Sunday, March 30, 2008


Another Stumble find:

Headlined on 3/29/08:
Saudi Newspaper: Prepare for radioactive fallout from US nuclear attack on Iran


Now this, recently published in the Center for American Progress Action Fund's The Progress Report:

ADMINISTRATION -- ECHOING BUSH AND CHENEY, HAYDEN SAYS IRAN PURSUING NUCLEAR WEAPONS: CIA Director Michael Hayden is the latest high ranking Bush administration official to claim that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. Asked by NBC host Tim Russert last Sunday if he "believe[s] the Iranians are trying to develop a nuclear program," Hayden said, "yes." While he did not offer any specific evidence of his "personal belief," his comment contradicts a key finding from the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran -- that the Iranians halted its efforts to develop nuclear weapons in 2003. Moreover, the International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report has said that Iran is only enriching uranium to a level consistent with a civilian nuclear program. Recently, President Bush falsely claimed that Iran "declared they want to have a nuclear weapon," and Vice President Dick Cheney also stated that Iran is "heavily involved in trying to develop nuclear weapons enrichment, the enrichment of uranium to weapons grade levels."

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Kitchen Sink

People, I spend so much time surfing the tubes and stuff that I'm not getting much writing done. Something has to give. So, I've decided to post a bloggie of my own and catch up on your bloggies once a week.

Here's another gem from Russell's Teapot:

This just in from Richard Dawkins:

"Sanal Edamaruku, the president of Rationalist International, challenged India's most "powerful" tantrik (black magician) to demonstrate his powers on him. That was the beginning of an unprecedented experiment. After all his chanting of mantra (magic words) and ceremonies of tantra failed, the tantrik decided to kill Sanal Edamaruku with the "ultimate destruction ceremony" on live TV. Sanal Edamaruku agreed and sat in the altar of the black magic ritual. India TV observed skyrocketing viewership rates.

"Everything started, when Uma Bharati (former chief minister of the state of Madhya Pradesh) accused her political opponents in a public statement of using tantrik powers to inflict damage upon her. In fact, within a few days, the unlucky lady had lost her favorite uncle, hit the door of her car against her head and found her legs covered with wounds and blisters.

"India TV, one of India's major Hindi channels with national outreach, invited Sanal Edamaruku for a discussion on "Tantrik power versus Science". Pandit Surinder Sharma, who claims to be the tantrik of top politicians and is well known from his TV shows, represented the other side. During the discussion, the tantrik showed a small human shape of wheat flour dough, laid a thread around it like a noose and tightened it. He claimed that he was able to kill any person he wanted within three minutes by using black magic. Sanal challenged him to try and kill him.

"The tantrik tried. He chanted his mantras (magic words): "Om lingalingalinalinga, kilikili…." But his efforts did not show any impact on Sanal – not after three minutes, and not after five. The time was extended and extended again. The original discussion program should have ended here, but the "breaking news" of the ongoing great tantra challenge was overrunning all program schedules.

image description"Now the tantrik changed his technique. He started sprinkling water on Sanal and brandishing a knife in front of him. Sometimes he moved the blade all over his body. Sanal did not flinch. Then he touched Sanal's head with his hand, rubbing and rumpling up his hair, pressing his forehead, laying his hand over his eyes, pressing his fingers against his temples. When he pressed harder and harder, Sanal reminded him that he was supposed to use black magic only, not forceful attacks to bring him down. The tantrik took a new run: water, knife, fingers, mantras. But Sanal kept looking very healthy and even amused.

"After nearly two hours, the anchor declared the tantrik's failure. The tantrik, unwilling to admit defeat, tried the excuse that a very strong god whom Sanal might be worshipping obviously protected him. "No, I am an atheist," said Sanal Edamaruku. Finally, the disgraced tantrik tried to save his face by claiming that there was a never-failing special black magic for ultimate destruction, which could, however, only been done at night. Bad luck again, he did not get away with this, but was challenged to prove his claim this very night in another "breaking news" live program.

image description"During the next three hours, India TV ran announcements for The Great Tantra Challenge that called several hundred million people to their TV sets.

"The encounter took place under the open night sky. The tantrik and his two assistants were kindling a fire and staring into the flames. Sanal was in good humour. Once the ultimate magic was invoked, there wouldn't be any way back, the tantrik warned. Within two minutes, Sanal would get crazy, and one minute later he would scream in pain and die. Didn't he want to save his life before it was too late? Sanal laughed, and the countdown begun. The tantriks chanted their "Om lingalingalingalinga, kilikilikili…." followed by ever changing cascades of strange words and sounds. The speed increased hysterically. They threw all kinds of magic ingredients into the flames that produced changing colours, crackling and fizzling sounds and white smoke. While chanting, the tantrik came close to Sanal, moved his hands in front of him and touched him, but was called back by the anchor. After the earlier covert attempts of the tantrik to use force against Sanal, he was warned to keep distance and avoid touching Sanal. But the tantrik "forgot" this rule again and again.

