I hate the television

I'm done

2006-02-14T13:12:00.000-04:00

I'm done with the Democratic party. Kiss my ass.

They have driven outspoken Iraq-War veteran Paul Hackett out of the Ohio senate race. Senate minority leader Harry Reid and NY senator Charles Shumer told him he was no longer wanted.

Why are party leaders so afraid of someone who tells the truth? Hackett was running for all the right reasons. How many times have the American people clamored for a loud voice on the Democratic side? We love Hackett because he calls a spade a spade and refuses to apologize for it.

The Democratic Party has a strategy of pleasing voters who don't care about politics. That makes no sense because those people don't vote. The Republicans realized long ago to play to their base. Lie to the Christians and make laws for the CEO's. It works. Democrats should take a lesson from Howard Dean. His campaign started off so well because he said he was a liberal and never apologized. People were thrilled to hear about universal health care and better schools. If John Kerry and his money would have embraced those ideals and shouted them out proudly, the world would be a much better place today.

Sherrod Brown may be a fine candidate for the Senate, I don;t know the man. Nothing against him, but I'm done with all of them. The criteria for a picking a candidate shouldn't be "good fund raiser + non-controversial." Just ask John Kerry how well that formula works. The people who vote want someone to stand up and shout. Stand up and lead.

No more donations, no more volunteer work, No more voting. What's the point? I hate this place.

An open letter to Senator Nelson

2006-01-26T12:29:00.000-04:00

Fight Samuel Alito with every tool in the arsenal. A 'token no' isn't good enough.

Our president is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and you will lose my vote for senate if you allow him to appoint this man to the court.

Enjoy your unitary executive.

Once Alito is on the court, you'll never be able to conduct oversight again. But, then again, does it matter? You haven't conducted any thus far. This administration disgusts me. How long must we accept the lies, secrecy and theft?

I ask you, please, stand up for what's right. Don't worry though, I won't be hurt because, while I do hope, I expect nothing.

God Save the King.

Alito

2006-01-24T13:00:00.000-04:00

In fourth grade I was taught that there are three equal branches of government. The Congress passes laws. They make the rules. The judges interpret the laws. They decide if the law is fair. They decide who is right if two people disagree on what a law means. The executive makes sure everyone follows the rules. The president does not get to write laws or decide which laws are constitutional. Signing statements fly in the face of this theory. This theory is all that separates us from a totalitarian regime. If the president can make and interpret laws he is a despot.

Sam Alito believes that one man is above the law. He argues that when Congress passes a bill, the President can change it's meaning with a "signing statement." He argues that the President can fire people in the federal government if they attempt to investigate him or his political allies.

In one signing statement, Congress passed a law that said no person shall be subject to torture by the US government. A despot could decide to pass this law with one addition: "Unless I feel that I need to torture people."

Congress earlier passed a law saying that the President could use force to fight al Qaida. A despot could reason that suppressing dissent in his own country is part of that fight. He would then spy on American politicians, journalists and protestors. Alito argues in favor of these signing statements, saying that a President has the right to change laws passed by Congress.

A long time ago, one President thought he was above the law. He spied on his political enemies in the name of war. He got caught. He then tried to fire people in the Justice department who were running the investigation. People were outraged when Nixon did this. Why is it okay now? John Ashcroft, a near-fascist, right-wing ally of the President was removed from the Justice Department after questioning the legality of the President's spying on Americans. He was replaced by a man who taught us that its legal to torture people without legal counsel or the right to hear the charges against them.

Alito argues that the President has the right to remove anyone in the Executive branch, even the attorney general or a special prosecutor. Imagine if Clinton tried to fire Ken Starr. Luckily some smart Republicans outlawed the use of the special prosecutor before George Bush was accused of anything.

I guess Alito can't hurt us. He's decided that the President doesn't need a court's approval for anything he does. He's decided that the President can change the laws that Congress passes. If Alito joins the court, he can no longer hurt us, only the President can. Even if you trust George Bush, do you trust the next President? How about the next one? Once this power is consolidated, don't expect any president to give it up.

Supreme Switch

2005-10-10T19:38:00.000-04:00

When will people see the truth behind the Bush supreme court nominees? This administration doesn;t care about Roe v. Wade or school prayer. They care about corporate money.

Corporate money fuels their campaigns, but they need a base of voters, so they wave the flag, and imprison those who would burn it. They say they'll overturn Roe and outlaw gay marriage, but they know that and end to those wedge issues, would allow Middle America to think about societal issues like jobs, the economy, and the environment, so they make sure the issues that divide wil stay in the forefront. Also, they know that most Americans think Roe is a good law that ought to be upheld.

Corporate money fuels the political machine, so these two nominations, Roberts and Miers, were chosen because they will throw out environmental laws in favor of polluting corporations. They will rule that off-shore tax shelters are legal for the ultra-rich. They are not "strict constructionists." They will beleive whatever is in the interest of the wealthy. They will take any side that makes it harder for the working man to get a fair wage.

These nominations are not about "family values" at all. Real family values mean that the working man gets a fair shake. it means health insurance for all Americans. It means leaving the planet in better condition than we found it so our children can grow up healthy. Once the wedge issues are gone, regualar republicans will start to demand health care instead of anti-choice laws, and the Bush Co. cannot let that happen. If it happens, they lose their power. If it happens, they'll have to pay taxes that support the working class. They would never allow that to happen.

Hope

2005-08-21T03:50:00.000-04:00

For the first time in years, I have hope for this nation.

We are finally beginning to show some outrage. We finally believe in free speech. 'They' still smear those who speak truth to power, but all of a sudden 'they' seem silly. No one actually believes that Cindy Sheehan is an anti-Semite. In fact, the average person thinks, "That's ridiculous."

Of course we wouldn't be in this mess if the average person thought, "That's ridiculous" when 'they' told us that John Kerry shot himself in Vietnam just to get a medal. That may be ridiculous, but the polls supported the president. And the press supports the polls.

Well now the polls say the president lied to us. So the press is starting to say it too. It's a pathetic showing by the press, but I guess I'll take what I can get. The press disgusts me, but at last they're catching up with America.

The problem is, they're supposed to tell us what's going on, not the other way around.

Treason

2005-07-15T18:30:00.000-04:00

Karl Rove has made it clear that party loyalty is more important than national security in the Bush administration.

The act of identifying CIA NOC operative Valerie Wilson was designed to discredit her husband. Joe Wilson blew the whistle on a lie about Iraq. He tried to expose the lie anonymously, but no one listened. He dicided to go public with an op/ed in the New York Times, and he and his family were punished.

After identifying Mrs. Wilson, Bob Novak printed a second column that outed her entire front company, Brewster Jennings and Associates. One can reasonably assume his source was the same as the first article, the White House. The 'employees' of this company were charged with teh task of tracking weapons dealers to keep Americans safe. They kept weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Now that company is gone. Now the arms dealers can operate freely without the CIA watching them.

On a personal level, every CIA covert operative with a Brewster Jennings cover was put in harms way. Every foriegn national who helped the CIA could easily be identified by local governments by their Brewster Jennings contacts. These people were helping America track wweapons of mass destruction until the White House put them in harm's way.

Human intelligence is the most reliable form intel. Rolling up an entire comany worth of CIA operatives and their contacts in the arms dealing world hurt America. Maybe these CIA operatives had contacts with arms dealers who helped plan the attacks in London. Maybe these arms dealers have recently sold explosives to a cell in New York or Los Angeles. Its certainly possible, but we will never know.

CIA operatives who go undercover without a diplomatic passport understand that their government will never identify them as CIA. Of course this is meant to protect the government in the event that the agent is caught. If caught, they can expect to face charges of espionage, and in some countries, to be put to death. Even facing the death penalty, they do not expect their government to come to the rescue. They are brave, and deserve better than to be outed for political gain.

The White House motives for this leak are simple:

1. Discredit a whislteblower. By claming he was the beneficiary of nepotism they
force the press to explore something other than the relevant facts. While his
report has been proven correct, pundits and reporters are often caught arguing
over minutae like who authorized the trip.
2. Punish dissent. Wilsons wife
and her entire network of CIA operatives and contacts were compromised. No
American intelligence agent will speak out against the administration again for
fear of similar reprisals.

Does it even matter who authorized the trip? The White House claim is that Wilson said, "Cheney sent me to Niger." Wislon actually said that the CIA was asked by the Vice President's office to send someone. He was chosen after his wife had recommended him to her superiors. He was more than qualified. The beauty of this, from the administration's view, is that we're thinking about this instead of the fact that President lied to us about Iraq's alleged purchase of uranium.

We cannont live in a society where dissent is punished. That is not America. It is even worse, treasonous, when that punishment is exacted on the citizen as well as the whistleblower.

I was put in danger by Karl Rove's actions. So were you. The administration campaigned on security and now we see the truth. Security comes in a distant second to political power.

The Downing St. minutes

2005-06-07T15:47:00.000-04:00

Many Americans may not realize it, but George W. Bush planned to attack Iraq much sooner than we think. This is not speculation. British intelligence was told of the plans so they could prepare to fight and to convince the British people.

In July of 2002, to keep the executive branch up to date, intelligence officers met with Tony Blair and others about the possibility of a US-led invasion of Iraq.One of the key parts of this meeting was John Scarlett, Chair of the Intelligence Committee, describing his recent visit to the United States. He summarized his meetings in Washington:

There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
...

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

To read the entire memo, go to the Times of London.This document is a memo written by Matthew Raycroft, an aide to the British foreign Policy Advisor. It is nothing more than a written report on a meeting of top government officials, including Prime Minister Tony Blair. For more info on the players involved and who they are, check out downingstreetmemo.com.

What does it mean?
Most importantly it means that we have proof. Our intelligence agencies told the British that we were invading Iraq and need their help. Our government laid out false reasons for war, when the only real reason was 'regime change.' We assured them that we would present evidence to justify our invasion, regardless of the facts. The administration told the British that they would "make the intelligence fit the policy" and then they lied to the United Nations and lied to the United States.We know for sure that there were no WMD, and the administration knew it in 2002.

The other reason they gave was that Iraq was part of the "War on Terror." The evidence they gave for this was:

1- An alleged meeting between an Al Qaeda loyalist and Saddam's Intelligence force. This was never proven, it is only known that an al Qaeda operative went to Baghdad for medical treatment. If he did meet with Saddam's people, it may mean something, but not much. Many people have met with Saddam, including our allies and Donald Rumsfeld himself.
2- A group called "Ansar Al Islam" that operated near the western border in Iraq. Ansar al Islam, up until a few months before the US occupation, was an enemy of the Saddam government. They fought against the Iraqi regime. They were a convenient group to paint as Qaeda loyalists because "Ansar al Islam" sounds, especially to the general public, like a group that hates America. The truth is, they were a group that hated Saddam, until they were destroyed by US war planes. Saddam certainly didn't "harbor" them or assist them in any way.

Take action with Representative John Conyers: Sign the petition that demands answers from the Administration and the president.

Faith and the desecration of the Koran

2005-06-04T23:52:00.000-04:00

How is it that the news revolved around Newsweek's retraction in the story about US interrogators abusing the Koran for over a week, but when the Pentagon admits that we literally pissed on the Koran, it is hardly mentioned. Where is our outrage? This is an attack on people of faith. Bill Frist should be calling for resignations.

How can it be disgusting to print a news item that embarrasses our nation, but now that we know it to be true, we are no longer offended?

Government officials and talking heads attacked Newsweek's editors and blamed them for the deaths of civilians in Pakistani riots. The media and pundits owe the editors at Newsweek an apology. To the American people they owe more than an apology. They owe us the truth. They owe it to us to cover the stories, to start doing their jobs.

Tell Americans what is being done in our name. Blame the policies in Guantanamo Bay, the Defense Department, and the CIA the way you blamed Newsweek. Our government is responsible for the riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but since they admitted it on a Friday night, it must not be important.

The only right-wing pundit that gets a pass is the one who said, "Even if it is true, Newsweek shouldn't be allowed to print it." He may be a fascist who believes in censorship, but at least he is not a hypocrite.

Our leaders claim a certain moral authority or religious set of values that, they believe, has placed them in power and dictates their policies.

The religious right could learn a lot from the average devout Muslim. Muslims are more outraged by the desecration of their holy book than they are by the physical torture that is common practice in US detention centers. These people truly care about their their religion. If the religious right would actual read some religious books instead of urinating on them, the world would be a better place.

Americans see holy texts as nothing more than a means to an end. We see the Koran as way to humiliate, agitate, and interrogate people of faith. We found that urinating on something so cherished is more painful than nearly drowning them or beating them with rifles.
But how do we view our own holy books? The religious right in this country, it seems, does not look to the bible for advice, but for justification of views and actions. It is a long book. You can justify almost anything with the text inside.

They call the filibuster an attack against people of faith. Urinating on the Koran is an attack against people of faith. Bombing towns, hospitals, and mosques with cluster bombs is an attack against people of faith.

If faith is just a means to an end, it is not faith at all.