frankilin roosevelt

It's not about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.



Check out my old  Voice of the People page.


Gino Napoli
San Francisco, California
High School Math Teacher

jonsdarc@mindspring.com




Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.

a middle-aged
George Washington



ARCHIVES
1074 POSTS
LATEST ITEM

June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
September 2014
August 2014
May 2014
March 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
April 2012
March 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
July 2010
March 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
August 2009
July 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
June 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
June 2005
May 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004

Tuesday, 29 March 2005 at 19h 21m 20s

Rethuglican hypocrisy

The Party of No Principles
by Ari Behrman

03/29/2005 @ 10:22am [permalink]

On Sunday, a Los Angeles Times report detailed how House Majority Leader Tom DeLay let his own comatose father die in 1988. As the leader of the save Schiavo movement in Congress, DeLay embodies the GOP's rank hypocrisy on this issue. Democrats at Columbia University recently compiled a list of other examples of GOP hypocrisy in the Schiavo case. We've included the most relevant and added a few of our own.

** While Governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed a law allowing hospitals to remove a patient's life support regardless of the wishes of the family. Just a week ago Texas terminated the life of Sun Hudson, a five-month old baby suffering from a fatal genetic disorder.

** The 2000 Republican platform read: "Medical decision-making should be in the hands of physicians and their patients." Four years later, the language remained nearly the same: "We must attack the root causes of high health care costs...by putting patients and doctors in charge of medical decisions."

** Much of Terry Shiavo's care came courtesy of Medicaid, which the Bush Administration wants to cut by $60 billion. Just recently Republican Governor Bob Riley of Alabama tried to drop coverage for 13-year-old Lauren Rainey, a severely handicapped girl who requires a suction tube to breathe.

** In his previous career as a heart surgeon, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist pulled the plug "on a regular basis," his office acknowledged last week. In his 1989 book Transplant, Frist advocated killing anencephalic babies, who are born in the same mental state that Terry Schiavo finds herself in today.

** The tort-reform bill recently passed by the Senate would block cases like the malpractice suit that provided for Terri's care from reaching the courts in the first place.

** So-called family values Republicans who constantly invoke the "sanctity of marriage" have viciously attacked Terry Schiavo's husband Michael, calling him a lying, lecherous wife-killer. It got so bad that TV host Joe Scarborough asked fellow conservative Pat Buchanan, "Are you comparing Michael Schiavo to a Nazi?"


Thursday, 24 March 2005 at 20h 37m 45s

Another liar in this cruel hoax they call morality

This is from David NYC at the Dailykos.com.


Congressman Dave Weldon, smiling and holding a packet with some lady seated adjacent to his expensive suit.

Congressman Dave Weldon (R-FL) wrote a letter to the newspaper Florida Today, taking issue with some statements the paper had made in an editorial on the Schiavo matter. What did Weldon have to say?

Did the editors interview registered nurse Carla Iyer, who personally treated Terri for a year and a half? She said in a sworn court affidavit that Terri "was alert and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis saying things like 'mommy' and 'help me" and 'hi' when I came into her room."

Iyer says Terri would sit up in the nurse's station from time to time and laugh at stories they told. She felt pain and would indicate so. Carla fed her by mouth and not by tube. Does this sound like a woman in persistent vegetative state for the past 15 years? (Emphasis added.)



Florida judge George Greer, one of the main judges in the Schiavo matter, called Iyer's affidavit "incredible," elaborating as follows:

Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. Her affidavit clearly states that she would "call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter." ... It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had she contacted them as her affidavit alleges. (Emphasis added.)



No comment.


Thursday, 24 March 2005 at 20h 0m 50s

What did Bill Frist say when Christopher Reeve died ?

From CNN:[Link] --Thanks to Atrios for this.


NATIONAL HYPOCRITE
Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee)

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist attacked Sen. John Edwards on Tuesday over a comment the Democratic vice presidential candidate made regarding actor Christopher Reeve.

Edwards said Reeve, who died Sunday, "was a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell research and change the lives of people like him.

