tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post116018248169327749..comments2024-02-24T11:50:55.413-08:00Comments on Lydia Cornell: THE AMAZING AMISHFans and Friends of Lydia Cornellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01512357844572930333noreply@blogger.comBlogger620125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160745870365593312006-10-13T06:24:00.000-07:002006-10-13T06:24:00.000-07:00I posted a new thread about Bush using the Christi...I posted a new thread about Bush using the Christian right.Fans and Friends of Lydia Cornellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01512357844572930333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160732306212320712006-10-13T02:38:00.000-07:002006-10-13T02:38:00.000-07:00Pop open a bottle of bubbly and drink a toast to B...Pop open a bottle of bubbly and drink a toast to Bill Clinton, because the seeds of peace he planted in North Korea have finally come to fruition. Now that the tiny island nation has joined the small but growing club of nuclear-armed states, the chances that the imperialist aggressor Bush will invade North Korea are now slim to none. Thus, six years after leaving office, Bill Clinton has assured a brand of peace with North Korea that the Shrub couldn't achieve during his entire stolen peeResidency. <BR/><BR/>Granted, this peace didn’t come about exactly as we had planned. When our last elected President sent his only begotten Secretary of State riding into Pyongyang on the back of a donkey with a radioactive hunk of cheese wedged between her butt cheeks, it was hoped that Kim Jong Il would be so moved by our gesture of trust that he would forever refrain from developing nuclear weapons - or at least keep it on the low-low so we wouldn’t look like complete jackasses. But no matter how Bill Clinton achieved the peace, it's the outcome that is important.<BR/><BR/>That's not to say that a nuclear-armed PDRK is without any drawbacks. Make no mistake, Kim Jong Il is a dangerous lunatic. Sure, the Supreme Leader was a sweet little man who could be trusted to abide by a non-proliferation pact when Bill Clinton was president, but it only took six years for Bush to drive him completely nuts. It wasn't just the "Axis of Evil" remark, either. When the Shrub blew the lid off North Korea's secret nuclear weapons program, he forced the proud nation to brazenly continue what it had been doing discreetly under Bill Clinton for years. Our only hope is that a Democrat will be in the White House in two years, so that Kim Jong-Il will once again be a misunderstood yet reasonable man ready to sit down at the bargaining table with his American friends.<BR/><BR/>I don't expect Bush to thank Bill Clinton for Winning the Peace in North Korea. But Clinton should at least get the credit he deserves for insuring that no Americans will ever have to die on North Korean soil, but rather in the comfort of their own homes as long as they live within the blast radius.Tall Texanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14165567672127566894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160702311391344162006-10-12T18:18:00.000-07:002006-10-12T18:18:00.000-07:00Looks Like the British Army Chief is wanting to CU...Looks Like the British Army Chief is wanting to <B>CUT AND RUN</B> in Iraq.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410163&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5" REL="nofollow">Army chief declares war on Blair: 'We must quit Iraq soon'</A><BR/><BR/><I>The head of the Army is calling for British troops to withdraw from Iraq "soon" or risk catastophic consequences for both Iraq and British society. <BR/><BR/>In a devastating broadside at Tony Blair's foreign policy, General Sir Richard Dannatt stated explicitly that the continuing presence of British troops "exacerbates the security problems" in Iraq.</I><BR/><BR/>So General Peter Paces counter part wants to cut and run from Iraq and leave him holding the fiasco with egg on his face.clifhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01789324243613548212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160688227883110072006-10-12T14:23:00.000-07:002006-10-12T14:23:00.000-07:00Award-winning travel journalist Tidwell (who predi...Award-winning travel journalist Tidwell (who predicted a Katrina-like catastrophe in his 2004 book, Bayou Farewell: The Rich Life and Tragic Death of Louisiana's Cajun Coast ) ramps up the rhetoric to a category 5 intensity in this assessment of how global warming is swelling the volume of water lapping against the world's coasts. Because of society's insistence on re-engineering natural waterways and shorelines, we are committing a form of "group suicide." And, Tidwell goes on, President Bush, by refusing to fund a $14-billion plan to bring back wetlands and barrier reefs to protect the Louisiana coast, is committing "federal mass murder." His central thesis is that two conditions threaten to inundate nations like Bangladesh and cities like Calcutta, London and New York: land-based glaciers are vanishing, their meltwater seeping into the seas at the equivalent of a Lake Erie every year,; the slowly warming water temperatures causes sea levels to rise even more dramatically. Drastically slashing greenhouse gases is the only way to save the planet, writes Tidwell, who proves--his dire prognostications notwithstanding--to be an optimist, pointing to Japan's success in reforesting its islands as a model for other nations to emulate.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08956882396669105125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160686494619287092006-10-12T13:54:00.000-07:002006-10-12T13:54:00.000-07:00CNN: 62% oppose the War in Iraq, only 32% support ...CNN: 62% oppose the War in Iraq, only 32% support it.