Facebook Badge

Toll Free Numbers To The Washington Switchboard

1-866 338-1015
1-866 220-0044

Saturday, August 2, 2008

If We Drill in the U.S., We Don't Get the Oil | Environment | AlterNet

"One thing has been driving me crazy about this drilling debate -- everyone seems to assume that if we drill for oil in the US, that we will get the oil. And hence, we won't be dependent on foreign oil anymore. But we won't get anything, Exxon-Mobil will.

The oil that comes from that drilling will not be United States property (Republicans aren't suggesting we nationalize the oil companies, are they?). It will be the property of whichever oil company got the rights to that contract. They can then sell it to whoever they like -- and they will. They will sell it on the world market, so the Chinese will have just as much access to the oil that comes out of the coast of Florida as we will.

The Democrats have done a decent job of beating back the argument that this will effect prices in the short run, or even in the long run. But no one has addressed the point above. The Republicans make it seem like we won't be dependent on foreign oil -- and that prices will go down in the US -- if we have our own oil. But it won't be ours. And it will be sold on the world market, so its effect on global oil prices will be even smaller.

When we ask the question of whether there should be drilling off the coast of Florida or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we should ask the question this way -- would you be comfortable with the Chinese or the Germans or Russians or the Saudis drilling on American land? Because for all intents and purposes, they will be.

Large multi-national firms like Exxon-Mobil are not US property. They sell to the world and their allegiance is to corporate profits. So, when they drill, they drill for the whole world, not just us. Some might find that heart-warming, but it certainly has nothing to do with the US having more oil or lower prices."
If We Drill in the U.S., We Don't Get the Oil | Environment | AlterNet

Did you realize that "trickle down" meant "piss on you?"

While our great country is swimming in debt that the world has never seen before with a national deficit that would choke god, what we need are more tax cuts for those who least need it.

"Under Obama's tax plan the richest Americans would pay more than they do now. Or, the exact opposite of what McCain has planned.

The ideologues who manage the Wall Street Journal's editorial pages have emerged, over recent years, as America's most unrelenting -- and shameless -- defenders of wealth and privilege. They enjoy the work. They do it well. No one turns reality upside-down any better. Take, for instance, the Journal editorial last week that defended George W. Bush from charges that his administration tilts to the wealthy. George W.'s tax policies, the Journal pronounced, have actually "caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history." Any Bush "giveaway to the rich," the Journal editorial added, exists only as "a figment of the left's imagination." The Journal offered some evidence for these bold assertions. According to just-released IRS statistics, the paper noted, America's richest 1 percent paid 40 percent of all income taxes in 2006, their "highest share in at least 40 years."

Case closed? Not quite. The rich, as a group, are indeed paying a larger share of the nation's income tax dollars, but only because they're pocketing a much larger share of the nation's income. As individuals, the IRS data show, the rich are actually paying less -- far less -- of these incomes in taxes than they have in years.

In fact, if average taxpayers in the top 1 percent had paid taxes in 2006 at the same rate as the top 1 percent paid taxes 20 years ago in 1986, those average top 1 percent taxpayers would have each paid $136,518 more in 2006 taxes than they actually did.

What do the McCain and Obama campaigns feel about this top-tilting tax status quo? Both campaigns had a chance to explain last week in the nation's capital, at the 2008 Presidential race's first debate devoted purely to taxes. The host for the event: the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, two bedrock pillars of the capital's policy wonk community.

Tax Policy Center researchers last month published a preliminary analysis of just how the McCain and Obama tax plans would likely play out. The researchers unveiled an updated analysis at last Wednesday's debate, 56 dense pages of numbers and charts.

But one set of numbers stood out in that numerical mass: the Tax Policy Center's comparison of which Americans would pay more in taxes under the McCain and Obama plans and which would pay less.

Under the McCain plan, the Tax Policy Center figures indicated, Americans in the top 0.1 percent -- that's everyone making at least $2,871,682 -- would average $192,645 less in taxes in 2012 than they would if the current tax situation were simply extended.

After-tax incomes for the top 0.1 percent, if the McCain tax plan became law, would jump five times faster than after-tax incomes for taxpayers in the middle of the U.S. income distribution and 15 times faster than average incomes for the poorest fifth of Americans.

Under Obama's tax plans, the top 0.1 percent would pay more in taxes, not less -- an average $788,959 more. Middle- and low-income Americans, by contrast, would see sizeable tax cuts. These cuts, according to the Tax Policy Center analysis, would save Americans in the middle almost four times more than the savings they would see from the McCain plan. Poor Americans would save 30 times more under Obama than McCain. At last week's debate, Obama's lead expert -- University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee -- spoke first. Not surprisingly, Goolsbee welcomed the Tax Policy Center numbers. McCain's tax plan, he energetically charged, would "magnify" the "regressive" legacy of the George W. Bush years.

Onlookers in the packed Urban Institute meeting room then hunched forward for the McCain campaign response -- from Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former White House Council of Economic Advisers chief economist. Would Holtz-Eakin blast the Tax Policy Center for propagating misleading information? Would he try to deny that the lion's share of the tax savings from the McCain plan would go to taxpayers at the top of the nation's economic ladder? He would not.

Holtz-Eakin made no challenge whatsoever to the Tax Policy Center's numbers on the distributional impact of the McCain tax plan. He simply ignored them -- and orated instead on "what John McCain is trying to accomplish" with his tax proposals. And what's that? McCain's plans, Holtz-Eakin asserted, focus on "creating jobs and economic growth." That sound familiar? Here's why: The Bush White House used the exact same rationale, back in 2001 and 2003, to justify its tax cuts for the wealthy. But don't credit George W. with any originality on that score. Two decades earlier, in 1981, Ronald Reagan made the same case -- that tax cuts for the rich bring an economic growth that benefits everybody. Ronald Reagan's tax cuts and George W.'s tax cuts delivered nothing of the sort. These cuts didn't "grow" a healthy economy. They merely grew the wealthy's share of America's economic pie. And they didn't just grow the wealthy's share of that pie. They doubled it.

In 1986, this month's newly released data from the IRS document, America's top 1 percent collected 11 percent of the nation's income. In 2006, these top 1 percent taxpayers took home twice that share, 22 percent.

In sum, tax cuts for the wealthy clearly work. For the wealthy."


McCain and Obama Surrogates Go Mano a Mano on Taxes | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

We've already heard what a billion represents.  What about a trillion?

"A billion seconds ago it was 1959; a billion minutes ago Jesus was alive; a billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age; A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet."

"One trillion seconds ago anatomically modern humans were successfuly competing with the last bands of neandertals in ice age Europe; One-trillion minutes ago there were no modern humans at all and fire was still a million years in our hominid ancestors' future; One-trillion hours ago our direct ancestors were rat-like nocturnal insectivores hiding in cozy daytime burrows from allosaurs and raptors; One-trillion days ago there were no animals at all, but bacterial collectives had begun working together in communities that that would one day be called protozoa. And one-trillion years ago ... well there was no one trillion years ago as that would predate the observed beginning of time and space many times over.

Then again we can cram a trillion into much smaller time scales, as in the half a trillion dollar deficit Bush just admitted to, or the multi-trillion dollar war in Iraq based on a false premise, or the trillions in tax cuts and government giveaways to wealthy corporations and trust funds kids that will have to be repaid by hard-working single moms and their children for the next five generations, or the ten trillion dollar national debt almost all of which was racked up under the past three Republican Presidents.

A trillion is vast number, one thousand billion to be exact. For someone raised on the writing of the late Dr. Sagan, with a love for natural history, a billion is something I've had to learn to get my arms around. It took Republicans to teach me what a trillion feels like."

Daily Kos: State of the Nation

Friday, August 1, 2008

What kind of monsters are we becoming?

JUANA VILLEGAS is a Mexican immigrant who broke federal law. As The New York Times recently reported, she was deported in 1996, but she returned illegally to the United States. What is more troubling, however, is what happened to her in custody of law enforcement this month. Overzealous use of the law trampled decency.

On July 3, Villegas, nine months pregnant, was pulled over in a Nashville suburb and arrested after admitting that she did not have a license. At the county jail, Villegas's illegal status was discovered by a federal official. That official was there as part of the federal 287(g) program, which trains local police to enforce federal immigration laws.

Two days later, Villegas went into labor. At the hospital her foot was cuffed to the bed, and the cuffs were reportedly removed only for two hours before she gave birth and for six hours after. An officer stood guard in her hospital room.

After she left the hospital, Villegas was held in jail. She could not breastfeed her baby and was not allowed to use a breast pump. She says she developed a breast infection and her baby became jaundiced.

Needless to say, the 287(g) program wasn't intended to snare pregnant women. Rather, it is supposed to help officers "pursue investigations relating to violent crimes, human smuggling, gang/organized crime activity, sexual-related offenses, narcotics smuggling, and money laundering," according to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Yet the perceived need for even local officials to crack down on illegal immigrants has become an obstacle to treating people humanely.

Villegas has been released to the custody of her family and faces deportation. Her case shows how much the country needs comprehensive immigration reform that deploys legal resources where they are most needed.

Illegal Versus Inhumane: Unauthorized Immigrant Shackled While in Labor; Can't Feed Newborn | Immigration | AlterNet

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

Remember now, we're giving Pakistan billions in weapons and aide every year to help us fight the "war on terror".  We're arming the terrorists that are helping the taliban in other words.

"U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that elements of Pakistan's military intelligence service provided logistical support to militants who staged last month's deadly car bombing at the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan's capital, U.S. officials familiar with the evidence said yesterday.

The finding, based partly on communication intercepts, has dramatically heightened U.S. concerns about long-standing ties between Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, and Taliban-allied groups that are battling U.S. forces in Afghanistan, according to two U.S. government officials briefed on the matter.

The July 7 bombing at the Kabul embassy has been linked to fighters loyal to Jalaluddin Haqqani, an ethnic Pashtun militant who has led pro-Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and has been associated with numerous suicide bombings in the region. More than 40 people were killed in one of the deadliest attacks on Afghan civilians since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.

"There continues to be evidence of Taliban and Haqqani network involvement in the Indian Embassy bombing as well as the attempted assassination of [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai," said a senior U.S. official briefed on the reports. He said there was "significant" evidence suggesting that individual ISI members provided logistical support to the embassy bombers. He declined to elaborate further."


U.S. Officials: Pakistani Agents Helped Plan Kabul Bombing - washingtonpost.com

Obama, McCain, and Pump Politics - The Carpetbagger Report

In the spring, Democratic primary voters didn’t fall for misguided gimmicks on energy policy. But if recent polling is any indication, Americans in general are so worried about gas prices, many of them are actually falling for the scam being pushed by John McCain and the rest of the Republican establishment. A CNN poll this week found strong support for coastal drilling, and more than eight in 10 Americans believe laws on offshore drilling are contributing to the recent increase in gasoline prices.

Given this widespread confusion, and the fact that so many Americans have come to believe demonstrably false claims, Barack Obama took the offensive yesterday.

Barack Obama took Exxon Mobil’s report of a record $11.68 billion profit last quarter and his own speech on energy policy and fashioned a rhetorical mortar shell aimed at Senator John McCain.

Mr. McCain’s corporate tax plan, he claimed, would yield $4 billion a year in savings for oil companies while his proposed federal gas tax holiday would pay for half a tank of gasoline over the course of an entire summer.

“So under my opponent’s plan, the oil companies get billions more and we stay in the same cycle of dependence on big oil that got us into this crisis,” he told more than a thousand people in a college gym here. “That’s a risk that we just can’t afford to take. Not this time.”

The Democratic candidate then turned to his own plan: A $150 billion investment over 10 years in alternative energies and fuels. (The funding of this plan is not entirely clear.) He counseled optimism, promising a transition to an economy based thousands of new businesses working on wind, solar and bio-fuels.

“We can’t have a policy that tinkers around the margins while going down an oil company’s wish list — it’s time to fundamentally transform our energy economy,” he said. These steps are not far-off, pie-in-the-sky solutions.”

First, this is the right message at the right time. Second, voters almost certainly didn’t hear a word about this, because someone used the phrase “race card” and the media, Pavlov-style, couldn’t resist.

On the first point, it seems the McCain campaign is betting the farm on energy. It was putting it all on Iraq, but now that Iraqi officials have endorsed the Obama policy, that’s a little trickier. Now, instead of lying about foreign policy, McCain has decided to lie about energy policy — telling voters that coastal drilling will offer “short-term” relief at the pump, that Obama is to blame for high prices, and that Obama wants to raise taxes on electricity. All of this is false, McCain knows that all of this is false, but McCain is doing it anyway.

Obama can’t very well sit back and expect cash-strapped voters to see through McCain’s shamelessly dishonest nonsense. And he certainly can’t expect the media to explain to the public that McCain’s rhetoric doesn’t meet reality. So, yesterday’s remarks in Iowa were a big step in the right direction — Obama’s right on the facts, and he needs to explain why so the public can better understand the issue.

The Democratic candidate has tackled the drilling question on two levels, as bad policy and as fundraising politics.

“It won’t lower prices today. It won’t lower prices during the next Administration,” he said. “While this won’t save you at the pump, it sure has done a lot to help Senator McCain raise campaign dollars.”

That last point can be a particularly compelling point, given that once McCain started lying about the benefits of coastal drilling, contributions from oil industry executives soared.

As for the media, news outlets largely ignored Obama’s remarks, apparently under the impression that voters don’t care about gas prices, and a substantive critique on energy policy just isn’t newsworthy right now.

Worse, the NYT (which reported on Obama’s speech on a blog, instead of running an article in the print edition), told readers, “The Republican candidate acknowledges drilling will have little short-term value.” In our reality, the Republican candidate actually said the exact opposite just three days ago, saying we could see the effects of coastal drilling “in a matter of months.”

In some ways, by embracing energy policy so enthusiastically, the McCain campaign is leading with its chin. Indeed, McCain’s policy is a bit of a joke — tax breaks for oil companies, a gas-tax holiday that benefits oil companies, and a coastal drilling plan that benefits oil companies. There is literally nothing in McCain’s plan that would lower gas prices either in the short or long term.

Obama made that abundantly clear, and his rhetoric had the added benefit of being true. Now, if only the media wasn’t quite so ridiculous — the “race card” talk dominated the morning shows. Natch.


Obama, McCain, and Pump Politics - The Carpetbagger Report

God i hate the Main Stream Media.

In the spring, Democratic primary voters didn’t fall for misguided gimmicks on energy policy. But if recent polling is any indication, Americans in general are so worried about gas prices, many of them are actually falling for the scam being pushed by John McCain and the rest of the Republican establishment. A CNN poll this week found strong support for coastal drilling, and more than eight in 10 Americans believe laws on offshore drilling are contributing to the recent increase in gasoline prices.

Given this widespread confusion, and the fact that so many Americans have come to believe demonstrably false claims, Barack Obama took the offensive yesterday.

Barack Obama took Exxon Mobil’s report of a record $11.68 billion profit last quarter and his own speech on energy policy and fashioned a rhetorical mortar shell aimed at Senator John McCain.

Mr. McCain’s corporate tax plan, he claimed, would yield $4 billion a year in savings for oil companies while his proposed federal gas tax holiday would pay for half a tank of gasoline over the course of an entire summer.

“So under my opponent’s plan, the oil companies get billions more and we stay in the same cycle of dependence on big oil that got us into this crisis,” he told more than a thousand people in a college gym here. “That’s a risk that we just can’t afford to take. Not this time.”

The Democratic candidate then turned to his own plan: A $150 billion investment over 10 years in alternative energies and fuels. (The funding of this plan is not entirely clear.) He counseled optimism, promising a transition to an economy based thousands of new businesses working on wind, solar and bio-fuels.

“We can’t have a policy that tinkers around the margins while going down an oil company’s wish list — it’s time to fundamentally transform our energy economy,” he said. These steps are not far-off, pie-in-the-sky solutions.”

First, this is the right message at the right time. Second, voters almost certainly didn’t hear a word about this, because someone used the phrase “race card” and the media, Pavlov-style, couldn’t resist.

On the first point, it seems the McCain campaign is betting the farm on energy. It was putting it all on Iraq, but now that Iraqi officials have endorsed the Obama policy, that’s a little trickier. Now, instead of lying about foreign policy, McCain has decided to lie about energy policy — telling voters that coastal drilling will offer “short-term” relief at the pump, that Obama is to blame for high prices, and that Obama wants to raise taxes on electricity. All of this is false, McCain knows that all of this is false, but McCain is doing it anyway.

Obama can’t very well sit back and expect cash-strapped voters to see through McCain’s shamelessly dishonest nonsense. And he certainly can’t expect the media to explain to the public that McCain’s rhetoric doesn’t meet reality. So, yesterday’s remarks in Iowa were a big step in the right direction — Obama’s right on the facts, and he needs to explain why so the public can better understand the issue.

The Democratic candidate has tackled the drilling question on two levels, as bad policy and as fundraising politics.

“It won’t lower prices today. It won’t lower prices during the next Administration,” he said. “While this won’t save you at the pump, it sure has done a lot to help Senator McCain raise campaign dollars.”

That last point can be a particularly compelling point, given that once McCain started lying about the benefits of coastal drilling, contributions from oil industry executives soared.

As for the media, news outlets largely ignored Obama’s remarks, apparently under the impression that voters don’t care about gas prices, and a substantive critique on energy policy just isn’t newsworthy right now.

Worse, the NYT (which reported on Obama’s speech on a blog, instead of running an article in the print edition), told readers, “The Republican candidate acknowledges drilling will have little short-term value.” In our reality, the Republican candidate actually said the exact opposite just three days ago, saying we could see the effects of coastal drilling “in a matter of months.”

In some ways, by embracing energy policy so enthusiastically, the McCain campaign is leading with its chin. Indeed, McCain’s policy is a bit of a joke — tax breaks for oil companies, a gas-tax holiday that benefits oil companies, and a coastal drilling plan that benefits oil companies. There is literally nothing in McCain’s plan that would lower gas prices either in the short or long term.

Obama made that abundantly clear, and his rhetoric had the added benefit of being true. Now, if only the media wasn’t quite so ridiculous — the “race card” talk dominated the morning shows. Natch.


Obama, McCain, and Pump Politics - The Carpetbagger Report

Better than drilling

Earlier this week, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) noted that “making sure your tires are properly inflated” is one of the “things that you can do individually…to save energy,” adding that “we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups.”

Last night on Fox News, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) expressed outrage at Obama’s comments, calling them “ludicrous” and “loony tunes”:

GINGRICH: He has a position that’s frankly ludicrous. We saw him yesterday. He suggested if we all inflated our tires, that we would solve the problem. Think about it. You ought to take that clip. I think that clip is far more devastating than today because it’s loony toons.

Is making sure your car tires are inflated properly to save energy and gas money “loony tunes?” The federal government doesn’t think so. Neither does the auto industry.

The Department of Energy estimates that (based on gas costing $3.96/gallon), “you can improve your gas mileage by around 3.3 percent by keeping your tires inflated to the proper pressure” which would ultimately save “up to $0.12/gallon” or, nearly the amount of the federal gas tax ($0.18/gallon), a tax Gingrich supports repealing. Moreover, the auto industry agrees with DoE’s assessment.

But more importantly, Obama is correct to suggest that inflating tires properly and getting regular tune-ups “could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling” — and by a long shot. According to the Energy Information Administration, if Congress lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling, by 2030, oil crude production in the “lower-48″ outer continental shelf will increase by about 200 thousand barrels per day. By contrast, the production offset based on Obama’s proposal will likely approach 800 thousand barrels per day, immediately.

So while Gingrich is touting his “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” scheme, car care can provide a real solution that would allow Americans to pay less at the pump today.


Think Progress » Clueless Gingrich Claims Inflating Car Tires Properly To Save Energy Is ‘Loony Tunes’

t r u t h o u t | "Major Discovery" From MIT Primed to Unleash Solar Revolution

I've been saying this for years.  Anyone can produce hydrogen with a solar panel.  That's why we need hydrogen cars.  But the oil industry is going to do everything in it's power to keep this from happening.  We will have to force the issue since nobody stands to make a profit off of it except the fuel cell manufacturers. 

Scientists mimic essence of plants' energy storage system.

    In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn't shine.

    Until now, solar power has been a daytime-only energy source, because storing extra solar energy for later use is prohibitively expensive and grossly inefficient. With today's announcement, MIT researchers have hit upon a simple, inexpensive, highly efficient process for storing solar energy.

    Requiring nothing but abundant, non-toxic natural materials, this discovery could unlock the most potent, carbon-free energy source of all: the sun. "This is the nirvana of what we've been talking about for years," said MIT's Daniel Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT and senior author of a paper describing the work in the July 31 issue of Science. "Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited and soon."

    Inspired by the photosynthesis performed by plants, Nocera and Matthew Kanan, a postdoctoral fellow in Nocera's lab, have developed an unprecedented process that will allow the sun's energy to be used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen gases. Later, the oxygen and hydrogen may be recombined inside a fuel cell, creating carbon-free electricity to power your house or your electric car, day or night.

    The key component in Nocera and Kanan's new process is a new catalyst that produces oxygen gas from water; another catalyst produces valuable hydrogen gas. The new catalyst consists of cobalt metal, phosphate and an electrode, placed in water. When electricity - whether from a photovoltaic cell, a wind turbine or any other source - runs through the electrode, the cobalt and phosphate form a thin film on the electrode, and oxygen gas is produced.

    Combined with another catalyst, such as platinum, that can produce hydrogen gas from water, the system can duplicate the water splitting reaction that occurs during photosynthesis.

    The new catalyst works at room temperature, in neutral pH water, and it's easy to set up, Nocera said. "That's why I know this is going to work. It's so easy to implement," he said.
t r u t h o u t | "Major Discovery" From MIT Primed to Unleash Solar Revolution

Gas prices, coastal drilling, and the search for ‘accountability journalism’ - The Carpetbagger Report

Under the leadership of the Associated Press’ DC bureau chief, Ron Fournier, reporters are now “encouraged to throw away the weasel words and call it like they see it when they think public officials have revealed themselves as phonies or flip-floppers.” The AP now prefers more of an aggressive, plain-spoken style of writing that Fournier often describes as “cutting through the clutter.” Fournier calls the broader trend “accountability journalism” and “liberating…the truth.”

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Let’s take a look at this new AP article, by Mike Glover, to see how “accountability journalism” is coming along.

Barack Obama is once again betting that his eloquence can persuade price-weary consumers — read that as voters — to take the long view and not jump at a short-term fix when it comes to soaring energy prices.

It worked in his presidential primary contest against New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton when she proposed a “gas tax holiday” for the summer, a pitch he opposed despite its popularity with many voters. But that was in April before gasoline shot past $4 a gallon.

Virtually all polls now show dealing with energy prices high atop the agenda of voters.

At issue for Obama’s Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, is opening up offshore drilling to boost production, a move McCain and others GOP lawmakers say would increase supply and help control soaring gasoline prices. Opponents, including Obama and many other Democrats, say new offshore oil would be years away from reaching consumers and even then would make little difference in prices and the ongoing U.S. need for foreign oil.

I kept waiting for the truth to be “liberated,” but the “accountability” must have been left on the cutting room floor.

The forced neutrality of this article is a classic example of something we see every day — Republicans say “X”; Democrats say “Y.” There’s an objective truth the reporter could share with the public, but because reality has a well-known liberal bias, the article decides not to “cut through the clutter.”

The premise of the article isn’t necessarily a bad one — Barack Obama opposes coastal drilling, despite polls showing increased support for the pointless gimmick. Obama is sticking to his guns, when it would be pretty easy to do what John McCain did: shamelessly and cynically flip-flop when the political winds shifted.

“Please be in favor of offshore production,” Steve Hilton, a retired federal government worker in Lebanon, Mo., implored Obama during a tour of a diner there Wednesday.

“I’m in favor of solving problems,” Obama responded. “What I don’t want to do is say something because it sounds good politically.”

Obama doesn’t pander, preferring to treat voters like grown-ups. That, in and of itself, is a good idea for an AP piece.

But the article is afraid of its own shadow. Obama is “betting that his eloquence can persuade price-weary consumers.” Actually, “eloquence” has nothing to do with it — Obama is betting that voters see through a transparent scam, and realize the simple, demonstrable fact that drilling protecting coast lines won’t actually lower gas prices. It’s not about rhetoric; it’s about reality.

The AP piece should help the reader understand what’s actually going on. It does the opposite — McCain and Republicans says coastal drilling would “help control soaring gasoline prices”; Obama and Democrats say offshore oil wouldn’t reach consumers for years and “would make little difference in prices and the ongoing U.S. need for foreign oil.”

Who’s right? We know who’s right; the AP knows who’s right. Why not “cut through the clutter” and offer the public a little “accountability journalism”?

Indeed, the piece makes this out to be an entirely partisan issue. It’s not. Bush’s own Energy Department — not exactly comprised of Sierra Club and MoveOn.org members — has said unequivocally that coastal drilling would not cut gas prices in the short term, and wouldn’t produce gas at the pump for nearly a decade. McCain’s chief policy advisor has suggested the same thing, and in a moment of accidental honesty, McCain personally conceded that his proposal is about giving consumers a “psychological” boost, instead of an actual boost.

But instead of “liberating the truth,” the AP suggests the Republicans’ claim is completely legitimate. It’s not.

Why are so many struggling Americans confused about this policy? Because we have outlets like the AP running articles like this one.


Gas prices, coastal drilling, and the search for ‘accountability journalism’ - The Carpetbagger Report

The DOD is trying to protect rapists and cover their own incompetence. As usual.

Yesterday, the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, held a hearing on sexual assault in the military. During the hearing, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) explained that “women serving in the military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than be killed by enemy fire in Iraq.”

As part of their investigation, the subcommittee invited and then subpoenaed Dr. Kaye Whitley, the director of the Defense Department’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office, to testify. But Deputy Defense Undersecretary Michael Dominguez ordered her not to appear before the committee, claiming that the responsibility “rests with me.”

Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) responded by asking, “What is it you’re trying to hide.” Waxman then took him to task, even threatening to hold him in contempt:

WAXMAN: We subpoenaed her. You’ve denied her the opportunity to come and testify and put in a situation where we have to contemplate holding her in contempt. I don’t even know if we could hold you in contempt, because you haven’t been issued a subpoena. […]

According to the Defense Department website, Whitley’s office is the “the single point of accountability for the Department of Defense sexual assault policy.” Subcommittee Chairman Tierney explained, “Whitley has testified in Congress before, in fact, before this very subcommittee two years ago, also on sexual assault in the military.”

Dominguez said no claim of executive privileged was invoked, the department simply chose to ignore the subpoena.

Think Progress » Defense Department Defies Supoena, Blocks Testimony Of Key Sexual Assault Prevention Official

Make him keep his words.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080818/open_letter

This is one you'll want to read before signing, I think.


Dear Senator Obama,

Your candidacy has inspired a wave of political enthusiasm like nothing seen in this country for decades. In your speeches, you have sketched out a vision of a better future--in which the United States sheds its warlike stance around the globe and focuses on diplomacy abroad and greater equality and freedom for its citizens at home--that has thrilled voters across the political spectrum. Hundreds of thousands of young people have entered the political process for the first time, African-American voters have rallied behind you, and many of those alienated from politics-as-usual have been re-engaged.

You stand today at the head of a movement that believes deeply in the change you have claimed as the mantle of your campaign. The millions who attend your rallies, donate to your campaign and visit your website are a powerful testament to this new movement's energy and passion.

This movement is vital for two reasons: First, it will help assure your victory against John McCain in November. The long night of greed and military adventurism under the Bush Administration, which a McCain administration would continue, cannot be brought to an end a day too soon. An enthusiastic corps of volunteers and organizers will ensure that voters turn out to close the book on the Bush era on election day. Second, having helped bring you the White House, the support of this movement will make possible the changes that have been the platform of your campaign. Only a grassroots base as broad and as energized as the one that is behind you can counteract the forces of money and established power that are a dead weight on those seeking real change in American politics.

We urge you, then, to listen to the voices of the people who can lift you to the presidency and beyond.

Since your historic victory in the primary, there have been troubling signs that you are moving away from the core commitments shared by many who have supported your campaign, toward a more cautious and centrist stance--including, most notably, your vote for the FISA legislation granting telecom companies immunity from prosecution for illegal wiretapping, which angered and dismayed so many of your supporters.

We recognize that compromise is necessary in any democracy. We understand that the pressures brought to bear on those seeking the highest office are intense. But retreating from the stands that have been the signature of your campaign will weaken the movement whose vigorous backing you need in order to win and then deliver the change you have promised.

Here are key positions you have embraced that we believe are essential to sustaining this movement:

§ Withdrawal from Iraq on a fixed timetable.

§ A response to the current economic crisis that reduces the gap between the rich and the rest of us through a more progressive financial and welfare system; public investment to create jobs and repair the country's collapsing infrastructure; fair trade policies; restoration of the freedom to organize unions; and meaningful government enforcement of labor laws and regulation of industry.

§ Universal healthcare.

§ An environmental policy that transforms the economy by shifting billions of dollars from the consumption of fossil fuels to alternative energy sources, creating millions of green jobs.

§ An end to the regime of torture, abuse of civil liberties and unchecked executive power that has flourished in the Bush era.

§ A commitment to the rights of women, including the right to choose abortion and improved access to abortion and reproductive health services.

§ A commitment to improving conditions in urban communities and ending racial inequality, including disparities in education through reform of the No Child Left Behind Act and other measures.

§ An immigration system that treats humanely those attempting to enter the country and provides a path to citizenship for those already here.

§ Reform of the drug laws that incarcerate hundreds of thousands who need help, not jail.

§ Reform of the political process that reduces the influence of money and corporate lobbyists and amplifies the voices of ordinary people.

These are the changes we can believe in. In other areas--such as the use of residual forces and mercenary troops in Iraq, the escalation of the US military presence in Afghanistan, the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the death penalty--your stated positions have consistently varied from the positions held by many of us, the "friends on the left" you addressed in recent remarks. If you win in November, we will work to support your stands when we agree with you and to challenge them when we don't. We look forward to an ongoing and constructive dialogue with you when you are elected President.

Stand firm on the principles you have so compellingly articulated, and you may succeed in bringing this country the change you've encouraged us to believe is possible.

Media Matters - Dobbs falsely identified convicted former Republican Rep. Janklow as a Democrat

I wonder if Lou will make this correction.   If you are a main stream talking head, that millions of people believe when you speak, and you make a mistake you should admit to it right away and move on.  If he tries to cover it up I'll question his integrity.

During the July 31 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, host Lou Dobbs claimed, "Well, over the past 50 years, members of Congress have been convicted of at least 16 different felonies, including fraud, conspiracy, racketeering, extortion, drug possession. One member was even convicted of manslaughter." Dobbs continued, "Former Congressman Bill Janklow, a Democrat from South Dakota, was convicted of striking and killing a motorcyclist with his car in 2003. He was sentenced to 100 days in prison." In fact, Janklow was a Republican member of the House of Representatives who resigned from Congress after being convicted of manslaughter.
Media Matters - Dobbs falsely identified convicted former Republican Rep. Janklow as a Democrat

Thursday, July 31, 2008

McClatchy Washington Bureau | 07/31/2008 | Commentary: A top general says more troops aren't the answer in Afghanistan

All the Russians had to do was drive their tanks up to the Afghan border and start firing and they couldn't win against these Pakistan, bin laden, cia trained mountain men.  These wars on other's lands are going to suck us dry just like they did Russia.  McCaffrey is a conservative hawk.  He was one of the one's paid by the pentagon to sell the war with Iraq, so i was surprised to hear him saying this:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/46075.html

There's military slang that seemingly applies to the situation on the ground in Afghanistan today. The operative acronym is FUBAR - Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition. That first letter doesn't really stand for "Fouled," and the R sometimes stands for Repair.

One of the sharper military analysts I know has just returned from a tour of that sorrowful nation, which has been at war continuously since the Soviet Army invaded it in late 1979.

Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who retired from the U.S. Army with four stars and a chest full of combat medals including two Distinguished Service Crosses, says we can't shoot our way out of Afghanistan, and the two or three or more American combat brigades proposed by the two putative nominees for president are irrelevant.

McCaffrey predicts that 2009 will be the year of decision as the Taliban and a greatly enhanced presence of "foreign fighters" try to sever roads and halt road construction to strangle and isolate the capital, Kabul and attack NATO units that are hamstrung by restrictions and rules of engagement dictated by their home governments.

More ominously, the general says, we can expect a Taliban drive to erase Afghanistan's border with Pakistan in the wild frontier provinces of Pakistan that have provided sanctuary for Taliban and al Qaida leaders and fighters since Osama bin Laden escaped there in 2001.

The general says that despite the two presidential candidates' sound bites, a few more combat brigades from "our rapidly unraveling Army" won’t make much difference in Afghanistan.

Military means, he writes, won't be enough to counter terror created by resurgent Taliban forces; we can’t win with a war of attrition; and the economic and political support from the international community is inadequate.

"This is a struggle for the hearts of the people, and good governance, and the creation of Afghan security forces," McCaffrey writes. He says the main theater of war is in frontier regions pf Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the combatants are tribes, religious groups, criminals and drug lords.

It'll take a quarter-century of nation-building, road and bridge building, the building of a better-trained and better-armed Afghan National Police and National Army and the eradication of a huge opium farming industry to achieve a good outcome in Afghanistan, McCaffrey wrote in his report to leaders at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

We can’t afford to fail in Afghanistan, the general says, but he doesn’t address the question of whether we can afford to succeed there, either.

McCaffrey writes that the situation in Afghanistan is dire, and is going to get a lot worse in the 24 months ahead. The country is in abject misery - 68 percent of the population has never known peace; average life expectancy is 44 years; maternal mortality is the second-highest in the world; terrorist violence and attacks are up 34 percent this year; 2.8 million Afghans are refugees in their own country; unemployment is 40 percent and rising; some 41 percent of the population lives in extreme poverty; the only agricultural success story is a $4 billion opium crop producing a huge amount of heroin, and the government at province and district level is largely dysfunctional and corrupt.

The battle will only be won, McCaffrey says, when there's a real Afghan police presence in all of the country’s 34 provinces and 398 districts; when the Afghan National Army is expanded from 80,000 troops today to 200,000 troops; when we deploy five U.S. combat engineer battalions with a brigade of Army Stryker forces for security to begin a five-year road building program that also trains Afghan Army engineer units and employs Afghan contractors and workers.

Without NATO, we're lost in Afghanistan, he writes. But NATO’s level of commitment and engagement in Afghanistan is woefully inadequate - European troops are restricted by their political leaders at home, risk-averse in a dangerous environment and almost totally unequipped with the tools needed for an effective counter-insurgency campaign - helicopters, intelligence, logistics, engineers, civil affairs and special operations units, precision munitions, medical support and cash to prime local economic efforts.

As for neighboring Pakistan and bellicose American threats to cross the border and mount more attacks on insurgents there, McCaffrey says this would be a "political disaster" that would imperil any Pakistan support for our campaign and likely result in Pakistan’s weak civilian government shutting off American supply routes into Afghanistan.

Our efforts in Afghanistan, inadequate though they may be, now cost $34 billion each year and clearly this would have to be substantially increased if the fixes McCaffrey prescribes are to be implemented.

As good as the American ground troops operating in Afghanistan are - many are on their third or fourth combat deployments there or in Iraq - McCaffrey says our military is under-resourced and too small for the national strategy we've been pursuing.

The general concludes his report by writing: "This is a generational war to build an Afghan state and prevent the creation of a lawless, extremist region which will host and sustain enduring threats to the vital national security interests of the United States and our key allies."

This ought to be a wake-up call for all Americans, and for John McCain and Barack Obama. Now there's a sound bite for them.

-- McClatchy Washington Bureau | 07/31/2008 | Commentary: A top general says more troops aren't the answer in Afghanistan 

Lieberman thinks you're stupid

The president spoke briefly this morning from the White House, heralding the “success of the surge” for creating “sustained progress” in Iraq. Soon after, Joe Lieberman announced that he and Lindsey Graham are “introducing a resolution recognizing the strategic success that the surge has achieved in a central front — the central front of the war on terror against the enemies who attacked America on 9/11/01, and expressing our thanks to our troops who’ve made that success possible.”

Ben at TP did a nice job knocking this down.

It would be an insult to anyone’s intelligence to point out the obvious fact that the terrorists who carried out the September 11, 2001 terror attacks operated out of Afghanistan, not Iraq. And despite the right wing’s insistence, even the Pentagon has confirmed that “no direct link” ever existed “between late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and the Al-Qaeda network.”

But Lieberman’s claim indicates that he does not understand the wider problem — namely that the surge prevented the U.S. from sending more troops where they are needed, in Afghanistan. In January 2007, just one week after Bush announced his surge policy, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that “U.S. commanders in Afghanistan have recommended an increase in U.S. force levels, in part to deal with an expected upsurge in Taliban violence.”

But the troops went to Iraq at the expense of Afghanistan and since then, the security situation there has become worse than its ever been since 2001. U.S. commanders and even Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen have recently acknowledged that they do not have the troops or resources necessary to combat the Taliban and Al-Qaida threat in Afghanistan because of Iraq. Moreover, a new report directly links the troop shortages there to the Taliban’s comeback.

Quite right. I’d add that Lieberman’s insistence that the surge defeated “the enemies who attacked America on 9/11/01″ also suggests he thinks al Qaeda is (or at least, has been) the principal cause of violence in Iraq. That’s completely wrong, too.

Last spring, it became painfully obvious that the president started lying about al Qaeda in Iraq as part of a cynical approach to bolstering support for the war. While that was hardly unexpected, the more noticeable problem was that the media started playing along with the White House’s scheme, and began characterizing everyone who commits an act of violence in Iraq as an al Qaeda terrorist.

The New York Times’ public editor, Clark Hoyt, eventually tackled the subject head on in a terrific column; the paper took steps to make amends; and news outlets have generally been more responsible about not equating all Iraqi violence with AQI.

But Lieberman wants to fudge the details in the hopes that Americans don’t know the difference. If violence is down, the surge worked. If the surge worked, we’ve beaten al Qaeda. It’s completely wrong, but it might fool those who aren’t paying attention.

“The U.S. has not been fighting Al Qaeda, it’s been fighting Iraqis,” said Juan Cole, a fierce critic of the war who is the author of “Sacred Space and Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History of Shi’ite Islam” and a professor of history at the University of Michigan. A member of Al Qaeda “is technically defined as someone who pledges fealty to Osama bin Laden and is given a terror operation to carry out. It’s kind of like the Mafia,” Mr. Cole said. “You make your bones, and you’re loyal to a capo. And I don’t know if anyone in Iraq quite fits that technical definition.”

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is just one group, though a very lethal one, in the stew of competing Sunni insurgents, Shiite militias, Iranian-backed groups, criminal gangs and others that make up the insurgency in Iraq. That was vividly illustrated last month when the Iraqi Army’s unsuccessful effort to wrest control of Basra from the Shiite militia groups that hold sway there led to an explosion of violence.

The current situation in Iraq should properly be described as “a multifactional civil war” in which “the government is composed of rival Shia factions” and “they are embattled with an outside Shia group, the Mahdi Army,” Ira M. Lapidus, a co-author of “Islam, Politics and Social Movements” and a professor of history at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in an e-mail message. “The Sunni forces are equally hard to assess,” he added, and “it is an open question as to whether Al Qaeda is a unified operating organization at all.”

There’s also, of course, the political considerations. Lieberman and Graham, McCain’s two most sycophantic allies, want a resolution recognizing “the strategic success that the surge has achieved in a central front — the central front of the war on terror against the enemies who attacked America on 9/11/01, and expressing our thanks to our troops who’ve made that success possible.” The want that so Barack Obama will be compelled to take a position on it. If he opposes it because it’s based on bogus and ignorant premises, it’s yet another cudgel for the McCain campaign.


Lieberman still confused about the war in Iraq - The Carpetbagger Report

Think Progress » Study: Thomas is the most ‘partisan’ Supreme Court justice, Scalia is the most ‘activist.’

You always hear on corporate media that "activist liberal judges" are destroying this country.  I've heard people repeat this myth because if you hear it on teevee it must be true.  Right?  Wrong.  The media is conservative media.  The only exception on cable news is Keith Olbermann.  If media were really liberal, it would all look like Olbermann.  Instead we get a bunch of apologists for a criminal administration and liars when we turn on the teevee to get informed on the important issues of the day.  If the only source we had to depend on to give us information was cable news, we'd be the stupidest and most misled people in the world where a "free" media is a requirement.  Today, free media means, "free to lie to you to get my and my political sweethearts agendas fulfilled."  And the courts have agreed in the case of Fox, that they have no duty to tell us the truth.  They own the media, they can say what they want.  Honesty and integrity are last on their list of priorities.
article:
Conservatives commonly complain about “activist judges” pushing the court to the left when they disagree with the outcome of a court decision. But in a new study that examines “well over 20,000” judicial decisions, University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein concludes that the most activist judge on the Supreme Court is a conservative, Justice Antonin Scalia. The second most activist Justice was also a conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas, who was also found to be the most partisan Justice on the bench. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito were not included in the study because they have only been on the court for a short time.
Think Progress » Study: Thomas is the most ‘partisan’ Supreme Court justice, Scalia is the most ‘activist.’

Well, he did it.

I can see riots in the streets if these state workers end up getting a pay check for $800 after earning $2000 or more per month.  It is expensive to live in california and if these people thought they could depend on their state jobs, the safest jobs in the world, how are they going to eat or pay their rent or mortgages?  I can vouch to the fact that normal rent for a one bedroom apartment in california can run up to $2000 a month and averages about $1200.  He thinks that voters are going to blame democrats for this cut in their pay but he's wrong.  He's the one who signed it, he's the one who will take the heat.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order today eliminating jobs for as many as 22,000 temporary state employees and reducing pay for about 200,000 state workers to the federal minimum wage of $6.55 per hour, portraying it as a stopgap measure to ensure the state can pay its bills without a state budget.

The Republican governor intends to reverse those moves once lawmakers reach a budget compromise, meaning the state would rehire temporary workers and give employees their entire back pay. The governor's order also imposes a strict hiring freeze and eliminates overtime but exempts workers in health and safety fields.

Schwarzenegger said the state's financial situation and the fact that no budget has been signed "leaves me with no easy choices."


Top Stories - Schwarzenegger cuts state worker jobs, moves to cut pay - sacbee.com

Think Progress » Pentagon Attempted To Cover-Up KBR’s Negligence In Electrocution Of U.S. Soldier

On January 2, 2008, Army Staff Sergeant Ryan Maseth was electrocuted while taking a shower at the Legion Security Forces Building in Baghdad. Press reports have indicated that contractor KBR ignored repeated warnings about the unsafe wiring.

In memo to House Oversight Committee this week, Pentagon Inspector General Gordon Heddell claimed there was “no credible evidence” that either KBR or the DOD knew about the hazards beforehand. Information uncovered by the Committee, however, contradicts Heddell.

In a Committee hearing today, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) released a work order from July 8, 2007 –- months before Maseth’s death — in which Sergeant Justin Hummer, the previous occupant of the room, reported to KBR:

Pipes have voltage. Get shocked in shower.

Furthermore, in sworn testimony on June 6, 2008, Hummer said he was shocked at least four times in the shower between June and October 2007. In each case, KBR personnel tried to fix the hazard. Today, the Pentagon IG admitted he was wrong to claim KBR was not aware of the electrical danger:

WAXMAN: This seems to be credible evidence that KBR was aware of this hazard last July.

HEDDELL: I do agree with you, Mr. Chairman.

Waxman showed Heddell another document of “task orders” from the Pentagon “warning that Sgt. Hummer gets shocked in the shower.” Heddell quickly admitted that he was also wrong to exonerate the DOD:

WAXMAN: This document seems to be credible evidence that the Defense Department was aware of the problem as well. Do you agree?

HEDDELL: It would appear so, sir.

The majority staff report also notes that KBR official Thomas Bruni may have lied under oath. In prepared testimony, he claimed, “Though we cannot be certain who installed the water pump [that killed Maseth] we do know that KBR did not do so.” But a KBR work order from July 9, 2007 stated, “Replace pressure switch & water pump.”

“We have absolved no one,” Heddell said. “We never have, and not at this moment.”


Think Progress » Pentagon Attempted To Cover-Up KBR’s Negligence In Electrocution Of U.S. Soldier

EXCLUSIVE: To Provoke War, Cheney Considered Proposal To Dress Up Navy Seals As Iranians And Shoot At Them»

They want to force war on us.  They were told before 9/11 that Bin ladin was determined to strike within the U.S. and that terrorists were going to flight school to use our jets as bombs and they did nothing to stop it.  They needed their "pearl harbor" event in order to start a war with a country that has and never could do anything to harm us.  Now they're trying to create another "false flag" operation to start it with Iran.  We have to stop these animals!  please, if you have never heard of a "false flag operation", look it up,  you'll be surprised of what our government is capable of.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/31/cheney-proposal-for-iran-war/

Speaking at the Campus Progress journalism conference earlier this month, Seymour Hersh — a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker — revealed that Bush administration officials held a meeting recently in the Vice President’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran.

In Hersh’s most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The “meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. ‘The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,’” according to one of Hersh’s sources.

Interviewing Hersh during the journalism conference event, I asked him specifically about this meeting and if he could elaborate on what occurred. Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney’s office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them. This idea, intended to provoke an Iran war, was ultimately rejected:

HERSH: There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.

Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.

Embedded Video

Hersh argued that one of the things the Bush administration learned during the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz was that, “if you get the right incident, the American public will support” it.

“Look, is it high school? Yeah,” Hersh said. “Are we playing high school with you know 5,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal? Yeah we are. We’re playing, you know, who’s the first guy to run off the highway with us and Iran.”

Transcript:

HERSH: There was a meeting. Among the items considered and rejected — which is why the New Yorker did not publish it, on grounds that it wasn’t accepted — one of the items was why not…

There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives.

And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.

So I can understand the argument for not writing something that was rejected — uh maybe. My attitude always towards editors is they’re mice training to be rats.

But the point is jejune, if you know what that means. Silly? Maybe. But potentially very lethal. Because one of the things they learned in the incident was the American public, if you get the right incident, the American public will support bang-bang-kiss-kiss. You know, we’re into it.

…What happened in the Gulf was, in the Straits, in early January, the President was just about to go to the Middle East for a visit. So that was one reason they wanted to gin it up. Get it going.

Look, is it high school? Yeah. Are we playing high school with you know 5,000 nuclear warheads in our arsenal? Yeah we are. We’re playing, you know, who’s the first guy to run off the highway with us and Iran.

They know they're lying and they just can't stop.

A July 30 WorldNetDaily.com article about author Jerome Corsi's forthcoming book, The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality (Threshold Editions), asserts that the book "points out" that "Barack Obama admitted using drugs in his autobiography but never revealed if or when he stopped." WND quotes Corsi, who is also a WND staff reporter, asking in the book: "Did Obama ever use drugs in his days as a community organizer in Chicago, or when he was a state senator from Illinois? ... How about in the U.S. Senate? If Obama quit using drugs, the public inquiry certain to occur in a general election campaign for the presidency will most certainly aim at the when, how and why questions George W. Bush successfully avoided." But Corsi's reported allegation that Obama "never revealed if or when he stopped" using drugs is false: Obama wrote in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father (Crown, 1995), that he "stopped getting high" shortly after moving to New York City to attend Columbia University as an undergraduate.

From Dreams From My Father (Page 120):

When Sadik lost his own lease, we moved in together. And after a few months of closer scrutiny, he began to realize that the city had indeed had an effect on me, although not the one he'd expected. I stopped getting high. I ran three miles a day and fasted on Sundays. For the first time in years, I applied myself to my studies and started keeping a journal of daily reflections and very bad poetry. Whenever Sadik tried to talk me into hitting a bar, I'd beg off with some tepid excuse, too much work or not enough cash.


Media Matters - First reported allegation in Corsi's Obama attack book is false

Is a cure for cancer lobby the same as propping up the oil lobby?

These lobbyist apologists are so full of shit.  A "cure for cancer" lobbyist is equivalent to an oil lobbyist.  Real public servants those oil lobbyists.

When asked how many lobbyists work at the McCain campaign, Rick Davis told Katie Couric: “we don’t make it a litmus test for employment at the McCain campaign.” But in May, after a series of reports about McCain’s campaign being run by lobbyists, Davis wrote a memo outlining a new campaign policy that said: “No person working for the Campaign may be a registered lobbyist or foreign agent, or receive compensation for any such activity.”  (h/t Sam)

Confused yet?

Embedded Video

What is faux good for? What are conservatives good at?

They lie about the motives of progressives and create fear and anger. That's all they're good for. Fear and anger against progressives. And their mindless listeners believe every lie they tell because they repeat them over and over again. If you tell a lie long enough it becomes true, right? It became true to this idiot believer. Enough that he unloaded on a church full of worshipers during a children's play of "Annie".

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/07/30/oreilly-hannity-and-savage-preferred-reading-for-jim-d-adkisson/

O’Reilly, Hannity and Savage preferred reading for Jim D. Adkisson

Are you surprised that the TN Church shooter’s reading material consisted of our favorite Conservatives?

Adkisson targeted the church, Still wrote in the document obtained by WBIR-TV, Channel 10, “because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of media outlets.”

Inside the house, officers found “Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder” by radio talk show host Michael Savage, “Let Freedom Ring” by talk show host Sean Hannity, and “The O’Reilly Factor,” by television talk show host Bill O’Reilly.

I’m sure to Hannity and BillO, the KnoxNews is just spreading liberal propaganda around to smear FOX and Savage because of their conservative views. It has nothing to do with their extreme positions. I’m only surprised the police didn’t find James Dobson and Pat Robertson reading material either, but I guess they haven’t had a chance to go through all of his things yet.

The Republican Propaganda Machine.

What i think of Faux Noise.

The moral party? Gimme a break.

Number of sitting U.S. senators in history who have been indicted: 10
Percent of them who were Republican: 80%
(Source: Fox News--they're finally good for something!)

Daily Kos: Cheers and Jeers: Thursday

The one who stood up for our rights ended up in prison.

Joe Nacchio is the principled telecom owner who refused to help George Bush spy on Americans.  For his patriotism and loyalty to the constitution and it's Bill of Rights, the Republican "Justice Department", went after him for a made up crime.  Just like they did Don Siegelman.  Both men were falsely convicted and put in prison.  Don Siegelman has been released because the case against him was made up and the prosecution hid evidence that exonerated him.  The same is becoming apparent in the Nacchio case.  I'll be looking forward to seeing what happens in this case.

Retirees cheer Nacchio decision - The Denver Post

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_10048833
Qwest retirees rejoiced over Wednesday's decision that a full panel of appellate judges will reconsider former Qwest chief executive Joe Nacchio's insider-trading conviction. "We were very pessimistic that this was going to happen, so we're delighted," said Mimi Hull, president of the Association of U S West Retirees. "We were very upset when the appeals court ordered a new trial and felt that they (the judges who ruled) really did not represent the views of the full appeals court." Nacchio served as Qwest's CEO from 1997 until he was ousted in June 2002. Under his watch, Qwest acquired U S West in June 2000, and the combined company nearly crumbled into bankruptcy two years later.

Why we hate them.

We must rid ourselves of corrupted legislators.  All of them.  Democrat and Republican.  Keep an eye on your representatives and let them know when they cross the line.  Stop putting up with these criminals.  It's our government if we work for it.
In Congress, no anti-corruption legislation in sight - Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-giftban31-2008jul31,0,5638546.story
Congress has been awash in corruption scandals, the latest being the indictment of long-serving Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, but prospects for legislation to make questionable practices like Stevens' alleged acceptance of gifts illegal in their own right appear grim. A year after a bipartisan group of senators proposed giving the Justice Department important new clout in pursuing official misconduct, the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act is apparently blocked in Congress. The legislation is aimed at stanching the stream of perks that lobbyists and companies give to members of Congress that fall short of outright bribes by making it a felony for lawmakers to accept gifts valued above those permitted by Senate rules and that are given to them because of their official status and access to power. It would appear to cover the sort of gifts that Stevens stands accused of getting from a powerful oil industry figure in Alaska -- more than $250,000 in improvements to his home near Anchorage and gifts including a Viking gas grill and a Land Rover, according to an indictment handed down Tuesday by a federal grand jury in Washington. Stevens is scheduled to make his first appearance in the case today in federal court in Washington.

War is very profitable for the oil industry. DRILL DRILL DRILL at $140 a barrel...

Why does the oil industry want every inch of american land and sea leased to them even though they've already got 80% of land and 30% of the sea leased and they're not drilling on it already? They don't want to drill to lower prices at the pump, they want to drill at $140 a barrel or more and republicans are toting their water for them by not signing onto the one bill that will lower the price of oil today, the anti speculation bill. Why would they support a bill that would reduce these profits for the oil industry, their sugar daddies? i ask you all to call your senators and tell them to move and vote yes on the anti speculation bill before their 6 week august break. Tell them not to leave us with these high prices while they run off to collect more money from their rich contributors before the election in november. that toll free number is 1-800-828-0498.
Rising Oil Prices Swell Profits at Exxon and Shell - NYTimes.com



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/01/business/01oil.html?ref=business
Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, reported on Thursday that second-quarter income rose 14 percent, to $11.68 billion, the highest-ever for an American company. Net income of $2.22 a share compared with $10.26 billion, or $1.83 a share, in the quarter a year ago. Revenue rose 40 percent, to $138.1 billion, from $98.4 billion in the quarter a year ago. Excluding an after-tax charge of $290 million tied to an Exxon Valdez court settlement, earnings were $11.97 billion, or $2.27 a share. Excluding one-time charges, analysts had expected Exxon Mobil to earn $2.52 a share on revenue of $144 billion, according to Thomson Financial. With this quarter's result, Exxon topped its own record of $11.66 billion in the fourth quarter of last year.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Another Bush Administration Liar.

After meeting with his cabinet today, President Bush renewed his call for “Congress to lift the legislative ban that prevents offshore exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf.” Bush has previously claimed that such offshore drilling can be done in a manner that will “ensure that our environment is protected.”

In order to support Bush’s message, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman went on Fox News today to push the claim that offshore drilling is safe for the environment. But in the midst of his interview, Bodman repeated the right-wing lie that no oil spilled in 2005 during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita:

JARRETT: Has technology improved so dramatically that drilling can now be done in a way that protects the environment?

BODMAN: I believe that it can. When we had Katrina and Rita, the two worst hurricanes in — at least in recent memory, in ‘05, some three years ago, there was not one case where we had a situation with oil or gas being spilled in the environment.

Watch it:

Embedded Video

As ThinkProgress has previously noted, the clear satellite evidence of major spills was borne out by final reports. In May 2006, the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) published their offshore damage assessment: “113 platforms totally destroyed, and 457 pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10 inches or larger diameter.”

In all, the two hurricanes caused 124 offshore spills for a total of 743,700 gallons, including six spills of 42,000 gallons or greater.

It’s one thing for right-wing hacks like the Wall Street Journal editorial page to push these lies, but America’s highest-ranking energy official should know better.

As long as he's OUR murdering inhumane tyrant, he can do what he wants.

   President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan is a refreshingly old-fashioned despot. He favours one-party rule, a police state based on fear, secret surveillance, summary arrest and interrogation of anyone too religious, rubber truncheons, electroshock treatment, needles under the fingernails, and, at least once, the boiling alive of a recalcitrant witness. Meanwhile, he makes long speeches to his parliament about how all opposition is treason and his enemies must be dismembered: "I'm prepared to rip off the heads of 200 people, to sacrifice their lives, in order to save peace and calm in the republic; if my child chose such a path, I myself would rip off his head."

    His megalomania is worthy of Tamerlane, the 14th-century Central Asian conqueror, statues of whom he has erected across Uzbekistan.

    Since 2002, Mr. Karimov has been an ally of the U.S. in the "war on terror." His website shows him in the company of George W. Bush and leading members of the Bush administration. Ever since he gave the U.S. control of his Khanbad military base in March, 2002, money, generals and congressmen have all poured in.

full story:

t r u t h o u t | Terrifying Ally Against Terror

The corporate party doesn't care if the poor, disabled and elderly die of cold and heat.

    Washington - Republicans on Saturday blocked the Senate from considering a bill next week that would nearly double federal aid to help the poor pay heating and air-conditioning bills.

    Although a dozen Senate Republicans support the measure, most voted with GOP leaders who would rather spend the time trumpeting their call to expand offshore oil drilling before Congress takes six weeks off for vacation and the presidential nominating conventions.

    "The American resources on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts contain 14 billion barrels at a minimum ... more than we have imported from the Persian Gulf in the last 15 years," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M.

    Democrats needed 60 votes to substitute the measure on heating and air-conditioning aid in place of the debate on an expansion of offshore drilling championed by President Bush and GOP presidential candidate John McCain. They got 50 votes Saturday, with 35 Republicans voting against changing the topic.

    "Do we vote to keep the old, the sick and kids alive when the weather gets cold or very, very hot, or do we spend money on people who make huge campaign contributions? That is part of what this debate is about," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont.

    The government is devoting $2.6 billion in subsidies for helping people with low incomes pay heating and air-conditioning bills this year. Sanders' bill would nearly double that to $5.1 billion.

    While Senate Democrats said they hoped to pass it next week, Democrats in the House were looking at the popular subsidies for anchoring a second economic aid bill they want to push in September, closer to the November election.

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is vehemently against letting the House vote on offshore drilling. She and Democratic leaders in the Senate also have shut down normal summer work on spending bills to prevent offshore drilling from getting a legislative footing in the appropriations committees.


t r u t h o u t | Senate Republicans Block Heating Aid Bill

t r u t h o u t | Unequal America

Causes and consequences of the wide-and growing-gap between rich and poor.

    When Majid Ezzati thinks about declining life expectancy, he says, "I think of an epidemic like HIV, or I think of the collapse of a social system, like in the former Soviet Union." But such a decline is happening right now in some parts of the United States. Between 1983 and 1999, men's life expectancy decreased in more than 50 U.S. counties, according to a recent study by Ezzati, associate professor of international health at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), and colleagues. For women, the news was even worse: life expectancy decreased in more than 900 counties-more than a quarter of the total. This means 4 percent of American men and 19 percent of American women can expect their lives to be shorter than or, at best, the same length as those of people in their home counties two decades ago.

    The United States no longer boasts anywhere near the world's longest life expectancy. It doesn't even make the top 40. In this and many other ways, the richest nation on earth is not the healthiest. Ezzati's finding is unsettling on its face, but scholars find further cause for concern in the pattern of health disparities. Poor health is not distributed evenly across the population, but concentrated among the disadvantaged.

    Disparities in health tend to fall along income lines everywhere: the poor generally get sicker and die sooner than the rich. But in the United States, the gap between the rich and the poor is far wider than in most other developed democracies, and it is getting wider. That is true both before and after taxes: the United States also does less than most other rich democracies to redistribute income from the rich to the poor.

    Americans, on average, have a higher tolerance for income inequality than their European counterparts. American attitudes focus on equality of opportunity, while Europeans tend to see fairness in equal outcomes. Among Americans, differences of opinion about inequality can easily degenerate into partisan disputes over whether poor people deserve help and sympathy or should instead pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The study of inequality attempts to test inequality's effects on society, and it is delivering findings that command both sides' attention.

For the whole story:

t r u t h o u t | Unequal America

Daily Kos: House Judiciary Committee cites Karl Rove for contempt

The House Judiciary Committee just voted along strict party lines, 20-14, to hold Karl Rove in contempt of Congress for his failure to appear in response to the duly authorized subpoenas seeking his testimony in the matter of the US Attorney firings and the allegations of his interference in the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman.

The resolution now goes to the full House, where a straight majority vote will be necessary for formally and officially locking in the contempt citation.

It's at that stage that the decision of which procedure to utilize -- statutory contempt which gets referred for prosecution to the US Attorney, or inherent contempt which is prosecuted by the House itself in a trial before the body -- is made.

The House's earlier contempt citations against Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers were referred under the statutory contempt procedure to the US Attorney who, at the instruction of the White House and the Department of Justice, declined to prosecute the cases. An ironic situation, given that the contempt citations arose in the context of an investigation into whether or not the DOJ and the White House were improperly directing prosecutorial decisions of the US Attorneys.

The House Judiciary Committee subsequently filed suit in federal court, seeking an order compelling the US Attorney to proceed with the prosecution, and somehow -- magically! -- the case was assigned to former Whitewater Deputy Independent Counsel John D. Bates, the federal judge who dismissed the Plame lawsuit, dismissed the Cheney Energy Task Force lawsuit, upheld the validity of Bush's signature on an a bill not properly passed in the same form by both houses of Congress, and dismissed the DNC's lawsuit seeking to force the FEC to rule on John McCain's attempt to withdraw from his presidential campaign's public financing commitments.

I don't know about you, but I'm not really feeling the fear with respect to the statutory contempt thing.

One other possibility: Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) testified in last Friday's non-impeachment hearing before the Judiciary Committee regarding his legislation that would grant Congress the authority to petition the courts to appoint a special prosecutor in cases where the DOJ refused to take up referrals of contempt of Congress. That bill, H.R. 6508, now sits before the Judiciary Committee awaiting action, albeit with powerful cosponsors including Chairman Conyers, and subcommittee chairs Linda Sanchez and Jerry Nadler.

Probably time to get moving on that.


Daily Kos: House Judiciary Committee cites Karl Rove for contempt

You can't have a "war" on a tactic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902041.html
The Bush administration's terrorism-fighting strategy has not significantly undermined al-Qaeda's capabilities, according to a major new study that argues the struggle against terrorism is better waged by law enforcement agencies than by armies. The study by the nonpartisan Rand Corp. also contends that the administration committed a fundamental error in portraying the conflict with al-Qaeda as a "war on terrorism." The phrase falsely suggests that there can be a battlefield solution to terrorism, and symbolically conveys warrior status on terrorists, it said. "Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors," authors Seth Jones and Martin Libicki write in "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al-Qaeda," a 200-page volume released yesterday. But the authors contend that al-Qaeda has sabotaged itself by creating ever greater numbers of enemies while not broadening its base of support. "Al-Qaeda's probability of success in actually overthrowing any government is close to zero," the report states.