Judith Miller, the New York Times reporter who has been in prison for 85 days for refusing to testify concerning the Valerie Plame leak, (and not coincidentally served as a conduit for lies about Iraq prior to the war) did testify today before special prosecutor Peter Fitzgerald and a grand jury investigating the leak. According to the story, Miller said she got assurances from her source and from Fitzgerald that enabled her to testify.... Before she agreed to talk to the grand jury, Miller's source, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, gave her assurances she could reveal the contents of their conversations. For his part, Fitzgerald promised to limit his questioning of Miller to the Libby contacts regarding Plame.
Read that again. Now, we all knew from earlier stories that it was Karl Rove who spilled the beans, when he told Matt Cooper when Cooper called him that Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA operative, and then called six other reporters including Bob Novak and said the same thing to each of them. Scooter Libby was then mentioned as a secondary source of the information. And keep in mind too, that Fitzgerald's Grand Jury is due to expire on October 28, so Miller could have waited it out until then. So too, could Scooter Libby, unless his agreement to 'let' Miller testify about their contacts is part of a carefully calculated plan. I believe it is. It is a plan to alter the course of the investigation and get the Special Prosecutor and the grand jury to focus on Libby rather than Rove.
What this seems to suggest is, that now that it is clear that someone will have to pay for this act of treason and that the Special prosecutor will indict someone, the tack of the administration has changed, from denial, stonewalling and coverup, to point everything at Libby. Rove, the 'Golden Boy' without whom the Bush administration wouldn't even exist, must be defended at all costs, so it seems as though Libby is being set up to take the fall.
Not that I'd feel sorry for Scooter though-- Republicans take care of their own in these kinds of situations, witness the appointment of John Poindexter, who took the Iran-Contra fall and was convicted of a felony and sentenced on June 11, 1990 to six months in prison (suspended sentence), to work in a choice counterintelligence job in the Bush administration.
Friday, September 30, 2005
Pre-Fab legislation.
Credit goes to Ernest Spoon in a blog posting at Heartland PAC.
Check out this information clearing house article.
(An) alliance of corporate power brokers and conservative Republicans have spent the last five years attempting to hi-jack democracy and move the seat of governance from Pennsylvania Avenue to K Street.
But you won’t read about this coup, you won’t see it played out on the evening news, and you won’t hear about it on talk radio. Why? Because the mainstream media are major combatants.
At the center of this takeover is the K Street Project – an attempt to purge industry’s lobbyists of any and all Democrats, and to make sure that "...even the secretaries..." are "conservative Republican activists."
They’ve just about succeeded.
Over the past five years the relationship between government and industry has been transformed. Now, an assortment of K street Corporate shills write legislation, develop tax proposals, and formulate foreign policy, sometimes in their industry’s self-interest, sometimes at the behest of a few right wing ideologues in Congress or the Administration.
Now I don't have a problem with lobbyists, including corporate lobbyists, doing their job as they have in the past. Lobbyists serve an important purpose, educating Congressmen about the needs and the challenges faced by their various clients so that bad legislation which harms an industry or other group isn't written out of ignorance. But, don't we elect and pay Congressmen to write the actual legislation, as required by the U.S. Constitution? Apparently, not only are we looking at Conservatives who have been elected by no one pretty much running the place, but THEY, not our elected lawmakers, are now the ones writing the laws.
The laws we are seeing, from the Bankrupcty reform bill to the Energy bill to the Medicare prescription drug bill, have been written and prepackaged for delivery to the hill, and about all that Tom DeLay and Denny Hastert have had to do is rubber stamp them through Congress without any significant changes. Of course, as we have seen before, one tactic that they use frequently is to deliver bills that are thousands of pages long (and we now know, are written by industry lobbyists with offices on K Street instead of in Capital Hill offices) to Democrats and those Republicans not in the leadership the night before they are to be voted on and then limit debate to an hour or two. And, of course, Democratic proposals made in committee, never see the light of day and amendments or competing bills offered on the floor are invariably voted down (which the majority certainly has the right to do, I would just question how many of them have even read, since we now know they haven't written, the bills they are pushing instead.)
Even if one IS a conservative Republican, shouldn't the idea that our Congressmen can no longer be troubled to even write the laws, the most basic duty that they should be attending to, be just a bit disturbing?
I guess with all those vacations, fundraising trips and lobbyist-paid junkets to play golf in Scotland, the life of a Congressman is a busy one, so something had to go!
Check out this information clearing house article.
(An) alliance of corporate power brokers and conservative Republicans have spent the last five years attempting to hi-jack democracy and move the seat of governance from Pennsylvania Avenue to K Street.
But you won’t read about this coup, you won’t see it played out on the evening news, and you won’t hear about it on talk radio. Why? Because the mainstream media are major combatants.
At the center of this takeover is the K Street Project – an attempt to purge industry’s lobbyists of any and all Democrats, and to make sure that "...even the secretaries..." are "conservative Republican activists."
They’ve just about succeeded.
Over the past five years the relationship between government and industry has been transformed. Now, an assortment of K street Corporate shills write legislation, develop tax proposals, and formulate foreign policy, sometimes in their industry’s self-interest, sometimes at the behest of a few right wing ideologues in Congress or the Administration.
Now I don't have a problem with lobbyists, including corporate lobbyists, doing their job as they have in the past. Lobbyists serve an important purpose, educating Congressmen about the needs and the challenges faced by their various clients so that bad legislation which harms an industry or other group isn't written out of ignorance. But, don't we elect and pay Congressmen to write the actual legislation, as required by the U.S. Constitution? Apparently, not only are we looking at Conservatives who have been elected by no one pretty much running the place, but THEY, not our elected lawmakers, are now the ones writing the laws.
The laws we are seeing, from the Bankrupcty reform bill to the Energy bill to the Medicare prescription drug bill, have been written and prepackaged for delivery to the hill, and about all that Tom DeLay and Denny Hastert have had to do is rubber stamp them through Congress without any significant changes. Of course, as we have seen before, one tactic that they use frequently is to deliver bills that are thousands of pages long (and we now know, are written by industry lobbyists with offices on K Street instead of in Capital Hill offices) to Democrats and those Republicans not in the leadership the night before they are to be voted on and then limit debate to an hour or two. And, of course, Democratic proposals made in committee, never see the light of day and amendments or competing bills offered on the floor are invariably voted down (which the majority certainly has the right to do, I would just question how many of them have even read, since we now know they haven't written, the bills they are pushing instead.)
Even if one IS a conservative Republican, shouldn't the idea that our Congressmen can no longer be troubled to even write the laws, the most basic duty that they should be attending to, be just a bit disturbing?
I guess with all those vacations, fundraising trips and lobbyist-paid junkets to play golf in Scotland, the life of a Congressman is a busy one, so something had to go!
Thursday, September 29, 2005
A second chance to elect an honest leadership, and they still blow it.
Credit to this story goes to Dorsano, who posted it on the comments section of one of my other threads, and to my county chair, Ken Smith, who mentioned it at tonight's meeting of our county party.
Since Tom DeLay has been forced to step down due to his indictment yesterday, he has been replaced by Republican whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, who has been named as one of the thirteen most corrupt congressmen and Senators in Washington by the Citizens for Ethics and Responsiblity in Washington. Note that eleven of the thirteen are Republicans (and that of the two Democrats on the list, one, William Jefferson, is a classic 'DINO,' most recently breaking ranks with the Democratic leadership to join the Republican House inquiry on Katrina-- an inquiry boycotted by House Democrats because it promises to be a whitewash, in contrast to the 9/11 style commission that the Democratic leadership has called for).
According to the report,
only hours after Rep. Blunt assumed the role of Majority Whip – he tried to secretly insert a provision into Homeland Security legislation that would have benefitted Philip Morris (now Altria), at the expense of competitors.
