Weblog

Saturday, April 05, 2008

Sunday, March 12, 2006

  • I support the truth-leaking traitor who blew the whistle on Bush treason.

    Tuesday, 10 January 2006
    I support the truth-leaking traitor who blew the whistle on Bush treason.
    Topic: Wise Governing
    To not reveal the illegal behavior of Mr. Bush is to give aid and comfort to the most dangerous enemy of traditional and legitimate American freedom.

    An attorney general who publicly proclaims that Mr. Bush is justified in breaking the law is in effect giving aid and comfort to the most dangerous enemy of traditional and legitmate American freedom.

    At what point did we cross the line to become the very thing we've historically and traditionally repudiated?

    Conservative and moral-minded voters who thought they were voting for a righteous man ought to be asked now about how they feel and just what sort of mandate they thought they were giving Mr. Bush.

    How many of those who voted to give Mr. Bush his mandate voted to unleash an executive authorized to violate the rights of the citizens by secrecy, deception and manipulation?

    How many angry and offended morals voters mandated a President to lie to us and deceive Congress into launching a war? How many angry and offended moral-values voters are willing to believe that the President's immoral and unnecessary international slaughter has made us safer and truly prevents us from having to undergo terror within our own borders?

    How many angry and offended morals voters in 2004 knew they were mandating a President who's appointees would seriously under-serve and fail to logistically support the American military - especially the troops themselves - and turn the VA into a bastion of betrayal and failure?

    How many angry and offended moral citizens voted to support a President who would openly insist on the lie that Congress fully supported what he was going to do?

    How many angry and offended morals voters knew they were unleashing a leadership that would with blatant impunity authorize torture and the moral repudation of a traditional American image as a truly moral military force?

    How many angry and self-righteous morals voters now find themselves having side morally with the idea of torture and - as Mr. Falwell has so simply put it - "blowing them away in the name of the Lord?"

    How many angry and offended morals voters agree with Bush and Gonzales that Bush illegally spying on Americans is not as serious as revealing to the country that it's president who serves under a sacred oath to preserve and protect has willfully forsaken the preservation and protection of American freedoms in pursuit of secrecy and power?

    Mr. President and Mr. Attorney General, you have betrayed this country. You yourselves have given the greatest aid and comfort to the enemy. Look into the mirror and see what real enemy of freedom stares back at you.

    To the moral-values voters still standing around trying to look the other way and pretend that they did not unleash evil itself, look into the mirror and see what real enemy of freedom stares back at you.

Sunday, March 06, 2005

  •  

    Excellent from Washington Monthly  Political Animal - Kevin Drum

    I get one or two credit card junk mails every day. No wonder they're so motivated.
     

    March 6, 2005

    WARNING: PENALTIES AND LATE FEES MAY APPLY....In the Washington Post, Kathleen Day and Caroline Mayer explain how credit card companies make money:

    Penalty interest rates usually are about 30 percent, with some as high as 40 percent, while late fees now often are $39 a month, and over-limit fees, about $35, [Cardweb CEO Robert] McKinley said. "If you drag that out for a year, it could be very damaging," he said. "Late and over-limit fees alone can easily rack up $900 in fees, and a 30 percent interest rate on a $3,000 balance can add another $1,000, so you could go from $2,000 to $5,000 in just one year if you fail to make payments."

    According to R.K. Hammer Investment Bankers, a California credit card consulting firm, banks collected $14.8 billion in penalty fees last year, or 10.9 percent of revenue, up from $10.7 billion, or 9 percent of revenue, in 2002, the first year the firm began to track penalty fees.

    That's a $4 billion increase in penalty revenue in two years in case you're keeping score at home.

    And you have to love this: that penalty rate of 30-40% can be imposed for missing a single payment — in fact, in can be imposed for missing a single payment on a different account, like your telephone bill — but a card spokesman said this was perfectly reasonable because it was "clearly disclosed on account applications." Something tells me that their idea of "clearly disclosed" is a wee bit different from most people's.

    Bottom line: credit card companies now make half their profits from penalties and late fees. They actively seek out customers who are likely to miss payments and end up in a penalty fee spiral, and they make a fortune from them. In a normally functioning market there's at least a small incentive to limit loans to these high-risk customers, namely the possibility that they might go bankrupt, and the bankruptcy bill before Congress is a brazen attempt to remove even that small but annoying incentive to act responsibly.

    Credit card companies want the ability to make risky loans, but they also want federal protection that protects them from bearing the risk that goes along with making those loans. That's a pretty cushy setup, as long as you can buy yourself enough politicians to make it happen. Apparently they can.

