Monday, November 20, 2006

Love that Doonesbury! The satire is perfect...

...and, of course, (as the Republican neocons will tell you) it was
right to impeach the man who can't keep his zipper zipped and lied about
a sexual liaison with a consenting adult.  But it would be wrong to
impeach the man who has taken our country into a war on lies, has begun
taking apart our Constitution, has approved torture, taken away habeas
corpus, and allows warrantless wiretapping of private phone
conversations of citizens.  Welcome to UPSIDEDOWNBACKWARDS World.

This Doonesbury comic strip tells it all (God bless Garry Trudeau!):
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20061119/cx_db_uc/db20061119



Sponsored Link


Don't quit your job - take classes online and earn your degree in 1 year. Start Today
Share:

Fw: Disagreements all around--no one knows how to close Pandora's Box

But Cheney still insists invading Iraq was the "right thing to do."  What an ass.  And Bush the Younger (the Stupider) is posturing as if he were really still running things.  He and Cheney should be impeached and thrown out of office for what they have done to our country and the world.   If McCain and Graham have their way, we will need a military draft.  You can imagine how popular that will be.  Charles Rangel is already calling for one.  I wonder how long we would be staying in Iraq once the "elite's" ("my base" as Bush used to call them)  sons and daughters had to serve.  A week? A day?  An hour? 

McCain says more troops needed in Iraq

By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 28 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Without additional troops to ensure victory in Iraq, the U.S. could find itself more vulnerable to terrorist attacks at home, Sen. John McCain said Sunday.

Taking the opposite tack, newly empowered Democrats pressed their case for a phased withdrawal of American forces. They hoped a blue-ribbon advisory panel would propose a way ahead for Iraq, while making clear the U.S. military mission shouldn't last indefinitely.

McCain, a front-running GOP presidential hopeful for 2008, said the U.S. must send an overwhelming number of troops to stabilize Iraq or face more attacks — in the region and possibly on American soil.

"I believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic," said McCain, R-Ariz. "It will spread to the region. You will see Iran  more emboldened. Eventually, you could see Iran pose a greater threat to the state of Israel."

With about 141,000 U.S. troops in Iraq more than 3 1/2 years into the war, the American military has strained to provide enough forces while allowing for adequate rest and retraining between deployments.

But McCain, who spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war after his Navy plane was shot down in 1967, recalled the Vietnam War's lessons. "We left Vietnam. It was over. We just had to heal the wounds of war," he said. "We leave this place, chaos in the region, and they'll follow us home. So there's a great deal more at stake here in this conflict, in my view, a lot more."

McCain said he based his judgment partly on the writings of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida leader in Iraq who was killed in a U.S. air raid, and of Osama bin Laden.  "The consequences of failure are so severe that I will exhaust every possibility to try to fix this situation. Because it's not the end when American troops leave. The battleground shifts, and we'll be fighting them again," McCain said. "You read Zarqawi, and you read bin Laden. ... It's not just Iraq that they're interested in. It's the region, and then us."

Sen. Joseph Biden, the incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he hoped a special commission considering options for the way ahead in Iraq would assert that U.S. troop commitments are not open-ended; propose a clear political road map for Iraq; and recommend engaging Iraq's neighbors in a political solution.

"We are past the point of adding more troops. We are past the point of vague policy prescriptions. It is not an answer just to stay. Nor is it an answer — though it may become a necessity — just to go with no concern for what follows," Biden, D-Del., wrote in Sunday's Washington Post.

"The fundamental question we must answer is whether, as we begin to leave Iraq, there are still concrete steps we can take to avoid leaving chaos behind," said Biden, who plans to run for president in 2008.

Democrats poised to take control of the House and Senate are pressing for a substantial reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq and a timetable for their withdrawal, as a way of forcing the Iraq government to rely more on itself.

"We must tell the Iraqis that we would begin, starting in four to six months, a phased reduction of our troops," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Because if you don't do that, they're going to continue to have the false assumption that we are there in some kind of an open-ended way. And it is that assumption on their part that takes them off the hook."

Incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., agreed. "As a practical matter, there are no troops to increase with," he said. "Our objective was to remove Saddam Hussein and create an environment in which a democracy could be established. That has been done."  But Hoyer said Democrats would continue funding the existing troop levels, for the time being.  "That's not an option, of not supporting our troops in the field and making sure they're as safe as we can make them," he said. "Very frankly, their lack of numbers exposes them on a daily basis to danger and death, unfortunately. But clearly, we're going to have discussions going forward as to how we change this policy and change it in the short term, not the long term."

Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week he believes troop levels should remain steady for now. He said it was possible to add 20,000 troops for a short time, but it would be unrealistic to raise troop levels as proposed by McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Abizaid said the American military in Iraq is stretched too thin already, and sending over a bigger, more permanent presence would undercut efforts to force Iraqis to take on more responsibility.




Check out the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.
Share:

Friday, November 17, 2006

A Montana friend of mine wrote this letter

which was printed in both her local papers.  In my opinion, it's a great letter!

Dear GOP,
 

I consider myself a reasonable woman. Although my husband tells me I am a little Pollyannaish, I like to think that I understand the realities of the world in which we live.  I don't describe myself as either Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. I am too complex for that. I find that there are good ideas and strong committed people on both sides of nearly every argument, and it's the ones nearer the middle who get the most work done in spite of extremists on either end of the spectrum.

I am proud to call myself a Montanan and to live in a state where one can see campaign signs for a Democratic Senate candidate and a Republican House candidate on the same lawn. That's one of the things that make Montanans such an interesting bunch. We call one another neighbors in spite of the incredible distances in this state. We agree to disagree and remain friends in spite of our differences. We talk and we listen and we think.


But apparently, you, the GOP, decided that we are a bunch of reactionary and scared people with little minds and less will. Your deluge of campaign materials over the last three months of the 2006 campaign season attempted to push every button we might have that would cause us to react out of fear…fear of "liberals" or terrorists or taxes or some other boogeyman issue. But the most telling thing that you wanted us to be afraid of was change. Any change.


But I believe change is a catalyst for growth and opportunity. Change opens doors and often minds. Change engenders creativity and develops flexibility. And flexibility keeps us strong.


A crusty old former boss of mine, Jack, taught me a valuable lesson about change. It was the early '80s and at the time I was working for a company that was associated with the cable television industry in Silicon Valley. There was so much opportunity around that people were falling over it. Our company was on the brink of some major innovations. This was cause for much discussion about outcomes and ramifications and "what ifs" and "then whats." Tens of millions of dollars were at stake, as well as people's jobs. At one particularly long meeting where we were accomplishing nothing, Jack finally stood up, thumped his knuckles on the table and asked the group what was the most ambitious thing we could do, because that was what we were going to do. And someone asked him what would happen if it didn't work. And Jack said, "Then we'll do something new."


You see, Jack understood that to be a success, one has to act decisively, and without attachment to their ideas. That to grow you need to evaluate, act, reevaluate, make change and move on.


It is patently obvious that the American people are discontented by the way things have been going. And the GOP's only answer was to offer the status quo and to demonize, criticize, and try to make us afraid of those who stand up and say, "Hey, let's find a better way, a different way…let's do something new."


Well, GOP, Montanans didn't buy it. We didn't allow ourselves to fall prey to your bullying and endless mumbled phone calls (sometimes up to five in one day) or fake polls or slick mail pieces warning us of our impending doom if we elected "liberal" Democrats. (By the way, comparing Jon Tester to Zorro was a questionable move. If you recall, Zorro was a hero who fought for the little folks…can't have any of that, now can we?)


There's a change in the air here in Montana today, and it isn't just the fall giving over to winter. It is the fresh breeze of opportunities soon to be realized and ideas not yet implemented. It's the excitement one feels at the beginning of a journey. And it's about finding a better way and doing something new.


