Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Thursday, 7 June 2007 at 5h 22m 56s|
What is caging?
In 2004, BBC News published a report showing that Griffin led a “caging” scheme to suppress the votes of African-American servicemembers in Florida.
The skinny: they were sending letters to the addresses of black
servicemembers, and when the letter came back returned (because the
servicemembers were in Iraq) they removed the names from the voter registration
Tim Griffin has also recently joined the Fred Thompson campaign. They are
going to pretend he is not an ex-10 year lobbyist insider and make him into a
mythological folksie talking point. Why else is the Fred Thompson campaign
attracting all of the Rove minions in the arts of anti-democratic tactics?
|Tuesday, 5 June 2007 at 17h 24m 51s|
75,000 Cattle recalled
Because of e-coli
what, it is
feeding the cattle corn and using anti-biotics.
We have a food safety crisis on the horizon.
We made that crisis. We've built a system that produces unsafe food. Now we've
got to figure out a way to fix it.
Click here to
read more and learn.
Click here for a site
that offers cool animation covering the various issues about meat.
And Click here for an excellent story by the christian science
monitor about how corn production is causing monstrous health, livestock, and
|Tuesday, 5 June 2007 at 15h 45m 18s|
The department of injustice and voter intimidation
This is Bradley Schlozman
Mr. Schlozman's pursuit of fake Missouri voter fraud cases 2 weeks before the
election were so bad that Judge Nannett Laughrey threw it out of court.
On April 14, 2007, a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit pushed by Schlozman
against the Missouri Secretary of State showed “no evidence” voter fraud. “It
is also telling that the United States has not shown that any Missouri resident
was denied his or her right to vote as a result of deficiencies alleged by the
United States,” Judge Nanette Laughrey wrote. “Nor has the United States shown
that any voter fraud has occurred.”
Read more ...
And how about that recent New York Times story that revealed scant evidence of
the "voter fraud" pursued by the politicized Justice Department
WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a
crackdown on voter fraud, the
Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort
to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.
Here is a
reprint of the article at Acorn.org.
That story was published on April 12th of this year. The day before, another
story was published (on April 11th). It is an odd story.
WASHINGTON, April 10 — A federal panel responsible for conducting election
research played down the findings of experts who concluded last year that there
was little voter fraud around the nation, according to a review of the original
report obtained by The New York Times.
Instead, the panel, the Election Assistance Commission, issued a report that
said the pervasiveness of fraud was open to debate.
two weeks ago, the panel faced criticism for refusing to release another report
it commissioned concerning voter identification laws. That report, which was
released after intense pressure from Congress, found that voter identification
laws designed to fight fraud can reduce turnout, particularly among members of
minorities. In releasing that report, which was conducted by a different set of
scholars, the commission declined to endorse its findings, citing
A number of election law experts, based on their own research, have concluded
that the accusations regarding widespread fraud are unjustified. And in this
case, one of the two experts hired to do the report was Job Serebrov, a
Republican elections lawyer from Arkansas, who defended his research in an e-
mail message obtained by The Times that was sent last October to Margaret Sims,
a commission staff member.
“Tova and I worked hard to produce a correct, accurate and truthful report,”
Mr. Serebrov wrote, referring to Tova Wang, a voting expert with liberal
leanings from the Century Foundation and co-author of the report. “I could care
less that the results are not what the more conservative members of my party
He added: “Neither one of us was willing to conform results for political
For contractual reasons, neither Ms. Wang nor Mr. Serebrov were at liberty to
comment on their original report and the discrepancies with the final, edited
The original report on fraud cites “evidence of some continued outright
intimidation and suppression” of voters by local officials, especially in some
American Indian communities, while the final report says only that
voter “intimidation is also a topic of some debate because there is little
agreement concerning what constitutes actionable voter intimidation.”
The original report said most experts believe that “false registration forms
have not resulted in polling place fraud,” but the final report
cites “registration drives by nongovernmental groups as a source of fraud.”