    Kevin Drum

  • The Light of Reason

    COMPASSIONATE WARMONGERING: WE CAN KILL ENTIRE FAMILIES!

    [UPDATE: A note for visitors from Atrios – to clarify: my last sentence is not intended as criticism of those who volunteer at all. It is intended as very harsh criticism of this administration, however – for beginning wars of aggression and for treating all volunteers as nothing more than cannon fodder. And the record seems to be very clear on that point. But no criticism whatsoever of those who volunteer for the military was meant in the way it seems to have been misinterpreted. I’m sorry if that was unclear.]

    It must be more of that “compassionate conservatism”:

    When Ann Swann’s twin sons were deployed to Iraq with the Marine Corps Reserve last year, she fired off a letter to President Bush. Her eldest son already was serving there with the Army Reserve, she explained, and she wanted one of her boys brought home.

    “This letter is from a concerned mother,” wrote Swann, 53, principal of Gladys Noon Spellman Elementary in Prince George’s County. “I request that if at all possible, you conference with me to discuss the reason that all three of my sons (my only family left) are serving in Iraq.”

    What Swann discovered since sending her letter in the fall has surprised her. The Department of Defense has no prohibition on sending every child in a family into combat – even in the same unit at the same location.

    The only way to get her sons back early would be if one were killed, captured, maimed or missing.

    Then the so-called Sullivan rule, named for the Iowa family who lost five sons on the USS Juneau after it was attacked in 1942, would apply. Swann could request that her remaining sons be excluded from combat or any duty that would expose them to hostile fire.

    That’s what John and Lori Witmer did when their daughter Michelle, 20, was killed in Iraq last year serving in the Wisconsin National Guard. Her sister Rachel, 25, who served with her in the 32nd Military Police Company, and her twin sister, Charity, 21, a medic, did not to return to Iraq after their parents pleaded that they be allowed to remain stateside.

    “Common sense would say that one hero per family should be enough,” John Witmer of New Berlin, Wis., said in a telephone interview. “That way, the brothers and sisters wouldn’t have to be put in the position of feeling like they deserted their families if they went back or that they deserted their country if they stayed home.”

    Their decision led to death threats and criticism from some who thought the other daughters should return to their units despite their sister’s death, he said. Radio stations held call-in discussions and the family received numerous threatening phone calls.

    The deployment in June of Sgts. Bryan and Ryan Swann, 24, with Andrews-based Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron came a few months after Henry’s deployment with the 104th Quartermaster Company based in Annapolis.

    Shortly afterward, their mother began her push to get one son returned.

    In addition to writing the White House, she wrote to Wynn and Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). Wynn sent a letter on Swann’s behalf to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld asking that he “strongly consider bringing at least one of her sons home.”

    Swann received a four-line response on White House stationery from Heidi Marquez, director of presidential correspondence. It said: “The White House is sending your inquiry to the Defense Department. This agency has the expertise to address your concerns. They will respond directly to you, as promptly as possible.”

    “I’ve never heard another word from them,” Swann said.

    Henry Swann said that he and his brothers did not want to be released from duty but that he shared his mother’s concern for the family. Ann Swann’s mother, Mary Frances McDonald, 76, was killed during an attempted robbery at a flower shop in 2003 and her father died a few months later.

    “There had already been so much tragedy in our family,” Henry Swann said. “I was really worried about what would happen with my mother if something happened to me and my brothers.”

    Also, note these details from the middle of the article:

    Military officials acknowledge that there probably are many families who have more than one child deployed, but they say they have no way of tracking them.

    “Some siblings don’t have the same name, and then you also get into half siblings and step-siblings,” said Staff Sgt. Christina Delai, a Marine spokeswoman. “I think that since there are so many ways to relate to someone, it would be almost impossible” to prevent them from being deployed simultaneously.

    Got that? We “know enough” to remake the map of the entire world – including invading and occupying (and/or constantly threatening) countries that pose no serious danger to us – but somehow our government is unable to “track” all the members of one family. “Installing democracy” in countries around the world? No problem. Avoiding simultaneous deployment of all the children in one family? Impossible problem.

    Moral: if you volunteer to be cannon fodder for this government, realize that the government will not give one goddamn about what happens to you, or to your family.

    Category: Foreign Policy, Iraq — Arthur @ 7:29 pm

Friday, February 25, 2005

  • workingforchange.com

     Bill Berkowitz
    WorkingForChange
    02.24.05
      

    Christian right mum on Gannon Affair
    Why have the 'traditional family values' folks erected a wall of silence around the Gannon scandal?

    They were livid over SpongeBob Square Pants' participation in a video advocating tolerance, and fuming about Buster the Bunny's visit to a lesbian household. So where's the outrage from the Christian right over the Jeff Gannon Affair? Despite a chunk of time having passed since the Gannon Affair was first uncovered, Christian right organizations are still cloaked in silence. As of February 24, there wasn't any news about the Gannon Affair available on the Web sites of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, or the Traditional Values Coalition. As best as I could determine, no special alerts about the Gannon Affair have been issued; and no campaigns have been launched to get to the bottom of the matter.

    Curious about this wall of silence, I phoned several Christian right groups on Tuesday, February 22, hoping to find someone who could comment on the Gannon Affair. This is what I found:

  • Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family: I filled out an interview form and waited to hear back. Several hours later, a FotF administrative assistant called me to say that no one there could answer my questions about Gannon. She said a lot of folks were out sick and no one was available. "Would someone be available tomorrow or Thursday," I asked. She pointed out that no one would be available the following day or the day after to talk about this issue. "Next week?" "No."
  • The Family Research Council: I spoke with Amber Hildebrand, FRC's Media Director. She said "We haven't made any public comments about this. There have been other pressing issues that have taken precedent, although this came as a shock to FRC." Hildebrand said she would see if FRC's Vice President of Government Affairs Connie Mackey, would talk with me. At press time (Thursday evening) Mackey has not called.
  • The Traditional Values Coalition: I filled out an interview form and waited for a call back. As of 2.22, TVC Action Alerts are focused on the persecution and subsequent dismissal of charges against the "Philadelphia 5," a group of fundamentalists that disrupted a pro-gay activity in Philadelphia in order to preach "the Gospel to homosexuals," and on Columbia House for developing "a new subsidiary called Hush to market pornographic materials in association with Playboy and other pornography companies." At press time no one had returned my call. After making a second call, a TVC spokesperson told me that "no one is available to speak on that topic right now."
  • The Free Congress Foundation: Over at Paul Weyrich's Washington, DC-based organization, Jill Farrell, the Director of Communications told me that she hadn't "heard anyone say anything at all" about the Gannon Affair.

    The editors at Town Hall, the Heritage Foundation's one stop shopping center for conservative ideas, and the Rev. Donald Wildmon's American Family Association, currently involved in trashing HBO's Bill Maher over recent remarks he made about religion, didn't return my calls. Charisma News Service and the Christian Response Network didn't respond to my email questions about their lack of coverage of the Gannon Affair.

    That was then...

    While waiting for callbacks, my minds eye drifted back to the Clinton White House. Tim Bannon, a liberal activist, had made his way into a presidential press conference; Bannon had been attending press briefings for nearly two years, under the name Slim Cannon. No one seemed knew much about FallOnNews.com, the Internet news service he worked with, but many suspected it was a front group for the Democrats.

    Clinton had been taking a well-publicized beating over the Monica Lewinsky Affair. At the president's first press conference in quite some time, he called on Cannon, who asked the following question: "Mr. President, given revelations about House Speaker Newt Gingrich's serial affairs and the abandonment of his wife when she had cancer, and given that Congressman Bob Livingston has a similar record of perfidious peccadilloes, and given stories about the sexual shenanigans of a host of televangelists including Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, could you please comment on whether the right wing media, isn't selectively focusing on the Lewinsky Affair, and doesn't want to deal with sexual scandals in its own backyard?"

    Less than twenty-four hours later, a host of right wing Web sites -- suspicious that Cannon may have been planted by the White House -- discovered that Slim Cannon's cannon was prominently featured on a number of gay porn sites, and that in his off hours he may have been a gay "escort." Intrepid researchers find out that Cannon had been privy to secret documents before any other duly accredited White House reporters.

    "Clinton's gay consort" became the right's theme for the next several months.

    Reality-based fans will recognize that the above scenario never happened. If a Tim Bannon, as Slim Cannon, had insinuated himself into the White House on President Clinton's watch, and lobbed softball question after softball question, all hell would have broken loose. Right wing media, and the pulpits and newsletters of fundamentalist Christians, would have been ranting and raving: "Where's the outrage?" Bob Dole's mantra from his failed 1996 presidential campaign might actually have finally resonated. The mainstream media would have no doubt jumped on board.

    This is now...

    What has actually happened bears some resemblance to our fictitious scenario. The major difference is that the scandal involving Jeff Gannon, whose real name is James D. Guckert, is happening on President George W. Bush's watch. The vituperative voices of the right are quiet and their voracious appetites for sex, slime and salacious details about Democratic dalliances have disappeared since it's a GOP scandal.

    On the heels of the payola scandal involving Bush Administration payoffs to Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher and McManus -- a loose coalition of the shilling -- along comes the Gannon/Guckert affair.

