House considers weakening ethics rules - Dec 31, 2004

Republicans are fucking hypocrits. Doesn't surprise me because most of them are Christian, but anyway...could you imagine the gnashing of teeth and screaming and yelling that the repugnicans an O'Rielly over at FOX news would do if the DEMOCRATS wanted to to "lower the standards" after a DEMOCRAT was investigated on ethics violations? Oh my goodness, it'd be the fucking end of the world, not doubt.

Typical republican bullshit though, this is. They can NEVER play by the Rules. Hell, they want to do away w/ the fillibuster so that Bush's appointees can sail through, in the new Congress they'll only bring up what a "majority of the majority" want, and in Florida they are considering taking separation of churc and state out of their constitution so that republicans can pass otherwise unconstitutional laws. Hell, they can't even win an election without cheating.

If I were a republican, I'd be embarassed.

CNN.com - House considers weakening ethics rules - Dec 31, 2004: "Republican leaders are considering a change in House ethics rules that could make it harder to discipline lawmakers."

CNN.com - U.S. revises its definition of torture - Dec 31, 2004

CNN.com - U.S. revises its definition of torture - Dec 31, 2004: "The 17-page memo omitted two of the most controversial assertions made in now-disavowed 2002 Justice Department documents: that President Bush, as commander in chief in wartime, had authority superseding U.S. anti-torture laws and that U.S. personnel had several legal defenses against criminal liability in such cases."

Yet Gonzales will still be confirmed as the US Attorney General. "Democrats have said they would question Gonzales closely on memos he wrote that were similar to the now-disavowed Justice Department documents that critics said appeared to justify torture." They'll question, they'll puff, display their feathers. Yet in the end, A.G. will be the A.G.

Conyers, other house members to challege Ohio electors' vote on January 6th

Wow. How fun is this gonna be? Doubtless we won't find a Senator to join in, but for a few hours the fireworks should be fun. Set your TiVo's for CSPAN on Thursday, January 6, 2005

This is from Olberman's blog (past the depressing, depressing tsunami stuff...)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

Back here, the office of Representative John Conyers of Michigan confirmed late this afternoon that he and several other Congressmen are planning to object— to formally challenge— the vote of the Ohio electors when the Electoral College ballots are opened before the joint session of Congress next Thursday.

Conyers says he is still seeking a Senator to join the House members— whom he does not name— and has written to each member of the Senate asking them to join him.
Conyers' letter today was addressed to Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California. It follows in its entirety:

"Dear Senator Boxer,
"As you know, on January 6, 2005, at 1:00 P.M, the electoral votes for the election of the president are to be opened and counted in a joint session of Congress, commencing at 1:00 P.M. I and a number of House Members are planning to object to the counting of the Ohio votes, due to numerous unexplained irregularities in the Ohio presidential vote, many of which appear to violate both federal and state law. I am hoping that you will consider joining us in this important effort to debate and highlight the problems in Ohio which disenfranchised innumerable voters. I will shortly forward you a draft report itemizing and analyzing the many irregularities we have come across as part of our hearings and investigation into the Ohio presidential election. "3 U.S.C. §15 provides when the results from each of the states are announced, that "the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any." Any objection must be presented in writing and "signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.The objection must "state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof. When an objection has been properly made in writing and endorsed by a member of each body the Senate withdraws from the House chamber, and each body meets separately to consider the objection. "No votes . . . from any other State shall be acted upon until the [pending] objection . . . [is] finally disposed of." 3 U.S.C. §17 limits debate on the objections in each body to two hours, during which time no member may speak more than once and not for more than five minutes. Both the Senate and the House must separately agree to the objection; otherwise, the challenged vote or votes are counted.
"Historically, there appears to be three general grounds for objecting to the counting of electoral votes. The language of 3 U.S.C. §15 suggests that objection may be made on the grounds that (1) a vote was not "regularly given" by the challenged elector(s); and/or (2) the elector(s) was not "lawfully certified" under state law; or (3) two slates of electors have been presented to Congress from the same State.
"Since the Electoral Count Act of 1887, no objection meeting the requirements of the Act have been made against an entire slate of state electors. In the 2000 election several Members of the House of Representatives attempted to challenge the electoral votes from the State of Florida. However, no Senator joined in the objection, and therefore, the objection was not "received." In addition, there was no determination whether the objection constituted an appropriate basis under the 1887 Act. However, if a State - in this case Ohio - has not followed its own procedures and met its obligation to conduct a free and fair election, a valid objection -if endorsed by at least one Senator and a Member of the House of Representatives- should be debated by each body separately until "disposed of".
"Sincerely, John Conyers, Jr."

CNN.com - Conservative students, liberal profs - Dec 28, 2004

CNN.com - Conservative students, liberal profs - Dec 28, 2004: "At the University of North Carolina, three incoming freshmen sue over a reading assignment they say offends their Christian beliefs."

So, it's NOT Ok for Christian Students to be asked to read the Quran, but it IS OK for a Christian teacher to force his students to read the Bible?

This was the Christian teacher's American History assignment:

Read the Easter story in the Bible. Start reading Luke, chapter 22, and continue to the end of the book of Luke. Write a response to some of the themes in the Easter story of the Bible: betrayal, sacrifice, resurrection, love, hope, new life. Write a response to any of the themes in the story using references from the Bible and how they apply to our culture today. Make a diorama of a scene from the story and attach your written response.

Christians are hypocrits.

Government corruption cases increase - Dec 27, 2004

Two interesting things about this article. Five democrats are mentioned, and only two republicans are mentioned (gotta love that liberal bias, there). Would lead one to believe that republicans are more ethical. Except for the second most interesting thing about this article - tom DeLay is not mentioned ONCE!!

CNN.com - Government corruption cases increase - Dec 27, 2004: "But the steady slide of high-profile public officials into ethical and criminal scandals risks fostering increasing distrust of government leaders."

Back by unpopular demand

Some mandate. Perhaps people are pulling thier heads out of their butts, but you won't see it on TV. Why is it that the media finds it necessary to kiss such presidential ass?

Salon.com News | Back by unpopular demand: "Not only is Bush's 50 percent approval rating dismal for a two-term president, it's arguably the worst for any president about to be sworn into office. The only other modern-day president with such shaky approval ratings immediately following an election win was Reagan. According to a January 1981 Gallup poll, his job approval rating stood at just 51 percent. (Since Gallup began polling in 1937, Bush and Reagan are the only two presidents to take office with job approval ratings that low.) The difference between Reagan and Bush, though, was that Reagan's disapproval rating at the time was just 13 percent. Today, Bush's negative rating hovers in the 40s. 'His high disapproval numbers are astonishing,' says Shenkman. "

Do y'all feel lied to yet? Bush and Iraq forces

From the debates in 2004 -- on September 30, 2004:
BUSH: Let me first tell you that the best way for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job. And that's what we're doing. We've got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, 200,000 by the end of next year.

And today, from his press conference: "Now, I would call the results mixed, in terms of standing up Iraqi units who are willing to fight. There have been some cases where when the heat got on, they left the battlefield....And so the American people are taking a look at Iraq and wondering whether the Iraqis are eventually able -- going to be able to fight off these bombers and killers. And our objective is to give them the tools and the training necessary to do so..."

Hhmmm...What changed in less than three months? Most of 100,000 "trained" troops are leaving the battlefield? Oh, I get it. It's the new 25,000 of the "125,000 by the end of this year" that are cuttin' and runnin'. Perhaps if the "objective" would have been to "give them the tools and the training" back at the start of this war, we might not be in the quagmire we're in. "Now" is a tad too late.

Hope all you Bush supporters were given a sample tube of KY when you cast your votes.

So how does it feel??

Color me cynical, but I have absolutely no sympathy for these "straight" couples. Perhaps if a few of 'em find out how it feels to live on this side of the issue, they'll push for a bit of common sense.

Daily News...Advocate.com: "'What concerns me is that the certificate is the only way to prove that we're married,' she told The New York Times. 'If something happens to us or some other couple from New Paltz, we can't prove we're married. We would not be able to draw benefits.'"

All I can say is, "aww...poor baby."

War on the Cheap

Sure would have been nice if someone could have said this BEFORE the elections.

The New York Times > Opinion > War on the Cheap: "From the earliest planning stages until now, the war in Iraq has been a tragic exercise in official incompetence. The original rationale for the war was wrong. The intelligence was wrong. The estimates of required troop strength were wrong. The war hawks' guesses about the response of the Iraqi people were wrong. The cost estimates were wrong, and on and on."

Va. Boy's Defiant Words Draw Police Response (washingtonpost.com)

Living in America?

Va. Boy's Defiant Words Draw Police Response (washingtonpost.com): "'The FBI and government officials should be investigating real terrorists, not children who criticize the United States.' "

Yeah, should be. But aren't.

GOP lawmaker Collins joins Rumsfeld critics - Dec 16, 2004

NOW they fucking care?? Anyone with half a brain that's been paying even the slightest bit of attention to Iraq knows that the troops haven't had sufficient armor ever since they got there. It's too bad it takes this long for them to grow some balls. 'Course, us unpatriotic, troop-hatin', enemy-aiding liberals have been talking about lack of armor for months and months and months. And what was Rushlimpdick pissed about when the story finally "broke" mainstream? The fact that the reporter helped phrase the question. No outrage that troops aren't protected. No outrage and Rumsfeld's stupid-ass comments. No outrage at the war. Just pissed that the 'liberal' media set ol' Rummy boy up. Twits.

CNN.com - GOP lawmaker Collins joins Rumsfeld critics - Dec 16, 2004

The Street's Dark Side

Well, let's hope they "address" the "practices and conflicts of intereste on Wall Street" BEFORE the Congress hands over corporate control of social security. Wanna bet they don't? Just in case you don't want to read the whole article, "social security" doesn't show up once in it...

MSNBC - The Street's Dark Side: "Despite the changes, however, Wall Street remains a treacherous place for the small investor. The big financial firms are still rife with conflicts that put their own interests, and those of big banking clients, ahead of everyone else's. (Just last week, for example, Citigroup was fined $275,000 for steering customers to invest in certain Citigroup funds that were 'unsuitable'' for them.) Also, watchdog agencies like the SEC, even with bulked-up resources, continue to be ill-equipped to root out corporate crime. And when investors think they've been cheated, the system for ruling on their complaints remains stacked against them. 'There are all sorts of practices and conflicts of interest on Wall Street that still have to be addressed, ' says John Coffee, a Columbia University law professor."

Yahoo! News - Marines hunt down Fallujah's strays to head off rabies threat

Yahoo! News - Marines hunt down Fallujah's strays to head off rabies threat: "But this time the marines are not chasing down the insurgents who they defeated in a devastating assault on the city last month. Their quarry is stray animals grown fat on the flesh from corpses and who could harbor rabies. "

Iraqi election workers killed in drive-by shooting

CNN.com - Iraqi election workers killed in drive-by shooting - Dec 10, 2004: "The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq announced a change Friday in the deadline for candidate-list registration.

Wednesday is the nationwide deadline. Previously, the cut-off had been today for 15 of 18 provinces, and Wednesday for the country's three most restive provinces -- Al-Anbar, Salah ad Din and Nineveh."

Iraq-Bound GIs Grill Rumsfeld | December 8, 2004

Now, this is the way to "support the troops" and build morale, aint' it? "You go to the war with the army you have," and "'You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up." Brilliant. F*cking Brilliant.

CBS News | Iraq-Bound GIs Grill Rumsfeld | December 8, 2004 08:52:07: "'We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north,' Wilson said after asking again.

Rumsfeld replied that, 'You go to war with the Army you have,' not the one you might want, and that any rate the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.

And, the defense chief added, armor is not always a savior in the kind of combat U.S. troops face in Iraq, where the insurgents' weapon of choice is the roadside bomb, or improvised explosive device that has killed and maimed hundreds, if not thousands, of American troops since the summer of 2003.

'You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up,' Rumsfeld said. "

The food supply...

So, Tommy Thompson said that terrorist could poison our food supply.

Thompson, whose department oversees Medicare, Medicaid and federal welfare programs, is the eighth Cabinet member to announce his departure since Bush's reelection Nov. 2. Although resignation announcements are typically formal affairs heavy on platitudes, Thompson used an afternoon news conference about his departure to reveal that he worries "every single night" about "food poisoning" on a massive scale.
"I, for the life of me, cannot understand why the terrorists have not, you know, attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do," Thompson said. "And we are importing a lot of food from the Middle East, and it would be easy to tamper with that."

They are a tad late. Seems the military has beat 'em to it.

Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tests released this week have confirmed the presence of perchlorate - an explosive additive in solid rocket fuel - in almost every sample of lettuce and milk taken in a nationwide investigation. Perchlorate, leaking from military bases and defense contrator's facilities, is known to cause regional water pollution, resulting in serious health effects.
The FDA investigation found the toxic additive in 217 of 232 samples of lettuce and milk from 15 states, including areas not previously known for perchlorate contamination. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's perchlorate coordinator for the southwest and Pacific region, Kevin Mayer, the FDA results show that this regional pollution problem is now exposing people across the entire U.S. to the toxin.