"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," Edwards said.

Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, called Edwards' remark "crass" and "shameful," and said it gave false hope that new treatments were imminent.

...

Frist, who was a heart surgeon before coming to the Senate, responded Tuesday in a conference call with reporters arranged by the Bush-Cheney campaign.

"I find it opportunistic to use the death of someone like Christopher Reeve -- I think it is shameful -- in order to mislead the American people," Frist said. "We should be offering people hope, but neither physicians, scientists, public servants or trial lawyers like John Edwards should be offering hype.

"It is cruel to people who have disabilities and chronic diseases, and, on top of that, it's dishonest. It's giving false hope to people, and I can tell you as a physician who's treated scores of thousands of patients that you don't give them false hope."



Really now.


Thursday, 24 March 2005 at 19h 23m 54s

The real sadness of Iraq

This is from Ari Behrman. [Link]

Rumsfeld, November 13, 2003: "We're making enormous progress. In terms of essential services, schools are open, hospitals are functioning, people are out on the streets eating in restaurants, and life is going on, and 23 million people have been liberated."

Awbalth, a soldier from CA, October 20, 2004: "Immediately after the 'war' portion of the fighting, we should have been prepared to send in a massive reconstruction effort. Right away we needed engineers to diagnose problems, we needed contractors repairing problems, we needed immediate food, water, shelter, and fuel for the Iraqi people, and we needed more security for all of this to work...Establishing massive reconstruction efforts that employed millions of Iraqis would have gone a long way toward proving to the Iraqis that we were there to help them, not steal their oil and get rich from reconstruction contracts paid for by the American taxpayer."




Thursday, 24 March 2005 at 19h 4m 26s

Big firms are different from smaller investors

Mutual fund giants don't bilk the small-fry investors do they? Of course they do. The big 4 US firms just paid $81.25 million dollars in fines because they were pushing securities that had lower rates of return (which means in economist-speak, investors got less profit on the investment ) because they were getting bigger commissions.

Read the story on the BBC here. A permalink is here.

But this is how the market works. Larger investors, or investing firms, pool a very large amount of money (as in more than 100 million dollars) and make money by selling whenever there are 1 to 3 cent increases. That doesn't sound like a lot, but when you have 10,000 to 100,000 various stocks sold with (say) a 2 cent profit per share --- dat's $200 to $2000 profit a pop. And when counting 1% commissions on all sales that are in the millions -- 0.01 times $1,000,000 equals an extra $10,000 on top. And this is per day! 240 business days per year, times $12,000 ... equals 2.5 million dollars a year. Now imagine a large firm with 100 stock brokers.

But this money has to come from somewhere. In the immediate moment the buyers and sellers are all a mixed composite of stock-brokers, firms, and re-issues, but the nexus of these events are all in the hands of the larger sellers, simply on account of the large aggregation of funds. When small investors buy into a mutual fund or have a firm manage their securities, that small investor is giving the larger firm or fund managers more money with which to play the market. In return the larger firm and fund managers promise to share with their investors some of the profits.

Seems like a fair arrangement on the face of this exchange of services, but the reality is that these large firms are no more fair and respectful of their customer investors than other large companies can with telephone, gas, et al services. There is also no guarantee that your returns will match expectations because small investors alone have to depend on the machinations of others unless they are truly independent. Most small investors will not understand how the market works or not spend the time necessary to be successful independently, and thus the vast majority of investors entrust their investments to the machinations of others.

Which brings us back to the important question : where do these profits come from? The notion of buying low and selling high is simple enough, but that increase is still bourn by that someone who paid the higher price. Since this person perhaps thought they could resell at a higher price, the logical conclusion would seem that desire for profit is what produces the driving force behind the ability to reap profits from the difference between a high and low price. And when the price rises too high -- well of course the price then falls to the point where someone buys that thinks they got a good deal. This is called the "self-correcting" market, and in this school of economic theology, the world of investments becomes riddled with winners and losers.

Except one thing. The big firms don't lose. Yes, Citibank, Bank of America, the DuPont family trust investments -- don't fail. They might make less profits, but they don't go bankrupt (ie, fail.) We are talking about financial institutions and multi-billionaire investors who are simply too big to fail, because since the fall-out would affect too many, the big players either all pool their resources whenever they have a crisis - or the government (ie, taxpayers) foot the bill to cover the massive losses.

These are institutions that aren't bothered by the "self-correcting" market, who simply change machinations when the market dips low, and thus, this idea of the "self-correcting" market doesn't really apply. Simply said : the small investors win and lose, but either way, Citibank makes money.

I'll have to return to this theme, once I've thought this through more. But I'm not saying anything new. Adam Smith himself, and John K. Galbraith have both mentioned this vulnerability to the "self-correcting" market theory.

To be continued...


Wednesday, 23 March 2005 at 21h 2m 14s

Why do I do this

I've been told by a friend who looked at this blog that I needed to get a girlfriend. Well ...

I already have 5 girlfriends. Their names are Thumb, Index, Middle, Ring, and Pinky, and I assure you that each of them are equally hot for me. They are also a great help in producing these flashes of verbage and whatever other creative endeavors to which life has thrust into my soul. And I am a grateful man, so what else is there?

But now as to the question of having 6 girlfriends?

I won't answer that.

Why do I do this? Why not?


Wednesday, 23 March 2005 at 20h 52m 28s

Tom Delay predicting a fight for conservatism

This is really scary. But here is the corrupt bug man Tom Delay trying to pretend that the movement of conservatism is related to his corrupt autocratic style of government.

You can get the mp3 audio here.

And so itís bigger than any one of us, and we have to do everything that is in our power to save Terri Schiavo and anybody else that may be in this kind of position.

And let me just finish with this: This is exactly the issue thatís going on in America. That attacks against the conservative movement, against me, and against many others. The point is, itís, the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement. And that is to go after people, personally charge them with frivolous charges, and link that up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then, and then get the national media on their side. That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only and thatís to destroy the conservative movement. Itís to destroy conservative leaders and itís, uh, not just in elected office but leading. I mean Ed Feulner, today at the Heritage Foundation, was under attack in the National Journal. I mean they, they, this is a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in, and, and you need to look at this and whatís going on and participate in fighting back.

Donít, you know, the one way they stopped churches from getting into politics was Lyndon Johnson, who passed a law that said you couldnít get in politics or youíre going to lose your tax exempt status because they were all opposed to him when he was running for president. That law weíre trying to repeal; itís very difficult to do that. But the point is, is when they can knock out a leader then no other leader will step forward for awhile because they donít want to go through the same thing. When, if they go after and get a pastor then other pastors shrink from what they should be doing. It forces Christians back into the church and thatís whatís going on in America: ďThe world is too bad. Iím going to go get inside this building and Iím not going to play in the world.Ē Uh, thatís not what Christ asked us to do. And, and so this, they understand that it is a political maneuver, and, and they are, uh, going to try to destroy the conservative movement and we have to fight back.

So, please, this afternoon, each and every one of you, if you know a senator give him a call. Tell him, theyíll say, ďOur bill can pass in the House.Ē Tell him, ďThatís fine. Your billís okay but the House bill is better and, uh, I want the House bill.Ē Particularly if you know Democrats, uh, donít let them get off the hook, um, by hiding behind one House and the other is adjourned. We can do anything we need to do to pass any bill that we need to pass. So I appreciate what youíre doing. God bless you and thank you for the Family Research Council.



Yes. He actually said those warped words.

Here is a photo of da man, along with the Texas redistricting map that was fought over during 2002 (yea, way back then -- 3 years ago.) Notice how Austin is split into 3 other heavily Republican districts. Silly you. That is how they gained 3 seats in Congress last year. Didn't you know?

And look at those long skinny district slices. Whatever happened to rectangular objects? That's the scientology called gerrymandering you see.

Mr. Delay's district is in the southeast corner of the state,including Galveston and the wealthier suburbs of Houston. It is the dumbell looking district (or an upside down phone receiver) on the edge of Louisiana.

††

By the way, Tom Delay is the Republican Majority Leader of the House. He is the one the House Republicans tried to change the ethics rules so that Congressmen who are indicted by a court do not have to step down.


Wednesday, 23 March 2005 at 20h 23m 30s

And that doctor you see on Fox news is a hoax

Doctor Hammesfahr was introduced by Sean Hannity on Fox news as a "Nobel prize winning" doctor. As it turns out ... (source)

Hammesfahr, a Florida neurologist disciplined in 2003 by the Florida Board of Medicine who claims he can help Terri Schiavo, testified during an October 2002 court hearing on the Schiavo case that his claim to be a Nobel nominee is based on a letter written by Rep. Mike Bilirakis (R-FL) recommending him for the prize. But Bilirakis is not qualified to make a valid nomination under the Nobel rules.


Hammesfahr was "disciplined by the Florida Board of Medicine in 2003" because he was falsely advertising a treatment for strokes for profit. He was fined $52,084 and given a 6 month probation during which he had submit monthly reports corrobated by independent medical monitors appointed by the court, who had to by law review 50% of his cases.

So how much can you trust this fellows belief that he can "help" Terri Schiavo?

You can watch a Windows media video of Hannity and Scarborough repeatedly make this "nobel prize" claim here.

Have fun !


Wednesday, 23 March 2005 at 19h 49m 27s

Terri Schiavo and the slinging of deception

This case has been hijacked for political reasons, and now insidious accusations surface about bone scans that "prove" spouse abuse.

The woman had a heartache because of bulimia. Read this for an unbiased legal opinion. And here for another straight-up site.

All of the regular news sources don't bother to explained the known facts of the case. I read CNN reports and stories in newspapers. None of them indicated that CAT scans in 1996 show that the entire center of the brain has deteriorated and is replaced by spinal fluid. None of them state the case of bulimia (as determined in a court case by jury in 1993) as the reason for the heartache. It seems to me that these 2 facts should be absolutely relevant in an article on this issue.

According to the court appointed doctor, Dr. Jay Wolfson from the University of South Florida:

The cause of the cardiac arrest was adduced to a dramatically reduced potassium level in Theresa's body. Sodium and potassium maintain a vital, chemical balance in the human body that helps define the electrolyte levels. The cause of the imbalance was not clearly identified, but may be linked, in theory, to her drinking 10-15 glasses of iced tea each day. While no formal proof emerged, the medical records note that the combination of [Theresa's] aggressive weight loss, diet control and excessive hydration raised questions about Theresa from Bulimia, an eating disorder, more common among women than men, in which purging through vomiting, laxatives and other methods of diet control become obsessive.


Alas, all the newspapers and mainstream news outlets these days report is the speech and simplistic hoopla, and the airing of the spin by the "two sides." Of course the representatives of the "two sides" are also the choice of the hack reporters out there, who can and do form opinion by the choice of quote flow.

It took work but I had to research to find the above "unbiased" site of information.

I don't like to be ignorant, nor vulnerable to being hoaxed or mislead. And most of all, I do not intend to mislead or spout unsubstantiated claims and conjecture. So I do research.

My conclusion: these jackals are going to try to up the ante rather than back out of this, and they are no beyong defaming Michael Schiavo if necessary to save their own pathetic butts.

Whether this poor unfortunate woman should live or die is not my decision to make. I do know that keeping her alive costs money, and that there is only $50,000 left from the 1993 lawsuit. I also know that Mrs. Schiavo is in a "persistant vegetative state" with a liquid center for a brain. She can't do anything for herself and she will never improve. Her brain is also continuing to deteriorate.

Stating these truths is not the same as making the decision on whether the tube should stay or go. What a horrible decision for anyone to have to make, but what is more disgusting is how outside political brigands are using this to serve their own ends.

Michael Schiavo stayed with his wife for 8 years in the belief that she might recover. I have seen no evidence (nor has any been produced) that Mr. Schiavo has been anything but a good husband. If he believes his wife would not want to live forever in this state, that is his right. If Mrs. Schiavo's parents want their daughter to remain alive, that is their right.

However, certain accusations floating about Mr. Schiavo beating, strangling, abusing, or injecting his wife with needles are false and not at all consistent with the medical record.

And (as pointed out by the Florida Court's weblog from the abstractappeal link above) a further point. When Mr. Schiavo sued Terri Schiavo's doctors in 1993, evidence of these matters would have been easy to provide by the doctors. That decision by a jury agreed that Terri Schiavo suffered her condition as the result a heart-attack brought on by Bulimia.


Tuesday, 22 March 2005 at 22h 24m 36s

Newsmax is proud of its propaganda

If anyone out there bothers to look at newsmax.com and get their news from that source, I have good reasons why you should stop doing so.

Newsmax doesn't bother to list their sources of information. You see a lot of print, with headlines and "breaking news" items, but where (as in what newspapers or news sources) do these items come from if you wanted to know. You are told they come from "Newsmax.com wires" -- as if that is something special. It just means the same ap-upi wire that everyone else is hooked up too. Of course, at the bottom of articles you read "© 2005 Associated Press" -- which means they copied it or got it from somewhere else -- but where? And who? Who wrote the article? It wasn't "Newsmax.com wires" ?

No. It was someone newsmax hasn't bothered to tell you because they might selectively edit and doctor up the news they get from the ap-upi news wire, as some news outlets will do. The difference is that real newspapers at least tell you who wrote the story. Newsmax does not even bother.

For example, on newsmax today, you get this story : Link. Here is the headline.


Schiavo's Parents Appeal Judge's Ruling
NewsMax.com Wires
Tuesday, March 22, 2005



The story is out of Tampa, Florida, but no mention who wrote the story.

In order to find this out, I took part of a sentence out of the article and put it into quotes in the google bar. The phrase I used was Gov. Jeb Bush was described by a spokeswoman as "extremely disappointed and saddened" by the federal judge's decision not to order the tube reconnected.

Google dutifully came back and voila.

-- (yaaaa) --

The original story as printed in the San Diego Tribune was written by Vickie Chachere.

Notice that the San Diego newspaper gives you the author, Vickie Chachere, whereas Newsmax did not.

This is a story printed in the San Diego Tribune by reporter Vickie Chachere, not from the spectacularly audacious and apparently omnipresent newsmax wires.

But there is worse than this. Much worse. You also get stories that have no sources whatsoever. Stories that are ludicrous and obviously politically motivated (eck-em ... can you say partisan motivated propaganda ...)

For instance, in the same newsmax edition above (today's edition), you get the following headline.

Abu Ghraib Dems Mum on Terri

Oh, my, god. Are we actually equating torturing and killing prisoners rounded up by the military with the 7 year court litigation over removing a feeding tube from a women medically labeled as having a "persistent vegetative state" ? This is a decision to be made by the family, and family disputes are to be handled by the state courts. This is why the Supreme Court and the Federal Appeals will not take this case, and why the Appeals courts have supported the state court's findings.

And notice how that Abu Ghraib tag is put on the Dems who dared mention it, and -- gasp -- embarrass the nation with the truth.

And these sick, depraved, morally repulsive fiends are exploiting this family's trauma so they can remove the news from their own horrific mound of corruption, and come out on the moral highground.

And what about that little BLACK baby in Texas whose tube was pulled against the mother's wishes because the mother could not pay the hospital? And what about George Bush signing the law that allowed the hospital to pull the plug if the patient can no longer pay?

Go ahead. Read here about the little BLACK baby. Read here about the law George Bush signed, because hospital corporations wanted him to.

NEWSFLASH: the 2ND link above has been moved to the archives by the Houston Chronicle. A link to an RTF file is here. And if you don't want to register to the Dallas Morning News on the first link, an RTF file of the BLACK baby is provided here.

Amazing, the Re-thuglicans won't all stand firm on the right of a little Black Baby, but instead choose this 42 year white woman upon which to grand-stand and distract.

And 60% of all the American's wounded in Iraq, have head related injuries. Further, every single one of the wounded hooked up to a machine , had their plug pulled. Yup. Wonder where our fearless Congress members are on this issue? Look it up yourself. Use google.

And of all the vacations George Bush has ever had -- including the August memo of 2001 that he apparently got over the phone -- it was for Mrs. Schiavo that he decided to cut short a vacation. Yep, that's right. It's the only one.

Damn hypocrites.

This is a partisan driven political circus to direct the public view away from the massive corruption of the Republican Party and the Bush administration.

But I digress. The enlightening story of the Abu Ghraib Dems goes further. Here is the gist of the imbecilic accusations which completely embolden the piece.

Liberal Democrats who were beside themselves with rage over what they called the "torture" of terrorist suspects by GI guards at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison have been totally silent on the starvation torture of Terri Schiavo.

As the prison abuse scandal unfolded last May, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton could barely contain herself, calling the actions of U.S. soldiers "depraved." ...

On the starvation torture of Terri Schiavo, however, Sen. Clinton's reaction has been muted. On the day Schiavo's feeding tube was removed, for instance, Clinton said ... well, nothing. And she's been silent ever since. ...

Sen. Ted Kennedy was outraged by the Abu Ghraib scandal, calling it America's "greatest fall from grace." "Who gave the green light for the violations of the Geneva Convention?" Kennedy demanded.

But on Terri Schiavo, the Democrats' foremost defender of young women has been, you guessed it, completely silent.



Do you get it? Shame on those Democrats who won't stand up for the right of this one woman to live into a ripe old age, but feel free to protest the rampant willful violations of the Geneva Convention.

Why is this unsourced piece highlighted as a "news of the day" menu item on the left of the main page?

You know why.

----

Want some more? When you go to newsmax.com's self-styled "America's news page" you get a column on the left with items pointed to by red triangles called "Inside Cover." Here are today's items:

1.) Arnold's War Chest Draws Scrutiny
2.) Justice Dept. Defends Satanism, Wicca
3.) Celebrities Plead for Terri's Life
4.) Former Nurse Accuses Michael Schiavo
5.) Schwarzenegger Wants to Block Libel Suit
6.) Doctor: Terri Can Recover
7.) Santorum: Terri Ruling Defied Congress
8.) Abu Ghraib Dems Mum on Terri
9.) Jeb Bush Upset; Wants to Protect Terri
10.) Calif. Sheriffs Back Jerry Brown for Top Cop
11.) Judge Whittemore Denies Terri
12.) Korea's Kim Jong-il's Mistress in Japan
13.) Giuliani Eyeing N.Y. Gov. Race
14.) Stern Plans Farewell Blast
15.) Camilla Parker Bowles Can Be Queen
16.) Dean to Dems: 'Keep It Simple'


These are the 16 important items of the day! Nothing about Iraq or Social Security or Medicare, which are more immediate pressing issues of the day. Fully 7 of the 16 are in some way related to the Terri Schiavo fiasco. Celebrities plead for Terri's life -- former nurse accuses Michael Schiavo -- Doctor: Terri Can recover -- Santorum: Terri Ruling Defied Congress -- Abu Ghraib Dems Mum on Terri -- Jeb Bush Upset; Wants to Protect Terri -- Judge Whittemore Denies Terri

That Doctor doesn't know his ass. Did he look at the CAT scans that indicated brain death? She is not going to come back by any known standard of medical science. Isn't it a shame how some people lie for political reasons?

Uh oh, Santorum is upset because a judge "Defied" him. But what Congress did was breech the separation of powers. If Congress could just step in and force a ruling over any case that went through the channels of years of litigation, rulings, hearings, precident cases, and judicial decisions, when does this end? What Congress just did was unconstitutional, and the judge was not so much defying Santorum, as he was reprimanding him.What country can have an independent judicial system when the Congress can stop or anoll any decisions for partisan reasons?

Notice how this organization posts names to keep them in mind. We are reminded of Giuliani, Schwarzeneger, Santorum, Jerry Brown, and Jeb Bush. The weakest of the bunch is the headline which tells us that Giuliani is "eyeing" the governors race that he would lose hands down if he entered the race. New Yorker's know Giuliani's autocratic, deficit spending, wife-cheating-then-divoricing, hypocritical butt.

We are told that Dean's simple advice is to "Keep it Simple." Goto that link, and here is what you find.

Newly ordained Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who lost his own bid for the White House last year despite an early lead, thinks he has a plan for his party to regain the Oval Office in 2008 and beyond.

His advice? "Keep it simple" so Americans will realize that they really prefer the Democrats to the Republicans.

The Toronto Star reports that Dean, in a message to supporters on Sunday, described Republicans as "brain dead," but said eventual Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts lost to President Bush because party leaders and representatives have a "tendency to explain every issue in half an hour of detail."

Dean, in Toronto to address 150 members of the group Democrats Abroad Ė formed in 1964 to register Americans living out of the country to vote as Democrats Ė warned, "I'm going to be very disciplined about how we deliver messages." According to the Star, the one-time Vermont governor added: "We can have policy deliberations in rooms like this. On TV, we have to be very focused." Republicans, meanwhile, have managed to hone their message expertly, Dean said, noting that his party needs to learn that skill. "The Democrats will have three things, maybe four, that we're going to talk about," he said, according to the paper.

The message seemed similar to one he delivered last month when seeking the DNC's chairmanship.

"The Democratic Party will not win elections or build a lasting majority solely by changing its rhetoric, nor will we win by adopting the other side's positions," he said then. "We must say what we mean ó and mean real change when we say it."

And while Dean has called for an end to the "consultant culture" Ė scores of paid advisers who, he says, gave conflicting and confusing advice to Kerry last year Ė others say the reason the Democrats lost the White House and more seats in Congress is because their messages aren't resonating with voters. They say most people do not agree with Democrats' positions on social, moral and cultural issues especially.

But Dean sees it differently.

"The majority is on our side," he told the Toronto gathering. "We need to figure out how to talk differently about these issues."

Perhaps Dean missed the election results, which seemed to prove that the majority of Americans were on the side of the Republicans.



This is said to come from the Toronto Star, and is highlighted by comments from an unknown author. Again the author of the original piece is not given to us by Newsmax.com.

Except at the top, where you read "With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff For the story behind the story... ". This is the only mention about the purveyors of the ad-libs to the original story that is still unsourced, the services of which they refer to as "the story behind the story." That is goobledy-gook for "what they do to the original story that makes it different from the original story."

Especially that last line. The majority of Americans means more than 50%. Only 56% of America voted, and barely 51% were said to have voted for Bush. 51% of 56% is 23.56% which is far, far below the 50% majority. This doesn't seem to proof anything.

And where the hell did this phrase come from? -- others say the reason the Democrats lost the White House and more seats in Congress is because their messages aren't resonating with voters. They say most people do not agree with Democrats' positions on social, moral and cultural issues especially.

This is not in the original story (see below.) Who are these "others" used as a credible source to make the further statement about "most people" not agreeing?

After googling with many phrases, I still cannot find a match. Even the phrase "But Dean sees it differently" shows up on MSUreporter, but is about a head coach named Dean Bowyers, not Howard Dean

So to the phrase "scores of paid advisers who, he says, gave conflicting and confusing advice to Kerry last year. "

All of this hints that the above story did not come from the Toronto Star at all. The comments taken out of context were probably lifted from some Toronto Star story, but the story is not from the Toronto Star. The reader however, might think otherwise -- which is the point. By this method, Mr. Limbacher and his gang are able to lend credulity to this opinion piece.

So what is this opinion (biased or not) doing listed as if it was news?

That's the point -- the blurring of news with opinion is deliberate.

Here is the original story by reporter Peter Gorrie, written Mar 20, 2005. Here's the link.

Notice the abject utter difference in tone, the quotes chosen, their placement, and the way certain historical facts (like the hype of the bogus scream) are used to report this event.

And furthermore!!!!! Notice the snipets of this article that are used in the above Newsmax.com posting, and discover the insidiousness of Newsmax.com as concerns the spewing of propaganda.

Spreading the message
PETER GORRIE
STAFF REPORTER

"Keep it simple" is the key to the White House, failed Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean told members of his party from around the world last night.

One major reason his party lost the 2004 race to the "brain-dead" Republicans is that it has a "tendency to explain every issue in half an hour of detail," Dean told the semi-annual meeting of Democrats Abroad, which brought about 150 members from Canada and 30 other countries to the Toronto for two days.

"I'm going to be very disciplined about how we deliver messages. We can have policy deliberations in rooms like this. On TV, we have to be very focused." The Democrats, in fact, will try to copy the Republicans, who are masters at making their message stick, he said. "The Democrats will have three things, maybe four, that we're going to talk about."

Dean's party is struggling to recover from the Nov. 2 American election, in which George W. Bush's team not only won the White House but also took firm control of the Senate and House of Representatives.

Last month, Dean, 56, was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee, a powerful 440-member group that plans presidential nominating conventions, takes in most donations, and promotes the party and its candidates.

John McQueen, the Democrats' international campaign chair, has called that result "the most significant change in party leadership in more than a generation."

Dean won the job by acclamation, even though the party establishment, its congressional wing and many big donors and unions initially opposed him. It was, said delegates to yesterday's meeting, a triumph of the grassroots. Dean built up enough support that party insiders had to bow to the inevitable. Dean's presidential campaign was propelled by Web communications. And he's promoting a "bottom-up" Internet-connected party, run by state organizations rather than the centre. He has called for an end to the "consultant culture" ó the legions of paid advisers employed by defeated candidate John Kerry that, critics complain, confused the candidate's thinking and messages.

Dean was the early front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination but bowed out after losing several primaries.

A major blow was coverage of his so-called "I have a scream" speech, after he finished a poor third in the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 19, 2004.

In an effort to rally disappointed but noisy supporters in Des Moines, he rattled off the names of the next 13 battleground states. Followed by: "And then we're going to Washington, D.C. To take back the White House." Followed by: "YEAHHHH!!!" ó a shout that was amplified by his hand-held microphone, replayed by the media hundreds of times, and became the butt of jokes, both unkind and kind.

The shrill was gone in yesterday's speech, but Dean appeared relaxed and enthusiastic. Party members treated him like a star and gave him three long standing ovations.

An example of the party's new discipline is its current focus on Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, said Dean, who was governor of Vermont for 10 years before quitting in 2002 to run for president.

The Democrats won't be distracted by other issues, "as long as we're kicking the living daylights out of them on Social Security."

"The Democratic Party will not win elections or build a lasting majority solely by changing its rhetoric, nor will we win by adopting the other side's positions," he said when he announced his bid to become party chair. "We must say what we mean ó and mean real change when we say it."

While Dean wants focused policies, he acknowledged some issues aren't clear-cut and his party must work hard to come up with effective messages.

It will be difficult to win over the many Americans who appear to disagree with Democratic policies on social and moral issues, such as abortion, he said. "The majority is on our side. We need to figure out how to talk differently about these issues."

And he said he hasn't made a lot of noise about Iraq, even though he opposed the U.S. invasion that was launched two years ago yesterday, because "we're there" and "the price of not succeeding is going to be enormous for America and for Iraq's neighbours."

Democrats Abroad, founded in 1964, has about 20,000 members in 45 countries, including 5,000 in Canada.

It was established to encourage the 7 million American citizens living outside the United States to register to vote as Democrats.

It claims to have registered more than 250,000 voters worldwide, including 35,000 in Canada, in 2004. Its goal is 1 million registrations next year and 2 million for the 2008 U.S. presidential election.



So. Are you ever gonna trust Newsmax.com to filter your news for you. This is the so-called, story behind the story.

I rest my case, on the ground where of course a few people might still kick it. There are always a few resolute morons who like to show the world how stubbornly insistent and superior they are by slamming their fist into a wall, or kicking a telephone pole.

Go for it, fool.




GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS