Waterboarding Torture

Just so we are all clear, and so there is no confusion, it is "waterboarding torture," not "waterboarding."

The Bush administration has committed the illegal act of waterboarding torture.

Impeachment is the only correct response.

Yesterday, The Constitution Died

Yesterday, The Constitution died.

Yesterday, the Senate voted to de-criminalize the crimes of the White House and the telecommunication companies.

Yesterday, I lost all the hope that I gained after the Democrats won the House and Senate in 2006.

Yesterday, I lost faith in my country... again.

Yesterday, most people didn't even know about what the Senate did.

Yesterday, the Sensational Media was too busy to inform the public about this attack on our rights and the rule of law.

Yesterday, I sent the following message to Sen. Reid and many other Senators:

If telecom immunity passes, our Constitution will be effectively dead, and its blood will be on your hands.

Have you no shame? No decency? No respect for the rule of law? No respect for your oath to defend the Constitution?

We are lost. The Democrats are lost. They won't stand up for our rights and Bush and the Republicans our trying to take them away.

What hope is left for us? Where do we go now for leadership? Where do we go to restore our country to its former glory?

Yesterday, I wondered why I bother to contact members of Congress.

Yesterday, I started to question why I try to change things.

Yesterday, my hope for impeachment hearings faltered.

Then yesterday, I realized that the fight isn't over.

Then yesterday, I realized that we have to work to get the House to deny amnesty for the telecoms (and, by default, Bush).

Then yesterday, I watched Australia apologize to the Stolen Generation, and I realized that we can't give up no matter how long it takes.

Then yesterday, Donna Edwards defeated Al Wynn, and I realized that we can defeat politicians who choose corporations over the people.

Then yesterday, I saw votes for Democratic candidates outnumber votes for Republican candidates by huge margins, and I realized that we can succeed.

Then yesterday, I began to hope again.

U.S.A. Guilty of Torture

I have not written a post for this blog in quite some time. Partly, this was because of being busy or lazy or both, but mostly, it was because of the tremendous amount of disappointment and hopelessness that I felt due to the lack of action by the now Democratic-controlled Congress to hold the Bush administration accountable for their crimes.

Where is the IMPEACHMENT?!

The people, this country, our Constitution require impeachment if we are to retain our freedom, our democracy, our ideals.

And now this:

U.S. Acknowledges Use of Waterboarding

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats demanded a criminal investigation into waterboarding by government interrogators Tuesday after the Bush administration acknowledged for the first time that the tactic was used on three terror suspects.

In congressional testimony Tuesday, CIA Director Michael Hayden became the first administration official to publicly acknowledge the agency used waterboarding on detainees following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

[...]Hayden said Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri were waterboarded in 2002 and 2003. Hayden banned the technique in 2006, but National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell told senators during the same hearing Tuesday that waterboarding remains in the CIA arsenal — so long as it as the specific consent of the president and legal approval of the attorney general.

Congress, there is NO excuse for not beginning impeachment hearings.

I want my country back.

I want my country to be one that does not torture. Impeachment is the only way to bring that about.

If Congress fails to begin impeachment hearings IMMEDIATELY, every member of Congress is violating their oath to defend the Constitution and they are guilty of supporting these vile acts of torture.

I'm waiting, Pelosi. I'm waiting, Reid. I'm waiting, Obama. I'm waiting, Clinton. I'm waiting for you to lead. I'm waiting for you to do what you were elected to do.

Debating Universal Public Health Care With A Conservative

I try to avoid getting into debates with conservatives, not because I am afraid to stand up for what I believe in, but, rather, because I tend to be "long-winded" when the debate takes place online which is very time-consuming and I don't have a lot of time to spend. Plus, time spent doing such things is usually wasted because, as this study shows, conservatives don't deal well with change, so it is a waste of time if you expect to change their minds (not that it's impossible, just don't expect it to happen).

As a side note, I think this might explain why conservatives are so hopelessly devoted (like the song from the movie Grease) to the Republican Party. Or as Al Franken puts it, Republicans love their party the way a child loves its parent: uncritically and blindly. (How else could we explain the many conservatives who willingly would sacrifice American ideals, human rights, and freedom in exchange for authoritarian ideals, torture, and a law-breaking presidential administration.) Democrats, on the other hand, love their party like an adult loves its parent: critically and analytically.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I recently succumbed to the temptation to engage in a debate with a conservative (who was not my father for once), and I spent enough time on it that I wanted to post what I wrote so that it might not have been a complete waste of time.

I won't post what the conservative in the debate wrote because I haven't asked for his permission to do so (nor do I plan to), but my responses should be sufficient to help you guess at what was written by him.

The topic was health care, and here was my first response to what the conservative initially wrote (edited to ensure anonymity and proper grammar):

[...][I]t really infuriates me when conservatives accuse Democratic (with a capitol 'D') voters of "pretzel logic."

Pretzel logic is voting for Republicans who campaign on their belief that government doesn't work and then, when elected, ensure that the government doesn't work by bankrupting it (which is what Bush is doing). If they actually tried to make government work, then they would negate their entire belief system. It makes better sense to put your trust in someone who has trust in the American government and is willing to make it work. Democratic voters don't distrust the government; we distrust Bush and the people like him who are trying to destroy our government to
"prove" their self-fulfilling belief that government doesn't work.

Pretzel logic is wanting to continue a for-profit health care system with greedy private insurance companies who's goals are to make money, not keep their customers healthy. It makes more sense to have a health care system that is health-driven, not profit-driven.

Pretzel logic is believing the lie that our profit-driven health care system is somehow better than the universal health care system that EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATION has that produces better results, a healthier general public, longer life expectancies, and lower overall cost. I don't understand conservatives who claim they want fiscal responsibility, but then ignore the BETTER results for a LOWER price
that public health care systems in other countries get.

Pretzel logic is saying other countries have long wait times. The long wait times thing is a myth. It exaggerates the wait times in other countries and ignores the wait times in our own country. My dad had to wait a month to see a specialist after having a transient ischemic attack (a mini-stroke), so don't believe the hype on wait times. Other countries have a sensible triage system that treats patients according to the urgency of their health needs. It's not like they have thousands of people dying because they can't see a doctor in time. That is what happens in OUR country. We have thousands of people dying each year because they can't afford to see a doctor at all. So I never want to hear another lie about the wait times in other countries when people in our own country our dying from waiting until it is too late because they have no insurance. The lack of compassion for those in our country without health insurance makes me physically ill and makes those people
without health insurance physically dead. There are serious consequences for our lack of universal public health care, and we need to take them seriously.

Pretzel logic is thinking it is okay for our government to be in charge of public roads, public schools, public police, public fire departments, public military, and so on, but somehow public medicine is the most evil concept ever conceived by mankind (despite the fact that we already have public medicine for some people through Medicare and Medicaid). If the government does such a good job with all these other public needs, why is it so hard to believe that a universal health care system run by our government would be desirable by the MAJORITY of Americans (55-65%, depending on what poll you look at)?

I wrote a post about this topic and Sen. Clinton's health care plan (which is a government mandate for everyone to buy health insurance (like how we have to buy car insurance), not a government run health care system, and not a good idea, in my opinion) on my blog. You can tell from the title (Worst Universal Health Care Plan Ever) that I am not a fan of her health care plan: http://the-liberal-media.blogspot.com/2007/09/worst-universal-health-care-plan-ever.html

-Bryan

Of course, that response elicited a response from the conservative, and here is my response to the response to the response (again, edited for blah blah blah):

[...]Anyway, since you asked, I feel compelled to answer your questions.

1. How much am I willing to pay out of my paycheck for public health care?

Well, looking at my paycheck, I already pay about 7% on health and dental insurance, so 5% sounds like a bargain.

Note: I recently recalculated that percentage. I pay over 8%.

But this is before I account for deductibles and co-pays. Some people pay more than they make if they have serious medical issues like cancer. So, if you gave them a choice between paying, say, 300% of their paycheck and paying 5% or 10% or even 20%, I am certain they would not choose 300%.

According to an article from The New Yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/08/29/050829fa_fact):

"Americans spend $5,267 per capita on health care every year, almost two and half times the industrialized world’s median of $2,193; the extra spending comes to hundreds of billions of dollars a year."

Wow! Americans spend more than DOUBLE the world's median on health care. But wait there's more:

"What does that extra spending buy us? Americans have fewer doctors per capita than most Western countries. We go to the doctor less than people in other Western countries. We get admitted to the hospital less frequently than people in other Western countries. We are less satisfied with our health care than our counterparts in other countries. American life expectancy is lower than the Western average. Childhood-immunization rates in the United States are lower than average. Infant-mortality rates are in the nineteenth percentile of industrialized nations. Doctors here perform more high-end medical procedures, such as coronary angioplasties, than in other countries, but most of the wealthier Western countries have more CT scanners than the United States does, and Switzerland, Japan, Austria, and Finland all have more MRI machines per capita. Nor is our system more efficient. The United States spends more than a thousand dollars per capita per year—or close to four hundred billion dollars—on health-care-related paperwork and administration, whereas Canada, for example, spends only about three hundred dollars per capita. And, of course, every other country in the industrialized world insures all its citizens; despite those extra hundreds of billions of dollars we spend each year, we leave forty-five million people without any insurance."

You ask me if I would be okay with more of my paycheck going to taxes. The answer is yes, if it meant we spent less overall. Public health care would save money for our country and for all Americans. The question I would ask you is: why don't you want to save money?

Other countries spend less on universal health care, but we spend more and more every year. From The Raw Story (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_health_insurance_costs_rise_near_09122007.html):

"US Health Insurance Costs Rise Nearly Twice As Fast As Pay: Survey

The cost of health insurance in the United States climbed nearly twice as fast as wages in the first half of 2007, with family coverage costing employers around 1,000 dollars (714 euros) a month, a poll showed Wednesday.

Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance rose an average of 6.1 percent in 2007, while wages went up by 3.7 percent, the Employer Health Benefits Survey released by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust showed.

The 6.1 percent rise in health insurance premiums marked a slowdown from the rate of increase last year, but also strongly outpaced inflation, running at 2.6 percent.

'In 2007, the increase in health insurance premiums was about twice the rate of inflation and not quite twice the increase in workers' pay,' Kaiser vice-president Gary Claxton said in a webcast.

Premiums for family coverage have surged by 78 percent since 2001, while wages have gone up 19 percent."

That is what happens when health care is PROFIT-DRIVEN rather than HEALTH-DRIVEN. Costs spiral out of control. So much for free market competition keeping prices low for consumers, huh? This is what happens with deregulation of public needs. Right now, I'm listening to a report on the radio about how pro-energy deregulation people are now regretting their stance in Ohio. I lived in California when deregulation of power companies caused energy prices to sky rocket and numerous brownouts. That was in the good old days of Enron. Now they REALLY knew how to exploit deregulation.

I am all for strongly-regulated free market capitalism, but not when it comes to public needs like utilities, roads, schools, police, fire departments, judicial system, et cetera.

2. Do statistics exist for people dying in the U.S. from lack of insurance?

I'm glad you asked because the cost of human life is way more important than the cost of money. Yes, statistics exist, and they are harrowing.

From USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm):

"18,000 Deaths Blamed On Lack Of Insurance

By Steve Sternberg, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.

The 193-page report, "Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late," examines the plight of 30 million — one in seven — working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care.

About 10 million children lack insurance; elderly Americans are covered by Medicare.

It is the second in a planned series of six reports by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examining the impact of the nation's fragmented health system. The IOM is a non-profit organization of experts that advises Congress on health issues.

Overall, the researchers say, 18,314 people die in the USA each year because they lack preventive services, a timely diagnosis or appropriate care."

18,314 people die YEARLY from lack of health insurance. That is horrific. It is disgusting. It is wrong. I don't know about you, but that is not something that I am willing to live with in the greatest country in the world.

Many people like to claim that this is a Christian country. Well, if that is the case, then how are over 18,000 people dying each year from a lack of medical care. From what I remember in Sunday school, Christ was pretty concerned with taking care of the sick. As a Christian, I think that we should be taking care of the least of our brethren and making sure everyone has health care coverage.

So far, I've shown that other industrialized nations get BETTER health care for LESS money. From what I can tell, conservatives want WORSE health care for MORE money. It defies logic.

3. Your concerns about giving health care to the lowest bidder is moot. That is not at issue here. We don't have contractors bid on running public schools, fire departments, or our law enforcement. Why would we have contractors bid on public health care?

Also, the reason why public schools, public police, public fire departments, and other public services are public is because we need those services to focus on their jobs and not on maintaining profit margins for stock holders.

As an example, it would not make sense to have privatized fire departments because if people couldn't afford to pay the fire department when their house is on fire, then their house would burn down. And yet, this is what is happening to people without health insurance, only it is their lives instead of their houses that are being destroyed.

4. Competition does not belong in the health care industry, at least not in the way that you mean. Competition in our current health care system is driven by profits. With health care providers, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies, a significant portion of that money goes to advertising, not to Research & Development, because they are in competition with other entities. Other countries don't have this problem. Competition in other countries are driven by health. For example, doctors in England are given paycheck bonuses when they get their patients to quit smoking. If you want competition, it should be for health, not greed.

Your idea that health care would plateau or decline is false. That has not happened in other countries because they don't let that happen. Their governments support scientific research, as opposed to this country where we can't even get our government to support stem-cell research.

5. You say that you don't want the government running our health care system and that we should let the insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals figure it out. Well, they already have it figured out. They figured out how to squeeze more money out of the American people. Every other industrialized nation has already figured out how to solve the problems we have today. They solved those problems with public health care.

6. As for people that cannot pay for health care, gratis and payment plans are short-term and expensive. Do you know who ends up paying the difference? We do. When doctors and hospitals are required to perform expensive services for people who can't afford them, it drives up medical costs and insurance premiums.

Here is what happens. Billy has no health insurance. Billy gets sick, but doesn't go to the doctor because Billy has no insurance. Billy gets sicker. Billy still doesn't go to the doctor. Billy gets really sick and passes out. Billy's family calls an ambulance. The ambulance takes Billy to the emergency room. Doctors at the hospital try to save Billy's life with expensive procedures and machines and tests. Billy dies. Who pays the ambulance? Who pays the doctors and nurses? Who pays the hospital? Not Billy. Not Billy's family, they have no money. The hospital has to make up the difference so they raise their prices on customers who HAVE health insurance. The health insurance companies don't want to lose their profit, so they raise their premiums and their co-pays and their deductibles. Americans lose more of their hard-earned paychecks.

Now here is what would happen if we had public health care. Billy is covered by public health care. Billy gets sick. Billy goes to the doctor. Billy gets cheap medicine and cheap preventative care. Billy gets better. Hospitals don't need to raise their prices. Private health insurance companies don't have to worry about profit margins because they don't exist. Americans get to keep more of their money for themselves. They spend money on other things. The economy grows.

Now what conservative could be against Americans saving money and a growing economy? And what human being could be against preventing Billy's death?

Well, take a look at the White House. That's who is against all that. Take a look at the Republicans and in Congress. They're against all that too. These so called fiscal conservatives are against saving money. These hypocrites are against saving human lives. No, they want US, the hard-working American public, to keep paying more money while their stock portfolios increase and they get more campaign contributions from insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and health care provider groups.

And the Democrats are not much better because they say they want universal health care coverage for all Americans, but some of them, like Hillary Clinton, want to continue to give all our hard-earned money to greedy insurance companies through mandating that we all buy health insurance, and the other ones are too spineless to provide public health care which is what the majority of Americans (55%-65%) want. The majority of Americans want it, but some Democrats are afraid some mean conservative talk show host will call them names like "socialist" or "commie." What they don't realize is that conservatives will call them those names regardless. At least if they provided public health care for all Americans, the majority of Americans would be on their side and be inspired to continue to vote for them. As it is, Americans are frustrated with the lack of action on this issue.

This is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and if the majority of Americans want public health care, then we should have it. Instead, we get a government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations, and a very small minority in power (the politicians) is willing to do the bidding of the corporate lobbyists because of all the money they donate to political campaigns.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I would argue that we need public health care if we are going to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty. We need public health care to live up to the ideal that all men are created equal. If we want to uphold the standards that this nation was founded on, we need to remove corporate influence from our government, and remove profiteering from our health care system. Because this is America, and Americans deserve better.

-Bryan

P.s. I am sorry for the length of the e-mail, but this is a topic that I am very passionate about. I've had to live without health care before. I know how scary it can be.

That e-mail was probably my best contribution to the debate (and obviously influenced by Michael Moore's SiCKO), so if you feel satiated, now is a good time to stop reading this post.

The conservative did respond again, but the response was more of a friendly farewell. He did concede that I made some good points, but he was ultimately not convinced that the U.S. should have a universal public health care system.

So, maybe the whole debate was a waste of time, maybe not. I don't know. Anyway, here was my final response (once more, edited for blah blah blah):

Well, right, I didn't mean to imply that Democratic politicians don't have stock portfolios. They can be just as easily influenced by campaign contributions and stock portfolio increases. That's why I dislike Hillary Clinton's health care plan. She receives a lot campaign contributions from the health insurance companies, which explains why her plan mandates that everyone buy health insurance from them. However, I still tend to be in opposition to Democrats much less than I am to Republicans.

Also, I appreciate that Al Gore is working to fight global warming, but carbon offsets are not a good solution in my opinion. If you ask me, buying carbon offsets while using fossil fuels is like if I bought some bullet-proof vests for some people and then went around shooting other people. That wouldn't make sense.

It is not uncommon for people to do what Al Gore is doing, pushing something that he is financially invested in. Everyone does that. That's business. The problem I have is when people in charge of our government push things they're financially invested in through legislation or executive order, like how Cheney pushes Halliburton. It's unethical.

In any case, you and I probably won't end up agreeing on much, but at least we agree that politicians in power need to spend more time working for the American people rather than themselves. You should hear my rant on why we need publicly-financed elections to oust corporate influence from government. :) However, you would probably rather talk to my father. You and he have a lot in common politically, and you would probably find more agreement with him. He's been the unfortunate recipient of most of my rants, and would probably be glad to know that he's not alone anymore.

-Bryan

THE END

(for now)

Bush Isn't Even Trying To Catch Bin Laden

There are no words to express how furious this makes me. There is nothing I can say about this that would satisfy my outrage. I am speechless.

Did The White House Miss A Chance To Catch OBL Again?

By: Nicole Belle on Thursday, October 25th, 2007 at 12:14 PM - PDT

[...]I’d think that it would be in the public’s interest to know how well we are going after known enemies before they create even more in Iran, wouldn’t you?

Col. David Hunt (ret.) on FOXNews.com (I’m citing the relevant portion if you don’t want to give them the hits):

Besides, these things are of little consequence when you realize how we missed, squandered, screwed up, made a mess of and were massively risk adverse - again - when we did not kill Usama bin Laden in Afghanistan just two short months ago.

We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty - which is huge in the world of intelligence - that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world’s best hunters/killers - Seal Team 6 - nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it. Nice job again guys - now, pull the damn trigger.