<BR/><BR/>Not good for three and a half weeks out of a mid term election.<BR/><BR/>Since the fundamental fight in the war on terra which Bush claimed it was, most Americans see it as a failure and do not want it to continue.<BR/><BR/>Bush's "stay the course", is not working to the majority of this countries citizens.clifhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01789324243613548212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160686237584269722006-10-12T13:50:00.000-07:002006-10-12T13:50:00.000-07:00Newsweek-A Political Limbo:The scandal’s more sign...Newsweek-<BR/>A Political Limbo:<BR/>The scandal’s more significant impact seems to be a widening of the yawning credibility gap developing between the President, his party and the nation. While 52 percent of Americans believe Hastert was aware of Foley’s actions and tried to cover them up, it’s part of a larger loss of faith in Republican leadership, thanks mostly to the war in Iraq. For instance, for the first time in the NEWSWEEK poll, a majority of Americans now believe the Bush administration knowingly misled the American people in building its case for war against Saddam Hussein: 58 percent vs. 36 percent who believe it didn’t. And pessimism over Iraq is at record highs on every score: nearly two in three Americans, 64 percent, believe the United States is losing ground there; 66 percent say the war has not made America safer from terrorism (just 29 percent believe it has); and 53 percent believe it was a mistake to go to war at all, again the first time the NEWSWEEK poll has registered a majority in that camp.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08956882396669105125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160685604259173782006-10-12T13:40:00.000-07:002006-10-12T13:40:00.000-07:00October 12, 2006A "Deep Blue Sea" in the 2006 Midt...October 12, 2006<BR/><BR/>A "Deep Blue Sea" in the 2006 Midterms?<BR/>Small Craft Advisory becomes Gale Warning for GOP<BR/><BR/>Larry J. Sabato<BR/>Director, U.Va. Center for Politics<BR/><BR/><BR/>Just a few weeks ago, President Bush and the GOP appeared to be staging a remarkable comeback that would have enabled the Republicans to retain their congressional majorities. The Foley scandal and the deteriorating situation in Iraq have changed all that, and it is clear that as of mid-October, there is a Democratic gale a blowin'. We all hope that Samuel L. Jackson isn't eaten by a shark again, but it's looking like the GOP's worst fear might be about to surface. <BR/><BR/> <BR/>Democrats are moving up--some rapidly--in a wide range of competitive contests for the House, the Foley storm's chamber of direct impact. For the first time this year, your cautious Crystal Ball now projects a Democratic majority of somewhere between 221 and 225 seats (with 218 needed for control). In fact, to reflect just how precipitously many GOP-held seats have drifted from safe harbor, we have had to jettison not only the "Dirty Thirty" but now the "Ferocious Forty" as well. In their place, meet the "Ferocious FIFTY" theaters of battle, 42 of which are currently held by Republicans. It is indeed noteworthy that since last month's update, the Crystal Ball can now count an additional ten House districts as truly competitive (rated either as a Toss-up or "leaning" towards one party in our chart below). <BR/><BR/>In the Senate we believe that control of the body is up for grabs, with Democrats nearly sure to win 15 out of the 33 total seats up this year. Four more seats are on the edge but leaning slightly towards the Democrats. The five total toss-ups will determine which party organizes the upper chamber, and the Democrats will likely need to capture all five of them to take control, a reasonable possibility given the dynamics of each race in that category. <BR/><BR/>For Democrats, the best part of election night might be in the statehouses. The Crystal Ball believes that when the votes are counted, Democrats will have between 26 and 28 Governors, up from the current 22--and they are likely gaining seats in the vital states of Ohio and New York. <BR/><BR/>Can these forecasts change? Is the Pope German? But at this point, the probability is that the shifts will primarily be fine-tuning. There are only three possible outcomes in the House, for instance. Either the GOP will maintain its majority by a wafer-thin margin, or the Democrats will get their own small majority, or the Democrats will break through for a sizeable majority. Options two and three--or something in between them--now appear likely. In the Senate, the alternatives are dramatically diminished GOP control or the slimmest of Democratic majorities, with the fates pointing to the tiniest edge still for a Republican Majority Leader. In the statehouses, important Democratic gains are literally certain.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08956882396669105125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160685011394523592006-10-12T13:30:00.000-07:002006-10-12T13:30:00.000-07:00This is truely priceless:OH-02: Murtha To Campaign...This is truely priceless:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/oct/12/oh_02_murtha_campaigns_against_mean_jean" REL="nofollow">OH-02: Murtha To Campaign Against Nemesis "Mean Jean"</A><BR/><BR/><I>Jack Murtha is coming to Ohio to campaign for Dem Victoria Wulsin -- and against Wulsin's GOP opponent, "Mean Jean" Schmidt, the woman who memorably called Murtha a "coward" a year ago. Today's Cincinnati Post <A HREF="http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061012/NEWS01/610120336" REL="nofollow">reports that Murtha will invade Mean Jean's district</A> on behalf of Wulsin this coming Saturday. For Murtha, this may amount to more than run-of-the-mill campaigning. Last November, after Murtha called for withdrawal from Iraq, Mean Jean said: "Cowards cut and run, Marines never do." Murtha, of course, was a Marine. For old time's sake, we're hauling out the video of Mean Jean's "coward" moment.