be the chosen spokespeople to present the draft grassroots platform with some competing versions of key provisions argued in speeches or debate style and voted upon. Now that would be some interesting television, not just rah rah Edwards! rah rah Kerry! and a lot of balloons.
Then delegates would vote on the final platform, a real, meaningful vote. The last day could be the party leaders making speeches on their thoughts about the platform.
Americans would see some real democracy in action accomplished by some real Democrats and I cannot think of anything more positive than that.
Did you ever wonder what 2000 looks like?
Click on the title link to watch a very powerful video on the American soldiers killed in Iraq. It comes from this blog, but it came to me through a chain of unlikely sources. You wouldn't believe me if I told you.
And the Iraq referendum on the constitution has shades of Ohio as Western Sunnis ask, where are the polling stations?
Several congressmen were waiting for the outcome of the referendum before taking a stand on Russ Feingold's Sen. Res. 171. What does it mean to them if the referendum has no meaning?
As for our Constitution:
Time for a little courage in our Congress.
And the Iraq referendum on the constitution has shades of Ohio as Western Sunnis ask, where are the polling stations?
Several congressmen were waiting for the outcome of the referendum before taking a stand on Russ Feingold's Sen. Res. 171. What does it mean to them if the referendum has no meaning?
As for our Constitution:
The constitution vests the power of declaring war in Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they shall have deliberated upon the subject and authorized such a measure.– George Washington
Time for a little courage in our Congress.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Harry and Louise in my electric bill
Remember, Harry and Louise, the ficticious television couple, afraid of single payer health care, that prevented us from getting a reasonable health care plan in the US. Now, they are trying to use similar fear of an Illinois version of California's Enron debacle to create one in Illinois, but without the cheesy fake couple.
This week while I was getting ready to leave for work, I've been seeing a television commercial in which the announcer is complaining that Illinois politicians are preventing modernization of energy purchasing and will, thereby, create a California-style energy crisis in Illinois. They are clearly trying to create images of Enron.
I cannot help but thinking we are being Harry and Louise'd again....
...because we are.
What the ad is about is ComEd's desire to purchase electricity through a "reverse auction". "Under the reverse auction method, power distributors buy wholesale power by soliciting bids from multiple power generators, then accepting the lowest offers until the utilities have enough power to supply its customers."
Lisa Madigan, Illinois' Attorney General sees this as a problem because there is no real competition in this market. ComEd is buying power from ExGen, a ComEd affiliate, under regulated rates that have to reflect the actual cost of generating it. ComEd's plan would have it buy the same power from the same company under market forces that bear no relationship to the actual cost. The more interesting part of all this is that ComEd used to own ExGen's nuclear generating units and they were paid for by ComEd customers through "securitization charges" and "transition charges" authorized by the 1997 restructuring law. The rate freeze about which ComEd now complains was part of the original 1997 deal that allowed ComEd to sell its generators to affiliates and become an energy distribution company.
The Citizens' Utility Board claims that the ComEd plan is illegal because it "would force consumers to pay unlimited rate hikes without requiring the company to show that the prices are just and reasonable, as required by Illinois law...."
Governor Blagojevich, originally accused of being in the pocket of the utility companies, has joined Madigan in opposing ComEd's plan and has taken the consequent heat for it, particularly his appointment of Martin Cohen, former CUB executive director, to the Illinois Commerce Commission that is hearing the case. Blagojevich is being accused of being populist (what is wrong with fighting for the people?), and campaigning on it. I see it as sort of reverse cronism. Cohen isn't a dupe or corporate plant. He actually knows what's going on, so for ComEd, that has to be bad.
ComEd has taken the position that it's reverse auction plan will lower costs:
Now, faced with opposition, Excelon, parent company of ComEd, is threatening to divest ComEd or have it go bankrupt. However, they seem to have plenty of money for the television ads. Ironically, as a rich corporation, ComEd still can go bankrupt. The individuals running for bankruptcy cover before the October 17th Bankruptcy Reform deadline that would prevent them from going bankrupt despite medical bills for health care catastrophes don't have the same luxury, of course.
I am not the foremost expert on energy, ComEd, Enron etc., but I did see that movie about Enron, Smartest Guys in the Room, with the Tenth Dems and I seem to remember that Enron's business was trading energy like it was stock with traders sitting at computer screens and watching Californians losing their homes to wildfires shouting at their television screens "Burn baby burn!" as they felt the destruction was part of their handiwork of controlling energy supply and delaying first responders. I also remember generators being called by Enron traders and told to shut down during power shortages. I remember being amazed that the generators actually shut down, no questions asked.
So, I really don't believe the ads I am seeing. It seems to me that market price means nothing when there really is no free market. The market players are few and related companies. The ads are trying to scare Illinoisans into doing exactly what they are being told should be feared. More convoluted garbage from the corporate ownership society of the Bush, Kirk and Co. world.
The ads were being shown on Channel 9. I've been watching Channel 9 in the mornings because they have the good weather crawl at the bottom of the screen, but I think I'll go back to watching Different World and The Parkers on Channel 13 so I don't have to watch those ads any more.
This week while I was getting ready to leave for work, I've been seeing a television commercial in which the announcer is complaining that Illinois politicians are preventing modernization of energy purchasing and will, thereby, create a California-style energy crisis in Illinois. They are clearly trying to create images of Enron.
I cannot help but thinking we are being Harry and Louise'd again....
...because we are.
What the ad is about is ComEd's desire to purchase electricity through a "reverse auction". "Under the reverse auction method, power distributors buy wholesale power by soliciting bids from multiple power generators, then accepting the lowest offers until the utilities have enough power to supply its customers."
Lisa Madigan, Illinois' Attorney General sees this as a problem because there is no real competition in this market. ComEd is buying power from ExGen, a ComEd affiliate, under regulated rates that have to reflect the actual cost of generating it. ComEd's plan would have it buy the same power from the same company under market forces that bear no relationship to the actual cost. The more interesting part of all this is that ComEd used to own ExGen's nuclear generating units and they were paid for by ComEd customers through "securitization charges" and "transition charges" authorized by the 1997 restructuring law. The rate freeze about which ComEd now complains was part of the original 1997 deal that allowed ComEd to sell its generators to affiliates and become an energy distribution company.
Asking these same customers to pay market prices for electricity from these power plants, Rose [Dr. Kenneth Rose,". . . is a little like a bank or mortgage company charging you market rent to live in a house while you are also paying them a mortgage for the same house.
The Citizens' Utility Board claims that the ComEd plan is illegal because it "would force consumers to pay unlimited rate hikes without requiring the company to show that the prices are just and reasonable, as required by Illinois law...."
Under Illinois law, ComEd must prove that any rate increase is just and reasonable and that its costs were prudently incurred," CUB Executive David Kolata said. "ComEd wants to turn that fundamental consumer protection on its head and have the ICC pre-approve a big rate increase for consumers before anyone even knows what the rates are. It's a radical departure from current law."
Governor Blagojevich, originally accused of being in the pocket of the utility companies, has joined Madigan in opposing ComEd's plan and has taken the consequent heat for it, particularly his appointment of Martin Cohen, former CUB executive director, to the Illinois Commerce Commission that is hearing the case. Blagojevich is being accused of being populist (what is wrong with fighting for the people?), and campaigning on it. I see it as sort of reverse cronism. Cohen isn't a dupe or corporate plant. He actually knows what's going on, so for ComEd, that has to be bad.
ComEd has taken the position that it's reverse auction plan will lower costs:
The experiences of other states and the broad consensus of experts within the industry make clear that a reverse auction will secure the lowest available market rate for power, while protecting Illinois consumers from market volatility and other risk factors," said Anne Pramaggiore, Vice-President, Regulatory and Strategic Services for ComEd.
Now, faced with opposition, Excelon, parent company of ComEd, is threatening to divest ComEd or have it go bankrupt. However, they seem to have plenty of money for the television ads. Ironically, as a rich corporation, ComEd still can go bankrupt. The individuals running for bankruptcy cover before the October 17th Bankruptcy Reform deadline that would prevent them from going bankrupt despite medical bills for health care catastrophes don't have the same luxury, of course.
I am not the foremost expert on energy, ComEd, Enron etc., but I did see that movie about Enron, Smartest Guys in the Room, with the Tenth Dems and I seem to remember that Enron's business was trading energy like it was stock with traders sitting at computer screens and watching Californians losing their homes to wildfires shouting at their television screens "Burn baby burn!" as they felt the destruction was part of their handiwork of controlling energy supply and delaying first responders. I also remember generators being called by Enron traders and told to shut down during power shortages. I remember being amazed that the generators actually shut down, no questions asked.
So, I really don't believe the ads I am seeing. It seems to me that market price means nothing when there really is no free market. The market players are few and related companies. The ads are trying to scare Illinoisans into doing exactly what they are being told should be feared. More convoluted garbage from the corporate ownership society of the Bush, Kirk and Co. world.
The ads were being shown on Channel 9. I've been watching Channel 9 in the mornings because they have the good weather crawl at the bottom of the screen, but I think I'll go back to watching Different World and The Parkers on Channel 13 so I don't have to watch those ads any more.
Friday, October 14, 2005
No home for our kids in the ownership society
One of the really nice things about the Illinois Tenth District is that people who have grown up here often stay here to raise their own families. When I first moved up to the Tenth, I would meet people at the grocery store or train station who have known each other since grade school. They still have their group of friends from school days and now their kids play together. I was a little kid in the city and then went to school in the near north suburbs where that did not happen. People moved away. I always thought it was nice for the people up here in the Tenth who have been friends forever.
Well, don't expect that for your children. It will become harder and harder for Tenth Districters children to stay here and raise their families. Housing costs are ridiculous and development of new land and teardowns have turned almost everything into unaffordable, luxury housing. In addition, mortgage rates are rapidly on the rise. I am seeing them in the 6%'s now and, to add to the problem, Bush wants to take away the mortgage interest deduction for many people. Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform (reform, ha!) will recommend that the limit on mortgage interest deduction be lowered to the maximum FHA mortgage limit which varies by community and is around $290,319 in Illinois. This change will effectively end the mortgage deduction for Tenth Districters.
The panel also recommended limiting the deduction for health insurance premiums.
No mention was made by the panel of ending the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
This is what Bush, Kirk and Co. want, the end of the American middle class in our time. Our children will not have the same help in financing their first home and they will be paying huge tax burdens with lower wages and more expensive energy and goods. If they seek to maintain the standard of living the middle class has had in the past using credit cards, they will be paying high interest rates and will not have bankruptcy protection if they get in trouble. Now, only credit card companies have bankruptcy protection, protection from bankruptcy.
All I can say is pay down your debt, refinance your adjustable into a 30-year fixed mortgage ASAP and only buy what you can really really afford with a very healthy downpayment.
Will Mark Kirk vote in favor of these changes? With his recent track record of voting with the Bush administration, unless he changes his tune, he probably will. If he does, will he be able to continue living in the Illinois Tenth?
Well, don't expect that for your children. It will become harder and harder for Tenth Districters children to stay here and raise their families. Housing costs are ridiculous and development of new land and teardowns have turned almost everything into unaffordable, luxury housing. In addition, mortgage rates are rapidly on the rise. I am seeing them in the 6%'s now and, to add to the problem, Bush wants to take away the mortgage interest deduction for many people. Bush's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform (reform, ha!) will recommend that the limit on mortgage interest deduction be lowered to the maximum FHA mortgage limit which varies by community and is around $290,319 in Illinois. This change will effectively end the mortgage deduction for Tenth Districters.
The panel also recommended limiting the deduction for health insurance premiums.
No mention was made by the panel of ending the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
This is what Bush, Kirk and Co. want, the end of the American middle class in our time. Our children will not have the same help in financing their first home and they will be paying huge tax burdens with lower wages and more expensive energy and goods. If they seek to maintain the standard of living the middle class has had in the past using credit cards, they will be paying high interest rates and will not have bankruptcy protection if they get in trouble. Now, only credit card companies have bankruptcy protection, protection from bankruptcy.
All I can say is pay down your debt, refinance your adjustable into a 30-year fixed mortgage ASAP and only buy what you can really really afford with a very healthy downpayment.