Congratulations, Senator Tester. Now get yourself to D.C. and start making it look a little more like Montana.


Lise Rousseau  Silva
Polson





Sponsored Link


Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $510,000 Mortgage for $1,698/mo - Calculate new house payment
Share:

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

A pledge to conservative friends

November 14th, 2006

To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,

I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.

Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you. I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.

Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:

Dear Conservatives and Republicans,

I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:

1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.

3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.

4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.

5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.

6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.

7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.

8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.

9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.

10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.

11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.

12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.

I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.

Signed,

Michael Moore



P.S. Please feel free to pass this on...




Sponsored Link


Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate new house payment
Share:

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Can Bush forget the past and get along?

Knowing Bush's arrogant, stubborn personality, it is hard to believe he would all of a sudden become pliant and flexible enough to work harmoniously with the Dems.  His lifelong character flaws are too great for him to overcome, especially since he shows no interest whatsoever in self-reflection or self-improvement.  We're in for another bumpy two years, but at least we now have some protection from his fanatical belief that he gets his direction from God.  The Dems aren't going to buy that story like the Republicans did. 


Can Bush forget the past and play nice?

November 9, 2006 4:38 AM
By TERENCE HUNT

President Bush was left weakened and more isolated than at any time in his presidency by Tuesday's Democratic thumping of Republicans. He offered Democrats gestures of reconciliation -- and capitulated to demands for Donald H. Rumsfeld's removal -- but history suggests his last two years will be filled with more confrontation and challenges.

Except for rare instances, Bush has ignored Democrats in Congress during his first six years in the White House and has relied on Republican might to ram through legislation. Although he came to Washington promising to be a uniter rather than a divider, the partisan bitterness and acrimony only got worse.

Suddenly, that's supposed to change on a dime. Bush is supposed to forget that Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the incoming House speaker, called him dangerous, incompetent and an emperor with no clothes. Democrats are supposed to forget that a combative Bush said "terrorists win and America loses" if the Democrats won on Tuesday.

Bush invited Pelosi to a makeup luncheon Thursday. "She's not going to abandon her principles and I'm not going to abandon mine," the president said. "But I do believe we have an opportunity to find some common ground to move forward on."

The president's turnabout was dictated by Washington's seismic shake-up of power. Democrats suddenly hold the whiphand in Congress, controlling both the House and the Senate for the first time in 12 years.

Demanding a voice in setting the nation's agenda, Democrats want to move ahead with proposals Bush has resisted: raising the minimum wage, cutting student loan interest rates, funding stem cell research and authorizing the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices for Medicare patients, to name just a few.

If Bush isn't willing to compromise, he'll have to pull out his veto pen — used only once in his presidency because a friendly Republican Congress sent him bills they knew he would sign.

Bush signaled his readiness to consider some of the Democrats' ideas, such as minimum wage, and to seek compromise on his own agenda, such as renewing the No Child Left Behind education law. But he also said he wanted to move ahead with strengthening presidential powers, an area where Democrats think Bush already has stretched too far.

The president suggested that an overhaul of immigration laws — blocked so far by House Republicans seeking a tougher bill — stands a better chance in a Democratic Congress. Alternative energy sources also may provide grounds for compromise.

However, Republican strategists who have worked with the White House doubt there will be much progress.

"You'll have a bare minimum of legislation," said Ed Rogers, who worked in the White House under Bush's father. "You'll have aggressive — bordering on hostile — oversight. The Democrats — they're not going to be able to do much legislatively that he's going to sign."

"He probably won't get much on entitlement reform (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) if one house is Democratic," said Charles Black, another Republican consultant with ties to the White House. Ron Kaufman, a GOP strategist who worked in the first Bush White House, predicted "an ugly couple of years with not a ton being accomplished."

Bush hardly wore his election disappointment on his sleeve. "Why all the glum faces," he beamed at a post-mortem news conference. He smiled and joked with reporters. It was if announcing Rumsfeld's resignation after six stormy years and declaring himself open to new thinking on Iraq was a relief for the embattled commander in chief.

Bush had little to cheer about from his campaign travels. Of the 58 candidates he campaigned for, either by raising money or doing rallies in the race's closing days, 29 lost and 22 won. Seven others were in races so tight that the results were not yet known.

A solid majority of voters said in exit polling that the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq. Bush drew bright lines limiting how far he would go toward compromise with Democrats on the war.

"If the goal is success," the president said, "then we can work together. If the goal is get out now regardless, then that's going to be hard to work together." He repeated his vow that "we're not going to leave before the job is done."

For their part, the Democratic leaders buried calls from some of their colleagues for Bush's impeachment. "It will not happen. It's off the table," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, leader of the Democrats' successful election strategy. "The American people elected us to be the party of reform." The impeachment strategy blew up against Republicans when they tried it against Bill Clinton in 1998.

Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University who has studied Bush's political career, said he doubts the president has the patience and accommodation to work with Democrats. He predicted Americans would see gridlock, finger-pointing and a focus on the 2008 presidential race.

"He has governed with what in the military they call a forward lean," Jillson said. "He'll have to cure himself of that. He'll actually have to sit down at the table and listen to people who he doesn't agree with.

"I'm not sure this bipartisan cooperation is going to prevail," he said. "I'm relatively sure that it's not."

___

Terence Hunt has covered the White House for The Associated Press since the Reagan presidency.



Share:

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Did you really expect him to be conciliatory and welcoming of change?


The article bleow shows Bush is still the same stubborn idiot and will no doubt remain that way until the day he dies.  Like the spoiled kid he has always been, he's going to want everything on HIS terms or he won't play.  I foresee some hard times ahead for the Dems in trying to break through his rigidity.  He's still insisting on reworking Social Security.  It ain't gonna' happen during his time in office, that's for sure.  He can't accept that, thanks to the awakened voting public, he's not only a lame duck but a dead duck.  He should just spend the next two years riding his bike and let the grownups try to clean up the messes he's made everywhere. 

The spin they're trying to put on his being an "activist" president for these next two years and that that "will be good for the country" just won't fly.  As usual, they are starting off by going on the offensive, already suggesting the Dems will be trying to shut down the government by pointing fingers at Bush.  Hmmm, so they're saying they won't accept accountability ever???    I don't theenk so.  The chickens are finally coming home to roost, and after the Dems raise the minimum wage for the average worker in this country and roll back the tax cuts for the rich, there will definitely be hearings to force accountability on those who have dodged it under a rubber stamp Congress.  The rubber stamps are gone.  A new day is dawning.  Now would be a good time for Howard Dean to once again yell,  "YEE HAW!!!!"  This time, I think I'll join him.  YEE HAW!!!!

From TIME Magazine:

Despite his dramatically weakened political position, the President plans to stand up to Democrats and challenge them to work with him on issues he has been promoting. But the opposition now has little reason to cave.

BY MIKE ALLEN/ WASHINGTON

President George W. Bush plans to respond to last night's Republican wipeout with a combination of conciliation and firmness that is unlikely to pacify an empowered and emboldened opposition. Aides say that beginning with an appearance in the East Room this afternoon, Bush will try to cast the blue wave as an opportunity rather than a defeat, and will vow to plunge ahead with transformative goals like reworking the Social Security system for fiscal longevity. "The same group of problems are there," White House Press Secretary Tony Snow tells TIME. "You just will have some different people in the leadership. We have an opportunity to have an activist last two years of this Presidency, which will be good for the country." Snow, who worked conservative talk radio for three hours yesterday afternoon, said Democrats now "have to decide whether they're going to be part of the solution, or are going to try to shut down the government for two years and point fingers at the President."