</I><BR/><BR/>I'll bet that is one repug that wishes she never attempted to slime a former Marine.<BR/><BR/>BTW she is behind in the <A HREF="http://www.constituentdynamics.com/mw/2006/index2.php" REL="nofollow">newest polls. 48-45</A>, not Good for a sitting congressperson to be behind in the polls.clifhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01789324243613548212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160683889218764632006-10-12T13:11:00.000-07:002006-10-12T13:11:00.000-07:00New poll out suggests the DEMOCRATS will have a 19...New <A HREF="http://www.constituentdynamics.com/mw/2006/index2.php" REL="nofollow">poll</A> out suggests the DEMOCRATS will have a 19 seat majority in the House........Speaker Pelosi?<BR/><BR/>I wonder if Denny's gonna pull a NEWT and resign if they lose control?<BR/><BR/>And remember we have just under 4 weeks to go, so the majority just MIGHT GROW.clifhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01789324243613548212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160682345001670322006-10-12T12:45:00.000-07:002006-10-12T12:45:00.000-07:00Looks like Jim ZGilchrist, you know the big bad mi...Looks like Jim ZGilchrist, you know the big bad minuteman who RAN from a bunch of college kids, ran from One even though they were 2500 miles apart and only speaking via an electronic link, <BR/><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/12/minuteman-founder-jim-gilchrist-storms-off-democracy-now/#more-10969" REL="nofollow">Minuteman Founder Jim Gilchrist Storms Off Democracy Now!</A><BR/><I>By: John Amato on Thursday, October 12th, 2006 at 5:36 AM - PDT <BR/>Storms off is a little strong. (headline provided by DN) He abruptly ends the interview. I'm sure you've heard about Columbia University students protesting Jim Gilchrist's appearance at the college. Let's get right down to it. Gilchrist acts like a coward as he lawyers up and hangs up the phone as soon as they start debating the issue.<BR/><BR/>Democracy Now: The anti-immigration group the Minuteman Project announced yesterday that they are seeking to strip Columbia University of federal funding for what they say are violations of their civil rights. Last week, student demonstrators disrupted a speech by Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist who was invited to the school by the College Republicans…read on<BR/><BR/>Audio-MP3<BR/><BR/>AMY GOODMAN: Jim Gilchrist, who was the speaker at the event, joins us now from Irvine, California. He is the founder of the Minuteman Project and the co-author of Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders. Here in studio in New York, I’m joined by Karina Garcia. She is the political chair of the Chicano Caucus at Columbia University. Her group organized the protest outside the Minuteman event. We asked a representative from Columbia University to join us as well, but they declined our invitation.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Let's start with Jim Gilchrist. Can you talk about why you came to Columbia and what your message was?<BR/><BR/>JIM GILCHRIST: Yes, thanks for having me on your program. We came to Columbia from the invitation of the Republican club, student club at Columbia University, to speak about the book that Dr. Corsi and I wrote — Dr. Corsi also was scheduled to speak right after I was — and also about our views on the illegal immigration crisis that the United States is facing. We were there simply to disseminate information, not engage in what we’ve been accused of, as some kind of xenophobic racism. It’s simply a lecture presented by three of us: Marvin Stewart, an African American member of my board of directors, Dr. Jerome Corsi, and myself.<BR/><BR/>AMY GOODMAN: And when you got to the university and you were giving your address, what is your view of what happened?<BR/><BR/>JIM GILCHRIST: There was a concerted effort to forever shut down the First Amendment by those who disagreed with what we were going to talk about. This is not something new. It’s something that’s been attempted in the past by other either student groups or anarchist groups, the International Socialist Organization, whose goal is to stamp out free speech if they do not agree with it, so this was not something new.<BR/><BR/>I didn't expect a storming of the stage, although it didn’t surprise me, because I had mentioned earlier to security that they should have uniformed badge-carrying officers in front of the stage to deter something like that from happening. It’s a shame what happened. It will go down in history forever as a day of infamy in Columbia University's annals.<BR/><BR/>AMY GOODMAN: Karina Garcia, your perspective on what happened? And where were you?<BR/><BR/>KARINA GARCIA: Thank you for having me. It’s ridiculous for them to have turned it around and say that it's an issue of free speech. What we actually saw was two groups exercising their right to freedom of speech. One group was promoting hatred and violence, and the other group was loudly opposing it. We never asked for the university or for anybody, for that matter, to ban this man from speaking. He was able to reserve a hall in our auditorium. He had the security of the New York City Police Department. He had the security of Columbia University Public Safety. Nobody attacked Mr. Gilchrist.