Will Mark Kirk vote in favor of these changes? With his recent track record of voting with the Bush administration, unless he changes his tune, he probably will. If he does, will he be able to continue living in the Illinois Tenth?
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Today's inspiration
Thanks to Adri who found this:
I have learned through bitter experience the one supreme lesson: to conserve my anger, and as heat conserved is transmitted into energy, even so our anger controlled can be transmitted into a power that can move the world.-Mahatma Gandhi
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Republican environmentalists doubt Kirk's commitment to the environment
Theodore Roosevelt may have been the first American public environmentalist. TR was an outdoorsman who led this nation during the latter part of the height of the industrial revolution. He saw what industry could do to the environment he loved and wanted to save it. TR was a Republican.
There still is an organization of Republican Environmentalists, the National Grassroots Organization of Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP). Its website home page bears a quote from Theodore Roosevelt IV:
An issue in the forefront of REPs agenda is the protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. They even have an action alert page to help Republicans write to their congressmen urging them to save the Arctic Refuge and fact sheets on the Refuge and misconceptions about its use for energy security. In their summer 2005 Newsletter REP discussed the "narrow passage" of the 2006 Budget Conference Report.
The site then lists the Republican who voted against and for the measure and, to their dismay, Mark Kirk is on the for list.
OK, that is history, but what is happening now? Well, apparently, REP is concerned about Mark Kirk and is willing to put up cash to say so on television. I just saw a television advertisement paid for by REP that sounded sort of like a admonishment of Kirk for voting in favor of the Conference Report, reminding him of his claims of being an environmentalist and urging him to vote to prevent Arctic Refuge drilling.
It is not just Democrats who doubt Kirk's commitment to the environment. Even members of his own party doubt him.
There still is an organization of Republican Environmentalists, the National Grassroots Organization of Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP). Its website home page bears a quote from Theodore Roosevelt IV:
REP America represents the very best of the Republican Party. It's pragmatic. It advocates policies that are good in their own right. It represents the mainstream of Republican thought. I encourage all conservation-minded Republicans to join me in supporting the work of REP America.
An issue in the forefront of REPs agenda is the protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. They even have an action alert page to help Republicans write to their congressmen urging them to save the Arctic Refuge and fact sheets on the Refuge and misconceptions about its use for energy security. In their summer 2005 Newsletter REP discussed the "narrow passage" of the 2006 Budget Conference Report.
The conference report assumes entirely speculative and unrealistic oil lease revenue in order to pave the way for the authorization of oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge through upcoming budget reconciliation legislation. This is the result of misguided efforts by GOP leaders to open the Refuge to oil drilling via the budget process—a back-door maneuver designed to circumvent Senate rules and bypass the normal legislative process.
The site then lists the Republican who voted against and for the measure and, to their dismay, Mark Kirk is on the for list.
OK, that is history, but what is happening now? Well, apparently, REP is concerned about Mark Kirk and is willing to put up cash to say so on television. I just saw a television advertisement paid for by REP that sounded sort of like a admonishment of Kirk for voting in favor of the Conference Report, reminding him of his claims of being an environmentalist and urging him to vote to prevent Arctic Refuge drilling.
It is not just Democrats who doubt Kirk's commitment to the environment. Even members of his own party doubt him.
A cold and expensive winter
As the republican Senate opposed Kerry's heating assistance bill on a technicality while approving the enormous defense spending measure to which it was attached, your federal government released a report showing that "heating bills for all fuel types will cost Americans about one-third more this winter on average." If you use natural gas, the increase will be worse, but if you use electric, you hit the jackpot (but probably already pay pretty high bills and get a lot of days of static-y hair).
Maybe this is why the feds are in favor of global warming. They can help out their polluting corporate buddies and avoid funding home heating for the poor.
I hope you have someone to cuddle up to this winter.
Maybe this is why the feds are in favor of global warming. They can help out their polluting corporate buddies and avoid funding home heating for the poor.
I hope you have someone to cuddle up to this winter.
Feingold, a better captain than Kirk
William Kristol of the Washington Standard is "disappointed, depressed and demoralized" over Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers.
Awwww...
He probably fears that she is not enough of a right-wing robot. She's a corporate lawyer who will most likely always vote in favor of mutinational corporations and against people. Shouldn't that be enough for him?
I'm not worried about Kristol, but I am worried about our men and women in the military and their families. They are the ones who have the right to be disappointed, depressed and demoralized. Disappointed because they have found out that their commander in chief lied to them about his urgency in pushing us to war. Depressed because they are not being provided the equipment they need and are often stop lossed into continuing their tour in Iraq beyond the time they pledged to the military. Demoralized because Bush's Iraq policy is hurting the military. What do I know about what is or is not hurting the military?
Nothing. When I was 18, even the boys did not have to register for selective service. It was post-Vietnam and no one I knew was even thinking about military life. I never even knew anyone who went to Vietnam until I met the Kerry Band of Brothers. My dad went to Korea before I was born, but all I know about that comes from the few snaps he has of he and his army buddies on the rocky, cold Korean terrain and a huge picture he has of his entire unit. When we were young we played a game of pick out dad from the big picture. He says he knows which one he is, but all the tiny uniformed bodies in the picture look alike to the rest of us. He told us a few stories about his war experience, a friend hurt just as the war was ending and the Korean people so hungry that they were eating out of the garbage cans at the American military base, but it's not discussed all that much in my family. We have been lucky enough to have been relatively unscathed by war so far.
I have met a few families of dead soldiers at peace vigils and at Camp Casey, DC. It's always so sad. They hold up pictures or have decorated a cross, cresent or star at Camp Casey with family memorabilia. These people are good patriotic Americans who do not understand why their government did this to their families. They want you to see their pain and don't at the same time. They know it is important for Americans to see their lost loved ones to personify and understand their loss, but they want to stay strong and try to hold on to some of their privacy.
So, I'll admit, I'm not the best person to talk about the military and turn to the experts. One person I look to for good information is Senator Russ Feingold, our neighbor to the north. Sen. Feingold has been a senator for over 11 years and is on the Foreign Relations Committee. He is the only Senator to have been cool-headed and foresighted enough to have voted against the Patriot Act and he has introduced legislation to create a target timetable for completion of the mission in Iraq (S.RES.171), and most recently, has written on the Huffington Blog describing why this timetable is critical to save our military. Here is some of what he had to say:
As a military man himself, one would think that Mark Kirk would care about the effect of the administration's war policies on our American soldiers and the military as an institution, but he is remarkably silent on the subject. When we visited his office, his smirking aid would not respond to our concerns about the effect on the soldiers and military as a whole. His votes show no concern for the military, their families or the veterans as he consistently votes with the administration to prolong the war and take away health and veterans benefits.
The people of the Illinois Tenth have urged their Illinois Senators to support Feingold's bill and will follow up on that request. We have tried to talk to Kirk, but he's not talking, except to have his aid bite his lip and tell us Kirk will "stay the course".
Bush, Kirk and Co. seem to find some great nobility in "staying the course", not deserting the sinking ship, but sometimes, the course has to be rethought and changed, so you can prevent the ship from sinking. If courses were never changed, we'd have all drown by now. Sometimes it seems that Bush, Kirk and Co. do not care if the ship sinks because they are getting out of it what they want either way. Feingold wants to keep us afloat and lead us into the harbor.
If you want to hear more about what Russ Feingold thinks about Iraq and other issues, come meet him on Sunday, October 23, 2005, 4:30-6:00pm in Winnetka.
Awwww...
He probably fears that she is not enough of a right-wing robot. She's a corporate lawyer who will most likely always vote in favor of mutinational corporations and against people. Shouldn't that be enough for him?
I'm not worried about Kristol, but I am worried about our men and women in the military and their families. They are the ones who have the right to be disappointed, depressed and demoralized. Disappointed because they have found out that their commander in chief lied to them about his urgency in pushing us to war. Depressed because they are not being provided the equipment they need and are often stop lossed into continuing their tour in Iraq beyond the time they pledged to the military. Demoralized because Bush's Iraq policy is hurting the military. What do I know about what is or is not hurting the military?