    James D. Guckert, as Gannon, represented a conservative news site called Talon News. Somehow, within a short time of his entering "journalism," Gannon was able to get credentialed and attend numerous White House briefings and lob softballs at White House officials. According to DemocraticUnderground.com, "Gannon was actually in the White House as early as February 28, 2003 -- a month before Talon News even existed. Gannon also got called on by President Bush at one of his rare news conferences. Gannon ended his question with "How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?" referring to Senator Hillary Clinton and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.

    Details of the Gannon/Guckert affair are still being uncovered. Thanks to the blogosphere and largely through the efforts of Media Matters for America and John Aravosis' Americablog we are learning more than we ever wanted to know about someone we rather no little about. These blogs, and a handful of other enterprising bloggers, blew the lid off Gannon's shameful charade. Beneath the lid was James D. Guckert in pre-fig leaf Garden of Eden splendor: As a contributor to such sites as Hotmilitarystud.com, Workingboys.net, Militaryescorts.com, MilitaryescortsM4M.com and Meetlocalmen.com, Gannon's cannon is on full display.

    "'Jeff' has now quit Talon News," writes Frank Rich in the February 20 edition of the New York Times, "not because he and it have been exposed as fakes but because of other embarrassing blogosphere revelations linking him to sites like hotmilitarystud.com and to an apparently promising career as an X-rated $200-per-hour "escort." (For more on all of this including links to some of Gannon/Guckert's Web sites, see Americablog.)

    There are innumerable aspects of the Gannon/Guckert Affair that should keep curious mainstream reporters busy for quite some time: how did Gannon/Guckert get into all those White House press briefings and the President's press conference?; Was he on the payroll of Team Bush?; Did he play a role revealing Valerie Plame's CIA employment? -- the investigation is ongoing; how did he get by with being a phony right wing reporter by day and a gay prostitute by night?

    A few weeks back, Buzzflash.com editorialized: "The Gannon story touches upon everything from manufactured news to manufactured 'reporters' to the Valerie Plame affair to websites that have a connection to the White House, but appear independent, to a Bush Cartel hypocrisy about gays, to payola, to scripted Bush news conferences, to who knows what. This is a BIG media story that should be on the cover of the New York Times and Post."

    Unable to speak with representatives from Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition, I turned to Joe Conn of American United for Separation of Church and State and John Aravosis, the creator of Americablog.

    In a telephone interview, Conn said he wasn't surprised that there hasn't been any response from Christian right organizations because "The religious right is pretty much a team player when it comes to the Bush Administration. Unless it's an issue like same-sex marriage -- a core issue of their agenda -- they will give the president a pass."

    "Clearly this is an example of the religious right's hypocrisy," Conn point out. "If it was Bill Clinton they would be in total uproar."

    Via e-mail, I asked Aravosis why he thought the Christian right was being silent about the Gannon Affair.

    "Because they're hypocrites," he wrote in an e-mail. "They know this scandal is hurting Bush and they put politics ahead of their God. That's how petty and un-Christian they are."

    "Am I correct in thinking that they certainly would have responded to a similar situation if Bill Clinton was still president?," I asked. Aravosis responded with tongue firmly implanted in cheek: "Do you think the religious right would care if Bill Clinton welcomed a gay hooker to the White House, and then slipped him classified intelligence information? Let me think about that one." For more please see the Bill Berkowitz archive.

    Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. His WorkingForChange column Conservative Watch documents the strategies, players, institutions, victories and defeats of the American Right.

  •  





    Focus on the Family said no one would be available tomorrow or the day after to talk about this issue. "Next week?" "No."
    (c) 2005 Working Assets Online. All rights reserved

Top Tags - Weblog

[no tags]

rugerac

  • Visit rugerac's Xanga Site
    • Name: Arthur
    • Birthday: 8/20/1946
    • Gender: Male
    • Member Since: 7/24/2004

Weblog Archives

Don't worry - your calendar is here… to see it in action just click "Save" above and refresh the page.

About Me

  • When Bush and the PNAC'ers talk you get the idea that troops don't mean nothin more to them than the little red, white and blue wood blocks in the Risk Game ... These ain't the guys you'd want on a camp out, that's fer sure. Take them along and you'd have to chop all the wood, build the fire, help em put up their tents, and sing cowboy songs to em when it gets dark, quiet and scary in the woods. Probably have to bait their hooks, untangle their lines and hold their hands while they reel in a fish ... Dang certain I'd have to gut the fish for em since there'd be guts involved.

Pulse

rugerac has no pulse!...

Photostrip

[no photos]