Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.
|Wednesday, 4 October 2006 at 17h 20m 4s|
Oh. My. God.
From Forbes magazine
The House page scandal engulfing former Rep. Mark Foley and House Republican
leaders enters its sixth day with Speaker Dennis Hastert working to hold onto
his job and the GOP rank and file worried that the pre-election drip, drip of
damaging political news isn't over yet.
The daily disclosures about Foley's salacious Internet exchanges with former
teenage congressional pages have GOP lawmakers and conservative activists
fearing the foibles of other politicians may be exposed.
"People are very, very concerned," Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., said Tuesday
night. "I think there are going to be more disclosures."
"We have heard rumors that other, similar activity has occurred involving
additional congressmen and will be released prior to the November elections,"
said the Arlington Group, a coalition of 70 pro-family conservative groups.
Whoa-ho-ho-hoe. You mean there was more than one Congressman stalking the
Wait, now what was Clinton impeached for?
|Wednesday, 4 October 2006 at 16h 55m 54s|
A letter from Kirk Fordham
A statement released by Kirk Fordham, former senior aide to ex-Rep.
Foley and Rep. Tom Reynolds
"I've learned within the last few hours that unnamed sources have purported
that I intervened on behalf of Congressman Foley to prevent a page board
investigation. This is categorically false. At no point--ever--did I ask anyone
to block any inquiries into Foley's actions or behavior.
These sources know this allegation is false.
Having stepped down as Mr. Reynolds chief of staff, I have no reason to state
anything other than the facts. I have no Congressman and no office to protect.
I intend to fully cooperate with any and every investigation of Mr. Foley's
conduct. At the same time, I will fully disclose to the FBI and the House
Ethics Committee any and all meetings and phone calls I had with senior
staffers in the House Leadership about any of Foley's inappropriate activities.
The fact is, even prior to the existence of the Foley email exchanges I had
more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest levels of the House
of Representatives asking them to intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley's
One of these staffers is still employed by a Senior House Republican Leader.
Rather than trying to shift the blame on me, those who are employed by these
House Leaders should acknowledge what they know about their action or inaction
in response to the information they knew about Mr. Foley prior to 2005."
Watch closely. The jackals will fall over themselves accusing one another of
what they all have done.
|Monday, 2 October 2006 at 20h 13m 54s|
Sick, hypocritical, lying bastards
Question: How many Republicans does it take to help a teenager across
Answer: All of them, but that doesn't mean the kid ever gets to the
other side in one piece.
Sick, hypocritical, lying bastards.
|Monday, 2 October 2006 at 21h 21m 31s|
Another hired liar I have to expose
Meet Mr. Larry Elder
From Mr. Elder's published words, where he actually tries to defend the ABC
docu-drama that was caught flagrantly rewriting history for political reasons :
In one scene, for example, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
demotes counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, clearly showing the Bush
administration's failure to give bin Laden top priority. But did anyone in the
Bush administration send letters to ABC demanding revisions – or else?
No, Mr. Elder, they didn't write letters, because Condi did demote Richard
Clarke. That was true. It actually happened. Whereas, the letters written by
Clinton and Madeline Albright to ABC
involved multiple matters that not only did NOT happened, but were ALSO
Uh, like, HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO !
And how come you forgot to mention that ABC was paid to air the docu-drama via
some clearinghouse Christian far-right non-profit organization -- which got
donations from who....? How come Mr. Elder forgets to mention that the
director of the film is part of a naisient organization that wants to produce
docu-dramas that spin history in favor of their partisan constituency? These
matters are certainly more relevant than any of Mr. Elder's faux line of
questioning posing as matters of real signifigance.
But you see, Mr. Elder specializes in the art of selective memory. This is
what he does. Here he also "neglects" to remind his reader's of a very key
point about Condolezza Rice. She did not
want to testify before the commission. However she had no problem going on
various television shows where she made false statements without having to go
under oath. This obvious hypocrisy forced her to have to give in and testify
under oath in front of the commission, where she blatantly tried to filibuster
and side track the questioning process until she was asked point blank what the
name of the August 6 PDB was : "Osama determined to attack in the United
And this when she was mouthing publically that the administration "had no idea
that bin Laden intended to attack the United States."
Bush may not have written letters to ABC, but he certainly has distorted the
written law and has used back handed tactics to get the same deeds done.
Appointed government hacks interpret and rewrite the laws into federal codes,
as happened when "waste" was redefined by an ex-lobbyist for the coal mining
industry so they could illegally dump waste from mountain tops down streams.
Or government agencies who put together fake news reports with administration
hacks posing as reporters. These get disbursed to friendly (aka Fox News) news
media, who add the videos to their news feed WITHOUT MAKING A DISCLAIMER THAT
THE VIDEOS ARE FROM THE GOVERNMENT.
What, are we in Russia?
When the Swift-boat group was proven to be linked to the Bush administration
by a lawyer who had been on the Bush legal team since Florida 2000, where was
the media on this story? Instead, we had to worry about Janet Jackson's
breasts or Michael Jackson or a missing white girl in Aruba? If this had been
Kerry instead, the TV news media would have been on the story like a rabid dog.
If you read Mr. Elder, you have to remember that he is only selecting some of
the history, and he also distorts what he reveals as the historical record all
the time. This is what he is hired to do.
Most of the piece from the link is spent trying to find some way to accuse
Clinton of something. Mr. Elder even tactfully admits this when says "OK, the
Clintonistas criticize conversations or actions that never took place" Then he
negates the substance of the letters to ABC by going back to the WTC bombing
attempt of 1993. Then he condenses the next 8 years into 3 specious
paragraphs, the latter two are crafty edits from the 9-11 commission report.
Especially paragraph 3, which reads as follows:
Also (page 358): "Responsibility for domestic intelligence gathering on
terrorism was vested solely in the FBI, yet during almost all of the Clinton
administration the relationship between the FBI director and the president was
nearly nonexistent. The FBI director would not communicate directly with the
president. His key personnel shared very little information with the National
Security Council and the rest of the national security community. As a
consequence, one of the critical working relationships in the counterterrorism
effort was broken."
Bottom line, the Clinton administration treated terrorism as a law enforcement
matter. And neither he nor former members of his administration want Americans
to understand or remember this. In his Saturday radio address after the first
World Trade Center attack, Clinton barely mentioned the attack before beginning
a much lengthier discussion about his economic program.
In addition to being hotly debated by officials at CIA and FBI, isn't it funny
how Mr. Elder neglects to mention that the Bush Administration appointees to
the FBI ignored the very intelligence operations that were getting reports on
terrorists at flight schools? Keep in mind also that George W. Bush issued an
executive order to the FBI to stop their investigation into the WAMI charity
operations of the bin Laden family. And on September 12th, when all air
traffic was grounded in the United States one plane went around the country and
picked up various bin Laden or Saudi persons and quietly escorted them out of
country without any questioning or interoggation whatsoever.
And yea, Clinton treated the problem effectively as a law enforcement matter.
How many American lives and civilian lives were lost? The African embassies,
Somalia, and the USS Cole were events half-way around the world. The Cole was
also within 10 miles from the coast of Iran. If spirited pirates-vagabonds-
terrorists want to attack our naval ship, what is the point of raising the
patriotic ire when perhaps it is our foreign policy that gives rise to these
in the first place? How many Iranian naval (or Chinese Naval or Russian Naval)
ships do we allow to do military surveillance operations at less than 10 miles
off the coast? What do you think the Cole was really doing? Yep, the Cole
was most likely attacked because it was coordinating spy surveillance
operations in Iran.
The terrorist networks are stateless. They are like mafia. Bombing and
invading nations involves wrecking havoc on societies and people that create
willing soldiers for terrorist networks, in addition to creating a bureaucracy
But it was never about "terrorism" anyway. It was always about oil and winning
The real bottom line is that Mr. Elders does as he is hired to do. He has the
belief system of a sewing machine, that is he sews in the direction the
|Monday, 2 October 2006 at 19h 13m 58s|
You gotta love the hypocrisy
These lips are made for talking, and that's just what they'll do, and one of
days these lips are gonna slobber all over you ....
eee-- yuk !!
"It's vile, it's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such
potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."
--- Former Republican Congressman Mark Foley's comments made on 9/12/98 in
regards to Kenneth Starr's report on President Bill Clinton.
|Monday, 2 October 2006 at 19h 1m 22s|
The corrupt vile leadership
If you haven't been awake over the last week, Florida Congress critter
Foley, was busted writing explicit emails to several teenage male pages asking
to see their underwear, mentioning desires to see them without clothes.
and also here
are the fair and accurate summaries of the story -- if you haven't been paying
Now this is also the same Congressman who was known as a vehement organizer to
protect children from child molesters (read the links above.) But since poor
ole Mark Foley is a drunk going to rehab, surely we can forgive
him for being a closeted homosexual child molester. Surely it must be that bad
ole alcohol problem that is responsible, not Mark Foley.
The whole god damn Republican leadership knew about this for how long? Seven to
Eight months! Were
they going to do anything? This is the same Republican party that organized to
foist Jeffrey Gannon as a reporter from a fake internet news service, when he
was just a gay pimp double-timing at white house press conferences tossing out
Oh and why did ex-CIA (some would say interim) head Porter Goss and the 2nd in
command -- Executive Director Kyle "Dusty" Foggo -- suddenly resign when it was
revealed that a limosine company was bringing legislators to hotel rooms where
there were poker games and prostitutes?
click me baby, pull-ease AND click me
This thing has legs. Will the press dig? I hear a sudden celebrity court case
looming in the not too distant future.
|Tuesday, 26 September 2006 at 18h 6m 30s|
Top down management
The television media is all top down. That is the entire televised experience
is controlled or overseen by a small group of managers and producers. The
opposite of top down management is bottom up management; that is, all
information comes from a multiplicity of sources, and decisions by the group
are based upon the free awareness of these multiple sources. A top down
management system would inherently filter the sources and would also "dress up"
the presentation because the information which becomes televised always pass
through the oversight by the small group of managers and producers.
So when newspapers and television stations become owned by the same company,
whose interest is served? Currently media companies can control 40 percent of
any local market. Why should they control that much? How come there isn't a
law that mandates every media company must be independent and not conglomerated
into hundreds and thousands under the management system of a larger
corporation? The television station in San Francisco should not be under the
same management system of the one in Oakland, or Los Angeles or Sacramento ---
or New York or Seattle or Boston or .... Media companies do not have to
conglomerate to become profitable, they only do so because the profits can
become astronomical at the same time that the content can be micro-managed.
This micro-management is however not beneficial for a democracy, which only
flourishes under a bottom-up type of management system. In my opinion, the
Sherman Anti-Trust Act should be enacted upon all these media conglomerates.
They should all be broken apart and sold, just like what was done to Standard
Oil in the early 1900's and AT&T in the latter 1970's and early 80's.
This is actually a conservative -- not a liberal or radical -- position. The
point is to conserve our democracy, and the only way to do so is to break apart
the anti-democratic forces in our society. Don't let the talking heads hi-jack
the true meaning of the word conservative. Conserve means to preserve, or to
believe that changes to the original principle are not always beneficial to the
principle at all.
And in this case, in order to preserve our democracy, we must ensure that
everyone has a way to express their viewpoint, and that all news is presented
equally. With the top down management system, this is an inherently impossible
result. So we are forced to conclude that in order to preserve our democracy,
we must therefore take the action of breaking up and selling the media
|Monday, 25 September 2006 at 17h 12m 5s|
Napsters is the 2006 Yahoo baseball champion
|Monday, 25 September 2006 at 14h 26m 17s|
The Gold and Silver myth
Gold, Silver are not inherently valuable. They are valuable because people buy
gold and silver. When paper money was backed by gold and silver, the paper was
not any less or more valuable, nor any less or more secure. The only difference
was that there was a 2nd layer to the exchange rates between currency.
Currency is valuable when the world economy uses currency in the market
exchange. Your money is not valuable in the world economy because your nation
doesn't produce or sell valuable commodities. Making the currency backed by
Gold and Silver does not make a currency more or less valuable in and of itself.
For instance, the US Dollar is the currency used on the Petroleum oil exchange,
and so any nation that wants oil has to buy dollars in order to place bids on
the Petroleum market. This demand for dollars creates a need for dollars which
gives dollars value. If the petroleum markets were denominated in Euro's or
Yen, then the demand for dollars would decrease, and the exchange rates would
plummet. This would still occur if dollars were backed by Gold and Silver, and
in fact, would be much worse, because then US Treasury would be further obliged
to buy Gold and Silver in order to sustain the changing exchange rates.
This is why the world went off the gold standard -- it was too damn costly, and
too subject to speculative bubbles, because drops or rises in currency involved
mandatory purchases of gold and silver which are measured in other markets.
|Sunday, 24 September 2006 at 15h 5m 46s|
Having a good attitude
Most of life is sheer attitude. You find yourself in situations you can't
change, you happen upon a streak of bad luck, but nevertheless no matter what
you do the events will still occur as they did occur. But your attitude, your
will, does not have to change, because who and what you are does not change
unless you permit yourself to change.
Now if you decide upon a course of action and then suffer the consequences,
your decision does have the power of change, because you will forever have to
acknowledge the choice and the consequences. This is different from external
events, or matters that do not originate from your own decisions. When events
result from the consequences of our own decisions we do not have the option of
attitude, because we are forever tied to the linkages that led to the events
and so therefore we must always reflect or protect against these realizations.
Sometimes this leads us to blame others or form some rigid moral paradigm
through which everything must be judged.
Events that are random do not engender this type of psychology. Which makes me
wonder, is all of human irrationality really just based upon the evolution of
some decision or set of decisions made in response to certain events?
GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS