Bill Richardson on SOTU

Before the Democratic Response was over, a press release from Bill Richardson's campaign arrived:

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson
Calls the State of the Union
"More Promises, When America Needs Action"

For Immediate Release Contact: Pahl Shipley
January 23, 2007 Santa Fe (505) 982-2291

SANTA FE, NM- Governor Bill Richardson tonight called on President Bush to take meaningful action to help middle-class Americans and attack the serious problems facing the country. Governor Richardson, who on Monday filed the paperwork creating a Presidential campaign exploratory committee, was responding to the President's State of the Union Address and specifically pointed to three critical areas of concern mentioned in the speech- energy efficiency and independence, healthcare, and climate change.

"Welcome to the party, Mr. President, the rest of the country and the world have been talking and doing something about these issues for years," said Governor Richardson. "In addition to being years behind, what the President is proposing doesn't go far enough and isn't realistic."

On energy, Governor Richardson pointed out that the President's proposal on renewable fuels is not broad enough. "Ethanol is a critical part of the solution, but not the only part. Our approach must be comprehensive, exploring all opportunities with renewables, including solar, wind, biomass, fuel cells, and distributive generation, to name a few," said the Governor. "In New Mexico we're requiring 10% of all energy produced must come from renewable sources, and we're moving toward 20%. We're providing tax credits for companies developing renewable energy and we've taken action to reduce and limit carbon dioxide emissions. It's time for serious action, not lip service."

Governor Richardson agreed that the nation must dramatically improve vehicle fuel efficiency but noted the President's plan does not provide enough specifics. It also leaves too many loopholes to achieve the kind of improvements necessary to wean the country off foreign oil and reduce vehicle emissions.

"Ultimately we need a 'man-on-the moon' effort focused on energy independence," added the Governor. "Anything less will not create the change necessary to make a lasting difference."

Governor Richardson applauded the President for addressing the healthcare crisis facing the country but believes the proposals don't go far enough to help the tens of millions of Americans without health insurance.

"The burden of having so many patients unable to pay is crushing the healthcare system, and all of us are paying the price," said the Governor. "In New Mexico and in other states we are finding ways to provide our citizens access to affordable healthcare. We need leadership and funding from the federal government to make sure our working families, and especially our children get the care they deserve."

Another urgent area of concern where states are taking action in the absence of federal leadership or support is climate change.

"It is the gravest environmental threat the world faces. The administration has done little to reverse the effects or causes of global warming and time is running out. We must engage with the rest of the world in this effort, and we must implement a meaningful strategy that will make a difference. States like New Mexico and California, not the federal government, are leading the way in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but the innovation in the states must take place on a national scale."

And finally, Governor Richardson reiterated his opposition to the President's Iraq strategy and believes the United States can and must get our troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007.

"Our presence in Iraq is not helping anymore and we must begin to turn the security of the country over to the Iraqi forces and get our forces out," said Governor Richardson. "Our preoccupation with Iraq has caused a resurgence of terrorism in Afghanistan and more violence throughout the region. We must redeploy our troops into areas that will do the most good, and make a real impact in the war on terror."

"Americans expect the President and the government to get things done, to solve the problems that create positive change and improve their quality of life, but that hasn't happened with this administration" said Governor Richardson. "The President has lost his credibility. People here and across the world are looking to the United States for leadership and action, not more promises."

Bill Richardson is someone worth keeping an eye on in the run-up to 2008.

Summary only...

Part of What the American Presence Means

As President Bush prepares to address Congress and the Nation and, presumably, reiterate his intent to escalate the Iraq war, comes this release from CentCom --

Earlier this week, American and Iraqi forces conducting clearing operations in southern Baghdad stumbled on an Iraqi kidnap victim. The man, handcuffed and "noticeably tortured", was found in the cellar of a Baghdad home being searched in connection with anti-insurgent activity. Soldiers reported finding remnants of torture activity in the basement, leading them to conclude the location was routinely used for that purpose. In addition to the rescued prisoner, the troops found numerous caches of arms, as well as nine corpses of murder victims. They detained seven suspects.

According to officials, the kidnap victim said that he was targeted because he sold bread to American troops.

Summary only...

Tell Bush What You Think of the Escalation

Barbara Boxer has set up an easy-to-use email petition to Bush, letting him know that we are against the escalation of his Iraq folly. The White House does count these things and keeps a tally.

Let's do our part to make the numbers overwhelming.

Click here to participate.

Or here to compose and send your own.

Summary only...

State of the Union: Greatest Hits

It is interesting that the President's 2001 State of the Union address appears to have been scrubbed from WhiteHouse.gov. The address, given on February 27, 2001, does not show up, even in a date-only search. Fortunately, it is available at multifarious places on the internets.

And, it is loaded with such gems, ironic and sad, that I thought it worth a look back at those good old days, you know, when Bush and Cheney and Rice were busy ignoring reports that bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.

Some highlights from 2001's lies address to an Innocent Nation:

• "I want to thank so many of you who have accepted my invitation to come to the White House to discuss important issues. We're off to a good start. I will continue to meet with you and ask for your input."


• "Together, we are changing the tone in the Nation's Capital. And this spirit of respect and cooperation is vital, because, in the end, we will be judged not only by what we say or how we say it, we will be judged by what we're able to accomplish."


• "One would have warning signs: increasing layoffs, rising energy prices, too many failing schools, persistent poverty, the stubborn vestiges of racism. Another picture would be full of blessings: a balanced budget, big surpluses, a military that is second to none, a country at peace with its neighbors, technology that is revolutionizing the world, and our greatest strength -- concerned citizens who care for our country and care for each other. Neither picture is complete in and of itself. And tonight I challenge and invite Congress to work with me to use the resources of one picture to repaint the other; to direct the advantages of our time to solve the problems of our people."


• "Education is not my top priority -- education is my top priority . . . ."


• "We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. (Applause.) At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. (Applause.) That is more debt, repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history. (Applause.)"


• "America has a window of opportunity to extend and secure our present peace by promoting a distinctly American internationalism. We will work with our allies and friends to be a force for good and a champion of freedom."

And, my favorite:

• We can make Americans proud of their government.

The saddest part about this is that I don't even need to offer commentary to drive home just how duplicitous and incompetent is this nasty, festering, puss of a man. All I need is to quote the crap dribbling out of his mouth.

(Photo Credit: Freeway Blogger)

Summary only...

Sore Winners

They got the so-called grassroots lobbying provisions out of S.1 (based on lies like this: "Section 220 of S. 1, the lobbying reform bill currently before the Senate, would require grassroots causes, even bloggers, who communicate to 500 or more members of the public on policy matters, to register and report quarterly". We dissected that lie here.) Nevertheless, wingnutz like the so-called "American Family Association of PA (f/k/a AFAof NWPA)", are pouring out more lies about the portion of the bill that wasn't even passed (thanks to weak-knees like Arlen Specter who caved to far right wingnut pressure). You know you were on to something when they are still whining about it even a week after they won the fight.

Summary only...

Senate Passes Weakened Ethics Bill

Senate Democrats, anxious to demonstrate that there is a "new" way of doing the people's business, struggled through a week of Republican maneuvers and wingnut opposition to pass ethics reform legislation by an overwhelming 96-2 vote late Thursday evening.

The vote came after the bill, S.1, appeared dead in the water due to the proposal to attach a line-item veto amendment to the legislation. Harry Reid offered a compromise, permitting the line-item legislation to come up before the spring recess. But Senator Byrd vigorously opposed the deal on the principle that it was what he termed "legislative blackmail". After repeated quorum calls, the Senate chamber began filling up around 8 pm and it appeared a compromise had been reached.

The Democrats would permit the line-item veto legislation to be proposed for attachment to the minimum wage legislation that the Senate is expected to take up on Monday.

S.1 did not make it through unscathed, however. Wingnut misrepresentation over what the bill actually said carried the day, as the Bennett amendment, to strip out the guts of Section 220 of the bill, requiring stealth advertisers, like the swiftboaters, to register under the lobbying rules, was passed. The Senate also refused to accept an amendment creating an Office of Public Integrity to have authority to investigate ethical lapses of members of Congress -- the Congress wants to retain that power (too much danger inherent in turning it over to an independent agency).

Nevertheless, the bill finally did pass. The Senate Bill, as passed, would:

--Bar lawmakers from accepting gifts and travel paid for by lobbyists.
--Extend from one to two years the time a former member must wait before he lobbies Congress.
--Deny pensions to lawmakers convicted of serious crimes.
--Require more reporting by lobbyists on their activities.
--Require public disclosure of those home-state projects.
--Require senators hitching rides on private jets to pay full charter rates rather than the current practice of paying the far cheaper equivalent of a first class ticket.

Next month, the House will take up similar legislation on lobby reform and set up a conference to work out the final reforms.

Summary only...

"Are the memories around here so short?"

The Senate has been working on Senate Bill 1 this week. S.1 is the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, designed to break, or at least pour a little light on, the ties between lobbyists, big money interest groups, and Congress. (We covered the false allegations being made against the bill earlier this week.)

The Republicans, however, have stalled the effort -- despite a significant number of Republicans claiming to support the bill -- by interposing an unrelated amendment to grant the President a form of line-item veto. This, despite a recent Supreme Court opinion declaring the line-item veto unconstitutional. Senator Byrd called the Republicans on the tactic, speaking from the floor of the Senate, clutching a copy of the Constitution:

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise tonight at this late hour. The hour is late and the night is black. I rise tonight to shine a bright light on political chicanery that is playing out on the Senate floor.

In November, America voted for a change. The people sent a strong signal that they wanted less partisanship and more accountability in Washington. In response to the voters, Senator Reid, Senator Feinstein, and Senator McConnell put before the Senate an ethics reform bill that would add transparency and accountability to the legislative process. They should be proud of their product, and the Senate has had a good debate thus far on the bill.

But wait, wait, wait 1 second. Before we can clear the way for greater accountability and sunshine into the way work gets done in these halls, the Senate is being blackmailed into an assault on the Congress's single most precious and most powerful authority--the power of the purse. That is the most powerful authority we have: the power of the purse.

Tonight, this reform bill is threatened by an effort by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to give the President line-item veto authority. No vote on the line-item veto, they say, and no ethics reform. That is nothing more than legislative blackmail, and I, for one, will not pay the price. No one should stand still when this Constitution, which I hold in my hand, is the hostage. No one should stand still, I repeat, when this Constitution, which I hold in my hand, is the hostage.

This line-item veto authority would grant tremendous and dangerous new power to the President. He would have unchecked authority to take from the Congress the power of the purse, a power that the constitutional Framers thought was absolutely vital to protecting the people's liberties.

It was just 8 years ago that the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the line-item veto was unconstitutional. Now our colleagues--some of them--on the other side of the aisle are threatening to hold up the ethics reform bill in an effort to hand the President another line-item veto authority. Are the memories around here so short?

Are the memories around here so short?

We have a President who already has asserted too much power. This is a blatantly gross attempt to take even more power for the President and strip away power from the people.

This President claimed the unconstitutional authority to tap into the telephone conversations of American citizens without a warrant or court approval.

This President claimed the unconstitutional authority to sneak and peek, to snoop and scoop, into the private lives of the American people.

This President has taken the Nation to a failed war based on faulty evidence and the misrepresentation of facts. And many Senators voted not realizing that was what was being done when we voted on the war resolution.

So I say, this President has taken the Nation to a failed war based on faulty evidence and an unconstitutional doctrine of preemptive strikes. More than 3,000 American sons and daughters have died in Iraq in this crazed Presidential misadventure.

And what is the response of the Senate? To give the President even more unfettered authority? To give him greater unchecked powers? We have seen the danger of the blank check. We have lived through the aftermath of a rubberstamp Congress. We should not continue to lie down for this President or any other President.

Of course, this President wants to take away Congress's power of the purse. When Congress has the sole ability to shut down these unconstitutional practices, when Congress is asking tough questions and demanding truthful answers about this war, when Congress is taking a hard look at finding ways to begin to bring our troops home, over the objections of this administration, the President's response is to demand that the Congress give away its most crucial power. Silence the Congress. Ignore the people. Strip away our constitutional protections and one may just as well strip away the people's liberties lock, stock, and barrel. Strip away the power of the Congress, the power of the people, and amass all power behind the fences and secret doors of the White House.

No Senator should vote to hand such power to the President. No American should stand for it--not now, not ever.

If our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to stop the Senate's effort to add transparency and accountability to the legislative process, that is their right and their choice. But I will not blink. I cannot look the other way. We should get on with the business at hand and pass meaningful ethics reform legislation. But we should never, never, hand away those precious constitutional powers--the last protections of the people's liberties, vested in the people's representatives in this Congress--to any President.

We have each taken an oath to protect and defend this Constitution of the United States. Here it is. I hold it in my hand. I say again, we have each taken an oath to protect and defend this Constitution of the United States. And it is about time we did protect and defend that Constitution of the United States.

Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Summary only...

Obama on Iraq

Speaking in Senate, Live on C-Span 2, NOW.

Simultaneousy, he released this statement:

"Throughout the war in Iraq, we have been given assurance after assurance by our government only to find out that facts on the ground reflect a completely different reality.

"Last week, after being told by President Bush that his plan to escalate this war would be well-planned, well-coordinated, and well-supported by the Iraqi government, we find out in this week's New York Times that none of this is true. Military officials tell us that there is no clear chain of command between Iraqis and U.S. commanders and no real indication that the Iraqis even want such a partnership.

"I cannot in good conscience support this plan. As I first said two months ago, we should not be sending more U.S. troops to Iraq, we should begin redeploying them to let the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever and to pressure the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds to finally reach a political settlement.

"Escalation is a failed policy opposed by generals, Democrats and Republicans, and now even the Iraqis themselves, and the fact that the President is already moving ahead with this idea is a terrible consequence of the decision to give him the broad, open-ended authority to wage this war in 2002.

