Remember the good ole days when the news programs had integrity? Remember when they would carefully step over the tricky issues of personal preference when it came to candidates? When there was a "fairness doctrine" that forced them to carefully walk a tightrope when it came to giving one candidate more exposure over another? Well, the Repugicans did away with most of that and the result is that we're blessed with their idea of "fair trade" versus "fairness".
For example, Fox "news", in a study by MediaMatters.com has given Giuliani more airtime than any other candidate, Repug or Democrat. And when you look behind the curtain, here's a interesting tidbit from MSNBC.com that might explain it...
“Roger [Alies] explained that every time a candidate is given a microphone, he’s getting $100,000 worth of publicity,” Mr. Giuliani wrote in his book. After he became mayor, Mr. Giuliani spoke at a reception in 1994 when Mr. Ailes was introduced as the new president of the new CNBC business news network. The mayor listed for the crowd gathered in the Rainbow Room Mr. Ailes’s many accomplishments as a producer of television comedy specials and documentaries, including the Emmy Award-winning “Television and the Presidency.”
“I am personally gratified to see that Roger has reached a new pinnacle in a remarkable career, because Roger has played an important role in my own career,” Mr. Giuliani said, according to a draft of his speech.
----
Should Roger and Fox "news" account for a political donation of $100,000 for each appearance by Rudy on their "network"? It would seem that they've already placed that value on the act. They should have to "own up" to you, dontcha think?
But alas, the Justice Department and Election Commission are under the political control of the Bush Regime and they are too busy prosecuting Liberal churches for political organizing and Democrat candidates for election law violations to look at real crimes! It's a shame and, yet another fact, that history will record in this decade of shameless, political plundering masterminded by Rove and Cheney and recorded as the "Bush Presidency".
Monday, August 6, 2007
If Congress is in session, our rights are in danger!
This weekend as we all slept in and relaxed, our Congress was "hard at work" undermining our Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties.
------- From DailyKOS.com
The 227 to 183 House vote capped a high-pressure campaign by the White House to change the nation's wiretap law, in which the administration capitalized on Democrats' fears of being branded as weak on terrorism and on a general congressional desire to proceed with an August recess. ...
Privacy and civil liberties advocates, and many Democratic lawmakers, complained that the Bush administration's revisions to the law could breach constitutional protections against government intrusion. But the administration, aided by Republican congressional leaders, suggested that a failure to approve what intelligence officials sought could expose the country to a greater risk of terrorist attack. ...
"There are a lot of people who felt we had to pass something," said one angry Democratic lawmaker who requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of caucus discussions. "It was tantamount to being railroaded."
In a sole substantial concession to Democrats, the administration agreed to a provision allowing the legislation to be reconsidered in six months. ...
Tonight, several Democrats said the bill would "eviscerate" the Fourth Amendment. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said that lawmakers were being "stampeded by fearmongering and deception" into voting for the bill. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) warned the bill would lead to "potential unprecedented abuse of innocent Americans' privacy."
------
Tragically, even when the Demcratic Party is in control, they can be bullied and railroaded into doing something they know is NOT in the best interests of the American People. THAT'S how dangerous this White House Regime can be! Perhaps we need a law that prohibits Congress from voting on the weekends when we're not paying attention. Or perhaps we need a law that the American people have to pay attention? Or perhaps we need a party with the courage to say, "NO!" to the White House!
- Devon
------- From DailyKOS.com
The 227 to 183 House vote capped a high-pressure campaign by the White House to change the nation's wiretap law, in which the administration capitalized on Democrats' fears of being branded as weak on terrorism and on a general congressional desire to proceed with an August recess. ...
Privacy and civil liberties advocates, and many Democratic lawmakers, complained that the Bush administration's revisions to the law could breach constitutional protections against government intrusion. But the administration, aided by Republican congressional leaders, suggested that a failure to approve what intelligence officials sought could expose the country to a greater risk of terrorist attack. ...
"There are a lot of people who felt we had to pass something," said one angry Democratic lawmaker who requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of caucus discussions. "It was tantamount to being railroaded."
In a sole substantial concession to Democrats, the administration agreed to a provision allowing the legislation to be reconsidered in six months. ...
Tonight, several Democrats said the bill would "eviscerate" the Fourth Amendment. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said that lawmakers were being "stampeded by fearmongering and deception" into voting for the bill. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) warned the bill would lead to "potential unprecedented abuse of innocent Americans' privacy."
------
Tragically, even when the Demcratic Party is in control, they can be bullied and railroaded into doing something they know is NOT in the best interests of the American People. THAT'S how dangerous this White House Regime can be! Perhaps we need a law that prohibits Congress from voting on the weekends when we're not paying attention. Or perhaps we need a law that the American people have to pay attention? Or perhaps we need a party with the courage to say, "NO!" to the White House!
- Devon
Friday, August 3, 2007
Impeachment for Incompetence?
It's become apparent to even the most dull-witted citizen that incompetence seems to prevail in the government. The Attorney General is clearly way in over his head. His latest attempts to lie or claim ignorance before the House and Senate investigating committees is shamefull and embarrassing. The Secretary of State was hardly competent as the National Security Advisor and "overlooked" the warning about BinLaden's plans to attack the US. Then she was "promoted" to another level and is in over her head once again. The only thing that's saved her is that she's not done much to bring dishonor to her office, like the Attorney General. The Vice President has pressed his political agenda into areas of the government where he shouldn't and the result a general breakdown in the credibility of governmental review and reporting. Likewise Carl Rove's hand has been found in governmental and legislative "cookie jars" where no adviser to the President has gone before. Even the President has left his fingerprints on various disasters such as the infamous occupation of Iraq and the generally terrible reputation of the US in international affairs and the continued fall of the once mighty US dollar as the "gold standard" of internation currency to second behind that of the Canadian Dollar!
The question is: Does incompetence stand as reason enough to Impeach? Do we have to find their incompetence was also linked to illegal acts? In the case of the AG, it sure looks like he intentionally ignored the Civil Service Laws even against the best advice of those few underlings who warned him against that. That should be enough to impeach but the dilemna is that the AG is so incompetent that the question becomes blurred. Was he too incompetent to know he was doing something wrong? Or, did he do something wrong because he was incompetent? Or, did he do something illegal and is now hiding behind the defence of "ignorance" and "poor recall"?
Is ignorance an excuse? If you or I were hauled in front of a judge and asked about something we did that was illegal, could we simply respond with, "I don't recall" or "That's a matter of priviledge"? I don't think so. After a few of those responses, we'd be hauled off to jail, I'm sure. But for Presidential Advisors, members of the Cabinet, and members of the Justice Department, these excuses seem to be the perfect defense.
As much as I'd like the President to have "Executive Priviledge", it simply is a courtesy granted by the Congress, a "priviledge", because there is no Constitutional basis for it. It was given to George Washington and others because Congress wanted to give the President some room within his office to side-step their questions. However, since Richard Nixon, "Executive Priviledge" has become a "Get out of Jail Free" card to be played as much as often as the President and his staff deemed necessary. In this administration it's been expanded to include private citizens called to testify under subpeona by Congress, a step beyond any previously taken.
So, must we wait until the evidence falls on us like a Minneapolis highway bridge before we impeach the President, Vice President, Attorney General, Secretary of State, etc., etc.? Or can we dispense with the formalities and impeach for imcompetence? Because, if these people can't seem to provide concrete, believeable answers to even the most simple questions, they should be impeached. And if they use Executive Privledge, to evade answering the simplest questions, they should be impeached. If they are impeached perhaps then their memories will sharpen and we'll get the answers to our questions. It seems to be the only way we'll get answers.
IMPEACH!
The question is: Does incompetence stand as reason enough to Impeach? Do we have to find their incompetence was also linked to illegal acts? In the case of the AG, it sure looks like he intentionally ignored the Civil Service Laws even against the best advice of those few underlings who warned him against that. That should be enough to impeach but the dilemna is that the AG is so incompetent that the question becomes blurred. Was he too incompetent to know he was doing something wrong? Or, did he do something wrong because he was incompetent? Or, did he do something illegal and is now hiding behind the defence of "ignorance" and "poor recall"?
