Tuesday, September 26, 2006
New Orleans Poor Pay For An Expensive Saints Opener
How does Al-Jazeera get it and ESPN and entire American media establishment doesn't?
The Super Bowl-like display for the re-opening of the Louisiana Superdome last night may have a far lasting legacy than the Saints' week three victory over the Atlanta Falcons.
FEMA spent $185 million on not just rebuilding, but markedly upgrading a sports arena when thousands still lack the necessities of a simple third world nation.
What does this say about our society? Was the tens of millions that ordinary Americans donated to the relief cause really happen? If so, then why is every quote, every interview and every story telling us how a three-hour football game was exactly what the citizens of New Orleans needed. Exactly what they needed?
How about a roof? What about consistent running water? A clean classroom?
Was a huge federal expenditure needed to repair the Superdome so soon or did the acts of a reprehensible owner push the city and state in this direction? It should be recalled that while Hurricane Katrina was a nasty storm, the tragedy of New Orleans was irrefutibly man-made.
Very few American media outlets (Here's ESPN's take), reported Monday night's game in it true ight, but inexplicably Al Jazerra did.
It's not hard to see why the Superdome was built before thousands of destroyed homes were even cleared. New Orleans is and has always been the most corrupt city in America. Every sector of the public trust is plagued with graft from the mayor's office to the dog catcher. The city has always been crime-riddled and the school system a national joke.
The flood walls were built with the flimsiest of materials because building them properly would have been less money in the profiteers pockets. The voters of New Orleans continued the cycle of corruption by recycling crooked politicians by not paying attention to their decaying city.
The people of New Orleans, of whom no national figure would dare criticize in the light of Katrina, are to blame for disaster that unfolded and by their native inability to choose a safe and honest mode of government have again squandered a huge opportunity to take care of their future instead of their fleeting desires.
The Super Bowl-like display for the re-opening of the Louisiana Superdome last night may have a far lasting legacy than the Saints' week three victory over the Atlanta Falcons.
FEMA spent $185 million on not just rebuilding, but markedly upgrading a sports arena when thousands still lack the necessities of a simple third world nation.
What does this say about our society? Was the tens of millions that ordinary Americans donated to the relief cause really happen? If so, then why is every quote, every interview and every story telling us how a three-hour football game was exactly what the citizens of New Orleans needed. Exactly what they needed?
How about a roof? What about consistent running water? A clean classroom?
Was a huge federal expenditure needed to repair the Superdome so soon or did the acts of a reprehensible owner push the city and state in this direction? It should be recalled that while Hurricane Katrina was a nasty storm, the tragedy of New Orleans was irrefutibly man-made.
Very few American media outlets (Here's ESPN's take), reported Monday night's game in it true ight, but inexplicably Al Jazerra did.
'This is exactly what the city needs,' said Saints season ticket holder Clara Donate, 58, who lost her home and all her possessions to Katrina's floodwaters. 'We all need something else to think about.'
But some were in no mood to celebrate the team's return, saying the $185 million dollars spent on refurbishing the Superdome could have been better spent on helping those still struggling to rebuild their lives after Katrina.
Irma Warner, 71, and her husband, Pascal Warner, 80, live in an apartment in suburban Metairie while working six days a week to restore a home flooded by 7 feet (2.1 meters) of water in New Orleans' Lakeview neighborhood.
'We rode around through the Ninth Ward yesterday,' Irma Warner said.
'When I saw that, I thought, how can they spend $185 million on the Superdome. What about all these poor people?'
It's not hard to see why the Superdome was built before thousands of destroyed homes were even cleared. New Orleans is and has always been the most corrupt city in America. Every sector of the public trust is plagued with graft from the mayor's office to the dog catcher. The city has always been crime-riddled and the school system a national joke.
The flood walls were built with the flimsiest of materials because building them properly would have been less money in the profiteers pockets. The voters of New Orleans continued the cycle of corruption by recycling crooked politicians by not paying attention to their decaying city.
The people of New Orleans, of whom no national figure would dare criticize in the light of Katrina, are to blame for disaster that unfolded and by their native inability to choose a safe and honest mode of government have again squandered a huge opportunity to take care of their future instead of their fleeting desires.
Allen Used N-Word; Who's To Say Virginians Don't Either?
Language is a living thing. It lives, breathes and changing over time. Three years ago, the word "swift boat" was singularly used as noun, as in, a small, quick draft water vessel. Today, through popular culture, the term is a verb like, "John Kerry was swiftboated in the 2004 election". To be swiftboated is entirely something else. It's a shameless attack on one's character perpetrated with lies and innuendo. George Allen: You've been swiftboated. Kind of.
Payback is a bitch, as they say. In Allen's case, the chorus of former colleagues from the distant past who are alleging the Virginia governor's use of the word nigger, are probably rooted in the truth. But, does that matter? Isn't this the type of division President Bush likes to employ on the electorate?
A few classmates and former teammates from the University of Viriginia said that a youthful Allen used the racial epitapth regularly in normal conversation. One even claimed that Allen said when referring to the some sea turtles, around here the only one's that "eat 'em" are niggers.
The difference in the swiftboating of Kerry and the apparently hatchet job on Allen is that the Southern governor's past leads directly to these sorts of accusation. In the Salon piece by Michael Scherer, a former high school classmate in Los Angeles recalled that Allen wore a confederate pin on his lapel for his yearbook photo. The source saw the use of the rebel pin as a "middle finger" to the blacks kids in the school.
At first glance, this story is undeniably debilatating to Allen's Senate campaign, but not necessarily to his apparent national aspirations. If Allen is indeed the Republican to succeed President Bush's constintuency, then this sort of division between liberals and far-right conversatives and more precisely, the South versus the North, should work to his advantage.
Living in one of the bluest counties in the bluest of blue states surely clouds one's grasp of the differences between the unique regions of this country. That a politician uses the word nigger so freely is quite endearing to some in the reddest of red Southern states. It might be noted that, at this point, pundits are not saying his race against Jim Webb is toast. In addition, if Allen runs for the GOP nomination this sort of bad press will be more than a year old. That's not to say that something as treacherous as the foggy memory of whether Allen said the N-word thirty years won't continue to bite the heels of his campaign on a daily basis.
Remember, reporters on the Little Rock capital beat heard rumblings of then-governor Bill Clinton's dalliances with women, before the bombshell of Gennifer Flowers exploded nationally.
This story won't hurt Allen that badly. Think about it. He's a gun-toting, nigger-saying, dumb redneck who claims to love Jesus. The Democrats haven't figured out how to beat a Republican with that profile, who's to say they will now?
Payback is a bitch, as they say. In Allen's case, the chorus of former colleagues from the distant past who are alleging the Virginia governor's use of the word nigger, are probably rooted in the truth. But, does that matter? Isn't this the type of division President Bush likes to employ on the electorate?
A few classmates and former teammates from the University of Viriginia said that a youthful Allen used the racial epitapth regularly in normal conversation. One even claimed that Allen said when referring to the some sea turtles, around here the only one's that "eat 'em" are niggers.
The difference in the swiftboating of Kerry and the apparently hatchet job on Allen is that the Southern governor's past leads directly to these sorts of accusation. In the Salon piece by Michael Scherer, a former high school classmate in Los Angeles recalled that Allen wore a confederate pin on his lapel for his yearbook photo. The source saw the use of the rebel pin as a "middle finger" to the blacks kids in the school.
At first glance, this story is undeniably debilatating to Allen's Senate campaign, but not necessarily to his apparent national aspirations. If Allen is indeed the Republican to succeed President Bush's constintuency, then this sort of division between liberals and far-right conversatives and more precisely, the South versus the North, should work to his advantage.
Living in one of the bluest counties in the bluest of blue states surely clouds one's grasp of the differences between the unique regions of this country. That a politician uses the word nigger so freely is quite endearing to some in the reddest of red Southern states. It might be noted that, at this point, pundits are not saying his race against Jim Webb is toast. In addition, if Allen runs for the GOP nomination this sort of bad press will be more than a year old. That's not to say that something as treacherous as the foggy memory of whether Allen said the N-word thirty years won't continue to bite the heels of his campaign on a daily basis.
Remember, reporters on the Little Rock capital beat heard rumblings of then-governor Bill Clinton's dalliances with women, before the bombshell of Gennifer Flowers exploded nationally.
This story won't hurt Allen that badly. Think about it. He's a gun-toting, nigger-saying, dumb redneck who claims to love Jesus. The Democrats haven't figured out how to beat a Republican with that profile, who's to say they will now?
Thursday, September 14, 2006
George Allen Meets Black Folk And Chinamen
The Talking Points Memo reported Tuesday that Virginia Governor George Allen's homepage featured a photo gallery from the embattled governor's "Ethnic Rally".
The grip 'n grin with African-Americans and Vietnamese supporters or various minorities willing to take a picture with a bigoted, tall white guy is too funny to be real. But, remember, Allen is running for re-election in Virginia and this sort of stuff works in the South.
Allen's problem is that he's caught in the middle of a statewide election with blatant overtones for a future presidential run. The fact that the guy likes to flag the Confederate flag or calls Indian men "macacas" isn't really relevant to Virginians, who would mostly call such people far more vulgar names.
Americans will forget the macaca slur because, frankly, nobody knows what it actually means. It's one of exotic sounding words that just sounds bad. My dad use to call us macacas when we were young. I thought it was a playful moniker akin to calling a bunch of rambunctous kids little monkeys.
What they should not forget if Allen wins re-election and cashes the victory into a run for the Republican nomination is that the man stands strongly against the equality of blacks and minorities as a whole. If he can muster the will to win over the religious right of the GOP, Allen will become the standard-bearer for the legacy of George W. Bush. There is simply no other possible candidate capable of being downright racist in front of the ultra right wing while being able to seem palatable to the rest of the political spectrum.
If and when the Confederate flag debate is again discussed, it should be strongly noted that the flag not only represents the most reprehensible period in our history, but is also the same flag that flew over a rogue Southern government during the Civil War. Is this the cultural divide Allen will exploit in the next two years. You betcha, good buddy!
The grip 'n grin with African-Americans and Vietnamese supporters or various minorities willing to take a picture with a bigoted, tall white guy is too funny to be real. But, remember, Allen is running for re-election in Virginia and this sort of stuff works in the South.
Allen's problem is that he's caught in the middle of a statewide election with blatant overtones for a future presidential run. The fact that the guy likes to flag the Confederate flag or calls Indian men "macacas" isn't really relevant to Virginians, who would mostly call such people far more vulgar names.
Americans will forget the macaca slur because, frankly, nobody knows what it actually means. It's one of exotic sounding words that just sounds bad. My dad use to call us macacas when we were young. I thought it was a playful moniker akin to calling a bunch of rambunctous kids little monkeys.
What they should not forget if Allen wins re-election and cashes the victory into a run for the Republican nomination is that the man stands strongly against the equality of blacks and minorities as a whole. If he can muster the will to win over the religious right of the GOP, Allen will become the standard-bearer for the legacy of George W. Bush. There is simply no other possible candidate capable of being downright racist in front of the ultra right wing while being able to seem palatable to the rest of the political spectrum.
If and when the Confederate flag debate is again discussed, it should be strongly noted that the flag not only represents the most reprehensible period in our history, but is also the same flag that flew over a rogue Southern government during the Civil War. Is this the cultural divide Allen will exploit in the next two years. You betcha, good buddy!
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Ann Richards, Grand Texas Dame, Dies
Former Texas Governor Ann Richards died tonight. One must wonder how our nation would look today if she just had beat the younger Bush in the 1994 Texas Gubernatorial race.
The wily, silver-haired Democrat had a sharp wit and rarely in the last two decades has an American politician dead-panned so concisely a comment than Richards did back in 1988 when she skewered then VP George H.W. Bush.
She wasn't just a one-shot quipmeister, either. She highlighted the equality of men and women by saying, "Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels."
She also made fun of the former president's lack of an Texan drawl when she noted, "I am delighted to be here with you this evening because after listening to George Bush all these years, I figured you needed to know what a real Texas accent sounds like."
It's odd why Democrats today fail to attack W's faux country boy persona when he's actually a product of the snobby Northeastern establishment that he claims to be against.
Who knows what would have happened if Richards would have beaten W. back in 1994. She was, after all, the first of his father's detractors to famously fall at the son's hands. The second could possibly be Al Gore, the VP of the man who beat his father in 1992 and to be followed by, of course, Saddam Hussein and finally democracy.
Ann Richards death, today, marks just another end to a Democratic Party too afraid to attack either harshly or through hilarious commentary. We don't have many politicians like Ann Richards anymore and until we do the very things she championed, minority and gender equality and programs for the poor, will continue to dwindle into oblivion.
The wily, silver-haired Democrat had a sharp wit and rarely in the last two decades has an American politician dead-panned so concisely a comment than Richards did back in 1988 when she skewered then VP George H.W. Bush.
"Poor George, he can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth."To be more precise in conveying the meaning it works better if you replace the "help" with hep as she did at the 1988 Democratic Convention.
She wasn't just a one-shot quipmeister, either. She highlighted the equality of men and women by saying, "Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels."
She also made fun of the former president's lack of an Texan drawl when she noted, "I am delighted to be here with you this evening because after listening to George Bush all these years, I figured you needed to know what a real Texas accent sounds like."
It's odd why Democrats today fail to attack W's faux country boy persona when he's actually a product of the snobby Northeastern establishment that he claims to be against.
Who knows what would have happened if Richards would have beaten W. back in 1994. She was, after all, the first of his father's detractors to famously fall at the son's hands. The second could possibly be Al Gore, the VP of the man who beat his father in 1992 and to be followed by, of course, Saddam Hussein and finally democracy.
Ann Richards death, today, marks just another end to a Democratic Party too afraid to attack either harshly or through hilarious commentary. We don't have many politicians like Ann Richards anymore and until we do the very things she championed, minority and gender equality and programs for the poor, will continue to dwindle into oblivion.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Osama & Whitney Kissing In A Tree
Talk about a whammy! Osama Bin Laden fancies Whitney Houston? Sounds like a rival publicist's dirtiest trick. (Read the story here)
Why not go ahead and link her with Adolf Hitler? Go all the way, why don't you. On the other hand, this revelation makes the Bush administration look bad. The maniacal, elusive terrorist may be a lot of things but a poor judge of character he is not; Bobby Brown really needs to go. On top of that, it's obvious Osama has access to VH1 and the attroicious "Being Bobby" reality show. Evildoer!
Why not go ahead and link her with Adolf Hitler? Go all the way, why don't you. On the other hand, this revelation makes the Bush administration look bad. The maniacal, elusive terrorist may be a lot of things but a poor judge of character he is not; Bobby Brown really needs to go. On top of that, it's obvious Osama has access to VH1 and the attroicious "Being Bobby" reality show. Evildoer!
Monday, May 22, 2006
Gore Is Up, Hillary Is Down
LFR WEEKLY HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT
[[[THE COMEBACK KID]]]
He has a new movie out and a mouthful of hard-hitting rhetoric. The left is clamoring for the mother of all comeback, the much-rumored presidential candidacy of Al Gore. This cover story in the June New York Magazine details the why and the how on Gore's possible emergence from the political wilderness.
[[[DOES SEN. CLINTON HAVE SECRET PLAN FOR WAR IN IRAQ?]]]
The answer seems to be no, according to the story in the New York Observer. Could all the Gore for President talk be stemming from Hillary's propensity for hemming and hawwing like Gore, circa 2000?
[[[ONE STEP CLOSER TO A POLICE STATE]]]
Illegal immigration is the new gay marriage. Is there more to Bush's border plan? Joshua Holland at the Alternet believes the administration's contempt for the little-known Posse Comitatus Act, which forbides the domestic use of the military, may be used at the Mexican border as a precedent for controlling Americans in the future.
[[[THE HAYDEN CHARADE]]]
Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush's nominee to the CIA, is supposed to be so bad, but why wasn't he grilled by members of Congress for many poor decisions and possible illegal programs while at the helm of the NSA?
[[[THE COMEBACK KID]]]
He has a new movie out and a mouthful of hard-hitting rhetoric. The left is clamoring for the mother of all comeback, the much-rumored presidential candidacy of Al Gore. This cover story in the June New York Magazine details the why and the how on Gore's possible emergence from the political wilderness.
[[[DOES SEN. CLINTON HAVE SECRET PLAN FOR WAR IN IRAQ?]]]
The answer seems to be no, according to the story in the New York Observer. Could all the Gore for President talk be stemming from Hillary's propensity for hemming and hawwing like Gore, circa 2000?
[[[ONE STEP CLOSER TO A POLICE STATE]]]
Illegal immigration is the new gay marriage. Is there more to Bush's border plan? Joshua Holland at the Alternet believes the administration's contempt for the little-known Posse Comitatus Act, which forbides the domestic use of the military, may be used at the Mexican border as a precedent for controlling Americans in the future.
[[[THE HAYDEN CHARADE]]]
Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush's nominee to the CIA, is supposed to be so bad, but why wasn't he grilled by members of Congress for many poor decisions and possible illegal programs while at the helm of the NSA?
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Tar Baby! Why Stop There! How 'Bout Porch Monkey?
SNOW USED TERM IN 1999 COLUMN ABOUT YUGOSLAVIA
Newly-minted White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow, at his first and maybe last press briefing
When watching the clip of Tony Snow utter what surely will become an infamous line, "I don't want to hug the tar baby", it's notable that he doesn't flinch or show any inkling of what he said despite audible gasps and nervous chuckling from the White House press corps.
Did Snow misspoke? The White House is saying nothing but some are quickly taking a contrarian stance by highlighting an alternate meaning to the phrase tar baby. It ironically means putting yourself in a sticking situation, but the unfortunate use of the term quickly conjures a grostesque connotation, but, this is not the first time Snow has use this term.
In a 1999 column, now posted on the website of the Jewish World Review, Snow used the term referring to President Bill Clinton and the Balkan Wars.
The term originates from "Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby" seen here. For those who find the term and its imagery acceptable note the unfortunate appearance of Uncle Remus.
Could this mean that in a single press conference, Snow has raised the bar of ineptitude over that of his predecessor, Scott McClellan, who had the poise not to refer to the African-Americans surrounded by floodwater in New Orleans as "porch monkeys".
It may be surprising that someone of Snow's stature and genteel temperament could casually use such a term, but it also points to an administration that at times, has been openly and unapologetically hostile to blacks. The thing is that the Bush White House has this demeanor regardless of skin color. The only difference here, is with a shocking 90% of the demographic voting against Bush in the last election, blacks are the only one's wise to it.
Newly-minted White House Press Secretary, Tony Snow, at his first and maybe last press briefing
When watching the clip of Tony Snow utter what surely will become an infamous line, "I don't want to hug the tar baby", it's notable that he doesn't flinch or show any inkling of what he said despite audible gasps and nervous chuckling from the White House press corps.
Did Snow misspoke? The White House is saying nothing but some are quickly taking a contrarian stance by highlighting an alternate meaning to the phrase tar baby. It ironically means putting yourself in a sticking situation, but the unfortunate use of the term quickly conjures a grostesque connotation, but, this is not the first time Snow has use this term.
In a 1999 column, now posted on the website of the Jewish World Review, Snow used the term referring to President Bill Clinton and the Balkan Wars.
Most congressional Republicans are guilty of appalling cynicism and silence. They figure Clinton has hugged the tar baby in the Balkans and they want to watch him writhe.
The term originates from "Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby" seen here. For those who find the term and its imagery acceptable note the unfortunate appearance of Uncle Remus.
Could this mean that in a single press conference, Snow has raised the bar of ineptitude over that of his predecessor, Scott McClellan, who had the poise not to refer to the African-Americans surrounded by floodwater in New Orleans as "porch monkeys".
It may be surprising that someone of Snow's stature and genteel temperament could casually use such a term, but it also points to an administration that at times, has been openly and unapologetically hostile to blacks. The thing is that the Bush White House has this demeanor regardless of skin color. The only difference here, is with a shocking 90% of the demographic voting against Bush in the last election, blacks are the only one's wise to it.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
The Politics Of Poor Poll Numbers
ELECTION DOOM CLOUDS GOP'S ALLEGIANCE TO W.
That the President's poll numbers are astonishingly low is quite a curious fact, but the reality of such unpopularity is playing out today in Washington.
Isn't it peculiar that the confluence of national security and civil rights comes together the same week that the President nominated Gen. Michael Hayden to lead the CIA? It's more telling that the USA Today is being credited with rehashing three-month old news. In this AP story that is leading many local newspapers, the headlines blare that millions of Americans were snooped upon by a NSA-led covert action devised by the very same Gen. Hayden.
That AT&T/SBC, Verizon, BellSouth handed over phone records just after 9/11 was a national furor over three months ago. The difference? Low poll numbers combined with a collective resignment in Washington that Congress may well switch hands come November.
When President Bush picked Gen. Hayden, under the presumption that he was a Pentagon-friendly nominee, the impetus to take action by Republicans in Congress against such a perceived defender of abusing civil rights has become one of very few plays for the GOP to play. Not only did they allow the President to drag us into this Iraq quagmire, but they also let this guy listen to our private conversations?
To hear once loyal Republicans openly question whether a military man leading an important civilian job would have seemed treasonous (it may actually become literally treason if things continue as they are) a mere six months ago.
This is what happens to politicians that stake their livelihood on the heels of a hollow, yet once-popular President. When the winds of change swirl around their hands they jump ship like the rats they are. If such rational thought lied within the GOP back in 2001 and after, controversial legislation like the Patriot Act, highly dubious forays into Iraq and covert plans to snoop on Americans would have been honestly debated, instead of forwarded with a wink and a smile.
Instead, the impending Democratic majority will have a crowded aisle of opportunistic Republicans come November, calling for ethics in government and a return to the America of old (presumably, for Republicans, when they could get away with anything).
That the President's poll numbers are astonishingly low is quite a curious fact, but the reality of such unpopularity is playing out today in Washington.
Isn't it peculiar that the confluence of national security and civil rights comes together the same week that the President nominated Gen. Michael Hayden to lead the CIA? It's more telling that the USA Today is being credited with rehashing three-month old news. In this AP story that is leading many local newspapers, the headlines blare that millions of Americans were snooped upon by a NSA-led covert action devised by the very same Gen. Hayden.
That AT&T/SBC, Verizon, BellSouth handed over phone records just after 9/11 was a national furor over three months ago. The difference? Low poll numbers combined with a collective resignment in Washington that Congress may well switch hands come November.
When President Bush picked Gen. Hayden, under the presumption that he was a Pentagon-friendly nominee, the impetus to take action by Republicans in Congress against such a perceived defender of abusing civil rights has become one of very few plays for the GOP to play. Not only did they allow the President to drag us into this Iraq quagmire, but they also let this guy listen to our private conversations?
To hear once loyal Republicans openly question whether a military man leading an important civilian job would have seemed treasonous (it may actually become literally treason if things continue as they are) a mere six months ago.
This is what happens to politicians that stake their livelihood on the heels of a hollow, yet once-popular President. When the winds of change swirl around their hands they jump ship like the rats they are. If such rational thought lied within the GOP back in 2001 and after, controversial legislation like the Patriot Act, highly dubious forays into Iraq and covert plans to snoop on Americans would have been honestly debated, instead of forwarded with a wink and a smile.
Instead, the impending Democratic majority will have a crowded aisle of opportunistic Republicans come November, calling for ethics in government and a return to the America of old (presumably, for Republicans, when they could get away with anything).
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
HUD Chief Has A 'Disconnect' With Democracy
FIRE TOKEN SECRETARY NOW!
If Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson really did withhold a government contract because of the applicants political beliefs against President Bush then the Republic's future is in doubt.
The story on the Raw Story website and the calls for an investigation by two Democratic Senators is troubling on many fronts. So much so that it may encompass everything that many feels is wrong with our government since Bush took office five years ago.
Is the procedure for gaining access to the Republican controlled leadership in Washington so brazen that the HUD Secretary feels comfortable enough to volunteer this story?
This backward logic somehow made sense to this African-American Secretary of the HUD. It never crossed Jackson's mind that this sort of patronage afflicts blacks and many minorities everyday?
Above all, these sort of comments from a high-ranking government official should cause the highest alarm among Americans. What Jackson did is clear-cut political censorship and should not be tolerated in the least bit before it becomes the de facto law of the land.
A Defense Secretary who incompetently leads the military into quagmire is deemed a patriot, but a little-known black secretary of the HUD who says stupid things is easily expendable.
If Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson really did withhold a government contract because of the applicants political beliefs against President Bush then the Republic's future is in doubt.
The story on the Raw Story website and the calls for an investigation by two Democratic Senators is troubling on many fronts. So much so that it may encompass everything that many feels is wrong with our government since Bush took office five years ago.
Is the procedure for gaining access to the Republican controlled leadership in Washington so brazen that the HUD Secretary feels comfortable enough to volunteer this story?
"He had made every effort to get a contract with HUD for 10 years," Jackson said of the prospective contractor. "He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president.'
"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.'
"He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe.
This backward logic somehow made sense to this African-American Secretary of the HUD. It never crossed Jackson's mind that this sort of patronage afflicts blacks and many minorities everyday?
Above all, these sort of comments from a high-ranking government official should cause the highest alarm among Americans. What Jackson did is clear-cut political censorship and should not be tolerated in the least bit before it becomes the de facto law of the land.
A Defense Secretary who incompetently leads the military into quagmire is deemed a patriot, but a little-known black secretary of the HUD who says stupid things is easily expendable.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
BUSH BOMBS LFR HEADQUARTERS
MARINE ONE RATTLES THE EAST BAY
The house rattled Friday night as Marine One carrying President Bush flew over the San Leandro marina. The violent rumble was a sort of pumping middle finger to the Democratic-leaning Alameda County.
Bush, according to an intinerary in today's San Francisco Chronicle, traveled from Stanford to St. Helena around 7:25 last night. At a quarter to eight, the President interrupted the East Bay with an aerial assault that many of us old enough to remember the Cold War were instructed to duck and cover and wait for the alarms to sound.
If I knew at the time, that the disturbance was the President, I would have thrown some rock into the air, or better, would have looked the other way when my Muslim neighbor pulled out his rocket launcher, instead of talking him out of it; because I love America.
The house rattled Friday night as Marine One carrying President Bush flew over the San Leandro marina. The violent rumble was a sort of pumping middle finger to the Democratic-leaning Alameda County.
Bush, according to an intinerary in today's San Francisco Chronicle, traveled from Stanford to St. Helena around 7:25 last night. At a quarter to eight, the President interrupted the East Bay with an aerial assault that many of us old enough to remember the Cold War were instructed to duck and cover and wait for the alarms to sound.
If I knew at the time, that the disturbance was the President, I would have thrown some rock into the air, or better, would have looked the other way when my Muslim neighbor pulled out his rocket launcher, instead of talking him out of it; because I love America.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Bush Finds Leakers: Himself
"I want to know the truth...I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." -George W. Bush, Oct. 5, 2003.
If Lewis Libby's grand jury testimony is true, then the collective thud in the background is the unkind weight of history's fate against this president and likely the return of Congress to the Democrats.
At this point, Libby's revelation that President Bush authorized the leaking of former CIA agent Valerie Plame as a reprisal for her husband's scathing New York TImes op-ed piece against the war in Iraq, may not be technically illegal, but is very well the decisive blow of many in the last two years for this administration.
History will view this president not through the lens of 9/11 as many previously assumed, but as this country's most egregious offender of lies and deceit. The President has shielded the country from the truth, fashioned the lies into patriotism and all the while exposed the neck of our democracy on the chopping board.
That the president would stoop to such Nixonian depths comes to no surprise to the majority of Americans. What it will do is completely galvanized the electorate come the decisive November midterm elections. At the moment, the Democrats could trot out candidates in a coma (or, actual liberal ones) and still beat a Republican incumbent.
It's going to take a near miracle for the Republicans to retain Congress and far more than rigging the voting booth this time around.
If the Democrats do take the House and Senate this fall, look for them to even an old score: the impeachment of the president. That's a given.
If Lewis Libby's grand jury testimony is true, then the collective thud in the background is the unkind weight of history's fate against this president and likely the return of Congress to the Democrats.
At this point, Libby's revelation that President Bush authorized the leaking of former CIA agent Valerie Plame as a reprisal for her husband's scathing New York TImes op-ed piece against the war in Iraq, may not be technically illegal, but is very well the decisive blow of many in the last two years for this administration.
History will view this president not through the lens of 9/11 as many previously assumed, but as this country's most egregious offender of lies and deceit. The President has shielded the country from the truth, fashioned the lies into patriotism and all the while exposed the neck of our democracy on the chopping board.
That the president would stoop to such Nixonian depths comes to no surprise to the majority of Americans. What it will do is completely galvanized the electorate come the decisive November midterm elections. At the moment, the Democrats could trot out candidates in a coma (or, actual liberal ones) and still beat a Republican incumbent.
It's going to take a near miracle for the Republicans to retain Congress and far more than rigging the voting booth this time around.
If the Democrats do take the House and Senate this fall, look for them to even an old score: the impeachment of the president. That's a given.
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
What Does McCain Moving To The Right Mean?
DESPITE TROUBLES, FAR-RIGHT WACKOS WIN ELECTIONS
I would have never thought that Mr. Straight-Talk Express, John McCain, would be the Republican first in line at the Christian conversative gravy train.
McCain's newsmaking the past few weeks now appears to be an orchestrated grab for the very people that he espoused not to represent when he rode a "maverick" campaign and nearly derailed the pre-ordained Bush dynasty in 2000.
During last Sunday's Meet the Press with Tim Russert, McCain continually dodged criticism that he now attains a partnership with the devil in the guise of his newfound relationship with Rev. Jerry Falwell.
If McCain is wholeheartedly pressing for Bush's far right constintuency in the 2008 election, what does it say for Democrats when a unique presidential contender veers sharply to the right?
McCain is undoubtedly the only national figure who can sincerely appeal to either party. Many liberal would happily go along with a McCain presidency if they had to. He has repeatedly reached out to tough issues like campaign finance, torture in Iraq and government waste and done it in a relatively honest manner.
Why, then, would someone like McCain who could grab a piece of the left and most of the right along with all of the center's majority decide to focus solely on the far-right's den of wackos?
It's also interesting that the Demos' supposed frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, from time-to-time acts like a moderate Republican. If she is the nominee, she will likely campaign from nearly the same spot of the political spectrum. If McCain and Clinton basically hover over the same constintuency where will the vociferous left go?
Will they head to the buck-toothed Mark Warner or more likely rush to 2008's Howard Dean, Sen. Russ Feingold. Despite all the talk of the Democrats' revival, the party's elite are still shoveling the same losing formula and dismissing any strategy that pertains to its left-leaning voters.
I would have never thought that Mr. Straight-Talk Express, John McCain, would be the Republican first in line at the Christian conversative gravy train.
McCain's newsmaking the past few weeks now appears to be an orchestrated grab for the very people that he espoused not to represent when he rode a "maverick" campaign and nearly derailed the pre-ordained Bush dynasty in 2000.
During last Sunday's Meet the Press with Tim Russert, McCain continually dodged criticism that he now attains a partnership with the devil in the guise of his newfound relationship with Rev. Jerry Falwell.
If McCain is wholeheartedly pressing for Bush's far right constintuency in the 2008 election, what does it say for Democrats when a unique presidential contender veers sharply to the right?
McCain is undoubtedly the only national figure who can sincerely appeal to either party. Many liberal would happily go along with a McCain presidency if they had to. He has repeatedly reached out to tough issues like campaign finance, torture in Iraq and government waste and done it in a relatively honest manner.
Why, then, would someone like McCain who could grab a piece of the left and most of the right along with all of the center's majority decide to focus solely on the far-right's den of wackos?
It's also interesting that the Demos' supposed frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, from time-to-time acts like a moderate Republican. If she is the nominee, she will likely campaign from nearly the same spot of the political spectrum. If McCain and Clinton basically hover over the same constintuency where will the vociferous left go?
Will they head to the buck-toothed Mark Warner or more likely rush to 2008's Howard Dean, Sen. Russ Feingold. Despite all the talk of the Democrats' revival, the party's elite are still shoveling the same losing formula and dismissing any strategy that pertains to its left-leaning voters.
Monday, April 03, 2006
Republicans Use Immigrants Nationality To Divide America
GOP DOESN'T WANT TO LOSE ITS SIGNATURE DECEPTION
American Hispanics of every creed are up in arms over the immigrant bill recently toned down by House Republican. Huge protests in Los Angeles, Denver and Phoenix featured angry, yet composed Latinos exercising democracy at its fullest. The tenor and sheer number of protesters most likely accomplished the goal of halting the proposed legislation that would have made illegal immigrants instantly felons and those who aid them the same.
Their calm anger in the streets of the West showed that the power of the people is still alive, but is it our society with which the vigor over this subject emanated?
The number of Mexican tricolores, El Salvadoran and Guatemalan flags to name of few was conspicuous. Assuredly, there were a great number American flags waving through the streets, but the amount foreign banners makes one wonder whether the impetus of this protests came from a deep well of yearning to be American, a direct assault on Latino-Americans of every stripe or, more worrisome, the look of a wholly separate sect of America.
The sight of so many Mexican flags is not on its face aggressive to what many would say is the essence of American patriotism. It does, though divide on a simple level the populace of Americans who already view the swarm of immigrants flowing into thier country as slowly chewing away at society. The perception that Latinos do not readily assimilate into America primarily by means of language and custom rankles many. To see on television, the waving of foreign flags only perpetuates that false stigma.
The true tragedy of this proposed bill is that touches a nerve with Americans who believe in the concept of helping the poor and weak amongst us. It's why the Archbishop of Los Angeles directly challenged Washington and could be accused of flaming the rancor to the extreme we saw in the last week.
At its heart, this is not about foreign pride as the banners would contend, but about the Republican Party turning its back on its burgeoning Latino majority during an election year for the white zealots of its far right. The push-pull of illegal immigration by conservatives has been played before. No business-minded conservative will privately denounce the value of cheap and disposable illegal workers. The rhetoric belies this notion because like the abortion, Republicans will use these issues to repeatedly divide voters. Just as Republicans would be up a creek, if abortion was, indeed, illegal, so too would they be if they didn't have illegal immigrants to kick around, both financially in the form of low wages and long hours, but in demonizing them with bills like the one presented by Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona.
It should be remembered that the last time this immigration ploy was exercised in the 1994 California gubernatorial race, Republican Pete Wilson won re-election, but the same shame and anger that the Latino population felt has reverberated to this day. The California Republican Party is in shambles. In the next 12 years, only the moderate-leaning conservative Arnold Schwarzenegger has held a high office in California.
American Hispanics of every creed are up in arms over the immigrant bill recently toned down by House Republican. Huge protests in Los Angeles, Denver and Phoenix featured angry, yet composed Latinos exercising democracy at its fullest. The tenor and sheer number of protesters most likely accomplished the goal of halting the proposed legislation that would have made illegal immigrants instantly felons and those who aid them the same.
Their calm anger in the streets of the West showed that the power of the people is still alive, but is it our society with which the vigor over this subject emanated?
The number of Mexican tricolores, El Salvadoran and Guatemalan flags to name of few was conspicuous. Assuredly, there were a great number American flags waving through the streets, but the amount foreign banners makes one wonder whether the impetus of this protests came from a deep well of yearning to be American, a direct assault on Latino-Americans of every stripe or, more worrisome, the look of a wholly separate sect of America.
The sight of so many Mexican flags is not on its face aggressive to what many would say is the essence of American patriotism. It does, though divide on a simple level the populace of Americans who already view the swarm of immigrants flowing into thier country as slowly chewing away at society. The perception that Latinos do not readily assimilate into America primarily by means of language and custom rankles many. To see on television, the waving of foreign flags only perpetuates that false stigma.
The true tragedy of this proposed bill is that touches a nerve with Americans who believe in the concept of helping the poor and weak amongst us. It's why the Archbishop of Los Angeles directly challenged Washington and could be accused of flaming the rancor to the extreme we saw in the last week.
At its heart, this is not about foreign pride as the banners would contend, but about the Republican Party turning its back on its burgeoning Latino majority during an election year for the white zealots of its far right. The push-pull of illegal immigration by conservatives has been played before. No business-minded conservative will privately denounce the value of cheap and disposable illegal workers. The rhetoric belies this notion because like the abortion, Republicans will use these issues to repeatedly divide voters. Just as Republicans would be up a creek, if abortion was, indeed, illegal, so too would they be if they didn't have illegal immigrants to kick around, both financially in the form of low wages and long hours, but in demonizing them with bills like the one presented by Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona.
It should be remembered that the last time this immigration ploy was exercised in the 1994 California gubernatorial race, Republican Pete Wilson won re-election, but the same shame and anger that the Latino population felt has reverberated to this day. The California Republican Party is in shambles. In the next 12 years, only the moderate-leaning conservative Arnold Schwarzenegger has held a high office in California.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Backlash Mountain
America Isn't Ready For A Film Not Really About Gays
Jack Nicholson's usual pompous characature of himself came in handy during last night's78th Annual Academy Awards.
The upset of "Brokeback Mountain" at the hands of "Crash" deserved the combination of shock and despair that Nicholson exhibited as he read the winner of this year's Best Picture.
The easy answer will always be that the voters of the Academy were uncomfortable with the subject matter of the "gay cowboy" movie, but other reasons are more apt.
"Brokeback Mountain" was done in by a more aggressive marketing plan from Lion's Gate Pictures and the undeniable allure of being an L.A. movie with voters entirely from Hollywood.
The problem with the Brokeback gay backlash is that the movie's title has become far more ubiquitous than the actually content. Brokeback could easily be a tale of a lost life and forlorn love between a man and a woman, a person and a pet or anything someone seeks to possess.
The fact that the lovers are gay is merely a clever twist on this well-worn Hollywood cliche, nothing more. The countless internet parodies and incessant late-night jokes only highlighted with bright kleig lights the fearful message of homosexuality. If George W. Bush could win re-election are the barebacks of gay marriage then Brokeback Mountain was doomed from the beginning.
Like that election, we were left with a sub-standard alternative. When was the last time a film won Best Picture with the predigree of mixed reviews? "Crash" was just one big ball of cliches portrayed to have something to say about racism and social interaction in early 21st century America. That it's set in Los Angeles, the land of everything fake, and I mean everything, down to the faux tattoos and botoxed toes, is evidence enough that this is not the daily America that most of us know.
The Academy missed a huge opportunity last night. As Best Supporting Actor winner, George Clooney, alluded to earlier, the greatness of Hollywood is it's ability to bring attention to issues both misunderstood and feared. The Academy dropped the ball and the greatest film of this young century suffered in the process.
Jack Nicholson's usual pompous characature of himself came in handy during last night's78th Annual Academy Awards.
The upset of "Brokeback Mountain" at the hands of "Crash" deserved the combination of shock and despair that Nicholson exhibited as he read the winner of this year's Best Picture.
The easy answer will always be that the voters of the Academy were uncomfortable with the subject matter of the "gay cowboy" movie, but other reasons are more apt.
"Brokeback Mountain" was done in by a more aggressive marketing plan from Lion's Gate Pictures and the undeniable allure of being an L.A. movie with voters entirely from Hollywood.
The problem with the Brokeback gay backlash is that the movie's title has become far more ubiquitous than the actually content. Brokeback could easily be a tale of a lost life and forlorn love between a man and a woman, a person and a pet or anything someone seeks to possess.
The fact that the lovers are gay is merely a clever twist on this well-worn Hollywood cliche, nothing more. The countless internet parodies and incessant late-night jokes only highlighted with bright kleig lights the fearful message of homosexuality. If George W. Bush could win re-election are the barebacks of gay marriage then Brokeback Mountain was doomed from the beginning.
Like that election, we were left with a sub-standard alternative. When was the last time a film won Best Picture with the predigree of mixed reviews? "Crash" was just one big ball of cliches portrayed to have something to say about racism and social interaction in early 21st century America. That it's set in Los Angeles, the land of everything fake, and I mean everything, down to the faux tattoos and botoxed toes, is evidence enough that this is not the daily America that most of us know.
The Academy missed a huge opportunity last night. As Best Supporting Actor winner, George Clooney, alluded to earlier, the greatness of Hollywood is it's ability to bring attention to issues both misunderstood and feared. The Academy dropped the ball and the greatest film of this young century suffered in the process.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Whittington Was In Drunken Veeps Firing Line
WHY DID CHENEY SHOOT LAWYER FROM CLOSE RANGE?
Vice President Dick Cheney shot Texas lawyer, Harry Whittington, from a closer range than previously thought and the presence of alcohol were the reasons why the accidental shooting was reported nearly a day later.
The original story and, quite frankly every subsequent version since, has failed to pass the sniff test.
The New York Times and numerous health experts have reported that the BB-sized pellets lodged in Whittington's chest would have needed a far greater velocity than possible from 30 yards away.
Dr. O.Wayne Isom, the chairman of the heart and chest surgery at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, noted this closer proximity of Cheney to Whittington by excluding the possibility of the pellets reaching the heart via the bloodstream.
"The pellets wre approximately five millimeters, about the size of a BB, and larger than most blood vessels", he said.
Moreover, it's highly unlikely that over the distance of 30 yards that the spraying of Cheney's birdshot would not have dispersed into a far larger area than the relatively small area of wounds on Whittington's body--roughly a portion of his left jaw, neck and over his heart and lung.
The probability that Cheney shot Whittington from close range is very high. The presence of beer with this hunting party may be unrelated to the accident, though.
If anything, the fact that Cheney had one beer at lunch (everyone knows one beer, usually means two or three) only magnifies the inherent comedy of this already infamous storyline. It's quite possible that the effects of alcohol and the shooting are unrelated.
The problem, though, in relation to why it took nearly 18 hours to report the accident, is that the mere presence of alcohol would have vaulted this problem into the stratosphere of full-blown crisis. Although, after Whittington's mild heart Tuesday, it reached those heights anyway.
This is why the local authorities were shooed away from Cheney until around 6am the next day and why the Karl Rove machine was called in.
This story, though, is still missing crucial information, most of which, could probably be derived from a medical point of view. What medications are Whittington currently taking? Was a test done on his blood alcohol? Was he conscious when he arrived at the medical center?
The biggest part of this puzzle lies in why was Whittington shot from such a range that birdshot could embed itself through numerous layers of clothing and lodge itself in his heart.
Many in this press have this completely wrong when they opine that the cover-up of this story over the weekend made things worse. It's pure folly to suggest such a thing when it's been this administration modus operandi to hide facts of potentially damaging national consequences, let alone Dick Cheney blasting his hunting partner.
The national media smells blood like no story in recent memory and will not stop until this story is broken wide open. The surrealness of the entire tale has the potential to become a cottage publishing industry for the next 25 years and that sort of opportunity has happened since two guys at the Washington Post teamed up with a guy named Deep Throat.
Vice President Dick Cheney shot Texas lawyer, Harry Whittington, from a closer range than previously thought and the presence of alcohol were the reasons why the accidental shooting was reported nearly a day later.
The original story and, quite frankly every subsequent version since, has failed to pass the sniff test.
The New York Times and numerous health experts have reported that the BB-sized pellets lodged in Whittington's chest would have needed a far greater velocity than possible from 30 yards away.
Dr. O.Wayne Isom, the chairman of the heart and chest surgery at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, noted this closer proximity of Cheney to Whittington by excluding the possibility of the pellets reaching the heart via the bloodstream.
"The pellets wre approximately five millimeters, about the size of a BB, and larger than most blood vessels", he said.
Moreover, it's highly unlikely that over the distance of 30 yards that the spraying of Cheney's birdshot would not have dispersed into a far larger area than the relatively small area of wounds on Whittington's body--roughly a portion of his left jaw, neck and over his heart and lung.
The probability that Cheney shot Whittington from close range is very high. The presence of beer with this hunting party may be unrelated to the accident, though.
If anything, the fact that Cheney had one beer at lunch (everyone knows one beer, usually means two or three) only magnifies the inherent comedy of this already infamous storyline. It's quite possible that the effects of alcohol and the shooting are unrelated.
The problem, though, in relation to why it took nearly 18 hours to report the accident, is that the mere presence of alcohol would have vaulted this problem into the stratosphere of full-blown crisis. Although, after Whittington's mild heart Tuesday, it reached those heights anyway.
This is why the local authorities were shooed away from Cheney until around 6am the next day and why the Karl Rove machine was called in.
This story, though, is still missing crucial information, most of which, could probably be derived from a medical point of view. What medications are Whittington currently taking? Was a test done on his blood alcohol? Was he conscious when he arrived at the medical center?
The biggest part of this puzzle lies in why was Whittington shot from such a range that birdshot could embed itself through numerous layers of clothing and lodge itself in his heart.
Many in this press have this completely wrong when they opine that the cover-up of this story over the weekend made things worse. It's pure folly to suggest such a thing when it's been this administration modus operandi to hide facts of potentially damaging national consequences, let alone Dick Cheney blasting his hunting partner.
The national media smells blood like no story in recent memory and will not stop until this story is broken wide open. The surrealness of the entire tale has the potential to become a cottage publishing industry for the next 25 years and that sort of opportunity has happened since two guys at the Washington Post teamed up with a guy named Deep Throat.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Cheney Blames The Victim
VP IS DISTRAUGHT; 'WHAT ABOUT ME?' SAYS VICTIM
PLAY THE DICK CHENEY QUAIL HUNTING GAME @ www.huffingtonpost.com
Could there be a story more befitting of the Lunatic Fringe as the second most powerful official in America nearly committing a homicide in the fields of South Texas?
Since facts are at a premium in the accidental shooting of prominent Austin lawyer, Harry Whittington by Vice President Dick Cheney we are left to ponder the case through speculation. Maybe that's what Wild Dick Cheney is hoping for?
Why did it take nearly 21 hours for the plugging of Whittington to become known in this age of ultra-quick news? Obviously, to buy time while the White House and Karl Rove concocted a bandaid to the problem.
What they come up was this:
1) Muddle the facts. Initially reports said that Whittington approached Cheney from behind evoking an ancy VP ready to kill at the slightest provocation.
"Boo!" said Whittington. "Bang!" said Cheney.
Next, an odd tale was passed along that implicated the bright sun was the culprit for Cheney not seeing Whittington in the foreground. Plainly, this muddling of the story, leaves out that Cheney quite possibly shot a man cowardly in the back.
2) Blame the victim. Pretty standard at the Bush White House. Bush operatives were passing along the idea that Whittington should have shouted an audible call to denote his location. It fails to pass the plausible stage.
Why would Whittington scream out when the other hunters were coming up on a covey of quail? The scream would have startled and alerted the quail, thereby, scuttling the hunter's target. Besides, the War Room at Salon.com reported that the NRA's safety manual puts the onus on the shooter as to whether the area is clear of unwanted targets, such as people.
3) Create Sympathy. Not for the victim, but for Cheney. The poor guy just shot what the White House is trying to say was a good friend of the VP, when he was mainly an acquaintance. Why did Cheney not cooperated with the local sheriff? Why because he was so distraught by the mauling of Whittington by his shotgun that he had to accompany the victim to the hospital. If that wasn't enough, act like you're going to cry when recounting the accident to the press.
To the Republicans base, this sounds like an honorable way to own up to his part of the accident. The problem is, that if you or I sprayed ball bearings at another person's face and neck, the local authorities would most likely want to question you at the scene of the possible crime.
When this story broke late Sunday afternoon, the ridiculousness of the tale--Dick Cheney shot a man! What?!--and the absence of any official facts screamed for the wheels of cover-up to begin rolling; and they did. That anything untoward happened on that ranch seems even crazy for even the most conspiracy-minded of us, but why attempt to keep this accident quiet? Is it just standard operating procedure at the White House or is there an important piece of this story that is missing and therefore, making what we know today seem incongruous with a rational mind?
PLAY THE DICK CHENEY QUAIL HUNTING GAME @ www.huffingtonpost.com
Could there be a story more befitting of the Lunatic Fringe as the second most powerful official in America nearly committing a homicide in the fields of South Texas?
Since facts are at a premium in the accidental shooting of prominent Austin lawyer, Harry Whittington by Vice President Dick Cheney we are left to ponder the case through speculation. Maybe that's what Wild Dick Cheney is hoping for?
Why did it take nearly 21 hours for the plugging of Whittington to become known in this age of ultra-quick news? Obviously, to buy time while the White House and Karl Rove concocted a bandaid to the problem.
What they come up was this:
1) Muddle the facts. Initially reports said that Whittington approached Cheney from behind evoking an ancy VP ready to kill at the slightest provocation.
"Boo!" said Whittington. "Bang!" said Cheney.
Next, an odd tale was passed along that implicated the bright sun was the culprit for Cheney not seeing Whittington in the foreground. Plainly, this muddling of the story, leaves out that Cheney quite possibly shot a man cowardly in the back.
2) Blame the victim. Pretty standard at the Bush White House. Bush operatives were passing along the idea that Whittington should have shouted an audible call to denote his location. It fails to pass the plausible stage.
Why would Whittington scream out when the other hunters were coming up on a covey of quail? The scream would have startled and alerted the quail, thereby, scuttling the hunter's target. Besides, the War Room at Salon.com reported that the NRA's safety manual puts the onus on the shooter as to whether the area is clear of unwanted targets, such as people.
3) Create Sympathy. Not for the victim, but for Cheney. The poor guy just shot what the White House is trying to say was a good friend of the VP, when he was mainly an acquaintance. Why did Cheney not cooperated with the local sheriff? Why because he was so distraught by the mauling of Whittington by his shotgun that he had to accompany the victim to the hospital. If that wasn't enough, act like you're going to cry when recounting the accident to the press.
To the Republicans base, this sounds like an honorable way to own up to his part of the accident. The problem is, that if you or I sprayed ball bearings at another person's face and neck, the local authorities would most likely want to question you at the scene of the possible crime.
When this story broke late Sunday afternoon, the ridiculousness of the tale--Dick Cheney shot a man! What?!--and the absence of any official facts screamed for the wheels of cover-up to begin rolling; and they did. That anything untoward happened on that ranch seems even crazy for even the most conspiracy-minded of us, but why attempt to keep this accident quiet? Is it just standard operating procedure at the White House or is there an important piece of this story that is missing and therefore, making what we know today seem incongruous with a rational mind?
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Bush's Body Language: Everybody Hates Me!
FUNERAL OF CORETTA SCOTT KING MIMICS REAL CRITICISM OF BUSH
Eulogists at Coretta Scott King's funeral today gave President Bush an earful. Guess what, George? This is how the whole country talks about you.
That the leader of our country could be so pointedly and brutally criticized from literally ten feet away to national audience shows that our free speech has not yet been demolished.
The unease in the President's demeanor was clearly evident as he withstood biting jabs from Rev. Joe Lowery, Maya Angelou, President Jimmy Carter and Sen. Edward Kennedy. You almost felt sorry for the guy.
The mob smelled blood as President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton stepped to lectern. The crowd saved their loudest applause for the former president. As the president thanked President Bush and the other ex-president someone in attendance yelled, "You're a real president!" which furthered evident vitriol towards Bush.
Sadly, Bush never hears this contrarian view when his public appearances are meticulously cleansed of any opposition. Last week, war protester, Patty Sheehan, was arrested for attempting to wear an anti-war t-shirt to the State of the Union.
Was Bush surprised? Frankly, he had no business being at the civil rights' leaders funeral other than being the leader of this country. He embodied none of Martin Luther King's philosophy and has been contemptuous toward the entire Civil Rights movement.
It was the soft-spoken former president from Georgia--President Carter--who said it best today when he related the Bush administration's predilection towards spying to the surveillance by the FBI of MLK in the 1960s.
"It was difficult for them personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated, and they became the targets of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance."
The work of Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King has yet to be finished.
Eulogists at Coretta Scott King's funeral today gave President Bush an earful. Guess what, George? This is how the whole country talks about you.
That the leader of our country could be so pointedly and brutally criticized from literally ten feet away to national audience shows that our free speech has not yet been demolished.
The unease in the President's demeanor was clearly evident as he withstood biting jabs from Rev. Joe Lowery, Maya Angelou, President Jimmy Carter and Sen. Edward Kennedy. You almost felt sorry for the guy.
The mob smelled blood as President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton stepped to lectern. The crowd saved their loudest applause for the former president. As the president thanked President Bush and the other ex-president someone in attendance yelled, "You're a real president!" which furthered evident vitriol towards Bush.
Sadly, Bush never hears this contrarian view when his public appearances are meticulously cleansed of any opposition. Last week, war protester, Patty Sheehan, was arrested for attempting to wear an anti-war t-shirt to the State of the Union.
Was Bush surprised? Frankly, he had no business being at the civil rights' leaders funeral other than being the leader of this country. He embodied none of Martin Luther King's philosophy and has been contemptuous toward the entire Civil Rights movement.
It was the soft-spoken former president from Georgia--President Carter--who said it best today when he related the Bush administration's predilection towards spying to the surveillance by the FBI of MLK in the 1960s.
"It was difficult for them personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated, and they became the targets of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance."
The work of Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King has yet to be finished.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Gore Personifies Our Hopes And Fears
IS GORE CONTEMPLATING A RUN FOR 2008?
Ben Smith's piece in Monday's New York Observer was part tantilizing gossip and part sobering truth on the state of the Democratic party come 2008.
The opposition party usually gears up its possible and perennial candidates during this point of the election cycle. The sitting president's party is typically hampered by respect for the current commander-in-chief and therefore somewhat murky in buzz over which person may take the party's mantle.
Hillary Clinton is a definite yes and everyone's front-runner. Then you have the rehashed candidates--John Kerry and John Edwards. The up-and-comers who lack gravitas but nonetheless serve the sole purpose of pushing along the dialogue of the race. In 2004, Howard Dean played this role. In 2008, Russ Feingold may well take that role with pet issues such as campaign finance reform and a desire to end the war in Iraq.
Then there's Al Gore who fits into every category. He's been a frontrunner. He's a rehashed good ol' boy of the Democratic Party and comfortable advancing a specific agenda--global warming and, of course, a diatribe against everything that is Bush.
Smith's article contains the ubiquitous citation of denial that Gore is even contemplating another run for White House all the while illustrating a fiery orator and issues-orientated vision. The middle ground between whether Gore runs or doesn't is camped out easily and allows Democrats to think, "should we or could we allow our hopes into the hands of this man, again?"
The post 2000 election Gore, or the "New Gore" is hands down much more comfortable, thoughtful, honest and far more brutally honest than the infamous Gore made of wood.
Is there a single individual who encapsulates the exact feelings of torture, embarrassment and raw fire of the American people more than Al Gore?
Gore is the symbol of newly disenfranchised and divided America. He personally stood humiliated as the Supreme Court stole his bid for the Presidency. He went into hiding, grew a beard, ate a whole lot and returned anew with a unique and dead-on view of the destruction thrust upon America during the past six years.
He's the personification of a metaphorical America in darkness only to rise again under sunny and safe skies. He's lived our doubts, our fears and our frustrations ever day since that fateful weeks in November and December of 2000.
The question is: Do we risk it?
Ben Smith's piece in Monday's New York Observer was part tantilizing gossip and part sobering truth on the state of the Democratic party come 2008.
The opposition party usually gears up its possible and perennial candidates during this point of the election cycle. The sitting president's party is typically hampered by respect for the current commander-in-chief and therefore somewhat murky in buzz over which person may take the party's mantle.
Hillary Clinton is a definite yes and everyone's front-runner. Then you have the rehashed candidates--John Kerry and John Edwards. The up-and-comers who lack gravitas but nonetheless serve the sole purpose of pushing along the dialogue of the race. In 2004, Howard Dean played this role. In 2008, Russ Feingold may well take that role with pet issues such as campaign finance reform and a desire to end the war in Iraq.
Then there's Al Gore who fits into every category. He's been a frontrunner. He's a rehashed good ol' boy of the Democratic Party and comfortable advancing a specific agenda--global warming and, of course, a diatribe against everything that is Bush.
Smith's article contains the ubiquitous citation of denial that Gore is even contemplating another run for White House all the while illustrating a fiery orator and issues-orientated vision. The middle ground between whether Gore runs or doesn't is camped out easily and allows Democrats to think, "should we or could we allow our hopes into the hands of this man, again?"
The post 2000 election Gore, or the "New Gore" is hands down much more comfortable, thoughtful, honest and far more brutally honest than the infamous Gore made of wood.
Is there a single individual who encapsulates the exact feelings of torture, embarrassment and raw fire of the American people more than Al Gore?
Gore is the symbol of newly disenfranchised and divided America. He personally stood humiliated as the Supreme Court stole his bid for the Presidency. He went into hiding, grew a beard, ate a whole lot and returned anew with a unique and dead-on view of the destruction thrust upon America during the past six years.
He's the personification of a metaphorical America in darkness only to rise again under sunny and safe skies. He's lived our doubts, our fears and our frustrations ever day since that fateful weeks in November and December of 2000.
The question is: Do we risk it?
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Hillary & Gore Tag Team The White House
2006 Mid-Term Election Season Begins
Former VP Al Gore and the presumptive Democratic nominee for President--Hillary Clinton--fired extremely blunt and pointed remarks at the Bush White House yesterday.
So begins the Democrat's election assault on regaining Congress.
Political Science is such riveting and ever-changing discipline that sometimes requires more couth than rambunction. Did Gore and Hillary go too far in labeling the White House as criminals?
The short answer is probably yes. By being so aggressive they risk alienating the moderate to conservative voters that they hope to woo to the their side. The legitimate question is: What if the charges are correct?
Gore said this:
Gore is not out of bounds with this statement. He prefaces it by detailing exactly what various publications have uncovered regarding the spying scandal. The President knowingly broke the law of the land when he ordered wiretapping of Americans under the cover of 9/11 without the knowledge of Congress or without a court order. This is blatantly illegal and if allowed will become so invasive that the very fabric of American could be destroyed. Amazingly, as Gore points out, Bush has owned up to the crime and continued to urge Americans to allow its use.
Sen. Clinton, in a surely coordinated effort with Gore's comments, compared the Bush Adminstration's aversion to dissent to that of a Southern plantation and predicted its place in American history.
Hillary's comments seem more antagonistic than Gore's whose were more thoughtful and grounded in facts. Gore's speech sounded like an concerned American worried for the country's direction. Hillary's was far more political and portends greatly to an aggressive Democratic campaign at painting the Republicans as doing unprecedented and historic harm to the country.
It's definitely a tactic that is widely pervasive in the electorate's collective mind and littered with unbelievable examples of poor and illegal behavior. The Democrats have, again, successful drawn the lines of the conversation with the voters. If they can consistently stay on this message quite a bit of the excessive power the Bush Administration has garnered and abused will be checked.
Former VP Al Gore and the presumptive Democratic nominee for President--Hillary Clinton--fired extremely blunt and pointed remarks at the Bush White House yesterday.
So begins the Democrat's election assault on regaining Congress.
Political Science is such riveting and ever-changing discipline that sometimes requires more couth than rambunction. Did Gore and Hillary go too far in labeling the White House as criminals?
The short answer is probably yes. By being so aggressive they risk alienating the moderate to conservative voters that they hope to woo to the their side. The legitimate question is: What if the charges are correct?
Gore said this:
At present, we still have much to learn about the NSA's domestic surveillance. What we do know about this pervasive wiretapping virtually compels the conclusion that the President of the United States has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently.
Gore is not out of bounds with this statement. He prefaces it by detailing exactly what various publications have uncovered regarding the spying scandal. The President knowingly broke the law of the land when he ordered wiretapping of Americans under the cover of 9/11 without the knowledge of Congress or without a court order. This is blatantly illegal and if allowed will become so invasive that the very fabric of American could be destroyed. Amazingly, as Gore points out, Bush has owned up to the crime and continued to urge Americans to allow its use.
Sen. Clinton, in a surely coordinated effort with Gore's comments, compared the Bush Adminstration's aversion to dissent to that of a Southern plantation and predicted its place in American history.
"We have cronyism, we have incompetence. I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country."
Hillary's comments seem more antagonistic than Gore's whose were more thoughtful and grounded in facts. Gore's speech sounded like an concerned American worried for the country's direction. Hillary's was far more political and portends greatly to an aggressive Democratic campaign at painting the Republicans as doing unprecedented and historic harm to the country.
It's definitely a tactic that is widely pervasive in the electorate's collective mind and littered with unbelievable examples of poor and illegal behavior. The Democrats have, again, successful drawn the lines of the conversation with the voters. If they can consistently stay on this message quite a bit of the excessive power the Bush Administration has garnered and abused will be checked.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Dr. King's Message Has Been Silenced
As America commemorates, or in some states tolerates, the birthday of arguably the greatest American of the 20th century--Dr. Martin Luther King--the past year has shown that the advancement of African-Americans and the poor, in general, have been merely cosmetic.
First, this national holiday in honor Dr. King should not be characterized as a "black" holiday as it is too often. The vision of Dr. King was, indeed racial harmony and equality for all blacks, but also and specifically for the poorest and indigent of Americans.
This overlooked aspect of Dr. King's beliefs--beliefs that he died fighting for--have not been realized, but a gap between rich and poor has widened greatly.
The working poor in America has grown exponentially since the late 1960s and President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
As we stand today, the minimum wage has not increased in nearly 10 years. Corporations are cutting pensions for loyal retirees and health benefits are non-existent. America still functions without a health care program. People get sick and fall into deeper despair.
For those unfortunate and few, the mounting debt and tension rises with no end. This past year, the Republican Congress made it harder for Americans to file for bankruptcy. To this Administration there is no second chance in America, especially when it's their money.
Invariably, a talk regarding Dr. King cannot be given without mention of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
The country and the world saw the still seething divide of race and poverty in America. This is simply a regime in Washington that gives short shrift to the poor. Katrina showed that human decency is not contained in the hearts of men who run this country.
But, should we expect anything different? This is, after all, the same government that spied on and sought to end Dr. King's dream, if they didn't literally, with a bullet. And their dream to rid the country's conscienceness of his noble deeds is still with us today.
An assault on Dr. King's legacy surrounds us everyday. First, this day, as mentioned before, is linked to the black struggle. Second, popular culture is devoid of anything related to Dr. King. Have you ever noticed that there has never been a big-budget Hollywood biopic about Dr. King? Why is that? Hollywood can make one for Malcolm X and Johnny Cash, but can't tell the heroic and fascinating story of a Southern preacher changing the way American lived?
The past year has weathered an assault to the issues that Dr. King stood for and today is day that we should regroup and rekindle the fervor and enlightenment that he stoked in America over 40 years ago.
First, this national holiday in honor Dr. King should not be characterized as a "black" holiday as it is too often. The vision of Dr. King was, indeed racial harmony and equality for all blacks, but also and specifically for the poorest and indigent of Americans.
This overlooked aspect of Dr. King's beliefs--beliefs that he died fighting for--have not been realized, but a gap between rich and poor has widened greatly.
The working poor in America has grown exponentially since the late 1960s and President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
As we stand today, the minimum wage has not increased in nearly 10 years. Corporations are cutting pensions for loyal retirees and health benefits are non-existent. America still functions without a health care program. People get sick and fall into deeper despair.
For those unfortunate and few, the mounting debt and tension rises with no end. This past year, the Republican Congress made it harder for Americans to file for bankruptcy. To this Administration there is no second chance in America, especially when it's their money.
Invariably, a talk regarding Dr. King cannot be given without mention of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
The country and the world saw the still seething divide of race and poverty in America. This is simply a regime in Washington that gives short shrift to the poor. Katrina showed that human decency is not contained in the hearts of men who run this country.
But, should we expect anything different? This is, after all, the same government that spied on and sought to end Dr. King's dream, if they didn't literally, with a bullet. And their dream to rid the country's conscienceness of his noble deeds is still with us today.
An assault on Dr. King's legacy surrounds us everyday. First, this day, as mentioned before, is linked to the black struggle. Second, popular culture is devoid of anything related to Dr. King. Have you ever noticed that there has never been a big-budget Hollywood biopic about Dr. King? Why is that? Hollywood can make one for Malcolm X and Johnny Cash, but can't tell the heroic and fascinating story of a Southern preacher changing the way American lived?
The past year has weathered an assault to the issues that Dr. King stood for and today is day that we should regroup and rekindle the fervor and enlightenment that he stoked in America over 40 years ago.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Cheney's Condition May Be More Dire Than Reported
FOR THE REPUBLICS SAKE, WE CAN ONLY HOPE;
The New York Times, like most in the media, reported the morning hospital visit of Vice President Dick Cheney.
Most exhibited slight concern over his long-term health and, of course, John Stewart on the Daily Show led the chorus of standard guffaws regarding Cheney's ticker, but buried in the Times' story might be a tidbit to tuck away for future reference.
The Times' editors apparently found the newsworthiness of Cheney's hospital visit to be low, placing it on page 14 of the Tuesday's front section, but note the medical analysis at the end of the article.
The fact that the VP's ticker may be on the verge of congestive failure seems like big news. In addition, the good doctor must be a Democrat. He goes out of his way to refute the Administration's argument that Cheney "only" had a shortness of breath.
Maybe this isn't news. We've all known Cheney has very little heart and compassion for very anyone not white, not rich and not dedicated the rule of Beezelbub.
The New York Times, like most in the media, reported the morning hospital visit of Vice President Dick Cheney.
Most exhibited slight concern over his long-term health and, of course, John Stewart on the Daily Show led the chorus of standard guffaws regarding Cheney's ticker, but buried in the Times' story might be a tidbit to tuck away for future reference.
The Times' editors apparently found the newsworthiness of Cheney's hospital visit to be low, placing it on page 14 of the Tuesday's front section, but note the medical analysis at the end of the article.
On Monday, Dr. Christopher P. Cannon, a cardiologist at Harvard Medical School, said the fluid retention possibly indicated Mr. Cheney's heart was decompensating and "teetering on the edge of congestive heart failure." The fluid retention does not necessarily indicate a worsening of his heart condition.
Time will tell whether this would happen in the absence of this event or whether he could stay in compensated heart failure, as he has been," Dr. Cannon said in an interview. He also said it was unlikely that "a healthy person would get short of breath" from taking a nonsteroid anti-inflammatory.
The fact that the VP's ticker may be on the verge of congestive failure seems like big news. In addition, the good doctor must be a Democrat. He goes out of his way to refute the Administration's argument that Cheney "only" had a shortness of breath.
Maybe this isn't news. We've all known Cheney has very little heart and compassion for very anyone not white, not rich and not dedicated the rule of Beezelbub.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Serial Marriager Passes GOP Lies As Fact
WASH. TIMES ARTICLE ON REID IS FALSE
The Republican family values machine is so hot that it's looking to the mass-wedding guru, the Rev. Sun Myung-Moon and his loony rag--the Washington Times--for ammunition.
A story in the dubious Times reported that the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate--Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada--was supposedly in the "top-tier" of suspects that the Justice Department is investigating regarding fallen uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty last week to bilking just about everyone in Washington.
Of course, the Republicans ran with it all day, and rose a loud cackle of hypocrisy from its constituency. This is the effect that the GOP masterminds wished for when they unleashed what we now know is a false story.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported shortly after the Washington Times' story that, in fact, Reid was not a focus of any investigation nor has been contacted by the Justice Department.
More telling is that the article mentions that creating a tier system for possible lawbreakers and the fact that the twice-indicted Tom DeLay was not even mentioned in the Washington Times story cast extreme doubt on its veracity.
It doesn't matter to the Republicans, anyway, because hearing a story--whether true or false--regarding Sen. Reid, who has repeatedly pounded away at the corruption in the Republican-led Congress, will stick in the minds of misinformed conservatives across the country.
It's a lose-lose situation for Reid--at least--until the real crooks in Washington are ferreted out into the open and believe me, they'll see the light of day sooner than later.
The Republican family values machine is so hot that it's looking to the mass-wedding guru, the Rev. Sun Myung-Moon and his loony rag--the Washington Times--for ammunition.
A story in the dubious Times reported that the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate--Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada--was supposedly in the "top-tier" of suspects that the Justice Department is investigating regarding fallen uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who pleaded guilty last week to bilking just about everyone in Washington.
Of course, the Republicans ran with it all day, and rose a loud cackle of hypocrisy from its constituency. This is the effect that the GOP masterminds wished for when they unleashed what we now know is a false story.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported shortly after the Washington Times' story that, in fact, Reid was not a focus of any investigation nor has been contacted by the Justice Department.
More telling is that the article mentions that creating a tier system for possible lawbreakers and the fact that the twice-indicted Tom DeLay was not even mentioned in the Washington Times story cast extreme doubt on its veracity.
It doesn't matter to the Republicans, anyway, because hearing a story--whether true or false--regarding Sen. Reid, who has repeatedly pounded away at the corruption in the Republican-led Congress, will stick in the minds of misinformed conservatives across the country.
It's a lose-lose situation for Reid--at least--until the real crooks in Washington are ferreted out into the open and believe me, they'll see the light of day sooner than later.
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Robertson Strikes Again; Taunts The Near Dead
BUSH MOUTHPIECE AGAIN DIVIDES AND EMBARRASSES
What God is Pat Robertson exactly referring to today. Robertson claimed that Ariel Sharon's grave condition is the after effects of the Israeli PM's intention to clear land for Palestine.
Watch the video here courtesy of Salon.com.
Supposedly with His backing, Robertson, a few months back, called for the assassination of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and before that called Muslims evil.
What makes today's statement so callous is that Sharon currently lies in a medically-induced coma after suffering a major stroke this week. This leads to two questions: Who exactly subscribes to this sort rhetoric in Christian America and what's the "Inside Baseball" with this latest controversy?
The first answer is hopefully nobody, but realistically, based on the evangelical support of the President in the 2004 election and the wealth and steady television ratings of Robertson's 700 Club quite a few Christians were nodding their heads in agreement with his outrageous sentiments.
What's far more worrisome is that with Robertson's extremist quotables the already remote prospects of any social reconciliation between red and blue states suffers and begins to resemble the conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians.
The chicken-necked Robertson may say stupid things but he's shrewd in his timing and knows to honor certain interests that benefit his organization--the Jewish lobby.
To have Robertson utter these non-sensical ideas over the airwaves goes to show just how firmly entrenched certain factions of the Israeli government lie within the Bush administration.
With much of the current administration exhibiting a distinct neocon look it's not hard to imagine the Republican party being opposed to any approachment to the Palestinian desire for an independent homeland.
It makes me wonder--What would God say about Pat Robertson? Unfortunately, Lucifer will probably get the first interview.
What God is Pat Robertson exactly referring to today. Robertson claimed that Ariel Sharon's grave condition is the after effects of the Israeli PM's intention to clear land for Palestine.
Watch the video here courtesy of Salon.com.
Supposedly with His backing, Robertson, a few months back, called for the assassination of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and before that called Muslims evil.
What makes today's statement so callous is that Sharon currently lies in a medically-induced coma after suffering a major stroke this week. This leads to two questions: Who exactly subscribes to this sort rhetoric in Christian America and what's the "Inside Baseball" with this latest controversy?
The first answer is hopefully nobody, but realistically, based on the evangelical support of the President in the 2004 election and the wealth and steady television ratings of Robertson's 700 Club quite a few Christians were nodding their heads in agreement with his outrageous sentiments.
What's far more worrisome is that with Robertson's extremist quotables the already remote prospects of any social reconciliation between red and blue states suffers and begins to resemble the conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians.
The chicken-necked Robertson may say stupid things but he's shrewd in his timing and knows to honor certain interests that benefit his organization--the Jewish lobby.
To have Robertson utter these non-sensical ideas over the airwaves goes to show just how firmly entrenched certain factions of the Israeli government lie within the Bush administration.
With much of the current administration exhibiting a distinct neocon look it's not hard to imagine the Republican party being opposed to any approachment to the Palestinian desire for an independent homeland.
It makes me wonder--What would God say about Pat Robertson? Unfortunately, Lucifer will probably get the first interview.
Monday, January 02, 2006
Alito As The Endearing Nerdy Nominee
GOP SPIN EXHORTS THE BENEFITS OF NERDY NOMINEE
That convenient White House anonymous source reared its ugly head on page one of today's New York Times referring to the recent demeanor of Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito.
The Times' source leads us to believe the rehearsals for Alito's upcoming confirmation hearings aren't going well, because, you know he doesn't possess a polished public persona. Voila! Alito isn't coming across as cuddly and well-spoken as John Roberts, therefore, his rough edges are spun to be that of the "everyman"
Little League coach? C'mon!
It's ironic that the White House is trying to paint this picture of a harmless egghead when his record is, in fact, littered with a hostility towards women and signifies the increased liklihood that Roe vs. Wade could be overturned within this generation.
The Times' story also suggests the possiblilty that Alito may mouth off to Democratic senators. Such an outburst or rant could become fodder for 20-second soundbites and rally female liberal groups. This "New Jerseyan" predilication to fight is somewhat foreign to the West Coast, unless Alito plans to break out into Springsteen tunes on the Senate floor.
[CLICK HERE! @ T A I L G A T E R: NOW WATCH VIDEO ON TAILGATER. "THE RAIDERS SEASON IN FIVE MINUTES".]
That convenient White House anonymous source reared its ugly head on page one of today's New York Times referring to the recent demeanor of Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito.
The Times' source leads us to believe the rehearsals for Alito's upcoming confirmation hearings aren't going well, because, you know he doesn't possess a polished public persona. Voila! Alito isn't coming across as cuddly and well-spoken as John Roberts, therefore, his rough edges are spun to be that of the "everyman"
"He will have a couple hairs out of place," one participant said. "I am not sure his glasses fit his facial features. He might not wear the right color tie. He won't be tanned. He will look like he is from New Jersey, because he is. That is a very useful look, because it is a natural look. He's able to go toe-to-toe with senators, and at the same time he could be your son's Little League coach."
Little League coach? C'mon!
It's ironic that the White House is trying to paint this picture of a harmless egghead when his record is, in fact, littered with a hostility towards women and signifies the increased liklihood that Roe vs. Wade could be overturned within this generation.
The Times' story also suggests the possiblilty that Alito may mouth off to Democratic senators. Such an outburst or rant could become fodder for 20-second soundbites and rally female liberal groups. This "New Jerseyan" predilication to fight is somewhat foreign to the West Coast, unless Alito plans to break out into Springsteen tunes on the Senate floor.
[CLICK HERE! @ T A I L G A T E R: NOW WATCH VIDEO ON TAILGATER. "THE RAIDERS SEASON IN FIVE MINUTES".]
Thursday, December 29, 2005
German Wants To Slap Devices On Islamists
What's Stopping Cheney From Adopting the Same Idea?
Uwe Schunemann, the Interior minister of Lower Saxony in Germany, has proposed electronically tagging purported Islamic militants. The question is, why didn't Dick Cheney think of this first?
Of course, the social and economic morale of Germans has been low in recent years and makes such a suggestion of lashing out at immigrants, namely Turkish Muslims, par for the course.
Germany, if you'll recall, was deeply against Bush's war against terror, so much that their former chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, solely ran on this discontent. Schunemann's idea is rooted not on Bush's premise that terrorists aim to destroy the West, ironically, Germans are more practical. To them, the Muslims are ruining their society, just as the French think North African Muslims are diluting their country and just as red state Republicans blame the demise of jobs and border security on Mexicans.
So, what's stopping the Bush administration from proposing a similar initiative? If the President can so eagerly back the very notion that the government can spy on its citizens with nary a warrant, why couldn't they round up "suspected" (whatever that would mean) terrorists in the United States and slap surveillance devices on their ankles.
The "suspected" part of the equation is what is scary. Just ask any "too" Arab-looking Muslim how embarrassing a trip to the airport can be.
Uwe Schunemann, the Interior minister of Lower Saxony in Germany, has proposed electronically tagging purported Islamic militants. The question is, why didn't Dick Cheney think of this first?
Of course, the social and economic morale of Germans has been low in recent years and makes such a suggestion of lashing out at immigrants, namely Turkish Muslims, par for the course.
Germany, if you'll recall, was deeply against Bush's war against terror, so much that their former chancellor, Gerhard Schroeder, solely ran on this discontent. Schunemann's idea is rooted not on Bush's premise that terrorists aim to destroy the West, ironically, Germans are more practical. To them, the Muslims are ruining their society, just as the French think North African Muslims are diluting their country and just as red state Republicans blame the demise of jobs and border security on Mexicans.
So, what's stopping the Bush administration from proposing a similar initiative? If the President can so eagerly back the very notion that the government can spy on its citizens with nary a warrant, why couldn't they round up "suspected" (whatever that would mean) terrorists in the United States and slap surveillance devices on their ankles.
The "suspected" part of the equation is what is scary. Just ask any "too" Arab-looking Muslim how embarrassing a trip to the airport can be.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
'Sausage King' Dies; Good Riddance!
SANTOS LINGUICA WAS THE BEST IN TOWN
STUART ALEXANDER MAY HAVE BEEN CRAZY. HE MAY HAVE KILLED THREE FOOD INSPECTORS IN COLD BLOOD. HE DIED MONDAY OF AN APPARENT SUICIDE, BUT DAMNIT, DID HE MAKE SOME GOOD LINGUICA!
I've heaped scorn on Stuart Alexander for five years, not only because he gunned down three food inspectors as they ran down nearby Washington Avenue in San Leandro, CA, but because his incarceration effectively ended the production of the finest linguica I've ever eaten.
The linguica was perfectly spiced and lacked oily fillers that other mass-produced linguica possessed. For a kid who hated huge chunks of fat in his linguica, Santos Linguica Factory was nirvana.
In the five years since the end of Santos Linguica, I've yet to find a better sausage. During my trip last year to Boston, I discovered a few contenders, but who cares, how could I consistently enjoy linguica from 3,000 miles away?
I've hated what Stuart Alexander did to those innocent inspectors for years and for the loss of my beloved linguica.
HERE'S MY FAVORITE LINGUICA RECIPE. IT'S TO DIE FOR!:
1 lb. linguica
1 cup Red wine
1 onion
water
Cover the whole linguica in a medium saucepan with water. Let boil for 20 minutes.
When boiled drain water and replace with red wine and sliced onions and let simmer for 40 minutes until the wine has reduced and soaked into the linguica.
Place linguica in a sesame seed roll and cover with onions.
STUART ALEXANDER MAY HAVE BEEN CRAZY. HE MAY HAVE KILLED THREE FOOD INSPECTORS IN COLD BLOOD. HE DIED MONDAY OF AN APPARENT SUICIDE, BUT DAMNIT, DID HE MAKE SOME GOOD LINGUICA!
I've heaped scorn on Stuart Alexander for five years, not only because he gunned down three food inspectors as they ran down nearby Washington Avenue in San Leandro, CA, but because his incarceration effectively ended the production of the finest linguica I've ever eaten.
The linguica was perfectly spiced and lacked oily fillers that other mass-produced linguica possessed. For a kid who hated huge chunks of fat in his linguica, Santos Linguica Factory was nirvana.
In the five years since the end of Santos Linguica, I've yet to find a better sausage. During my trip last year to Boston, I discovered a few contenders, but who cares, how could I consistently enjoy linguica from 3,000 miles away?
I've hated what Stuart Alexander did to those innocent inspectors for years and for the loss of my beloved linguica.
HERE'S MY FAVORITE LINGUICA RECIPE. IT'S TO DIE FOR!:
1 lb. linguica
1 cup Red wine
1 onion
water
Cover the whole linguica in a medium saucepan with water. Let boil for 20 minutes.
When boiled drain water and replace with red wine and sliced onions and let simmer for 40 minutes until the wine has reduced and soaked into the linguica.
Place linguica in a sesame seed roll and cover with onions.
LFR TO START 2006 ANEW
The Christmas season is really not the best environment for blogging, especially when the topic of your blog is excoriating Republicans and heaving verbal attacks against the purveyors of what's wrong with America. Instead, just like last year, I shifted my focus to shopping, singing Christmas carols and criticizing my mother's perennial dry turkey.
Now, I'm back with some new ideas for the Lunatic Fringe Report. First, a new look. The same old Blogger-brand templates have bored me since, well, the first time I laid my eyes upon them. I searched outside the site and found this relatively seamless template that will be tweaked upon throughout the year. The ubiquitous poll box will return with more frequent questions that related to weekly topics in the world of the LFR.
Adsense from Google is also a new addition to the top of the blog. It doesn't add much value to the reader, nor does it make much money, but it allows the LFR to, at least, have the look of other (much larger) blogs.
In addition to the relentless abuse of the President and his policies, the LFR hopes to stay above the curve by adding vlogs to the LFR. Vlogs are video blogs that are in the infant stage of use on the internet. Creating content for such an endeavor and a web hosting site will be one of my New Year's resolutions.
Now, back to blogging.
steve
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Iraq #1! USA; Patoooie!
So, that's where the former WWF heavyweight champion, The Iron Sheik, went. I thought he was dead.
He's a little gray in the mustache, but still looks like he could apply the Camel Clutch at anytime.
He's a little gray in the mustache, but still looks like he could apply the Camel Clutch at anytime.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Blue vs. Red: Heat Is On; Neocon Tries To Bail
MEANWHILE, MANDIGO CHOMPS ON NEOCONS' PORK RINDS
Our contestant this week on "Blue vs Red" attempted to capitulate to the side of knowledge by informing us that his voting record might surprise you. Are tie-dye shirts and McGovern posters hanging in his closet?
This tempering of their conservative ideology is similar to Conservatives Unite!, who bent over backwards to show she was tolerant to blacks and the poor in the wake of Hurricane Katrina by unveiling her resume of good deeds towards the indigent.
Calling Daniel-In-Brookline and Rich Casebolt conservative is insulting to the party of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. These are neocons, a sect of conservatism that is anathema to the party's already dubious thought.
Here's my return fire to one of his supporters:
Mr. Daniel-In-Brookline had this preposterous statement in regards to the benefits to Israel with U.S. military involvement in the Middle East:
Ridiculous.
Does he believe the administration's assertion that Saddam was devising a plan to fly a remote-controlled plane with weapons of mass destruction to the continental U.S. and detonated it? How could he possibly assert that the most-hated rival to all of the Arab and Muslim world would not have an interest in an ally patrolling Baghdad? It's absurd to say such a thing and points again to the fact that his arguments emanate from Israel and cloak their involvement in this war.
And here's my response to Mr. Daniel-In-Brookline's question of why his beliefs stem from his ties to Israel.
By the way, it's likely that the Mr. Daniel-In-Brookline is a pro-choice-Israeli national-neocon-Red Sox fan.
Our contestant this week on "Blue vs Red" attempted to capitulate to the side of knowledge by informing us that his voting record might surprise you. Are tie-dye shirts and McGovern posters hanging in his closet?
This tempering of their conservative ideology is similar to Conservatives Unite!, who bent over backwards to show she was tolerant to blacks and the poor in the wake of Hurricane Katrina by unveiling her resume of good deeds towards the indigent.
Calling Daniel-In-Brookline and Rich Casebolt conservative is insulting to the party of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. These are neocons, a sect of conservatism that is anathema to the party's already dubious thought.
Here's my return fire to one of his supporters:
Let me give you some perspective on "your war". Don't you see how foolish your exuberance for a far-flung, phony war looks to the rest of the country and world? Why are you so happy to be duped? Here's an apt analogy:
Wouldn't you feel foolish if you were telling everyone how great your wife was when the rest of the neighborhood knew she was having an affair with Mandingo, the three-legged paper boy, who also eats your favorite pork rinds and watches your 60-inch big screen while you're out saving the Middle East?
Mr. Daniel-In-Brookline had this preposterous statement in regards to the benefits to Israel with U.S. military involvement in the Middle East:
America had strong and compelling reasons, post-9/11, to force Iraq to disarm, by diplomacy or by force. Israel, on the other hand, has no greater interest now than she did in 2000.
Ridiculous.
Does he believe the administration's assertion that Saddam was devising a plan to fly a remote-controlled plane with weapons of mass destruction to the continental U.S. and detonated it? How could he possibly assert that the most-hated rival to all of the Arab and Muslim world would not have an interest in an ally patrolling Baghdad? It's absurd to say such a thing and points again to the fact that his arguments emanate from Israel and cloak their involvement in this war.
And here's my response to Mr. Daniel-In-Brookline's question of why his beliefs stem from his ties to Israel.
By the way, it's likely that the Mr. Daniel-In-Brookline is a pro-choice-Israeli national-neocon-Red Sox fan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
