by blues, Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:47:05 AM EDT
George W. Bush has NO interest in vetoing a $124 BILLION giveaway to Exxon!!! Just look at the fine print in these bills!!! $124 BILLION to Exxon!!! 124 BILLION pints of American BLOOD to Exxon!!!
'Operation Iraqi Liberation'!!! (O.I.L.) -- Search for it in:
If Congress simply passes a $0.00 'Supplemental', the Pentagon will promptly ask for money to get the troops out. Our plans to 'permit' Exxon, et al. to rape Iraq's oil will face opposition from FOUR MILLION ARABS, PERSIANS, and KURDS!!! (Not to mention Russia, China, India, and Iran.)
A draft is coming, and everyone who has less than a million dollars in Swiss Franks will have their children 18 to 45 drafted and destroyed. -- So we can continue to hot-rod around fixing out perverted speed addiction.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jump! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by blues, Thu Mar 01, 2007 at 04:59:02 PM EST
The next time your favorite politician says 'Iran is on the table', what they really mean is -- Vietnam is on the table!
Wayne Madsen Reports
March 1, 2007 -- We are back. The editor was on special assignment in Southeast Asia, specifically Cambodia and Thailand. Due to the sensitivity of the story, which is being prepared for another publication, and the situation that throats in the region are commonly slit for as little as $5 and that Thailand is under a military dictatorship and Cambodia is not much better off, there was a need to keep the destinations confidential for the past two and a half weeks. We appreciate the e-mail expressing concern. And, now, back to the news...
March 1, 2007 -- BUSH AND CHENEY, WHO AVOIDED THE VIETNAM WAR, ARE PREPARING FOR A NEW U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE IN SOUTHEAST ASIA: AFTER THE MIDDLE EAST DISASTER, GET READY FOR INDOCHINA WAR II.
by blues, Wed Feb 28, 2007 at 08:56:45 AM EST
I try to avoid too-short diary entries. But I am an idea nerd, and most ideas are best kept short and simple. So here's one:
Just get the gears turning on a Constitutional amendment to allow Senate removal of an impeached president, or other officer, by a simple majority, instead of a 2/3rds super-majority. Just think, Al Gore could have been president even sooner. The real point is that far, far too much power has been ceded to the executive, and a massive rebalancing is desperately required.
I am also floating a scheme to create 100 Congressional committees to hound the white house every single day with endless subpoenas. These are things that ought to get done now, I believe.
by blues, Sun Feb 04, 2007 at 10:13:12 PM EST
First, a snip from the article that raised this question:
How to fix campaign financing forever for $50
A radical proposal by two Yale professors goes far beyond any reform envisaged by Feingold or McCain.
By Farhad Manjoo
...But reforming the system doesn't have to be a pipe dream. In fact, there's already a plan out there that would work. The proposal, which was outlined a couple of years ago by Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres, two professors at Yale Law School, is nonpartisan, constitutional and completely contrary to nearly every orthodoxy in the campaign finance reform movement. Think of it as the best campaign finance reform proposal you've never heard of.
The first part of the Ackerman-Ayres plan calls on the government to give every voter $50 to donate to candidates running for federal office. The second part will sound almost as crazy, until it sounds brilliant: Make all campaign donations secret, so that nobody -- especially political candidates -- knows where any citizen's money is going. Anonymous giving means no quid pro quo.
To understand what's so truly inspired about this proposal, you first have to understand what's wrong with today's laws. The current regulations were put in place to counter the abuses uncovered during the Watergate investigation, things like the Committee to Re-elect the President's maintenance of secret slush funds for dirty tricks. They mainly limit how much money individuals can donate to candidates and how much candidates can spend to win office. In return for abiding by spending limits, politicians get public matching funds -- that is, money from the government -- to mount their campaigns.
This may seem like a sensible approach, but Ackerman and Ayres suggest that it is fundamentally flawed. Capping how much money people can give to candidates only invites ways to get around those limits. Getting around the limits has become a huge Washington business, employing battalions of lawyers and lobbyists. Limits simply don't limit much -- every election sees more private donations to candidates, and more money spent on campaigns.
~~~~~~~~~~ Jump! ~~~~~~~~~~
by blues, Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 11:17:13 AM EST
A lot's happened lately. It's generally bad form to use a whole thread to report a news item. But I have a slew of them, and they are a tad startling. There are at least two Scooter Libby threads up, but they don't seem to mention this(!):
Who is I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby?
He is the former chief of staff and national security adviser for Vice President Dick Cheney. A neocon in fine standing, he was a leading advocate for the invasion of Iraq. He helped assemble the first draft of Secretary of State Colin Powell's U.N. speech laying out the case for war. That draft contained allegations about Saddam Hussein's WMDs that were so flimsy that Larry Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, tossed it aside. Before serving as Cheney's top aide, Libby was a corporate lawyer. His most prominent client was fugitive financier Marc Rich (who was pardoned by outgoing President Clinton). Libby has written one novel, which contains graphic scenes of sexual bestiality. He is married to a former Democratic congressional aide.
~~~ Jump ~~~
by blues, Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 01:21:57 PM EST
McDonald's Suck Harder Yet
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - A restaurant trade group says it is insulted by an insurance company's planned Super Bowl ad that stars Kevin Federline as a fast-food worker.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.'s 30-second spot shows Federline, who is estranged from pop princess Britney Spears, performing in a glitzy music video. However, the punch line is that he's daydreaming - while cooking french fries at a fast-food joint.
The ad amounts to a "strong and direct insult to the 12.8 million Americans who work in the restaurant industry," wrote National Restaurant Association President and Chief Executive Steven Anderson in a letter to Nationwide CEO Jerry Jurgensen.
The commercial "would give the impression that working in a restaurant is demeaning and unpleasant," Anderson wrote.
(AP) This undated photo provided by Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., Kevin Federline shows in a...
If the Columbus-based insurer airs the spot during the televised Feb. 4 Super Bowl, Anderson said his organization will "make sure that our membership - many of whom are customers of Nationwide - know the negative implications this ad portrays of the restaurant industry."
by blues, Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 01:14:25 PM EST
Edwards looks to be poised to promote yet a new Bush 'War Powers Act' over the wholly conjectural conspiracy theory that Iran is after nuclear weapons. This makes me ill. Consider:
Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2003
Nuclear weapons unholy, Iran says
Islam forbids use, clerics proclaim
Led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation's "supreme leader," Iranian clerics have repeatedly declared that Islam forbids the development and use of all weapons of mass destruction.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction," Khamenei said recently. "In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form."
Now, this is the form of a fatwa from the Supreme Leader, who is in charge of everything, and answerable only to (to quote from Wkipedia) The Assembly of Experts, which meets for one week annually, comprises 86 "virtuous and learned" clerics elected by adult suffrage for eight-year terms. So it's much like a ruling of our Supreme Court.
by blues, Wed Dec 27, 2006 at 08:49:24 PM EST
Some months ago, I randomly came upon an article by a liberal editor who stated explicitly that John Edwards, announced candidate for the presidency on the Democratic ticket, had participated on a committee that had advocated a monstrously inhumane policy. It sounded like something that would bring about the destruction of thousands of men, women, children,. This may all be mistaken, or even disinformation. But I saw it, and it seemed to come from a very reputable source. I commented on these observations on Matt Stoller's "Bad Edwards" thread, but those comments were very, very quickly zeroed out.
The issue is quite simple: are the folks who truly believe in this candidate's message correct, or is Edwards actually a stealth fascist, no better, perhaps much worse, the George W, Bush? I am merely looking for answers. This obviously goes far beyond Matt's issues about campaign disingenuousness.
I too, would love to believe that Edwards is for real, and quite possibly he is. But he is far from being our only option. And I would like to have other bloggers (no swiftboaters need apply) look into this.
And I did not deserve to be zeroed out for asking these questions. I only ask that the serious diggers begin looking around for answers. Obviously, this is important. We do not need a "Democratic" version of Bush. I am 'blues' on forty other liberal blogs, so there should be no difficulty finding my questions about this in these venues as well.
by blues, Sat Dec 16, 2006 at 06:09:19 AM EST
(Thanks to Culture of Life News for heads-up.)
Looks like the Defective Capitalist Tool In Chief is going for the "double-down gamble" option in Iraq! He's looking for 50,000 more troops to escalate the Iraq war. Here are some news clips, along with some other items to make you think about the stark implications of this move. This news appeared in Europe considerably earlier than it did in the US media outlets.
«Jump To Read More»
by blues, Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:25:53 AM EST
I am deeply troubled by low-level rumblings about an air attack upon Iran by Israel. If such an attack is launched, either with or without the use of nuclear weapons, it will instantly turn the entire Middle East into a gigantic fireball. No more Iranian oil to China will disintegrate the entire economic illusion that currently holds the US above the deep dark abyss of economic depression. We will literally be burning Dollar bills in our fireplaces. The conflagration will unleash God only knows what terrorism upon the unsuspecting populace of America, possibly demolishing every last shred of our civil liberties. Putin the Poisoner might well find it irresistible to start flinging stealth hypersonic Sunburn cruise missiles.
There was a time when the Israelis seemed to know exactly what they were doing. But no more. Now they seem fixated on an Iran that will not have nuclear weapons for at least five years. And even when they get them, they will never use them to attack Israel. Sure, Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes all kinds of noises about smashing Israel, but we all know perfectly well that he has no power to speak of. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei holds all power, and he merely wants to look out for his Shiite flock. He has no interest in starting any ruinous war against Israel.
And remember, Iran currently is not in tyranny. True, they do not have the democracy or separation of church and state that our founding fathers were so adamant about. But their society is arguably more open presently than any other in the Middle East.
If the more extreme elements heedlessly rush headlong into an attack on Iran that will basically lead to the utter destruction of the United States as we have come to know it. And the whole world will know perfectly well that the neocon fools in Washington were behind it all.
I must not sit around and wait for this lunatic scenario to play out any further. Maybe I am just overloaded with the fear and loathing for this disgusting mess. I have friends who are fighting in Iraq right now, and no one had better even think about allowing them to be butchered in the fireball that would instantly ignite if the now unworldly "leaders" of Israel attack Iran in any way.
Maybe I'm off my nut here, but I'm getting madder and madder, and I cannot just watch this nightmare unfold any further. So with infinite reluctance, I would say, if the maniacal Israeli "leadership" really does bomb Iran -- then we need to suddenly eliminate Israel. It is beyond awful, but we really must put some reasonable value on our own survival. After all, an awful lot of Jewish folks live here in America too. Hands off Iran, Dammit!