“It is not that Christianity has been tried and failed. It is that it has never been tried.” G. K. Chesterton
On Saturday, I ran into Ed Begley Jr. who has a great 'green' show called "Living With Ed" on the Home and Garden Network.
I also ran into Anson Williams of Happy Days' fame. He's one of my favorite people and it was so good to see him. We had co-hosted Dick Clark's Rockin' New Year's Eve Special years ago. Anson not only looks great but is the father of five daughters, ages one to eighteen! He is a director and owner of a national brand, StarMakerProducts.com which I'll talk more about in future posts. Anyway, Anson and I got to talking about the world, and he turned me onto a letter on 'Equality' from Thomas Jefferson to John Quincy Adams, which is fascinating. Anson is quite an evolved thinker and scholar now, with a special interest in our Founding Fathers. It's always good to be reminded of what our nation stands for. In the Preamble to his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote:
"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles & organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness."
Time Magazine: "His complete, uncompromising, and abiding commitment to the principle of human equality [is what I admire most about Jefferson]. This idea remains as radical today as it was when Jefferson first gave expression to it over two centuries ago. The idea of equality was in the air at the time, but Jefferson, a magnificent stylist, was able to bring it to life by expressing it clearly, simply, eloquently. And he connected equality to other ideas that remain equally compelling: liberty, self-government, freedom of religion.
The ideals of equality, freedom, and freedom of religion are indispensible, now more than ever. It would be instructive, for example, for both those who authorized the torture at Abu Ghraib and those who fight crusades and jihads and do unspeakable things in the name of God to read Jefferson's observations about the futility of torture, the utter ineffectiveness of coercion. "What has been the effect of coercion?" he asked. "To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth."
More on Jefferson and slavery below, but first, PLEASE READ THIS from Wayne Dyer:
"We’re told by those who represent us that the insurgents and the average Iraqi and Middle Easterner hate us because we stand for freedom and democracy. It’s my contention that we have it backwards. We’re hated because we fail to stand for freedom and democracy. In fact, what we do stand for is whatever is best for American financial interests. Under the Shah of Iran, freedom and democracy didn’t exist, yet we supported that regime. The Saudi royal family certainly doesn’t stand for freedom and democracy, yet we have no quarrel with them. The Emir of Kuwait is not about freedom and democracy, and he has our dying loyalty.
The average person on the streets of Iraq isn’t fooled by our occupation of their country. They hate us throughout the Middle East and the Moslem world because we care most about how to make money in foreign lands. They know it and we should know it. But we’re told that it’s our freedom and democracy that engenders this animosity toward us. Residents of Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Syria, and other countries throughout the Middle East hate us vehemently because they believe that Americans simply can’t figure out how all that American oil got under their sand. They believe that we’re acting in our own self-interest and that we justify destroying their villages and killing insurgents by convincing ourselves that it’s in the name of freedom and democracy.
If all of this is blatantly untrue, and we have no monetary motives in our continual clean-up campaigns that are leaving corpses and severely wounded people by the hundreds of thousands, then let’s make an effort to communicate with those whom we’re now aimlessly killing. I ask each and every person who conducts this war under the guise of Christian principles to answer this question: How much time have you spent praying for your enemy today? Read Jesus in Matthew 5:43-44: You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."
Continued... JEFFERSON and SLAVERY
Don't expect history to offer us simple lessons or perfect heroes. "The most problematic thing about him was his lifelong ownership of slaves and his inability to extricate either himself or his nation from the institution of slavery. Early in his life, Jefferson opposed slavery, writing, famously, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." But as he aged, his optimism waned, and he came to fear emancipation even more than God's wrath. Committed to equality in principle, Jefferson's practice was compromised by his racism, which is so distasteful, so repugnant to us today...This is the contrast in Jefferson, and his legacy: Words about human equality and freedom that are as fresh today as the day he wrote them, and words about racial inferiority that are so jarring that we can't read them today without feeling a profound sense of shame.
The standards by which we judge Jefferson are the ones he bequeathed us. We judge him harshly because he kept men and women in slavery, knowing that it was wrong — but it was Jefferson who told us that all people are equal, and that everyone is entitled to liberty and to human happiness. Don't expect history to offer us simple lessons or perfect heroes.
To his white family, Jefferson was both loving and manipulative. He gave them love to last a lifetime, and he left them impoverished. To his black family, he was remote but not unkind. He never acknowledged his black children, but he gave them their freedom, which is the greatest legacy that anyone born a slave ever wished for."
(The above is from Jan Lewis, Professor of History, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey)
Great post Lydia.............I always like Anson Williams and loved Happy Das, it was a GREAT show.....I remember the Day You and Anson hosted New Years Rockin Eve like it was yesterday even though it was over 25 years ago.
ReplyDeletePrinciples of Freedom and Equality are timeless and ageless and NEVER go out of style or become "quaint" "antiquated".............if some one EVER says "things are different now" or "9/11 changed everything" be very wary bevause classic timeless principles never become outdated and usually the people saying "things are different now" are hacks, charlatans and/or people with bad intentions.
BTW, I saw Ed Begley Jr on tv about a month or two ago and, was amazed by his house..........his house is so green (his roof is totally covered with solar panels) that the power company actually buts power from him.....I dont think Ed has payed a power bill in like 15 years or so.
ReplyDeleteI intend to get solar panels once I pay off some bills or the government gets smart and gives big tax credits to people who get them.
I dunno, Lyd....somehow thinking of Potsy as an "evolved thinker"...
ReplyDelete:-)
Carl, do really still actually support that "sense of the Senate Bill"?
ReplyDeleteCarl, you actually believe actors are the roles we play? You, as an actor, should know the truth.
ReplyDeleteRichard Dreyfuss is even teaching Civics classes at Oxford.
Sorry Carl, I didn't know MIke was talking to you at the same time. But anyway, what do you mean Mike -- about supporting the sense of the Senate bill?
ReplyDeleteIn the previous blog, Carl, said he supported Hillary's vote in the "sense of the Senate Bill" that declared Irans IRG a terrorist organization.
ReplyDeleteLydia,
ReplyDeleteI think some actors are the parts they play, yea. Think about Andrew Dice Clay.
Sometimes, they become the roles they play. Think about John Wayne.
Because Anson hadn't had many successes beyond Happy Days, he's always going to have that stigma around him (sorry, Anson, I'm betting you might read this, but then you know what I'm talking about).
Too, I think that's the trap of television versus the movies. Because TV invites programs into our homes, the audience tends to not only identify with the characters more closely, but also to make them a part of their (extended) family.
So yea, if cousin Potsy acted the way Potsy on Happy Days did, I would tend to think of my cousin in the same terms.
Now, I'm not saying that Anson can't break free from that (Wil Wheaton is one of the most progressive bloggers I know, and a helluva poker player) but he has to put the word out there more vigorously that he can break free.
I'm not saying this as clearly as I'd like. I guess what I'm trying to say is I'd have to overcome my preconceptions surrounding his character in order to take him more seriously.
I didn't have that problem with you, because, as I've embarassedly admitted before, I never watched Too Close. I did watch Happy Days, tho.
Mike,
If (big if, I know) it means that it will help us impose UN sanctions against Iran should they turn out to be as aggressive as we fear they are, then I do support the "sense of the Senate" resolution, which is really non-binding under any circumstance and should not be taken as a call to action.
It took Bush nearly a decade to warp a similar resolution agaisnt Iraq, and even then, he had a really hard sell. I don't think the US is going to buy that story again anytime soon.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI love "Living With Ed"! Great show! As for Jefferson, I think I fall back on quotes from him and Ben Franklin more than anyone else. How great is it that two men from over two hundred years ago would have the right words for today?
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Lydia!
Anson Williams has made the transition from acting to directing and producing some of the most popular shows on television.
ReplyDeleteI'd say Anson Williams has proven he is no "Potsie."
The Huffington Post has learned that Senator Barack Obama, D-IL, raised a total of $20 million during the third quarter fundraising period, $19 million of which can be used for the primary election.
ReplyDeleteThe money represents a decrease from the $33 million he raised during the second quarter period, but is believed to match the total raised by his primary rival for the Democratic nomination, Senator Hillary Clinton, D-NY.
When former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney closes the books on his latest campaign finance report today, it will reveal a slow but steady shift from a candidacy built on thousands of individual donations to one relying increasingly on his own personal fortune.
ReplyDeleteThat Romney is spending some of his personal fortune, estimated to be between $190 million and $250 million, in part reflects a decline in donations to his campaign. He led all of the GOPBain Capital Partners, as well as from fellow Mormons in Utah, where Romney managed the 2002 Winter Olympics. His donations from those two states fell sharply between April and June. contenders in fundraising during the first three months of the year. But he relied in large part on maximum donations from business allies in Massachusetts, where he ran the venture capital company
Romney’s aides have signaled that he will report putting in about $6 million more of his own money over the past three months, and there are reasons for this. Romney’s poll numbers in New Hampshire are slipping; and with him still running fourth among the leading GOP contenders in national surveys, his campaign sent out a memo both to reassure supporters and to lower their expectations.
The phony express is running thin.
Great quotes from Jefferson and Wayne Dyer. (I read Your Erroneous Zones a long time ago; great book.)
ReplyDeleteJefferson must be turning in his grave at what our country has deteriorated into.
Who Hijacked Our Country
NATIONAL DEBT
ReplyDeleteU.S. $10 trillion in the red
Congress raised the limit once again as U.S. debt nears $10 trillion. That's about $30,000 for every American.
As the national debt heads toward the $10-trillion mark, generous Americans are sending checks to the federal government.
Donations to the Bureau of the Public Debt have topped $2.5 million so far this year. That's the highest amount since at least 1996.
It's not making much of a dent, though.
For the fifth time since 2001, Congress is raising the debt limit, increasing it by $850 billion to $9.815 trillion. The Senate approved the plan on a 53-42 vote Thursday. That's $9,815,000,000,000.00.
The House of Representatives has already signed off on the plan, without a direct vote.
According to the folks who follow this stuff closely, the national debt has been rising by an average of $1.36 billion per day since September of last year.
And each citizen now has a share of nearly $30,000.
But Congress has an easy solution to deal with the rising tide of red ink. Instead of fretting over it, members simply allow the government to borrow more money, much to the consternation of some critics.
''American families don't have the luxury Congress has,'' said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who opposed the increase.
``They can't get a new loan or new credit cards after they have maxed out their capability to borrow. Yet, instead, every day in this body we do essentially that.''
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said Congress had to approve more borrowing by early October or the government wouldn't be able to pay its bills.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who heads the Senate Budget Committee, said the national debt ''has exploded'' as a result of President Bush's tax cuts, forcing the federal government to borrow more money abroad.
Conrad said the United States is ''in hock'' to Japan, owing more than $600 billion, and China, owing more than $400 billion.
He said the rising debt comes at the worst possible time, right before a flood of baby boomers retires, but that Congress has no choice but to raise the debt ceiling.
''If we fail to act in a timely way on raising the debt limit, the creditworthiness of all United States instruments would be called into question,'' Conrad said. ``That could have a very severe effect on already shaky financial markets.''
This is the Bush economy the Repugs boast about?
The United States reaffirmed last year its leadership in world arms trade, cornering nearly 42 percent of the market as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan prompted a weapons shopping spree among neighboring nations, according to a congressional report set to be released Monday.
ReplyDeleteBut the overall volume of weapons trade shrunk almost 13 percent, dealing a blow to France and other Western European suppliers, which are facing stiff competition from across the Atlantic, said the Congressional Research Service in its annual survey of international arms sales.
The United States ranked first in international arms transfer agreements last year, concluding 16.9 billion dollars worth of them and securing 41.9 percent of the market, according to the report.
The Republican Foreign Policy: Arm Your Enemies So You Can Attack Them!
The only thing different about the Bush Administration's rhetoric about Iran and statements made regarding Iraq before the US invasion in 2003 are the words chosen, says journalist Seymour Hersh.
ReplyDelete"They've changed their rhetoric, really. The name of the game used to be nuclear threat," Hersh said on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, adding a moment later, "They've come to the realization that it's not selling, it isn't working. The American people aren't worried about Iran as a nuclear threat certainly as they were about Iraq. So they've switched, really."
The Bush Administration is all but set to authorize a campaign of limited, surgical airstrikes against Iranian targets, Hersh reports in the New Yorker's latest edition. In his piece, Hersh writes, "During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British 'were on board'... Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution."
The sites in Iran being targeted, however, reflect the change in the White House's selling of armed conflict with Iran.
"Instead of... hitting the various [nuclear] facilities we know that exist, instead they're going to hit the Iranians as payback for hitting us [in Iraq]," Hersh told Blitzer in the CNN interview.
Such targets, Hersh says, would include Iran's Revolutionary Guard headquarters and other sites of Iran's alleged support for the insurgency in Iraq.
Seymour Knows!
Check out this post at Earl's Place on reasons not to attack Iran:
ReplyDeleteEarl's Place
Another showing of the spineless Democrats:
ReplyDeleteThwarted in efforts to bring troops home from Iraq, Senate Democrats on Monday helped pass a defense policy bill authorizing another $150 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The 92-3 vote comes as the House planned to approve separate legislation Tuesday that requires President Bush to give Congress a plan for eventual troop withdrawals.
Everyone loves Postie.
ReplyDeleteAnyone watching Olberman tonight..........Seymore Hersh just said Bush and Cheney said they dont give a rats ass what attacking Iran does to the future of the repug party?????????????????
ReplyDeleteRe: Hitting the Iranians Quds Force instead of using the dishonest spin Iran is building a "bomb" just like Saddam was...(and lions and tigers and bears oh my, lions and tigers and bears oh my...... )
ReplyDeleteOnce you begin attacking a country which has modern counter measures and is not willing to rollover and play dead (like Saddam did), you are at war until somebody gives up, (which the Iraqi insurgency refuses to do) .....
The Sudanese had NADA in military assets to counter attack ..... so couldn't do much at all.
Saddam didn't want a war, so he just hunkered down and rode the bombing camaigns out .... any retailiation on his part would have enlarged and made longer the bombing campaigns.
Milosovic tried but with limited assets he couldn't do much, and was getting much heat from the serbs who didn't want to be bombed back to the stone age to keep Kosvo..... so in the end e was forced to accept thewestern powers solution to a European problem. (Unlike the Persians who have never surremdered to the western powers, (which is why the Shah needed SAVAC.)
The Iranians on the other hand, ain't about to lie down and take it, and know where to hit the western powers where it really hurts, THE STRAIGHTS of Hormuz. The Iranians are probably thinking of sending some of their Quds forces to set up insurgencies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia which could shut down 40% of the exported oil for the entire planet, for a year or so.
This means any attack on Iran could reverberate into an economic down turn that could make the Great Depression look like a minor economic burp by comparison. (Given the dire need for all advanced economies for oil to maintain their the statusquo,and any disruption like the Iranians can accomplish wouldturn off the spigot and cause Wall Street, ET AL to drop like a rock.
But given the C- pResident we now are stuck with, he don't have a clue as usual. Hopefully "he do learn" sometimes, but I doubt it.
In this case it looks very doubtful, but unlike the fiasco in Iraq where only those with friends or family members in the fight, attacking Iran would put an end to Americas post 9-11 shopping spree
Mike must have gotten MSNBC to watch Olbermann.
ReplyDeleteClif I think your article is what will happen, make the Great Depression look like a minor economic blurp.
ReplyDeleteHere are a few of the shows Anson Williams has directed:
ReplyDeletehy as: Director, Actor, Producer, Writer, Self, Archive Footage
Director:
2000s
1990s
1980s
"Sons & Daughters" (1 episode, 2006)
- Surprise Party (2006) TV Episode
"Body & Soul" (2002) TV Series (unknown episodes)
"Lizzie McGuire" (5 episodes, 2001-2002)
- Just Like Lizzie (2002) TV Episode
- Rise and Fall of Kate (2002) TV Episode
- Gordo's Bar Mitzvah (2002) TV Episode
- The Untitled Stan Jansen Project (2001) TV Episode
- Bad Girl McGuire (2001) TV Episode
"Sabrina, the Teenage Witch" (2 episodes, 2002)
... aka Sabrina (USA: promotional abbreviation)
... aka Sabrina Goes to College (USA: promotional title)
- Sabrina and the Candidate (2002) TV Episode
- Deliver Us from E-Mail (2002) TV Episode
"Charmed" (3 episodes, 2000-2001)
- The Demon Who Came in from the Cold (2001) TV Episode
- All Halliwell's Eve (2000) TV Episode
- Awakened (2000) TV Episode
"Titans" (1 episode, 2001)
- She Stoops to Conquer (2001) TV Episode
"Profiler" (1 episode, 2000)
- Mea Culpa (2000) TV Episode
"7th Heaven" (2 episodes, 1998-1999)
... aka 7th Heaven: Beginnings (USA: rerun title)
... aka Seventh Heaven
- Come Drive with Me (1999) TV Episode
- Cutters (1998) TV Episode
"Beverly Hills, 90210" (8 episodes, 1996-1999)
- Agony (1999) TV Episode
- I'm Married (1999) TV Episode
- The Morning After (1998) TV Episode
- Ricochet (1998) TV Episode
- Illegal Tender (1998) TV Episode
(3 more)
"Melrose Place" (9 episodes, 1996-1999)
- The Daughterboy (1999) TV Episode
- How Amanda Got Her Groove Back (1999) TV Episode
- Fiddling on the Roof (1998) TV Episode
- Last Train to Baghdad (1998) TV Episode
- A Shot in the Dark (1997) TV Episode
(4 more)
"Star Trek: Voyager" (4 episodes, 1997-1999)
... aka Voyager (USA: short title)
- Course: Oblivion (1999) TV Episode
- Demon (1998) TV Episode
- The Gift (1997) TV Episode
- Real Life (1997) TV Episode
"Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" (2 episodes, 1997-1998)
... aka DS9 (USA: promotional abbreviation)
... aka Deep Space Nine (USA: short title)
... aka Star Trek: DS9 (USA: short title)
- It's Only a Paper Moon (1998) TV Episode
- Statistical Probabilities (1997) TV Episode
"The Love Boat: The Next Wave" (2 episodes, 1998)
- Reunion (1998) TV Episode
- How Long Has This Been Going On? (1998) TV Episode
"The Net" (1998) TV Series (unknown episodes)
"Clueless" (1 episode, 1997)
- Sharing Cher (1997) TV Episode
"The Pretender" (1 episode, 1997)
- The Better Part of Valor (1997) TV Episode
"Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" (2 episodes, 1996)
- Mummy Dearest (1996) TV Episode
- King for a Day (1996) TV Episode
"Xena: Warrior Princess" (1 episode, 1996)
... aka Xena (Australia)
- Remember Nothing (1996) TV Episode
"The Cape" (1996) TV Series (unknown episodes)
"SeaQuest DSV" (6 episodes, 1995-1996)
... aka SeaQuest 2032 (USA: new title)
- Reunion (1996) TV Episode
- Equilibrium (1995) TV Episode
- Chains of Command (1995) TV Episode
- Brave New World (1995) TV Episode
- Blindsided (1995) TV Episode
(1 more)
"Live Shot" (1995) TV Series (unknown episodes)
"Robin's Hoods" (1 episode, 1995)
- Deja Vu (1995) TV Episode
"New York Undercover" (1994) TV Series (unknown episodes)
... aka Uptown Undercover
"Heaven Help Us" (1994) TV Series (unknown episodes)
"Diagnosis Murder" (4 episodes, 1993-1994)
- Reunion with Murder (1994) TV Episode
- Murder with Mirrors (1994) TV Episode
- The 13 Million Dollar Man (1993) TV Episode
- Murder at the Telethon (1993) TV Episode
All-American Murder (1992) (V)
A Quiet Little Neighborhood, a Perfect Little Murder (1990) (TV)
... aka A Perfect Little Murder (UK)
... aka Darling, Let's Kill the Neighbors
... aka Honey, Let's Kill the Neighbors
Little White Lies (1989) (TV)
Dream Date (1989) (TV)
"Baywatch" (1989) TV Series (unknown episodes)
... aka Baywatch Hawaii (USA: new title)
Your Mother Wears Combat Boots (1989) (TV)
"Just the Ten of Us" (1 episode, 1988)
- The Merry Mix-Up (1988) TV Episode
Lone Star Kid (1988) (TV)
"L.A. Law" (1 episode, 1987)
- Brackman Vasektimized (1987) TV Episode
"Hooperman" (1987) TV Series (unknown episodes)
"CBS Schoolbreak Special" (1 episode, 1986)
- The Drug Knot (1986) TV Episode
"ABC Afterschool Specials" (1 episode, 1985)
- No Greater Gift (1985) TV Episode
Actor:
2000s
1980s
1970s
"Sabrina, the Teenage Witch" .... Potsie (1 episode, 2003)
... aka Sabrina (USA: promotional abbreviation)
... aka Sabrina Goes to College (USA: promotional title)
- Sabrina in Wonderland (2003) TV Episode .... Potsie
"Son of the Beach" .... Warden Jack Beatty (1 episode, 2002)
- Jailhouse Notch: Part 2 (2002) TV Episode .... Warden Jack Beatty
"Baywatch" .... Councilman McKenna (2 episodes, 2000)
... aka Baywatch Hawaii (USA: new title)
- Dream Girl (2000) TV Episode .... Councilman McKenna
- Soul Survivor (2000) TV Episode .... Councilman McKenna
I Married a Centerfold (1984) (TV) .... Nick Bellows
"Happy Days" .... Warren 'Potsie' Weber / ... (42 episodes, 1974-1984)
... aka Happy Days Again (USA: syndication title)
- Fonzie's Spots (1984) TV Episode .... Warren 'Potsie' Weber
- White Christmas (1980) TV Episode .... Warren 'Potsie' Weber
- No Tell Motel (1980) TV Episode .... Warren 'Potsie' Weber
- The Roaring Twenties (1980) TV Episode .... Pretty Boy
- Mork Returns (1979) TV Episode .... Warren 'Potsie' Weber
(37 more)
"Fantasy Island" (1 episode, 1983)
- The Songwriter/Queen of the Soaps (1983) TV Episode
"Greatest Heroes of the Bible" .... Nabar (1 episode, 1979)
- The Story of the Ten Commandments (1979) TV Episode .... Nabar
"The Love Boat" .... Sean McGlynn (1 episode, 1977)
- The Old Man and the Runaway, The/Fine Romance, A/Painters (1977) TV Episode .... Sean McGlynn
"Laverne & Shirley" .... Warren 'Potsie' Weber (1 episode, 1976)
... aka Laverne & Shirley & Company (USA: syndication title)
... aka Laverne & Shirley & Friends (USA: syndication title)
- Excuse Me, May I Cut In? (1976) TV Episode .... Warren 'Potsie' Weber
Lisa, Bright and Dark (1973) (TV) .... Brian Morris
"Hallmark Hall of Fame" .... Brian Morris (1 episode, 1973)
... aka Hallmark Television Playhouse
- Lisa, Bright and Dark (1973) TV Episode .... Brian Morris
"Marcus Welby, M.D." (1 episode, 1973)
... aka Robert Young, Family Doctor
- The Panic Path (1973) TV Episode
"The Paul Lynde Show" .... Jimmy (1 episode, 1972)
- Whiz Kid Sizzles as Quiz Fizzles (1972) TV Episode .... Jimmy
"Love, American Style" .... Potsie (segment "Love and Happy Days") (1 episode, 1972)
- Love and the Happy Days/Love and the Newscasters (1972) TV Episode .... Potsie (segment "Love and Happy Days")
"Owen Marshall: Counselor at Law" .... Steve Baggot (1 episode, 1971)
- Eulogy for a Wide Receiver (1971) TV Episode .... Steve Baggot
Producer:
Lone Star Kid (1988) (TV) (executive producer)
"ABC Afterschool Specials" (executive producer) (1 episode, 1985)
- No Greater Gift (1985) TV Episode (executive producer)
Skyward Christmas (1981) (TV) (executive producer)
Skyward (1980) (TV) (executive producer)
... aka Ron Howard's 'Skyward'
Writer:
Lone Star Kid (1988) (TV)
"ABC Afterschool Specials" (1 episode, 1985)
- No Greater Gift (1985) TV Episode
Skyward (1980) (TV) (story)
... aka Ron Howard's 'Skyward'
Self:
2000s
1990s
1980s
1970s
"My First Time" .... Himself (1 episode, 2006)
- There's Something About Mary (2006) TV Episode .... Himself
The Fourth Annual TV Land Awards: A Celebration of Classic TV (2006) (TV) .... Himself
"TV Land Confidential" .... Himself (1 episode, 2005)
... aka TV Land Confidential: The Untold Stories (USA: second season title)
- Network Notes (2005) TV Episode .... Himself
Happy Days: 30th Anniversary Reunion (2005) (TV) .... Himself
"Good Morning America" .... Himself (1 episode, 2004)
- Episode dated 15 January 2004 (2004) TV Episode .... Himself
ABC's 50th Anniversary Celebration (2003) (TV) .... Himself
"Intimate Portrait" .... Himself (1 episode, 2002)
- Melissa Joan Hart (2002) TV Episode .... Himself
TVography: Happy Days (2001) (TV) .... Himself
Entertainment Tonight Presents: Happy Days - Secrets (1999) (TV) .... Himself
"Boy Meets World" .... Himself (1 episode, 1996)
- I Was a Teenage Spy (1996) TV Episode .... Himself
Happy Days Reunion Special (1992) (TV) .... Himself
Kraft Salutes Disneyland's 25th Anniversary (1980) (TV) .... Himself
"The Chuck Barris Rah-Rah Show" .... Himself (1 episode, 1978)
- Episode #1.3 (1978) TV Episode .... Himself
"The Merv Griffin Show" .... Himself (1 episode, 1977)
- Episode dated 21 July 1977 (1977) TV Episode .... Himself
"Easy Does It... Starring Frankie Avalon" .... Himself (1 episode, 1976)
... aka Easy Does It
- Episode dated 15 September 1976 (1976) TV Episode .... Himself
"The Magnificent Marble Machine" .... Himself (1 episode, 1976)
Looks like Potsie isn't the dunce he portrays on Happy Days!
Larry the only reason I can think Bush and Cheney are going like they are, is because they KNOW peak oil is already upon the planet, (May 2005 is the peak of crude oil + condensate), and we have been sliding down the back side of the Hubbert curve ever since, but after two and a half years of a sort of "plateau" things are gonna get real interesting, so Bush - Cheney blow up the middle east and blame the problems in the war which allows them to mainain power, (because of provisions of the patriot act and Bush signing statements ... and allow the US to destabilize the middle east so the US can control the remaining reserves and maintain the US hegomony over the economies of the planet.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time have corporations control things with their private security thugs(blackwater anyone?)
Too bad Bush - Cheney are sooooooo incompetent, other wise they would have had a better plan to control Iraq,(post attack) and a better plan to confront Iran.
Clif that may be the only consolation is Bush/Cheney's ignorance on doing anything right.
ReplyDeleteMike, Clif, Bartlebee, Larry --
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone think the "drum beat for war with Iran" will succeed this time?
And does anyone think Bush will bomb Iran anyway? Or is all this just talk to get the Iranians scared, in order to get them to stop with the IEDs (which they supposedly are responsbiel for?)
Spiegel Online: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was just in New York for the United Nations General Assembly. Once again, he said that he is only interested in civilian nuclear power instead of atomic weapons. How much does the West really know about the nuclear program in Iran?
ReplyDeleteSeymour Hersh: A lot. And it’s been underestimated how much the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) knows. If you follow what [IAEA head Mohamed] ElBaradei and the various reports have been saying, the Iranians have claimed to be enriching uranium to higher than a 4 percent purity, which is the amount you need to run a peaceful nuclear reactor. But the IAEA’s best guess is that they are at 3.67 percent or something. The Iranians are not even doing what they claim to be doing. The IAEA has been saying all along that they’ve been making progress but basically, Iran is nowhere. Of course the US and Israel are going to say you have to look at the worst case scenario, but there isn’t enough evidence to justify a bombing raid.
Spiegel Online: Is this just another case of exaggerating the danger in preparation for an invasion like we saw in 2002 and 2003 prior to the Iraq War?
Hersh: We have this wonderful capacity in America to Hitlerize people. We had Hitler, and since Hitler we’ve had about 20 of them. Khrushchev and Mao and of course Stalin, and for a little while Gadhafi was our Hitler. And now we have this guy Ahmadinejad. The reality is, he’s not nearly as powerful inside the country as we like to think he is. The Revolutionary Guards have direct control over the missile program and if there is a weapons program, they would be the ones running it. Not Ahmadinejad.
Spiegel Online: Where does this feeling of urgency that the US has with Iran come from?
Hersh: Pressure from the White House. That’s just their game.
I agree with Seymour Hersh that it is coming.
Members of the US secretariat in the United Nations were asked earlier this month to begin "searching for things that Iran has done wrong", The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
ReplyDeleteSome US diplomats believe the exercise — reminiscent of attempts by vice-president Dick Cheney and the former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld to build the case against Saddam Hussein before the Iraq war — will boost calls for military action by neo-conservatives inside and outside the administration.
One diplomat revealed the plans for an Iran dossier to Steven Clemons, a fellow with the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, who has previously revealed attempts by Mr Cheney's allies to pressurise President George W Bush into war.
He said: "There are people more beholden to the Cheney side who have people searching for things that Iran has done wrong — making the case. They've been given instructions to build a dossier. They've been scouring around for stuff over the last couple of weeks." He recently exposed how a member of Mr Cheney's office used private meetings with neo-conservatives at the American Enterprise think- tank to reveal the vice-president's frustration that Mr Bush had authorised a diplomatic strategy against Iran by his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice.
Last week, Newsweek magazine went further, claiming that David Wurmser, until last month Mr Cheney's Middle East adviser, had told fellow neo-conservatives that Mr Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch limited missile strikes against the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. The intention, it was said, would be to provoke a reaction from Teheran that would help justify wider US air strikes.
Mr Wurmser, an analyst in the Pentagon unit that tried to link Saddam Hussein to the September 11 attacks, denied the claims, saying, "That conspiracy is unrecognisable to anything I have ever seen or heard or done." But he refused to discuss Mr Cheney's views.
Bush and Cheney are itching to attack Iran.........I dont think its All talk, and I dont think Bush and Cheney really care abouut our troops........this is just like Iraq ALL about oil, power and money.
ReplyDeleteBush and Cheney want it, but like I said yesterday they KNOW this is for all the marbles and if their coup to implement martial law does not succeed they could be charged with treason and war crimes because to seize power and implement martial law they would likely have to murder between 10,000-100,000 Americans and imprison up to a million to inspire the kind of fear the need to cow people ande make them obiedient.
And to murder that many Americans and Iranians risks all including their very lives if the putsch fails.
Lydia, Cheney is as inent on attacking Iran as he was getting Saddam,(remember he is the person who lead the push agains saddam, and is behind this also). Given the fact unless the major oil corps can get new reserves to underwrite their stock values they are gonna decline in valuses, which means stock prices fall and sone very rich reichwingers willsee their stockm portfolios fall, the powers that be bebhind the idiots in the white Hose are pushing hard for it.
ReplyDeleteThe MSM corporate mouth pieces know where their money is coming from, so they will be as complant in the run up to this war as the were in the illegal attack on Iraq.
Sorry but from what I find and can compile around the tubes Cheney wants it real bad and is willng to do almots anthing he needs to do to get it.(which is why a good prrtio of his investments are betting against the dollar at this time, because he know the fall out foran attack on Iran.)
Bush and Cheney care no more for the future of this country then they do for the future of the GOP, think about it.
If these FOOLS attack Iran gasoline could go to $15 a gallon and our economy and way of life implodes 40% of our population could be unemployed and starving and there will be violence and riots out of which Bush will declare martial law "in the NAME of restoring order" then we will have a police state and a dictatorship with a madman in charge.
ReplyDeleteclif said...
ReplyDeleteLydia, Cheney is as inent on attacking Iran as he was getting Saddam,(remember he is the person who lead the push agains saddam, and is behind this also). Given the fact unless the major oil corps can get new reserves to underwrite their stock values they are gonna decline in valuses, which means stock prices fall and sone very rich reichwingers willsee their stockm portfolios fall, the powers that be bebhind the idiots in the white Hose are pushing hard for it.
The MSM corporate mouth pieces know where their money is coming from, so they will be as complant in the run up to this war as the were in the illegal attack on Iraq.
Sorry but from what I find and can compile around the tubes Cheney wants it real bad and is willng to do almots anthing he needs to do to get it.(which is why a good prrtio of his investments are betting against the dollar at this time, because he know the fall out foran attack on Iran.)
Bush and Cheney care no more for the future of this country then they do for the future of the GOP, think about it."
EXACTLY RIGHT..........you nailed it.
If Bush attacks Iran the economy will completely fall apart as the article Clif posted indicated.
ReplyDeleteCheck out this post on Bush attacking Iran:
ReplyDeleteIdentity Check
Cheney is pure evil.
ReplyDeleteYea will the democratic controlled Senate's not much better.
ReplyDeleteThe Senate just voted 92 to 3 to approve 150 BILLION dollars to continue the war in Iraq.
:|
go democrats....
ReplyDelete:|
ReplyDeleteNo seriously, just go.
Most Americans oppose fully funding President Bush's $190 billion request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a sizable majority support an expansion of a children's health insurance bill he has promised to veto, putting Bush and many congressional Republicans on the wrong side of public opinion on upcoming foreign and domestic policy battles.
ReplyDeleteThe new Washington Post-ABC News poll also shows deep dissatisfaction with the president and with Congress. Bush's approval rating stands at 33 percent, equal to his career low in Post-ABC polls. And just 29 percent approve of the job Congress is doing, its lowest approval rating in this poll since November 1995, when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. It also represents a 14-point drop since Democrats took control in January.
Despite discontent with Congress this year, the public rates congressional Republicans (29 percent approve) even lower than congressional Democrats (38 percent approve). When the parties are pitted directly against each other, the public broadly favors Democrats on Iraq, health care, the federal budget and the economy. Only on the issue of terrorism are Republicans at parity with Democrats.
Part of the displeasure with Congress stems from the stalemate between Democrats and the White House over Iraq policy. Most Americans do not believe Congress has gone far enough in opposing the war, with liberal Democrats especially critical of their party's failure to force the president into a significant change in policy.
At the same time, there is no consensus about the pace of any U.S. troop withdrawals from Iraq. In July, nearly six in 10 said they wanted to decrease the number of troops there, but now a slim majority, 52 percent, think Bush's plan for removing some troops by next summer is either the right pace for withdrawal (38 percent) or too hasty (12 percent would like a slower reduction and 2 percent want no force reduction). Fewer people (43 percent) want a quicker exit.
This Bartlebee against the will of the American People.
The Republican Party, known since the late 19th century as the party of business, is losing its lock on that title.
ReplyDeleteNew evidence suggests a potentially historic shift in the Republican Party's identity -- what strategists call its "brand." The votes of many fiscal conservatives and other lapsed Republicans are now up for grabs, which could alter U.S. politics in the 2008 elections and beyond.
Some business leaders are drifting away from the party because of the war in Iraq, the growing federal debt and a conservative social agenda they don't share. In manufacturing sectors such as the auto industry, some Republicans want direct government help with soaring health-care costs, which Republicans in Washington have been reluctant to provide. And some business people want more government action on global warming, arguing that a bolder plan is not only inevitable, but could spur new industries.
Already, economic conservatives who favor balanced federal budgets have become a much smaller part of the party's base. That's partly because other groups, especially social conservatives, have grown more dominant. But it's also the result of defections by other fiscal conservatives angered by the growth of government spending during the six years that Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress.
The most prominent sign of dissatisfaction has come from former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, long a pillar of Republican Party economic thinking. He blasted the party's fiscal record in a new book. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, he said: "The Republican Party, which ruled the House, the Senate and the presidency, I no longer recognize."
Some well-known business leaders have openly changed allegiances. Morgan Stanley Chairman and Chief Executive John Mack, formerly a big Bush backer, now supports Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. John Canning Jr., chairman and chief executive of Madison Dearborn Partners, a large private-equity firm, now donates to Democrats after a lifetime as a Republican. Recently, he told one Democratic Party leader: "The Republican Party left me" -- a twist on a line Ronald Reagan and his followers used when they abandoned the Democratic Party decades ago to protest its '60s and '70s-era liberalism.
The Republican Party is losing their Big Business Ties!
Larry and bartlbee, you have to undersand that both the democrats and repulicans both have a lot invested in "wall street" and their backers(the moneyed ones, who BTW are the only ones who really count to them) do also, they can't allow the truth to slip out just yet because once the meltdown begins and the sheeple find out all hell is gonna break loose, (worldwide) beause nobody is imune from the true effects from peak oil any more then they are imune from global warming(but the peak oil effects will be swifter, and more deadly to the poor and weak among us. The rich can run to their gated communties, but when the oil gets real scarce what the rich do to enrich themselves, will cease to be of value thus they will have a paper saying they have money(in a bank,) but that isn't what is needed to survive after the truth becomes a meme around ths planet.
ReplyDeleteBut the rich can buy a lttle more for a little longer until everyting becomes scarce, because limted oil means limited fuel for food, trasportation, etc.... and being in a place far from where food can easily be grown with limted fossile fuels and fertilizers, is not gonna bode well when TSHTF.
Larry you don't mean people like Lee Iacocca?
ReplyDeleteIacocca: "There's Something Wrong Philosophically With How Bush's Brain Works"
Lee Iacocca is no fan of President Bush. "I campaigned for him because I knew his mother and dad for 30 years, and I figured he was from pretty good stock," the auto-industry legend tells Details magazine. "But Jeb was being groomed, too. They got the wrong kid. There's something wrong philosophically with how Bush's brain works. I feel sorry for him. I used to think [Al] Gore was nuts in his worrying about global warming, but he was ahead of his time."
You mean people like him, who no longer support the illegal war and foolishness of Bush ET AL??
Clif I had always thought Iacocca was a Repug since he didn't run for the Democrats years ago, but Bush can change even the wealthiest of neocons it appears.
ReplyDeleteWell larry, with Jimmy Carter proved right by historical trends, and people like Iacocca saying Gore was right all along (even if ole "Lee" missed it)the reichwing is losing some of their more dishonest talkng points against the democrats.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder the trools are hiding under their beds ...LOL
A surprising study of elderly people suggests that those who see themselves as self-disciplined, organized achievers have a lower risk for developing Alzheimer’s disease than people who are less conscientious.
ReplyDeleteA purposeful personality may somehow protect the brain, perhaps by increasing neural connections that can act as a reserve against mental decline, said study co-author Robert Wilson of Chicago’s Rush University Medical Center.
Since achievers seldom get Alzheimers's then it looks like Bush is headed for drool city.
Fantastic post
ReplyDeleteLarry said...
ReplyDeleteThe Republican Party, known since the late 19th century as the party of business, is losing its lock on that title.
New evidence suggests a potentially historic shift in the Republican Party's identity -- what strategists call its "brand." The votes of many fiscal conservatives and other lapsed Republicans are now up for grabs, which could alter U.S. politics in the 2008 elections and beyond.
Some business leaders are drifting away from the party because of the war in Iraq, the growing federal debt and a conservative social agenda they don't share. In manufacturing sectors such as the auto industry, some Republicans want direct government help with soaring health-care costs, which Republicans in Washington have been reluctant to provide. And some business people want more government action on global warming, arguing that a bolder plan is not only inevitable, but could spur new industries.
Already, economic conservatives who favor balanced federal budgets have become a much smaller part of the party's base. That's partly because other groups, especially social conservatives, have grown more dominant. But it's also the result of defections by other fiscal conservatives angered by the growth of government spending during the six years that Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress.
The most prominent sign of dissatisfaction has come from former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, long a pillar of Republican Party economic thinking. He blasted the party's fiscal record in a new book. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, he said: "The Republican Party, which ruled the House, the Senate and the presidency, I no longer recognize."
Some well-known business leaders have openly changed allegiances. Morgan Stanley Chairman and Chief Executive John Mack, formerly a big Bush backer, now supports Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. John Canning Jr., chairman and chief executive of Madison Dearborn Partners, a large private-equity firm, now donates to Democrats after a lifetime as a Republican. Recently, he told one Democratic Party leader: "The Republican Party left me" -- a twist on a line Ronald Reagan and his followers used when they abandoned the Democratic Party decades ago to protest its '60s and '70s-era liberalism.
The Republican Party is losing their Big Business Ties!"
I called that one a year or two ago Larry, I said the Repug party will either splinter into several parties or become irrelevent like the Whig Party................Accoding to Seymore Hersh Cheney and Bush "dont give a rats ass" if the repug party implodes because of their wars of folly.
"headed"? larry ...
ReplyDeleteFrom all I see of that idiot he's already there. (and has been for a while)
Clif I guess it means his dementia will only get worse, if possible.
ReplyDeleteCitigroup Inc., the nation's largest financial institution, warned Monday its third-quarter earnings are likely to decline 60 percent, as it takes more than $3 billion in writedowns for securities backed by underperforming mortgages and loans tied to corporate buyouts.
ReplyDeleteThe announcement from Citigroup came as the Swiss bank UBS AG said it will post a loss of up to $690 million in the third quarter partly due to losses linked to U.S. subprime mortgages.
Here is another result of Bush's economy!
Jon Stewert has Jack Cafferty on, and is doing a good job of trashing Wolf (AIPAC) Blizer ..........
ReplyDeleteCafferty has a new book out that looks to be good.
ReplyDeleteIf wishes were horses:
ReplyDeleteIf wishes were horses, most Americans would have known the sordid history of their country’s contemptuous attitude toward smaller countries of this planet. They would have known, for example, that back in the 80s, a tiny country by the name of Nicaragua was subjected to violent assault by their country in which tens of thousands of people died with that country itself substantially destroyed. They would have known that rather than responding by setting off bombs in Washington, a la the American way, the poor Nicaraguans went to the World Court that ordered the U.S. not only to stop the atrocities but also to pay reparations. The U.S. scornfully responded by escalating the attacks. The Nicaraguans next went to the Security Council who ruled in their favor. The U.S. derisively vetoed the resolution. The Nicaraguans then obtained a similar resolution from the General Assembly. The U.S. and Israel opposed that one for two years in a row.
If Wishes Were Horses makes sense to me. Bush obviously never cared about the attitude toward smaller countries, only what he could get from them.
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't necessarily need a Quds force to screw you over!
ReplyDeleteDo not underestimate Iranian's LOVE for their country!
Iran is not the little Arab colony that your English masters have cut out of card board and placed on desert! We take pride in our independence and political integrity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere have been some evil deeds done in the past by this country..................But Bush and Cheney have taken them to a new level.
ReplyDeleteSo Naj. You're from Iran?
ReplyDeleteAre you in Iran now or are you here in the US?
Jefferson's racism might be repugnant to US, but to the Chimpleton "core" it's de rigeur.
ReplyDeleteLydia do me a BIG favor,
ReplyDeleteNext time you see Michael Medved,
just slap him ....
Okay Clif, I will.
ReplyDeleteHe's unbelievable.
AP:
ReplyDeleteBlackwater USA is an out-of-control outfit indifferent to Iraqi civilian casualties, according to a critical report released Monday by a key congressional committee.
Among the most serious charges against the prominent security firm is that Blackwater contractors sought to cover up a June 2005 shooting of an Iraqi man and the company paid, with State Department approval, the families of others inadvertently killed by its guards.
With the Bush Nazi Guards: You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet!
The Democratic presidential candidates continued to raise significantly more money during the last three months than their Republican counterparts, according to official and unofficial third-quarter fund-raising tallies that were released yesterday.
ReplyDeleteSenator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, raised at least $20 million over the summer, more than $19 million of which could be spent on the primary — showing that he continued to be a formidable fund-raiser. It was unclear whether he still led in fund-raising, as he did this spring, because Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton did not release her tally. (Her aides had said that they expected to raise a similar amount.) John Edwards raised $7 million, and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico raised $5.2 million.
Why they haven't earned anything!
FAILING sub-prime mortgages have claimed their first US bank — online lender NetBank was shut down by US Government regulators at the weekend.
ReplyDeleteSoaring defaults of home loans given to poor-quality borrowers in the US have closed dozens of mortgage companies and stressed British bank Northern Rock, but web-only lender NetBank is the first federally regulated bank in the US to go to the wall.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was named receiver by the Office of Thrift Supervision, NetBank's primary regulator. With about $US2.5 billion ($A2.8 billion) in assets, NetBank is the 58th-largest bank failure in FDIC history.
NetBank is the largest US bank closure since 1993 and the first since February, when small regional lender Metropolitan Savings Bank of Pittsburgh shut its doors. FDIC did not cite the sub-prime crisis as a reason for Metropolitan Savings' closure.
Bush's C grade enonomics really worked here!
According to numerous studies, the United States has the highest level of income inequality among all rich nations. For example, low-income households, or those at the 10th percentile of the income distribution, spend approximately $8,900 per year per child, while high-income families, or those at the 90th percentile, spend $50,000 per child.
ReplyDelete“People like to think of America as the land of opportunities,” says Dr. Kathryn Wilson, associate professor of economics at Kent State University. “The irony is that our country actually has less social mobility and more inequality than most developed countries.”
The land of inequality: Thanks to George W Bush!
Presidents don't have indefinite veto power over which records are made public after they've left office, a federal judge ruled Monday.
ReplyDeleteIn a narrowly crafted ruling, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly invalidated part of President Bush's 2001 executive order, which allowed former presidents and vice presidents to review executive records before they are released under the Freedom of Information Act.
By law, the National Archives has the final say over the release of presidential records and Kollar-Kotelly ruled that Bush's executive order "effectively eliminates" that discretion. It allows former presidents to delay the release of records "presumably indefinitely," she said.
The judge ordered the National Archives not to withhold any more documents based on that section of the executive order.
The ruling was made in a lawsuit filed by the American Historical Association and other organizations, which argued that Bush's Executive Order 13,233 was an "impermissible exercise of the executive power."
Finally a judge saying no to Bush and his secrecy!
The housing market has a long way to go before stabilizing after the subprime crisis, spelling bad news for consumers in the world's biggest economy, former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan said on Monday.
ReplyDeleteGreenspan, who has been outspoken throughout the credit crunch, said more house price declines were likely given a surfeit of supply but pointed to signs the lending crisis could be coming to end as demand for more risky assets grows.
However, he warned any speculative market fever must be allowed to run its course to enable a full recovery.
"As in similar situations of inventory excess, I would expect home price declines to continue until the rate of inventory liquidation reaches its peak," Greenspan told an audience at Reuters in London.
The faltering Bush economy!
A suicide bomber approached a bus carrying police officers and civilian employees of the Interior Ministry early today and blew himself up, killing at least 12 people, including at least one child, officials and witnesses said.
ReplyDeleteThe bombing, at the beginning of rush hour in western Kabul, was the second suicide attack in four days against a bus carrying Afghan security forces.
The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, according to Reuters, which quoted an unnamed Taliban spokesman. On Saturday, the insurgency also claimed responsibility for a suicide attack on a bus in the capital packed with Afghan Army soldiers, which killed at least 30 people, including 28 soldiers and two civilians.
Didn't Bush say he had won this war?
The housing market has a long way to go before stabilizing after the subprime crisis...
ReplyDeleteActually Larry, if houses started selling today, it would take 16 years to exhaust the current inventory of unsold properties.
Yes, you read this correctly: 16 years.
The flipside of this mess is the benefits it affords two markets:
1. investors
2. first time homebuyers
We have owned 5 homes over the years but have chosen to rent while Jim completes his second degree in nursing.
However, in December 2008, we will be back in the market and the inventory choices will be staggering.
Naj has a great blog with GORGEOUS pictures from Iran. Iran has a ski resort similar to Aspen, Colorado - as well as pastures and farm land and flower fields.
ReplyDeleteIt is a secular country full of doctors and scientists. No one wants war. Naj is beseeching us to somehow get through to our president.
How can Bush trump up a case for bombing anyone? How can we allow this madman to persist?
How can Neocon like Norman Podhertz get hours in front of Bush to lay out his case for why we must bomb Iran, yet other wise peaceful leaders can't get 2 seconds with Bush?
Larry said...
ReplyDeleteAnson Williams has made the transition from acting to directing and producing some of the most popular shows on television.
I'd say Anson Williams has proven he is no "Potsie."
Walk up to any American older than a certain age, and see if Potsy isn't the only thing they know him for, Larry.
I'm not arguing his credentials. I'm arguing the perception, and in America, as Lydia can probably tell you first hand, perception means everything.
The private security firm Blackwater USA, which has faced mounting criticism following an incident earlier this month in which armed guards from the group purportedly killed 11 unarmed Iraqi civilians, has numerous links to the White House as well as many current and former Republicans.
ReplyDeleteThe connections include the firm's chief operating officer Joseph Schmitz, who was tapped by President Bush in 2002 to "oversee and police the Pentagon's military contracts as the Defense Department's Inspector General."
The relevation was first reported by Ben Van Heuvelen in Salon.
Serving until 2005, Schmitz went on to preside over "the largest increase of military-contracting spending in history" and joined Blackwater just a month after his departure from the Pentagon, according to Van Heuvelen.
What a coincidence that Bush would pick this future Blackwater Executive.
Ford Motor Co said on Tuesday that U.S. sales fell 21 percent in September, hit by a decline in showroom sales.
ReplyDeleteThe Bush enonomy continues to produce failure.
"Why do they hate us?" Much ink has been spilled over the last few years in attempts to answer that question. By contrast, not enough attention has been paid to what is, in some ways, a more perplexing conundrum: "Why don't they like us as much as they used to?"
ReplyDeleteThe "they" in this latter question is our very, very closest allies. By this, I don't mean France or even Canada, democracies that are part of the Western alliance but have never particularly warmed to the idea of U.S. leadership, whether political or cultural. The French have always been huffy about NATO and downright nasty about Hollywood; the Canadians have actually formed their entire national identity around being "not-Americans." No, the more interesting question is why support for U.S. leadership has declined among our traditional friends: Britain, Poland, Germany, Italy, Holland.
And it has declined—drastically. Since 2002, according to the newest edition of the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Trends survey, support for "U.S. leadership in world affairs"—that's whether they want to follow our political lead, not whether they think we're nice—has plunged by 30 percentage points in Germany, 26 percentage points in Italy, 24 percentage points in Poland, 23 percentage points in Holland, and 22 percentage points in Britain. More generally speaking, support for U.S. leadership, which was at 64 percent across Europe in 2002, is now at 36 percent, though that figure includes the stroppier countries, too.
I realize, of course, that there have been a million of these polls in recent years, and I also realize that they sometimes hide as much as they conceal. A couple of years ago, I wrote about one set of data that broke down these numbers by education and income. As it turned out, there were strong pockets of "pro-Americanism," even in the most "anti-American" countries. In Europe, for example, it turned out that the upwardly mobile felt more warmly about American power than the establishment. Generally speaking, people confuse "anti-Americanism" with "anti-global capitalism," those who dislike one generally disliking the other, as well.
Yet these latest numbers appear, according to Ron Asmus of the German Marshall Fund, to apply across the board. They also look particularly grim when compared with other famous historical low points. Even in 1982, when British and German cities were convulsed with anti-Reagan, anti-Trident missile, anti-Cold War demonstrations, support for U.S. leadership across the continent was far higher than it is now.
Most curious of all, though, is the fact that our friends' faith in us has weakened just as their perceptions of potential threats are growing ever more similar to ours. True, more Europeans worry about global warming than we do, but the difference (85 percent vs. 70 percent) is not as great as one would think. And we all worry about everything else—international terrorism, a nuclear Iran, global epidemics—in almost equal measure.
This last point strikes me as most interesting, for it indicates that what our closest friends really dislike is not our traditional pushiness, our violent movies, or even our current president (though they don't like him much, either), but our incompetence. A full third blame the perceived decline of the transatlantic alliance on the "mismanagement of Iraq." Not the invasion of Iraq—the "mismanagement" of Iraq. Which makes sense. If you're really worried about Iran, do you want to put your faith in the United States, the country that bungled Iraq? If you really care about Islamic fundamentalism, do you want to be led by the country that, distracted by Iraq, failed to predict the return of the Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan?
There are other factors too, of course. As I (and many others) have written before, we've been bad at looking after our allies over the past five years, bad at thanking them or compensating them for military contributions to Iraq, bad at maintaining very basic pieces of public diplomacy, like student-exchange programs. Still, NATO will not fall apart just because our president has been rude to his German counterpart or a few Britons don't get scholarships. NATO will fall apart, however, if its American leaders are perceived as inept. And even if the surge works, even if the roadside bombs vanish, inept is a word that will always be used about the Iraqi invasion.
And yes, it does matter. There was, in fact, a "coalition of the willing" in Iraq, at least to start with. There wouldn't be now, even though both the French and German leaders are more positive about the United States than their predecessors, even though most of our allies worry more about the Middle East than ever. Countries that would once have supported U.S. foreign policy on principle, simply out of solidarity or friendship, will now have to be cajoled, or paid, to join us. Count that—along with the lives of soldiers and civilians, the dollars and equipment—as another cost of the war. No one wants to be on the losing team.
Thanks to Bush the world thinks the U.S is weak.
Lydia: Thank you for posting about our founding fathers, I think many have forgotten what they said and how much they mattered....I wish that there were more documentaries and shows on them, highlighting what they did and how such a small group of people were able to create something so much bigger than themselves, and inspired Courage to fight a Much Bigger Power...
ReplyDeleteAlso Ed Begley's show is wonderful- it is nice to see a show - a green show make it on TV, I was so happy to see it back this year...and also that he is showing what others are doing ( ie Bill Nye)....
Larry, thank you for highlighting what is going on...and some of the mess..I don't know what will happen, I do think it is odd that no one has pointed out to Bush and Cheney that Iran is a bad idea, esp in regards to economic gains- you think that alone would sway them...usually money and oil can dent their plans...but I guess I worry that the egomanical path that they are on is not about greed even at this point...
Larry said...
ReplyDeleteThanks to Bush the U.S is weak.
Fixed your post, Lar
Lydia Cornell said...
ReplyDeleteMike, Clif, Bartlebee, Larry --
Does anyone think the "drum beat for war with Iran" will succeed this time?
If Congress doesn't do anything to reign him in, yes.
He'll definately do it. The ammendment which proclaims Iran a terrorist organization and asks the UN to label them as one gives Bush the documentation he needs to say "hey, I had to attack congress said they were terrorists!"
Three senior House Democrats proposed an income tax surcharge Tuesday to finance the approximately $150 billion annual cost of operations in Iraq, saying it is unfair to pass the cost of the war on to future generations.
ReplyDeleteThe plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15 percent surcharge, Obey said.
The plan’s sponsors acknowledged the tax measure is unlikely to pass, and admitted they lacked support from top Democrats, a fact immediately reinforced by the No. 2 Democrat in the House.
“This is not a policy which the Speaker or I have signed off on,” said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
Who cares what policy Pelosi or Hoyer sign off on?
The numbers of millionaire households globally grew by 14 percent in 2006 from 2005 and now control a third of the estimated $100 trillion in wealth, a new study by Boston Consulting Group released on Tuesday found.
ReplyDeleteThese 9.6 million families, comprising 0.7 percent of world's households, now control some $33.2 trillion, the BCG study found. About half are located in the United States and Canada, a quarter in Europe and a fifth in the Asia-Pacific region, it said.
The study is the latest to quantify a continued widening of the global gap between rich and poor, with the rich getting richer by saving and investing more.
The study, seventh in a series, found that assets held by non-wealthy households - defined as those with less than $100,000 in financial assets - declined slightly from 2001 to 2006. But assets held by households with more than $100,000 climbed from $51.4 trillion to $84.5 trillion during the same period.
"Assets under management was further concentrated among the wealthiest households, with the richest 0.1 percent - those with more than $5 million in assets under management - owning 17.5 percent of global wealth," the survey said.
These are the executives of Halliburton and Blackwater!
The View" co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck tried to convince Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) that the escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq was "a success."
ReplyDeleteDuring a discussion on the war, Pelosi asked the View-ers, "How much longer should our troops sacrifice their lives when the government of that country is not willing to make the political change necessary?"
But Hasselbeck interrupted. "How can you turn your head at the percentage of deaths that have gone down, when in the past, people have been quick to jump on? If there was a surge in deaths, they would say, 'this surge is a failure,' but now we're seeing a reduction in those civilian deaths. And we're giving them the space that they do need for that political change that is happening. In my mind, and I'm sure many others, that it a success."
Pelosi shot back, with loud applause from the audience, "Elisabeth, if I may, with all due respect, there's still a lot people dying."
Pelosi speaks one verbage but acts upon another.
Pelosi was whining on the View that Rather than spending billions and trillions in iraq we could be spending it on Health care and Breast Cancer.................If Thats what Her and Congress REALLY believe They shouldnt have just given Bush another 150 Billion to wage perpetual war with no clear coherent plan,
ReplyDeletePelosi said "its a shame THEY are wasting all this money on the war...........She SHOULD have said its a shame WE are wasting all this money because HER Congress JUST approved another 150 Billion of that waste she CLAIMS to oppose.
Pelosi wants all those photo ops and fluffy interviews, but she won't do the will of the people.
ReplyDeleteSeptember auto sales are expected to be weak because of the credit crunch, high gas prices and the troubled housing market, reflecting an overall slowdown for the year but little effect from the brief strike against General Motors Corp., industry analysts say.
ReplyDeleteJesse Toprak, chief economist for auto information site Edmunds.com, predicts Honda Motor Co. will be the only automaker to report an increase in sales, helped by the arrival of the 2008 Accord. Automakers are scheduled to report September sales Tuesday.
Auto sales will probably be down 4% from a year earlier, JPMorgan auto analyst Himanshu Patel said.
Patel predicts Ford Motor Co. will be among the weakest performers, with double-digit declines, as the automaker cut back on incentives as well as sales to rental car companies. Patel said that GM should be flat and that Chrysler would also see some declines.
Lehman Bros. analyst Brian Johnson anticipates that the industry will end 2007 with full-year sales of 16 million vehicles. If so, that would be the slowest year since 1998, when a 54-day strike crippled GM's production, and the total would be 1 million vehicles fewer than the peak of 17.3 million in 2000, according to Ward's AutoInfoBank.
Another tumble in the Bush economy!
Rev Yearwood:
ReplyDeleteYesterday I announced that the US Attorney dropped the charges against me of assaulting a police officer.
Today, Tuesday Oct 2nd, I was in line for the Blackwater hearing on Capitol Hill at 9:15 in the morning. When I got to the front of the line at 11:30, Capitol Police stopped the line. I stood there for two hours while the same officers who leapt on me three weeks ago outside of the Petraeus hearing, pointed and stared at me. I stood there, humming “we shall overcome.”
Congresswoman Maxine Waters showed up at 1:30 and saw me standing there. She demanded that I be let into the hearing. Cops were swarming the door, and the honorable Congresswoman from California escorted me into the hearing. Once I got in, three cops stood near me, so I would not forget that I was in their territory.
It is just incredible that as a peace activist, a former Chaplain candidate in the Air Force Reserve, and a Minister, I would be treated so disrespectfully in the halls of Congress.
This is Bush's Nazi version of America!
:|
ReplyDeleteBut I don't wanna be a nazi.
A cheap dollar may be boosting exports, but it's also putting U.S. companies on sale. Foreign firms are snatching up U.S. based companies at the fastest pace in seven years. When the topic is foreign takeovers of U.S. firms it doesn't take much to prompt concerns about loss of jobs and control. But many observers see these transactions as an absolutely normal and inevitable part of globalization.
ReplyDeleteThe Bush idea of a growing economy!
In a speech here today, Senator Barack Obama castigated political leaders of both parties for failing to vigorously challenge the administration’s Iraq policy in 2002, declaring: “The American people weren’t just failed by a president, they were failed by much of Washington.”
ReplyDeleteAs the fifth anniversary approaches of the Congressional vote that gave President Bush authority to wage war, Mr. Obama is seeking once again highlight his early opposition to invading Iraq. In a 30-minute address on the campus of DePaul University, Mr. Obama did not mention his rivals by name, but said voters should keep the distinctions in mind among the Democratic presidential candidates.
“This is not just a matter of debating the past,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s about who has the best judgment to make the critical decisions of the future.” Because you might think that Washington would learn from Iraq, but we’ve seen in this campaign just how bent out of shape Washington gets when you challenge its assumptions.”
While his position of going forward in Iraq is largely similar to his leading rivals, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards, Mr. Obama said members of Congress should be held accountable for voting “to give president the open-ended authority to wage war that he uses to this day.” Mr. Edwards, then a Senator from North Carolina, has expressed regret for approving the war, and Mrs. Clinton has said she cannot go back but added that knowing what she knows now she wouldn’t have voted for it.
“This election is about ending the Iraq War, but even more it’s about moving beyond it,” said Mr. Obama, who was elected to the Senate in 2004. “And we’re not going be safe in a world of unconventional threats with the same old conventional thinking that got us into Iraq.”
Mr. Obama used Iraq to illuminate a broader view of the country’s foreign policy, focusing half of his remarks to other threats facing the United States. He proposed setting a goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons in the world, saying America should greatly reduce its stockpiles to lower the threat of nuclear terrorism.
“We will not pursue unilateral disarmament,” Mr. Obama said. “As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong nuclear deterrent, but we’ll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons.”
Hillary can't make that claim.
Hey guys did anyone see the owner of blackwater today defending his people for all their killing
ReplyDeleteI always liked potsy webber on happy days and even if he is typecast he still made it big
ReplyDeleteI always liked Ed Begley Jr too -- I actually have a scene on his from St Elsewhere saved on my computer .. I just wont tell you which one ;)
ReplyDeleteFunny thing about Anson Williams though and always doing the singing ... I seem to remember one episode where they had Ralph Malph sing one of the songs and I thought he had the better voice.
Oh well, back to the topic at hand I suppose ... I read where the So-Called-Christian-Coalition is thinking of finding a 3rd party candidate. Wouldnt it be a darn shame of the Republicans had their votes split for a change?
thank you for posting about Rev Yearwood, here in the comments, and I wish the media had spoken about it..we are living in a Police state and no one is reporting it...or commenting on it...I will write to Maxine tomorrow...and thank her...
ReplyDeleteBTW don't think a US attack on Iran WILL cut China's acess to oil;
ReplyDeleteRussia forging energy dialog with China
Amid its cooling relations with the EU, Russia has so far failed to make China an alternative market for shipping its fuels. Beijing, in turn, is reluctant to meet Moscow half-way and pay a better price for Russian oil, gas and electricity. Without this, Chinese exports would never be as economically efficient for Moscow as the traditional Western routes. . .
. . . State-run Rosneft, which is authorized to export hydrocarbon resources to China, said it saw no reason to sell cheap oil when Western partners showed extensive demand and were making much better offers. Beijing, on the contrary, is expecting cheap oil to flow through the proposed pipeline once it is completed. (As of now, oil is shipped to China by railway tanks).
Zubkov has finally achieved a vague compromise: Russia and China sign a pipeline agreement with Beijing shouldering all costs of the Skovorodino-Daqin link construction, but the agreement does not guarantee cheap oil exports. In other words, he arranged for China to take on all the risks and then have to negotiate a pricing policy which would suit Rosneft, making its eastern exports quite as lucrative as western ones. The two prime ministers are expected to make the final decision in Moscow in November, but arrangements are subject to change by then.
"Economics compels us to firmly uphold our position," said Igor Nikolayev, director of strategic analysis for the auditing consultancy FBK. "Our oil and gas production dynamics are less than impressive, while the domestic market demand is on the rise. Politically, we would be happy to agree to China's offer, but economically, it is unrealistic for Russia today," he added.
Wanna bet if Bush et al is stupid enough to atack Iran, that Russia will supply China(it will be mch more politically correct at that time), cut exports to Europe(unless they politically toe the Russian line)and laughs as the US is swallowed in a total middle east quagmire, any part of europe which sides with the US squirms like a fish caught on a hook, with little oil coming out of the middle east and Russian boycotts of the offending european nations.
Bet europe doesn'tside wit the US for long, even the Brtish who are facing energy shortfalls at this time with out any added cuts.
Thats EXACTLY What I said Yesterday Clif........Russia WILL supply China with oil if we attack Iran.
ReplyDeleteI've said it all along that Russia and China will aide Iran if we attack them or have Israel do it by proxy.
ReplyDeleteAnd if Der Fuhrer don't think that Iran will retaliate if attacked than they are just as delusional as Der Fuhrer is.
God Bless.
I'm not so sure Russia will directly come to the aid of the Iranians, because they are trying to corner the market in energy supplies in Europe and possibly some of Asia, and they know the US will militarily collapse if we get stuck in any enlongated struggle against the Iranians, (including Iranian retailiation in Iraq for any bombing campagn).
ReplyDeleteChina has reason to do much if the Russians supply the oil China needs to continue it's economic developement, and in fact except for China and Russia doin small covert aid to Iran while standing on the side lines while the US completely destoys the middle east,hence lowering the total oil output of the planet and raising the values of Russia's reserves which will enrich Russia much more than even now. A second side effect will bedestroing the health of both US and european economies, thus making Chna and Russia the economic leaders of the planet. This is exactly what Putin and China wold want, because in the afer math of such a war they would hold both the milatry and economic advatage for half a century like the US did post WW2.
China could claim hegomony over Asia and Russia over Europe with Africa divided up Between them. The US left in America as a declining power at the mercy of both economes and the southern hispanic powers used as proxies to destabilise any resurgence of the US as a world power.
Our debt wold make sure we can not "buy" the resorces we would need to maintain our miliary dominence. And with much of central and South America moving toward the democratic socuialist side, they wouldn't be allied with the US but hold resentments for the 75 years of the US interference in their inernal affairs.
Bush and Cheney are setting up the US in a worse way then Breznev - Andropoviv did the USSR when it attacked Afghanstan.
Bush and Cheney are working hard to turn us into a 3rd world country and a 2nd rate power. The will go down in History as the 2 most imfamous people in our history.
ReplyDeleteLarry said...
ReplyDeleteThe plan, unveiled by Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., John Murtha, D-Pa., and Jim McGovern, D-Mass., would require low- and middle-income taxpayers to add 2 percent to their tax bill. Wealthier people would add a 12 to 15 percent surcharge, Obey said.
Hey, I don't support this war, but I'll be forced to pay 12% more for it????
Lydia, that article was both inspired and magnificent.
ReplyDeleteI have one thing to add, if I may.
Under the Shah of Iran, freedom and democracy did’t exist, yet we supported that regime.
Freedom and democracy did exist in Iran up until the time the US overthrew their government in a CIA backed coup, and installed the Shaw in its place.
McCain says you will join the army if Bush asks you to:
ReplyDeleteRepublican White House hopeful John McCain said Wednesday that President Bush made a mistake after the Sept. 11 terror attacks by encouraging people to shop rather than urging citizens to join the military or volunteer.
"I believe that the big mistake that our leadership of our nation made after 9-11 is we told people to go shopping and we told them to take a trip," McCain told students at a military prep school in this early voting state.
A month after the attacks, Bush said, "We cannot let the terrorists achieve the objective of frightening our nation to the point where we don't conduct business or people don't shop."
People would have joined the military or volunteer groups had the president urged them to do so, McCain said. "I think Americans would have responded overwhelmingly and I believe they still will," he said.
Will you join Bush's army so you can be sent to Iraq?
Bush and the Republicans still hate poor children:
ReplyDeletePresident Bush, in a confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance.
It was only the fourth veto of Bush's presidency, and one that some Republicans feared could carry steep risks for their party in next year's elections. The Senate approved the bill with enough votes to override the veto, but the margin in the House fell short of the required number.
Actually Tomat, the shah's father was in power thanks to the British (who controlled Iran after the break up of the Ottoman empire post WW1)until the Shah's father backed Hitler and the Nazi's against the British, in the run up to WW2. Tt that time the allies(mainly British) forced the Shah's father out and installed the Shah on the throne a the age of 16, by the early 1950's the people of Iran forced the Shah to abdicate for elections, freedom and democracy (you know that self determination thingy the UN was pushing at the behest of the US and against Soviet domination of it's satelite states), the British didn't like the result, so they tried in vain to change things back but failed so they turned to the Dulles Brothers to send in the CIA, and the rest is history .......
ReplyDeleteBasically put, since the end of WW1 either European powers or the US has been meddling in the affairs of Iran, Iraq and the rest of the middle east.
We wonder why they might be anry with us?
People like dolt and the foole Et Al, hate muslims but do not seem to know the real history of the reigon especially the last century of western powers interference in the inernal affairs of muslim majority countries.
We fought a revolution to free us from European domination, and 150 years later are doing exactly the same thing.
Makes the people who champion the revolutionary era leaders and also back Bush's illegal occupation in Iraq, and push to attack Iran some what of a hypocrite eh tomcat?
Republicans are threatening to launch a discharge petition on legislation that would ensure the future prosperity of conservative radio talk-show hosts but is expected to face opposition from Democratic leaders. On Monday evening, Republicans filed a rule with the House Rules Committee laying the groundwork for a petition that would force action on protecting radio from government regulation later this fall.
ReplyDeleteThe move comes at a time when Democrats have launched a coordinated attack on conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, accusing him of disparaging American troops critical of the Iraq war as “phony soldiers.”
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) has said broadcasters should be required to give listeners both sides of political issues so voters can make informed decisions.
Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so severely that radio executives would choose to scale back on conservative programming to avoid rising costs and interference from the government.
Republicans’ concern has grown as Democrats have waged a battle against Limbaugh in recent days. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sent a letter to the chief executive of Clear Channel Communications, Mark Mays, calling on him to denounce Limbaugh’s remarks.
“If anyone ever doubted that there is enmity between Democrats and American talk radio, they need look no further than the personal attacks leveled on Rush Limbaugh on the floor of the Senate,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the sponsor of legislation shielding broadcasters from government interference. “I thought it astonishing that members of the U.S. Senate would engage in repeated and distorted personal attacks on a private citizen. It gives evidence of a level of frustration with conservative talk radio that is very troubling to anyone who cherishes the medium.”
Pence, a former professional talk radio host, and Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), a radio station owner, on Monday sent letters to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) demanding a vote on the Broadcaster Freedom Act.
In their letters, Pence and Walden cited broad support for their bill as well as a vote on an appropriations amendment earlier this year showing that many Democrats are wary of angering politically influential radio personalities such as Limbaugh. The Republican lawmakers gave Democratic leaders a deadline of the end of next week.
Gotta protect the right wing nuts.
Wal-Mart workers in Pennsylvania who previously won a $78.5 million class-action award for working off the clock will share an additional $62.3 million in damages, a judge ruled Wednesday.
ReplyDeleteAbout 125,000 people will receive $500 each in damages under a state law invoked when a company, without cause, withholds pay for more than 30 days.
It's about time Walmart took a hit.
Federal employees wasted at least $146 million over a one-year period on business- and first-class airline tickets, in some cases simply because they felt entitled to the perk, congressional investigators say.
ReplyDeleteA draft report by the Government Accountability Office, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, is the first to examine compliance with travel rules across the federal government following reports of extensive abuse of premium-class travel by Pentagon and State Department employees.
Those Republicans are wasting your tax dollars on luxury.
Blackwater will be guarding the FBI's investigation of Blackwater.
ReplyDeleteThis according to New York Daily News intelligence maven James Meek, who reports the half-dozen FBI agents headed to Baghdad this week to probe the troubled security contractor will be guarded by bodyguards from the very same firm.
The FBI was tasked with helping the US State Department investigate allegations that the behemoth US defense contractor shot and killed 11 Iraqi civilians last month.
According to Meek, agents plan to interview witnesses in the Green Zone, but when they're outside the protective shell of the US fortress, they'll be transported by armored Blackwater convoys.
"What happens when the FBI team decides to go visit the crime scene? Blackwater is going to have to take them there," a senior US official purportedly said.
The FBI declined to comment.
Only in Bush's America!
The chairman of Blackwater USA, which is facing intense scrutiny over the deaths of a dozen Iraqi civilians last month, defended his private security contractors working in Iraq, while Republicans worked to paint the hearing as little more than an attempt for Democrats to score partisan points.
ReplyDeleteIn sworn testimony Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL who founded Blackwater, acknowledged that his guards sometimes will fire first on Iraqis in an attempt to prevent "potential car bombs," although he insisted the contractors follow a strict protocol before resorting to lethal force.
The House Oversight Committee met in the wake of a Sept. 16 shooting during which Blackwater guards are alleged to have been unprovoked when they opened fire on a crowd of Iraqis, killing between 11 and 20 civilians. Details of that incident were not directly addressed Tuesdsay in order because of fears such a discussion could taint ongoing investigations by the FBI and State Department. The shooting drew intense scrutiny to the company and provoked Iraq's government to move to expel its contractors from the country.
Blackwater is part of the Republican party!
The House, with overwhelming, bipartisan support, voted yesterday to give the Bush administration two months to present to Congress its planning for the withdrawal of combat forces in Iraq.
ReplyDeleteThe 377 to 46 vote was the first salvo of a new legislative strategy adopted by House Democratic leaders, away from partisan confrontation and toward a more incremental approach to war policy that can bring Republicans to their side. The withdrawal-planning bill had met fierce opposition this summer from ardent Iraq war foes, who scuttled an earlier vote by saying it would do nothing but give Republicans political cover for their support of President Bush's policies.
Reps. John Murtha (Pa.), left, and Jim McGovern (Mass.), right, vowed, along with Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (Wis.), that they will not entertain President Bush's war funding request until he changes his Iraq policy. (By Win Mcnamee -- Getty Images)
TOOLBOX
Resize Text
Save/Share + DiggNewsvinedel.icio.usStumble It!RedditFacebook Print This E-mail This
COMMENT
washingtonpost.com readers have posted 51 comments about this item.
View All Comments »
POST A COMMENT
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Discussion PolicyDiscussion Policy CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
This time, amid the stirrings of a bipartisan centrist coalition on Iraq, Democratic leaders stared down the antiwar left and went forward with the vote. With Senate leaders stymied in their efforts to force a change of course in Iraq, House Democratic leaders faced a choice of whether to continue pushing firm timelines for troop withdrawals, as many liberal Democrats want, or to search for bipartisan comity, even after the Senate had failed to find it.
"Our objective is to change direction in Iraq," said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). "Those who want to support us in that are welcome to join us."
More of the same: Nothing!
Our friend Mirth has returned and reopened her blog. Check it out!
ReplyDeleteLiberally Mirth
It returns....
ReplyDeleteCoulter: If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about Dems
In an interview with the New York Observer, conservative commentator, frequent Fox guest, and alleged plagiarist Ann Coulter left this choice quote, which the Observer highlighted as "On women:"
COULTER: If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and 'We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'
Coulter has her own voting woes, left unmentioned in the interview, which is intended to promote her latest book, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."
In 2006, Coulter allegedly violated Florida law by voting in the wrong precinct. The short version, according to The Brad Blog, which has closely followed the ongoing story:
"She committed third-degree voter fraud in Palm Beach County when she lied on her registration. Period. Dead to rights. She also lied on her driver's license down there (another third-degree felony) and knowingly voted at the wrong precinct (first degree misdemeanor). Again, all dead to rights. The link above offers all the proof any attorney with balls bigger than Coulter's would need. And here's her fraudulent Voter Registration form to boot."
According to Brad blog, "an FBI agent interceded inappropriately in the case to claim she was being 'stalked,'" but that an early August report in the Palm Beach Post said that the Florida Election Commission was still investigating.
"The Coulter voting saga is now known as FEC Case No. 07-211. The investigator assigned, Tallahassee's Margie Wade, wouldn't confirm she caught the case; FEC complaints are supposed to be confidential," Jose Lambiet wrote for the Florida paper. "Still, Page Two is told Coulter already has been notified she's under investigation."
As noted last November by RAW STORY (article link) after the midterm elections, Republican officials boasted that their "highly sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation" in the final hours would keep Congress in their control. But at least two "notorious" and high profile party members didn't do enough to aid the cause, a Florida newspaper revealed.
"Mark Foley, the former U.S. congressman in rehab for alcohol and sex-related problems, didn't send an absentee ballot request to the St. Lucie County elections office," Jose Lambiet wrote for the Palm Beach Post. "Conservative pundit Ann Coulter, accused of voting in the wrong precinct earlier this year, didn't cast her ballot, contributing further to the demise of the GOP in Congress."
"No 'I Voted' stickers for them," Lambiet added.
It sucks Clif!
ReplyDeleteIf anny trann wants to give up (her?) right to vote, after all (s)he is single, good for (her?).
ReplyDeleteHowever (s)he should not advocate taking away the right to vote for the MAJORITY of the Amerian people.
Why does (s)he sound so much like a reincarnated Goebbles so much of the time?
Wht does (s)he hate women so much?
He/she/it hates women so much because women are far superior to he/she/it.
ReplyDeleteOnly in a reichwing dominated Bush lead America can a dependent of a military member be deported while he fights for the country deporting his wife;
ReplyDeleteU.S. sailor: Don't deport my wife
JACKSONVILLE, Florida (CNN) -- Eduardo Gonzalez, a petty officer second class with the U.S. Navy, is about to be deployed overseas for a third time. Making his deployment even tougher is the fact his wife may not be around when he comes back.
Mildred and Eduardo Gonzalez worry about what would happen to their family if she is deported.
His wife faces deportation to Guatemala --her home country that she hasn't seen since 1989. He also doesn't know what would happen to his young son, Eduardo Jr., if that happens.
"I like being in uniform and serving my country, but if she goes back I'm going to have to give it all up and just get out and take care of my son and get a job," he said.
"Defending the country that's trying to kick my family out is a thought that always runs through my mind."
Gonzalez, who works on helicopters that bring cargo, supplies and military personnel in and out of Iraq, testified before a House Judiciary Committee panel last month, detailing his situation and urging officials to consider some sort of policy to deal with cases like his, where military members' families could be deported while they're defending their country overseas. Watch "they're tearing families apart" »
"I want to serve my country 100 percent. But with this issue in the back of my mind, I feel I can't do that," he testified on September 6.
The U.S. military does not have a policy to deal with such cases
WHY THE HELL NOT?
DOESN'T THE REICHWING CARE ABOUT THE TROOPS AND THEIR FAMILIES?
Oh right .....................
What are they doing, trying to make sure this guy has no reason to return home?
ReplyDeleteHere is a list of favorable ratings from all candidates organized by net difference.
ReplyDeleteCandidate favorable/unfavorable (NET)
John Edwards: 51%/41% (NET 10%)
Barack Obama: 51%/43% (NET 8%)
Hillary Clinton: 52%/46% (NET 6%)
Fred Thompson: 43%/37% (NET 6%)
Rudy Giuliani: 49%/45% (NET 4%)
Mike Huckabee: 30%/28% (NET 2%)
Bill Richardson: 32%/32% (NET 0%)
John McCain: 40%/43% (NET -3%)
Mitt Romney: 40%/44% (NET -4%)
Duncan Hunter: 18%/24% (NET -6%)
Joe Biden: 31%/40% (NET -9%)
Chris Dodd: 26%/35% (NET -9%)
Dennis Kucinich: 27%/37% (NET -10%)
Ron Paul: 23%/34% (NET -11%)
Sam Brownback: 21%/36% (NET -15%)
Tom Tancredo: 16%/33% (NET -17%)
Mike Gravel: 13%/30% (NET -17%)
Clinton now has the highest favorable rating among any candidate, but also has the highest unfavorable rating among any candidate. Mike Gravel has the lowest favorable rating and Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson is the only Republican candidates to have a positive net rating. Giuliani's ratings have fallen from the 70's he once had early in the race and it remains to be see if it has stabilized.
Larry this sailor will return home, ... to the HOME his family lives in (no matter where it is), even if the United States government lead by George W Bush ABANDONS a mlitary family while the service member is fighting in a war he sarted.
ReplyDeleteThe sailor won't abandon his family like Bush ET AL seem to want to do ......
ah the reichwing family values on parade again.
Clif it's bad enough being sent there for the third time, now wondering if your wife will be sent away is unbearable, to anyone with a heart.
ReplyDeleteWILL CONGRESS OVERRIDE THE FUHRER'S VETO?
ReplyDeleteNot unless you're talking about some other congress.
ReplyDeleteJeri Thompson, wife of GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson, shakes off the "trophy wife" label critics have tagged her with for being 24 years younger than her husband.
ReplyDelete"It's hard not to be defensive," she told People magazine in her first solo interview. "To think back on how hard you've worked, and all anybody thinks about is that you're a trophy wife."
In a story for Monday's issue, Thompson said: "I almost think they had to fabricate that trophy-wife stuff because there's nothing interesting to say."
Jeri Thompson is a Naperville, Ill., native who has worked for the Republican National Committee, on Capitol Hill, and at a public relations-lobbying firm.
Thompson, 41, says she met her future husband at a Nashville supermarket on July 4, 1996, a few years before she moved to Washington. To hear her tell it, the then-U.S. senator from Tennessee was standing in line with a can of beanie weenies and half a premade tuna fish sandwich.
"I looked at him and just said, 'I'm so sorry,'" Thompson says, adding that he carried her groceries to the car, and she invited him to a friend's party that night.
Years later, she tells People: "I was never an older-man-dater kind of girl before."
Don't call her husband a cradle robber!
Earlier today Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) shot down retirement rumors. Now GOP officials are confirming that he will not run for reelection. Domenici has suffered from health problems, questions about his role in the U.S. Attorneys scandal, and unhappiness with the Iraq war.
ReplyDeleteAnother worthless Republican bites the dust!
Jeri Thompson is a Naperville, Ill., native who has worked for the Republican National Committee, on Capitol Hill, and at a public relations-lobbying firm.
ReplyDeleteThus I do not believe her lies or spin in further efferts to distract from the inadequacies of her husband either .......
Good one Clif!
ReplyDeleteThe TODAY Show does it part to help make Coulter into some sort of “voice of reason” for Conservatives once again. They had her open up the show yesterday to be a really serious person and analyze why Christian Conservatives should or would vote for Rudy Giuliani.
ReplyDeleteCoulter: ….and also he seems sort of crazy enough that he’d nuke Iran and that warms our hearts and at this point its been years since an ex-wife has appeared on Vagina Monologues
Vieira just giggles at the monologue joke and forgets that Coultergeist wants to Nuke a country. I know Meredith isn’t that familiar with the interview role she plays yet, but why didn’t she yell: “Nuke Iran, are you kidding me! What about all the innocent people that would die?”
I guess there’s something that warms Annie’s heart after all. Coulter does her best to say and use the words of…umm….Jerry Falwell to defend a vote from the Dobson faction for him. All their priorities don’t matter as long as he attacks Iran…Good Lord…Why hasn’t the TODAY show invited on the NY Times best selling author—Glenn Greenwald as an analyst? (And this despicable post about Glenn would be approved material for Coulter.) Maybe even Rachel Maddow might get a shot? I hardly ever see any Progressive voices on. Can we get a little balance, Mr. Oppenhiem?
That's all the "religious right" needs is a devil in drag defending their worthless party.
A realization that is still slow in coming.
ReplyDeleteWhether you take the debt including future obligations, which stands at some $70 trillion, or just the "hard" one, at $10 trillion, neither number can be overlooked. And no future planning is possible without taking these numbers into account.
What is not yet included in this personal debt. Or the trillions that will evaporate when home prices drop, or those that will vanish when stocks and derivatives go down. Not to mention the fact that all of the above have been financed by highly leveraged credit, which means that losing 10% often means losing all of the assets used as collateral. The truth about US finance is way more dire than people think.
Where O where is Ross Perot when we need him?
because deficiets DO COUNT, just ask the generations who have to pay all the interest since Ronald Reagan began running them up, and the generations who will have to pay them off, along with rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure of this country, and rebuild everything with out the industrial capacity thanks to out sourceing to China of our industrial capacity.
Heck of a job reichwing .....
LARRY - did you write the above comment or is this a post. Are you kidding me? Who is best to confront Ann Coulter on her "moral values?"
ReplyDeleteWho has the most evidence against her? Not Glen Greenwald, he's not even interested in this issue from a Christian or spiritual progressive point of view.
But I have all the evidence, so much your head will spin. Guess I should stop hiding it.
Lydia,
ReplyDeleteI took the article from Crooks and Liars. It had a video as well.
Check out this post by Tom Harper on the differences of a Red State and a Blue State, and the links showing each.
ReplyDeleteVery telling of just what a Red State really is.
Who Hijacked Our Country
For You Clif:
ReplyDeleteGov. Fletcher is toast. [T]he best Fletcher can hope for is to avoid getting creamed at the polls, and even that doesn’t look likely.
-Michael Baranowski, political scientist, Northern Kentucky University
So Gov. Ernie Fletcher is about to be kicked to the curb. Great! Say what you will about the residents of the great state of Kentucky. One thing is for sure though… they won’t put up with crap! I’m not sure if I’m wild about the constitutional amendment proposed by Steve Beshear, democratic challenger to Fletcher, that would bring gambling to the state. But, hey, Fletcher is corrupt. Not just corrupt… he’s “in-your-face-corrupt”! (which is typical republican these days)
Looks like more countries want off the falling dollar;
ReplyDeleteDollar's double blow from Vietnam and Qatar
Vietnam is planning to cut its purchases of US Treasuries and other dollar bonds, raising fears that Asian central banks with control over two thirds of the world's foreign reserves may soon join the flight from US assets.
(snip)
Separately, the gas-rich Gulf state of Qatar announced that it had cut the dollar holdings of its $50bn sovereign wealth fund from 99pc to 40pc, switching into investments in China, Japan, and emerging Asia.
The move is intended to increase long-term returns for future generations, but it can easily be seen as a vote of no confidence in US economic management.
Looks like the fat lady is warming up her vocal cords for the fate of the dollar .....
Thanks larry, ......
ReplyDeleteErnie (and not the seseame street one)
is emblamatic of exactly what the GOP has become,
so corrupt even the sheeple of Kentucky can see it.
In the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll out Wednesday night, about half of all Republicans (48 percent) want a candidate who takes a “different approach” from that of the president, while just 38 percent want a “similar approach.” This is a reversal from April, the last time the question was asked, when 50 percent wanted a candidate who took a similar approach as opposed to 41 percent who wanted a different one.
ReplyDeleteThose Repugs just love their Bush!
Top Five Dirtiest Presidential Campaigns
ReplyDeleteFrom Anything for a Vote by Joseph Cummins, the top five "dirtiest" presidential campaigns of all time:
5. 1972: Richard Nixon vs. George McGovern -- The Republican incumbent Nixon brought out all the heavy guns here -- dirty tricks to sow divisiveness among Democratic incumbents in the primaries, race-baiting, IRS intimidation of Democratic big wigs, the Enemies List, press manipulation, and, of course, the Watergate burglary by the Special Investigations Unit, aka "the Plumbers."
4. 1800: Thomas Jefferson vs. John Adams -- Wayback in only the third election ever held in this country, Thomas Jefferson of the Republicans and John Adams of the Federalists went at it tooth and nail, with Republicans hiring hack writers to attack the incumbent Adams as a "hideous hermaphroditical character." whatever that means, and Federalsts claiming that Jefferson slept with slaves. The close election was thrown into the House of Representatives, where Jefferson almost certainly made a secret deal to win it all.
3. 2000: George W. Bush vs. Al Gore -- Surprisingly, not the low-down dirtiest election on record, but pretty bad, with Republicans acting in a truly narrow, partisan fashion at every stage to subvert the democratic process and hand victory to George W. Bush.
2. 1964: Lyndon Johnson vs. Barry Goldwater -- Not as well know as Nixon's 1972 dirty tricks election, Johnson's 1964 win over Goldwater featured the cynical manufacturing of anti-Goldwater stories planted with gullible reporters; children's coloring books portraying Goldwater as a Klansman; CIA invasion of Goldwater's campaign; and FBI bugging of Goldwater's campaign plane.
1. 1876: Rutherford Hayes vs. Samuel Tilden -- This is the granddaddy of them all: a truly stolen election in which Republicans turned defeat into victory for Rutherford Hayes by counting Democratic votes as their own in three Southern states. Both parties used violence to intimidate former black slaves for their votes. And not to mention that Republicans extorted 2% of the salaries of Federal employees to aid in their campaign efforts, or that Democrats accused Hayes of shooting his mother and robbing the dead, or that Republicans claimed that Samuel Tilden suffered from venereal disease.
Leave it to Bush to be in the middle of dirty tactics!
As of Wednesday, Oct. 3, 2007, at least 3,809 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count. The figure includes seven military civilians. At least 3,105 died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's numbers.
ReplyDeleteThe AP count is three higher than the Defense Department's tally, last updated Wednesday at 10 a.m. EDT.
The British military has reported 170 deaths; Italy, 33; Ukraine, 18; Poland, 21; Bulgaria, 13; Spain, 11; Denmark, seven; El Salvador, five; Slovakia, four; Latvia, three; Estonia, Netherlands, Thailand, Romania, two each; and Australia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, South Korea, one death each.
Another party day for Bloodthirsty Bush!
Give the man a microphone and he'll talk about anything. For 76 minutes, President Bush prowled the stage Wednesday in the heart of Pennsylvania Dutch country, giving a speech and answering questions about everything from his opposition to tax increases to his veto of a bill to expand children's health insurance.
ReplyDeleteBut he covered a lot of other ground, too.
Bush gave an intriguing description about what happens when businesses expand, as was the case here at a company run by a woman.
"You know, when you give a man more money in his pocket — in this case, a woman — more money in her pocket to expand a business, they build new buildings. And when somebody builds a new building, somebody has got to come and build the building.
"And when the building expanded, it prevented (sic) additional opportunities for people to work. Tax cuts matter. I'm going to spend some time talking about it," the president said.
He offered a pointed description of his job.
"My job is a decision-making job. And as a result, I make a lot of decisions," the president said.
And all Bush's decisions are bad!
Newsday:
ReplyDeleteImus fans: Your wait is almost over!
Citadel Broadcasting is close to finalizing a contract with Don Imus that would bring the controversial radio host back to the airwaves, a person familiar with the discussions said Tuesday.
It was not immediately clear from where Imus would be heard, but Citadel owns WABC in New York, making its morning slot a logical destination. It also owns WPLJ-FM.
Currently the ABC spot is occupied by Ron Kuby and Curtis Sliwa.
Citadel and its chief executive, Farid Suleman, have been rumored to be interested in Imus for months, and WABC long has been considered a logical platform for him to launch a comeback.
He would bring along his longtime newsman, Charles McCord, who last appeared on WFAN Aug. 31. Less clear is what role, if any, a more controversial member of Imus' old crew, Bernard McGuirk, would play. One possibility is a nonspeaking role as a producer/writer.
Imus was fired by CBS Radio and removed from WFAN April 12, eight days after making comments that many regarded as sexist and/or racist directed at the Rutgers women's basketball team . His show also had been simulcast on MSNBC.
Enjoy!
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile Rush Limpballs gets to call a wounded us Vet a "suicide bomber", and "unable to think for himself".
ReplyDeleteThe hypocrisy is overwhelming, and meanwhile congress votes to condemn moveon.org.
We tried to vote in democratic congressmen, and all we got was Harry Reid.
ReplyDeleteWe tried to vote in democratic congressmen, and all we got was Harry Reid.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, "Stepnfetchit" Reid is even worse than Chimpy. Reid pretends to be different.
You can say that again JR. In fact, he IS worse than chimpy.
ReplyDeleteAt least with Chimpy we know what we're getting.
Reid was hired to do a job, and end the war. Instead he simply continues to appease the republicans, and vote for anything they vote for, and oppose anything that would end the war, reign in the spying program, or even make a statement for the democrats.
Which is worse?
The enemy without, or the enemy within?
Jolly Roger said...
ReplyDeleteWe tried to vote in democratic congressmen, and all we got was Harry Reid.
In some ways, "Stepnfetchit" Reid is even worse than Chimpy. Reid pretends to be different."
Reid "IS" different than Bush, one is a 'pretend tough guy" and wannbe fascist dictator...........the other is a lemming and a marshmallo.
One is CLEARLY worse but the other is CLEARLY more of a disgrace and disapointment.
Neither is deserving of a leaderhip position, but for vastly different reasons.
AP - Long-shot Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul raised a surprising $5 million during the past three months, capitalizing on his stance as the only anti-war contender in the GOP field.
ReplyDeleteA Republican who hates war and can raise more money than McCain: Go Figure!
On the very same day that George W Bush used the veto to deny millions of poor children healthcare, he named this National Child Health Day.
ReplyDeleteIs that arrogance or what?
President Bush has now vetoed four bills. Each of these has been in direct defiance of the will of the American people.
ReplyDelete1. Stem Cell Research:
According to the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan polling organization that tracks the issue, roughly two-thirds of all Democrats and independents favor embryonic stem cell research, while nearly half of all Republicans do.
2. Partial Withdrawal from Iraq:
Most Americans disagree with President Bush’s decision last week to veto the war funding bill that contained a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq.
3. Stem Cell Research, again: Poll
Americans by a 2-1 margin support stem cell research and say it should be funded by the federal government, despite controversy over its use of human embryos.
And the latest, coming just hours ago.
4. Children’s Health Insurance:
The veto is a bit of a high-stakes gambit for Bush, pitting him against both the Democrats who have controlled both houses of Congress since
Tired of what Bush is doing to America, and what the Democrats are enabling him to do?
ReplyDeleteThen Shut it Down!
Shut it Down
Clif said Makes the people who champion the revolutionary era leaders and also back Bush's illegal occupation in Iraq, and push to attack Iran some what of a hypocrite eh tomcat?
ReplyDeleteIndeed Clif, and as I'm sure you know the Shaw's regime make that of Saddam look tame. But we never had any problem with Saddam's abuse of power. If we had, we would not have made him an ally and provided him the means to make chemical weapons and instruction in their use.
White House denies relaxing ban on torture
ReplyDeleteSecret 2005 opinion is confirmed, but Justice insists earlier one still valid
AP Updated: 1 hour, 39 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration on Thursday denied reports that a secret Justice Department opinion in 2005 cleared the way for the return of painful interrogation tactics or superseded U.S. anti-torture law.
“This country does not torture,” White House press secretary Dana Perino told reporters. “It is a policy of the United States that we do not torture and we do not.”
Under then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ leadership, the Justice Department issued a secret opinion in 2005 authorizing use of painful physical and psychological tactics against terror suspects, including simulated drownings and freezing temperatures, The New York Times reported in Thursday’s editions.
That secret opinion, which explicitly allowed using the painful methods in combination, came a year after a 2004 opinion in which Justice publicly declared torture “abhorrent” and the administration seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices.
Asked about the story Thursday, Perino confirmed the existence of the Feb. 5, 2005, classified opinion but would not comment on whether it authorized specific practices, such as head-slapping and simulated drownings. She said the 2005 opinion did not reinterpret the law.
Additionally, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the 2004 opinion remains in effect and that “neither Attorney General Gonzales nor anyone else within the department modified or withdrew that opinion.”
“Accordingly, any advice that the department would have provided in this area would rely upon, and be fully consistent with, the legal standards articulated in the December 2004 memorandum,” Roehrkasse said in a statement.
Dispute may be over definition of torture
The dispute may come down to how the Bush administration defines torture, or whether it allowed U.S. interrogators to interpret anti-torture laws beyond legal limits. CIA spokesman George Little said the agency sought guidance from the Bush administration and Congress to make sure its program to detain and interrogate terror suspects followed U.S. law.
“The program, which has taken account of changes in U.S. law and policy, has produced vital information that has helped our country disrupt terrorist plots and save innocent lives,” Little said in a statement. “The agency has always sought a clear legal framework, conducting the program in strict accord with U.S. law, and protecting the officers who go face-to-face with ruthless terrorists.”
Click for related content
A secret endorsement of severe interrogations?
Reaction to secret opinion comes quickly
Congress has prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terror suspects. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said several extreme interrogation techniques, including simulated drowning, known as waterboarding, are specifically outlawed.
“As some may recall, there was at the time a debate over the way in which the administration was likely to interpret these prohibitions,” McCain said in a statement, adding that he was “personally assured by administration officials that at least one of the techniques allegedly used in the past, waterboarding, was prohibited under the new law.”
The American Civil Liberties Union called for an independent counsel to investigate the Justice Department’s torture opinions, calling the memos “a cynical attempt to shield interrogators from criminal liability and to perpetuate the administration’s unlawful interrogation practices.”
House Democrats want memos
The issue quickly became political fodder for Democrats.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., demanded that the Justice Department turn over the two memos and promised a congressional inquiry.
“Both the alleged content of these opinions and the fact that they have been kept secret from Congress are extremely troubling, especially in light of the department’s 2004 withdrawal of an earlier opinion similarly approving such methods,” Conyers, D-Mich., and Nadler wrote in a letter Thursday to Acting Attorney General Peter Keisler.
The two Democrats also asked that Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department’s acting chief of legal counsel, “be made available for prompt committee hearings.”
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, in a statement, said that “the secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer — it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration’s approach.”
Perino said the 2004 anti-torture opinion was a “broad and general” interpretation of the law and “the February 2005 one was different in that it was focused on specifics.” She defended the policies as necessary to protect the country.
“We know that these are ruthless individuals who will do anything, and that they’re very patient; that they’ll do anything to try to carry out their attacks,” Perino told reporters. “And this president has put in place — all within the foursquare corners of the law — tools in the global war on terror that we need.”
Second '05 opinion alleged
The February 2005 Justice opinion was followed later in 2005 by another one, just as Congress was working on an anti-torture bill, secretly declaring that none of the CIA’s interrogation practices violated the new law’s standard against “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, The Times said. The newspaper cited interviews with unnamed current and former officials.
The 2005 opinions approved by Gonzales remain in effect despite efforts by Congress and the courts to limit interrogation practices used by the government in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gonzales resigned last month under withering criticism from congressional Democrats and a loss of support among members of his own party.
The authorizations came after the withdrawal of an earlier classified Justice opinion, issued in 2002, that had allowed certain aggressive interrogation practices so long as they stopped short of producing pain equivalent to experiencing organ failure or death. That controversial memo was withdrawn in June 2004.
The two Democrats also asked that Steven Bradbury, the Justice Department’s acting chief of legal counsel, “be made available for prompt committee hearings.”
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, in a statement, said that “the secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security. We must do whatever it takes to track down and capture or kill terrorists, but torture is not a part of the answer — it is a fundamental part of the problem with this administration’s approach.”
Perino said the 2004 anti-torture opinion was a “broad and general” interpretation of the law and “the February 2005 one was different in that it was focused on specifics.” She defended the policies as necessary to protect the country.
“We know that these are ruthless individuals who will do anything, and that they’re very patient; that they’ll do anything to try to carry out their attacks,” Perino told reporters. “And this president has put in place — all within the foursquare corners of the law — tools in the global war on terror that we need.”
Second '05 opinion alleged
The February 2005 Justice opinion was followed later in 2005 by another one, just as Congress was working on an anti-torture bill, secretly declaring that none of the CIA’s interrogation practices violated the new law’s standard against “cruel, inhuman and degrading” treatment, The Times said. The newspaper cited interviews with unnamed current and former officials.
The 2005 opinions approved by Gonzales remain in effect despite efforts by Congress and the courts to limit interrogation practices used by the government in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Gonzales resigned last month under withering criticism from congressional Democrats and a loss of support among members of his own party.
The authorizations came after the withdrawal of an earlier classified Justice opinion, issued in 2002, that had allowed certain aggressive interrogation practices so long as they stopped short of producing pain equivalent to experiencing organ failure or death. That controversial memo was withdrawn in June 2004.
So We have a rogue administration obsessed with war, torture, spying and transforming our country into a fascist police state....................and while Congress makes a little noise here and there for appearance sake........they will most likely rubberstamp and legitimize Bush's illegal unconstitutional torture they CLAIM to oppose JUST as they did for his Unconstitutional spying on American citizens and Just like they are paving the way for him to attack Iran pre-emptively by legitimizing and validating his insane claims and foolish statements.
ReplyDeleteLets address one issue here, i'm not even debating wether Irans IRG is aiding the insurgents or not........even though Bush has produced NO proof and Congress has not even asked a compulsive liar for any, they very well may be.
ReplyDeleteThe point is the definition of terrorists are non state/non governmental entitities that target civillians, NOT military.
Now consider that :
1) Irans IRG IS a state/ Government institution
2) And if They ARE actually DOING what Bush claims they are targeting military assets.
Thus they could not under the most remote of situations be classified AS terrorists.
Further as Bartlebe stated, Bush was given unfettered authority to do what ever it takes to go after and target terorists.....so decraring a Countries military/government terrorists opens the door for Bush to legitimize his obsession to START another unneccessary war, and also carries a built in defense werein he can say Congress said they were terrorists....so either you supported what I was doing, or admit to having poor judgement and/or coddling terrorists.
Bush doesn't even have to label Iran anything.
ReplyDeleteHis permittance to attack Iraq for oil reasons,have given him free rein to attack whoever he wants.
The Republican Liar:
ReplyDeleteA statement released moments ago from Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID). Despite failing at his efforts to overturn his guilty plea, Craig says he will not resign from the Senate until his term ends in January 2009.
Craig Reaction to Court Ruling
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Idaho Senator Larry Craig issued the following statement in reaction to today's ruling by the State of Minnesota District Court Fourth Judicial District allowing the guilty plea to stand:
"I am extremely disappointed with the ruling issued today. I am innocent of the charges against me. I continue to work with my legal team to explore my additional legal options.
"I will continue to serve Idaho in the United States Senate, and there are several reasons for that. As I continued to work for Idaho over the past three weeks here in the Senate, I have seen that it is possible for me to work here effectively.
"Over the course of my three terms in the Senate and five terms in the House, I have accumulated seniority and important committee assignments that are valuable to Idaho, not the least of which are my seats on the Appropriations Committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Veterans' Affairs Committee. A replacement would be highly unlikely to obtain these posts.
"In addition, I will continue my effort to clear my name in the Senate Ethics Committee - something that is not possible if I am not serving in the Senate.
"When my term has expired, I will retire and not seek reelection. I hope this provides the certainty Idaho needs and deserves."
Larry Craig: Liar, Republican, Republican Liar!
on Thursday from the Qatari and Vietnamese governments that they are rapidly divesting in dollar denominated securities will not come as good news to the US government. Overseas investors hold half of America’s $4,400bn of marketable government debt, up from a third in 2001 according to the US Treasury department.
ReplyDeleteQatari Prime Minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani said on US TV that the government-backed $50bn Qatari Investment Authority (QIA) now had less than 40 per cent of its investments in dollars, down from a high two years ago of 99 per cent.
Given that the Emirate’s oil and gas revenue is in dollars, the latest troubles in the US economy have accelerated the need to diversify investments into non-dollar markets. Currencies such as the Euro, the British Pound and the Swiss Frank, are all looking far more stable as investments for the QIA, said Sheikh Hamad.
Such was the Qatari PM’s concern about the sliding dollar, that he even said an oil price of $125 per barrel would not be unreasonable.
On Thursday, the State Bank of Vietnam quietly let slip it would be ending its dollar purchase schemes, which it has been using to hold down the Vietnamese currency. Although it only has middling dollar reserves of $40bn, Vietnam is widely regarded as a barometer for economic sentiment among other, bigger, regional dollar sinks like China, Taiwan, Korea or Singapore. Hans Redeker, currency chief at BNP Paribas, told the Telegraph:
Vietnam is a relatively small country but it is symptomatic of Asia. The entire region is seeing inflation move up as a result of mercantilist policies of holding down their currencies with ‘dirty floats’, which are designed to help their export sectors. They need to change monetary policy.
Cue dollar sale.
Asian investors have already pulled out of US Treasuries - as FT Alphaville reported in September, foreign government holdings of T-Bills fell 3.8 per cent in August.
Japanese investors in particular, reports Bloomberg, are anticipating another rate cut from the Fed. The world’s second largest actively run bond fund, Japan’s Kokusai Global Sovereign is staying away from US Treasuries. According to Masataka Horii, who oversees $47.6bn:
The US dollar will go weaker because the market expects that interest rates will be cut and the economy will slow down… Another rate cut will make the economy stabilize. Maybe early next year, weakness in the US dollar will stop.
The problem for the US is that foreign appetite for debt has become an important prop for the economy. A 2006 study by Federal Reserve economists concluded that foreign investment in the US economy has been a liquidity support keeping long-term interest rates 90 basis points below where they should be.
Another result of the Bush economy!
Iraq has ordered $100 million worth of light military equipment from China for its police force, contending that the United States was unable to provide the materiel and is too slow to deliver arms shipments, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said yesterday.
ReplyDeleteThe China deal, not previously made public, has alarmed military analysts who note that Iraq’s security forces already are unable to account for more than 190,000 weapons supplied by the United States, many of which are believed to be in the hands of Shiite and Sunni militias, insurgents and other forces seeking to destabilize Iraq and target U.S. troops.
“The problem is that the Iraqi government doesn’t have — as yet — a clear plan for making sure that weapons are distributed, that they are properly monitored and repeatedly checked,” said Rachel Stohl of the Center for Defense Information, an independent think tank. “The end-use monitoring will be left in the hands of a government and military in Iraq that is not yet ready for it. And there’s not a way for the U.S. to mandate them to do it if they’re not U.S. weapons.”
Where's the loyalty Bush!
When the Justice Department publicly declared torture “abhorrent” in a legal opinion in December 2004, the Bush administration appeared to have abandoned its assertion of nearly unlimited presidential authority to order brutal interrogations.
ReplyDeleteBut soon after Alberto R. Gonzales’s arrival as attorney general in February 2005, the Justice Department issued another opinion, this one in secret. It was a very different document, according to officials briefed on it, an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.
The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.
Bush the Butcher: Lying again!
(Reuters) - Roadside bombs killed an Iraqi Shi'ite mayor and wounded a tribal leader working with U.S. military forces on Thursday, part of a spate of apparently sectarian attacks across the country.
ReplyDeleteAbbas al-Khafaji, Shi'ite mayor of Iskandariya and a member of the powerful Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, was killed along with four of his guards in an attack on his convoy, police said.
Iskandariya, a mixed Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim town, lies about 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad in a turbulent region which U.S. soldiers know as the "triangle of death".
Another result of Bush's "surge."
Look at this post at Earl'splace and see how Bush punished Britain for pulling away from his war:
ReplyDeleteEarl's Place
It isn't enough for Bush ET AL to send American's money to China thru wal-mart, now they have it going thru Baghdad ..... for more weapons to attack US soldiers with.
ReplyDeleteLarry,
ReplyDeleteCheck this out.
Roll Call is reports Harry Reid (D-NV) “struck a deal” with Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KS) to slipe four FEC nominations, including the GOP “voter fraud” zealot, Hans von Spakovsky, through the Senate on a voice vote, unless any Senators objected.
One senator objected: presidential candidate Barack Obama (D-IL.)
Obama (D-IL), had called on Bush to send up an “acceptable” nominee to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), instead of the anti-Democracy, anti-voter villain Hans von Spakovsky.
“His record of poor management, divisiveness, and inappropriate partisanship makes him an unacceptable nominee to the FEC,” Obama had previously said. “I am particularly concerned with his efforts to undermine voting rights at the Civil Rights Division during his tenure at the Department of Justice.”
Russ Feingold (D-WI) joined Obama in blocking the vote on Hans von Spakovsky.
http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/
That's the Republican mantra. Arm the enemy then go to war.
ReplyDeleteHarry Reid may as well join Lieberman in the Republican feeding line Christopher.
ReplyDeleteHe appears to be fighting for his rightful place as Bush's lapdog.
" Mike said...
ReplyDeleteLets address one issue here, i'm not even debating wether Irans IRG is aiding the insurgents or not........even though Bush has produced NO proof and Congress has not even asked a compulsive liar for any, they very well may be.
The point is the definition of terrorists are non state/non governmental entitities that target civillians, NOT military.
Now consider that :
1) Irans IRG IS a state/ Government institution
2) And if They ARE actually DOING what Bush claims they are targeting military assets.
Thus they could not under the most remote of situations be classified AS terrorists."
You may be right Mike. That would not be terrorism.
When an enemy countries military is killing OUR military that would be a war wouldn't it?
A war in which THEY already fired the first shot.
So the question is, do we retaliate or back down?
Volt, even YOU can't condone Bush's actions anymore, can you?
ReplyDeleteHey guys did you see where bush is caught in another scandal on torture he keeps telling lies
ReplyDeleteI think potsy webber accomplished more on happy days than bush has his entire life
ReplyDeleteWhen they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit. The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush’s surge.
ReplyDelete1st Lt. Jon Anderson said he never expected to come home to this: A government refusing to pay education benefits he says he should have earned under the GI bill.
“It’s pretty much a slap in the face,” Anderson said. “I think it was a scheme to save money, personally. I think it was a leadership failure by the senior Washington leadership… once again failing the soldiers.”
Anderson’s orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.
Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.
“Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500 to $800 a month,” Anderson said.
That money would help him pay for his master’s degree in public administration. It would help Anderson’s fellow platoon leader, John Hobot, pay for a degree in law enforcement.
“I would assume, and I would hope, that when I get back from a deployment of 22 months, my senior leadership in Washington, the leadership that extended us in the first place, would take care of us once we got home,” Hobot said.
Thus the Bush policy toward America's troops.
Dolty, we don't have the horses to react meaningfully to Iran, the DPRK, or Troop #659 of the Des Moines Boy Scouts. Your question, therefore, is moot. DOA.
ReplyDeleteRight now I am so disgusted with Bush and that veto that I can't even comment on it. You guys have read my stuff enough to know how I feel about kids and health care.
ReplyDeleteInstead I'm just going to propose a scenario to Volt ...
North Korea demands that Canada gives up their nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister of Canada declares there are no nuclear weapons and invites the North Koreans to come in and look. The people North Korea sends in look for several months and turn up nothing, so the dictator of N Korea pulls them out and attacks anyway because - hey, they didnt give up their nuclear weapons. Not long after, the North Koreans capture, execute, and replace the Prime Minister. The American president does what he can to help the Canadians in troops and and weapons ....
so I ask you, Voltron, in this entirely hypothetical scenario, should the North Koreans retaliate against the United States or back down?
Good one Jolly, Bush hasn't the troops to take on Boy Scout troop #659.
ReplyDeleteWhat a leader!
Check out this financial comparison between Blackwater Execs and Gen "Lapdog" Petraeus.
ReplyDeleteGood reading from Pissed on Politics.
Pissed on Politics
Volt said "You may be right Mike. That would not be terrorism.
ReplyDeleteWhen an enemy countries military is killing OUR military that would be a war wouldn't it?
A war in which THEY already fired the first shot.
So the question is, do we retaliate or back down?"
That would be a covert op, similar to what OUR CIA and other covert black ops did in Vietnam and in Iran to destabilize things and install the Shaw against the will of the Democratically elected people............are you saying WE regularly commit acts of war to other sovreign countries?
Radical factions always seem to want to push and manipulate things to CAUSE war, its the same for the Iranians and Muslims as it is for the Neo Cons.
But regardless we should investigate this, if it REALLY is happening then Bush and co SHOULD be able to prove, and some form of action should be taken.
But regardless it is up to Congress and ONLY Congress to declare war NOT the deranged "DECIDER" as much as he lusts for that power.
We must decide the best way to handle things and not over react and make a dumb move like Bush did attacking Iran while abandoning the REAL war on terror and afghanistan and pakistan to Al Qaeda and the Taliban..........you know the REAL guys that attacked us.
Also there are other countries developing WMD, and there are OTHER countries arming the insurgents that are killing OUR soldiers according to what I hear, including the Saudi's, Blackwater, and Our own country and Nothing is being said or done about it and NO ONE is being held accountable..............This is NOT about Bush and his Neo Con thugs actually caring about our soldiers......this IS about them attempting to implement their deranged PNAC New world order Agenda and overthrowing the governments of Iran and Iran so we can have access to and influence over their oil and gas......NOTHING MORE!!!
Strange and bareless question from a war lover.
ReplyDeleteVolt one more thing, who EVER said Irans military was killing OUR military...........the allegations were that Irans IRG was supplying the insurgents with weapons...........SOOOOO by yours and your hero's GWB's definitions when the USA was supplying Osama and the Afghani's with weapons to fight the Soviets, America was a terrorist entity and that was an act of war against the Soviets.
ReplyDeleteBoy you repuggies sure manipulate and twist the facts to justify wars............cept of course when YOU guys are doing the very same things you cry foul about.........THATS when the hippocrissy and double standards kick in.............nice try there though Dolty!
A double tongued time tonight from a double faced drone.
ReplyDeleteBTW Dolty you clowns sure do seem to supply the bad guys with weapons..........you did it by giving Osama the guy who attacked us weapons he used to kill Russian soldiers which according to YOU is an act of war against the Soviets..........THEN you gave Saddam another old buddy the WMD he used to slaughter his own people with nerve gas.
ReplyDeleteYou guys seem to have a REPEATEDLY POOR track record for showing good sound judgement picking your friends...............I mean you clowns have been DEAD WRONG ABOUT EVERYTHING............yet you STILL cvlaim we should listen to you and take you seriously...............BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll leave you to nurse your wounds Dolty..........this is almost TOO EASY!
ReplyDeleteArming the enemy in order to go to war.
ReplyDeleteThat's the Republican way!
Larry said...
ReplyDeleteArming the enemy in order to go to war.
That's the Republican way!"
Yeah Larry, theres "allegations" that Blackwater is supplying the Insurgents with weapons just like there are "allegations Irans IRG is doing so...............maybe Congress should declare Blackwater a terrorist organization...........hey they even fit the criteria better, they are not a true government or state entity, and THEY actually DID masacre civillians.
Those damn inconvienient facts again aye Dolty?
ReplyDeleteBlackwater have become the Bush force for all things thuggery, while the U.S troops have become targets of bullets and bombs.
ReplyDeleteBTW dolt if arming an insurgent force is a war crime son(since starting a war with out justification by definition is a war crime, under the UN treaty WE signed son), we have quite a few to answer for since WW2 ...........
ReplyDeletebut then again all those fat cat weapons manufactuer campaign donators to the GOP would be broke wouldn't they dolty boy?
According to Dolt's twisted logc, the Dulles brothers began a war with Iran in 1953(by sponsoring the coup, which means the 1979 attack on outr embassy was just 25 years late in retaliation), and the US started fighting North Vietnam in 1954(which means I was right and eisenower and the dulles erothers sarted BOTH wars)., oh dolty boy does seem right about that, too bad the "evidence that Bush tries to claim he never PRODUCES, except for US manufactured 81 mm mortars (I should know what they are). Of course Nixon used US mlitary assets against Chile in 1973(another act of war by the US), and of course Nicragura during the Reagan Admin. Makes Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr all war criminals along with the chimp, thanks dolt for proving thaT for all of us.
ReplyDeleteBush voted AGAINST giving the soldiers I believe a 3% raise, he didnt think they deserved it YET he has NO qualms about paying BLACKwater and other contractors between $100,000-$200,000............he is now offering a $40,000 bonus to new recruits YET not doing the same to retain the current soldiers he has been abusing for multiole tours......many of which are missing their children grow up and take their first steps..............so much for that rhetoric that repugs support the troops.
ReplyDeletethe repugs support the war and the President, while I really dont know what the Democrats in Congress support.........but if THEY actually supported the troops they would END the war rather than giving the "DECIDER" MORE funding to keep it going.
Mike:
ReplyDeleteCheck out the post, second one down on Pissed on Politics at the salaries of Blackwater and Lapdog Petraeus.
Pissed on Politics
Mike actually Bush FOUGHT a 3 1/2% raise and screamed for a 3% raise for the troops so his fat cat uber-rich reichwingers could pig out at the trough for another year or so.
ReplyDeleteYou know the end is near for them when Bush gets the election boot outa washington and the gravy train for reichwingers ends also.
Exactly Larry I've been saying for YEARS we should pay our soldiers better rather thasn giving the money to repug thugs and cronnies our soldiers DESERVE better pay and benefits.
ReplyDeleteclif said...
ReplyDeleteMike actually Bush FOUGHT a 3 1/2% raise and screamed for a 3% raise for the troops so his fat cat uber-rich reichwingers could pig out at the trough for another year or so.
You know the end is near for them when Bush gets the election boot outa washington and the gravy train for reichwingers ends also."
It cant end SOON ENOUGH Clif!
Only in the kool aid infected world;
ReplyDeleteDamned By Faint Praise
Log Cabin Republicans are opposed to Mitt Romney so they're running an ad praising him. We have the ad. Don't you love GOP primary politics?
--David Kurtz
They must be uppn' the dossage again, it's election time.
Jimmy Carter has the balls Bush and Cheney (and Rush limpballs)LACK;
ReplyDeleteJimmy Carter confronts Sudan officials
Jimmy Carter Confronts Sudanese Security in Darfur Over Meeting With Refugees From Conflict
Jimmy Carter actually served on active duty, he didn't ask for deferments or ask daddy's friends to get him into a champaign unit of the Texas National Guard.
Its Bush's new kids program.
ReplyDeleteHe calls it, "No child left a dime"
I swear you can’t write this stuff, but guess what Larry Craig’s favorite recipe is? A Super Tuber. A baked potato with a hot dog crammed inside. I’m just sayin’… (h/t Rachel Maddow)
ReplyDeleteKarma has a sense of humor it seems also.
Yeah, he's got no qualms about spending roughly a trillion dollars to wage war.......but he cant allow a few million to be spent to help provide health care for children.
ReplyDeleteYou've heard of "Feed the Children"?
ReplyDeleteBush calls his veto "F$#k the Children".
BAGHDAD
ReplyDeleteA daring ambush of bombs and gunfire left Poland's ambassador pinned down in a burning vehicle Wednesday before being pulled to safety and airlifted in a rescue mission by the embattled security firm Blackwater USA. At least three people were killed, including a Polish bodyguard.
American authorities confiscated an AP Television News videotape that contained scenes of the wounded being evacuated. U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl told AP that Iraqi law make it illegal to photograph or videotape the aftermath of bombings or other attacks.
The attack — apparently well planned in one of Baghdad's most secure neighborhoods — raised questions about whether it sought to punish Poland for its contributions to the U.S.-led military force in Iraq. But Poland's prime minister, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, said his nation would not retreat "in the face of terrorists."
The diplomatic convoy was hit by three bombs and then attackers opened fire in the Shiite-controlled Karradah district. Polish guards returned fire as the injured ambassador, Gen. Edward Pietrzyk, was pulled from his burning vehicle. At least 10 people, including four Polish security agents, were wounded.
The military stealing the footage of the bloodbath from the AP photographer, sure shows freedom of the press.
Double Standard at the University of St. Thomas
ReplyDeleteBishop Desmond Tutu has stood all his life for nonviolent peace-making and an end to racism. Obviously, he would be upset about the Israeli mistreatment of the Palestinians, and has said so.
For that stance he was uninvited from speaking at the Catholic University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis.
The "quote" attributed to Bishop Tutu supposedly comparing Israel to Hitler and Nazi Germany was completely made up by the Zionist Organization of American (which has a long history of such cult-like lying and smearing) and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency printed it without fact-checking.
The Israel lobby strikes again, limiting what can be heard in public in the United States about those policies of Israel that are contrary to basic human rights norms.
And here is the kicker. UST is guilty of a whopper of a double standard. Two years ago, the university allowed Ann Coulter to speak on its campus.
Ann Coulter once said of Muslims, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
Coulter can speak at UST. But not Desmond Tutu.
The witch who calls for the deaths of judges and former Presidents is welcome but Bishop Tutu is not.
Associated Press
ReplyDeleteWASHINGTON — The number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits shot up last week by the biggest amount in four months.
The Labor Department reported a total of 317,000 applications for unemployment benefits last week, an increase of 16,000 from the previous week. It was the biggest gain since jobless claims rose by 18,000 during the week of May 9.
The rise was bigger than analysts had been expecting and could be a further sign that the labor market is slowing under the impact of the worst slump in housing in 16 years and a severe credit crunch that roiled global markets in August.
The increase in claims last week followed two weeks of declines. The four-week average for claims totaled 312,750, up only slightly from the previous week.
Analysts believe the unemployment rate probably rose in September to 4.7 percent, up from 4.6 percent in August, although they are expecting that businesses added 100,000 jobs to their payrolls.
More of the Bush economy!
Did you see that IDIOT GWB crowing about his job creation record............bush CLAIMED he has had the longest job creatiion record in history........The truth is he has averaged LESS thab 110,000 new jobs per month he NEEDS 150,000 just to keep pace with the new people entering the job market.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is Bush has the WORST job creation record since Herbert Hoover the guy who is associated with the Great Depression.
Bush said we need to keep the tax cuts to allow the working class to buy food.............The truth is adjusted for inflation the working class has lost purchasing power while the wealthy elite has stolen even more of the pie from them.
Bush's tax cuts are geared to help the wealthy, most of the working class dont have investments where lowering taxes on dividends and capital gains will help them and the few that do usually have them in tax free retirement accounts anyway........no Bush is a modernday Robinhood, robbing from thepoor and middle class to give to the rich.
Voltron said...
ReplyDeleteA war in which THEY already fired the first shot.
And you know this precisely....how, Widdle Twucker?
Were you there, or did this happen in your sandbox with the widdle soldiers you and your boy pway wif?
WE invaded Iraq. WE started shooting.
How do you know WE didn't kill the first Iranian in some cross-border raid, Widdle Twucker?