Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Network Hosting Attorney Scandal E-Mails Also Hosted Ohio's 2004 Election Results

Network Hosting Attorney Scandal E-Mails Also Hosted Ohio's 2004 Election Results

By Steven Rosenfeld and Bob Fitrakis, Free Press
Posted on April 23, 2007, Printed on April 23, 2007


Did the most powerful Republicans in America have the computer capacity, software skills and electronic infrastructure in place on Election Night 2004 to tamper with the Ohio results to ensure George W. Bush's re-election?

The answer appears to be yes. There is more than ample documentation to show that on Election Night 2004, Ohio's "official" Secretary of State website -- which gave the world the presidential election results -- was redirected from an Ohio government server to a group of servers that contain scores of Republican web sites, including the secret White House e-mail accounts that have emerged in the scandal surrounding Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's firing of eight federal prosecutors.

READ MORE

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Politics Explained!

Feudalism
You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.


Pure Socialism
You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you all the milk you need.


Bureaucratic Socialism
Your cows are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs the regulations say you should need.


Fascism
You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.


Pure Communism
You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.


Real World Communism
You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need". Meanwhile, no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.


Russian Communism
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the black market.


Perestroika
You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the "free" market.


Cambodian Communism
You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.


Militarianism
You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.


Totalitarianism
You have two cows. The government takes them and denies they ever existed. Milk is banned.


Pure Democracy
You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.


Representative Democracy
You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk
.

British Democracy
You have two cows. You feed them sheeps' brains and they go mad. The government doesn't do anything.


Bureaucracy
You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.


Pure Anarchy
You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.


Pure Capitalism
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.


Capitalism
You don't have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows, because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.


Enviromentalism
You have two cows. The government bans you from milking or killing them.


Political Correctness
You are associated with (the concept of "ownership" is a symbol of the phallo centric, war mongering, intolerant past) two differently - aged (but no less valuable to society) bovines of non-specified gender
.


Surrealism
You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Great Website Blog: CONSORTIUM NEWS

I just posted an excerpt (below) of one of their articles but they have so many that are well worth the time to read, that I wanted to recommend this website to everyone. The website deserves its own special mention so here it is.

A few sample articles:

'Surging' Toward Failure in Iraq
U.S.-Made Mess in Somalia
Did Rove's Protégé Puff Up Résumé?
Bush Out of Line Scolding Pelosi
Simple Calculus: Why Iran Won in Iraq
What to Do About Iran?
Rise of a Very 'Loyal Bushie'
Fatal Flaws of Bush's 'Tough-Guy-ism'
WPost Prints New Wilson/Plame Attack
Republican RICO-Style Abuse of Power
The Terrorists-Follow-Us-Home Myth
Intelligence Vets' Memo to Congress
'Prosecutor-gate': Bush's Power Grab
Bush/Cheney & a Love of 'Petards'
Afghanistan's 'Hard Mission' Slips Away
WPost Editorial Fantasyland
Why Cheney Lashed Out at Wilson
Zeroing in on Cheney-Bush

...but don't forget a visit to their main page!

Bush/Cheney Still Lie with Abandon



From the ConsortiumNews blog:

For years now, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have acted as if their extraordinary powers extend to inventing reality itself. And despite some recent reversals, they seem to believe they can still fool much of the American public most of the time. Their latest Iraq War lies are a medley of old and new favorites, from Cheney's continued insistence of a pre-war al-Qaeda connection to Iraq and Bush's latest whopper about how wrong it is for politicians to tell commanders what to do, after he just ousted generals opposed to his "surge."

COMPLETE ARTICLE

The author of this article is Robert Parry, who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Sunday, April 08, 2007

PTV's TOP 10: Rove's Riots, O'Reilly Cracks, Cheney Hides

Saturday, April 07, 2007

Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera

Friday, April 06, 2007

PTV'S TOP 10: The Greatest Political Web Videos of All Time

The Current Nancy Pelosi Hysteria

It's been obvious that the extreme uber-right-wing has been gunning for Nancy Pelosi even before last November 2006's elections. In fact, much of the shrieking hysteria I saw from the fanatical end of the right wing was that Republican power and the status quo must be preserved or else we will have *GASP!* Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House!

Ever since the Republicans' crushing defeat last November and the American public's repudiation of Bush war policy, the fanatics have had Pelosi in their gun sights and now they are in an orgasmic frenzy of masturbatory wish-fulfillment fantasy that their Number One target has committed some sort of transgression by taking seriously her obligation to represent the people of the United States.

I refer, of course, to Ms. Pelosi's U.S. Embassy arranged and supervised trip to Syria. Oh, you didn't know it was all handled by Bush administration representatives therefore, it couldn't possibly any infraction of the rules? Well. Now you know.

Sorry, Uber-Fanatics. Your balloon's been popped.

Here is my review of a related article I mischieviously placed on one of those uber-right-wing messageboards to be found in cyberspace:


I was impressed with this article for two reasons: The first being that, as a writer, I appreciate concise and effective writing skills in other writers so, entirely separate from any politics involved, I appreciate the logical and non-hysterical manner in which this article was put together. It is highly effective writing.


I suspect that there are people who would actually shriek with rage against such a writing style if it was not also used to promote their personal brand of political zealotry but, like I said, the actual writing skill involved is separate from the politics.


This article is pure reading pleasure simply for the technical writing skills of its author.


As for the politics, the article's approach is minus all the huffing and puffing and shrieking and pontificating I've seen far too much of here at BP and elsewhere on the internet and so it comes across as a breath of fresh air. When I reference the lack of hysteria in this article, I also intend to refer to the hysteria to be found on both ends of the political spectrum. This writer is no zealot or at least, there is no trace of it in this particular piece.


Some points made in the article:


Republican congressman Jim Kolbe travelled to Iraq in the Summer of 2003 because he felt, as chairman of the House subcommittee that manages America’s foreign assistance programs, it was his solemn responsibility to be "on the ground" to assess the need for the billions of dollars he knew Bush would be asking for in spite of Bush and Rice's assurances the budget would not be that high.


The Bush administration refused him entrance to Iraq at the Kuwaiti border. The reason given was that there was no means of providing for the security of non-military personnel. This, in spite of the numerous "embedded" reporters already travelling all over Iraq as well as numerous civilian contractors and their laborers who were also already inside Iraq.


Kolbe "snuck in" by posing as a contract laborer and was able to accomplish his fact-finding mission.


Kolbe's decision to oversee the spending in Iraq provides an excellent context for Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria. A major difference between the two trips is that Pelosi's itinerary in Syria was arranged by the American embassy and every contact she had with Syrian officials was supervised by Bush administration officials.


This article reminds us that Congress is charged with some very heavy responsibilities that can't always be fulfilled by sitting behind a desk in Washington. As the author of this article puts it, "They need to get out and kick the tires."


The article does give an example of how a member of Congress can and did cross the line into unacceptable usurpation of Executive branch powers. Pelosi’s predecessor, J. Dennis Hastert, conducted his own foreign policy apart from the Executive branch when it came to Colombia. He met with Columbian government representatives and sent his staff to Colombia to conduct business there. Unlike Pelosi, Hastert refused to allow United States government officials to oversee his contacts with the Columbian government even as he presented himself as a spokeperson for the United States government.


Congress would conduct billions of dollars in arms negotiations with Colombia based on Hastert's foreign policy, not on White House foreign policy. Hastert insisted the funds be inserted into appropriations bills and it would be his staff that would secure transfer of the actual weapons to the government of Colombia.


The Clinton administration did not seek any criminal or other investigation of Hastert's misconduct because Clinton's legislative priorities necessitated a working relationship with Congress and so they "looked the other way."


This example of Hastert's aggregious behavior most definitely highlights the hypocrisy of political zealots who would skewer Pelosi for her U.S. embassy arranged visit to Syria.


The article concludes that it is inappropriate for the White House or anyone else to interfere with the right of Congress to travel, ask questions, and be informed as to the serious decision making that our representatives must do.


The article states, "After all, our nation’s actions in the Middle East carry a very big price tag that Congress, ultimately, must approve. Pelosi needs to know the facts on the ground."


YOU CAN READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE HERE.

Labels: , , , , , , ,