Unbelievably, and in my opinion, criminally, we did not kill Usama bin Laden.

You cannot make this crap up; truth is always stranger and more telling than fiction. Our government, the current administration and yes, our military leaders included, failed to kill bin Laden for no other reason than incompetence.

The current “boneheads” in charge will tell you all day long that we are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop terrorists there so they do not come here. Nice talk, how about - just for a moment - acting like you mean what you say? You know walk the walk. These incidents, where we displayed a total lack of guts, like the one in August, are just too prevalent. The United States of America’s political and military leadership has, on at least three separate occasions, chosen not capture or kill bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahri. We have allowed Pakistan to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda. We have allowed Al Qaeda to reconstitute, partially because of money they (Al Qaeda in Iraq) have been sending to Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

Losing The Debate? Change It.

Sometimes, I feel the need to put in a post just because I don't want to forget something. This time, the thing I don't want to forget is a post by georgia10 on DailyKos:

Over There

[...]On the merits, the GOP knows full well that it has lost its audience. Poll after poll shows that when it comes to issues, Americans overwhelmingly support the Democratic agenda. Political survival then depends on misdirection from this fact. At any cost.

The most common form of misdirection employed by the idea-barren Republican Party is to avoid talking about ideas altogether. And the most common method used to accomplish this goal? Deflecting attention from the policy to the personal.

And oh, what masters of deflection Republicans have become. A debate about whether to invade Iraq becomes a debate about whether Joe Wilson's undercover CIA wife hooked him up with a sweet junket overseas. A debate on stem cell research becomes a debate about whether Michael J. Fox exaggerates his symptoms. A debate about the right to privacy becomes a debate about whether Terri's blinks were voluntary. A debate on Iraq policy becomes a debate about how mean people are to General Petraeus. A debate about health care becomes a full-blown investigation into the lifestyles of 12 year old Graeme Frost and 2 year old Bethany Wilkerson. A debate about curbing global climate change becomes a debate about how many compact fluorescent light bulbs Al Gore has in his house. A debate about the shameful level of poverty in this country becomes a debate about how much money John Edwards spent on a haircut. A debate about who's qualified to be president becomes a debate about who does or does not wear a lapel pin. A debate about executive accountability becomes a debate about whether Representative Stark hurt Mr. Bush's feelings.

Knowing that they cannot emerge victoriously out of a battle of ideas, Republicans latch on to individuals instead. Public figures and private citizens alike are fair game as the right-wing noise machine turns its cacophony-creating media apparatus in non-discriminating fashion upon any individual, any prey that can serve to distract even for one minute from the utter vapidity of the Republican platform today.

Air Force Official Commits Suicide

This is one of those tragedies that really seem to be hiding something bigger:

Air Force's No. 2 weapons buyer found dead

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force's No. 2 acquisition official, facing scrutiny for a temporary job arranged by the service while he awaited Senate confirmation, was found dead at his home in an apparent suicide, according to an internal Air Force memo obtained by Reuters on Monday.

"Mr. Riechers was found deceased in his home, cause of death appears to be suicide, time of death is unknown," said the memo, which was issued late Sunday.

Charles Riechers, principal deputy assistant secretary for acquisition, was working on the Air Force's highest priority weapons programs, including a $40 billion aerial refueling tanker that is due to be awarded late this year or early next, and a $15 billion combat search and rescue helicopter.

People do not normally commit suicide while they are waiting for a Senate confirmation. So what is going on here?

Like many similar questions, this one may go unanswered and be condemned to conspiracy theory hell.

The article mentions this:

[...]The Washington Post reported on October 1 that Riechers was hired for two months by defense contractor Commonwealth Research Institute at the request of the Air Force while Riechers was out of work and awaiting Senate confirmation for his new position. The job paid $13,400 a month.

$13,400 A MONTH! I don't know about you, but that is a lot of money to me. He must have been doing some important work for defense contractor CRI:

[...]"I really didn't do anything for CRI," Riechers told the newspaper. "I got a paycheck from them."

Or not.

So let me get this straight. A guy who is the Air Force's No. 2 acquisition officer was getting $13,400 per month from a defense contractor. Then, he kills himself two weeks after this conflict of interest is revealed to the public.

Now, I'm no lawyer, but Riechers' conflict of interest has to be illegal:

[...]Riechers' predecessor, Darleen Druyun, served nine months in jail in 2005 for violating federal conflict of interest laws by taking a job with Boeing while still overseeing billions of dollars of its work for the Air Force.

So it is illegal.

Well, I am sure Bush's Department of Justice will get right on this... oh, wait, they won't do anything. It is Bush's culture of corruption that allowed this to happen in the first place (and in the second place and in a whole bunch of other places). It's all part of their "free market" idealogy. See, the "free" in free market means "free" to break the law and enable corruption if it helps the greedy corporations get more money at the expense of American taxpayers.

Well, I am sure the Congress will do something about this... oh, wait, I forgot how busy they were capitulating to the worst President in U.S. history on Iraq and FISA and SCHIP.

So, carry on. Nothing to see here. Our government is too busy screwing us out of our hard-earned cash and giving it to corporate welfare programs. It's too busy stealing from the poor to give to the rich. It's too busy racking up record levels of debt that our grandchildren will be slaves to.

It doesn't have time to weed out corruption, establish a fair market economy, eliminate corporate welfare, and give us what this country actually needs like an exit stratagy from Iraq, a universal public health care program, and a serious plan to end the threat of global warming.

::sigh::

Look, we don't have to put up with this. We can change our country for the better if we all work together. We, the people, are supposed to be in charge of this country, and corruption occurs easily when we aren't paying attention and aren't demanding better from our representatives in government. We are their bosses, not the other way around.

Outrage Overload

There is too much to be outraged about these days, and today is no exception.

I am feeling a little overwhelmed by it all, which makes me just want to take a break from it all, but there are some things I feel the need to mention.

First on my mind are the Democratic presidential candidates who have decided that they are against democracy:

Five Democratic hopefuls pull names off Michigan ballot

By Susan Milligan, Globe Staff

October 10, 2007

WASHINGTON - Five Democratic presidential contenders yesterday yanked their names off the Michigan ballot, delivering a group snub to a state feuding with the national Democratic Party over its decision to move its primary to mid-January in violation of party rules.