In addition, Rep. Blunt’s son Andrew lobbies on behalf of Philip Morris (now Altria), a major client he picked up only four years out of law school. Notably, Altria is Rep. Blunt’s largest campaign contributor, having donated more than $270,000 to political committees tied to him....
Members of the House are prohibited from "taking any official actions for the prospect of personal gain for themselves or anyone else." 5 CFR §2635.702(a). By pushing for legislation that would benefit Philip Morris and UPS, and, as a consequence, his then-girlfriend and his son, Rep. Blunt may have violated this provision.
Federal law also prohibits public officials from directly or indirectly demanding, seeking, receiving, accepting or agreeing to receive or accept anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. If Rep. Blunt accepted campaign contributions from Philip Morris, FedEx or UPS in exchange for legislative assistance, he may have violated the bribery statute."
There is also a lot in there about other connections that might be considered as nepotism. Oh, and there is of course the tie to Jack Abramoff (who as I have posted before is now facing serious campaign fraud charges and has not been ruled out as a suspect in a murder).
Rep. Blunt and his staff have close connections to uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is the subject of criminal and congressional probes. In June 2003, Mr. Abramoff persuaded Majority Leader Tom DeLay to organize a letter, co-signed by Speaker Hastert, Whip Roy Blunt, and Deputy Whip Eric Cantor, that endorsed a view of gambling law benefitting Mr. Abramoff’s client, the Louisiana Coushatta, by blocking gambling competition by another tribe. Mr. Abramoff has donated $8,500 to Rep. Blunt’s leadership PAC, Rely on Your Beliefs.
If, as it appears, Rep. Blunt was accepting campaign contributions from Mr. Abramoff in exchange for using his official position so support a view of gambling law that would benefit Mr. Abramoff’s client, he would be in violation of the law.
Now, we have heard over and over how the Republicans are the party of morality. And, I understand that there will always be a handful of bad apples anywhere (although just by sheer numbers, it seems as though for the GOP lately, it is quite a few more than a 'handful.'-- I blogged on it the other day, and with former Illinois governor George Ryan's bribery trial slated to begin this week, it seems that we may soon have as many as four current or recent Republican governors either in prison or convicted of bribery or otherwise using their office for personal gain).
But I would like to know why Republicans in Congress (several of whom are themselves currently being investigated by federal or state officials) elect people like Bill Frist, Tom DeLay and Roy Blunt to serve as their LEADERS.
Possibility # 1: The Republicans know these guys are corrupt, but they only have a problem with corruption when it involves Democrats.
Possibility # 2: The Republicans in Congress are having a really tough time finding enough honest people to run for leadership positions, because so many of them are corrupt.
Possibility # 3: Even if they are honest, corruption is so pervasive on the Republican side of the aisle that they don't believe that there is anything wrong with this kind of behavior.
Possibility # 4: The Republicans in Congress are just plain stupid, and their judgement in selecting leaders makes Lynndie England look like a genius when picking Boy Friends.
So which one is it?
Since Tom DeLay has been forced to step down due to his indictment yesterday, he has been replaced by Republican whip Roy Blunt of Missouri, who has been named as one of the thirteen most corrupt congressmen and Senators in Washington by the Citizens for Ethics and Responsiblity in Washington. Note that eleven of the thirteen are Republicans (and that of the two Democrats on the list, one, William Jefferson, is a classic 'DINO,' most recently breaking ranks with the Democratic leadership to join the Republican House inquiry on Katrina-- an inquiry boycotted by House Democrats because it promises to be a whitewash, in contrast to the 9/11 style commission that the Democratic leadership has called for).
According to the report,
only hours after Rep. Blunt assumed the role of Majority Whip – he tried to secretly insert a provision into Homeland Security legislation that would have benefitted Philip Morris (now Altria), at the expense of competitors.
In addition, Rep. Blunt’s son Andrew lobbies on behalf of Philip Morris (now Altria), a major client he picked up only four years out of law school. Notably, Altria is Rep. Blunt’s largest campaign contributor, having donated more than $270,000 to political committees tied to him....
Members of the House are prohibited from "taking any official actions for the prospect of personal gain for themselves or anyone else." 5 CFR §2635.702(a). By pushing for legislation that would benefit Philip Morris and UPS, and, as a consequence, his then-girlfriend and his son, Rep. Blunt may have violated this provision.
Federal law also prohibits public officials from directly or indirectly demanding, seeking, receiving, accepting or agreeing to receive or accept anything of value in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act. If Rep. Blunt accepted campaign contributions from Philip Morris, FedEx or UPS in exchange for legislative assistance, he may have violated the bribery statute."
There is also a lot in there about other connections that might be considered as nepotism. Oh, and there is of course the tie to Jack Abramoff (who as I have posted before is now facing serious campaign fraud charges and has not been ruled out as a suspect in a murder).
Rep. Blunt and his staff have close connections to uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is the subject of criminal and congressional probes. In June 2003, Mr. Abramoff persuaded Majority Leader Tom DeLay to organize a letter, co-signed by Speaker Hastert, Whip Roy Blunt, and Deputy Whip Eric Cantor, that endorsed a view of gambling law benefitting Mr. Abramoff’s client, the Louisiana Coushatta, by blocking gambling competition by another tribe. Mr. Abramoff has donated $8,500 to Rep. Blunt’s leadership PAC, Rely on Your Beliefs.
If, as it appears, Rep. Blunt was accepting campaign contributions from Mr. Abramoff in exchange for using his official position so support a view of gambling law that would benefit Mr. Abramoff’s client, he would be in violation of the law.
Now, we have heard over and over how the Republicans are the party of morality. And, I understand that there will always be a handful of bad apples anywhere (although just by sheer numbers, it seems as though for the GOP lately, it is quite a few more than a 'handful.'-- I blogged on it the other day, and with former Illinois governor George Ryan's bribery trial slated to begin this week, it seems that we may soon have as many as four current or recent Republican governors either in prison or convicted of bribery or otherwise using their office for personal gain).
But I would like to know why Republicans in Congress (several of whom are themselves currently being investigated by federal or state officials) elect people like Bill Frist, Tom DeLay and Roy Blunt to serve as their LEADERS.
Possibility # 1: The Republicans know these guys are corrupt, but they only have a problem with corruption when it involves Democrats.
Possibility # 2: The Republicans in Congress are having a really tough time finding enough honest people to run for leadership positions, because so many of them are corrupt.
Possibility # 3: Even if they are honest, corruption is so pervasive on the Republican side of the aisle that they don't believe that there is anything wrong with this kind of behavior.
Possibility # 4: The Republicans in Congress are just plain stupid, and their judgement in selecting leaders makes Lynndie England look like a genius when picking Boy Friends.
So which one is it?
Partisan is in the eye of the beholder
Tom Delay, after being indicted by a Texas grand jury based on evidence presented by Travis county District Attorney Ronnie Earle, called Earle, who is a Democrat, a 'partisan zealot' and suggested that the charges were politically motivated. Well, were they?
Just ask Jim Mattox if he thinks so. In 1983, Mattox, a Democrat, was the Attorney General of the State of Texas, and was expected to run for Governor of that state.
That year, the district attorney in Austin, Ronnie Earle, indicted Mattox on bribery charges. He was acquitted, but the damage was done. Mattox had spent $300,000 on attorneys. His political career began to peter out.
Fred Lewis, director of Campaigns for People, an Austin group that works to reduce the influence of money on government, called the politics-as-usual defense the "standard response" here to an Earle indictment.
"Every single person he has indicted, Democrat or Republican, has claimed politics," Lewis said. "That's what people don't understand. I think Ronnie Earle has just done his job. The people that are criticizing the indictments don't know one thing about Texas law or the facts. And frankly, they need to be quiet and let the criminal justice process work."
In fact, of the fifteen politicians that Earle has indicted since he began his career, twelve have been Democrats!!
Of course DeLay, the quintessential attack dog, who blew up some minor questions about Bill Clinton's earlier infidelities into national scandals, will call it a partisan indictment. What else can he do? Say, 'yeah, I did it, they got me, I resign.'?
Like that will happen.
You can call Ronnie Earle a lot of things, but the facts just don't support that 'partisan' is one of them.
Just ask Jim Mattox if he thinks so. In 1983, Mattox, a Democrat, was the Attorney General of the State of Texas, and was expected to run for Governor of that state.
That year, the district attorney in Austin, Ronnie Earle, indicted Mattox on bribery charges. He was acquitted, but the damage was done. Mattox had spent $300,000 on attorneys. His political career began to peter out.
Fred Lewis, director of Campaigns for People, an Austin group that works to reduce the influence of money on government, called the politics-as-usual defense the "standard response" here to an Earle indictment.
"Every single person he has indicted, Democrat or Republican, has claimed politics," Lewis said. "That's what people don't understand. I think Ronnie Earle has just done his job. The people that are criticizing the indictments don't know one thing about Texas law or the facts. And frankly, they need to be quiet and let the criminal justice process work."
In fact, of the fifteen politicians that Earle has indicted since he began his career, twelve have been Democrats!!
Of course DeLay, the quintessential attack dog, who blew up some minor questions about Bill Clinton's earlier infidelities into national scandals, will call it a partisan indictment. What else can he do? Say, 'yeah, I did it, they got me, I resign.'?
Like that will happen.
You can call Ronnie Earle a lot of things, but the facts just don't support that 'partisan' is one of them.
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Dover, PA vs. Darwin update
The other day, I blogged on the trial now going on in a Dover, Pennsylvania courthouse Has the 'monkey' from the scopes trial been elected to the school board?
Well, today a scientist confirmed that the problem with Intelligent Design is that it hasn't been held up to the standard that is expected in science. Dr. Robert T. Pennock, a Professor of Science and Philosophy at the University of Michigan, testified,
"As scientists go about their business, they follow a method,..."Intelligent design wants to reject that and so it doesn't really fall within the purview of science."
Gee, the scientific method. Two years ago, one of my then second grade daughters won a 'best of show' in our local science fair while FOLLOWING the scientific method in her project. By the time she was done, she understood the need to TEST a hypothesis. I guess that means that she knows more than six members of the Dover, Pennsylvania school board.
Also during the trial, a judge agreed to limit questioning of two reporters who wrote that during the October 2004 board meeting when the school board voted to incorporate Intelligent Design into the curriculum, the board members had actually discussed Creationism, to verifying the accuracy of their stories.
We will stay on top of this trial as it unfolds.
Well, today a scientist confirmed that the problem with Intelligent Design is that it hasn't been held up to the standard that is expected in science. Dr. Robert T. Pennock, a Professor of Science and Philosophy at the University of Michigan, testified,
"As scientists go about their business, they follow a method,..."Intelligent design wants to reject that and so it doesn't really fall within the purview of science."
Gee, the scientific method. Two years ago, one of my then second grade daughters won a 'best of show' in our local science fair while FOLLOWING the scientific method in her project. By the time she was done, she understood the need to TEST a hypothesis. I guess that means that she knows more than six members of the Dover, Pennsylvania school board.
Also during the trial, a judge agreed to limit questioning of two reporters who wrote that during the October 2004 board meeting when the school board voted to incorporate Intelligent Design into the curriculum, the board members had actually discussed Creationism, to verifying the accuracy of their stories.
We will stay on top of this trial as it unfolds.
Still looking for the 'virtues'
Credit to Tedski over at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion for this one.
Looks like our old friend Bill Bennett, the former Reagan Cabinet Official who wrote the 'Book of Virtues,' a conservative treatise on morality, and then took millions of dollars of the profits from the book and blew it on a Las Vegas gambling binge is at it again.
In response to a caller on his radio show who suggested that the Social Security taxes paid by people who have been aborted in the past thirty years would have solved the Social Security solvency problem, Bennett brushed off the 'far reaching extrapolation' but then responded that "If you wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.
I don't know if this is some kind of sick fantasy that Bill Bennett has, but for him to say something like this on his radio program really lays open the true nature of the right in this country.
He then tried to cover himself by saying that it would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.
If you think that it is impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible, then WHY EVEN BRING IT UP, BILL?
Looks like our old friend Bill Bennett, the former Reagan Cabinet Official who wrote the 'Book of Virtues,' a conservative treatise on morality, and then took millions of dollars of the profits from the book and blew it on a Las Vegas gambling binge is at it again.
In response to a caller on his radio show who suggested that the Social Security taxes paid by people who have been aborted in the past thirty years would have solved the Social Security solvency problem, Bennett brushed off the 'far reaching extrapolation' but then responded that "If you wanted to reduce crime ... if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.
I don't know if this is some kind of sick fantasy that Bill Bennett has, but for him to say something like this on his radio program really lays open the true nature of the right in this country.
He then tried to cover himself by saying that it would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.
If you think that it is impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible, then WHY EVEN BRING IT UP, BILL?
And just think, House Republicans elected Tom DeLay as their LEADER!!
The problem with blogging, as I did yesterday, about the widespread corruption among Republican leaders is that news comes in too much and too fast, to prevent such a post from quickly becoming dated.
Last night, a new report on Frist surfaced, so I dutifully updated the blog post.
So then today, it turns out that DeLay, who I said yesterday is still being investigated, was indicted by the same grand jury that had previously indicted several of his associates. DeLay has stepped aside 'temporarily' from his Republican leader's job.
Of course, DeLay, whose past shows that he is always ready to respond to any criticism or negative news with personal attacks, was quick to denounce Prosecutor Richard Earle as a 'partisan.' Never mind that fact that DeLay is being investigated by the house ethics committee as well, and that all of the stuff he is being indicted on has already been unearthed and appeared in the press, or the fact that state government in Texas is under complete control of Republicans, or the fact that the grand jury, presumably composed of adult men and women only issues indictments when they see there is some evidence to warrant it. No, according to Tom, none of that is relevant, and it is all Earle's fault, a 'partisan witch-hunt.'
I remember once being at a lunch where DeLay spoke (at a conference on healthcare organized by conservatives and where I was pretty much the only liberal in the room) and I can tell you, having listened to the man personally, he sees everything in black and white. If you believe Tom, he is being persecuted by the evil Democrats (and since Earle is about the only one left in Texas, he has to be the one persecuting DeLay).
I think I will have to get on to a different subject besides GOP corruption, because otherwise I will have to update it some more by tomorrow.
Last night, a new report on Frist surfaced, so I dutifully updated the blog post.
So then today, it turns out that DeLay, who I said yesterday is still being investigated, was indicted by the same grand jury that had previously indicted several of his associates. DeLay has stepped aside 'temporarily' from his Republican leader's job.
Of course, DeLay, whose past shows that he is always ready to respond to any criticism or negative news with personal attacks, was quick to denounce Prosecutor Richard Earle as a 'partisan.' Never mind that fact that DeLay is being investigated by the house ethics committee as well, and that all of the stuff he is being indicted on has already been unearthed and appeared in the press, or the fact that state government in Texas is under complete control of Republicans, or the fact that the grand jury, presumably composed of adult men and women only issues indictments when they see there is some evidence to warrant it. No, according to Tom, none of that is relevant, and it is all Earle's fault, a 'partisan witch-hunt.'
I remember once being at a lunch where DeLay spoke (at a conference on healthcare organized by conservatives and where I was pretty much the only liberal in the room) and I can tell you, having listened to the man personally, he sees everything in black and white. If you believe Tom, he is being persecuted by the evil Democrats (and since Earle is about the only one left in Texas, he has to be the one persecuting DeLay).
I think I will have to get on to a different subject besides GOP corruption, because otherwise I will have to update it some more by tomorrow.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
The Republicans have nearly absolute power, and an old adage is proven right.
The sleaze around Republicans just keeps getting deeper and deeper.
The more we learn about the investigation into Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and his apparent insider sale of stock that he wasn't even supposed to know he had, the more unbelievable his claims about denial seem.
But it isn't just Frist. There are now so many corrupt Republicans around, that I will limit my discussion to those not just with mere ethics complaints, but who are either the active targets of investigations by Federal authorities, or who are under or who have been implicated by persons now under indictment, or who have recently been convicted of actual crimes. Oh, and keep in mind that the federal authorities in question (as well as Texas state authorities) are all Republicans, so these are not partisan witchhunts.)
Over on the house side, there is, or course Tom DeLay. Two groups with ties to DeLay were recently indicted for breaking the law in order to influence the 2002 Congressional elections (and successfully, at that). Aside from the fact that this shows that the Republican pickup of seats in Texas was financed illegally, it is also the case that DeLay is not yet out of the woods, as the case will procede to trial and Mr. DeLay is still subject to being indicted himself.
Also, Mr. DeLay's association with lobbyist Jack Abramoff has spattered a number of Republican congressmen who got questionable money from DeLay's moneyraising machine or accepted questionable gifts, most notably Bob Ney, R-OH (I blogged about this in a previous post, Field of Greed) and noted that Ney also has to answer why he put statements on behalf of Abramoff into the congressional record attacking a man who was subsequently shot to death-- and who Abramoff and partner Adam Kidan have not been cleared of as possible suspects in the murder.) Also, more DeLay money went to Congressman Duke Cunningham, R-CA, who is also under investigation by Federal authorities for accepting 'gifts' in exchange for his vote.
At the state level, we have a pair of Republican governors hip deep in trouble. Ohio Governor Bob Taft last month pleaded guilty to four charges of accepting unauthorized gifts. He may have been smart to do so, in contrast to the slow boil that Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher is now feeling. Wonder if he will soon join former Republican governor Roy Rowland of Connecticut behind bars?
Of course, then there is Karl Rove, now being investigated by a Special Prosecutor for what is effectively an act of Treason against the United States of America.
For a rundown on other corruption cases, visit Banana Republicans on PERRspectives.com.
Now, I'm not saying there has never been a Democrat caught with his hand in the cookie jar (or more likely, given the recent history of scandals, his pants unzipped like Fletcher's Democratic predecessor in the Kentucky statehouse), but right at the moment, it is the Republicans who have proven overwhelmingly unworthy of the public responsibility with which they have been entrusted.
UPDATE (and a timely one at that):
The New York Times is reporting today that the Inspector General of the United States is investigating the Bush administration for demoting the Federal Prosecutor over Guam in 2002 after he began an investigation of Abramoff (then a big Republican fundraiser and a Bush Pioneer).
The more we learn about the investigation into Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and his apparent insider sale of stock that he wasn't even supposed to know he had, the more unbelievable his claims about denial seem.
But it isn't just Frist. There are now so many corrupt Republicans around, that I will limit my discussion to those not just with mere ethics complaints, but who are either the active targets of investigations by Federal authorities, or who are under or who have been implicated by persons now under indictment, or who have recently been convicted of actual crimes. Oh, and keep in mind that the federal authorities in question (as well as Texas state authorities) are all Republicans, so these are not partisan witchhunts.)
Over on the house side, there is, or course Tom DeLay. Two groups with ties to DeLay were recently indicted for breaking the law in order to influence the 2002 Congressional elections (and successfully, at that). Aside from the fact that this shows that the Republican pickup of seats in Texas was financed illegally, it is also the case that DeLay is not yet out of the woods, as the case will procede to trial and Mr. DeLay is still subject to being indicted himself.
Also, Mr. DeLay's association with lobbyist Jack Abramoff has spattered a number of Republican congressmen who got questionable money from DeLay's moneyraising machine or accepted questionable gifts, most notably Bob Ney, R-OH (I blogged about this in a previous post, Field of Greed) and noted that Ney also has to answer why he put statements on behalf of Abramoff into the congressional record attacking a man who was subsequently shot to death-- and who Abramoff and partner Adam Kidan have not been cleared of as possible suspects in the murder.) Also, more DeLay money went to Congressman Duke Cunningham, R-CA, who is also under investigation by Federal authorities for accepting 'gifts' in exchange for his vote.
At the state level, we have a pair of Republican governors hip deep in trouble. Ohio Governor Bob Taft last month pleaded guilty to four charges of accepting unauthorized gifts. He may have been smart to do so, in contrast to the slow boil that Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher is now feeling. Wonder if he will soon join former Republican governor Roy Rowland of Connecticut behind bars?
Of course, then there is Karl Rove, now being investigated by a Special Prosecutor for what is effectively an act of Treason against the United States of America.
For a rundown on other corruption cases, visit Banana Republicans on PERRspectives.com.
Now, I'm not saying there has never been a Democrat caught with his hand in the cookie jar (or more likely, given the recent history of scandals, his pants unzipped like Fletcher's Democratic predecessor in the Kentucky statehouse), but right at the moment, it is the Republicans who have proven overwhelmingly unworthy of the public responsibility with which they have been entrusted.
UPDATE (and a timely one at that):
The New York Times is reporting today that the Inspector General of the United States is investigating the Bush administration for demoting the Federal Prosecutor over Guam in 2002 after he began an investigation of Abramoff (then a big Republican fundraiser and a Bush Pioneer).
Monday, September 26, 2005
Has the 'monkey' from the Scopes trial been elected to the school board?
(actual disclaimer put in textbooks by the Cobb County (Georgia) school board, recently declared unconstitutional at a cost of $209,000 to the school district-- a severe pinch for a small rural school district.)
In fact, this is relatively tame compared to the actions of the Dover, Pennyslvania school board, which has expressly mandated that
9th grade biology students “will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution, including, but not limited to, intelligent design.”
Today, in a Pennsylvania courthouse, arguments were put forward for and against the new version of the Dover school board science curriculum.
I have blogged before on why, without any scientific evidence to back it up, the theory of 'Intelligent Design' belongs in a philosophy class rather than a science class. This is despite my own personal belief that it may very well be true, but to simply allow it or any other untested hypothesis into a science classroom without holding it to the same scientific standard as other science is held to, is a disservice to American students at a time of an increasingly competitive international research field.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
This is what happens when you get the government out of the regulatory business
The whole idea of the free market operating, without regulation by the government, has always been a cornerstone of conservative economic theory. So, it was a little surprising to hear about the pending investigation by the FTC into price gouging by oil companies in the wake of Katrina. The investigation comes at the result of a request by a group of eight Democratic governors.
Of course, the oil industry has gotten its way more than any other, between the votes of Republicans and oil state Democrats. And that includes deregulation. And, with two oilmen as President and Vice President, they have their way at the top as well. Of course, during the 2000 election, when oil prices were as high as $1.30 a gallon nationally, one argument that was advanced was that two oilmen would know a few things about energy policy, so they could get that down if they got their energy bill passed. Well, it's passed, including ANWR drilling, and even before Katrina, the price of gas had doubled (man, what I wouldn't give for $1.30 a gallon). Of course, oil companies have blamed many things for this, especially the fact that no refineries have been built in America for ten years, which they blame on environmentalists. Well, what about that one?
The answer is found in internal memos from Mobil, Texaco, and Chevron from several years ago which all say essentially the same thing. The thing they propose is, to intentionally limit the number of refineries in order to drive up gas prices and then, when it happens, to blame environmentalists.
And it's all right there in their own memos.
And, how has the refinery shortage and the subsequent disasters affected the oil industry? Not a bit. Oil companies have seen their stock prices about double so far this year on record profits. Station owners, at the front edge of customer complaints, typically make only pennies a gallon, and in fact crude oil prices haven't even risen by as high a percentage as gasoline prices have.
This is a perfect example of why deregulation and 'trusting' corporations to police themselves without government oversight is a bad idea.
Of course, the oil industry has gotten its way more than any other, between the votes of Republicans and oil state Democrats. And that includes deregulation. And, with two oilmen as President and Vice President, they have their way at the top as well. Of course, during the 2000 election, when oil prices were as high as $1.30 a gallon nationally, one argument that was advanced was that two oilmen would know a few things about energy policy, so they could get that down if they got their energy bill passed. Well, it's passed, including ANWR drilling, and even before Katrina, the price of gas had doubled (man, what I wouldn't give for $1.30 a gallon). Of course, oil companies have blamed many things for this, especially the fact that no refineries have been built in America for ten years, which they blame on environmentalists. Well, what about that one?
The answer is found in internal memos from Mobil, Texaco, and Chevron from several years ago which all say essentially the same thing. The thing they propose is, to intentionally limit the number of refineries in order to drive up gas prices and then, when it happens, to blame environmentalists.
And it's all right there in their own memos.
And, how has the refinery shortage and the subsequent disasters affected the oil industry? Not a bit. Oil companies have seen their stock prices about double so far this year on record profits. Station owners, at the front edge of customer complaints, typically make only pennies a gallon, and in fact crude oil prices haven't even risen by as high a percentage as gasoline prices have.
This is a perfect example of why deregulation and 'trusting' corporations to police themselves without government oversight is a bad idea.
Karl Rove's lawyer must be taking Rolaids right now.
Last week, Karl Rove was pretty candid about a number of topics. He said these things at a conference, where the press was not invited, but a great number of public figures were.
He said (pretty much in order)
On Katrina: The only mistake we made with Katrina was not overriding the local government...
Which local government? With hundreds dead in five states, there were quite a few local governments involved. And overrule how? If you, Karl, had a plan to evacuate, who was in place to handle it? As it was, FEMA took two weeks to even show up in parts of southern Mississippi. Perhaps you mean overrule the local governments in El Mirage, Arizona and San Diego, California as in tell them to call off their police overtime since those are the locations where the President actually was during the first two critical days of Katrina?
Karl's nose is growing longer on that one.
On The Anti-War Movement: Cindy Sheehan is a clown. There is no real anti-war movement.
I'll let today's demonstration answer that. Of course, police, especially Washington police, are used to people overstating crowd sizes, so the comment of Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey is significant. Ramsey, noting that organizers had hoped to draw 100,000 people, said, “I think they probably hit that.” Obviously this has gone way beyond Cindy. She may have started it, but the whole anti-war movement grew beyond her last month, when she had to leave her camp for several days after her mother had a stroke. And the camp grew bigger without her.
On Bush's Low Poll Numbers: We have not been good at explaining the success in Iraq. Polls go up and down and don't mean anything
What success in Iraq? We have fought for two years, at a quarter of a trillion dollars, 1900 American troops killed and over ten thousand wounded, and the most we can hope for is that the Iraqis will approve the new constitution and form an Iranian style republic where Sharia is the law and women can't even go to high school. And that is the BEST outcome we can realistically hope for. Hmmm. Wasn't this what the Reagan administration's greatest fear was in the 1980's when they supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war?
This is only success by the standards of the Bush administration, which has failed on the economy, jobs, bringing the 9/11 perpertrators to justice, healthcare, protecting the public, and education.
And most amazing of all:
On Judy Miller And Plamegate: Judy Miller is in jail for reasons I don't really understand...
On Joe Wilson: Joe Wilson and I attend the same church but Joe goes to the wacky mass...
Rove is being investigated by a special prosecutor to see if he committed treason by intentionally blowing the cover of a CIA agent, and he is so arrogant that he has the nerve to crack jokes about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? You'd think at least his lawyer would have told him to not comment on it.
Well, I have a quote he may have heard in that church.
Pride cometh before the fall. And some at the conference should know. Among the attendees was Bob Novak (who Rove allegedly leaked the story to, but who has been since following the advice of HIS attorney and keeping his mouth shut about it), and Martha Stewart, whose recent experience probably had her wondering about his precarious perch.
He said (pretty much in order)
On Katrina: The only mistake we made with Katrina was not overriding the local government...
Which local government? With hundreds dead in five states, there were quite a few local governments involved. And overrule how? If you, Karl, had a plan to evacuate, who was in place to handle it? As it was, FEMA took two weeks to even show up in parts of southern Mississippi. Perhaps you mean overrule the local governments in El Mirage, Arizona and San Diego, California as in tell them to call off their police overtime since those are the locations where the President actually was during the first two critical days of Katrina?
Karl's nose is growing longer on that one.
On The Anti-War Movement: Cindy Sheehan is a clown. There is no real anti-war movement.
I'll let today's demonstration answer that. Of course, police, especially Washington police, are used to people overstating crowd sizes, so the comment of Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey is significant. Ramsey, noting that organizers had hoped to draw 100,000 people, said, “I think they probably hit that.” Obviously this has gone way beyond Cindy. She may have started it, but the whole anti-war movement grew beyond her last month, when she had to leave her camp for several days after her mother had a stroke. And the camp grew bigger without her.
On Bush's Low Poll Numbers: We have not been good at explaining the success in Iraq. Polls go up and down and don't mean anything
What success in Iraq? We have fought for two years, at a quarter of a trillion dollars, 1900 American troops killed and over ten thousand wounded, and the most we can hope for is that the Iraqis will approve the new constitution and form an Iranian style republic where Sharia is the law and women can't even go to high school. And that is the BEST outcome we can realistically hope for. Hmmm. Wasn't this what the Reagan administration's greatest fear was in the 1980's when they supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war?
This is only success by the standards of the Bush administration, which has failed on the economy, jobs, bringing the 9/11 perpertrators to justice, healthcare, protecting the public, and education.
And most amazing of all:
On Judy Miller And Plamegate: Judy Miller is in jail for reasons I don't really understand...
On Joe Wilson: Joe Wilson and I attend the same church but Joe goes to the wacky mass...
Rove is being investigated by a special prosecutor to see if he committed treason by intentionally blowing the cover of a CIA agent, and he is so arrogant that he has the nerve to crack jokes about Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame? You'd think at least his lawyer would have told him to not comment on it.
Well, I have a quote he may have heard in that church.
Pride cometh before the fall. And some at the conference should know. Among the attendees was Bob Novak (who Rove allegedly leaked the story to, but who has been since following the advice of HIS attorney and keeping his mouth shut about it), and Martha Stewart, whose recent experience probably had her wondering about his precarious perch.
Friday, September 23, 2005
The trust wasn't blind, so why do some Republicans blindly trust this guy?
It now turns out that the Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's sale of stock which was supposedly in a blind trust.
The sale raised eyebrows because Frist would have had intimate knowledge of the company, Hospital Corporation of America, founded by his father, and the sale was just ahead of a major drop in the stock's price caused by a disappointing earnings report. In fact, other insiders are also being investigated.
More concerning, however, is that Frist apparently knew that it was in his blind trust. What good is a blind trust (designed to avoid conflict of interest by government officials who have to pass legislation that could affect various companies) if it isn't actually blind? How could we trust the Senate Majority Leader if he can't even follow a simple rule like not guiding his blind trust?
I've blogged in the past about how Bill Frist is poll driven and willing to change positions for political gain so now it seems apparently he is corrupt also.
And this is the guy who Republicans in the Senate asked to lead them (and who himself plans to run for President in 2008).
The sale raised eyebrows because Frist would have had intimate knowledge of the company, Hospital Corporation of America, founded by his father, and the sale was just ahead of a major drop in the stock's price caused by a disappointing earnings report. In fact, other insiders are also being investigated.
More concerning, however, is that Frist apparently knew that it was in his blind trust. What good is a blind trust (designed to avoid conflict of interest by government officials who have to pass legislation that could affect various companies) if it isn't actually blind? How could we trust the Senate Majority Leader if he can't even follow a simple rule like not guiding his blind trust?
I've blogged in the past about how Bill Frist is poll driven and willing to change positions for political gain so now it seems apparently he is corrupt also.
And this is the guy who Republicans in the Senate asked to lead them (and who himself plans to run for President in 2008).
A scary situation developing in and around Houston.
The pictures coming from CNN are disturbing to say the least.
After millions of people were told to evacuate Galveston and Houston, the highways out have turned into parking lots, with fuel stations closed, and cars which have run out of gas idling their engines running out of gas on the road. The airports are packed, and people can't get out because the airport security checkpoints are backed up because so many workers didn't report to work-- apparently heeding the evacuation order and now being trapped on the highways. Today, the temperatures along I-45 north of Houston were near 100 degrees, and some people have moved only a few miles in 12 hours.
Considering how much advance notice Texas officials had, and the experience of watching things break down during Katrina, you'd think they would at least have made sure that there were enough fuel stations open (even if they had to send state troopers to operate the stations).
Let's all pray that the storm misses Houston and the surrounding area, because the thought of hundreds of thousands of people being stuck on the open road during a hurricane with no protection other than their car is truly frightening.
UPDATE: It appears as of this (Friday) morning that they have gotten the traffic moving, and the hurricane is steering away from Houston (although causing more flooding in an empty New Orleans).
After millions of people were told to evacuate Galveston and Houston, the highways out have turned into parking lots, with fuel stations closed, and cars which have run out of gas idling their engines running out of gas on the road. The airports are packed, and people can't get out because the airport security checkpoints are backed up because so many workers didn't report to work-- apparently heeding the evacuation order and now being trapped on the highways. Today, the temperatures along I-45 north of Houston were near 100 degrees, and some people have moved only a few miles in 12 hours.
Considering how much advance notice Texas officials had, and the experience of watching things break down during Katrina, you'd think they would at least have made sure that there were enough fuel stations open (even if they had to send state troopers to operate the stations).
Let's all pray that the storm misses Houston and the surrounding area, because the thought of hundreds of thousands of people being stuck on the open road during a hurricane with no protection other than their car is truly frightening.
UPDATE: It appears as of this (Friday) morning that they have gotten the traffic moving, and the hurricane is steering away from Houston (although causing more flooding in an empty New Orleans).
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Of Men in Mice
I have blogged before on scientific issues and how I have been concerned that we are losing our edge in science. On the other hand, it is not all bad news. When science is held back in the U.S. by cuts in budgets for basic research, and ideologically motivated decisions to attack science, it is nice to realize that there is a big world out there where research continues unabated.
With this in mind, I was heartened to read a story on chromosome transplants into mice.
The research, carried out by Elizabeth Fisher at the Institute of Neurology and Victor Tybulewicz at the National Institute for Medical Research in London, transplants a particular sequence of human genes into mice. The sequence in question is the same one that is associated with Down's syndrome. In addition, according to Dr Tybulewicz, genetic tests on the mice, which will systematically knock out different genes on the transplanted chromosome, will help identify which gene or genes cause each of the symptoms common to people with Down's syndrome. He said, "This should illuminate which genes lead to heart defects, the higher risk of leukaemia and early onset Alzheimer's,"
This is exciting news, and it is nice to see that basic research is moving forward with the hope of someday providing the cures that will help billions of people.
With this in mind, I was heartened to read a story on chromosome transplants into mice.
The research, carried out by Elizabeth Fisher at the Institute of Neurology and Victor Tybulewicz at the National Institute for Medical Research in London, transplants a particular sequence of human genes into mice. The sequence in question is the same one that is associated with Down's syndrome. In addition, according to Dr Tybulewicz, genetic tests on the mice, which will systematically knock out different genes on the transplanted chromosome, will help identify which gene or genes cause each of the symptoms common to people with Down's syndrome. He said, "This should illuminate which genes lead to heart defects, the higher risk of leukaemia and early onset Alzheimer's,"
This is exciting news, and it is nice to see that basic research is moving forward with the hope of someday providing the cures that will help billions of people.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
I don't usually plug candidates I can't vote for but these are extraordinary times
By now the use of dozens of NY riot police to break up a rally while Cindy Sheehan was speaking is all over the web (although 'oddly' missing from telecasts of the conservative mainstream media)you can read what Chuck has to say for a synopsis.
I would like to suggest that this is also somewhat rooted in New York politics. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican who was elected to succeed Rudy Giuliani in the wake of 9/11, is now facing a united opposition since Fernando Ferrer won the Democratic primary last week. Despite changing his positions toward the left in advance of the election, the mayor had a problem. With Ferrer getting all the press, Mayor Bloomberg had to do something dramatic to reclaim the stage. The anti-war rally was just the opportunity for him to do that.
Now I haven't posted as much as I would like on the nascent but growing anti-war movement (which is bigger than just Cindy Sheehan, although it organized around her and the President could have bought himself some time if he'd given her half an hour and sent her home happy last month, but it's too late for him on that).
However, this outrage has caused me to think that it may be a good idea for progressives who live outside of New York (and I generally don't get involved in political races outside my local area) to come together in support of Mr. Ferrer's 'Freddy and Goliath' campaign to oust the mayor. If you want to get involved go here. Also keep in mind that IF you live in NY City, then any contributions you make will be matched 6-1 by the NYC Campaign Finance Board, up to two hundred and fifty dollars.
I would like to suggest that this is also somewhat rooted in New York politics. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican who was elected to succeed Rudy Giuliani in the wake of 9/11, is now facing a united opposition since Fernando Ferrer won the Democratic primary last week. Despite changing his positions toward the left in advance of the election, the mayor had a problem. With Ferrer getting all the press, Mayor Bloomberg had to do something dramatic to reclaim the stage. The anti-war rally was just the opportunity for him to do that.
Now I haven't posted as much as I would like on the nascent but growing anti-war movement (which is bigger than just Cindy Sheehan, although it organized around her and the President could have bought himself some time if he'd given her half an hour and sent her home happy last month, but it's too late for him on that).
However, this outrage has caused me to think that it may be a good idea for progressives who live outside of New York (and I generally don't get involved in political races outside my local area) to come together in support of Mr. Ferrer's 'Freddy and Goliath' campaign to oust the mayor. If you want to get involved go here. Also keep in mind that IF you live in NY City, then any contributions you make will be matched 6-1 by the NYC Campaign Finance Board, up to two hundred and fifty dollars.
Eerily reminiscent words
Despite the best efforts of the administration to distance the war in Iraq from such comparisons, it seems that every week you hear about some comparison to Vietnam. Of course, the comparison is clear-- a protracted guerilla war in which the mission seems to change regularly (meaning there is no clearly defined mission).
However, a story out today compares the literal words right out of the mouth of Lyndon B. Johnson (1967) and George W. Bush (this year).
LBJ: "America is committed to the defense of South Vietnam until an honorable peace can be negotiated"...Despite the obstacles to victory, "We shall stay the course."
-- speech to the Tennessee Legislature on March 15, 1967.
Bush: "We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. And the job is this: We'll help the Iraqis develop a democracy."
--August 3, 2005
OK. Not quite the same. I do recall once learning the difference between 'shall' and 'will' in my grammar class. Not sure who has the correct usage.
If you read through the article, there are other comparisons between their words. One in my mind stands out.
"Be assured that the death of your son will have meaning," Johnson told the parents of a posthumous recipient of the Medal of Honor during a Rose Garden ceremony on April 6, 1967. "For I give you also my solemn pledge that our country will persist — and will prevail — in the cause for which your boy died."
Speaking to military families in Idaho on Aug. 24, Bush said: "These brave men and women gave their lives for a cause that is just and necessary for the security of our country, and now we will honor their sacrifice by completing their mission."
Unable to justify our remaining there for any better reason, the purpose of these speeches seem to be to justify staying and losing more young Americans because of those who have already died.
Now I have had a number of friends (mostly Republicans, but also a couple of Democrats) tell me that we need to support the President during time of war.
I understand that position, but I wonder how many people had the same view 38 years ago, and how many more American soldiers died fighting in a dead end war because of it. It was the wrong position then, and it is the wrong position now.
However, a story out today compares the literal words right out of the mouth of Lyndon B. Johnson (1967) and George W. Bush (this year).
LBJ: "America is committed to the defense of South Vietnam until an honorable peace can be negotiated"...Despite the obstacles to victory, "We shall stay the course."
-- speech to the Tennessee Legislature on March 15, 1967.
Bush: "We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. And the job is this: We'll help the Iraqis develop a democracy."
--August 3, 2005
OK. Not quite the same. I do recall once learning the difference between 'shall' and 'will' in my grammar class. Not sure who has the correct usage.
If you read through the article, there are other comparisons between their words. One in my mind stands out.
"Be assured that the death of your son will have meaning," Johnson told the parents of a posthumous recipient of the Medal of Honor during a Rose Garden ceremony on April 6, 1967. "For I give you also my solemn pledge that our country will persist — and will prevail — in the cause for which your boy died."
Speaking to military families in Idaho on Aug. 24, Bush said: "These brave men and women gave their lives for a cause that is just and necessary for the security of our country, and now we will honor their sacrifice by completing their mission."
Unable to justify our remaining there for any better reason, the purpose of these speeches seem to be to justify staying and losing more young Americans because of those who have already died.
Now I have had a number of friends (mostly Republicans, but also a couple of Democrats) tell me that we need to support the President during time of war.
I understand that position, but I wonder how many people had the same view 38 years ago, and how many more American soldiers died fighting in a dead end war because of it. It was the wrong position then, and it is the wrong position now.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
No wonder the rest of the world thinks we are arrogant jerks.
Credit story to Buzzflash.
Just in case anyone thinks that since the President took responsibility for the Katrina disaster, the Federal Government has become any more responsible: a story in the Mirror says otherwise: Hundreds of tons of British food aid burned.
According to the article, HUNDREDS of tons of British food aid shipped to America for starving Hurricane Katrina survivors is to be burned.
US red tape is stopping it from reaching hungry evacuees.
Instead tons of the badly needed Nato ration packs, the same as those eaten by British troops in Iraq, has been condemned as unfit for human consumption.
And unless the bureaucratic mess is cleared up soon it could be sent for incineration.
One British aid worker last night called the move "sickening senselessness" and said furious colleagues were "spitting blood".
The food, which cost British taxpayers millions, is sitting idle in a huge warehouse after the Food and Drug Agency recalled it when it had already left to be distributed.
Scores of lorries headed back to a warehouse in Little Rock, Arkansas, to dump it at an FDA incineration plant.
Apparently the Food and Drug Administration recalled the food because of regulations in place regarding the importation of meat from Britain following a mad cow (BSE) scare several years ago. The aid worker addressed that issue directly :
"If they are trying to argue there is a BSE reason then that is ludicrously out of date. There is more BSE in the States than there ever was in Britain and UK meat has been safe for years."
The aid worker went on, "This is the most appalling act of sickening senselessness while people starve.
"The FDA has recalled aid from Britain because it has been condemned as unfit for human consumption, despite the fact that these are Nato approved rations of exactly the same type fed to British soldiers in Iraq.
"Under Nato, American soldiers are also entitled to eat such rations, yet the starving of the American South will see them go up in smoke because of FDA red tape madness."
So it is good enough for our soldiers in Iraq, but not for people on cots at evacuation centers. If that is true, then it looks even worse for this government.
The aid worker summed it up better than I could: "There will be a cloud of smoke above Little Rock soon - of burned food, of anger and of shame that the world's richest nation couldn't organise a p**s up in a brewery and lets Americans starve while they arrogantly observe petty regulations.
"Everyone is revolted by the chaotic shambles the US is making of this crisis. Guys from Unicef are walking around spitting blood.
And here is the kicker: After they spent all those millions donating aid to us that we decide is banned by regulations in America, then instead of burning it, couldn't we at least send it back to them?! Or if not that, then put it on the next plane to Sub-Saharan Africa or someplace else where people don't have enough to eat?
Boy, we have a bunch of pinheads running our government, and firing Michael Brown didn't solve the problem.
Just in case anyone thinks that since the President took responsibility for the Katrina disaster, the Federal Government has become any more responsible: a story in the Mirror says otherwise: Hundreds of tons of British food aid burned.
According to the article, HUNDREDS of tons of British food aid shipped to America for starving Hurricane Katrina survivors is to be burned.
US red tape is stopping it from reaching hungry evacuees.
Instead tons of the badly needed Nato ration packs, the same as those eaten by British troops in Iraq, has been condemned as unfit for human consumption.
And unless the bureaucratic mess is cleared up soon it could be sent for incineration.
One British aid worker last night called the move "sickening senselessness" and said furious colleagues were "spitting blood".
The food, which cost British taxpayers millions, is sitting idle in a huge warehouse after the Food and Drug Agency recalled it when it had already left to be distributed.
Scores of lorries headed back to a warehouse in Little Rock, Arkansas, to dump it at an FDA incineration plant.
Apparently the Food and Drug Administration recalled the food because of regulations in place regarding the importation of meat from Britain following a mad cow (BSE) scare several years ago. The aid worker addressed that issue directly :
"If they are trying to argue there is a BSE reason then that is ludicrously out of date. There is more BSE in the States than there ever was in Britain and UK meat has been safe for years."
The aid worker went on, "This is the most appalling act of sickening senselessness while people starve.
"The FDA has recalled aid from Britain because it has been condemned as unfit for human consumption, despite the fact that these are Nato approved rations of exactly the same type fed to British soldiers in Iraq.
"Under Nato, American soldiers are also entitled to eat such rations, yet the starving of the American South will see them go up in smoke because of FDA red tape madness."
So it is good enough for our soldiers in Iraq, but not for people on cots at evacuation centers. If that is true, then it looks even worse for this government.
The aid worker summed it up better than I could: "There will be a cloud of smoke above Little Rock soon - of burned food, of anger and of shame that the world's richest nation couldn't organise a p**s up in a brewery and lets Americans starve while they arrogantly observe petty regulations.
"Everyone is revolted by the chaotic shambles the US is making of this crisis. Guys from Unicef are walking around spitting blood.
And here is the kicker: After they spent all those millions donating aid to us that we decide is banned by regulations in America, then instead of burning it, couldn't we at least send it back to them?! Or if not that, then put it on the next plane to Sub-Saharan Africa or someplace else where people don't have enough to eat?
Boy, we have a bunch of pinheads running our government, and firing Michael Brown didn't solve the problem.
In memoriam
The Wiesenthal Center has announced the death of Simon Wiesenthal, in his sleep at his Vienna home at the age of 96.
Wiesenthal, a Holocaust survivor, devoted the rest of his life to tracking and finding Nazis and bringing them to justice. He made sure that none of them could sleep safely, knowing that they were always hunted.
A biography of Wiesenthal is found here.
Wiesenthal, a Holocaust survivor, devoted the rest of his life to tracking and finding Nazis and bringing them to justice. He made sure that none of them could sleep safely, knowing that they were always hunted.
A biography of Wiesenthal is found here.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Katrina now an excuse for-- achieving segregation.
CNN just ran a story about Kenner, Louisiana. The town is a New Orleans suburb that was damaged by Katrina, but not to the point of being uninhabitable. Except for one area.
The city has a sizable Hispanic population. According to the report, the mayor, Phil Capitano, has refused to open a shelter to house people living in one area of the city. The Hispanic area. It is also the only area where the power has not been turned on, and apparently, according to the CNN report, by the order of the mayor. The police chief,who was interviewed said that there was no reason he knew of why it could not be turned on. They even showed a confrontation between the police chief (who is one of the good guys, but doesn't have the final say on anything) and an angry resident about racism. The CNN report made it pretty clear: Pure and simple, the mayor wants a 'whites only' town. In fact, he has now ordered all of the Hispanic residents forcibly removed to another town 50 miles away (his excuse is so they can avoid Rita-- keep in mind that they all stayed during Katrina).
So, I did a little digging. I found on this site. According to the lead story,
La. officials probes pilfered donations
9/18/2005, 7:39 p.m. CT
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM
The Associated Press
KENNER, La. (AP) — Officials are responding to complaints that city workers helped themselves to cases of Gatorade, brand-new clothing and other donated items that were intended for victims of Hurricane Katrina.
This town is evil.
The city has a sizable Hispanic population. According to the report, the mayor, Phil Capitano, has refused to open a shelter to house people living in one area of the city. The Hispanic area. It is also the only area where the power has not been turned on, and apparently, according to the CNN report, by the order of the mayor. The police chief,who was interviewed said that there was no reason he knew of why it could not be turned on. They even showed a confrontation between the police chief (who is one of the good guys, but doesn't have the final say on anything) and an angry resident about racism. The CNN report made it pretty clear: Pure and simple, the mayor wants a 'whites only' town. In fact, he has now ordered all of the Hispanic residents forcibly removed to another town 50 miles away (his excuse is so they can avoid Rita-- keep in mind that they all stayed during Katrina).
So, I did a little digging. I found on this site. According to the lead story,
La. officials probes pilfered donations
9/18/2005, 7:39 p.m. CT
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM
The Associated Press
KENNER, La. (AP) — Officials are responding to complaints that city workers helped themselves to cases of Gatorade, brand-new clothing and other donated items that were intended for victims of Hurricane Katrina.
This town is evil.
Total contempt for our own puppet government
Today, British coalition troops in Iraq opened an offensive in Basra. Using ten armored vehicles, backed by helicopters, they overwhelmed the opposition, destroyed their target and quickly achieved their objective.
Were they fighting insurgents then? No, they were not. They were attacking an Iraqi prison-- guarded by members of the very same police force that we have been working so hard to recruit and train. Their objective was to free two British commandos, arrested after being accused of gunning down two Iraqi policemen.
According to the article, the British and Iraqis offered different explanations.
Mohammed al-Waili, the governor of Basra province, condemned the British for raiding the prison, an act he called “barbaric, savage and irresponsible...
A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it. This is an irresponsible act,” al-Waili said, adding that the British force had spirited the prisoners away to an unknown location.
The British view is this:
Late Monday, a Ministry of Defense spokesman, speaking in London on condition of anonymity as is customary, said he had no information suggesting the men were freed as a result of any overt military action. But the spokesman stopped short of denying reports that British vehicles crashed through the jail walls. The ministry issued a statement saying the two Britons were back with other British troops....According to the BBC, defense officials insisted they had been talking to the Iraqi authorities to secure the release of the men, but acknowledged a wall was demolished as British forces tried to “collect” the two prisoners.
Additionally, a witness said that he watched about 150 prisoners flee the jail (did the British not care about this either, or just assume that when they knocked the wall of the jail down the rest of the inmates would just quietly sit around waiting for the guards to return?)
In other words, the British chose to ignore Iraqi 'sovereignty.' Of course, this isn't the first time this has been done. We made it clear last year, just a day after the ink was dry on the proclamation of Iraqi sovereignty, that they would know that it was just a piece of paper.
On June 29 of last year, just one day after granting Iraqi sovereignty on June 28, 2004, The coalition decided that they didn't like an Iraqi court acquitting a man on a charge of attempted murder of coalition troops, so the coalition authority rearrested him and sent him to Abu Graib for a retrial.
US prosecutors said that he was being returned to the controversial Abu Ghraib prison because under the Geneva Conventions they were not bound by Iraqi law.
Interesting that our prosecutors alluded to the Geneva convention when under the infamous Gonzalez memo of 2002, they also claim not to be bound by the Geneva convention. But, the real issue here is this:
As I said at the time, I have no problem conceptually with the coalition authority believing they have the right to try a man accused of attacking coalition troops. But, if they believe that, why did they send him to an Iraqi court in the first place? They obviously were only going to uphold the verdict if it was favorable (sort of like if you get a die roll you don't like, picking the die up for another roll). This makes it clear that they considered the Iraqi court as a puppet institution, and coming only one day after the official 'sovereignty' date, it made it clear that it was a farce.
Oddly enough, it may happen that Iraq does eventually have an independent sovereign government, but if it does, it will resemble the pre-war government of Afghanistan (if the new constitution is any guide), and it will be because we failed.
Were they fighting insurgents then? No, they were not. They were attacking an Iraqi prison-- guarded by members of the very same police force that we have been working so hard to recruit and train. Their objective was to free two British commandos, arrested after being accused of gunning down two Iraqi policemen.
According to the article, the British and Iraqis offered different explanations.
Mohammed al-Waili, the governor of Basra province, condemned the British for raiding the prison, an act he called “barbaric, savage and irresponsible...
A British force of more than 10 tanks backed by helicopters attacked the central jail and destroyed it. This is an irresponsible act,” al-Waili said, adding that the British force had spirited the prisoners away to an unknown location.
The British view is this:
Late Monday, a Ministry of Defense spokesman, speaking in London on condition of anonymity as is customary, said he had no information suggesting the men were freed as a result of any overt military action. But the spokesman stopped short of denying reports that British vehicles crashed through the jail walls. The ministry issued a statement saying the two Britons were back with other British troops....According to the BBC, defense officials insisted they had been talking to the Iraqi authorities to secure the release of the men, but acknowledged a wall was demolished as British forces tried to “collect” the two prisoners.
Additionally, a witness said that he watched about 150 prisoners flee the jail (did the British not care about this either, or just assume that when they knocked the wall of the jail down the rest of the inmates would just quietly sit around waiting for the guards to return?)
In other words, the British chose to ignore Iraqi 'sovereignty.' Of course, this isn't the first time this has been done. We made it clear last year, just a day after the ink was dry on the proclamation of Iraqi sovereignty, that they would know that it was just a piece of paper.
On June 29 of last year, just one day after granting Iraqi sovereignty on June 28, 2004, The coalition decided that they didn't like an Iraqi court acquitting a man on a charge of attempted murder of coalition troops, so the coalition authority rearrested him and sent him to Abu Graib for a retrial.
US prosecutors said that he was being returned to the controversial Abu Ghraib prison because under the Geneva Conventions they were not bound by Iraqi law.
Interesting that our prosecutors alluded to the Geneva convention when under the infamous Gonzalez memo of 2002, they also claim not to be bound by the Geneva convention. But, the real issue here is this:
As I said at the time, I have no problem conceptually with the coalition authority believing they have the right to try a man accused of attacking coalition troops. But, if they believe that, why did they send him to an Iraqi court in the first place? They obviously were only going to uphold the verdict if it was favorable (sort of like if you get a die roll you don't like, picking the die up for another roll). This makes it clear that they considered the Iraqi court as a puppet institution, and coming only one day after the official 'sovereignty' date, it made it clear that it was a farce.
Oddly enough, it may happen that Iraq does eventually have an independent sovereign government, but if it does, it will resemble the pre-war government of Afghanistan (if the new constitution is any guide), and it will be because we failed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