Snow said the President plans "an up-front focus on issues where we can get things done and on matters of significant shared interest, if not agreement." When Bush was Texas Governor and running for President back in 2000, supporters often pointed to his jocular and productive relations with Democrats in the legislature as signs that he could be what the campaign called "a uniter, not a divider."

"The accurate model for this White House will be the Texas experience, where he worked effectively with Democrats, to their mutual benefit," Snow said. But officials in both parties say that will be awfully hard to replicate in this atmosphere. The President does plan to have incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi over to the White House this week, but a broad charm offensive by White House officials is unlikely. "They're not in the mood for it, and they don't think it would work," said one close adviser.

One move that could buy the President good will with the Hill and the public would be the departure of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and many people close to Bush hope that happens sooner rather than later. "He has screwed the President," said a loyal member of the Bush team who rarely speaks so bluntly. The President said when asked last week that Rumsfeld would serve the rest of the term, but officials say Bush really could not have said anything else, and that is in no way a guarantee that Rumsfeld will still be running the Pentagon at noon on Jan. 20, 2009, when Bush's successor takes office.

Advisers expect a battle royale over the balance of powers if Democrats use their new subpoena power to try to conduct what the White House is already calling "witch hunts." Bush and Vice President Cheney have made the expansion of executive power one of their hallmarks, and advisers say they do not plan to give up any of the ground they have won without a fight all the way to the Supreme Court. "We're going to have a fierce constitutional showdown over the boundaries of power between the executive and legislative branches. The executive usually wins those battles, so we think we'll consolidate our gains."

The President stayed up until after 11 p.m., long past his usual bedtime, to watch as Republican dominion over Washington fractured and slipped away on a tide of voter anger about Iraq and dissatisfaction with the direction of the country. Both he and his inner circle had been publicly buoyant to the end, and aides had said the boss planned to make "lots" of congratulatory phone calls. Instead, he wound up talking to Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), who barely kept his seat after taking some of the blame for the House leadership's handling of the page scandal. Reynolds was also chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, presiding over the party's return to the minority after 12 years in control of the House. By breakfast time today, Democrats had picked up 27 seats, and no Democratic incumbent had lost. Some Republican officials say they have little hope of retaining control of the Senate, which would require victories in the undecided Montana and Virginia races.

With the returns much worse than most in the White House had expected, officials revised their description of the internal mood. As it became clear in recent weeks that the House was probably lost, officials privately said they were "realistic." Last night, they said, the atmosphere was "businesslike." If the President can extend that to the Capitol, he will have delivered, six years later, on his campaign promise to unite rather than divide.



Share:

Monday, November 06, 2006

Two choices

I have seen this story before, but it always brings tears to my eyes for its beautiful message of love.  So, on this day when the Republicans are playing all kinds of dirty tricks to keep Democrats from voting tomorrow, I send this to you in the hope that, because of its power, love will prevail in our world.  Each of us always has two choices: to do what is right or to take the low road.  The Republicans under Rove are making their choice.  Tomorrow we American voters will have a chance to make ours. 

Here's a wonderful story of young boys who took the high road--the right road, and gave us all a model to follow:
 
     What would you do?....you make the choice. Don't look for a punch
       line, there isn't one. Read it anyway. My question is: Would you
       have made the same choice?
 
       At a fundraising dinner for a school that serves learning-
       disabled children, the father of one of the students delivered a
       speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended. After
       extolling the school and its dedicated staff, he offered a
       question: "When not interfered with by outside influences,
       everything nature does is done with perfection. Yet my son, Shay,
       cannot learn things as other children do. He cannot understand
       things as other children do. Where is the natural order of things
       in my son?"
 
       The audience was stilled by the query.
 
       The father continued. "I believe that when a child like Shay,
       physically and mentally handicapped comes into the world, an
       opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it
       comes in the way other people treat that child."
 
       Then he told the following story:
 
       Shay and his father had walked past a park where some boys Shay
       knew were playing baseball. Shay asked, "Do you think they'll let
       me play?" Shay's father knew that most of the boys would not want
       someone like Shay on their team, but the father also understood
       that if his son were allowed to play, it would give him a much-
       needed sense of belonging and some confidence to be accepted by
       others in spite of his handicaps.
 
       Shay's father approached one of the boys on the field and asked
       (not expecting much) if Shay could play. The boy looked around for
       guidance and said, "We're losing by six runs and the game is in
       the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to
       put him in to bat in the ninth inning."
 
       Shay struggled over to the team's bench and, with a broad smile,
       put on a team shirt. His Father watched with a small tear in his
       eye and warmth in his heart. The boys saw the father's joy at his
       son being accepted. In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shay's
       team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the top
       of the ninth inning, Shay put on a glove and played in the right
       field. Even though no hits came his way, he was obviously ecstatic
 
       just to be in the game and on the field, grinning from ear to ear
       as his father waved to him from the stands. In the bottom of the
       ninth inning, Shay's team scored again. Now, with two outs and the
       bases loaded, the potential winning run was on base and Shay was
       scheduled to be next at bat.
 
       At this juncture, do they let Shay bat and give away their chance
       to win the game? Surprisingly, Shay was given the bat Everyone
       knew that a hit was all but impossible because Shay didn't even
       know how to hold the bat properly, much less connect with the
       ball.
 
       However, as Shay stepped up to the plate, the pitcher, recognizing
       that the other team was putting winning aside for this moment in
       Shay's life, moved in a few steps to lob the ball in softly so
       Shay could at least make contact. The first pitch came and Shay
       swung clumsily and missed. The pitcher again took a few steps
       forward to toss the ball softly towards Shay. As the pitch came
       in, Shay swung at the ball and hit a slow ground ball right back
       to the pitcher.
 
       The game would now be over. The pitcher picked up the soft
       grounder and could have easily thrown the ball to the first
       baseman. Shay would have been out and that would have been the end
       of the game.
 
       Instead, the pitcher threw the ball right over the first baseman's
       head, out of reach of all team mates. Everyone from the stands and
       both teams started yelling, "Shay, run to first! Run to first!"
       Never in his life had Shay ever run that far, but he made it to
       first base. He scampered down the baseline, wide-eyed and
       startled.
 
       Everyone yelled, "Run to second, run to second!" Catching his
       breath, Shay awkwardly ran towards second, gleaming and struggling
       to make it to the base. By the time Shay rounded towards second
       base, the right fielder had the ball ... the smallest guy on their
       team who now had his first chance to be the hero for his team. He
       could have thrown the ball to the second- baseman for the tag, but
       he understood the pitcher's intentions so he, too, intentionally
       threw the ball high and far over the third-baseman's head. Shay
       ran toward third base deliriously as the runners ahead of him
       circled the bases toward home.
 
       All were screaming, "Shay, Shay, Shay, all the Way Shay"
       Shay reached third base because the opposing shortstop ran to
       help him by turning him in the direction of third base, and
       shouted, "Run to third! Shay, run to third!"
 
       As Shay rounded third, the boys from both teams, and the
       spectators, were on their feet screaming, "Shay, run home! Run
       home!" Shay ran to home, stepped on the plate, and was cheered as
       the hero who hit the grand slam and won the game for his team.
 
       "That day", said the father softly with tears now rolling down
       his face, "the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true
       love and humanity into this world".
 
       Shay didn't make it to another summer. He died that winter,
       having never forgotten being the hero and making his father so
       happy, and coming home and seeing his Mother tearfully embrace
       her little hero of the day!
 
       AND NOW A LITTLE FOOTNOTE TO THIS STORY: We all send thousands of
       jokes through the e-mail without a second thought, but when it
       comes to sending messages about life choices, people hesitate.
       The crude, vulgar, and often obscene pass freely through
       cyberspace, but public discussion about decency is too often
       suppressed in our schools and workplaces.
 
       If you're thinking about forwarding this message, chances are
       that you're probably sorting out the people in your address book
       who aren't the "appropriate" ones to receive this type of
       message. Well, the person who sent you this believes that we all
       can make a difference. We all have thousands of opportunities
       every single day to help realize the "natural order of things."
       So many seemingly trivial interactions between two people present
       us with a choice: Do we pass along a little spark of love and
       humanity or do we pass up those opportunities and leave the world
       a little bit colder in the process?
 
       A wise man once said every society is judged by how it treats
       it's least fortunate amongst them.
 
       You now have two choices:
       1. Delete
       2. Forward
 
 
       May your day be a Shay Day.  
 
for more on this, please visit...   http://www.snopes.com/glurge/chush.htm 




Share:

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Military recuiters are lying to get kids to sign up

How do these recruiters live with themselves?  I guess they figure they're just following their leader, King George.  He lies, so why shouldn't they?

Cameras Show Army Recruiters Misleading Students  ("Misleading" is a nice word for LYING)

Colonel Says Incidents Are the Exception, Not the Rule


(Nov. 3) — An ABC News undercover investigation showed Army recruiters telling students that the war in Iraq was over, in an effort to get them to enlist.

Col. Robert Manning said that new recruits were likely to go to Iraq.

Watch Video:
Uncle Sam's Enlistment Lies


ABC News and New York affiliate WABC equipped students with hidden video cameras before they visited 10 Army recruitment offices in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

"Nobody is going over to Iraq anymore?" one student asks a recruiter.

"No, we're bringing people back," he replies.

"We're not at war. War ended a long time ago," another recruiter says.

Last year, the Army suspended recruiting nationwide to retrain recruiters following hundreds of allegations of improprieties.

One Colorado student taped a recruiting session posing as a drug-addicted dropout.

"You mean I'm not going to get in trouble?" the student asked.

The recruiters told him no, and helped him cheat to sign up.

During the ABC News sessions, some recruiters told our students if they enlisted, there would be little chance they'd to go Iraq.

But Col. Robert Manning, who is in charge of U.S. Army recruiting for the entire Northeast, said that new recruits were likely to go to Iraq.

"I would not disagree with that," Manning said. "We are a nation and Army at war still."
Manning looked at the ABC News video of his recruiters.

"It's hard to believe some of things they are telling prospective applicants," Manning said. "I still believe that this is the exception more than the norm. … I've visited many stations myself, and I know that we have many wonderful Americans serving in uniform as recruiters."

Yet ABC News found one recruiter who even claimed if you didn't like the Army, you could just quit.

"It's called a 'Failure to Adapt' discharge," the recruiter said. "It's an entry-level discharge so it won't affect anything on your record. It'll just be like it never happened."

Manning, however, disagrees with the ease the recruiter describes.
"I would believe it's not as easy as he would lead you to believe it is," he said.

Sue Niederer, whose son, Seth, joined the Army in 2002, said she was all too familiar with recruiters' lies.

"They need to do anything they possibly can to get recruits," Niederer said.
Seth was sent to Iraq and was killed by a roadside bomb.

Niederer said she was not surprised by what ABC News had found. She believes it's still a widespread problem. She said that recruiters told Seth he wouldn't be put into combat.

"Ninety percent [are] going to be putting their lives on the line for our country," she said. "Tell them the truth. That's all. Just tell them the truth."
11-03-06 14:13 EST

Copyright 2006 ABCNEWS.com


Share:

FBigfoot research makes professor a campus outcast - CNN.com

There is a principle which is proof against all information, which is proof against all arguments, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance; that principle is contempt, prior to investigation. --Herbert Spencer  New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common. --John Locke, 1690, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding 


God bless this professor.  He is a true scientist.  His closed-minded colleagues who are shunning him remind me of Dr. John Mack's colleague professors who tried to get him (a renowned psychologist and winner of both a Pulitzer prize and a Nobel prize) fired from his professorial post at Harvard.  To their horror, Mack was interviewing and conducting consultations with people who believe they have been abducted by aliens--and, worse, he came to the conclusion that they were not lying about their experiences (!).  Because of his prestige and formidable credentials, Mack was not fired.  But sadly, he was killed by a hit-and-run driver in Great Britain while there for a symposium.  Mack once said, "I was raised in a tradition of inquiry. If you encounter something that doesn't fit your worldview, it's more intellectually honest to say, 'maybe there's something wrong with this worldview,' than to try to shoehorn your findings into an existing belief."  Sadly, that is quite a different belief system from most in the scientific fields these days.

It really saddens me that so-called "scientists" are afraid of exploration.  Isn't that what science is supposed to be about?!!!  In the 19th and early 20th century, William James and Sir Oliver Lodge suffered castigations by their colleagues when they determinedly explored the existence of life after death and included psychical research in their explorations. 

In my opinion, a true scientist would be interested in all mysteries and would want to pursue answers to questions of important interest to humanity, no matter where that research may lead him.  He or she would not huddle in a frightened group with other "scientists," casting aspersions on those who dare to break free from the bonds of ignorance.  It appears many in the science profession do not pursue out-of-the-mainstream topics because they fear loss of prestige and/or research grant money.  What a shame that most are still locked into that kind of peer-fear consciousness, even as we enter the 21st century.  I wonder if we earth humans will ever expand our minds and reach maturity.  When you look at what we have in office as the president of the U.S. and leaders in Congress, it doesn't offer much hope that it will happen soon, does it?

I guess by now you will know that I also believe Bigfoot exists. (~.~)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/11/03/professor.bigfoot.ap/index.html
There is a principle which is proof against all information, which is proof against all arguments, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance; that principle is contempt, prior to investigation. --Herbert Spencer New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common. --John Locke, 1690, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding God bless this professor. He is a true scientist. His closed-minded colleagues who are shunning him remind me of Dr. John Mack's colleague professors who tried to get him (a renowned psychologist and winner of both a Pulitzer prize and a Nobel prize) fired from his professorial post at Harvard. To their horror, Mack was interviewing and conducting consultations with people who believe they have been abducted by aliens--and, worse, he came to the conclusion that they were not lying about their experiences (!). Because of his prestige and formidable credentials, Mack was not fired. But sadly, he was killed by a hit-and-run driver in Great Britain while there for a symposium. Mack once said, "I was raised in a tradition of inquiry. If you encounter something that doesn't fit your worldview, it's more intellectually honest to say, 'maybe there's something wrong with this worldview,' than to try to shoehorn your findings into an existing belief." Sadly, that is quite a different belief system from most in the scientific fields these days. It really saddens me that so-called "scientists" are afraid of exploration. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about?!!! In the 19th and early 20th century, William James and Sir Oliver Lodge suffered castigations by their colleagues when they determinedly explored the existence of life after death and included psychical research in their explorations. In my opinion, a true scientist would be interested in all mysteries and would want to pursue answers to questions of important interest to humanity, no matter where that research may lead him. He or she would not huddle in a frightened group with other "scientists," casting aspersions on those who dare to break free from the bonds of ignorance. It appears many in the science profession do not pursue out-of-the-mainstream topics because they fear loss of prestige and/or research grant money. What a shame that most are still locked into that kind of peer-fear consciousness, even as we enter the 21st century. I wonder if we earth humans will ever expand our minds and reach maturity. When you look at what we have in office as the president of the U.S. and leaders in Congress, it doesn't offer much hope that it will happen soon, does it? I guess by now you will know that I also believe Bigfoot exists. (~.~) http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/11/03/professor.bigfoot.ap/index.html


Share:

IMPORTANT ARTICLE!!! Neo Culpa: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com

This Vanity Fair article is quite revealing of what is going on in the Republican party.  Some of the top neocons have turned against Bush, and are now calling him the idiot that millions of the rest of us could see he was back in the campaign of 2000.  Whatever took them so long to realize this obvious fact?  These hypocrites were once his puppeteers, but their puppet cut his strings and, believing himself divinely guided, proclaimed, "God is talking and working through me."  Now Duhmbya thinks he is a king.  And the neocons are deserting the U.S. ship of state that they helped steer onto the rocks. 

Many revelations from behind the scenes appear in this article.  It is very educational.  The author promises he is writing a much more detailed account that will appear in the Vanity Fair January issue, which will be out on December 6.  From what is said in this article, it looks like Colin Powell's words have come tragically true.  "If  you break it, you own it."  These disloyal neocons are scurrying away from ownership, leaving Duhmbya holding the broken Iraq, and he is claiming, "It's not broken, it's just a little bent!" as the thousands of little pieces slip through his fingers and crash onto the Oval Office rug Laura picked out for him when he took office.  They'll never get those sharp little pieces out of that carpet.  Might as well just roll it up with Duhmbya in it, and take it to the dump.  I'm hoping the Nov. 7 elections will be the beginning of that scenario.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612
This Vanity Fair article is quite revealing of what is going on in the Republican party. Some of the top neocons have turned against Bush, and are now calling him the idiot that millions of the rest of us could see he was back in the campaign of 2000. Whatever took them so long to realize this obvious fact? These hypocrites were once his puppeteers, but their puppet cut his strings and, believing himself divinely guided, proclaimed, "God is talking and working through me." Now Duhmbya thinks he is a king. And the neocons are deserting the U.S. ship of state that they helped steer onto the rocks. Many revelations from behind the scenes appear in this article. It is very educational. The author promises he is writing a much more detailed account that will appear in the Vanity Fair January issue, which will be out on December 6. From what is said in this article, it looks like Colin Powell's words have come tragically true. "If you break it, you own it." These disloyal neocons are scurrying away from ownership, leaving Duhmbya holding the broken Iraq, and he is claiming, "It's not broken, it's just a little bent!" as the thousands of little pieces slip through his fingers and crash onto the Oval Office rug Laura picked out for him when he took office. They'll never get those sharp little pieces out of that carpet. Might as well just roll it up with Duhmbya in it, and take it to the dump. I'm hoping the Nov. 7 elections will be the beginning of that scenario. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612


Share:

Patriots versus Traitors

Now, have I got this straight?  Bush and the neocons accuse Democrats of being "traitors" for disapproving of the Patriot Act that allows surveillance of private phone calls of Americans by the government and for protesting the torture of other human beings.  But Bush and the neocons think it is OK to post on the Internet detailed how-to directions for the development of nuclear weapons, with much of the posted material in Arabic, to make it even easier for the terrorists to understand and follow.  They did this for political purposes.  And they call themselves "patriotic"?????   Hmmm.... Is something wrong with this picture?  What do YOU think?  Do you live in Bizarro World with them?  Or in the real world where the true patriots are the Democrats?  I honestly can't stand much more of this Upsidedownbackwards world we have been forced to live in for the past 6 years!!!!!

EXCERPT:
The Bush administration and its Congressional allies published directions for the development of nuclear weapons.  These directions include "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums." They did this to try to manufacture some political cover, period. Much of the published material is in Arabic. All that is required to put these directions to practical use is the fissionable material, a great deal of which is sitting unsecured all across Russia ... and the administration has slashed the budgets aimed at nailing this stuff down.

PLUS: 
No weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, and Bush stars in a comedic video skit, aired during a banquet, in which he pretends to look for the stuff in the Oval Office. 2,826 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and 44,799 more have been wounded, not one of them having the luxury of looking for those weapons in the secure comforts of the White House.

    Har de har har.  (What a laugh. NOT :-(   And yet he thinks of himself as  "compassionate" and "patriotic."  My opinion: IMPEACH THE BASTARD!) 



You're Kidding Me, Right?
(Nope.)
    By William Rivers Pitt
   

    Friday 03 November 2006

    We have become all too accustomed over these last years to absorbing insane and astonishing and absurd and awful revelations regarding this White House and this GOP-dominated congress. Some have come to call it "scandal fatigue," though I personally prefer to call it the "Gotta-put-this-in-a-mental-box-for-a-while-or-else-I-will-eat-my-own-face" self-preservation instinct.

    I mean, come on now. No weapons of mass destruction are found in Iraq, and Bush stars in a comedic video skit, aired during a banquet, in which he pretends to look for the stuff in the Oval Office. 2,826 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq and 44,799 more have been wounded, not one of them having the luxury of looking for those weapons in the secure comforts of the White House.

    Har de har har.

    Less than a month after 9/11, Bush got in front of cameras to say, "We need to counter the shock wave of the evildoer by having individual rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates." You have to wonder what kind of music this guy is hearing in his head. Hm ... here's a thought. Let's use the worst day of carnage on American soil since the Civil War to pimp for tax cuts that will pretty much only help the richest of the rich.

    This list is seemingly endless. They used September 11 against us to push for an unnecessary war that has laid waste to Iraq and our international reputation. They outed a deep-cover CIA agent whose husband dared to criticize the cherry-picked "intelligence" used to justify the invasion. They have gotten into bed with some of the most reprehensible scumbags ever to disgrace the corridors of Congress - Mr. Abramoff, your table is ready - and then summoned the gall to declare a "National Character Counts Week."

    You have to put this stuff into a mental box until you can wrap yourself around it, because otherwise you'll be battering down walls with your head and gnawing down trees like a beaver.

    But this, now, is something else again.

    The New York Times headline for Friday reads, "US Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer." Bad enough all by itself, true, but this headline does not entirely convey the insane and astonishing and absurd and awful realities behind this story.

    "Last March," begins the article, "the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to 'leverage the Internet' to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein."

    Translation: On the three-year anniversary of the catastrophic decision to invade and occupy Iraq, Congressional Republicans, terrified that their comprehensive failures would come back to haunt them in the November midterms, cajoled the White House into publishing incredibly sensitive information in a rhetorically empty attempt to cover their backsides.

    The Times article continues, "The site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq's secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb. The documents, roughly a dozen in number, contain charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums. For instance, the papers give detailed information on how to build nuclear firing circuits and triggering explosives, as well as the radioactive cores of atom bombs."

    Translation: We have spent the last five years being terrorized by our own government - "We do not want the evidence to be a mushroom cloud" - and yet these nitwits somehow conclude that publishing detailed directions for the building of nuclear bombs is perfectly fine. You have to wonder if North Korea's sudden leaps forward in their own nuclear program came because they got a chance to read the user's manual for the nuclear club. Note well, by the way, that the data published is from before the first Gulf War, which means it has nothing to do with Iraq's WMD program in 2003, said program having been utterly decimated by sanctions and targeted bombing runs.

    And then, the kicker.

    "With the public increasingly skeptical about the rationale and conduct of the war," reads the Times story, "the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees argued that wide analysis and translation of the documents - most of them in Arabic - would reinvigorate the search for clues that Mr. Hussein had resumed his unconventional arms programs in the years before the invasion. American search teams never found such evidence."

    Translation: "Most of them in Arabic," it says. Directions for building nuclear weapons, written in Arabic, were published by the White House three years after the invasion, for no better reason than to do some CYA after the weapons of mass destruction failed to turn up in Iraq.

    But wait, some will say. The hard part isn't getting directions for building a bomb; those have been out there for decades now in one form or another. The hard part is procuring or manufacturing the fissionable material needed. Right?

    Wrong. Once upon a time, you see, we had something called the Cold War. The artist formerly known as the Soviet Union developed scores of nuclear weapons, and then went broke. Their financial collapse and eventual evaporation as a nation left scads of nuclear materials lying all over their vast territory, with no army available to guard the stuff. They couldn't even afford padlocks, and suddenly-unpaid nuclear scientists had the opportunity to sell the materials on the black market.

    Consider this report from the Center for Defense Information: "The worldwide stockpiles of separated plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU) are estimated to include some 450 tons of military and civilian separated plutonium and over 1,700 tons of HEU. A key problem in this arena is the large stocks of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium that are produced by power reactors. Russia now holds about 150 tons of plutonium and 1,000 tons of highly enriched uranium. A recently published report by the National Research Council found that 'theft or diversion of excess Russian HEU for terrorist use represents a significant near-term threat to the United States.'"

    "A complete inventory of Russian materials is not available," continues the report, "so it is impossible to confirm that diversions of materials have not already occurred. Additionally, there have been more than a dozen seizures of special nuclear material from Russia and surrounding countries since the early 1990s. About 40 kilograms of weapons-usable uranium and plutonium have been stolen from poorly protected nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union during the last decade. While most of that material was retrieved, 2 kilograms of highly enriched uranium filched from a research reactor in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia are still missing."

    Fear not, however, because the Bush administration is on top of things. "A program to blend HEU down into less dangerous civilian reactor fuel," reads a Christian Science Monitor article from 2001, "is moving slowly. Efforts to replace three Russian nuclear reactors that produce both desperately needed energy and plutonium have stalled in a swirl of politics. And the Bush administration, in its first crack at drawing up a national-security budget, has slashed the funding of much of the non-proliferation effort. Bush's budget took $100 million out of the Department of Energy's side of the effort, alone."

    The budget allocations for the securing of this material have been annually shortchanged by the Bush administration. Indeed, little has changed since 9/11, despite all the howling about nuclear terrorism coming from the White House.

    So, to recap: the administration and its Congressional allies published directions for the development of nuclear weapons, said directions including "charts, diagrams, equations and lengthy narratives about bomb building that nuclear experts who have viewed them say go beyond what is available elsewhere on the Internet and in other public forums." They did this to try to manufacture some political cover, period. Much of the published material is in Arabic. All that is required to put these directions to practical use is the fissionable material, a great deal of which is sitting unsecured all across Russia ... and the administration has slashed the budgets aimed at nailing this stuff down.

    Yes, I'm eating my own face.



Share:

Cover Up of the Cover Up--just what we have to expect

Cover Up of the Cover Up

by Cenk Uygur

Today we find out that the House Ethics Committee is just too busy to be able to release their findings on the Mark Foley scandal before the election. No! You don't say! I would have never figured!

I would have thought that they would work diligently to make sure that the voters had all the information before the elections about the people they are voting on. The fact that the Ethics Committee won't deliver on another investigation comes as a huge shock to me. The fact that they'll release their so-called findings after they are largely irrelevant is very surprising.

I'm tired of having to deal with the media. Look at how the Associated Press covers the story: "The House ethics committee has been working hard to determine if Republicans covered up ex-Rep. Mark Foley's come-ons to former male pages, but even 12-hour work days won't bring conclusions by Election Day."

Come on. Poor Ethics Committee, they've been working so hard they assure the Associated Press, but as luck would have it, they just couldn't get the report out by Election Day. How do you put that in print? Your job isn't to be their spokesperson; your job is to be a reporter. How about a question challenging their completely unbelievable excuse? How about inquiring into the obvious -- perhaps they're holding off until after the election to spare their Republican colleagues.

Yes, I know there are Democrats on the committee. And it would come as a large shock to my system if they were not effective in holding their Republican colleagues accountable. I am sure they are worried about comity in the House, while the Republicans laugh their ass off at how they got the Democrats to go along with delaying the report until after no one cares about it.

They worked 12 hour days. Boo hoo. Not that I believe the AP reporter bothered to confirm that, my guess is he or she wrote it down dutifully when the Republican in charge told her about how hard they had been working. But even if it was true, then work 15 hour days and weekends. The elections are the only chance the people of this country have to hold their elected representatives accountable. If you issue reports of their wrongdoing after the elections are over, they are nearly completely irrelevant.

How many cover ups can we stand? How many more will you stomach as it happens right in front of your eyes? How many of you believed that the Ethics Committee would really issue findings before the election when they promised to try really hard? How many of you believe that politics had nothing to do with whether they put out the report right before or right after the election (other than the AP reporter who wrote the story)?

Now the cover ups are so deep that we have cover ups of the cover ups. If you let them back in charge, they will take it as a green light to keep doing exactly what they've been doing. Corruption. Cover up. Lie. Conceal. Cover up the cover up. Play the voters for fools. Hope they never catch on.

Are they right? Are the voters ever going to catch on?



Share:

Scientists Say White House Muzzled Them

Just one of many investigations that need to be done of the lying, thieving, hypocritical, and very dangerous neocon regime of George W. Bush--a man whose name will go down in infamy as the worst U.S. president ever.  With two more years of this dictatorship to be endured, one can only imagine what more havoc he can wreak on the world if he is not reined in by Congress.  For that, we need checks and balances--and a Democrat majority.  I pray that will happen in next Tuesday's vote. 
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/01/D8L4NF5G1.html


Share:

Thursday, November 02, 2006

Hacking Democracy: New Documentary Exposes Vulnerability of Electronic Voting Machines

I just finished watching the documentary Hacking Democracy which was shown on HBO tonight.  Although it confirmed what I already knew from having read the Bev Harris Black Box findings in articles in various magazines, it was still hair-raising to realize for certain that we have a president who was not fairly elected EITHER TIME, and that our votes have been so easily manipulated.  There are MANY flaws in the Diebold machines, which are hackable even by novices who know nothing about software coding.  The memory cards are hackable even before voting begins, by putting in positive votes for one candidate and negative votes for another, bringing the starting vote number to an apparent zero, so the voting workers do not have a clue that the votes are already skewed when they insert the memory cards into the machines.  This insures that the totals will still match the number of people who voted, although the votes themselves will be what the hacker wants, not what the voters wanted. This has been done in elections in Ohio and Florida, New Mexico, and God knows where else.  Anyway, the wrong man is president, and look at the havoc that has created in our country and the world.

I do not understand and will never understand why Kerry did not contest the vote in 2004, because, as this program made evident, he KNEW there had been hackers, and votes had been changed in Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico.  Yet he conceded the election, even though he had promised he would contest it if there were any signs of vote fraud.  This makes me wonder if, despite all of his rants at them, he was at that time in cahoots with the neocons. Are they all just part of the same big cabal?  Why else would he have refused to go forward with a protest?  Below is a URL that will give you links to see some of the documentary, as well as read a Bev Harris interview by Amy Goodman.  God bless Bev Harris and all those who helped her to prove the fraud that is being perpetrated on the American people.

If you have HBO, this presentation will be shown again.  Look in your TV guide for your area to find out the time you can see it.  One of the workers who helped Bev Harris actually broke down and cried when she saw how easily hackable the machines are--and the realization sank in that we have been denied our true votes.  The voting authority in whose machine they demonstrated this hackability was visibly shaken when he saw how easily the votes can be skewed in favor of any candidate the hacker may want to see in office.  These machines are going to be used in many states across our country in the election 5 days from now.  I am now seeing why Rove and Bush are so certain of a Republican victory.  I only hope if the election results do not match the pre-voting polls and exit polls that there will rise up a hue and cry from the nation's citizens and a storming of the gates at Congress and the White House.  Our democracy has been taken from us, and only we the people can get it back.  This is not a partisan issue, folks!  We Americans are ALL being deprived of the Constitutional rights we were guaranteed by our forefathers.  The right to vote and have our votes fairly counted has now been proven to have been taken from us.  WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?


EXCERPT from the interview:

And the public records, I can't emphasize enough how important they are. In San Diego in the June 6 election, the event log, the audit log that was obtained by a citizen named Bruce Sims, shows the voting machine dialing out to Diebold at 9:31 p.m. during the count on election night. These are the kinds of things that show up.

AMY GOODMAN: Wait, explain that.

BEV HARRIS: Yes. It's difficult to explain.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, the machine dialing out?

BEV HARRIS: The machine dialed out and made a remote connection to Diebold at 9:31 p.m. during the count. And when you say, "Explain it," I don't know of any legitimate explanation.

AMY GOODMAN: So, what happened in that case?

BEV HARRIS: Interestingly enough, as we find citizens out there gathering these, public officials are in many cases -- and San Diego is one -- not following the law, not following the regulations. The first thing we have to do is find out if they even are following them -- they aren't there -- and then we need to take action to enforce the law and get them taken out of office. It's very difficult, because there's very little will to enforce and there are very few consequences for election officials who fail to follow the law.

AMY GOODMAN: The significance of Governor Ehrlich saying no electronic voting machines in Maryland?

BEV HARRIS: Very interesting. And we are noticing -- I know everybody wants to say this is Republicans against Democrats, and so forth, but we are noticing that in the states with touch screen voting where the Democrats are in control, it is the Republicans that are calling for paper. That's the case in Georgia, in Maryland, and in my state, in Washington state.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/31/150212
I just finished watching the documentary Hacking Democracy which was shown on HBO tonight. Although it confirmed what I already knew from having read the Bev Harris Black Box findings in articles in various magazines, it was still hair-raising to realize for certain that we have a president who was not fairly elected EITHER TIME, and that our votes have been so easily manipulated. There are MANY flaws in the Diebold machines, which are hackable even by novices who know nothing about software coding. The memory cards are hackable even before voting begins, by putting in positive votes for one candidate and negative votes for another, bringing the starting vote number to an apparent zero, so the voting workers do not have a clue that the votes are already skewed when they insert the memory cards into the machines. This insures that the totals will still match the number of people who voted, although the votes themselves will be what the hacker wants, not what the voters wanted. This has been done in elections in Ohio and Florida, New Mexico, and God knows where else. Anyway, the wrong man is president, and look at the havoc that has created in our country and the world. I do not understand and will never understand why Kerry did not contest the vote in 2004, because, as this program made evident, he KNEW there had been hackers, and votes had been changed in Ohio, Florida, and New Mexico. Yet he conceded the election, even though he had promised he would contest it if there were any signs of vote fraud. This makes me wonder if, despite all of his rants at them, he was at that time in cahoots with the neocons. Are they all just part of the same big cabal? Why else would he have refused to go forward with a protest? Below is a URL that will give you links to see some of the documentary, as well as read a Bev Harris interview by Amy Goodman. God bless Bev Harris and all those who helped her to prove the fraud that is being perpetrated on the American people. If you have HBO, this presentation will be shown again. Look in your TV guide for your area to find out the time you can see it. One of the workers who helped Bev Harris actually broke down and cried when she saw how easily hackable the machines are--and the realization sank in that we have been denied our true votes. The voting authority in whose machine they demonstrated this hackability was visibly shaken when he saw how easily the votes can be skewed in favor of any candidate the hacker may want to see in office. These machines are going to be used in many states across our country in the election 5 days from now. I am now seeing why Rove and Bush are so certain of a Republican victory. I only hope if the election results do not match the pre-voting polls and exit polls that there will rise up a hue and cry from the nation's citizens and a storming of the gates at Congress and the White House. Our democracy has been taken from us, and only we the people can get it back. This is not a partisan issue, folks! We Americans are ALL being deprived of the Constitutional rights we were guaranteed by our forefathers. The right to vote and have our votes fairly counted has now been proven to have been taken from us. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? EXCERPT from the interview: And the public records, I can't emphasize enough how important they are. In San Diego in the June 6 election, the event log, the audit log that was obtained by a citizen named Bruce Sims, shows the voting machine dialing out to Diebold at 9:31 p.m. during the count on election night. These are the kinds of things that show up. AMY GOODMAN: Wait, explain that. BEV HARRIS: Yes. It's difficult to explain. AMY GOODMAN: What do you mean, the machine dialing out? BEV HARRIS: The machine dialed out and made a remote connection to Diebold at 9:31 p.m. during the count. And when you say, "Explain it," I don't know of any legitimate explanation. AMY GOODMAN: So, what happened in that case? BEV HARRIS: Interestingly enough, as we find citizens out there gathering these, public officials are in many cases -- and San Diego is one -- not following the law, not following the regulations. The first thing we have to do is find out if they even are following them -- they aren't there -- and then we need to take action to enforce the law and get them taken out of office. It's very difficult, because there's very little will to enforce and there are very few consequences for election officials who fail to follow the law. AMY GOODMAN: The significance of Governor Ehrlich saying no electronic voting machines in Maryland? BEV HARRIS: Very interesting. And we are noticing -- I know everybody wants to say this is Republicans against Democrats, and so forth, but we are noticing that in the states with touch screen voting where the Democrats are in control, it is the Republicans that are calling for paper. That's the case in Georgia, in Maryland, and in my state, in Washington state. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/31/150212


Share:

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Bush says Rumsfeld and Cheney should stay!!!

George W. Bush  lives in Bizarro World, along with Laura, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.  In Bush-Bizarro world, if someone does a good job, you fire them.  If they do a rotten job, you shower them with praise, medals and/or promotions.  Today he said both Rumsfeld and Cheney are doing a "fantastic job," and he is intending for both of them to stay on with him to the end of his presidency (which can't come too soon for millions of us).  Even Republicans are calling for Rumsfeld's head, but G.W. goes blissfully forward, certain of his own expertise to judge the job Rummy is doing, just as he thought the Katrina disaster in New Orleans was being wonderfully managed by Michael Brown whom he told, "Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!"  The man creates fantasies in his mind and, no matter who points out to him he may be making mistakes, he stubbornly sticks to those fantasies.  Much of the time he thinks God is telling him what to do.  Because of his delusions and illusions, he is a very dangerous man--and certainly not one you want in the job of president of the most important and powerful country in the world. 

I am reading a great book right now called "Bush on the Couch," written three years ago by a renowned psychotherapist, Dr. Justin Frank.  His analysis of Bush and the whole Bush family is dead on.   I urge everyone to get a copy of it -- buy it or borrow it through the library -- it is that important a book.  Here is a review of it:


Dr. Justin Frank has performed a courageous and insightful mission. On the eve of the most important Presidential election of our lifetime, he applied his decades of clinical experience as a psychoanalyst to offer an in-depth profile of President George W. Bush. To be more precise, Dr. Frank has provided American voters with a case study in what is called "applied psychoanalysis." As Dr. Frank describes it in Bush on the Couch, applied psychoanalysis is a relatively new field of investigation, in which teams of skilled psychiatrists utilize the vast reservoirs of clinical data on world leaders to do in-depth personality profiles. Years ago, the Central Intelligence Agency established an applied psychoanalysis unit, under Dr. Jerrold M. Post, a colleague of Dr. Frank at the George Washington University Medical Center. The CIA confines its efforts to foreign leaders. Dr. Frank has chosen to apply the same rigorous techniques to the sitting President.

Ironically, in the case of some world leaders, such as the American President, the clinical psychoanalyst is afforded access to more useful data than he can obtain on his own patients. Dr. Frank makes no secret of the fact that he has never treated George W. Bush. Yet, he had access to massive amounts of video footage of the President, autobiographical and biographical data on Mr. Bush and many of his most intimate associates, including virtually every member of his family, and other clinical data not often available on his patients. He rarely has the opportunity to observe the patient in his or her everyday life. With President Bush, Dr. Frank had access to hundreds of hours of unedited video footage of him going about the business of governing the most powerful nation on Earth.

When I first opened Bush on the Couch, I expected to read a highly entertaining, humorous partisan screed. I recalled that Dr. Frank had penned an insightful profile of Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth Starr in the online magazine Salon at the height of the impeachment travesty against President Clinton. But Bush on the Couch is anything but a screed. It is a carefully written, clinical treatment that is a must-read for all American voters—Republican, Independent, and Democrat—before November. Had Dr. Frank been writing a clinical profile of George W. Bush for peer or court review, the document would have taken perhaps 20 or 30 pages. A great deal of Bush on the Couch is taken up with providing sufficient fundamentals of the clinical psychoanalytic process and bibliographical background on the field, to permit the lay reader to grasp the gravity of George W. Bush's psychological problems. The book is at once a devastating psychological dossier on the 43rd President, and a compassionate profile of a human being in need of care.

After reading Bush on the Couch and interviewing the author, I confess that I have been forced to rethink some fundamental assumptions about the Bush-Cheney Administration. It has been clear that the real power at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue resides with Vice President Dick Cheney, not with President Bush. It is Cheney, his alter-ego Lewis Libby, and the legions of neo-conservative wanna-be Liberal Imperialists ("Limps") who populate the VP's office and the civilian bureaucracy at the Pentagon who formulated the preventive war doctrine; revived an aggressive, offensive nuclear war doctrine; and made war on Iraq—not G.W. Bush. But, as Dr. Frank emphasizes, if President Bush is the puppet of Cheney, he is a puppet who chooses his puppeteers, and who carries out his Presidential decisions with a clear inner conviction that he is the true power, the ultimate decision-maker. Whatever the truth is about the decision-making process inside the Bush White House, Bush has a megalomaniacal conviction that he is the king of the roost.

I do not intend to use the remainder of this review to provide a detailed summary of Dr. Frank's diagnosis of the 43rd President. I urge readers to purchase and read the book. It cannot be done justice in a few short paragraphs.

Dr. Frank opens the first chapter with a crisp summary of his own, of what he meticulously documents in the 219 pages of text that follow: "If one of my patients frequently said one thing and did another, I would want to know why. If I found that he often used words that hid their true meaning and affected a persona that obscured the nature of his actions, I would grow more concerned. If he presented an inflexible worldview characterized by an oversimplified distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, allies and enemies, I would question his ability to grasp reality. And if his actions revealed an unacknowledged—even sadistic—indifference to human suffering, wrapped in pious claims of compassion, I would worry about the safety of the people whose lives he touched.

"For the past three years, I have observed with increasing alarm the inconsistencies and denials of such an individual. But he is not one of my patients. He is our president."

With clinical objectivity, Dr. Frank draws upon the mass of material available in the public domain about the President, particularly George W. Bush's own, documented remarks, to paint a picture of a man suffering from a number of serious, but potentially treatable psychological disorders. Among them: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), untreated and uncured alcoholism (what is commonly referred to today as "dry drunk"), an omnipotence complex, paranoia, an Oedipal Complex, sadism, a mild form of Tourettes Syndrome, and a diminished capacity to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

All of these disorders stem from what Dr. Frank describes as Bush's "diminished ability to manage anxiety."

How did George Bush come to be such a psychological wreck? According to Dr. Frank, who places significant emphasis on unresolved childhood trauma, in his clinical work, George Bush suffered several notable shocking experiences in his childhood, in which his parents, George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush, failed to provide the needed loving adult care to help him through the experiences. In this sense, Dr. Frank provides a very compassionate picture of the President.

Dr. Frank described the most traumatic of those childhood experiences: "George W. was six years old at the beginning of the tragic episode that he has said yielded his first vivid childhood memories—the illness and death of his sister. In the spring of 1953, young Robin was diagnosed with leukemia, which set into motion a series of extended East Coast trips by parents and child in the ultimately fruitless pursuit of treatment. Critically, however, young George W. was never informed of the reason for the sudden absences; unaware that his sister was ill, he was simply told not to play with the girl, to whom he had grown quite close, on her occasional visits home. Robin died in New York in October 1953; her parents spent the next day golfing in Rye, attending a small memorial service the following day before flying back to Texas. George learned of his sister's illness only after her death, when his parents returned to Texas, where the family remained while the child's body was buried in a Connecticut family plot. There was no funeral."

This is but one of dozens of compelling, and shocking vignettes that pepper Dr. Frank's book. The complex and twisted world of President George W. Bush must be understood by the American people, to fully appreciate the mess that the United States has fallen into. To his credit, Dr. Frank included a chapter in his profile of the President, entitled "He's Our Man," which takes up the question of how and why the American people have backed this man, particularly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Here are a few comments from Dr. Frank, made in an interview:
...my view is that Bush is a puppet who chose his puppeteers, so in that sense he is dependent on Cheney, but in another sense I think he is dependent on him for supporting his decisions, but I think that Bush makes the decisions. I think that he is dependent on Cheney for thinking them through in public, and for articulating them. And for being the kind of public, outspoken person who does not do well in off the cuff speaking, and so he had to go with Cheney to the 9/11 Commission. And that's about dependency. But my sense is that he really knows what he wants to do once he hears stuff, and he is basically focussed on very few things. The main reason for depending on Cheney, and I can see that politically, the main reason is that he does not like to do the work of thinking, because it makes him too anxious. And most of the ideas in my book are about Bush's functioning to defend against anxiety. And that's really basically what he's about.

Interviewer: What I found particularly striking is a kind of a deadly mix of experiences: the trauma over his sister's death, and the way the family handled that. Then developing an at least alcohol—some people say alcohol and drug dependency—for quite a number of years. It seemed to me that this is almost a kind of very extreme clinical case of somebody who's nominally walking around as functional, but really has got deep, deep psychological scars.

Frank: Yes, it has to do with the fact that he was never able to mourn, and when you don't mourn, you can't integrate your inner life. What happens is that, as I write in the book, sorrow is the vitamin of growth, and until you face who you are and what you've lost, you really can't organize your mind, and so what happens is when you're the first born, and the next one dies, you're left with a lot of unworked-out hostility, anger, guilt, that maybe your wishes killed them. You have lots of magical thinking, and if you don't have a family that helps you gather those things together, you can be in a lot of trouble.

So then you have to manage your feelings yourself. And one of the ways people do manage them when they are that age, is they have friends to talk to; but he doesn't seem to have had anybody to talk to much. But they also read, and pay attention to things, so they learn about human beings from reading about other people, if their parents aren't responsive to them. But he really has such a hard time reading, that it's like swimming with weights. I mean, it's just too much for him. So he didn't have that avenue either, so he became sometimes cruel to people, with animals, which is one way of managing your aggression, and then to drink in order to manage his anxiety, and he became a very heavy drinker, that's very clear, till he was 40, at least.

Interviewer: Again, the idea that someone doesn't cure the alcoholism, but just simply stops the drinking, doesn't deal with the underlying issues; is this somebody who could go back to drinking?

Frank: Yes, in fact I think that's one of the reasons why the press walks on egg shells: Nobody confronts him about falling off the couch, nobody confronts him about falling off of his bicycle. People are too afraid to even ask the question. It's one thing to make an assumption—I don't think you should assume that he is drinking again—but you need to be free enough to ask the question; but when you are an alcoholic who's untreated, family members—and I've done a lot of studies of families with alcoholics, and treated a lot—they tiptoe around, and they are afraid to throw their father or their mother back on a drinking binge. And I think that is what the press has done, they're walking on egg shells.




Share: