Austin cries: Molly Ivins passes away
Labels: arizona republic, austin, molly ivins
Blog intended for 'round the table' discussions but then..aren't most of them?
Labels: arizona republic, austin, molly ivins
Which takes us to those arrest warrants:
Since the German government cooperated with the American government, this could be considered a way to take distance from this whole Iraq and rendition mess on the part of the German government. In Italy, a similar arrest warrant has been issued:
Good. The tide is turning and hopefully this will continue enough to prevent another Republican government continuance, post-Bush. No matter if he (let's face it, it'll never be a 'she') is decidedly different than Bush, we need a new direction all together. Whether I'm pro-Hillary or Obama, it's too early for me to decide. What am I saying? As if it matters since I won't be able to vote anyway. But I tell you this much; I will be less reluctant to go for my American citizenship if we do get a better captain at the helm of this ship.
Labels: arrest warrants, CIA agents, renditioning, Tyler Drumheller
If you or I managed our money the way that U.S. government manages our money, we'd be headed for bankruptcy.Oh and get this:
Imagine if someone you knew:
Took on a mountain of debt -- to buy a house, say -- at a floating interest rate and never bothered to ask if the future payments would be affordable. That's exactly what the U.S. government does.
Used his annual bonus to make the down payment on a Porsche Cayenne and never worried that his current spending had created a huge future obligation for years of high payouts. That's exactly what the U.S. government does.
Ran up big credit card debt because the money he was saving for his kids' college education easily balanced out that debt. That's exactly what the U.S. government does.
Just kept on spending not only every bit of the monthly paycheck but every dollar that credit card companies and banks would lend, despite knowing that he would have to pay for college and retirement one day. That's exactly what the U.S. government does.
By the way, Iraq expenses are 'off budget'
If you want to correct for the $185 billion collected by Social Security as surplus cash flow in 2006 -- that is, the taxes came in today to pay for benefits promised in future years -- then you have to look at the on-budget deficit, which Walker calls the "operating deficit." The on-budget deficit came to $434 billion in 2006. The on-budget deficit shrank from 2005 to 2006, just as the unified budget deficit did, but the drop was much smaller: to $434 billion in fiscal 2006 from $494 in fiscal 2005.
Both of these still understate the size of the deficit. The Bush administration has been adamant about keeping certain costs out of the budget figures. Spending on the war in Iraq, for example, has been included not in budget resolutions but in special emergency spending bills. They are "off budget" in the language of Washington. That spending, estimated by the Congressional Budget Office at $360 billion overall and $95 billion in the fiscal year that ended in October 2006, aren't in either of these two budget figures. And Iraq funding for fiscal 2007 won't be included in the budget the president will introduce next month, either.
This ban on including costs that are probable but not legislatively certain and the prohibition on looking further than five years out -- even though politicians routinely push the costs of their most expensive programs "off budget" by delaying the worst for more than five years -- has led to a veritable industry of alternative budgeting in Washington. Many of these have been created by groups with agendas to push -- higher social spending, lower taxes, more tax cuts, fewer tax cuts for the "rich." But what's most interesting to me about them is that any that look out more than five years see an absolutely predictable budget deficit crisis looming somewhere between 2015 and 2040.
It's caused, surprise, surprise, by the aging of the baby boomers.
The first official baby boomer will become eligible for early retirement under Social Security on Jan. 1, 2008, and for Medicare benefits in 2011. Social Security surpluses -- the surplus of tax receipts versus benefit payouts -- will begin its decline in 2009 and by 2017, unless benefits are cut or taxes increased, Social Security cash flow will have moved into deficit and begun to add to the unified budget deficit rather than diminishing it, as at present.
Don't forget Medicare and Medicaid
But the budgetary problems caused by the growth in Social Security outlays are dwarfed by the increase in spending on Medicare and Medicaid. By itself, the extra demands of Social Security are manageable: According to the Congressional Budget Office, spending for Social Security will reach 4.7% of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), up from 4.2% in fiscal 2007. But pile the growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending on that relatively modest increase and you've got a backbreaker for the federal budget. According to the Congressional Budget Office, combined Medicare and Medicaid spending will add up to 6.3% of GDP in 2016, up from 4.6% in 2007. By 2030, federal spending for these three entitlement programs will add up to 15.5% of GDP, up from 8.8% in 2007.