Is ignorance an excuse? If you or I were hauled in front of a judge and asked about something we did that was illegal, could we simply respond with, "I don't recall" or "That's a matter of priviledge"? I don't think so. After a few of those responses, we'd be hauled off to jail, I'm sure. But for Presidential Advisors, members of the Cabinet, and members of the Justice Department, these excuses seem to be the perfect defense.
As much as I'd like the President to have "Executive Priviledge", it simply is a courtesy granted by the Congress, a "priviledge", because there is no Constitutional basis for it. It was given to George Washington and others because Congress wanted to give the President some room within his office to side-step their questions. However, since Richard Nixon, "Executive Priviledge" has become a "Get out of Jail Free" card to be played as much as often as the President and his staff deemed necessary. In this administration it's been expanded to include private citizens called to testify under subpeona by Congress, a step beyond any previously taken.
So, must we wait until the evidence falls on us like a Minneapolis highway bridge before we impeach the President, Vice President, Attorney General, Secretary of State, etc., etc.? Or can we dispense with the formalities and impeach for imcompetence? Because, if these people can't seem to provide concrete, believeable answers to even the most simple questions, they should be impeached. And if they use Executive Privledge, to evade answering the simplest questions, they should be impeached. If they are impeached perhaps then their memories will sharpen and we'll get the answers to our questions. It seems to be the only way we'll get answers.
IMPEACH!
Friday, July 27, 2007
Free Religion!
From Slate.com and an article about Why Germany hates Secientology... http://www.slate.com/id/2171218/nav/ais/ <--- click to read
"Some German officials believe Scientology's ideology is rooted in a kind of political extremism—a bit of a sensitive area for Germany since World War II. They also argue that Scientology is not a religion but a business, since local churches operate like franchises of the main organization. "
------
My two cents...
I truely believe all religions should have the right to practice their belief, even Scientology. After all, who is to say they aren't totally correct and we're all wrong? But arguing that Scientology is a "business" and not a "religion" totally misses the mark for excuses not to call it a "religion"!
Come on, crowd! Look at any religion and, in spite of all the ritual and faith and belief structure, they are ALL businesses! The Baptists send money to the HQ like any other franchise and, although they claim the individual churches are "independent", if they screw up enough, they are ostracized by the leadship of the HQ. Same with Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopal, etc.
But, of course, it's the Catholic Church that is a best example of a franchising operation. All decisions come down from Headquarters (the Pope and the Vatican) and that includes every nook and cranny of the Catholics' world. Even the professors at Catholic Universities are under the HQ's thumb. Teach or write outside the dictates of the Central Office and boom... no job.
So, if you're going to pick on Scientology for being a business, you must go after ALL the other religions. They are ALL businesses and at their core, their interest is money, money and more money, like like McDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut, etc.!
"Some German officials believe Scientology's ideology is rooted in a kind of political extremism—a bit of a sensitive area for Germany since World War II. They also argue that Scientology is not a religion but a business, since local churches operate like franchises of the main organization. "
------
My two cents...
I truely believe all religions should have the right to practice their belief, even Scientology. After all, who is to say they aren't totally correct and we're all wrong? But arguing that Scientology is a "business" and not a "religion" totally misses the mark for excuses not to call it a "religion"!
Come on, crowd! Look at any religion and, in spite of all the ritual and faith and belief structure, they are ALL businesses! The Baptists send money to the HQ like any other franchise and, although they claim the individual churches are "independent", if they screw up enough, they are ostracized by the leadship of the HQ. Same with Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopal, etc.
But, of course, it's the Catholic Church that is a best example of a franchising operation. All decisions come down from Headquarters (the Pope and the Vatican) and that includes every nook and cranny of the Catholics' world. Even the professors at Catholic Universities are under the HQ's thumb. Teach or write outside the dictates of the Central Office and boom... no job.
So, if you're going to pick on Scientology for being a business, you must go after ALL the other religions. They are ALL businesses and at their core, their interest is money, money and more money, like like McDonalds, KFC, Pizza Hut, etc.!
Saudi Problems!
From the NY Times... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
Basically, the stuff is hitting the fan with George the Witless' robed buddies. Someone's figuring out that his former playmates are really just terrorists of another ilk. Rather than fight us directly and risk losing the revenue from their oil, they support the Islamic extremists and play both end against the middle so they don't offend anyone!
George is caught in the middle because he's handholding buddies with the Saudi prince Bandar and because his Daddy and other family members are in business (deeply) with the Saudi's and King Abdullah. So, he has to tread lightly when it comes to representing US interests to these former goat herders.
But now and then some truth comes to light and... well, this is one of those moments.
The solution? Get as far away from middle east oil as we can through alternative fuels (make that our National Priority!) and get out of the middle east and let them kill each other if they must.
-Devon
Basically, the stuff is hitting the fan with George the Witless' robed buddies. Someone's figuring out that his former playmates are really just terrorists of another ilk. Rather than fight us directly and risk losing the revenue from their oil, they support the Islamic extremists and play both end against the middle so they don't offend anyone!
George is caught in the middle because he's handholding buddies with the Saudi prince Bandar and because his Daddy and other family members are in business (deeply) with the Saudi's and King Abdullah. So, he has to tread lightly when it comes to representing US interests to these former goat herders.
But now and then some truth comes to light and... well, this is one of those moments.
The solution? Get as far away from middle east oil as we can through alternative fuels (make that our National Priority!) and get out of the middle east and let them kill each other if they must.
-Devon
The New White House Cat!
From Charlotte.com, an intriguing article about a cat who can sense the next to die in a nursing home. (Click here to read it). It seems the cat curls up with the patient and within a couple hours, they pass away.
------
I think this cat needs to visit the next Presidential Cabinet meeting. I suspect it'll head right for Attorney General Gonzales!
-Devon
------
I think this cat needs to visit the next Presidential Cabinet meeting. I suspect it'll head right for Attorney General Gonzales!
-Devon
Cornyn's Day's are Numbered!
An atricle from Rio Grande Guardian...
(click here to read it) carries news of the entry of two Democrats into the race to take the Senate seat of John Cornyn, R-Texas, in the 2008 election.
One of the candidates is State Rep. Rick Noriega from Houston. Noriega is a five-term member of the Texas House. A lieutenant colonel in the National Guard, he served one year in combat in Afghanistan. His connections to Laredo and the Valley are strong thanks to his service in the National Guard. In Laredo, he was sector commander for Operation Jump Start for five months. He has been in the operational cell for three Operation Lone Star projects. And, he has worked closely over the years with the 3rd Battalion, 141st Infantry at Weslaco.
-------
and, of course, my two cents...
If this is the sort of candidate we're going to field in 2008, then it sure looks like Texas is turning BLUE as the people realize their current representation has been nothing more bagman and bagwoman for the Bush Regime.
As Noriega put it, his intention was to “speak truth to power” over the coming months on behalf of millions of Texans who have not had proper representation in the U.S. Senate for the past six years. “This senator (Cornyn) decided early on to represent one Texan – the President of the United States. He has carried George Bush’s brief case. He has not represented the 22 million people that live in the state of Texas,” Noriega said.
I can't wait until Texans can scream, "FREE at LAST! Free at Last!"
-Devon
(click here to read it) carries news of the entry of two Democrats into the race to take the Senate seat of John Cornyn, R-Texas, in the 2008 election.
One of the candidates is State Rep. Rick Noriega from Houston. Noriega is a five-term member of the Texas House. A lieutenant colonel in the National Guard, he served one year in combat in Afghanistan. His connections to Laredo and the Valley are strong thanks to his service in the National Guard. In Laredo, he was sector commander for Operation Jump Start for five months. He has been in the operational cell for three Operation Lone Star projects. And, he has worked closely over the years with the 3rd Battalion, 141st Infantry at Weslaco.
-------
and, of course, my two cents...
If this is the sort of candidate we're going to field in 2008, then it sure looks like Texas is turning BLUE as the people realize their current representation has been nothing more bagman and bagwoman for the Bush Regime.
As Noriega put it, his intention was to “speak truth to power” over the coming months on behalf of millions of Texans who have not had proper representation in the U.S. Senate for the past six years. “This senator (Cornyn) decided early on to represent one Texan – the President of the United States. He has carried George Bush’s brief case. He has not represented the 22 million people that live in the state of Texas,” Noriega said.
I can't wait until Texans can scream, "FREE at LAST! Free at Last!"
-Devon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)