The removals reinforce the authority of the Democratic National Committee to impose order on a tumultuous campaign in which dozens of states have pushed up their nominating contests in hopes of attracting more money and attention from the presidential candidates. The DNC has threatened to unseat the delegates of states that defy the primary rules set by the party.

The candidates' decisions provide a symbolic boost for New Hampshire, which is anxiously trying to protect its historic status as host of the first-in-the-nation primary. DNC rules allow for early contests in New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, and Nevada, but Michigan and Florida defied the DNC by scheduling their primaries for Jan. 15 and Jan. 29, respectively.

[...]Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware - joined by John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio - declared yesterday that they would not be candidates in the state's primary. Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Chris Dodd of Connecticut - who, like all of the Democratic candidates, have pledged not to actively campaign in the state - chose to remain on the ballot.

Congratulations to these losers: Obama, Biden, Edwards, Richardson, and Kucinich. Their stance against democracy has effectively made it much easier for me to decide who I will be voting for in the primary election because I won't be voting for any ot them.

I am not happy that Clinton and Dodd have stated that they won't campaign in Michigan, but their stance is the much lesser of two evils in this case. As an Ohioan, I will show my solidarity with Michigan (a rare thing for an Ohioan to do) by not voting for anyone who Michigan voters can't vote for.

The DNC and their anti-democratic rules can rot for all I care. They won't be getting a dime from me. My money is much better spent elsewhere like MoveOn.org or some other entity that is willing to fight for democracy and fight against an archaic and unfair system that places Iowa and New Hampshire above all other states.

By the way, before I move onto another topic, there's this article about Kucinich:

Kucinich remains on Michigan ballot after trying to withdraw

By KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN
The Associated Press

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Michigan voters will have a choice of four candidates in the Democratic presidential primary, even though Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich tried to join four other Democrats who have decided not to be on the ballot.

[...]But Kucinich twice filed incorrect paperwork with the Michigan secretary of state's office, and had not filed a notice of withdrawal with his notarized signature by Tuesday's 4 p.m. deadline, said the office's spokesman, Ken Silfven.

A campaign manager first signed the paperwork, then the campaign sent in another withdrawal notice signed by Kucinich. But the signature had not been notarized as required.

Either Kucinich's staff is absent-minded or they are being very crafty by pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire while still remaining on Michigan's ballot. Either way, I am still not voting for him.

So it guess it is down to Dodd, Clinton, and Gravel for me. At this point, I am leaning towards Dodd, but Clinton or even Gravel could steal that away by coming out against the anti-democratic Iowa-and-New-Hampshire-always-go-first nomination process. (C'mon, Gravel! What have you got to lose?)

We need a national primary. Period. Anything else is a crime against democracy.

Quickly, (because I don't have a lot of time right now) here are the other things that have recently caused me to be outraged:

Dems Fail Litmus Test

The Washington Post reported today that Sen. Harry Reid ☼ has informed private-equity funds that the Senate will not be closing the obscenely inequitable tax loophole that allows mega-billionaires to be taxed at 15 percent – lower than most working Americans. Harry says there simply isn't time in the busy Senate schedule. Seriously. And the Post points out that if there isn't time in 2007, there almost certainly won't be in 2008 either – "Congress tends to be leery of tax increases in election years."

I'm sure this has nothing whatsoever to do with the private-equity firms and hedge funders putting "more than 20 lobbying firms" to work for them in the Halls of Congress. Nor is Reid's about face a sign of the Wall Street Execs "increasing their campaign donations to members of Congress." It's simply a jam-packed schedule – who has time to address the shafting of revenues for public infrastructure investment? Rebuilding the shredded social contract? funding health care, education, or new sustainable energy programs? Making up for lost revenues due to insane Bush tax cuts?

As I posted previously, this was a litmus test for Democrats – to see whether the party > is capable of truly taking a stand for working people. They have failed it. Rick Perlstein blogged today of Democratic capitulations on this issue and FISA.

Steamier Earth Likely, Due to Global Warming

John Roach
for National Geographic News

October 10, 2007

[...]Scientists expect the rising humidity to cause heavier rains, stronger hurricanes, and increased human heat stress.

[...]Climate scientists have long predicted that a warmer world will allow more water to evaporate, thus making the planet more humid.

Indeed, several studies have shown trends of increasing surface humidity around the planet, but until now scientists were uncertain what was driving the trend.

The new study combined a fresh data set of surface humidity with climate models, "and actually attribute[s] those trends to human influence," said study co-author Nathan Gillett, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England.

Partisanship Accusation Expanded in Alabama

By PHILIP SHENON WASHINGTON, Oct. 10

The son of Alabama’s current Republican governor boasted that a Republican judge would “hang Don Siegelman,”

Sorry, I don't have more of a quote for that last one. I can't access the link right now.

One more thing before I go, this last subject I am outraged about not because former President Carter said these things, but because not enough people are saying it with him:

Carter: US has abandoned 'basic principles of human rights'

Associated Press
Thursday October 11, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

Former US president Jimmy Carter last night told CNN the US tortured prisoners in violation of international law, following an assertion last week from George Bush that the US "does not torture".
The 2002 winner of the Nobel peace prize accused Mr Bush of making up his own definition of torture and the hawkish vice president, Dick Cheney, of being a "militant".

"Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights," Mr Carter told CNN.

Bush Administration Endorses Torture

This comes as no surprise to those of us in the reality-based community, but it still infuriates me:

Bush’s Justice Department secretly endorsed torture

Posted October 4th, 2007 at 8:10 am

In December 2004, Bush’s Justice Department issued a statement insisting that “torture is abhorrent.” It was an encouraging step from administration officials who were willing to concede that there were limits to presidential authority when it came to brutal interrogations.

But it was a lie — shortly thereafter, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales signed off on a secret legal opinion, which, as the New York Times reported today, endorsed “the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.”

The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

Mr. Gonzales approved the legal memorandum on “combined effects” over the objections of James B. Comey, the deputy attorney general, who was leaving his job after bruising clashes with the White House. Disagreeing with what he viewed as the opinion’s overreaching legal reasoning, Mr. Comey told colleagues at the department that they would all be “ashamed” when the world eventually learned of it.

And here we are. Given their conduct and contempt for the rule of law, administration officials are apparently well beyond the capacity for shame, but if they’re capable of embarrassment, now would be a good time for it. Indeed, now might be an equally good time to wonder whether criminal charges should be brought against several high-ranking officials in the Bush administration.

Every time Bush was asked about this, he merely replied, "We don't torture." And he was lying.

He and his administration have betrayed this country. They are traitors to the ideals of this country. We have always held ourselves up to a higher standard, and because of Bush, we can no longer do that.

Such a traitor to our country should not be president. Such traitors do not belong in our government. Such traitors should be impeached and punished for their crimes. They have committed crimes against our country, our people, our humanity.

After all the war crimes, the illegal spying, the torture, it is abundantly clear that they have broken the law and their oaths of their offices. They do not deserve to be in power. They should be in prison.

And the insane 30% of this country that still approves of this traitor and his criminal administration need to wake up and know the truth that is so hard for them to hear: Bush is a liar, and a criminal, and a torturer, and he doesn't deserve to be our president.

NPR Features Bribed Pundit Armstrong Williams

Last Wednesday, NPR did a stupid thing. They let Armstrong Williams on their airwaves. They had him on the Political Junkie segment of Talk of the Nation to discuss the Republican "debate" at Morgan State University. I put "debate" in quotes because the frontrunners for the Republican presidential nomination skipped this debate. They skipped it because the debate was geared towards African-American voters and Republicans don't support African-Americans...

because African-Americans don't support Republicans...

because Republicans don't support African-Americans.

So NPR decided to have on African-American Republican Armstrong Williams. My, my, my, how quickly we forget:

From Wikipedia:

Selling the Bush Administration's "No Child Left Behind" policy

In January 2005, USA Today reported that documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act revealed that Williams had been paid $240,000 to promote the controversial No Child Left Behind Act ("NCLB") of the Bush administration. According to USA Today, Williams was hired "to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same."

As part of the agreement, Williams was required "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004." The contract with Williams was part of a $1 million contract between the U.S. Department of Education and the public relations company, Ketchum Inc.

Melanie Sloan from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington told USA Today that the contract may be illegal "because Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government. "And it's propaganda," she said. Representative George Miller, a member of the House Education Committee, called the contract "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money" that is "probably illegal." Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington was founded in 2001 by Melanie Sloan, a former aide to Representative John Conyers (D-MI) and Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY).

After the USA Today revelations, Tribune Media Services terminated its syndication agreement with Williams. In a statement to Editor and Publisher (not available on its website), TMS stated: "[A]ccepting compensation in any form from an entity that serves as a subject of his weekly newspaper columns creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Under these circumstances, readers may well ask themselves if the views expressed in his columns are his own, or whether they have been purchased by a third party."

What? NPR couldn't find an African-American Republican pundit who HADN'T BEEN BRIBED to promote a Bush policy?

I know there aren't a lot of African-American Republicans, but come on. Having on Armstrong Williams is completely disrespectful to African-Americans, pundits, and the NPR audience (but completely typical of Bush Republicans).

Why Do Anti-Abortion Activists Choose To Have Abortions?

Apparently, some anti-abortion advocates are deciding that it is okay for themselves or their family members to have abortions while simultaneously advocating that others should not be able to make the same choice. This is really taking hypocrisy to new heights (from a diary on DailyKos):

Pro-life: their abortions are different, unique.

by ShawnGBR
Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 02:50:28 PM PDT

[...]But like I say, an anti-choice advocate's opinion is set in stone.

Even on the day she's having an abortion.

As one page chronicles:

"I've had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, 'You're not going to tell them, are you!?' When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn't want this to interfere with it." (Physician, Texas)

That's right. For everyone else, it's clear-cut murder. All the hooey about needing the abortion because the child will ruin your life just won't do. Unless it turns out that you need the abortion because the child will ruin your life. Then it's OK.

[...]These aren't the only examples from the link I've provided. Although few studies have been made of this phenomenon, a study done in 1981 (Henshaw, S.K. and G. Martire. 1982. Abortion and the Public Opinion Polls: 1. Morality and Legality. Family Planning Perspectives. 14:2, pp 53-60, March/April.) found that 24% of women who had abortions considered the procedure morally wrong, and 7% of women who'd had abortions disagreed with the statement, "Any woman who wants an abortion should be permitted to obtain it legally."

A 1994/95 survey of nearly 10,000 abortion patients showed 18% of women having abortions are born-again or Evangelical Christians.

And a previous Planned Parenthood handbook on abortion noted that nearly half of all abortions are for women who describe themselves as born-again Christian, Evangelical Christian, or Catholic.

The diary offers a couple other examples of women who actively protest abortion clinics, then go to the same clinic for an abortion, and then go back to protesting the same abortion clinic later. Can someone please try to explain the logic behind this hypocrisy? Or is there no logic at all? How do these women arrive at the idea that it is okay for them to have an abortion, but it is wrong for everyone else?

That is crazy. It is one thing to be against abortions, but if you are against them, then you shouldn't choose to have one for yourself (or your underage daughter). I can understand if an anti-abortion activist needed to get an abortion out of medical necessity, rape, or incest, but that doesn't appear to be the case in the examples from the article.

I read a statement once that sums up how I feel about this. I am paraphrazing, but the statement was basically this:

For any right that you claim for yourself, you must also be willing to allow others to claim that right for themselves.

For example, if straight people are going to claim the right to all the legal benefits of marriage, then they should be willing to allow gay people to have the same right. Christians should willingly offer the same rights that they claim for themselves to other religions. No race should have more rights than any other. We should pass the Equal Rights Amendment.

It all comes down to a matter of equal rights whether the issue is race, sex, religion, creed, sexual orientation, et cetera. If anti-abortion activists are going to exercise their right to choose to have an abortion, then they shouldn't be trying to take away that right from others.

John Stossel, Professional Insensitive Hack

Anti-consumer advocate John Stossel did a story on anti-truth network ABC which is owned by anti-people corporation Disney. I did not watch his story because I knew it would be filled with lies and propaganda to promote Stossel's crazy libertarian views and irrational free market religion. This guy has no concept of what a fair market is and couldn't care less if consumers are harmed by the greedy corporations he worships.

His propaganda, this time, was specifically about Michael Moore's documentary SiCKO. I'll give you one guess about whether Stossel agreed with it or not.

From Crooks And Liars:

Wife Of Victim From Michael Moore’s Sicko Responds To Stossel Hit Piece

By: Logan Murphy on Tuesday, September 18th, 2007 at 6:38 AM - PDT

ABC News, the same network that neo-cons use to further their agenda, decided to look at the question of Universal Health Care in the US. Who better to investigate it than John “The Free Market Trumps All” Stossel? As is evident from the promo from last Friday’s Good Morning America, Stossel’s program looks like little more than a way to demonize Michael Moore:

Crooks And Liars then offers a video clip of the bully himself, and then reprints the open letter response on MichaelMoore.com from the woman Stossel mentions in his story:

Open Letter to ABC's John Stossel ... from Julie Pierce, American SiCKO

September 14th, 2007 11:03 pm

Dear John,

My name is Julie Pierce. My husband was Tracy Pierce. I am featured in Michael Moore's documentary 'SiCKO.' In the movie, I share my deceased husband's story — his unsuccessful battle with our insurance company to receive what could have been life-saving treatments for kidney cancer.

I just read your Wall Street Journal article written on Sept. 13, 2007, titled "Sick Sob Stories." You begin by talking about Tracy's role in 'SiCKO,' and claim the bone marrow transplant denied by our insurer would not have saved him. You also accuse me of "sneering" over our situation.

In your 'reporting' of this story, you did not contact me, and you did not contact my husband's doctors. I cannot believe that a publication like the Wall Street Journal would print such an accusation without talking to anyone involved — especially in such a personal matter, which resulted in the death of my 37-year-old husband and the father of my child.

Read the whole letter to get the full picture of what a coward and jerk Stossel really is.

In a recent CBS News Poll (from PollingReport.com), they found that 55% of Americans want a single-payer, government-run, universal health insurance program. A CNN poll (from the same site) finds that 64% of Americans think that "the government should provide a national health insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require higher taxes." So if this what most Americans want, my question is: Why does John Stossel hate America?

Worst Universal Health Care Plan Ever

Hillary Clinton just lost any chance she had of getting my primary vote with her awful health care plan. It is the same bad idea that Romney pushed for in Massachusetts and that Schwarzenegger is pushing in California:

Clinton Calls for Universal Health Care

By BETH FOUHY – 12 hours ago

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton called for universal health care on Monday, plunging back into the bruising political battle she famously waged and lost as first lady on an issue that looms large in the 2008 presidential race.

[...]The New York senator said her plan would require every American to purchase insurance, either through their jobs or through a program modeled on Medicare or the federal employee health plan. Businesses would be required to offer insurance or contribute to a pool that would expand coverage. Individuals and small businesses would be offered tax credits to make insurance more affordable.

Here's where the corruption comes into play and why we need publicly financed elections to take greedy corporations our of our government. The greedy health care companies want more money. They give some money to Romney, Schwarzenegger, and Clinton. Then Romney, Schwarzenegger, and Clinton push for legislation that forces everyone to buy health insurance from the greedy health care companies. The greedy health care companies get more money. See how easy that is?

Unfortunately, this is the way our government usually works in almost all areas of politics. The corporations pay for the legislation that benefits them, and the American taxpayer gets screwed.

That's why Republicans love this plan. They'll do anything to please their corporate masters.

And most of the Democratic presidential candidates are rushing to get in line to screw us with this awful health care plan. Didn't any of them watch SiCKO?

Yes, the American health care system is awful and broken, but that does not mean we should replace it with something just as awful and broken. It will remain awful and broken as long as private, for-profit health insurance companies are part of the system.

We need socialized medicine. Period.

Just like we need socialized public schools. Or socialized public roads. Or socialized police and fire departments. Or a socialized military.

We need socialized medicine like Germany. Like France. Like the United Kingdom. Like Canada. Like Japan. Like Australia. If it works for them, it will work for us, but our current system does not work.

It is evil to have health care be a for-profit industry. Health care should be a for-health industry, and greedy, private corporations should have no part in it.

And all Americans (and especially Democrats) should only support a presidential candidate who supports that concept.

General Petraeus Did Betray Us

MoveOn.org has been getting a bit attention for their Petraeus ad. Republicans who refuse to listen to the content of the ad have been calling for Democrats to denounce it. Why should they? Why should the denounce an ad for telling the truth?

Gen. Petraeus did betray us. He lied to Congress. He lied to the American people. He lied to save the liar-in-chief George W. Bush.

MoveOn.org told the truth. And I still believe that telling the truth is a good thing, especially when you speak truth to lying power:

General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

Iraq Confronts Evil Blackwater

It is one of many sins in the long list of crimes against humanity that Bush has committed in his illegal war. The use of private mercenary forces that have no accountablity for the people they kill or harm is one of the more horrendous aspects of Bush's criminality.

Finally, it looks like Iraq is doing something about groups like Blackwater. It is a sad state of affairs that a country that barely has it together has to do this for us:

What happens to private contractors who kill Iraqis? Maybe nothing

Blackwater USA employees are accused of killing several civilians, but there might not be anyone with the authority to prosecute them.

By Alex Koppelman and Mark Benjamin

An incident this past weekend in which employees of Blackwater USA, a private security firm that has become controversial for its extensive role in the war in Iraq, allegedly opened fire on and killed several Iraqis seems to be the last straw for Iraqi tolerance of the company. Iraqi government officials have promised action, including but not limited to the suspension or outright revocation of the company's license to operate in Iraq.

But pulling Blackwater's license may be all the Iraqis can do. Should any Iraqis ever seek redress for the deaths of the civilians in a criminal court, they will be out of luck. Because of an order promulgated by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the now-defunct American occupation government, there appears to be almost no chance that the contractors involved would be, or could be, successfully prosecuted in any court in Iraq. CPA Order 17 says private contractors working for the U.S. or coalition governments in Iraq are not subject to Iraqi law. Should any attempt be made to prosecute Blackwater in the United States, meanwhile, it's not clear what law, if any, applies.

Of course, not paying for crimes and escaping justice is all part of the Bush plan for himself, Scooter Libby, his administration, and Blackwater. If this world has any sense of justice, all of them will see the inside a jail cell for 20 years or more.

Boehner (R-OH) Thinks Losing Troops' In Iraq Is A 'Small Price'

Many blogs have already run this story, but it is still being ignored by the traditional media. So maybe if the blogs keep the story alive, the TM will pick up on it:

"Small price"

by kos
Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:24:03 AM PDT

Remember how 4,000 dead, tens of thousands of wounded, and half a trillion spent was "a small price to pay" for the mess we've made in Iraq? No?

Well, for House Republican Leader John Boehner, that's a wee nothing:

"The investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids."

Boehner still has yet to apologize.

Democrats Need To Make A Stand

I just want to echo what Kos wrote:

Sort out post

[...]Who cares if Bush vetoes? Let him. Don't worry about 66. Don't even worry about 60. If Republicans want to filibuster, let them. Turn it into a real one -- where Republicans have to hold the podium and read from the phone book for days. Let people see who is filibustering funding for the troops and legislation mandating a withdrawal.

If Bush vetoes? Send it back to him. Again and again. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, at least theoretically. There's no reason to capitulate to Mr. 25% on a war that even fewer want. Show the public that the Democrats have fight in them. Give David Broder the middle finger. Hang up on Joe Klein. And start paying attention to what the masses are demanding outside of D.C.

I couldn't agree more.

The reason why Congress' approval ratings are lower than the historic lows of Bush's approval ratings are because of the Democrats' refusal to stand strong, hold the line, and do what we elected them to do: get us out of Iraq.

If they listened to what the people are saying, we would have a better opinion of them. Our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, but if our government refuses the even listen to the people, then it has failed to live up to the ideals of a democracy.

Director of National Intelligence Lied To Congress

He the Director of National Intelligence, but I don't think that lying to Congress is a very intelligent idea. Plus, it's against the law.

Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report wrote about it:

When the Director of National Intelligence lies to the Senate

On Monday, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on recent changes to the FISA law, which the Bush administration has insisted were necessary to keep Americans safe. In defending the law, McConnell seems to have lied to the Senate. Badly.

Steve Benen links to the Newsweek article about McConnell's violation of the law and public trust:

Spy Master Admits Error

In a new embarrassment for the Bush administration top spymaster, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell is withdrawing an assertion he made to Congress this week that a recently passed electronic-surveillance law helped U.S. authorities foil a major terror plot in Germany.

Benen also asks some good questions:

[...]At this point, I have a few questions. First, how does anyone expect lawmakers to negotiate policy matters with the White House in good faith when administration officials lie with impunity? Second, will there be any consequences for McConnell in light of these revelations?

And third, isn’t it against the law to lie to Congress?

To answer his last question, yes, it is against the law to lie to Congress. However, there never seems to be any consequences for breaking that law. So there seems to be no reason to stop lying to Congress.

Alberto Gonzales lied just about everytime he spoke before Congress. Gen. Petraeus lied to Congress earlier this week. Karl Rove just skips the whole process by refusing to go in the first place. It doesn't make a difference. The results are the same: no consequences.

Congress needs to start acting like an equal branch of government and put a stop to this. I know it's a cliche, but the Democrats need to grow a spine. (At least, more of them need to grow a spine. There are some tough Democrats like Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), et cetera. We need more like them.) Democrats need to stop giving their milk money to the White House bullies, and stand up for our country, our Constitution, and all Americans. That's why we voted them into power. Now, it's time for them to keep their end of the bargain and use that power.

Bush Lies, Petraeus Lies, Traditional Media Doesn't Care

I talked a little about this last week in a post called "Did Bush Escalate So That He Could De-escalate?", and it seems like my theory might prove to be correct (or at least close).

Gen. Petraeus talked about bringing troops home next year when he gave his white-wash of a report to Congress this week. Today, news reports are claiming that Bush will soon announce that he will bring troops home next year per Petraeus's suggestions.

This appears to be all a charade because our military will be stretched to its limits by next year, and Bush will be forced to reduce troop numbers in Iraq regardless.

The clueless traditional media seems so eager to report the future troop reductions that they are overlooking the fact that such reductions will occur not by Bush's choice but because Bush has no other options. In overlooking that fact and not reporting on it, the TM is making it seem like Bush IS choosing to bring troops home because he and Petraeus are claiming that the surge escalation has worked and conditions are improving in Iraq.

Of course they're not improving, the surge escalation hasn't worked, and Bush and Petraeus are lying, but the TM is too lazy or too foolish to report that either. Thank goodness we have Media Matters for America to correct the TM:

Myths and falsehoods about progress in Iraq

Summary: Supporters of the Iraq war -- rather than waiting for testimony by Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker on the effect of President Bush's troop increase in Iraq -- have engaged in a campaign to convince the media and public that progress is being made in Iraq and that the "surge" is "working." Media Matters has compiled some of the most pervasive myths and falsehoods advanced by opponents of withdrawal in service of the "surge is working" message, which many in the media have been complicit in perpetuating.

[...]On the August 20 edition of Fox News' Special Report, host Brit Hume said that "evidence mounts that the troop surge is working as planned." An August 16 editorial in Investor's Business Daily was headlined, "A Surge of Success." And on the August 21 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, U.S. News & World Report editor-in-chief Mortimer B. Zuckerman asserted: "[T]he fact is that, by far, the consensus is that the surge is working." However, by the administration's own standards, the national political reconciliation that the Bush administration identified as essential for the success of its escalation strategy has not occurred.

[...]an August 25 Associated Press article reported that while violence is down in Baghdad "from peak levels ... the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago." Moreover, McClatchy Newspapers reported on August 15 that while U.S. officials have said civilian casualties have decreased in Baghdad, they have "declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim."

[...]Statistics compiled by the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count on its website iCasualties.org, which publishes death count totals provided by the Department of Defense, show that more U.S. troops have died in Iraq during June, July, and August this year than the same three-month period in 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006. The website currently lists the total U.S. death count for this period at 264.

Read the whole article for MMfA's list of myths and their debunking of those myths.

The ONLY way to support the troops, at this point, is to bring them home. Period. Not one more should die for Bush's lies.

Salt Water Power?

David Sirota points out this interesting article:

Salt water as fuel? Erie man hopes so

Sunday, September 09, 2007
By David Templeton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

For obvious reasons, scientists long have thought that salt water couldn't be burned.

So when an Erie man announced he'd ignited salt water with the radio-frequency generator he'd invented, some thought it a was a hoax.

John Kanzius, a Washington County native, tried to desalinate seawater with a generator he developed to treat cancer, and it caused a flash in the test tube.

Within days, he had the salt water in the test tube burning like a candle, as long as it was exposed to radio frequencies.

His discovery has spawned scientific interest in using the world's most abundant substance as clean fuel, among other uses.

Whether or not salt water could be a viable fuel to replace fossil fuels is yet to be seen. The larger issue here is that there are all kinds of discoveries going on in the scientific world, and we need to support science and research that may lead to green energy and, by doing so, avoiding a global catastrophe from global warming.

To do that, we need to defeat the Republicans in their Global War on Science. Republicans don't support science or green energy (or peace or human rights or privacy, for that matter), and, therefore, they don't support this world. They don't support human life. They don't support you.

So... you know... Don't support Republicans. It's that simple.