<BR/><BR/>As a matter of fact, if you look at what his comment was the very next day on FOX News, he laughed about the situation and said that he was ready to give the very first Minuteman knuckle sandwich, which just goes to show how this man wasn't attacked at all. As a matter of fact, we were the ones that were attacked, when we went up to unfurl a banner that said "Say No To Racism!" And it was our right and our duty and our obligation to stand up on the stage and say, "This man is a murderer. This man is a racist. And we do not support him."<BR/><BR/>AMY GOODMAN: And what then happened, when people went up on the stage?<BR/><BR/>KARINA GARCIA: When we went up on the stage, we were attacked by the Minutemen, as is evident in the Univision coverage.<BR/><BR/>AMY GOODMAN: And your response to the president of your university, Lee Bollinger's statement on Friday?<BR/><BR/>KARINA GARCIA: I think that he was feeling a lot of pressure from the rightwing media, FOX News, Bill O'Reilly going on TV when the university is in the middle of a capital campaign and telling donors to stop giving money to the university, them turning this into a free speech issue, which it was not. I think that he was feeling a lot of pressure to react and react quickly without actually seeing the evidence, and I think that if you look at his statement now, I think it's a lot different once the Univision coverage was shown. And then it showed who really were the people who were attacked and who were the aggressors in the situation.<BR/><BR/>JIM GILCHRIST: Outright propaganda.<BR/><BR/>AMY GOODMAN: Jim Gilchrist, your response.<BR/><BR/>JIM GILCHRIST: Yes, I’m going to end this interview until — for the outcome of — based on legal advice. What this lady is doing is putting a complete spin to her advantage. I don't — I have never murdered anybody. I have never engaged in violence. I have never encouraged any violence or racism, nor has anyone in the Minuteman Project. This was a concerted, premeditated effort by people like Ms. Garcia to stifle the First Amendment.<BR/><BR/>KARINA GARCIA: What about your ties to the National Alliance?<BR/><BR/>JIM GILCHRIST: Now, I'm going to end this now, and you can deal with the law firm that's going to probably name you and your cohorts –<BR/><BR/>KARINA GARCIA: Cohorts.<BR/><BR/>JIM GILCHRIST: –as defendants. I’m going to have to end this now, based on advice from legal counsel. I'm sorry.<BR/><BR/>KARINA GARCIA: Go ahead and run away.<BR/><BR/>AMY GOODMAN: Jim Gilchrist, I'm puzzled, are you sitting there with a lawyer?<BR/><BR/>JIM GILCHRIST: That's it. [line cut]<BR/><BR/>AMY GOODMAN: We have just been cut off from our contact with Jim Gilchrist, who is in a studio in Irvine, California, says he had legal counsel to stop talking. Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minuteman Project and author of the book, Minutemen. Karina Garcia, your response.<BR/><BR/>KARINA GARCIA: He’s a coward. He is very tough when he has a shotgun and he's in the middle of a desert intimidating defenseless immigrant families, but when it comes to being challenged by peaceful protesters and by people who understand this man and his organization for what they are, he runs away, and I think that was evident right now.<BR/><BR/>AMY GOODMAN: What was your comment about the National Alliance?<BR/><BR/>KARINA GARCIA: It's very — it's a known fact, this group recruits people from the National Alliance, one of the biggest neo-Nazi organizations in this country. This is an undisputed fact. Now, the fact that this organization is trying to clean up its image now and the fact that Jim Gilchrist has taken off his Klan hood and put on a suit doesn't mean that he isn't what he is and that his organization isn't what they are. David Duke took off his hood, too. He tried to run for governor of Louisiana, and he put on a suit, and does that change the person that he is, what it represents? Not one bit. What he represents in the Mexican community is the same thing — what the Minutemen represent in the Mexican community is the same thing that David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan represent for the African American community.<BR/><BR/>AMY GOODMAN: I’m sorry we couldn't carry on a dialogue, a discussion with you and Jim Gilchrist, but it was the College Republicans at Columbia who invited Gilchrist there. Have you had a discussion with them?<BR/><BR/>KARINA GARCIA: No.<BR/><BR/>AMY GOODMAN: And what has been the response on campus of the protest?<BR/><BR/>KARINA GARCIA: It’s been mixed. We've gotten a lot of support from people, but after the terrible coverage that we got from FOX, from the right wing, who mobilized very quickly to turn this into a free speech issue, which it clearly was not. people are mixed up. They don't understand exactly what happened. And then, that's why we held our press conference on Monday, to say exactly what happened. We didn't attack that man. We didn't attack him at all, and the video coverage shows just that.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>And this a$$clown is claiming HE can secure the border from the mexican Mafia, and drug smugglers and vicious coyote smugglers, when HE <B>cuts and runs</B> from a bunch of college kids, and HIDES behind a lawyer? <BR/><BR/>So if he is faced with real danger on the border, how far will he RUN next time....Canada?<BR/><BR/><BR/>PRICELESSclifhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01789324243613548212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160682254284972422006-10-12T12:44:00.000-07:002006-10-12T12:44:00.000-07:00in a few weeks it will be all over for the repugs ...in a few weeks it will be all over for the repugs Clif, their swan song is coming.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08956882396669105125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160680978310581522006-10-12T12:22:00.000-07:002006-10-12T12:22:00.000-07:00BTW was the "hit" piece about Harry Reid, a pre=em...BTW was the "hit" piece about Harry Reid, a pre=emptive attempt to distract from the FACT that the FBI took records from Sen. Specter's(R) office?<BR/><BR/>Because one of his staffers was getting government contracts for her husbands companies?<BR/><BR/>Like this story from Roll Call points out?<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_37/news/15395-1.html" REL="nofollow">FBI Agent Pulled Files on Specter</A><BR/>By John Stanton<BR/>Roll Call Staff<BR/>October 10, 2006<BR/><BR/><I>FBI agents in April reviewed financial disclosure forms for Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) on the same day USA Today published an article about lobbyists who are related to aides of the veteran appropriator using access to the office to secure earmarks.</I><BR/><BR/>Or this one?<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4435" REL="nofollow">FBI Investigating Specter Staff Member</A><BR/>Posted by Pamela Leavey<BR/>October 11th, 2006 @ 9:57 am<BR/><BR/><I>The FBI is investigating the possibility that a member of Sen. Arlen Specter’s staff broke the law when she may have helped her husband, a lobbyist, “secure almost $50 million in Pentagon spending for his clients.” I’m shocked! More allegations of corruptions and cronyism with the GOP? No, say it ain’t so… Please prove it to be true.<BR/><BR/> In an Aug. 21 letter, FBI official Joseph Persichini Jr. told Specter, R-Pa., that the bureau is investigating “allegations of possible criminal misconduct” by staff member Vicki Siegel Herson. Persichini also asked for a copy of a report summarizing the results of an investigation of Siegel and other Specter employees with relatives who are lobbyists. Specter’s former chief of staff, William Reynolds, carried out the investigation.<BR/><BR/> Specter provided a copy of the FBI letter to USA TODAY and said his staff gave the FBI the report last month.<BR/><BR/> The federal probe stems from a February report by USA TODAY about Siegel. Specter helped direct $48.7 million in Pentagon spending over the past five years to clients of her lobbyist husband, Michael Herson.<BR/><BR/> Specter has acknowledged he used his position on the Senate Appropriations Committee to put special-interest language in Pentagon spending bills directing the money to clients of Herson’s firm, American Defense International.<BR/><BR/>Specter claims he didn’t” know of the link to Siegel.” Right. He claims he “did nothing wrong.” Right.<BR/><BR/> “There’s no violation of the (Senate) ethics rules,” Specter, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday.<BR/><BR/> Siegel and Herson did not return messages seeking comment Tuesday evening.<BR/><BR/> Specter’s investigation found that two lobbyists related to Specter staff members had lobbied the senator’s office, and Specter inserted language directing a $200,000 grant to the client of one of them last year. That lobbyist, Eric Wallace, is the son of Specter’s Scranton office chief, Andy Wallace.<BR/><BR/>The Siegel/Specter investigation is yet the latest probe centering on corruption within the House and Senate appropriations committees.</I><BR/><BR/>Seems that dusty, you have an AP hitman investigating your story, and I have the FBI investigating the one I looked into, which one do you think the repugs are MORE scared of?clifhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01789324243613548212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160679934134630522006-10-12T12:05:00.000-07:002006-10-12T12:05:00.000-07:00This is how Atrios has it;The Worst Journalist in ...This is how <A HREF="http://atrios.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Atrios</A> has it;<BR/><BR/><I>The Worst Journalist in America <BR/><BR/><BR/>John Solomon.<BR/><BR/><BR/>-Atrios 1:21 AM</I>clifhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01789324243613548212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160679780644929212006-10-12T12:03:00.000-07:002006-10-12T12:03:00.000-07:00Apparently Harry Reid is a bad, bad man - but unfo...<A HREF="http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/apparently-harry-reid-is-bad-bad-man.html" REL="nofollow">Apparently Harry Reid is a bad, bad man - but unfortunately, I can't tell you why </A><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>John Solomon, ace Associated Press reporter (<A HREF="http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/05/three-more-ap-john-solomon-articles.html" REL="nofollow">the guy who makes lots of mistakes</A> and then gets $500 from AP rather than a correction), has come out with another hit piece against Harry Reid, conveniently right before the congressional elections.<BR/><BR/>But this time, it's a different kind of piece. In addition to being factually wrong - we're kind of used to that at this point from AP - this article simply makes no sense.<BR/><BR/>I have a law degree. And I'm a professional journalist, I've written for the Economist and other serious publications, and am no dummy. And try as I might, I couldn't make heads or tales of the AP story - it's just thick as hell, indecipherable, and doesn't really say anything.<BR/><BR/>In a nutshell, here's what I was able to translate from the original Latin.<BR/><BR/>Harry Reid bought some land in the late 90s, and over a several year period tripled his investment. Okay. Most everyone I know, other than me, did the same over that period. Still, AP calls this a "windfall." Apparently, the AP has been asleep the past ten years while land prices have soared. Anyway, Harry Reid transferred his land to an LLC, in which he was still a party, and when time came to sell the LLC, they gave Reid his portion of the return on the land and also gave him back the value of his initial investment (i.e., the value of the land itself when he gave it to the LLC).<BR/><BR/>You still with me?<BR/><BR/>Now, you'd think perhaps the AP caught Harry Reid not reporting his holdings to the Senate Ethics Committee? No, he did it. How about not reporting the land sale and his profits to the Ethics Committee? No, he did that too. So what did Harry Reid do wrong? He didn't tell the Ethics Committee he transferred the land to an LLC whi he was still a party in - though he did report to the committee that he still owned the land, which was true. Why does that detail matter? Got me. You'll have to read a four page AP story to try to figure that one out.<BR/><BR/>The other "I gotcha" from the AP? They didn't like the way Reid paid his property taxes.<BR/><BR/>Wow, so you would assume AP got a great juicy quote from George Bush's IRS about how bad a thing Reid really did with his taxes? Not quite. Here's how the IRS characterized the payments:<BR/>Brand said the IRS might view the handling of the land taxes as undisclosed income to Reid but it was unlikely to prompt an investigation. "If someone is paying a liability you owe, there may be some income imputed. But at that level, it's pretty small dollars," he said. <BR/>This is the same IRS that harasses liberal churches for sport. But they don't think they've got enough to go after the minority leader of the opposition political party.<BR/><BR/>John Solomon is obsessed with Harry Reid. It's kind of creepy.<BR/><BR/><I> Sorry dusty, but this sort of dumps on your "latest" scandal about Harry Reid, who just might become the majority leader in the senate.<BR/><BR/>Sucks to be a clueless repug nowdays doesn't it dusty.</I>clifhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01789324243613548212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160679015327661042006-10-12T11:50:00.000-07:002006-10-12T11:50:00.000-07:00How Rove Twisted Foley's Arm It seems incre...<A HREF="http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=47854" REL="nofollow">How Rove Twisted Foley's Arm</A><BR/> <BR/> <I>It seems increasingly clear that the GOP congressional leadership, eager for every safe incumbent in the House to run for re-election, looked the other way as evidence accumulated that Mark Foley had a thing for pages. Holding onto his seat became more important than confronting him over his extracurricular activities.<BR/><BR/> But there's more to the story of why Foley stood for re-election this year. Yesterday, a source close to Foley explained to THE NEW REPUBLIC that in early 2006 the congressman had all but decided to retire from the House and set up shop on K Street. "Mark's a friend of mine," says this source. "He told me, 'I'm thinking about getting out of it and becoming a lobbyist.'"<BR/><BR/> But when Foley's friend saw the Congressman again this spring, something had changed. To the source's surprise, Foley told him he would indeed be standing for re-election. What happened? Karl Rove intervened.<BR/><BR/> According to the source, Foley said he was being pressured by "the White House and Rove gang," who insisted that Foley run. If he didn't, Foley was told, it might impact his lobbying career.<BR/><BR/> "He said, 'The White House made it very clear I have to run,'" explains Foley's friend, adding that Foley told him that the White House promised that if Foley served for two more years it would "enhance his success" as a lobbyist. "I said, 'I thought you wanted out of this?' And he said, 'I do, but they're scared of losing the House and the thought of two years of Congressional hearings, so I have two more years of duty.'"<BR/><BR/> The White House declined a request for comment on the matter, but obviously the plan hasn't worked out quite as Rove hoped it would.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>No wonder the REPUGS tried so hard to HIDE this scandal. They had to cover it up, or risk losing Foley's seat, which it looks like they are about to do any way. Rove blew it, and I do not mean Foley. (But I am not counting that out either).<BR/><BR/>Sucks if your a repug and realise that KKKarl had to keep a child predator in congress just to keep control. But then again what has ever stopped KKKArl from seeking power, NOT the truth, NOT morality, NOT the constitution, and it seems NOT human decency.clifhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01789324243613548212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160676947029717732006-10-12T11:15:00.000-07:002006-10-12T11:15:00.000-07:00Lets see now we have had an Iraqi woman who is IN ...Lets see now we have had an Iraqi woman who is IN IRAQ say it is a disaster and she wants the occupation to end and we have had an American soldier, a TRUE PATRRIOT not the phonuy reich wing chickenhawk kind who is also IN IRAQ say it is a senseless war and a disaster accomplishing nothing but lining the pockets of the wealthy elite....................then we have Bush and his incompetentent sidekicks and cronnies who have a clear vested political and financial interest in justifying and keeping this endless war going who ARE NOT IN IRAQ misleading the American people about what is REALLY going on over there.........................truly pathetic!Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08956882396669105125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160675400148281902006-10-12T10:50:00.000-07:002006-10-12T10:50:00.000-07:00The Reich Wing has turned the Words Patriotism and...The Reich Wing has turned the Words Patriotism and liberal into dirty words in our society with their lies, deceptions and unsubstantiated rhetoric they attempt to pass off as facts.