Here's the link
What is the April 11th story? It is story about a body of appointed political
hacks who are trying to distract the public from the April 12th story. They
hold a news conference where they "played down the findings of experts" without
offering evidence, and contend that facts are somehow "open to debate" even
though they don't offer any of their own to rebute those provided by
the "findings of experts" in the soon to be released April 12th report.
Maybe 70 to 120 persons is the sum total of all the 5 years of hard work by the
partisan Justice Department's witch hunting. The Republicans illegally removed
90,000 felons from Florida voting registration in 2000 because of loose
association with a name from a felon list, despite 3 separate court orders to
cease and desist. "Sproul & Associates has received nearly $500,000 from the
Republican National Committee" to pose as a fake non-profit registration
enterprise that threw away tens of thousands voters who registered Democratic.
The Republicans illegally used "caging" tactics to remove tens of thousands of
voters off the roles in 2004 and 2006.
|Friday, 1 June 2007 at 14h 53m 8s|
About those permanent Military Bases in Iraq
All 14 of them.
Click here and here
And here too.
So, if we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them
here then are we also building military bases and prison camps over there
so we don't have to build them here?
Oh, but we have to build and maintain 14 permanent military bases in Iraq
because the world is dangerous, people are trying to kill us, and oceans no
longer protect us.
Hmm. When as the world not been dangerous? It was dangerous in 200 B.C. It
was dangerous in 1812 when the British invaded America and burned Washington
D.C. Oceans didn't protect us in 1941 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
There are people all over the world who want to kill us, but invading and
occupying a nation to prevent people from killing us will only increase the
numbers of people who want to kill us.
From cbs news [Click here
the $592 million embassy, expected to be completed in September on a chunk of
prime real estate two-thirds the size of Washington's National Mall, will be a
spacious and comfortable facility, albeit dangerous.
Identified as the "Baghdad U.S. Embassy Compound Master Plan," the images show
palm lined paths and green grass gardens, volleyball and basketball courts
outside the Marine post, as well as the swimming pool, all with a view of the
"In total, the 104-acre compound will include over twenty buildings, including
one classified secure structure and housing for over 380 families," the website
It says the compound will include the embassy building, housing, a PX,
commissary, cinema, retail and shopping areas, restaurants, schools, a fire
station, power and water treatment plants as well as telecommunications and
wastewater treatment facilities.
A U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report last year said embassy
security will be extraordinary: setbacks and perimeter no-go areas will be
especially deep, structures reinforced to 2.5-times the standard, and five high-
security entrances, plus an emergency entrance-exit.
|Thursday, 31 May 2007 at 16h 57m 59s|
Today's word is ....
sardoodledom (SAR-doo-duhl-duhm) noun
Plays having contrived melodramatic plot, concentrating excessively
on the technique to the exclusion of characterization.
|Thursday, 24 May 2007 at 20h 11m 8s|
If it benefits you, call it inevitable
One thing that you will hear these days is the so-called
modern capitalism. When corporations sell their American footprints
(factories, warehouses, financial offices, bank accounts) and move overseas,
liberterian philosophy says that owners of "capital" have the "right" to move
where-ever they think they can get the best deal. The drive for short-term
profit is presumed to be no different from long term stability, so when the
financial wizards finance these operations to make millions this too is also
seen as inevitable, and therefore natural.
But jobs that vanish never come back, and the economy that remains is of a
different scale because the wealth creation is gone. Workers get a small
percentage of the expenses of the company. When large percentages of company
expenses are abroad, the amount of wealth created in the United States is
reduced. The percentage of a smaller total is inevitably smaller, but the
percentage itself may also shrink. This is the current situation for the
modern American middle class.
