Facebook Badge

Toll Free Numbers To The Washington Switchboard

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

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Slavery never left the south

  Thought slavery ended in america in the 1800's?  Think again.  The prison industrial complex has cleverly turned their inmates into slaves with the lie that they are learning a skill for when they leave.  Yeah right.  I know slavery when i see it and we arrest far too many people in this country for almost nothing.  This system needs new customers you see because it is privatizing.  And private industry needs profit.  They get paid by the farmers who's crops these slaves work on.  They get paid by tax payers.  but only if they keep up the inmate population by keeping draconian laws on the books like prison for a joint of pot.  or a gram of coke.  riduculous reasons for locking humans in cages.  Our prisons should be saved for real criminals who are hurting others.  not for people who like to get high.

http://www.truthout.org/article/slavery-haunts-americas-plantation-prisons

On an expanse of 18,000 acres of farmland, 59 miles northwest of Baton Rouge, long rows of men, mostly African-American, till the fields under the hot Louisiana sun. The men pick cotton, wheat, soybeans and corn. They work for pennies, literally. Armed guards, mostly white, ride up and down the rows on horseback, keeping watch. At the end of a long workweek, a bad disciplinary report from a guard - whether true or false - could mean a weekend toiling in the fields. The farm is called Angola, after the homeland of the slaves who first worked its soil.

    This scene is not a glimpse of plantation days long gone by. It's the present-day reality of thousands of prisoners at the maximum security Louisiana State Penitentiary, otherwise known as Angola. The block of land on which the prison sits is a composite of several slave plantations, bought up in the decades following the Civil War. Acre-wise, it is the largest prison in the United States. Eighty percent of its prisoners are African-American.

    "Angola is disturbing every time I go there," Tory Pegram, who coordinates the International Coalition to Free the Angola 3, told Truthout. "It's not even really a metaphor for slavery. Slavery is what's going on."

    Mwalimu Johnson, who spent 15 years as a prisoner at the penitentiary and now works as executive secretary of the Capital Post-Conviction Project of Louisiana, concurred.

    "I would truthfully say that Angola prison is a sophisticated plantation," Johnson told Truthout. "'Cotton is King' still applies when it come to Angola."

    Angola is not alone. Sixteen percent of Louisiana prisoners are compelled to perform farm labor, as are 17 percent of Texas prisoners and a full 40 percent of Arkansas prisoners, according to the 2002 Corrections Yearbook, compiled by the Criminal Justice Institute. They are paid little to nothing for planting and picking the same crops harvested by slaves 150 years ago.

photo
On land previously occupied by a slave plantation, Louisiana prisoners pick cotton, earning 4 cents an hour. (Photo: Louisiana State Penitentiary)

    Many prison farms, Angola included, have gruesome post-bellum histories. In the 1950s, '60s and '70s, Angola made news with a host of assaults - and killings - of inmates by guards. In 1952, a group of Angola prisoners found their work conditions so oppressive that they resorted to cutting their Achilles' tendons in protest. At Mississippi's Parchman Farm, another plantation-to-prison convert, prisoners were routinely subjected to near-death whippings and even shootings for the first half of the 20th century. Cummins Farm, in Arkansas, sported a "prison hospital" that doubled as a torture chamber until a federal investigation exposed it in 1970. And Texas's Jester State Prison Farm, formerly Harlem Prison Farm, garnered its claim to fame from eight prisoners who suffocated to death after being sealed into a tiny cell and abandoned by guards.


t r u t h o u t | Slavery Haunts America's Plantation Prisons

Crooks and Liars » US Threatens UK On Gitmo Case

In a remarkable development at the High Court in London, an email from a senior US State Dept. official has been revealed, apparently threatening to curb co-operation with Britain on international intelligence sharing if details on a detainees interrogation are revealed. Lawyers for Binyam Mohamed, held at Gitmo, have taken legal action in the UK to force the release of details which, they say, will prove Mohamed was ilegally abducted and tortured into a confession. Mohamed claims that his torture included having his penis cut with a razor blade by Moroccan proxies for the US.

In an email to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which was sent on to the court, Stephen Mathias, a legal adviser to the US state department, said that the disclosure of information would cause “serious and lasting damage to the US-UK intelligence-sharing relationship and thus the national security of the UK, and the aggressive and unprecedented intervention in the apparently functioning adjudicatory processes of a longtime ally of the UK, in contravention of well-established principles of international comity.”

Put simply, if the British High Court forces disclosure,  the Bush administration will stop treating the Uk as a trusted ally. The High Court may not be in the mood to be bullied, given what has gone before on the case:

Last week, in the initial hearing of the case, the high court found that MI5 had participated in the unlawful interrogation of Mohamed. It emerged that one MI5 officer was so concerned about incriminating himself that he initially declined to answer questions from the judges even in private. Although the judges said that “no adverse conclusions” should be drawn by the plea against self-incrimination, it was disclosed that the officer, Witness B, was questioned about alleged war crimes, including torture, under the international criminal court act.

The Bush administration must be very worried about war crimes charges if they’re willing to go to these lengths to bully an ally into keeping torture secret. But if the High Court rules for Mohamed, then the British government won’t have a choice. It cannot overule the Court.



Crooks and Liars » US Threatens UK On Gitmo Case

Excerpts from the convention

I'd never heard of Brian Schweitzer before i heard him speak.  What a character!  You can probably youtube him if you're interested.  i sure enjoyed listening to him.

"So, as Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey declared, McCain isn't a maverick--he's Bush's sidekick. And, as Ohio Governor Ted Strickland explained: "You know, it was once said of the first George Bush that he was born on third base and thought he'd hit a triple. Well, with the 22 million new jobs and the budget surplus Bill Clinton left behind, George W. Bush came into office on third base, and then he stole second. And John McCain cheered him every step of the way." Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer--the surprise star of the evening--said that the nation couldn't meet its energy needs just by drilling for oil, even if we drilled in every one of John McCain's back yards."

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/27/the-democrats-strike-back.aspx

McCain booed on immigration, Iraq - Politics- msnbc.com

When American workers complained that immigrants, legal and illegal, were suppressing wages for all American workers:

"McCain responded by saying immigrants were taking jobs nobody else wanted. He offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Arizona.

Shouts of protest rose from the crowd, with some accepting McCain’s job offer.

“I’ll take it!” one man shouted.

McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. “You can’t do it, my friends.”

Some in the crowd said they didn’t appreciate McCain questioning their work ethic."


McCain booed on immigration, Iraq - Politics- msnbc.com

(11 unread) Yahoo! Mail, shelley9595

There's a new letter going around claiming that we have trillions of barrels of oil under our feet here in America.  Who ever sent it out, obviously didn't read the link on the new report released in April, that they refer to in this email.  First my response.

Somebody's lying.  I just went to the U.S. geological services page and they have an april 2008 report but it says:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3021/
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3021/pdf/FS08-3021_508.pdf
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911
"Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated mean undiscovered volumes of 3.65 billion barrels of oil, 1.85 trillion cubic feet of associated/dissolved natural gas, and 148 million barrels of natural gas liquids in the Bakken Formation of the Williston Basin Province, Montana and North Dakota."
That's more than the '95 estimate but it is far from all those over blown numbers comparing us to the Middle Ease.  When you consider that in America we use 7 billion barrels of oil per year, this equates to about half a year of oil.  The natural gas looks very good though.  If we can do this without flattening the Rockies, let's go!
 
"A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead

Original letter:

Subject: US Oil Reserves

FYI
 
OK Congress the cat is out of the bag...it is time for you to get of your back sides and gfet us some cheaper oil!
 
Rev. Hollis Stanford
CWO US Army, Retired
16150 Early Lane
Lebanon, Missouri 65536
oldguy@fedweeknet.com
 
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:24 PM
Subject: US Oil Reserves

1. Ever heard of the Bakken Formation?

 

GOOGLE it or follow this link.  It will blow your mind. 

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

 

The U.S. Geological Service issued a report in April ('08) that only scientists and

oilmen knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been

updated since '95) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North

Dakota; western South Dakota; and extreme eastern Montana ... check THIS out:

 

The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and has

the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy

Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just

10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base

worth more than $5.3 trillion.

 

'When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit

the floor. They had no idea, says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial

analyst.

 

'This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past

56 years,' reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the

Williston Basin, but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' And it stretches

from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada. For years, U. S. oil

exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up

searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological

breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves... and we now have access

of up to 500 billion barrels.  And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions

of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!

>That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 41 years straight.

 

2. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because

it's from TWO YEARS AGO, people! U.S.Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World!

Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006 Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the

Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world is more than 2

TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction.

 

They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the

other proven reserves on earth. Here are the official estimates:

 

>-8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia

>-18-times as much oil as Iraq

>-21-times as much oil as Kuwait

>-22-times as much oil as Iran

>-500-times as much oil as Yemen- and it's all right here in the Western United States.

 

HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this!?  Because the democrats,

environmentalists and left wing republicans have blocked all efforts to help America

become independent of foreign oil.

 

James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very

compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels. Untapped. 

That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today,

reports The Denver Post.

 

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find?  Think again! It's all

about the competitive marketplace, - it has to.

>----

Got your attention/ire up yet? Hope so! Now, while you're thinking about it ... and

hopefully P.O'd, do this:

 

3. Take 10 minutes and compose an e-mail; fax or good old-fashioned letter to all

your friends and associates.  Alert them to the fact that democrats and 'liberal'

republicans have been and will continue to obstruct all plans to make America

independent of foreign oil. The only solution is to vote all democrats and Marxist

oriented out of office.

 

If you don't take a little time to do this, then you should stifle yourself the next

time you want to complain about gas prices .. because by doing NOTHING, you've

forfeited your right to complain.

 


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 270.6.9/1635 - Release Date: 8/26/2008 7:29 AM

Should Uncle Sam Be Helping CEOs Get Richer? | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

The just-released latest edition of the annual CEO pay report from the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy tells two stories. The first will likely remind most Americans why they get so angry about CEO pay. The second will get them even angrier.

The first of these two stories doesn’t take long to tell. Last year, the new Executive Excess 2008 report notes, top CEOs in the United States continued to pocket outlandishly large paychecks, $10.5 million on average. That’s 344 times the pay of an average U.S. worker -- and ten times the pay gap that existed 30 years ago.

The second story takes a bit more explaining: Our tax dollars are actually subsidizing this incredible excess. The federal government, through the tax code, is directly rewarding companies that overpay their top executives.

Executive Excess 2008 details five of these direct subsidies. Two involve rather arcane accounting conventions that corporations exploit to both cheat Uncle Sam at tax time and pump up their quarterly earnings. But the other three don’t require a CPA to decipher.

Many Americans, for instance, already have experience with the concept of “deferred pay” — through 401(k) plans. If you have a 401(k), you can have part of your income deferred from taxes. But you can only defer a limited amount -- usually just $15,500 a year -- and if the investments where you put that money go sour, you’re out of luck.

Top executives, by contrast, can have deferred pay plans with no limits whatsoever. They can defer millions every year -- and they quite often get a guaranteed, above-market rate return on all the dollars they stuff in these no-limit stashes. Last January, Target CEO Robert Ulrich retired with over $140 million in his deferred pay account.

America’s highest-paid power suits -- the managers of hedge and private equity fund partnerships -- have even a sweeter deal. The top 50 of these fund managers last year averaged $588 million each in earnings. These incomes don’t up show in the annual CEO pay rankings because fund managers aren’t technically CEOs. They don’t get paid like CEOs either.

Fund managers take their compensation in the form of fees they assess on the investments they manage. They typically cream off, as a “carried interest” fee, 20 percent of the profits they make buying and selling companies and other assets. On these windfalls, fund managers pay taxes at just a 15 percent rate -- not the 35 percent top rate on ordinary income -- because the tax code lets them claim their “carried interest” as a capital gain.

On every $1 million pocketed in carried interest, in other words, an investment fund manager saves about $200,000 in taxes. This subsidy costs taxpayers $2.6 billion a year.

Corporations save twice that much every year from an even more outrageous loophole, what Executive Excess 2008 dubs the “unlimited tax deductibility of executive pay.” Top companies can essentially deduct whatever they pay their executives off their corporate income taxes, so long as they define that pay as a performance-based incentive.

The more corporations pay their top execs, in effect, the less they pay in taxes.

Direct subsidies for America’s most powerful, Executive Excess 2008 estimates, add up to $20 billion a year. To place this $20 billion in context, the report also notes what the federal government is currently spending to educate America’s most vulnerable, children with disabilities and other special needs: only $10.8 billion a year.

Billions more in CEO pay subsidies, Executive Excess adds, flow indirectly, through government bailouts and procurement. Federal officials regularly let out contracts to corporations that pay their executives hundreds of times more than their workers.

One example: Lockheed Martin is currently getting about 80 percent of its revenue from the federal contracts. Lockheed Martin CEO Robert Stevens made $24 million last year, 787 times the pay of a typical U.S. worker.

Legislation that would end this indirect subsidy for lush CEO compensation, Executive Excess 2008 makes clear, is already before Congress. The pending Patriot Corporations Act would give preference in federal contract bidding to companies that pay their executives no more than 100 times the pay of their lowest-paid employee.

Bills that would end all the subsidies that encourage lavish CEO pay, Executive Excess 2008 takes pains to emphasize, are already pending before Congress. But this legislation is going nowhere, and neither Senators Obama or McCain have yet staked out a position of most of these needed legislative fixes.

Still, the tide may be shifting.

“Historically, troubled economic times in the United States have helped generate long overdue public policy reforms,” sums up the new Executive Excess. “We have now entered troubled economic times, likely our worst since executive pay started ballooning in the 1980s. Ballooning executive pay has helped create our current economic woes. Deflating that excess can help end them.”

Should Uncle Sam Be Helping CEOs Get Richer? | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

3000 anti-war protesters in Denver

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/27/3000-march-largest-demonstration-dnc/
Marching behind a police vehicle that flashed the words "Follow Us. Welcome to Denver." on an electronic sign, at least 3,000 Iraq war veterans and anti-war protesters made their way through downtown Denver on Wednesday during the largest demonstration of the Democratic National Convention to date. Though the event, co-sponsored by the anti-war group Tent State University and Iraq Veterans Against the War, was unpermitted, the parade proceeded peacefully. It began at the Denver Coliseum and ended at the Pepsi Center perimeter about three hours later. There, veterans attempted to contact aides of presidential candidate Barack Obama to deliver a statement urging Obama to endorse the idea of an immediate withdrawal of "all occupying forces" from Iraq among other positions. The letter also upbraided the Democratic Party for their "initial and continued" support for the war.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Cut-n-run Bush

This administration would be laughable if they hadn't been so damaging to our country this past 8 years.  When Democrats wanted a time table all you heard was "cut and run", "these colors don't run", brain dead platitudes that riled the mentally deficient in this country to stand up and wave their flags.  We don't run!  We don't quit!  Kill um all, let God sort them out!  and various other stupidities.
Now the Bush administration is quitting.  They don't call it cutting and running anymore since it's them doing it.  But it's the same thing the democrats have been asking for this past 4 years.  If you read this whole article you will see how this administration is trying to cause a violent implosion with their method of withdrawal so that they can put it on Obama when things blow up.  But the only thing keeping things from blowing up right now is us paying the Sunni's (The "Sunni awakening" is our policy of paying them to not be violent.) to not attack us or the Shiia.  As soon as the money stops, the peace stops.  The new Shiia government aren't giving out jobs equitably to their sects and the Sunni sects.  The Sunnis are getting screwed by not being allowed to work.  This is where the violence will come from once Americans pull out unless we can force the government to give more jobs to Sunni's. 

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB121925351447057223-lMyQjAxMDI4MTI5MDIyNTAzWj.html
BAGHDAD -- U.S. and Iraqi negotiators reached agreement on a security deal that calls for American military forces to leave Iraq's cities by next summer as a prelude to a full withdrawal of combat troops from the country, according to senior American officials.

Let's see how sovereign Iraq really is, shall we?

Iraqi prime minister demands US pullout timetable - washingtonpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/25/AR2008082500771.html
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says there can be no security agreement with the United States unless there is a "specific deadline" for the withdrawal of American troops. Al-Maliki also says that unless some clauses in the draft agreement under discussion are changed, it will be "difficult" for the pact to be adopted. He did not identify all those clauses. But the prime minister told tribal leaders Monday that he cannot grant "open immunity" to Iraqis or foreigners because that would violate the "sanctity of Iraqi blood." Baghdad and Washington are negotiating an agreement on the future of U.S. troops in Iraq. Al-Maliki aides say Iraq insists on 2011 as the target date for the withdrawal of the last U.S. soldier.

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Why Jim will Vote Obama/Biden. Me too!

I'm an American.  I'm an Independent.  I'm a Vietnam Veteran and military retiree.
 
Why I am voting for Obama/Biden
 
In the first place, the United States needs a change of direction with new leadership---leadership that stands with the troops not just as a TV backdrop for political op-eds all the while undermining their benefits and services when they return as casualties (and I regard every blessed one of them as a casualty) from an illegal, immoral war.  Not just the same tired rhetoric that has proven to be a disaster for the majority of the people in this country ever since 9/11.  The Bush direction of the War On Terror will join the War On Drugs and War On Poverty as failed endeavors designed to enrich a few and hold millions of others hostage to an administration that cares less about preserving and defending the Constitution than it does preserving, growing, and defending the wealth and power of its loyal followers.  An administration which for the past 8 years has held America hostage with a lapel pin and patriot or traitor labels, solely dependent upon your political party affiliation and support or detraction of the Iraq War.  We no longer can afford the Bush operative phrase, 'if you're not with us, you're against us,' that divided a nation.
 
The truth must out, justice must prevail, and real courage and patriotism must return to all Americans this November.  What we have at stake is nothing less than our freedom.
 
That is why I am voting for Barack Hussein Obama and Joseph Robinette Biden.  True, both of them have unusual middle names. One is 'new' and the other an experienced icon in American politics.  I believe the partnership will yield a common sense direction for and belief in America once again and this time the importance of having competent leadership to preserve and defend our Constitution will hopefully reverse the previous eight years of deception, corruption, and incompetence.
 
Join me this November and let's get the country back on track.
 
Jim Pankey, USN (Ret.)
jpankey@gmail.com

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Bush's bad ideas shot down again.

In 2003 Bush introduced his "clear skies act" which would increase the amount of pollution that power plants and industry could release into the air, sometimes by millions of tone more than the "clean air act" of 1963. His bill requested that polluters (his contributor base) volunteer to cut emissions but didn't have any means with with to make them comply. It called for more rapid deforestation of our forests as well. in other words, it was bush's usual "opposite world" where he names something for the exact opposite of what it does. like the "patriot act" which one would assume would make you a patriot if you wanted to give up your right to a speedy trial and to hear the evidence against you. it would make you a patriot if you agreed that spying on americnas without a warrant is just fine. or you'd be a patriot if you thought that "sneak and peak" (entering your home and searching without you ever finding out)was constitutional and no infringement on your right to privacy. These are all in the patriot act. and good "patriotic" idiots all over america waved the flag in support of this fascist legislation without even knowing what was in it. thinking, oh it's can't happen to me. yet news paper reporters all over america have been spied on and the CIA has "apologized". gee thanks. anti-war protesters have also been targeted like common criminals. The quakers were infiltrated by a government spy! it's unbelievable! This fascist administration doesn't take dissent well and would round up everyone who disagreed with it if it could. and it's been working on it. with full support of John McCain. the only republican speaking out against this power grab has been Arlen Spector, who if you listen to you will know is quite a constitutional scholar, and still he votes party line almost every time. big words, no guts. So now we have a DC federal appeals court (because bush wouldn't take no for an answer when it came to letting polluters pollute) has once against knocked Bush down. If you don't think pollution is a problem, just look at what China just went through to get the air breathable enough for the athletes. remember Los Angeles in the 60's and 70's before the effects of the Clean Air Act started to make a difference. I lived there then. we didn't have "storm warnings" and "blizzard warnings" to keep us home from school. we had "bad air" warnings and we missed school because it was unsafe to leave the house. Anyone else from here live down there then? This may seem like a trivial matter but what is more basic than being able to breath? drinking water and eating is all i can think of and those things are getting sickening in some places too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/washington/20air.html?####
"A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out an Environmental Protection Agency rule limiting the ability of states to require monitoring of industrial emissions. The 2-to-1 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is the most recent in a series of judicial setbacks to the Bush administration's efforts to reshape federal policies under the Clean Air Act. Under 1990 amendments to the original Clean Air Act, states were allowed to issue permits limiting pollution emissions from industrial facilities, like refineries or utilities. To ensure compliance, Congress required states to set more stringent monitoring requirements if they deemed federal requirements inadequate."

The Electoral College (Wayne Parker )

Electoral College Myths

Every presidential election cycle we hear the same uninformed opinions about the Electoral College.

Some say that it was intended to ensure “Proportional representation.” Others, that it was intended to “limit the influence of the more populous states.” Still others insist that the popular vote is pointless, since “a small group of electors actually chooses the president.”

From reading James Madison’s notes on the original Constitutional Convention, it is clear that there was great disagreement about how to choose the nation’s “chief executive.” Some distrusted the masses, and wanted either the state governments or the federal legislature to make the selection.

Others DID trust the people, but believed that it would not be possible for presidential candidates to reach so many people on any kind of meaningful level.

This latter group won the day (and no, it wasn’t a “compromise.” A compromise means that each side gives up some of what it wants, but the agreement that was made was satisfactory to all parties concerned.)

What was decided on was that each state would choose its own group of electors. And, IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT EACH STATE HAD AN INFLUENCE EQUAL TO ITS PROPORTION OF THE OVERALL POPULATION OF THE COUNTRY, that is to say “democracy,” the number of electors assigned to each was based upon its total number of congressional delegates. For instance, Mississippi has four congressional districts and two senators. Consequently, it is assigned six electors. Since the Constitution allows for a maximum of 1 congressional representative for every 30,000 people, it can be seen that as each state’s population grew, its congressional delegation was expected to grow also, thus ensuring that each state’s representation was proportional to its population in relation to the rest of the country. Although this was, in fact, “proportional representation,” this was a RESULT of the means of determining the number of electors for each state. It was NOT the primary purpose of the Electoral College.

Since each state’s electors would be acting on behalf of their state’s populace, like that populace, they were expected to vote their own consciences for the candidates they felt were the most qualified. That is to say, rather then staging popular elections, each state’s electors would vote in place of the state’s populace.

The reason so many people (including Dr. Walter Williams, a syndicated columnist and libertarian supporter) believe that the Electoral College was intended to limit the power of the more populous states is the result of the arbitrary limitation on the number of members allowed in the House of Representatives. This limit was established by law in 1911, presumably to prevent that body from becoming unmanageably large.

Since the total number of congressional representatives was to be limited, and the number of electors assigned to each state was still the same as the number of its congressional delegates, the larger, faster growing states’ congressional delegation could not increase by the same proportion as its populace, since to do so might require depriving smaller states of any representation at all. Consequently, the number of electors assigned to the faster-growing states likewise failed to keep up with their growth.

Basically, the fact that the Electoral College now DOES limit the influence of larger states is the result of a law passed 120 years or so after ratification of the Constitution, and so could not have been the Founders’ intent.

The last myth that needs exploding is the notion that “a small group of electors nullifies the popular vote.” This demonstrates ignorance not only of how things work today, but how they were supposed to work originally.

Recall that I stated earlier that each elector was EXPECTED to vote his conscience. The very fact that he’d been chosen as an elector meant that his judgment and wisdom were trusted and so he was expected to use his abilities in making his choice. Once all electors’ votes were cast, these votes would be collected and sent to the House of Representatives to be counted.

The way it works now is that each party that has candidates for president and vice-president on the ballot in a state would pick its OWN electors, and whichever pair of candidates won the popular vote would send all of its electors’ votes, for THEIR candidates of course, to be counted.

Thus, the popular vote, in each state at least, DOES select the president and vice-president.

rwemerson1957@yahoo.com

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

t r u t h o u t | Adult Stem Cell Treatment Ready for Human Testing?

    Doctors might soon be able to regrow injured muscles, tendons and bones without invasive surgery, simply by injecting a person's own stem cells into the site of an injury. Veterinarians are already doing it with injured horses, and research into human applications is well under way.

    The National Institutes for Health seem to think regenerating human muscle and bone using a person's own adult stem cells is nearly ready for prime time. Last week, the NIH announced to its staff that it's creating a bone marrow-stem cell transplant center within the National Institute for Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases.

    Researchers at the NIH labs in Bethesda, Maryland, are already growing human muscle, cartilage and spinal disks in vitro. The tissue isn't mechanically sound yet, says lead researcher Rocky Tuan, but that will come with further work.

    "I have a piece of tissue that looks like a spinal disc, a sand bag, tough as nails on the outside and like sand on the inside," says Tuan, a Ph.D. and the senior investigator in the Cartilage and Orthopedics branch of the NIAMS. "The mechanical properties are lousy, but it's a beginning."

    While the use of stem cells harvested from human embryos has been getting the most media attention, scientists and doctors have also been working with adult stem cells that also have the ability to become one with their environment and to replicate as cells of their adopted tissue. Using adult stem cells - grown inside the body or in the lab - has become accepted in the veterinary community, and horses have benefited greatly. Researchers are working to bring those same benefits to humans, but there are still hurdles left to clear.

    The NIH project comes in part from what veterinarians have learned from injecting adult stem cells into valuable horses who've suffered injuries. In many cases, those horses' careers were saved when the stem cells regrew damaged tendons and ligaments.

    Rodrigo Vazquez, a Southern California veterinarian, has been using adult stem cells to regrow damaged muscles in horses for several years. It's a fairly common procedure in the veterinary arena, and the results are impressive: One of Vazquez's patients is participating in this year's Olympics Dressage events; another is a prize-winning jumper.

    The procedure is simple and straightforward. Inside a surgical suite at his equine hospital, Vazquez removes blood full of adult stem cells from the sternum of the anesthetized horse.

    Then he rolls his stool to the other end of the horse, where ultrasound data has helped guide needles into the exact areas on the rear leg where the beautiful horse's ligaments are torn. He injects the stem cells into those spots.

    "A few years ago, these injuries were career-ending," Vazquez says. Not any more. "In a month, the torn tissue will be completely regrown and healed."

the full story at truthout:

t r u t h o u t | Adult Stem Cell Treatment Ready for Human Testing?

Voting Machines Can Never Be Trusted, Says GOP Computer Security Expert | Democracy and Elections | AlterNet

In an interview from October, 2006, that has only now seen the light of day, Stephen Spoonamore, one of the world's leading experts in cyber crime and a self-described "life-long Republican" destroys Diebold's already non-existent credibility.

Spoonamore lays it out for anyone to see and understand. If you care about America and it's survival as a democratic republic, you'll watch this interview.

Segment 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyEfovA404
Segment 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTBLfgos5b8
Segment 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzKbigGoMoo
Segment 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vNvweInGFs
Segment 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX8fRwsTpoQ
Segment 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9Kq4dxPwY8
Segment 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsgY4_BB2lo
Segment 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jy1sz-xBxf8

Voting Machines Can Never Be Trusted, Says GOP Computer Security Expert | Democracy and Elections | AlterNet

Monday, August 18, 2008

Bush new Saddam wasn't a threat and went to war anyway.

In October of 2002, 5 months before Bush sent our troops into Iraq, he received from his 16 top intelligence agencies a report. In that report he was told that Saddam didn't have any nuclear capabilities at that time and that the only way he would use chemical or biological weapons against americans is if he were first attacked. But 7 days later, after Bush got this report, he said "we don't want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud". he knew it wasn't true when he said it. he said that "saddam has the capability to hit america in 45 minutes". this was another lie to convince the American people into war with Iraq. A country that the intelligence agencies were telling him were no threat against America whatsoever unless we attacked him first. the report "judged" that saddam had wmd but that he wouldn't use them unless he was attacked. the evidence they received this information from was from a source called "curveball" whom the german and english intelligence agencies told us was unstable and a known fabricator. no other source gave evidence of wmd. yet this administration, knowing the reputation of this source, used this information to scare people into going to war with Iraq. As we've found out since, and as we knew before from a report from Hanz Blix, there were no wmd and no reconstitution of any wmd programs. Bush knew this and still we went to war. This man sent our soldiers off to die for a war that he claimed was self defense because saddam was a threat to america, and it wasn't true. here is the part of the report dealing with saddam and the likelihoods he would attack america.

Public Record Oct, 2002 National Intelligence estimate.
(The claim Bush made in one of his speeches that Saddam had unmanned areal vehicles that could strike within the U.S.)
* Baghdad's UAVs could threaten Iraq's neighbors, U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, and if brought close to, or into, the United States, the U.S. Homeland.

o An Iraqi UAV procurement network attempted to procure commercially available route planning software and an associated topographic database that would be able to support targeting of the United States, according to analysis of special intelligence.

o The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, U.S. Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability.

(remember now, Bush knew this before his January 2003 state of the union speech when he repeated this.)

* Iraq is developing medium-range ballistic missile capabilities, largely through foreign assistance in building specialized facilities, including a test stand for engines more powerful than those in its current missile force.

We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD.

* Saddam could decide to use chemical and biological warfare (CBW) preemptively against U.S. forces, friends, and allies in the region in an attempt to disrupt U.S. war preparations and undermine the political will of the Coalition.

* Saddam might use CBW after an initial advance into Iraqi territory, but early use of WMD could foreclose diplomatic options for stalling the US advance.

* He probably would use CBW when be perceived he irretrievably had lost control of the military and security situation, but we are unlikely to know when Saddam reaches that point.

* We judge that Saddam would be more likely to use chemical weapons than biological weapons on the battlefield.

* Saddam historically has maintained tight control over the use of WMD; however, he probably has provided contingency instructions to his commanders to use CBW in specific circumstances.

Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.

Iraq probably would attempt clandestine attacks against the U.S. Homeland if Baghdad feared an attack that threatened the survival of the regime were imminent or unavoidable, or possibly for revenge. Such attacks--more likely with biological than chemical agents--probably would be carried out by special forces or intelligence operatives.

* The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) probably has been directed to conduct clandestine attacks against US and Allied interests in the Middle East in the event the United States takes action against Iraq. The US probably would be the primary means by which Iraq would attempt to conduct any CBW attacks on the US Homeland, although we have no specific intelligence information that Saddam's regime has directed attacks against US territory.

remember when bush said this in his 2003 state of the union address?
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Here is what the NIE told him before he made that statement:

"Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed--December 1998."

Bush claimed that Saddam was not disarming. That his intelligence agencies were telling him that.
"The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses."

Unfortunately for Bush, Hans Blix was that intelligence source and he told Bush that he hadn't found ANY wmd of any kind. And that to achieve certainty he wouldn't need years or days, but months. Bush immediately shut down the inspectors in Iraq when he got this news. Why would a man who doesn't want war shut down inspections that are proving that the man he's so afraid of can't hurt him? Here is what Hanz Blix told the UN security counsel on March 7th before Bush invaded Iraq on March 19th:(this is one reason the UN did not authorize war with Iraq):
Blix
Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.
Some practical matters, which were not settled by the talks, Dr. ElBaradei and I had with the Iraqi side in Vienna prior to inspections or in resolution 1441 (2002), have been resolved at meetings, which we have had in Baghdad. Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones were overcome. This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance."
"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003"

so why did bush say that saddam was not cooperating with the inspectors and he was deceiving them? If you really didn't want to go to war, wouldn't this be the exact kind of news you'd want to hear? Yeay! we don't have to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of human beings! there are no signs of weapons! But that's not what Bush did, when he found out that Blix and his inspectors weren't finding anything, he shut them down and took "disarmament" into his own hands. Why would he do that?

Bush claimed that intelligence told him that there were mobile bio and chemical weapons (bcw) in his speech.
Bush sotu speech:
From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

But Blix, 12 days before had said:
"As I noted on 14 February, intelligence authorities (from that one source, curveball) have claimed that weapons of mass destruction are moved around Iraq by trucks and, in particular, that there are mobile production units for biological weapons...
...Food testing mobile laboratories and mobile workshops have been seen, as well as large containers with seed processing equipment. No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found. Iraq is expected to assist in the development of credible ways to conduct random checks of ground transportation."

more to come... i want any of you to explain this away with out right wing talking points. i want to see the evidence. These excerpts are from official UN, NIE and White house documentation. They cannot be disputed honestly. only through spin or cherry picking without giving the whole picture including this evidence. you can find a line that says "saddam has wmd" but if the next line is "he wouldn't use it unless he were attacked" you're leaving out the most important part of the assessment. let's be honest now and assess this and come up with reasons that bush would overlook what was really said in the nie and totally ignore what hans blix was saying before he invaded iraq with the lives of potentially millions at stake.