Nothing. When I was 18, even the boys did not have to register for selective service. It was post-Vietnam and no one I knew was even thinking about military life. I never even knew anyone who went to Vietnam until I met the Kerry Band of Brothers. My dad went to Korea before I was born, but all I know about that comes from the few snaps he has of he and his army buddies on the rocky, cold Korean terrain and a huge picture he has of his entire unit. When we were young we played a game of pick out dad from the big picture. He says he knows which one he is, but all the tiny uniformed bodies in the picture look alike to the rest of us. He told us a few stories about his war experience, a friend hurt just as the war was ending and the Korean people so hungry that they were eating out of the garbage cans at the American military base, but it's not discussed all that much in my family. We have been lucky enough to have been relatively unscathed by war so far.
I have met a few families of dead soldiers at peace vigils and at Camp Casey, DC. It's always so sad. They hold up pictures or have decorated a cross, cresent or star at Camp Casey with family memorabilia. These people are good patriotic Americans who do not understand why their government did this to their families. They want you to see their pain and don't at the same time. They know it is important for Americans to see their lost loved ones to personify and understand their loss, but they want to stay strong and try to hold on to some of their privacy.
So, I'll admit, I'm not the best person to talk about the military and turn to the experts. One person I look to for good information is Senator Russ Feingold, our neighbor to the north. Sen. Feingold has been a senator for over 11 years and is on the Foreign Relations Committee. He is the only Senator to have been cool-headed and foresighted enough to have voted against the Patriot Act and he has introduced legislation to create a target timetable for completion of the mission in Iraq (S.RES.171), and most recently, has written on the Huffington Blog describing why this timetable is critical to save our military. Here is some of what he had to say:
The President's policies in Iraq are breaking the United States Army. As soldiers confront the prospect of a third tour in the extremely difficult theater of Iraq, it would be understandable if they began to wonder why all of the sacrifice undertaken by our country in wartime seems to be falling on their shoulders. At some point, the sense of solidarity and commitment that helps maintain strong retention rates gives way to a sense of frustration with the status quo. I am concerned that we may be very close to that tipping point today.
Make no mistake, our military readiness is already suffering. According to a recent RAND study, the Army has been stretched so thin that active-duty soldiers are now spending one of every two years abroad, leaving little of the Army left in any appropriate condition to respond to crises that may emerge elsewhere in the world. Just days ago the Chief of the National Guard, General H Steven Blum, told a group of Senate staffers that the National Guard had approximately 75% of the equipment it needed on 9/11. Today, the National Guard has 34% of the equipment it needs. What we are asking of the Army is not sustainable. This cannot go on.
As a military man himself, one would think that Mark Kirk would care about the effect of the administration's war policies on our American soldiers and the military as an institution, but he is remarkably silent on the subject. When we visited his office, his smirking aid would not respond to our concerns about the effect on the soldiers and military as a whole. His votes show no concern for the military, their families or the veterans as he consistently votes with the administration to prolong the war and take away health and veterans benefits.
The people of the Illinois Tenth have urged their Illinois Senators to support Feingold's bill and will follow up on that request. We have tried to talk to Kirk, but he's not talking, except to have his aid bite his lip and tell us Kirk will "stay the course".
Bush, Kirk and Co. seem to find some great nobility in "staying the course", not deserting the sinking ship, but sometimes, the course has to be rethought and changed, so you can prevent the ship from sinking. If courses were never changed, we'd have all drown by now. Sometimes it seems that Bush, Kirk and Co. do not care if the ship sinks because they are getting out of it what they want either way. Feingold wants to keep us afloat and lead us into the harbor.
If you want to hear more about what Russ Feingold thinks about Iraq and other issues, come meet him on Sunday, October 23, 2005, 4:30-6:00pm in Winnetka.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Hope you have a warm coat
Under the radar because of the victory for the torture provision in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, the Kerry amendment (SA 2033 ) which would have appropriated funds for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program was defeated by one vote in the Senate last week. Kerry tried to get the bill passed in the DOD appropriations bill because that one was sure to pass, but the amendment was defeated by a point of order that blocked a vote. All nice and technical, but ending up in a big no for help to families that are still going to need help heating their homes this winter.
John Kerry sounded surprised:
I have a feeling he really was not surprised and Democratic leaders have to stop acting surprised when there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when there is no help for hurricane victims, when there is money for corporations, but not people.
Again, the guys who say they are going to help you by helping their rich friends will not help you. This is why guys like Mark Kirk have to be retired from Congress. Kirk's vote last week to subsidize the energy companies to build new refineries, the old polluting way, together with this vote by the Senate to withhold home heating assistant prove that the republicans are in office only to help their rich friends. Sure gives the expression "good republican cloth coat" a new meaning. It had better be lined.
John Kerry sounded surprised:
It’s hard to believe that the Republican leadership would stand in the way of emergency funding to help millions of families and seniors heat their homes this winter," said Kerry in a statement. "By blocking the LIHEAP amendment on procedural vote, the Republican leadership has sent a terrible message to Americans because tonight politics was placed ahead of helping families
I have a feeling he really was not surprised and Democratic leaders have to stop acting surprised when there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, when there is no help for hurricane victims, when there is money for corporations, but not people.
Again, the guys who say they are going to help you by helping their rich friends will not help you. This is why guys like Mark Kirk have to be retired from Congress. Kirk's vote last week to subsidize the energy companies to build new refineries, the old polluting way, together with this vote by the Senate to withhold home heating assistant prove that the republicans are in office only to help their rich friends. Sure gives the expression "good republican cloth coat" a new meaning. It had better be lined.
What we got was not what we needed
As rumors of Rove's Grand Jury target letter and DeLay's second indictment swirled and as Bush's major policy speech on Iraq fizzled even in the right wing press, New York's republican mayor Bloomberg announced a terrorism threat against NYC subways. New Yorkers got to have a harrowing Friday for the strangely scheduled Sunday plot, either putting up with searches or finding alternate transportation. Thursday I heard on the radio that the threat was specific and credible. Everyone later learned that the source was not considered credible and/or the threat was disrupted. Maybe it was sort of like the 10 terrorist plots Bush claims to have derailed--depends on the gop talking point du jour. Fear...don't stop commerce...fear...don't stop commerce...fear... our corporations need to keep the money flowing...gop in trouble...fear....
Ah, all good fun at the expense of working Americans. Have to keep the tension high, the fear peaked. How else can you convince Americans to agree to let the Pentagon spy on them and keep the story of it out of the news?
Yep, my old systems analysis prof was right. Nothing ever happens as fast as you think or as slow as you think. I didn't quite happen in 1984, but here it is. Under a proposal approved last week by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency agents from the Pentagon will be able to "clandestinely collect information about US citizens or emigres in this country to help determine whether they could be recruited as sources of intelligence information." This is not law enforcement, it's the Pentagon, the military that has been so hot to gain powers on American soil and their corporate mercenary counterparts that can presumably be "outsourced" this duty. They say they need this power to determine suitability of sources while protecting the identity and safety of their agents. (...but, a deep cover operative like Valerie Plame didn't need protection, now I get it.)
A little fishing expedition to be done at, well...say, political meetings of democrats, greens, republicans who are not far right leaning, religious organizations not quite in their favor, an industry meeting of contractors who compete with a company connected to, say, the vice president.
You go to a meetup and a friendly chap asks you if you know so and so, finding commonality through a mutual friend: "Oh yeah, I know Joe. What a card!" Or, maybe not commonality, but information. Maybe you say you don't know that person, but they are not sure you are telling the truth, so they dig through your financial or medical or other personal records for dirt on you. Maybe they use the dirt to get you to reveal your relationship to their target, or maybe your dirt is good so you become the target. Doesn't even matter because the threat alone is chilling.
This is also a great way to slow down grassroots action. People will be afraid to meet with a new group or talk about any other groups or people. For example, the parents organizing to complain about the "opt out" rather than "opt in" permission for military recruitment information to children will become aware that at their next meeting, that new guy over there could be a DIA agent or even just a neighbor in which the DIA has an interest.
All this and no one at any of these meeting needs to have committed a crime.
Although terrible, the past few years have been wonderful for finding ways to get involved and meeting like-minded people. It is amazing the number of ways in which people concerned about the Bush administration have found each other, through Meetups, MoveOn action alerts, public forums, debate, websites, blogs. Now, we all have great friends that we have met through these avenues who were once strangers even though our neighbors. Many Lake County people found out that they were not the only Democrat or the only person against the war or the Patriot Act in the neighborhood. The Bush administration and Rummy's pentagon want to shut that down. Tyranny cannot thrive in an atmosphere of education, communication and action.
September 11 led to the fever pitched rush to pass the 300+ page Patriot Act, unread. Now suspect Katrina reports of looting, rape and shootings led folks to call for more domestic military action. In these times of great tragedy and tension, we need cooler heads in Washington. We need real heros, but we got self-dealing, self-promoting bums in leadership, an opposition afraid to speak out too strongly and a public that allows the smear of the first group to work on the second.
Since September 11, we have needed heros. That is why you cannot vote for a party because they offer you a $300 tax cut, promises protection and plenty of cheap gas for your SUV, and promises to help you by helping their rich friends. The only thing you got out of it was help for their rich friends and we are still out the heros.
Wake up America.
Ah, all good fun at the expense of working Americans. Have to keep the tension high, the fear peaked. How else can you convince Americans to agree to let the Pentagon spy on them and keep the story of it out of the news?
Yep, my old systems analysis prof was right. Nothing ever happens as fast as you think or as slow as you think. I didn't quite happen in 1984, but here it is. Under a proposal approved last week by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency agents from the Pentagon will be able to "clandestinely collect information about US citizens or emigres in this country to help determine whether they could be recruited as sources of intelligence information." This is not law enforcement, it's the Pentagon, the military that has been so hot to gain powers on American soil and their corporate mercenary counterparts that can presumably be "outsourced" this duty. They say they need this power to determine suitability of sources while protecting the identity and safety of their agents. (...but, a deep cover operative like Valerie Plame didn't need protection, now I get it.)
A little fishing expedition to be done at, well...say, political meetings of democrats, greens, republicans who are not far right leaning, religious organizations not quite in their favor, an industry meeting of contractors who compete with a company connected to, say, the vice president.
You go to a meetup and a friendly chap asks you if you know so and so, finding commonality through a mutual friend: "Oh yeah, I know Joe. What a card!" Or, maybe not commonality, but information. Maybe you say you don't know that person, but they are not sure you are telling the truth, so they dig through your financial or medical or other personal records for dirt on you. Maybe they use the dirt to get you to reveal your relationship to their target, or maybe your dirt is good so you become the target. Doesn't even matter because the threat alone is chilling.
This is also a great way to slow down grassroots action. People will be afraid to meet with a new group or talk about any other groups or people. For example, the parents organizing to complain about the "opt out" rather than "opt in" permission for military recruitment information to children will become aware that at their next meeting, that new guy over there could be a DIA agent or even just a neighbor in which the DIA has an interest.
All this and no one at any of these meeting needs to have committed a crime.
Although terrible, the past few years have been wonderful for finding ways to get involved and meeting like-minded people. It is amazing the number of ways in which people concerned about the Bush administration have found each other, through Meetups, MoveOn action alerts, public forums, debate, websites, blogs. Now, we all have great friends that we have met through these avenues who were once strangers even though our neighbors. Many Lake County people found out that they were not the only Democrat or the only person against the war or the Patriot Act in the neighborhood. The Bush administration and Rummy's pentagon want to shut that down. Tyranny cannot thrive in an atmosphere of education, communication and action.
September 11 led to the fever pitched rush to pass the 300+ page Patriot Act, unread. Now suspect Katrina reports of looting, rape and shootings led folks to call for more domestic military action. In these times of great tragedy and tension, we need cooler heads in Washington. We need real heros, but we got self-dealing, self-promoting bums in leadership, an opposition afraid to speak out too strongly and a public that allows the smear of the first group to work on the second.
Since September 11, we have needed heros. That is why you cannot vote for a party because they offer you a $300 tax cut, promises protection and plenty of cheap gas for your SUV, and promises to help you by helping their rich friends. The only thing you got out of it was help for their rich friends and we are still out the heros.
Wake up America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)