"Now the tantrik wrote Sanal's name on a sheet of paper, tore it into small pieces, dipped them into a pot with boiling butter oil and threw them dramatically into the flames. Nothing happened. Singing and singing, he sprinkled water on Sanal, mopped a bunch of peacock feathers over his head, threw mustard seed into the fire and other outlandish things more. Sanal smiled, nothing happened, and time was running out. Only seven more minutes before midnight, the tantrik decided to use his ultimate weapon: the clod of wheat flour dough. He kneaded it and powdered it with mysterious ingredients, then asked Sanal to touch it. Sanal did so, and the grand magic finale begun. The tantrik pierced blunt nails on the dough, then cut it wildly with a knife and threw them into the fire. That moment, Sanal should have broken down. But he did not. He laughed. Forty more seconds, counted the anchor, twenty, ten, five… it's over!

image description"Millions of people must have uttered a sigh of relief in front their TVs. Sanal was very much alive. Tantra power had miserably failed. Tantriks are creating such a scaring atmosphere that even people, who know that black magic has no base, can just break down out of fear, commented a scientist during the program. It needs enormous courage and confidence to challenge them by actually putting one's life at risk, he said. By doing so, Sanal Edamaruku has broken the spell, and has taken away much of the fear of those who witnessed his triumph.

"In this night, one of the most dangerous and wide spread superstitions in India suffered a severe blow.

"The whole program is video-recorded and is available. If you want a copy, please contact:"


And finally, this is for Randal:

I'll be back too - next week!

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Obama too intellectual to be president?

John Dean (yes, that John Dean) raises the question in his FindLaw article, Barack Obama's Smart Speech "A More Perfect Union": Did It Reveal Him To Be Too Intellectual To Be President? Dean used the Flesch-Kincaid readability test by grade level (used by librarians) on Obama's recent "A More Perfect Union" speech, and found it scored at the 10.5 grade level, "which by current standards is in the stratosphere." Compare that to inaugural addresses by Bush II at 7.5, Eisenhower's second address 7.5, Nixon at 7.6, LBJ at 7.0, FDR's fourth 8.1, and Clinton's two addresses at 9.4 and 8.8, respectively.

Okay, we knew the guy was smart, but smart don't win votes. Or at least, it didn't used to. Dean tells of case studies showing the effectiveness of anti-intellectualism in politics. Smart candidates who hide their brain power tend to get more votes. Eisenhower sat back and let Adlai Stevenson take the "egghead" label. Bill Clinton, a Rhodes scholar, played the hayseed while stumping when necessary to garner votes. Dean says he's "noticed
Senator Clinton has been showing less and less of her own conspicuous wonkiness and brain-power" since the Ohio and Texas primaries.

I hope Obama will be the exception that proves the rule. He has not, so far, hidden his light under a bushel. And so far, he's getting the votes.

I liked having a smart person for president - of course I'm speaking of Bill Clinton - but he was such an idiot in his personal life. Having a stupid person in the office for the last seven years would have been merely embarrassing, had the consequences not been so tragic.

Dean concludes, "As Senator Obama campaigns, he can truly change America by simply refusing to play dumb. That strategy, if Obama continues it, may turn out to be not only courageous but also wise, for it is very possible that, after so many years, Americans are tired of having their innate intelligence insulted by their presidential candidates."

After Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech, Jon Stewart said, "At 10:53 a.m. on March 18, 2008, an American politician spoke to us about race as if we were adults."


Tuesday, March 25, 2008

The Cost of War

Full Text of Obama’s Speech “The Cost of War”
The Cost of War
University of Charleston
Charleston, West Virginia

Thursday, March 20, 2008
As Prepared for Delivery

Five years ago, the war in Iraq began. And on this fifth anniversary, we honor the brave men and women who are serving this nation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. We pay tribute to the sacrifices of their families back home. And a grateful nation mourns the loss of our fallen heroes.

I understand that the first serviceman killed in Iraq was a native West Virginian, Marine 1st Lieutenant Shane Childers, who died five years ago tomorrow. And so on this anniversary, my thoughts and prayers go out to Lieutenant Childers’ family, and to all who’ve lost loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The costs of war are greatest for the troops and those who love them, but we know that war has other costs as well. Yesterday, I addressed some of these other costs in a speech on the strategic consequences of the Iraq war. I spoke about how this war has diverted us from fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and from addressing the other challenges of the 21st Century: violent extremism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease.

And today, I want to talk about another cost of this war – the toll it has taken on our economy. Because at a time when we’re on the brink of recession – when neighborhoods have For Sale signs outside every home, and working families are struggling to keep up with rising costs – ordinary Americans are paying a price for this war.

When you’re spending over $50 to fill up your car because the price of oil is four times what it was before Iraq, you’re paying a price for this war.

When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.

When a National Guard unit is over in Iraq and can’t help out during a hurricane in Louisiana or with floods here in West Virginia, our communities are paying a price for this war.

And the price our families and communities are paying reflects the price America is paying. The most conservative estimates say that Iraq has now cost more than half a trillion dollars, more than any other war in our history besides World War II. Some say the true cost is even higher and that by the time it’s over, this could be a $3 trillion war. But what no one disputes is that the cost of this war is far higher than what we were told it would be. We were told this war would cost $50 to $60 billion, and that reconstruction would pay for itself out of Iraqi oil profits. We were told higher estimates were nothing but “baloney.” Like so much else about this war, we were not told the truth. What no one disputes is that the costs of this war have been compounded by its careless and incompetent execution – from the billions that have vanished in Iraq to the billions more in no-bid contracts for reckless contractors like Halliburton.

What no one disputes is that five years into this war, soldiers up at Fort Drum are having to wait more than a month to get their first mental health screening – even though we know that incidences of PTSD skyrocket between the second, third, and fourth tours of duty. We have a sacred trust to our troops and our veterans, and we have to live up to it.

What no one disputes is that President Bush has done what no other President has ever done, and given tax cuts to the rich in a time of war. John McCain once opposed these tax cuts – he rightly called them unfair and fiscally irresponsible. But now he has done an about face and wants to make them permanent, just like he wants a permanent occupation in Iraq. No matter what the costs, no matter what the consequences, John McCain seems determined to carry out a third Bush-term.

That’s an outcome America can’t afford. Because of the Bush-McCain policies, our debt has ballooned. This is creating problems in our fragile economy. And that kind of debt also places an unfair burden on our children and grandchildren, who will have to repay it.

It also means we’re having to pay for this war with loans from China. Having China as our banker isn’t good for our economy, it isn’t good for our global leadership, and it isn’t good for our national security. History teaches us that for a nation to remain a preeminent military power, it must remain a preeminent economic power. That is why it is so important to manage the costs of war wisely.

This is a lesson that the first President Bush understood. The conduct of the Gulf War cost America less than $20 billion – what we pay in two months in Iraq today. That’s because that war was prosecuted on solid grounds, and in a responsible way, and with the support of allies, who paid most of the costs. None of this has been the case in the way George W. Bush and John McCain have waged the current Iraq war.

Now, at that debate in Texas several weeks ago, Senator Clinton attacked John McCain for supporting the policies that have led to our enormous war costs. But her point would have been more compelling had she not joined Senator McCain in making the tragically ill-considered decision to vote for the Iraq war in the first place.

The truth is, this is all part of the reason I opposed this war from the start. It’s why I said back in 2002 that it could lead to an occupation not just of undetermined length or undetermined consequences, but of undetermined costs. It’s why I’ve said this war should have never been authorized and never been waged.

Now, let me be clear: when I am President, I will spare no expense to ensure that our troops have the equipment and support they need. There is no higher obligation for a Commander-in-Chief. But we also have to understand that the more than $10 billion we’re spending each month in Iraq is money we could be investing here at home. Just think about what battles we could be fighting instead of fighting this misguided war.

Instead of fighting this war, we could be fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and who are plotting against us in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We could be securing our homeland and stopping the world’s most dangerous weapons from falling into terrorist hands.

Instead of fighting this war, we could be fighting for the people of West Virginia. For what folks in this state have been spending on the Iraq war, we could be giving health care to nearly 450,000 of your neighbors, hiring nearly 30,000 new elementary school teachers, and making college more affordable for over 300,000 students.

We could be fighting to put the American dream within reach for every American – by giving tax breaks to working families, offering relief to struggling homeowners, reversing President Bush’s cuts to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, and protecting Social Security today, tomorrow, and forever. That’s what we could be doing instead of fighting this war.

Instead of fighting this war, we could be fighting to make universal health care a reality in this country. We could be fighting for the young woman who works the night shift after a full day of college and still can’t afford medicine for a sister who’s ill. For what we spend in several months in Iraq, we could be providing them with the quality, affordable health care that every American deserves.

Instead of fighting this war, we could be fighting to give every American a quality education. We could be fighting for the young men and women all across this country who dream big dreams but aren’t getting the kind of education they need to reach for those dreams. For a fraction of what we’re spending each year in Iraq, we could be giving our teachers more pay and more support, rebuilding our crumbling schools, and offering a tax credit to put a college degree within reach for anyone who wants one.