This same demographic trend makes growing our way out of this problem very unlikely. Economies of countries with aging populations grow more slowly. It's likely that the real (i.e. after subtracting inflation) rate of economic growth will drop to 2.6% for 2012 through 2016 from a projected 3.1% in 2008, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The New Media Monopoly describes the cartel of five giant media conglomerates who now control the media on which a majority of Americans say they most rely. These five are not just large — though they are all among the 325 largest corporations in the world — they are unique among all huge corporations: they are a major factor in changing the politics of the United States and they condition the social values of children and adults alike.
These five huge corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) — own most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, and movie studios of the United States.
These Big Five (with General Electric's NBC a close sixth) do not manufacture automobiles, or clothing, or nuts and bolts. They manufacture politics and social values. The media conglomerates have been a major force in creating conservative and far right politics in the country. They have almost single-handedly as a group, in their radio and television dominance, produced a coarse and vulgar culture that celebrates the most demeaning characteristics in the human psyche — greed, deceit, and cheating as a legitimate way to win (as in the various "reality" shows).
It only takes a moment to help convince Nancy Pelosi to Impeach Bush/Cheney..
Pelosi most likely said impeachment was "off the table" to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment.
What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she is forced to join the impeachment movement in the future.
Sacks and sacks of mail are about to arrive in Nancy Pelosi's office initiating impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules this Monday January 15th. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635).
There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.That's where we come in. In addition to a House Resolution (635), or the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.
You can initiate the impeachment process and simultaneously help to convince Pelosi to follow through with the process. Do-It-Yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. Be a part of history.
http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html
On Saturday, over one thousand protesters occupied the sands of San Francisco's Ocean Beach – part of new Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's district – in order to spell out the message "IMPEACH!"read on...
Nir Rosen at IraqSlogger is reporting on rumors that Moqtada al-Sadr was present at Saddam Hussein’s hanging. In fact, he might have been one of the hangmen. Apparently, that is the reason they were chanting "Moqtada! Moqtada! Moqtada!".
The pro-Baathist website printed the following pictures showing similarities between the hanging pictures and Moqtada al-Sadr. These rumors have been flying around for a number of days now. However, given the circumstances of the hanging, it is not terribly far-fetched. So, here are the pictures for what they are worth
"Bringing people to justice" is not only about capturing and killing your perceived enemy. It is also about the fairness of the process. It is this process that America has in the past championed. At the Nuremburg Trials over a half a century ago, Justice Robert Jackson spoke words that today the Bush Administration would be well advised to heed:AND
It was the process that exposed to the whole world the atrocities of the Nazis and the justness of our cause. That process has stood the "critical judgment of posterity".Read the rest of the post.
So, yes, Mr. Snow and Mr. Bush, justice is about the last two minutes. The first 69 years of Saddam’s life defined who he was. The last 2 minutes of Saddam’s life defined for all the world who Mr. Bush is.
We have lived as if in a trance.
We have lived as people in fear.
And now—our rights and our freedoms in peril—we slowly awaken to learn that we have been afraid of the wrong thing.
Just a few weeks ago Dearden took the dramatic step of signing a petition to Congress--what's being called by its organizers an Appeal for Redress--opposing the war in Iraq and calling for the withdrawal of US troops. When the Appeal is delivered to Capitol Hill in mid-January, all the names of its almost 1,000 uniformed endorsers will be seen by members of Congress, if they care to look. But with his Nation interview, Dearden is now going public. And while the military cannot take reprisals against those who have supported the Appeal, many of the signers agree that there are an infinite number of ways they can be punished, including internal evaluations, denial of promotions and harsh assignments or postings.
The Appeal for Redress, surfacing only in late October, has taken anti-Iraq War sentiment that's been simmering within the ranks and surfaced it as a mainstream plea backed by the enormous moral authority of active-duty personnel. It's an undeniable barometer of rising military dissent and provides a strong argument that the best way to support the troops is to recognize their demand to be withdrawn from Iraq. While clearly inspired by the GI movement of the Vietnam era, it takes a much different tack. Instead of attacking or confronting the military, as the resistance movement of the 1960s often did, the Appeal works within the military's legal framework.
...the power of the Appeal for Redress. Its signers don't marginalize themselves as lawbreakers, resisters or deserters. Potential signers have been assured they are sending a communication to Congress protected under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act and will not be subject to reprisal. The result has been electrifying. In the two months since it surfaced, almost three times as many people have signed it as are members of the two-year-old Iraq Veterans Against the War. Almost three-quarters of the signers are active duty (the rest are reserves), and include several dozen officers, of whom a handful are colonels.Read the full article.
I don't believe it's right for any American to go along with it anymore. Yes I know that we in the military are bound by the UCMJ and somehow don't fall under the Constitution (the very thing we're suppose to be defending) but sooner or later there is a decision that every American soldier, marine, airmen and seamen makes to allow themselves to be sent to a war that is against every fiber this country was founded on. I know that when April rolls around I will be thinking long and hard on that decision. Even though we in the military are just doing as we're told we still have the moral and ethical obligation to choose to do as we're told, or to say, "No, that isn't right." I believe that if more troopers like me and the professional military, the officers and commanders, start standing up and saying that they won't let themselves or their troops go to this illegal war people will start standing up and realizing what the heck is going on over there.AND
The sad fact of the matter is that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq. We are fighting the Iraqi people who feel like a conquered and occupied people. Personally I have a hard time believing that if I was an Iraqi that I wouldn't be doing everything in my power to kill and maim as many Americans as possible. I know that the vast majority of Americans would not be happy with the Canadian government, or any other foreign government, liberating us from the clutches of George W. Bush, even though a large number of us would like that, and forcing us to accept their system of government. Would not millions of Americans rise up and fight back? Would you not rise up to protect and defend your house and your neighborhood if someone invaded your country? But we send thousands of troops to a foreign country to do just that. How is it moral to fight a people who are just trying to defend their homes and families?
I heard a lot during the memorial service about how the dead Marine did so much good for others and how his helping others was like a little microcosm of America helping because we have the power to do so. Well if we have the power to help people why aren't we helping in Darfur where hundreds of thousands of people have died in the last 10 years. Saddam was convicted and sentenced to death for killing 143 Shiites who conspired to assassinate him. (I know all you "patriotic" Americans would be calling for the heads of anyone who conspired to assassinate supreme leader Bush). And yet we spend upwards of 1 trillion dollars and nearing 3,000 lives to help these Iraqis when they don't even want us there. Not to mention we don't have the legal justification to be there. I guess we should wait around for the omnipotent W Bush to decide who we should use our superpowerdom to help next.
appear on Capitol Hill to formally present the petition to Congress to press their case. For an all-volunteer force, says Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, "it's simply unprecedented."Again, read the story in FULL. Also, check out the Appeal for Redress site, click on the posts' title. Thank you Madame Arcati for including this story in your comment.
The National UFO Reporting Center has received the following information from a single source (see below), who, for the time being, wishes to remain anonymous, and who prefers not to reveal for what entity he works. We have received documentation about the alleged sighting, which satisfies us as to the veracity of the report, and as to the credentials of the party reporting the incident.
We have delayed release of this case, principally because an investigation was begun almost immediately after our receipt of the initial report, and because we were hoping to obtain addition documentation about the sighting, before it could be concealed, or destroyed.
At approximately 16:30 p.m. (Central) on Tuesday, November 07, 2006, Federal authorities at O'Hare Airport received a report that approximately a dozen witnesses were observing a small, round disc-shaped object, metallic in appearance, which hovered over Gate C17 at that airport.
The object was first spotted by an employee, working on the ramp, who was engaged in "pushing back" Flight 446, departing Chicago for Charlotte, NC.
The employee reported to his supervisors that the object appeared to be almost directly above his location at Gate C17, it appeared to be perfectly round, and that its size was approximately equal to a U. S. quarter, held at arm's length. The object had a metallic appearance, according to the first witness, and it appeared to him to be spinning.
The first witness apprised the flight crew of Flight 446 of the existence of the object above their aircraft, and we believe both the pilot and copilot were witness to the bizarre object, as well. The witness also contacted his supervisors, who also witnessed the object, which was visible for approximately 2 minutes.
At the end of that time, the object was seen to suddenly accelerate straight up at a very rapid pace, and it "shot" through the solid overcast, which was at 1,900 feet at the time. The witness added that the object appeared to leave a "hole" in the clouds, where it had streaked upwards through the overcast.
Both the Federal Aviation Administration and Transportation Security Administration were apprised of the event at the time it was occurring, and FAA personnel in one of the towers at O'Hare may have witnessed the object, probably with binoculars. The FAA apparently reported that the object was not visible on radar, although that fact has not been confirmed at the time of this writing.
We hope to be able to release more information about the incident at some time in the near future. In the meantime, we would like to invite anyone who may have been personal witness to the event to submit a report of their sighting, using our Online Report Form. We would be most grateful if you would indicate in your report where you were located, at the time of the sighting, and what the object looked like, from your vantage point.
Here is another, similar, report for a sighting at Gatwick Airport, near London, on April 12, 2006.