"It now falls on Congress to find a way to support our troops in the field while still preventing the President from multiplying his previous mistakes. That is why I not only favor capping the number U.S. troops in Iraq, but believe it's imperative that we begin the phased redeployment I called for two months ago, and intend to introduce legislation that does just that."

Summary only...

Yeah, What's He Know?

Kids, it's science, not "common sense" -- that's why it takes experts to study and explain it to the rest of us non-experts.

Summary only...

Presidential Politics -- War Mongers Moving Left

Hillary has (finally) said that she is opposed to the surge, vice-presidential candidate Evan Bayh is opposed to an increase in troops, and now 2008 contenders, and former supporters of the invasion of Iraq, Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel, are holding hands on the issue. Biden and Hagel, together with Carl Levin (monger, but not running in 2008), joined to introduce yet another resolution against President Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq. Thanks to the New York Times, here is the text of that resolution:

Whereas the United States strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq an only be sustained with the support of the American people and bipartisan support from Congress;

Whereas maximizing chances of success in Iraq should be out [sic:our] goal, and the best chance of success requires a change in current strategy;

Whereas the situation in Iraq is damaging the standing, influence, and interests of the United States in Iraq, the Middle East, and around the world;

Whereas more than 137,000 United States military personnel are bravely and honorably serving in Iraq and deserve the support of all Americans;

Whereas more than 2,000 United States military personnel have already lost their lives in Iraq, and more than 22,500 have been wounded in Iraq;

Whereas on January 10, 2007, President George W. Bush announced his plan to deepen the United States military involvement in Iraq by deploying approximately 21,000 additional United States combat forces to Iraq;

Whereas Iraq is witnessing widening sectarian and intra-sectarian violence;

Whereas Iraqis must reach a political settlement if there is going to be a reconciliation in Iraq, and the failure of the Iraqis to achieve such a settlement has led to the increase in violence in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated on November 27, 2006, that "the crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are politicians";

Whereas an open-ended commitment of United States forces in Iraq is unsustainable and a deterrent to the Iraqis making the political compromises and providing the personnel and resources that are needed for violence to end and for stability and security to be achieved in Iraq;

Whereas the responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq must rest primarily with the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces;

Whereas there have been repeated promises by the Government of Iraq to assume a greater share of security responsibilities, disband militias, consider amendments to the Iraq constitution, enact laws to reconcile sectarian differences, and improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people, but those promises have not been kept;

Whereas a successful strategy in Iraq is dependent upon the Iraqi leaders fulfilling their promises; Whereas the commander of the United States Central Command, General John Abizaid, testified to Congress on November 15, 2006, that "it's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from taking more responsibility for their own future;

Whereas the Iraq Study Group suggested a comprehensive strategy to "enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly" based on "New and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region;

Whereas the United States Army and Marine Corps, including their Reserves and the Army National Guard, their personnel, and their families, are under enormous strain from multiple, extended deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas the majority of nondeployed Army and Marine Corps units are no longer combat ready due to a lack of equipment and insufficient time to train; and whereas the United States strategy in Iraq must not compromise the ability of the United States to address other vital national security priorities, in particular global terror networks, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional stability in the Middle East, the nuclear program of Iran, the nuclear weapons of North Korea, and stability and security in Afghanistan.

Now therefore be it resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that -

(1) it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq;

(2) the primary objective of United States strategy in Iraq should be to have the Iraqi political leaders make the political compromises necessary to end the violence in Iraq;

(3) greater concerted regional, and international support would assist the Iraqis in achieving a political solution and national reconciliation;

(4) main elements of the mission of United States forces in Iraq should transition to helping ensure the territorial integrity of Iraq, conduct counterterrorism activities, reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq, and accelerate training of Iraqi troops;

(5) the United States should transfer, under an appropriately expedited timeline, responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence in Iraq to the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces;

(6) the United States should engage nations in the Middle East to develop a regionally-sponsored peace and reconciliation process for Iraq.

In response, the White House spokesmouth, Tony Snow, said that the President and Vice-President don't "give a shit about what the Senate thinks".

Summary only...

Casey Speaks

We have covered the First Words of the new Pennsylvania Democrats in Congress, and in the process gently chided Bobby Casey, Jr. for being the last of the new delegation to open his yap in earnest.

We were wondering if he was going to set a record for silence on the Floor (as we believe that he must have for silence on the campaign trail), but he has spoken. Yesterday, during the debates on Senate Bill 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 (on which we rambled yesterday), Senator Casey rose to support his amendment to the bill. The amendment makes it a crime for a member of Congress to use their influence to get lobbying jobs for their staff or others. Here's the guts of the Casey amendment:

"Whoever, being a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress or an employee of either House of Congress, with the intent to influence on the basis of partisan political affiliation an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity--

"(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act; or

"(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another;"

Now, Senator Casey on the floor:

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, this amendment prohibits the wrongful influencing of a private entity's employment decisions and/or practices in exchange for political access or favors.

As we all know from the recent activity in this body, Reid-McConnell, S. 1, is an ethics reform bill, I think a critically important bill for this body and for the country. One of the things we want to make sure happens in that bill is that we provide all the protections possible to give confidence to the American people that what is happening in Washington speaks to some of their concerns. This amendment speaks to that by providing criminal penalties punishable, in this case, by a fine or imprisonment for up to 15 years for anyone who would engage in the practice of wrongfully influencing a private entity's employment decisions and/or practices, as I said before, in exchange for political access or favors.

Also, one of the penalties that is contemplated in this amendment is to disqualify an individual from holding public office--any office--if they engage in that activity. What we are talking about is activity that has gone under the umbrella of the name of the K Street Project which has been written about extensively in the public press for several years now, and what we are talking about there, in particular, I believe, is an effort to have a corrupting influence, in my judgment, on a couple of important areas of activity in Washington--first, a corrupting influence on hiring decisions in the private sector in Washington, a corrupting influence on political fundraising which we know has all of the challenges that those of us in Washington who care about doing it the right way have concerns about, and certainly the activities of the K Street Project or any other similar effort, any other similar practice in Washington also has a corrupt influence on the priorities of the Government of the United States. That is why this amendment is so important.

It is long overdue. It is high time to end this corruption, to end this practice which for too long has been a part of the culture of corruption in Washington. I believe this amendment will strengthen S. 1, it will strengthen any effort to provide, as the main bill contemplates, both transparency and accountability, and I do believe this amendment will speak directly to that issue. There is broad bipartisan support for this amendment, as there is for the Reid-McConnell bill.

I also appreciate the fact that as a new Member--and, Mr. President, I include you in this as well as someone who cares very deeply, as you do, about the question of ethics and ethics reform--the bill we are talking about in the Senate was arrived at through a bipartisan effort, and I think it is important this amendment, which deals with the K Street Project or any other similar effort in Washington, also be a bipartisan effort by people in both parties, on both sides of the aisle to make sure we can once and for all tear out by the roots the corrupt practices that, unfortunately, became known as the K Street Project.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

"Absence of a quorum"? I guess no one was listening. Nevertheless, he has spoken. Now, if only he could get that website up and running . . . .

Summary only...

Wingnut Lies About S.1

For over a month now, right wingnutz have been in a tizzy over S. 1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007. Their complaints center on Section 220 of the bill. Their talking points about that section are filled with dramatic and alarming claims. But, as you might expect when considering the source, they speak falsely.

Uniformly, the wingnutz pretty much tell you what the bill says, without linking to or quoting the actual language. So, to start the discussion, let us take a look at (gasp -- here's a thought) the actual words:

SEC. 220. DISCLOSURE OF PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING.

(a) Definitions- Section 3 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1602) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (7), by adding at the end of the following: `Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.'; and

(2) by adding at the end of the following:

`(17) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING- The term `grassroots lobbying' means the voluntary efforts of members of the general public to communicate their own views on an issue to Federal officials or to encourage other members of the general public to do the same.
`(18) PAID EFFORTS TO STIMULATE GRASSROOTS LOBBYING-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.
`(B) PAID ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR SEGMENTS THEREOF- The term `paid attempt to influence the general public or segments thereof' does not include an attempt to influence directed at less than 500 members of the general public.
`(C) REGISTRANT- For purposes of this paragraph, a person or entity is a member of a registrant if the person or entity--
`(i) pays dues or makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount to the entity;
`(ii) makes a contribution of more than a nominal amount of time to the entity;
`(iii) is entitled to participate in the governance of the entity;
`(iv) is 1 of a limited number of honorary or life members of the entity; or
`(v) is an employee, officer, director or member of the entity.
`(19) GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRM- The term `grassroots lobbying firm' means a person or entity that--
`(A) is retained by 1 or more clients to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying on behalf of such clients; and
`(B) receives income of, or spends or agrees to spend, an aggregate of $25,000 or more for such efforts in any quarterly period.'.

(b) Registration- Section 4(a) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1603(a)) is amended--

(1) in the flush matter at the end of paragraph (3)(A), by adding at the end the following: `For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii), the term `lobbying activities' shall not include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying.'; and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following: `(4) FILING BY GRASSROOTS LOBBYING FIRMS- Not later than 45 days after a grassroots lobbying firm first is retained by a client to engage in paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, such grassroots lobbying firm shall register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives.'.

(c) Separate Itemization of Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying- Section 5(b) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(b)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (3), by--

(A) inserting after `total amount of all income' the following: `(including a separate good faith estimate of the total amount of income relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and

(B) inserting `or a grassroots lobbying firm' after `lobbying firm';

(2) in paragraph (4), by inserting after `total expenses' the following: `(including a good faith estimate of the total amount of expenses relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying and, within that total amount, a good faith estimate of the total amount specifically relating to paid advertising)'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following: `Subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) shall not apply with respect to reports relating to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying activities.'.

(d) Good Faith Estimates and De Minimis Rules for Paid Efforts To Stimulate Grassroots Lobbying-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 5(c) of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1604(c)) is amended to read as follows:

`(c) Estimates of Income or Expenses- For purposes of this section, the following shall apply:
`(1) Estimates of income or expenses shall be made as follows:
`(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $10,0000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.
`(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $10,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $10,000 for the reporting period.
`(2) Estimates of income or expenses relating specifically to paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying shall be made as follows:
`(A) Estimates of amounts in excess of $25,000 shall be rounded to the nearest $20,000.
`(B) In the event income or expenses do not exceed $25,000, the registrant shall include a statement that income or expenses totaled less than $25,000 for the reporting period.'.

(2) TAX REPORTING- Section 15 of the Act (2 U.S.C. 1610) is amended--

(A) in subsection (a)--

(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;

(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following: `(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'; and

(B) in subsection (b)--

(i) in paragraph (1), by striking `and' after the semicolon;

(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period and inserting `; and'; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following: `(3) in lieu of using the definition of paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying in section 3(18), consider as paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying only those activities that are grassroots expenditures as defined in section 4911(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.'.

Now, let's take a look at some of the wingnut claims.

The Pennsylvania Family Institute(PAFI) seems as good a place as any to start (they are just convenient. Swing a dead cat and look at the Talking Points of the first wingnut org that you hit, they will be saying the same thing.)

The PAFI alarm contains what appears to be a link to Senate Bill 1. But, when a faithful reader clicks on that link they are transported not to the Bill itself, but to the Family Research Council's Talking Points on the bill. After this little bit of misdirection, the PAFI tells it's blind sheep readers that Section 220 redefines lobbying to include grassroots lobbying:

Sec. 220 subjects "grassroots lobbying" to government regulations. Grassroots lobbying has long been seen as separate and distinct from “lobbying activity,” but it would now be subject to government regulation.

Oh. Horrors. Except that, by not providing their readers with a link to the actual bill, recipients of this wingnut org's "alert" would not know that, in fact, the actual language of the bill is to the opposite effect, and carves out specific protection for and exclusion of actual grassroots efforts from application of the lobbying reform legislation. Thus, Section 220 says:

`Lobbying activities include paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying, but do not include grassroots lobbying.'

Whew. But, wait, what's this . . . more horrors apparently lay hidden in 220. The PAFI tells its shocked members that under this legislation, PAFI newsletters would be subject to reporting and the PAFI could be fined $100,000 if it screws up:

This means that organizations like the Pennsylvania Family Institute, and larger organizations like Focus on the Family and Family Research Council, will need to go through miles of red tape, which include notifying Congress 45 days prior to engaging in the specific grassroots activity, which could prevent us from posting an urgent message like this to you about a specific vote. We could even face $100,000 fines for running afoul of the oppressive regulations.

Calm down, dear reader. As you might suspect by now, the PAFI and the other wingnutz repeating these Talking Lies Points have not gotten it exactly right. In fact, they've got it exactly wrong. In fact, here is what that nasty 220 actually says about such things:

The term `paid efforts to stimulate grassroots lobbying' means any paid attempt in support of lobbying contacts on behalf of a client to influence the general public or segments thereof to contact one or more covered legislative or executive branch officials (or Congress as a whole) to urge such officials (or Congress) to take specific action with respect to a matter described in section 3(8)(A), except that such term does not include any communications by an entity directed to its members, employees, officers, or shareholders.

Hooboy. I hope that PAFI didn't pay too much to whomsoever it hired to interpret the bill for its members . . . .

Kids, the bottom line is that, no matter how many times the wingnutz say it, and no matter how many of them say it, the fact is that Senate Bill 1 does NOT, by its terms, apply to grassroots lobbying and does NOT require advocacy organizations to register simply because they send email alerts and newsletters to their members. Instead, the bill is designed to get at the swiftboater organizations and the people who (until passage of this bill) secretly pay them to rouse rabble.

Summary only...

The More Things Change

In his speech against the Viet Nam war, Reverend King spoke about how the Government and its supporters were working to silence criticism of the war. He talked about how they equated dissenters with traitors:

Now, of course, one of the difficulties in speaking out today grows the fact that there are those who are seeking to equate dissent with disloyalty. It's a dark day in our nation when high-level authorities will seek to use every method to silence dissent. But something is happening, and people are not going to be silenced. The truth must be told, and I say that those who are seeking to make it appear that anyone who opposes the war in Vietnam is a fool or a traitor or an enemy of our soldiers is a person that has taken a stand against the best in our tradition.

Right on cue, a raving wingnut attacks anti-war protesters as "anti-American", "scum", "vermin", "Communists", "anarchists", etc. (Communists? Anarchists?!!, this guy mustav just stepped off a bus from 1952).

Summary only...

A Tragic Recognition of Reality, Redux

From a sermon at Riverside Church, New York City, April 30, 1967:



The full text here, full audio here.

An excerpt:

Now, let me make it clear in the beginning, that I see this war as an unjust, evil, and futile war. I preach to you today on the war in Vietnam because my conscience leaves me with no other choice. The time has come for America to hear the truth about this tragic war. In international conflicts, the truth is hard to come by because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. "Ye shall know the truth," says Jesus, "and the truth shall set you free." Now, I've chosen to preach about the war in Vietnam because I agree with Dante, that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality. There comes a time when silence becomes betrayal.

The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing, as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we're always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on. Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony. But we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for in all our history there has never been such a monumental dissent during a war, by the American people.

Go here for information about the upcoming March on Washington, January 27, 2007.

Summary only...

Official Web Pages for Pennsylvania's New Members of the 110th

Jason Altimire, PA-4
Joe Sestak, PA-7
Pat Murphy, PA-8
Chris Carney, PA-10

All of these new members of the House had their fully-functioning web pages up and running at least a week ago.

Bobby Casey, Jr., is the only new member of the Pennsylvania federal delegation who hasn't bothered to get his official web page up and running. But, give him a break, what with his fire-brand calling for "more study" on ethics reform, and preparing those scintillating first words on the Senate floor, he's a really busy guy these days.

Summary only...

More First Words from the 110th

More from our series on the first words spoken from the floor of the House and Senate by the members of Pennsylvania's new federal delegation. Today, Chris Carney and Jason Altimire finish out the House and we have, momentus as they are, finally heard the first words uttered on the floor of the Senate by Bobby Casey, Jr.:

Chris Carney, PA-10, January 10, in support of the Minimum Wage Act:

Mr. CARNEY. I would like to thank my colleague from California for the time.

Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote for bipartisan legislation aimed at increasing the minimum wage and making an important change for the families of nearly 13 million American workers.

It is unconscionable, Mr. Speaker, that the minimum wage has remained unchanged for nearly 10 years. During the past decade, consumer costs have skyrocketed. Energy, health care and education costs have all risen, while my constituents have seen their real incomes drop.

It is wrong that millions of Americans work full time and year around and still live in poverty. I am voting to give them a raise, a raise that is long overdue.

This bill will increase the minimum wage by $2.10 an hour over 2 years. This will mean an additional $4,400 for a family of three equaling 15 months' worth of groceries or 2 years' worth of health care. Helping them to keep up with the rising costs of these necessities is something that we have the moral obligation to do.

As the father of five, I understand, I keenly understand the impact of rising costs on a tight family budget.

Raising the minimum wage is the first step to a stronger economy for all Americans, not just for the privileged few. Our action today will make a real difference in the lives of America's working families and I am proud to vote for it, and I respectfully urge my colleagues to stand with our working families, as well.

Jason Altimire, PA-4, January 11, in support of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act:

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. Having worked for a large academic medical center, I have seen the promise that embryonic stem cell research holds for Americans suffering from chronic disabilities such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, and spinal cord injuries.

We all know people with these disabilities and a vote for this bill is a vote for them. This bill says specifically that it only applies to embryos that would otherwise be discarded by the fertility clinics. So a vote for this bill is a pro-life vote. We must pass this bill for the millions of Americans that suffer from debilitating medical conditions today and the millions more that will tomorrow.

This is something that is deeply personal to me. I am a pro-life Democrat. The reason I am supporting this bill is because this is a pro-life vote. There is nothing more important that we can do in this Congress than to support life. This is a pro-life vote. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

That completes the House -- all of the new House members from Pennsylvania have delivered their maiden speeches, on matters of particular interest to them. Previously, we had Pat Murphy on PAYGO and Joe Sestak introducing himself to the permanent written record of the United States Congress with his speech on the adoption of the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Now, gentle reader, brace yourself, for we take you to the floor of the Senior Chamber, the United States Senate, where the gathered 100 are hushed to hear new Senator Bob Casey utter his first words on the floor of that august hall:

Bob Casey, January 11, 2007:

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Just gives you the chills, don't it?

Summary only...

Don't Fool Yourself, Girl

This morning, one can't swing a dead cat without hitting an exegesis of the vacuity of the minor tactic change Bush tried so desperately to sell to a disbelieving world last night. More knowledgeable minds than mine, more lucid pens than the one I hold, have done that.

No reason to add an untuned voice to that chorus, so I am going to skip over how this abject failure, leaving his stench in our White House, lacks the courage, honesty, and leadership to know and then to do what is necessary, and right. I am not going to go into how, as a result of his intentional acts, his mean spirit, and his seriously deluded mind, Bush bears personal responsibility for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi corpses, thousands of American soldiers, generations of instability in the region, and the potential decades it will take to restore, if it ever can be done, inherent respect for ways American.

What I want to talk about is what Bush didn't really say, but what he was getting credit for even before he opened his lying face from the White House library last night. Last night, before the speech, Chris Matthews gave Bush points for admitting mistakes and compared him to Jack Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs (more on that presently). On the other side of the world, in Australia, they said Bush was "admitting mistakes", headline, Florida, "Bush . . . admits errors", California wants to give Bush "credit . . . . he was willing to acknowledge past mistakes". It was everywhere, 'Bush takes responsibility for mistakes'. Bullshit.

Bush did no such thing. He did not take the blame for any mistakes and he hardly even conceded that any were made -- and when he did he made sure that the two mistakes that he identified were far separated from his spurious, cynical, and pretended adoption of responsibility. Take a look at what he said, not at the sleight of hand that the White House put on the actual words:

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people -- and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

This White House is expert at abuse of the language to create spin in one direction which at the same time will allow them to come back later and deny that they ever said what their spin was designed to make you believe that they said -- that's why so many people, still today, believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11.

"Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" -- that's kind of like insulting someone and then apologizing by saying you regret they were offended. Bush admits no mistake here and, more importantly, he does not admit that he made them.

One of the things he could have talked about is how it was a mistake to go in in the first place. Forget that there were not, in fact, any nuclear or chemical weapons to be found.

He could have talked about how he, personally, made the decision to try to invade, occupy, and control countries the size of Afghanistan, and then Iraq with woefully inadequate forces and resources.

And, then, he could have talked about how his decision to invade Iraq flew in the face of generations of accepted American principle. This is where Kennedy comes in. Speaking of the Bay of Pigs soon after the event, Kennedy first gave a lesson in what real leadership means:

The President of a great democracy such as ours, and the editors of great newspapers such as yours, owe a common obligation to the people: an obligation to present the facts, to present them with candor, and to present them in perspective. It is with that obligation in mind that I have decided in the last 24 hours to discuss briefly at this time the recent events in Cuba.

Facts . . . Candor . . . Perspective. Three things (out of uncountable others), this President, this miserable failure, this Commander Codpiece, this squalid little man, has never known, has studiously avoided, and has certainly never given the American people.

THIS White House has instead lied up to, not only the last minute, but the very last minute. Simply, and for no other reason, than to cling, desperately, to every last fraying strand of power -- lives, reason, principle, truth, honor (honor?! I hear them snickering in the oval office at that one) and the Constitution be damned. None of that "nonsense" was important to this cretin in the White House. THAT is why, in late October, if you listened at all to this morally bankrupt frat boy pretender, you knew that NO mistakes had been made and we were on the verge of victory.

But that was October and that was okay because, "heh, heh", we was in an election and, you know, that it is perfectly acceptable for the President to lie during an election, right?

Getting back to Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs, that speech has one line in it that this Administration pretends not to have heard and, worse, pretends to be false -- Kennedy, explaining why American jets, standing at the ready, and American forces, did not join the anti-Castro Cuban forces invading that island that night:

Any unilateral American intervention, in the absence of an external attack upon ourselves or an ally, would have been contrary to our traditions and to our international obligations.

America doesn't invade preventively. Soviet Russia did -- and had several thousand years of repeated invasions to explain why the need for the buffer zone of the iron curtain seemed so vital to them. Nazi Germany did -- and had the deluded brain of an elected leader, who systematically dismantled civil rights and freedom to dissent, to explain it.

It is a doctrine well and long established in American, and world, policy. In the 1840s, the British entered the United States to retake a ship seized by Canadian rebels and, in the process, killed Americans. The United States reacted with indignation and rejected the legality of the British invasion, even to retrieve its own property, on the, even then, well-settled principle of international law, that armed invasion of another country is lawful only in response to a real, instant, and overwhelming threat, leaving no other option available, and no time to deliberate. Until the Bush invasion of Iraq, the accepted standard of the law of war was that the use of force must be designed exclusively to repel the armed attack and end as soon as threat does.

Bush doesn't talk about that mistake. He doesn't see that mistake.

No where in last night's pathetic bleating does this creep accept that he made any mistake, much less admit that he sees what his many, many mistakes were. Instead, oratorically far-removed from the little "if mistakes" then "i didn't make them but I'll be responsible" sentence for which Matthews is so quick to give Bush points and make him a new Kennedy, Bush points to his military leaders (many since deposed) and his hand-picked Iraqi leadership as the source of the mistakes:

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

Notice that last, clever, bit -- Bush isn't making the decision that this "new Iraqi plan" is worth putting 21,500 more Americans in the cross-hairs. No, that would take a "decider".

Instead, the blame, if when it fails, will be on "Our commanders". Notice, also, how they aren't "My commanders" anymore. He is already setting up the excuse that he relied on the military experts -- at least the ones who were not fired for failing to give him the expert opinions he needed for this latest fiasco.

Similarly, all his usual references to personal ownership of America ("my government", "my national security team") fall away here -- it is "Our past efforts". "OUR"?! No, George, it was YOUR past efforts -- meaning the three previous surges he had ordered, which didn't work then either.

Here, he doesn't say anything remotely like an admission that he made mistakes -- the Iraqi government made mistakes (restricting US troops -- as if), and "our" commanders didn't ask for enough troops (because, Rumsfeld told them they would be fired if they did).

It is bad enough that we let the President lie to us, again and again. But, if we let them paint Bush as standing tall, admitting error, and being a leader, like Kennedy, well, girl, then, it will keep going up yer poop shoot, all night long.

Summary only...

First Words

Introducing an irregular feature, the first words spoken on the floor of Congress from our newly-elected Representatives and Senator. So far, Pat Murphy and Joe Sestak have put their immortal words into the permanent record of the United States Government (Casey hasn't even gotten his website working yet and, shockingly, hasn't said a word on the record):

Pat Murphy, PA-8, January 9, speaking in favor of PAYGO:

Mr. PATRICK MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an original cosponsor of this vital measure.

Mr. Speaker, this vote is about one of the most important issues facing America today, fiscal responsibility.

PAYGO is straightforward. If Congress is going to buy something, we need to figure out how we are going to pay for it. That is what the small business owners, farmers, and families in the Eighth Congressional District of Pennsylvania do every single day.

If the Mignonis in Bristol want to expand their store, they have to roll up their sleeves and figure out how they are going to pay for it. When the Russos of Fairless Hills started saving for their daughters' college tuition, they had to figure out how they were going to pay for that.

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what we are voting on here today. If you or I have a good idea, we are going to have to roll up our sleeves, just like the Mignonis and the Russos, and figure out how we are going to pay for it first.

As most of you know, I have a 6-week-old daughter, Maggie. Maggie and every other newborn born in America are saddled with $28,000 in debt. That is immoral. Voting ``yes'' to implementing PAYGO is the first step toward getting our fiscal house in order.

Joe Sestak, PA-7, January 9, in favor of HR 1 -- implementing 9/11 Commission recommendations:

Mr. SESTAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, H.R. 1.

If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that the leadership we most need in this Nation today is not a leadership to lead us out of a crisis, but rather a leadership that prevents such crises from ever happening.

Today is about offering such leadership. As a Nation, we have been fortunate to have wars away from our shore, ``over there.'' But after 9/11, we saw that we now face a war here at home. And 2 1/2 years ago a bipartisan commission provided 41 recommendations to prevent another attack on U.S. home soil.

Few argue that the commission's recommendations are wrong. But so far their implementation generally rates Fs, Ds and incompletes. And so this legislation ensures that we will win at home by having a homeland defense that says to our adversaries, Today is not your day.

I had the honor while serving in the military of leading our youth in harm's way overseas. But 5 days ago, I became responsible for a new set of citizens, the constituents of my district. When I think about how to serve them best, and to turn their hopes into accomplishment, our foremost duty is to provide for their security this time here at home.

Our Nation needs the tools to be secure: training that can prevent a crisis and first responders with seamless communications among Federal, State, and local levels.

Today as we debate, we are reminded of what John F. Kennedy once said: ``The hour is late, but the agenda is long,'' which is why we must act now to implement these long overdue recommendations.

So as we look at ourselves in the national mirror and say we are better than this, we can and we must change for a more secure America. We then can look our constituents in the eyes, Mr. Speaker, knowing that we did turn their hope into accomplishment here at home. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Summary only...

Now, There's a Plan

"What kind of citizenry consistently sneers at a candidate like Kucinich who openly declares for world peace to the most militarized nation on earth? (Hell, it's no crime to be three feet tall.)" -- Joe Bageant.

Kucinich's Iraq Plan:

1. The U.S. announces it will end the occupation, close the military bases, and withdraw.
2. The U.S. announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops home and the necessary equipment home.
3. We will order a simultaneous return of all U.S. contractors to the United States and turn over the contracting work to the Iraqi government.
4. We'll convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq.
5. Prepare an international security peacekeeping force to move in, replacing U.S. troops, who then return home.
6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation.
7. We have to once again restart the programs for reconstructions and jobs for the Iraqi people.
8. Reparations for the damage that's been done to the lives of Iraqis.
9. Assuring the political sovereignty of Iraq and making sure that their oil isn't stolen.
10. Repairing the Iraqi economy.
11. Economic sovereignty for Iraq. And,
12. An international truth and reconciliation process, which establishes a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and Iraq.

Summary only...

2006 Koufax Nominations Are Open

The 2006 Koufax Award nominations are now open. I didn't nominate in every category and "cheated" by nominating two in some categories. But here are my contributions, with apologies to those whom I have nominated and (hopeful) assurances that voters don't take into account the relative demerits of the nominator:

Best Blog -- Pro Division: Joe Bageant, Attytood
Best Series: Fact-esque on eVoting
Best Single Issue Blog: Corpreform
Most Humorous Blog: The Liam McEneaney Experience, Bildungblog
Most Deserving of Wider Recognition: Huck and Jim
Best New Blog: Blue Wren, Huck and Jim
Best Coverage of State or Local Issues: Above Average Jane

Summary only...

KSFO Vid

Posted at Kiss Off KSFO:



Gee, aren't those Disney broadcasters clever, witty and cute?

Summary only...

Taking on the Big Rat

From Kiss Off KSFO:

KSFO is a wingnut station, the hosts of which are rabid supporters of torture and hate speech of every kind imaginable. The station of part of the Disney/ABC family of stations, and relies heavily on that connection in its marketing to advertisers.

Some time ago, blogger Spocko's Brain began a campaign to alert advertisers to the nature of the product with which they were associating their merchandise and services. In doing so, he made use (fair use, I would say) of actual audio clips demonstrating the disgusting nature of the "free speech" indulged by these Disney Empire employees.

Spocko's Brain got the attention of Disney's hired guns when the information campaign began to have an effect on KSFO advertisers -- in December VISA pulled its advertising as a result of the information they received from Spocko's Brain.

One thing led to another and the Disney Empire lawyers leaned on Spocko's Brain's internet provider to pull the plug on the blog.

Online Blogintegrity hosted Spocko after the blog was silenced, and then Spocko's Brain itself re-appeared, broadcasting from an undiclosed location, no doubt.

Summary only...

Something that Matters

If darkly,

Summary only...

The Devil's Tongue

From the one, the only, Joe Bageant:

Call it consumer conditioned numbness, which it is. But it is safe to say most Americans give not a happy damn about the rest of humanity, starving infants, the homeless and whatnot, so long as the unhygienic swarms stay the hell out of our yards and don't bring up that tired commie stuff about our lifestyle being based upon armed global theft and sweatshop misery. In that way, we all test positive for the Devil's hickey.

Republicans may flaunt their hickeys like high school kids in the locker room, but guilt-plagued Democrats, feeling the smart of the mark of the beast, console themselves that they can banish it at the ballot box, if only they close their eyes and wish upon a star. Thus their comfortable self-delusions that the Tiger Woods of the Democratic Party, the technically black Barack Obama, is somehow blessed with an inner moral compass lacking in the rest of society, and therefore does not bear the damnable mark. Wiser souls, aware that Obama possesses a net worth of several millions, a Harvard law degree and a career born in that venerable political whorehouse called Chicago, assume the Devil's mark is probably located on his posterior where we cannot see it.

There is so, so much more, well worth the time.

Summary only...

Rudy's Insufferable Self-Promotion

Those who have suffered through Giuliani's tedious tenure in New York City, beginning with his appointment as US Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), are all too familiar with his overwhelming concern with his personal promotion and image, and lack of care and ability at actual administration.

While US Attorney, criminal defense lawyers there will tell you, he routinely held up indictments, sometimes for months, until he could find time in his busy schedule of self-promotion, for a press conference announcing the indictment. This grand-standing served no legitimate prosecutorial purpose, and was, in itself, a cruel treatment of defendants, left in limbo and delayed in the ultimate clearing of their names (take a look back at the Giuliani indictments of the Wall Street arbs during his rein, and compare that to the jury verdicts he secured -- you'll be surprised at the ineffectiveness of his administration).

His relentless pursuit of press coverage didn't stop when he became Mayor, nor with 9/11. Remember that he asked for an extension of his last term in office? The Giuliani legend was so strong in his own mind that, in the 9/11 aftermath, he couldn't conceive of anyone else running the City, nor of anyone wanting anyone else to run it.

In biting words, Al Sharpton and others called him on it:

Al Sharpton slammed Mayor Giuliani for hogging too much credit for uniting the city, saying "Bozo" could have done as much. Two days after Green and Republican Michael Bloomberg accepted, and Ferrer rejected,Giuliani's pitch for a three-month term-extension, Sharpton - a major Ferrer booster - sharply criticized Giuliani for trying to stretch his term. "We elected you mayor, not Messiah," Sharpton said at his Harlem headquarters during a rally attended by Ferrer. "You didn't bring us together, our pain brought us together and our decency brought us together," Sharpton said. He added, "We would have come together if Bozo was the mayor."

Run, Rudy, Run.


(Photo Credit: Richard B. Levine, Newsweek)

Summary only...

Why Hasn't Pat Robertson Been Confined?

There are only two possible explanations for the things he says -- he is intentionally defrauding millions of deluded believers, or he is insane. Either way, he should be taken off the street, just like any other madman shouting in the public square.

"Robertson said God spoke to him during his annual [!?] one-on-one prayer retreat with the Almighty." Who could say such a thing and not have their competence questioned? Instead, it is the subject of "serious" news reporting:

The TV preacher claims the Lord told him to expect a terrorist attack on the United States by the end of 2007 that will result in "mass killing." "I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," Robertson said yesterday . . . . "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that," said the 76-year-old preacher and one-time presidential candidate.

Oh, that's nice. Not "necessarily" nuclear. Com'on folks. Let's pretend that there is an all-powerful, permanent, invisible man in the sky, who decided that he had an important message for humanity. Would he pass that message through a dumb fuck like Robertson -- I mean, there's the pope (maybe not much better), but what about King Carl (Sweden), or the UN, or why wouldn't he just take over all the airways everywhere and broadcast his message.

And let's not get started on the caring, loving god of the christians, who revels in blood, gore and unleashing evil:

"God said he's going to restrain the evil, but he isn't necessarily going to restrain it in the beginning," Robertson said.

Why is this guy walking around free -- On November 7, 1999, on his TV show, he supported armed rebellion against the United States:

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to say this very clearly. If the people of the United States of America . . . decide that they're not going to allow the Supreme Court to dominate their lives . . . . [t]hey are not going to be able to overturn the will of a hundred million American people. And I think the time has come that we throw off the shackles of this dictatorship that's been imposed upon us. We had a war in 1776 that set us free . . . . And I think the time has come that we do that.

But no one raised a voice to question his sanity, or his patriotism, even Newt Gingrich was silent. And then, of course, there was his big hit -- god made 9/11 happen to punish us for hurting god's feelings. This is the same christianista who advocated assassination:

[Y]ou could send a squad in to take out somebody like Osama bin Laden, or to take out the head of North Korea, but isn't it better to do something like that, to take out Milosevic, to take out Saddam Hussein, rather than to spend billions of dollars on a war that harms innocent civilians and destroys the infrastructure of a country?

(I guess George wasn't listening to that last part.) But, at least Robertson is enlightened on equal rights for women:

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.

Oh. Nevermind, then.

(Photo credit: El Nuevo Cojo Ilustrado Media LLC)

Summary only...

DeWeese Hurt Caltagirone's Feelings

The Inky reports the real motivation behind Caltagirone's antics -- he's got teary eyes because DeWeese wouldn't support Caltagirone for a House leadership position in the Democratic caucus:

The story of why a Democrat from Reading decided to back Republican Rep. John Perzel's desperate bid to remain House speaker goes no deeper than revenge, according to some Democrats. "It's personal, pure and simple," said State Rep. Dwight Evans (D., Phila.), explaining why a 30-year incumbent says he will turn his back on fellow Democrats, throw his lot in with the opposition, and help reelect Perzel today as speaker. Democratic State Rep. Thomas Caltagirone, 64, thought he deserved a leadership job after the November election gave the Democrats a 102-101 majority . . . . DeWeese of Greene County, disagreed. The result . . . was Caltagirone's . . . voting for Perzel as speaker when the Legislature convenes today. "DeWeese did not back him for leadership. That's how this started," Vitali said.

There's more.

{UPDATE: From the AP -- "Newly seated members of the state House of Representatives, in a surprising turn of events, replaced Speaker John Perzel with another Philadelphia Republican, Dennis M. O'Brien, after Democrats were unable to maintain unity in their fragile majority."}

Summary only...

On the Stank from Harrisburg

Great editorial from today's Pocono Record:

Pray for the wind to stay out of the northwest. If it shifts to the south, the stench of Pennsylvania politics may be overwhelming.

Berks County is within smelling distance. That's the home of Rep. Thomas R. Caltagirone, who is scheduled today to take part in an act of calculated political treachery.

Caltagirone is a Democrat, at least for the moment. But he has said he will vote today for Republican John Perzel for speaker of the House of Representatives in Harrisburg. . . .

The idea Perzel and Caltagirone both supported in 2006 was a middle-of-the-night pay raise for legislators. Caltagirone not only voted for that raise, he was one of the legislators who grabbed it immediately through the device of unvouchered expenses. That's a long story. The short version: Caltagirone and Perzel are in favor of government of the legislators, by the legislators, for the legislators.

And one man is going thwart the hopes of hundreds of thousands of voters. He is going to substitute his personal agenda for a public agenda that called for change. . . . This is one of those back-room deals the electorate was hoping to scuttle. It's the same kind of backroom deal that led to legislators giving themselves a raise most voters don't think they earned, politics as usual.

Voters didn't throw enough of the rascals out this time . . . .

There's more.

The Inky is live blogging the ordeal at Battle for the Gavel and you can catch the shenanigans live on-line via our friends at PCN Online. Or, just open your windows -- as long as you can tell Republican moans from Democratic ones, you'll know what happened just a quickly as anyone else.


(Image Credit: www.the-tree.org)

Summary only...

Oops. It was here a minute ago . . .

Okay, that's two "oops" headlines in a week. Probably two too many for most of you, earning me five demerits for informality of speech.

But, boy is this an "oops". It seems that someone in the Giuliani campaign left their internal analysis and playbook behind in one of the cities in which Rudy stumped for hurting Republicans in November, 2006. The New York Daily News has obtained it and is gleefully pawing through the purloined private notes.

The document apparently spends some time on Giuliani's weaknesses, which is the most fun part. Topping the self-flagellation list "is the explicit concern that he might 'drop out of [the] race' as a consequence of his potentially 'insurmountable' personal and political vulnerabilities." (Gosh, this is fun.) Chief among those personal vulnerabilities is Giuliani's "weakness" for his private business interests -- which reportedly earn him as much as $100,000 for a single speech. His staff also worries that Rudy seems to be drawn to people of questionable character, or perhaps the other way around, either way, the likes of Bernie Kerik, Russell Harding, and others, apparently have his staff very worried.

The topic is nothing new, this section of the internal Giuliani dossier could have been written a year ago by Glenn Greenwald:

Ever since his tenure as New York City's Mayor came to an end in late 2001, Rudy Giuliani has been on a money-making splurge. Beyond just his exorbitant speaking fees, his firm, Giuliani Partners, and its related affiliates, have their multiple tentacles in countless industries and highly lucrative transactions. That Giuliani wants to cash in on the 9/11 fame and admiration he earned is understandable after a couple of decades of living on a government salary, but that pursuit may end up sabotaging his Presidential ambitions.

At least in terms of his integrity -- one of the principal selling points for the former federal prosecutor’s candidacy -- Giuliani’s career has been unmarred. But any substantial venture into the private sector usually entails associations with less-than-pure individuals and transactions which, at the very least, can be cast in a negative light. If nothing else, Giuliani's extensive and diverse business activities are sure to provide ample fodder for opposition research on the part of any campaign looking to undermine his sterling image.

There's more, well worth the read.

Also on the nervous staffs' list are Giuliani's serial marriages and extra-maritals. Donna Hanover (his Mayor-time ex) and Judith Nathan (the current Mrs. G and the Mayor-time mistress), were expressly listed at the top of the list of Rudy negatives. (Showing all the class that can properly be attributed to him, Rudy publicly announced his filing for divorce from Hanover before mentioning it to Hanover. (By the way, Rudy was married for 14 childless years to his cousin and had that marriage annulled when he "found out" they were related. (How do you go through 14 Thanksgivings without "discovering" the relatives?) (Rudy's official campaign bio deletes mention the first two marriages and his two children) (how many times can I place parentheticals within one another like the Dead playing off The Eleven before my reader moves on?).) (Gee, I hope I closed all of those off . . . .) The divorce from Hanover was messy, with the jilted Mrs. bringing up allegations of still other mistresses.

The Daily News report goes on to discuss the fund-raising section of the memo. Apparently, the Giuliani campaign had been counting on the support or recruitment of fundraisers and professionals who have since hitched their wagons to other stars. Awwwwwk-ward.

Oh, PLEASE run, Rudy. The race wouldn't be nearly as much fun without you!

Summary only...

Happy New Year

Summary only...