Instead of fighting this war, we could be fighting to rebuild our roads and bridges. I’ve proposed a fund that would do just that and generate nearly two million new jobs – many in the construction industry that’s been hard hit by our housing crisis. And it would cost just six percent of what we spend each year in Iraq.

Instead of fighting this war, we could be freeing ourselves from the tyranny of oil, and saving this planet for our children. We could be investing in renewable sources of energy, and in clean coal technology, and creating up to 5 million new green jobs in the bargain, including new clean coal jobs. And we could be doing it all for the cost of less than a year and a half in Iraq.

These are the investments we could be making, all within the parameters of a more responsible and disciplined budget. This is the future we could be building. And that is why I will bring this war to an end when I’m President of the United States of America.

But we also know that even after this war comes to an end, the costs of this war will not. We’ll have to keep our sacred trust with our veterans and fully fund the VA. We’ll have to look after our wounded warriors – whether they’re suffering from wounds seen or unseen. That must include the signature injuries of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – not just PTSD, but Traumatic Brain Injury. We’ll have to give veterans the health care and disability benefits they deserve, the support they need, and the respect they’ve earned. This is an obligation I have fought to uphold on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee by joining Jay Rockefeller to expand educational opportunities for our veterans. It’s an obligation I will uphold as President, and it’s an obligation that will endure long after this war is over.

And our obligation to rebuild our military will endure as well. This war has stretched our military to its limits, wearing down troops and equipment as a result of tour after tour after tour of duty. The Army has said it will need $13 billion a year just to replace and repair all the equipment that’s been broken or lost. So in the coming years we won’t just have to restore our military to its peak level of readiness, and we won’t just have to make sure our National Guard is back to being fully prepared to handle a domestic crisis, we’ll also have to ensure that our soldiers are trained and equipped to confront the new threats of the 21 century and that our military can meet any challenge around the world. And that is a responsibility I intend to meet as Commander-in-Chief.

So we know what this war has cost us – in blood and in treasure. But in the words of Robert Kennedy, “past error is no excuse for its own perpetuation.” And yet, John McCain refuses to learn from the failures of the Bush years. Instead of offering an exit strategy for Iraq, he’s offering us a 100-year occupation. Instead of offering an economic plan that works for working Americans, he’s supporting tax cuts for the wealthiest among us who don’t need them and aren’t asking for them. Senator McCain is embracing the failed policies of the past, but America is ready to embrace the future.

When I am your nominee, the American people will have a real choice in November – between change and more of the same, between giving the Bush policies another four years, or bringing them to an end. And that is the choice the American people deserve.

Somewhere in Baghdad today, a soldier is stepping into his Humvee and heading out on a patrol. That soldier knows the cost of war. He’s been bearing it for five years. It’s the cost of being kept awake at night by the whistle of falling mortars. It’s the cost of a heart that aches for a loved one back home, and a family that’s counting the days until the next R&R. It’s the cost of losing a friend, who asked for nothing but to serve his country.

How much longer are we going to ask our troops to bear the cost of this war?

How much longer are we going to ask our families and our communities to bear the cost of this war?

When are we going to stop mortgaging our children’s future for Washington’s mistake?

This election is our chance to reclaim our future – to end the fight in Iraq and take up the fight for good jobs and universal health care. To end the fight in Iraq and take up the fight for a world-class education and retirement security. To end the fight in Iraq and take up the fight for opportunity, and equality, and prosperity here at home.

Those are the battles we need to fight. That is the leadership I want to offer. And that is the future we can build together when I’m President of the United States. Thank you.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Kitchen Sink

Well this is interesting...

Meet the (White) Man Who Inspired Rev. Wright's Sermon

People kept saying that Wright's comments were taken out of context and that we should look at the whole piece. I never did because, I mean, how "out of context" can "God damn America" be? I was (and still am) proud of my chosen candidate for denouncing (and rejecting) Wright's comments. Now we learn from this article in The Huffington Post (not, of course, from the MSM) that Rev. Wright was speaking, in amazement, about the fact that a white man had expressed these ideas, and on Faux News, no less. Rev. Wright ain't off the hook IMO, but now I can better understand why he made those comments.


Here's an article that looks ahead to the election:

Beyond CheneyBush:
A Realistic (Cynical?) View of Change

by Bernard Weiner

It was written on February 19th, so I think the author was rather prophetic in predicting the current Obama-Clinton mud fight.

The danger for the Democrats is that Clinton and Obama, desperate for victory, will savage each other in such ways as to provide an enormous amount of political ammunition for McCain and the Republicans in both the presidential and congressional contests.

Mr. Weiner speculates that the GOP has already given up on 2008 and is looking ahead at 2012, hoping to regain power by blaming the mess we're in on the likely coming Democratic administration.

I think it's safe to say that whomever gets into power would be inheriting a huge, tangled mess, one of the worst in American political history. Part of that mess derives from the near-total ineptitude of the current Administration, but much of it is planned chaos designed to mess up the social/political/economic system so badly as to hamstring the incoming president from being able to do much corrective or creative restoration of good government. The GOP hope is that the public will then take out their frustrations on the Democrats in power rather than on those who originally created the gawdawful situation domestically and in Iraq and probably Iran as well.

The author points out that we progressives have an opportunity for real change.

I'd be overjoyed to be proven wrong by a Democratic president and Congress willing to take the bold progressive moves that the country so desperately needs and, in many ways, wants. If the Democrats were to capture unstoppable majorities in both houses of Congress, along with the presidency, that might even be possible.

I'd be overjoyed, too. If we don't stay involved in politics over the next four years (and beyond), we will never get our country back. We have to demand that the new administration keeps its promises. (In the case of Sen. Obama, if he becomes our president, I expect him to restore habeas corpus, as he promised. That's at a minimum, because of course there's a lot of Constitutional damage to repair. Since he taught Constitutional Law at Harvard, I expect him to know what he's doing in that regard.)

Mr. Weiner says it best:

Of course, all of us must work our asses off in trying to do more that just settle for what we can get. After eight years of CheneyBush, there are opportunities there for strong, positive leadership as well as plenty of sinkholes of inevitable despair.

So, what we're talking about here is to use the next four years to govern aggressively, yes. But also to educate and train and work for increasing the power and backbone of ordinary citizens and progressive/liberal candidates and office-holders. In addition, wealthy Democratic individuals must step forward to support and help establish the progressive superstructure of honest media, more liberal think tanks, grassroots activist training, solvent internet bloggers, and so on, to help the "restoration" take root and grow. All this will take infinite patience and unflinching determination.

If we had forgotten before CheneyBush, we've been sorely reminded (by their immoral war, moral and financial corruption, and desecration of the Constitution) that democracy has to be worked on day by day, fought for day by day, lest our apathy and acquiescence create an avenue for HardRightists to return to power, which could mean leading this country into even more domestic and foreign-policy disasters.

Politics is indeed a contact sport, and, without ceding the moral high ground by crass imitation of our ideological enemies, we'd better learn how to sharpen our elbows and get in there and play it.


Finally, I'm thrilled that Gov. Richardson endorsed Sen. Obama yesterday! An Obama/Richardson ticket could be unstoppable.

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

From a friend of mine:
I was watching Larry King's interview with Jon
Stewart, and Larry, of course, was asking him about
the primaries. Jon had this line that I just had to

Larry asked Jon if America was ready for a woman or a
black president.

Jon looked at him quizzically and said,

"This is such a non-question...Did anyone ask us in
2000 if Americans were ready for a MORON?"

The Decider tells us that the Iraq war "was worth it" and "the war must go on." The Republican presidential nominee agrees. People, for the love of this country, vote Democratic in November, no matter who the nominee is, no matter if you have to hold your nose and carry a barf bag. You think the last five years of this war were bad? Then let's not extend that to a hundred. Please. Just sayin.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Have Fun With This

There's a "Truth-o-meter" maintained by PolitiFact," a project of the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly to help you find the truth in the presidential campaign."

You can search their findings on ALL of the candidates who have been in the race so far by clicking on the link above, but here I'll just link to the three who are still in:

John McCain

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Ides of March

Have you heard about Anonymous? It's a group of geeks (and others) who are joining together over the tubes to spread the word about the "Church" of Scientology. They staged an international protest in February. The CoS has failed twice to bring an injunction against them. Today, the Ides of March, is for an even larger protest (the participants wear masks, btw) at CoS offices around the world, plus Anonymous released this new video, called "Why We Fight."

Wednesday, March 12, 2008


I find Adm. Fallon's sudden resignation to be the most disturbing news I've heard since the Decider invaded Iraq. THIS ARTICLE's title, Commander's Resignation Shows a New Era of Micromanagement, misses the most important point. It's NOT the micromanagement that worries me. What disturbs me is the fact that he resigned amid ongoing disagreement with Bush/Cheney over the "need" to invade Iran. The keyword here is "ongoing." WTF? Isn't this administration supposed to be readying itself for its transition out of office in less than a year? Isn't it obvious that this administration is in peril of actually having to pass the torch on to the opposition, the Democratic party, who isn't running on a bomb-Iran platform? So why is this discussion of an invasion of Iran ongoing? The only conclusion I can come to is that this administration has every intention of proceeding with its plans, else why discuss them at all? That means we're going to see an "October surprise." Some manufactured reason to invade Iran before this administration's term is out. And if that happens, it wouldn't make sense for Bush/Cheney to stop there and hand over the reins of power mid-stream. No, the only way they could continue to have power would be to suspend elections in November. And they can do that, now, thanks to presidential signing statements giving them the power to run the country without Congressional, or even Judicial interference.

Adm. Fallon's resignation is an ominous, disturbing signal that we're focusing on the wrong thing. It's not who will be the Democratic nominee in the coming election. It's not even which party will win the election itself. It's whether there will BE an election.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Duty Calls

hee-hee! I love this - another Stumble find!

Monday, March 10, 2008

By now you've heard about Iowa Republican Congressman King saying that "if Obama gets elected President Al Qaeda /Muslims will be dancing in the streets even more than they did on 9/11." This latest smear job was on the heels of the picture of Sen. Obama wearing Somalia's traditional garb. Both are attempts, of course, to scare voters into thinking that Sen. Obama is some kind of stealth Muslim poised to take over our country.

Now, according to an MSNBC terror analysis, al-Qaeda thinks the same thing!

Al-Qaeda supporters are so insistent about their hatred for Obama that they have gone as far as to portray him as an "Iranian agent" secretly sent to take over the United States and fight a war against Sunni Muslims. They are enraged by the notion that Obama ( who is Christian & supports Israel) is somehow in league with them.

Read the full article here.

Great minds: Congressman King and al-Qaeda.


You mean, President Bush was wrong when he said we have a strong economy?

Sunday, March 09, 2008

Apparently, Sen. Clinton wants us to believe that we'd be better off - not only with her as President of the United States - but with Sen. McCain, her Republican opponent, instead of Sen. Obama:

I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.

-Hillary Clinton


Man, that makes Sen. Obama look like a real lightweight, doesn't it? "All he has is a speech he gave in 2002." Well, let's take a close look at that speech he gave in 2002, before Bu$hCo invaded Iraq in 2003. You know, the war that's still going on over there. The one Sen. McCain says we could wage for another hundred years.

Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq

| October 02, 2002

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

-Barack Obama

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Comic Interlude

Whether you're religious or non-religious (or a really lapsed Catholic turned atheist, like me), I know you'll enjoy this:

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Have Y'all Heard Anything About This?

Whilst Stumbling, I ran across this website called Ecoversity, and it posts what is apparently an open letter to Sen. Hillary Clinton written by Linn Cohen-Cole, a former classmate of Hillary's from Wellsley. I'm posting some excerpts below. The full letter is here.

Note: GE= genetically engineered; GMO= Genetically modified organism. BGH= Bovine Growth Hormone

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton From a Wellsley College Alumna
Sunday, 03 February 2008
by Linn Cohen-Cole

Dear Hillary,
By polling logic, I should be your supporter - Democrat, older woman, white, liberal. I was even in a dorm with you in college. I have pulled for you for years. But something this past summer fundamentally changed my responsibility to my children and grandchildren. In the time I have left in my life to protect them and others, I need to speak out.

I saw a News Hour piece on Maharastra, India, about farmers committing suicide. Monsanto, a US agricultural giant, hired Bollywood actors for ads telling illiterate farmers they could get rich (by their standards) from big yields with Monsanto's Bt (genetically engineered) cotton seeds. The expensive seeds needed expensive fertilizer and pesticides (Monsanto, again) and irrigation. There is no irrigation there. Crops failed. Farmers had larger debt than they'd ever experienced.
And farmers couldn't collect seeds from their own fields to try again (true since time immemorial). Monsanto "patents" their DNA-altered seeds as "intellectual property." They have a $10 million budget and a staff of 75 devoted solely to prosecuting farmers. (ref). Since the late 1990s (about when industrial agriculture took hold in India), 166,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide and 8 million have left the land.

Farmers in Europe, Asia, Africa, Indonesia, South America, Central America and here, have protested Monsanto and genetic engineering for years.

What does this have to do with you?

You have connections to Monsanto through the Rose Law Firm where you worked and through Bill who hired Monsanto people for central food- related roles. Your Orwellian-named "Rural Americans for Hillary" was planned with Troutman Sanders, Monsanto's lobbyists.

Genetic engineering and industrialized food and animal production all come together at the Rose Law Firm, which represents the world's largest GE corporation (Monsanto), GE's most controversial project (DP&L's - now Monsanto's - terminator genes), the world's largest meat producer (Tyson), the world's largest retailer and a dominant food retailer (WalMart).


You didn't just work there, you made friends. That shows in the flow of favors then and since. You were invited onto Walmart's board, you were helped by a Tyson executive to make commodity trades (3 days before Bill became governor), netting you $100,000, Jackson Stephens strongly backed Bill for Governor, and then for President (donating $100,000).

Food and friends, in Clinton terms:
Bill's appointed friend Mike Espy, Secretary of Agriculture, who immediately significantly weakened federal chicken waste and contamination standards, opening the door to major expansion of Tyson's chicken factory farms. Espy resigned, indicted for accepting bribes, illegal contributions, money laundering, illegal dispersal of USDA subsidies, .... Tyson Foods was the largest corporate offender.
But what Bill did for Monsanto "genetic engineering" goes beyond inadequate concepts of giving corporate friends influence: He unleashed genetic engineering into the world. And then he helped close off people's escape from it.


What did Bill do?

1. Bill's put Monsanto people in at the FDA, as US Agricultural Trade Representatives, on International Biotechnology Consultive Forums, and more ... (ref) or (ref 2) or (ref 3)

2. Bill's FDA gave Monsanto permission to market rBGH (a GE bovine growth hormone), the first genetically engineered product let loose on us (or did tomatoes with fish DNA get there first?).

3. Despite reports of bovine illness and death, Bill's FDA did not recall it or put warnings on it. Even "a very angry, very vocal nationwide consumer base" had no impact."

4. Bill's FDA wouldn't even label rBGH as "present" in milk.

5. When dairy farmers tried to label their own milk rBGH-free so the public could choose, Bill's USDA threatened all dairies that their products could be confiscated from stores. Michael Taylor, USFDA Deputy Commissioner, was formerly Monsanto's counsel.

6. How were consumers to protect their family, given Bill's FDA enforced public blindness, except to buy only organic? But Bill's FDA tried to close off that last escape, proposing to include in "organic" standards, "the dirty three": genetic engineering of plants and animals, use of irradiation in food processing and use of municipal sewage sludge as a fertilizer. (My emphasis.) The FDA backed down.
Had this gone through, Monsanto could have finally labeled rBGH milk ... as "organic." And animal waste from factory farms, a pollution nightmare for Tyson and others, could have been sold as fertilizer.

USDA head Dan Glickman: "This is probably the largest public response to an [Agriculture Department] rule in modern history." In fact the response was 20 times greater than anything ever before proposed by the USDA.


Politically, Bill sided against small farmers and against the public's right to know, and with Monsanto.

A snap shot of our food:

Oils: Sheep died in India after feeding on Bt cotton fields. We feed our children Bt cotton, as cottonseed oil in peanut butter and cookies.

Grains: 49% of US corn acreage was planted in Bt corn in 2007. A French study proved Monsanto's GMO corn causes kidney and liver toxicity.

Soft drinks and candy have highly concentrated Bt corn, in the form of high fructose Bt corn syrup. The US food system depends most on two crops, soy (90% GMO, 90% of traits owned by Monsanto) and corn, the largest crop (60% GMO, nearly 100% Monsanto traits). "Essentially our entire food supply is genetically modified, to the benefit of one company." The Grocery Manufacturers of America in 2000 estimated that 70 percent of US food contains GM traits.

Meat: Steroids bulk up atheletes. Monsanto steroids bulk up animals - more weight, more profit. We feed our children steroids in meats. Is this why our children are fattening, like Hansel and Gretel?

Poultry: Bill's USDA weakened chicken waste and contamination standards and attempted to allow sewage sludge as fertilize crops. I will say more about disease from industrialized poultry farms waste, at the end of this letter.

Milk: Over 30 scientific publications have shown increased levels of IGF-1 in milk with rBGH increases risks of breast cancer by up to seven-fold, also increasing colon and prostate cancers risks. Canada, 29 European nations, Norway, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa ban U.S. rBGH dairy products. Bill's USFDA put no restrictions, no warning labels (not allowing labels at all). (My emphasis.)

American children eat that food and drink that milk, Hillary. Coincidentally, American children are increasingly fat and sick.


Terminator genes, developed by DP&L, a Rose Firm client, prevent seeds from "working" after only one season. Farmers "must" repurchase (patents and suing not certain enough control, it seems). Those "killing" genes pose the apocalyptic risk of breaking out into nature. Natural seeds could fail, too. Nature could fail.

GMO fields are already contaminating normal species Berkeley Professor of Microbiology, Ignacio Chapela, wrote an open letter, warning the Mexican government about just this breaking out phenomenon happening in maize.

And it has already happened with weeds - pesticide resistant GMO seeds break lose and weeds become pesticide-resistant Superweeds.

But Bill's USDA spokesman, Willard Phelps said the USDA wanted the technology to be `widely licensed and made expeditiously available to many seed companies.'

"Genetic Engineering is often justified as a human technology, one that feeds more people with better food. Nothing could be further from the truth. With very few exceptions, the whole point of genetic engineering is to increase sales of chemicals and bio-engineered products to dependent farmers." David Ehrenfield: Professor of Biology, Rutgers University.

Hillary, one third of the world's bee colonies have collapsed. Gone. Farmers in India are killing themselves. Farmers and bees. Since organic farmers in India are fine and organic farmers report no colony collapse, what does these farming catatrophes say about "industrial agriculture"?


Monsanto is also aggressively pushing for state laws to limit farmers' right to choose what to plant and the public's right exclude GE plants from their communities.

Cattle bloated by steroids, lapse and loss of 10,000 year old normal seeds, immense pollution from factory farms, deadly-disease-ridden feed, world-wide bee colony collapse, poisoned soil and depleted water supplies, Superweeds, lawsuits against farmers, loss of family farms, and ... India farmers killing themselves in what may be the largest mass suicide in recorded human history (on average ... one farmers' suicide every 30 minutes since 2002 - The Hindu 1.30.08) - that is industrial agriculture.

Monsanto and Tyson are two of the largest industrial agricultural corporations in the world. Industrial agriculture is represented by your Rose Law Firm.

Your claim to care about food safety is terrifying double-speak given what Bill did and who you take donations from. Your idea of a Department of Food Safety would centralize control of food - in whose corporate connected hands? You talk tough about labeling food - ah, but "foreign" food - a sleight of hand tricking a public desperate for safe US food. You talk about food safety but Bill degraded food in every imaginable way and prevented minimally sane labeling.


Monsanto uses child labor in India, primarily very young girls, exposing them to a lethal pesticide 13-14 hours a day, for pennies in pay. But you take donations from their lobbyists. You say you care about black people but as the poorest people in this country, they are least able to buy organic and are forced to eat the contaminated foods Bill let into our food system. The National Black Farmers Association has a boycott out on all Monsanto products.

Do you eat organic?
So, who are you with, hapless black consumers and black farmers, or Monsanto? Mothers left to give their children rBGH milk, or Monsanto? Women exposed to 7 times greater risk of breast cancer, or Monsanto? Desperate farmers in India and young children forced into child labor in cottonseed factories there, or Monsanto? Animals suffering from lives in filthy cages and disgusting feedlots, shot up with steroids and hormones and antibiotics, or Monsanto? Our children who eat candy with high fructose Bt corn syrup associated with kidney and liver toxicity, or Monsanto?

Edwards was right about your corporate connections. I just didn't understand until I saw that PBS show and read about Monsanto, how personally affected my children and grandchildren, and all people around the world, have been.

I will not vote for you. I will vote for someone who will commit themselves to work on behalf of small farmers and real food and decent treatment of animals and to end this industrialized agricultural nightmare that is taking us off a cliff.

-Linn Cohen-Cole

In our precinct tonight, more Obama supporters showed up to caucus than Clinton supporters, and CNN is reporting that Obama won in the caucuses. That's very good news, but it would have been better had he won the state. Just when I was feeling down about the outcome, here at two o'clock in the morning, I got this uplifting email from the Obama campaign.

We may not know the final outcome of today's voting until morning, but the results so far make one thing clear.

When the dust settles from today's contests, we will maintain our substantial lead in delegates. And thanks to millions of people standing for change, we will keep adding delegates and capture the Democratic nomination.

We knew from the day we began this journey that the road would be long. And we knew what we were up against.

We knew that the closer we got to the change we seek, the more we'd see of the politics we're trying to end -- the attacks and distortions that try to distract us from the issues that matter to people's lives, the stunts and the tactics that ask us to fear instead of hope.

But this time -- this year -- it will not work. The challenges are too great. The stakes are too high.

Americans need real change.

In the coming weeks, we will begin a great debate about the future of this country with a man who has served it bravely and loves it dearly. And we will offer two very different visions of the America we see in the twenty-first century.

John McCain has already dismissed our call for change as eloquent but empty.

But he should know that it's a call that did not begin with my words. It's the resounding call from every corner of this country, from first-time voters and lifelong cynics, from Democrats and Republicans alike.

And together you and I are going to grow this movement to deliver that change in November.

Thank you,


It ain't over yet. Good night.

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Oh great

Oh great, Pooks tells me that the right wingnuts are being urged by talk radio hosts to go to the polls today and vote for Hillary Clinton (to derail Obama,) and that they are calling in to the radio shows to gleefully report, "I just voted for Hillary!"

Saturday, March 01, 2008

It's a little early for this,

but what the heck. Who do you think the candidates should pick as running mate?

If Sen. Obama wins the nomination, I think he should pick Gov. Bill Richardson. The gov is arguably the best qualified of all the candidates who ran this year, and the fact that he's Hispanic would be a plus. (I used to think that Sen. Clinton would be a good choice for veep, but now I'm just sickened by the way she's run her campaign, so I hope he doesn't pick her.)

If Sen. Clinton wins the nomination, then of course I'd like for her to pick Obama. In fact, that may be the only way she could defeat the Republican nominee.

As for Sen. McCain, I think picking Huckabee would be a huge mistake for his party. Therefore, I hope that's his pick. :)

Your thoughts?