In order to justify this trend, advertizements and public relations firms claim
that "cheaper labor means cheaper prices." Walmart is "cheap" you see, because
of the cheap Chinese labor and pressure of Walmart to force their suppliers to
lower prices. Meanwhile, Walmart sucks out all the cash to banks external to
the community in which the Walmart exists, while the available jobs to the
Walmart customers has vastly decreased over the last 30 years.
But cheaper labor does not mean cheaper prices. If the costs of labor
increased by $10 per hour, that increase is spread out over the worker's
production per hour. If the worker makes four $60 dresses an hour, that is $10
divided by 4, or $2.50 increase per purse.
Note that the worker himself may not be able to sew 4 dresses per hour. But if
the group of 20 working together for 8 hours makes 80 dresses a day, what's the
difference in dresses per worker.
Consider also that the price of the now $62.50 dress includes an American
worker who might purchase the dress. This American worker puts his money in a
local bank and spends all of it in the community in which he lives, thereby
lending natural support to the small business entrepreneurs that would not
thrive without their local customers.
An increase in labor of $20 an hour would be a $65 dress.
An increase in labor of $32 an hour would be a $68 dress.
So for persons who bring up the issues of high land prices and higher external
costs per worker than China, touche.
The same is true of Immigrant agricultural laborors in the United States.
People say that no one will pick the fruits and vegetables, and that if the
price of labor increased, the price of fruits and vegetables would rise, and
we'd have to pay "$10 for apples."
Well again let's say a worker picks 20 apples per hour ( and the production is
more than 20). Divide an increase of $10 per hour, and that is only 50 cents
per apple ( not $10.) Even if the increase is $30 per hour, the added cost per
apple is only $30 divided by 20, or $1.50. All this even though the picked
apples per hour is more like 40 -- $30 divided by 40 = 75 cents.
As I've said in earlier posts, only the small clique of well-positioned
financiers actually benefit from this trend.
So ask yourself, what's really going on?
|Friday, 4 May 2007 at 17h 8m 41s|
An Anagram of sorts
Lets see if you can figure this out ...
-- followed by are destroying the government and nation with their kow-
towing to craven selfishness and corruption.
|Sunday, 15 April 2007 at 5h 56m 44s|
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could; some
blunders and absurdities have crept in; forget them as soon as you can.
Tomorrow is a new day; you shall begin it serenely and with too high a spirit
to be encumbered with your old nonsense.
|Friday, 13 April 2007 at 15h 48m 15s|
"We didn't mean to do it" say these people who have been around since
Nixon administration through the Reagan administration and now the Bush
Uh,um ... y.y... yeah right.
You see, now they want to distract us from the real argument.
This is from the Associated press as posted on yahoo [Click here
The prosecutor probing the Valerie Plame spy case saw and copied all of Rove's
e-mails from his various accounts after searching Rove's laptop, his home
computer, and the handheld computer devices he used for both the White House
and Republican National Committee, Luskin said.
The prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, subpoenaed the e-mails from the White
House, the RNC and Bush's re-election campaign, he added.
"There's never been any suggestion that Fitzgerald had anything less than a
complete record," Luskin said.
Any e-mails Rove deleted were the type of routine deletions people make to keep
their inboxes orderly, Luskin said. He said Rove had no idea the e-mails were
being deleted from the server, a central computer that managed the e-mail.
Which of course completely misses the point.
The story is that Karl Rove organized an extra-legal communication system
purchased by RNC funds through which administration officials communicated the
public's business so they could conceal their corrupt activities from public
Whether the emails were purposely deleted or whether they were deleted for
purposes of being "tiddy" does not matter. The communication system itself is
illegal and is under the legal oversight of the judicial and congressional
branches of government.
It is not only absolutely unbelievable that the administration can't comply
with a subpoena by the Justice department, but this statement by Rove's lawyer
has nothing to do with the legal matters of the story.
This afternoon press conference (which is what the Associated Press story
really is after all) is just another strategic press conference by Rove's
lawyer Luskin. It is only a stalling tactic. They want to turn the debate into
a debate over why the emails were deleted, rather than the back-channel email
Also, as is pointed out by Shawn GBR on an Air America Blog :
From a legal standpoint too (which is also another topic our weak Conservative
friends are lacking knowledge), I would like to point you to this page
at Cornell University's Law website.
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies,
or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the
intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper
administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or
agency of the United States...
...shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
|Friday, 13 April 2007 at 6h 37m 23s|
Wow, it's been almost 2 months
I know I haven't blogged in a while. I apologize to the 10 persons who might
actually read this regularly ... my mom, my three best friends Chris, Rob, &
Barry, and all of my beloved students.
I had about 3 weeks when my wrist was sprained and I couldn't type because I
couldn't use my right hand. I stepped out of my car, slipped on a grease spot,
and caught my fall awkwardly with my right wrist.
But that doesn't explain the other 3 weeks of inactivity.
It's baseball season you see. What better escape can there be from the
insanity of world affairs and the corrupt American government ?
And that's it really. I'm overwhemed and inundated, and it takes everything I
have to not just scream or devolve into a nervous wreck.
This week the news is all a buzz about radio talk cowboy Don Imus stupidly
referring to the women's college basketball victors as "nappy headed hoes."
Meanwhile, the backdoor email channels set up by Karl Rove via RNC (Republican
National Committee) paid for computers is getting little exposure. Yesterday,
when Patrick Leahy, Democrat Chairman of the Judiciary Committee angrily
disbelieves that the Administration lost 5 years of these emails, does the
press put this into perspective for the average ill-informed American ?
No. It doesn't.
This email network is being treated with kid gloves by the corporate press, if
it is dealt with at all. The administration ILLEGALLY set up a back-channel
communication system in 2001-2002 in order to have discussions that no one
could drag up as evidence.
The San Fran Chronicle couldn't be bothered with this story all week --
preferring to talk about the Salmon run, a green downtown building, the 60 year
anniversary of Jackie Robinson, MUNI bus troubles, the GOP vile comments about
Today, in typical Chronicle style, the pathetic paper republishes a Washington
Post piece on page A-3 by Michael Abromowitz. First of all, here is the Post story. And Click
here for the "Comical" version.
IT'S NOT THE SAME ARTICLE
The Chronicle cuts up and slices up the original Washington Post article, not
even mentioning the last 5 paragraphs at all. There is also no reference to
how this story relates to Jack Abramhoff -- which was in a story the Post (a
real newspaper) did the day before by Michael Abramowitz and Dan Eggen. [Click
In another e-mail exchange revealed during the investigation of disgraced
lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a White House official was described as warning
that "it is better to not put this stuff in writing in [the White House] . . .
email system because it might actually limit what they can do to help us,
especially since there could be lawsuits, etc." Abramoff responded in an e-mail
that the message in question "was not supposed to go into the WH system."
Hmm. Chronicle readers would have never learned this at all. Is this why the
Chronicle editors waited until today to finally publish an edited version of a
story on page 3?
Here is what the Chronicle felt it could edit out of the original story without
bothering to imform it's readers that did so.
Erasing an e-mail message beyond hope of retrieval is not easy, experts said.
In general, deleting any file on a computer does not make it go away, because
the computer normally will erase not the file but rather its own records of
it. "The data is not gone until it is overwritten," said John Christopher,
senior data-recovery engineer at Novato, Calif.-based DriveSavers.
The "deleted" file will remain on the hard drive, where it can still be found
and read until other data are saved to the same spot.
The same thing happens with e-mail: Trashing a message only means that the mail
program clears its records of where it had filed that e-mail in its own
Paul Robichaux, a principal with the Redmond, Wash., technology services firm
3Sharp and the author of three books about Microsoft's e-mail software,
compared it to a library that removes the entry for a book from its card
catalogue: "The book is still on the shelf."
This is yet another reason why the San Francisco Chronicle is better off
wrapping fish than reading.
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS