Saturday, August 23, 2008
Simmons, a Texas billionaire, has raised money for Senator John McCain and who also helped finance the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry in 2004. Swift-boating once again may be effective especially for the dumbed-down voters.
The ad ran on Thursday in the Dayton, Ohio market. A founder of the American Issues Project, Ed Failor Jr., previously worked for Mr. McCain’s campaign, which paid his firm $50,000 in 2007, records filed with the election commission show.
No doubt the McCain people will deny any link to this ad or to the American Issues Project, After all, McCain is a straight-talker and would never lower himself to such a dirty campaign trick. Right.
Any bets on how effective the ad will be on Joe and Jane?
OHIO action email: http://my.barackobama.com/offtheairOH
MICHIGAN action email: http://my.barackobama.com/offtheairMI
Friday, August 22, 2008
Ex-principal of the high school, David Davis, now a classroom teacher, thought that his students should all be good christian boys and girls, just like he is. Surely they ought not be gay! For the Bible says...
Now the townsfolk, their panties all in knots, are backing the ex-principal. The superintendent is as well. "I don't think we are that different from a lot of districts, at least in the Panhandle, that have beliefs that maybe are different from societal changes," the superintendent said. "We are a small, rural district in the Bible Belt with strong Christian beliefs and feel like homosexuality is wrong," said Steve Griffin, Holmes County's school superintendent, who keeps a Bible on his desk and framed Scriptures on his office walls.
Indeed you are, Mr. Griffin, indeed. Not much different than 'them' other rural districts down there where we 'is' right and 'them' is wrong. After all, the Bible says...
The friends of the gay student donned gay pride T-shirts and rainbow-colored clothing when they found out how Principal Davis had treated her, and he subsequently questioned many of them about their sexuality and association with gay students. Some were suspended.
"Davis embarked on what can only be characterized as a 'witch hunt' to identify students who were homosexual and their supporters, further adding fuel to the fire," U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak recounted in his ruling. "He went so far as to lift the shirts of female students to insure the letters 'GP' or the words 'Gay Pride' were not written on their bodies."
Lifted the girls' shirts? Oh my, Mr. Davis, seems to me that you ought to be watched a little more closely yourself. After all, the Bible says...
The 'Russians are taking their time' exiting Georgia- the pained and reactionary right-wing dittoheads, panties all in a knot, repeat as a Medieval chant. Always a laugh on that side of the political spectrum. Surely the tough talk of McCain precipitated their exit.
Speaking of exits, I just heard that Bush and the Iraqis have agreed on a timetable for our exit from Iraq- 2011. Did I say time-table? Oh, John- there's a time-table for exiting Iraq, did you hear? Apparently the Bush goons have seen the light that Obama has preached for months now. I guess that Mr. McCain will have to re-tune his stump speech slightly and remove that line about no time-table. And that word 'victory,' Mr. McCain, I think you ought to drop that too.
As an aside, how does an 8-year exit compare to 10 days? Just wondering. Any right-wingers out there got a calculator?
Now this is the absolutely best guy to rule the roost for the next four years, isn't it? He can empathize with the pain of the average American. The saddest part of this little McCain-economics reality series is that the $40k citizen thinks that McCain will help them through their present and upcoming financial woes.
But, he is a right-to-lifer which trumps everything. And a warmonger too! And a veteran.
There you go, America, a neat bundle all wrapped up in the Flag. No doubt about it.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Bob Latta [R] Bowling Green is surely one of the most dense congressmen in this neck of the woods. He joined several other GOP law makers [at tax payer expense] on a multi-day tour of Alaska's ANWR to 'study' the feasibility of opening it up to oil drilling. He talked to a few natives there. No joke, that was the 'study.'
Today The Blade has a photo and story of him with fellow GOP House whip Roy Blunt at First Solar. The Blade writes:
"We have to have an all of the above policy," Mr. Latta said. "We need to have nuclear. We need to have clean coal technology. We need to have hydro and, at the same time, we need to have all these renewables out here."
Oh really? 'We need to have all of these renewables out there?' Apparently Mr. Latta didn't know about alternatives to fossil fuels, but then, he's a Republican and can't see past the smog of coal and oil.
Blunt, ever the clever politician, said this, referring to Democrats:
The 'pressure' to which he refers is for off-shore oil drilling, a strong plank in the GOP political platform- just like an oil rig platform. That pressure comes from the dumbed-down electorate that Blunt and others hope will continue into November. Drilling our way out of the oil crisis is akin to feeding beers to an alcoholic. But that's where the campaign dollars are and the GOP and Big Oil have had a great 8-year partnership that began with that secret meeting hosted by Dick Cheney.
Once again the GOP is hoping for an ignorant electorate who can be fooled into believing that off-shore drilling will lower the price at the pump. Why not hope that? After all, it has worked election after election. Recall how many Americans thought that John Kerry was 'not fit for command' and voted Bush a second term. Right!
In another story, it is reported that yesterday 53 companies offered $607 million for leases covering 1.8 million acres in federal waters off Texas. Yet, 90% of the tracts the government auctioned off received no bids. No bids? Why is that? Apparently that 90% didn't offer quick profits and profit is the name of the game in the oil business.
I wonder how Mr. Latta would be able to tell his constituents that we need to drill, drill, drill yet, when offered a cheap government lease in Texas coastal waters, 90% of the tracts were unbid. Alaska, eh, Mr. Latta? Is that the answer to our energy woes?
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
the U.S. will show the documentary I.O.U.S.A.
Please check your local area for theater and
time. The importance of this documentary
is that it addresses the indebtedness and the
bankruptcy of the U.S. The movie was put
together my David Walker, the former Comptroller
of the Treasury, and a number of other professionals
who know the seriousness of U.S. finances.
The U.S. is $53 Trillion in debt, and by 2040
the country will be a third world bankrupt nation.
Democrats and Republicans ignore the crisis. If
we think that there are problems on Wall Street and
in our credit markets now, the problem will only
intensify over the coming years. The government
will continue to bail these companies out with
non-existent money. The government has already
intervened three times this year with Wall Street,
Fanny Mae, and Freddie Mac.
The movie will be followed by a a "live" discussion
with Walker, Warren Buffet, Concord Coalition and
others. I hope that there is a theater in your areas
and you can plan on attending. There is one here
in Jackson, unbelievable! More information can be
obtained by searching iousathemovie. If I could find
it, I'm sure anyone can do a google search and find it.
place a cause for another war. Today, in a
hurried up Conference in Poland with Sec. Rice
of the U.S. and Polish political leaders the
two governments entered into an agreement where
the U.S. could put so-called defensive missles
in Poland close to the the Russian border and
in return Poland received assurances that the
U.S. would use its armed forces to resist any
attack on Poland.
Rice, Bush, Gates, et al maintain that all
this is non threatening to Russia. While this
Conference had been scheduled, it had been
scheduled for some future date. The
Conference was held today to 'show' the
Russians that there are consequences for
attacking Georgia. If Rice is really a Russian
scholar, she must have ommitted all the
2000 years of Russian Polish warfare. Why are
we putting ourselves in the middle of centuries
old geopolitical rivals? As a show of force?
Then for what? Russia and Poland are habitual
enemies, and there has never been any love
lost between the two. This may be the 21st
Century and Rice can maintain that in the
21st century the U.S. has decreed there can be
no more border wars or geopolitical considerations
in evaluating national security, but the world
is still composed of national states with
traditional adversaries. For Rice to wave her
magic wand and say there is a new world order is
nothing but fantasy.
Poland is Russia's Cuba. Rice, Bush, Gates, et al
have just destroyed Russian-United States relations
for years.If Russia didn't have any intention of
attacking Poland, Russia certainly does now. What
was that about Soviet Russia missles in Cuba some
45 years ago? So now, it is OK for the U.S. to put
missles in Russia's backyard on the territory of
her bitter centuries old adversary? Russia has no
choice to respond in my opinion. I don't necessarily
mean by attacking Poland, although I could envision
an attack to take out the missles only, as we would
do in Cuba, or maybe today it would be Venezuela.
Putin and Russia have had the U.S. throw the gauntlet
down, and I expect Russia will make some move.....
Apparently these news networks hope that the average audience slept through the civics lesson on the Electoral College- states elect the president. The polling data that actually matters are the individual state tallies. However, that is not as interesting nor as fluctuating as the national poll.
Today the state polls say this:
Not very interesting news, yet we all know that the electoral vote is what counts, not the popular vote. Surely Al Gore knows that lesson well. Using the Slate.com data, the division between the two presidential candidates becomes even more fixed when the 'leaning' states are added to the Numbers:
Even if McCain picked up every 'toss-up' state, he would only have 251 electoral votes, 19 shy of the 270 needed. Seems like the presidential race is about all over save a major disaster from Obama. But that doesn't fill air-time, thus the national polling data.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
GOP crying foul over law it passed is the title of an article in the Columbus Dispatch. Why should another story about GOP vote-rigging make the news- it occurs all of the time and everywhere. Yet this one is a classic! Why? Because the GOP set the rules and now they want to change them. I suppose Karl Rove might label that a flip-flop.
The article reports: In trying to close a brief window that will allow simultaneous voter registration and absentee voting, Ohio Republicans are engaging in "blatant voter suppression," a leading legal expert on voting said yesterday. "This is exactly what the law says and what it allows," said Daniel Tokaji, a professor at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. "If the Republicans are trying to close the window, they would be violating the law they wrote."
Tokaji, a frequent critic of Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, said she is "absolutely right on this one. ... It could be the best thing she's done in office."
Voter suppression is classic GOP stuff. They learned it well from the racist Southern Democrats in the 40's and 50's who suppressed [that's a mild word] the black vote there with all sorts of Jim Crow laws and intimidation [and lynching]. Seems that the right to vote in a democracy has limits. Reminds me of that classic post-9-11 statement of George W. Bush: 'There ought to be limits on freedom of speech.'
Yes, American-style democracy is a quirky thing, filled with 'buts' and 'howevers' put in place to limit freedom and give an advantage to a certain sub-group in the society. The present-day GOP, stocked with fundamentalist christians and neocon warmongers, clearly has an agenda that demands that some votes ought not to be counted. The Founding Fathers would weep at what this 'democracy' has become.
Monday, August 18, 2008
came out from under my anesthetic on Thursday, it
seemed like I must have been having a nightmare.
What was waking me up from my sedative was the
television in my room for the next four days. With
all the commotion of family, doctors, nurses and
aides was the "braking news" that Obama had agreed
to an interview with McCain at a 20,000 member
mega-fundamentalist church in souther california with
the pastor of this church. At the moment, I could
only passively lay there and think "how stupid Obama
In the next couple of days, as I laid in my bed watching
the news and reading the newespapers, the hype was
never ending. It was crouched in terms like 'learn his word view,
insight to his inner self, discover his personal values,
what is his integrity, and so forth. Obama foolishly agreed
to this religious interview, yet there is no compelling reason
for him to be questioned on religious matters as a candidate for
the public office of president of the United States. He
did poorly, and he walked right into it.
Talk about a set up....My point is that Obama violated the Constitution by
taking part in this "interview". Check ARTICLE VI of the
Constitution of the United States of America. His fitness for
the office of president is determined by his political party
and the system of national primaries he survived. Millions of
voters from past elections in Illinois and in all the States o
2008 deemed him to be qualified.
Moreover, candidates usually conduct campaigns for conservative and
liberal voters, trying to persuade them to vote for him or her
on secular issues. No candidate for president of the United
States has given himself up to be questioned as this. No candidate
has campaigned for religious votes of themselves. Yet, now one
of the major Parties is an openly theological Party, namely, the
neoconservative Republican Party. Does this now mandate that the
opposing candidate has to specifically woo voters on religious
issues? Whose religious tenets? Must be just literal biblical
Why is Obama going out of his way to be associated with the
fundmentalist religious fringe? Why is he moving so far right?
Why is he so intent on courting evangelicals? The President
of the United States represents all people of the U.S.,
regardless of whatever their belief. We have one theological
Party already, is Obama suggesting by his actions that another
one is needed? He has already embraced the Bush-Rove faith
based initiatives program. One religious political party is
already one too many; let the neoconservative Republican Party
have the god-vote. Obama needs to be fighting the growing
religious fundamentalism, not joining with it.
Gosh, who could have guessed this consequence? What ever happened to loyalty? And, by the way, what ever happened to that Coalition of the Willing? Is Mongolia still sending their horsemen into battle on the streets of Baghdad?
Funny stuff; pathetic, but funny in a dark way. Of course it isn't at all humorous to the families of the +4000 dead U.S. servicemen and women or the 30,000 injured and permanently disfigured. Or those thousands suffering PTSD. Not at all funny.
What happened to all of the flag-waving 'patriots' who cheered the war back in March 2003? Do they still display their flags and yellow ribbons? Or was that merely a scream of Patriotism that has now faded under further observation? And what has happened to those Clear Channel right-wing radio jocks who propagandized 'the war?' What are they saying these days? Or did they leave their microphone and join the Army?
So many questions and no good answers including this humdinger: why hasn't Nancy Pelosi allowed Articles of Impeachment to proceed? Is she just one more slick politician masquerading as a Patriot? What's in it for her? Her support for the two despots in control of the Executive Branch smacks of conspiracy. Perhaps the voters of her California district will throw her out on her ear this November. But don't bet on it.
They are still with us, although noticeably in fewer numbers. Those right-wing flamebots who spew their nonsense as God's truth- the nonsense that they 'heard' from right-wing media. Just this morning on C-Span's Washington Journal one called in all in hysterics about the fact that we are not drilling in Anwr and not drilling off-shore. 'It's the liberal tree-huggers in the Democratic Party who are responsible for the high oil prices!' he mindlessly shouted into his end of the receiver. No doubt he is a John McCain supporter. No doubt he thought the Bush War was just swell as were those tax cuts that he probably thought he received.
Mindless robots, pre-programmed as verbal dolts by the right-wing, disgorging themselves of their pre-programmed 'information.' Economists and experts in the field repeat the facts that this 'easy' oil would save perhaps 3¢ per gallon after 10 years of drilling and refining, if refining is available. Nonetheless they carry 'the message' with great, ignorant passion.
I recently received information from one of the readers of my blog who sent me an email with this interesting information. His friend read a Houston newspaper article saying that one of the oil companies that owned the oil rights and rigs pumping oil out of the Gulf of Mexico had sold ten of the oil rigs to an oil company from Japan. It was his understanding as well that all of the oil being pumped from Alaska is going to Japan and not one barrel to the U.S.
should we care? I mean, a non-descript
religious country 7,000 miles from the
U.S., is it in our sphere of geopolitical
interests? With a poor economy, is it
important as a trading partner? Why are
we in Pakistan? Is it because the British
were? Have we become the successor state
to the British empire? Do we have to carry
on the "whiteman's burden"? Why does over
half of Pakistan detest the U.S.? Is
Musharraf the easy "target" for Pakistanis?
It's, "breaking news" today folks, that is,
Musharraf is to step down as the leader of
Pakistan. It's being called in Pakistan as
"a victory of democratic forces." Of course,
it is easy for us to call Musharraf anti
democratic as we sit and write in a free
and democratic country. Afterall, he wore
a military uniform as his dress code. We
were brought up on the fact to fear the man
on horseback with a military uniform. Yet,
we had an Eisenhower and a Jimmy Carter.
Anyone remember the popularity of the
"Eisenhower jacket" in the 1950s? Nah, we
don't like military men; they are bad!
For us who oppose the war in Iraq, Musharraf
was the easy "whipping boy" for us to criticize
the Bush-Cheney-Rice-Rumsfeld, et al cabal for
saddling us with a pre-emptive war for petroleum
and reconquest of the "holy lands". There is,
however, another way to view and evauluate
Musharraf. Pakistan is at the same time a
modern country with nuclear weapons and a
feudal country living in terrible poverty. The
wealthy live in modern cities with large property
rights and their children travel the world and
attend western universities. When these children
return to Pakistan, the military becomes a major
source of employment. On the otherhand, there
are the mojority of the population who are poor
and controlled by the mullahs and their political
supporters. What appears to have happened in
Pakistan is that in this dichotmy of free and
unfree, of intolerant religion and religious
toleration, the force that has been able to
keep some semblance of order has been the
military. Of course, then, it is a mixed
bag. The mullahs have been kept in check, but
claims of an anti-democratic military are there
as well. Bush et al packaged Musharraf very
badly and sold him poorly. By that I am
suggesting, Musharraf was sold as anti-terrorist,
and little was done to describe or educate about
the real problems Musharraf was dealing with in
Pakistan. It seems Musharraf did not want increased
influence of terrorism in Pakistan and that became
his motivation of allowing himself to get close
to Bush et al. Now, Bush has made "Mush" of Musharraf!
Rice, commenting today, Monday, on Musharaff's
resignation said something about not interferring in
the internal affairs of other countries.
We have to learn that the word "democracy" means one
thing when applied to the U.S., but it can mean some
thing different in other areas of the world. The
Soviet Union said it had a democratic Constitution, and
it did. But, there could only be one Party! In
Pakistan, the Mullahs will say they believe in democracy
and practice it; in this case its the rule of one
religion. Will the U.S. and the West be able to keep
its hands of Pakistan after Musharraf? Especially a country
with a traditinal enemy on its southern border, India, which
is another nuclear power. But, is that sufficient for
the U.S. to be involved...Would McCain call this a sufficient
case of "U.S. national interests" being involved to broaden
us in another war over terrorism? In Pakistan, it is the
religious fundamentalist party, the second largest party, that
has forced Musharraf out, and is calling for his death as a
traitor. They want him dead as Musharraf prevented for nine
years, the Mullahs and the reactionary fundamentalists from
gaining power "through democratic means." Perhaps, we need
to evaluate Musharraf in this light...