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08956882396669105125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160675293721396112006-10-12T10:48:00.000-07:002006-10-12T10:48:00.000-07:00Another interesting book:Talking Right: How the Ri...Another interesting book:Talking Right: How the Right turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times Reading, Body Piercing, Hollywood Loving.....<BR/>by Nunberg, Geoffrey<BR/><BR/>Nunberg (Sch. of Information, Univ. of California, Berkeley; Going Nucular ) more narrowly focuses on how the Right has taken control of the common political language to move our national politics steadily toward the conservative point of view. Words with powerful symbolic meaning, such as patriotism and terrorism , have been appropriated by conservatives and used skillfully to further their political agenda. As an example, Nunberg notes how the word elite has been narrowed to describe more liberal sectors of society, such as academics or the media, rather than referring to corporate or military leaders who exercise real power. This hijacking of the language is tied to the Right's powerful use of storytelling, going back to the 1960s and then epitomized by Ronald Reagan. Nunberg argues that for Democrats to return to power they must take back the language and tell stories that engage listeners. <BR/><BR/>Nunberg, a professor of linguistics and columnist for the New York Times, believes that Democrats are at a loss for words when it comes to the use of political language. As the Democrats feebly argue that they must "reframe" their arguments to reach voters, Nunberg (Going Nucular) believes that "what we have here is more than just a failure to communicate." Though conservatives have gained political ground using loaded terms such as "death tax" for estate tax, "climate change" for global warming and "hate speech" for any criticism of the president or fellow Republicans, their true triumph is more subtle, hijacking the "core vocabulary of American political discourse"-like "values" and "elite"-and using them to Republicans' exclusive advantage. Nunberg insists that liberals cannot model their strategy after GOP successes, though he offers little in the way of practical strategy. Though the phrase "politics of perception" has been overused-and therefore, as Nunberg might argue, rendered empty of meaning-Nunberg proves in this thoughtful, funny and rousing effort that the use and misuse of language is still of vital concern to the body politic. (July)Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08956882396669105125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160674352232381942006-10-12T10:32:00.000-07:002006-10-12T10:32:00.000-07:00Want to see what the Iraqi's reallly think og Bush...Want to see what the Iraqi's reallly think og Bush and the American occupation of Iraq, check out this the blog listed below or this book :Baghdad Burning II: More Girl Blog from Iraq<BR/>by Riverbend / Ridgeway, James (INT) / Casella, Jean (INT)<BR/><BR/>The second installment of Riverbend's incisive, salty, impassioned observations from war-torn Baghdad.Baghdad Burning (2005) is a collection of blog postings by a 24-year-old, middle-class Iraqi woman who calls herself Riverbend. This sequel picks up the story in October 2004-before the world knew that Americans would re-elect George Bush. Just before the election, Riverhead prophesies that should Bush return to the White House, life would worsen not only for Iraqis, but also for Americans, whose national image is "tarnished world-wide." Indeed, much of this is devoted to Riverbend's fury about the American occupation of Iraq. She bluntly says that although Iraqis felt sympathy when the Twin Towers collapsed, "9/11 is getting old." The author suggests the war has moved into a different phase-now, instead of being assaulted with smart missiles, Iraqis are besieged by American media, by television and radio reports that are deceptively sanitized. She tartly notes the vagaries and obfuscations of political speech, and she has little patience for the euphemistic lingua franca of war: "What exactly are precision attacks?" she pleads, after Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld invoke the phrase. "How can you be precise in a city like Samarra or in the slums of Sadir City?" Throughout all her political analysis, Riverbend sprinkles reminders of the day-to-day realties of life in Baghdad-the water problems, the lack of electricity, the daily explosions near her home, the endless gasoline queues. Riverbend's musings will make it impossible for readers to hold on to some cardboard cutout notion of "an Iraqi." Here is a practicing Muslim woman who disdains suicide bombers but understands how people are driven to such extremes, who can't stand the fundamentalist leadership of Iran, who simply wants Iraq to be stable, prosperous and peaceful.Bracing, and sure to be controversial, this is a unique and essential record of our times. <BR/><BR/>The distinctive voice of pseudonymous Riverbend shines through this continuation of her blog, from October 2004 through March 2006 (2005's Baghdad Burning won a Lettre Ulysses Award for the Art of Literary Reportage). Now 27, she offers an invaluable description of life in a middle-class, secular, mixed Shia-Sunni family. Alternating reports of attacks seen on TV and raids in her neighborhood with the mundane details of fuel shortages and infrequent electricity and water, Riverbend also offers astute analysis of the Iraqi draft constitution and American media, widely available through Iraqi TV and the Internet (her suggestion for a reality show: "Take 15 Bush supporters and throw them in a house in Fallujah"). She emphasizes how gender has become an issue when it never was before, e.g., election forms are all stamped "male." Riverbend's dry wit leavens her anger: after watching the 2006 Oscar ceremonies on TV, she proposes Iraqi Oscars ("Ahmed Al-Chalabi in 'Disappearing Act' for his magnificent evaporation from the Iraqi political scene"). Throughout, the blog insists that most Iraqis are tolerant; prefer secular to religious government; fear civil war; and vehemently want the occupation to end. (Riverbend's blog continues at riverbendblog.blogspot.com.)Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08956882396669105125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160673801867547622006-10-12T10:23:00.000-07:002006-10-12T10:23:00.000-07:00A cylindrical candy coated cake with a tasty vanil...A cylindrical candy coated cake with a tasty vanilla creme filling.WORFEUS THE SEERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08747050986194593753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160671555027085362006-10-12T09:45:00.000-07:002006-10-12T09:45:00.000-07:00Mike,are you really a "ding dong?" What exactly is...Mike,are you really a "ding dong?" What exactly is a ding dong?wufuss's daddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18068255779436771498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160669336216910912006-10-12T09:08:00.000-07:002006-10-12T09:08:00.000-07:00oh look Dolt is too embarrassed to use his real ha...oh look Dolt is too embarrassed to use his real handle, cant say I blame him, if i were a repug I probably would be too, looks like we'll be seeing a lot more of hippie joe and junkyard willie.<BR/><BR/>BTW, where is the foul Troll Tex, whata the matta Troll Tex, cat got your tongue, i thought the big brave repugie didnt care if any one had his IP, typical repug double standard say one thing but really mean another.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08956882396669105125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160641688422321502006-10-12T01:28:00.000-07:002006-10-12T01:28:00.000-07:00Mike is a real ding dong.Mike is a real ding dong.Tall Texanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14165567672127566894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160631883301228962006-10-11T22:44:00.000-07:002006-10-11T22:44:00.000-07:00Q You said yesterday in your statement that the No...Q You said yesterday in your statement that the North Korean nuclear test was unacceptable. Your chief negotiator for the six-party talks said last week that North Korea has a choice of either having weapons or having a future. When you spoke a month or so ago to the American Legion, you talked about Iran and said, there must be consequences for Iran's defiance, and we must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. I am wondering, sir, your administration has issued these kinds of warnings pretty regularly over the last five years, and yet these countries have pursued their nuclear programs. I'm wondering if you -- what is different about the current set of warnings, and do you think the administration and our government runs a risk of looking feckless to the world by issuing these kinds of warnings regularly without response from the countries?<BR/><BR/>THE PRESIDENT: That's a fair question. First of all, I am making it clear our policy hasn't changed. It's important for the folks to understand that we don't continually shift our goals based upon polls or -- whatever. See, I think clarity of purpose is very important to rally a diplomatic effort to solve the problem. And so I try to speak as clearly as I can and make sure there's no ambiguity in our position. I also found that's a pretty good way to help rally a diplomatic effort that I believe will more likely work.<BR/><BR/>I know this sounds -- I'm just saying it over and over again, but it's -- rhetoric and actions are all aimed at convincing others that they have an equal stake in whether or not these nations have a nuclear weapon, because I firmly believe, Mike, that that is the best strategy to solve the problem. One has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards. It is must easier for a nation to hear what I believe are legitimate demands if there's more than one voice speaking. And that's why we're doing what we're doing.<BR/><BR/>And to answer your question as to whether or not the words will be empty, I would suggest that, quite the contrary, that we not only have spoken about the goals, but as a result of working together with our friends, Iran and North Korea are looking at a different -- a different diplomatic scenario.<BR/><BR/><BR/>So according to GWB, blustery threats and empty rhetoric is how "diplomacy works, the reporter asks bush if making empty threats hurts his credibility and Bush babbles that his policy hasnt changed (yeah he just plans on babbling empty threats and rhetoic, thats what "HE" considers diplomacy.)<BR/><BR/>Bush uses a poker analagy saying you have a stronger hand if more people are playing your same cards (sorry fool in chief but when more people are playing your same cards your cards are dead and you dont have any outs).<BR/><BR/>bush is a fool that thinks arrogant bluster and empty threats is diplomacy, and that freedom and democracy is brought with guns and bombs and death, hatred and torture. and that those things make us safer.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08956882396669105125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9102706.post-1160626723568643762006-10-11T21:18:00.000-07:002006-10-11T21:18:00.000-07:00A "hacker blog troll?"A "hacker blog troll?"wufuss's daddyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18068255779436771498noreply@blogger.com