When Al Capone wanted to make sure that he was free to carry out his rule of murder and mayhem in Chicago without any problem from local law enforcement, he didn't try to take on the Chicago police force in a shootout. He didn't need to. He made sure that he had 'his guys' where they needed to be to find out where the police were going, and what they were up to, and if necessary change what they were doing until he could move his operation elsewhere. He had many ways of achieving this. One was that he found out who (either in the police or with knowlege of their organization) could be bought, and paid them. Another was that he found out who could be intimidated or blackmailed, and bullied them. Another was that he found out who needed to be replaced, and killed them. And beyond all that, members of his organization applied for jobs in the police force, and some of them got them. And after Capone was gone, they remained there for decades (so that, for example, when the senior police officers ordered their subordinates to crack heads at the 1968 Democratic convention, well you know who the senior police officers were-- and the head-cracking junior officers are now senior officers in Chicago, and so it goes.) In fact, the only way that federal agent Elliot Ness was able to finally take down Capone's organization was to literally kidnap and carry along on raids any members of the Chicago police who got word of what they were doing, to prevent them from warning anyone ahead of time.
Now President Bush has said repeatedly that Iraqi police and security forces are getting ready to fight the insurgency, and as they come online then American forces will leave. Unfortunately, the shiite Badr militia, backed by Iran, and who last year briefly fought with British troops, have apparently joined the police and the military in large numbers, indicating that they are following the "Capone Strategy."
BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iranian-backed militia the Badr Organization has taken over many of the Iraqi Interior Ministry's intelligence activities and infiltrated its elite commando units, U.S. and Iraqi officials said.
That's enabled the Shiite Muslim militia to use Interior Ministry vehicles and equipment -- much of it bought with American money -- to carry out revenge attacks against the minority Sunni Muslims, who persecuted the Shiites under Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein, current and former Ministry of Interior employees told Knight Ridder.
The officials, some of whom agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity for fear of violent reprisals, said the Interior Ministry had become what amounted to an Iranian fifth column inside the U.S.-backed Iraqi government, running death squads and operating a network of secret prisons.
The militia's secret activities threaten to derail U.S.-backed efforts to persuade Sunnis to abandon the violent insurgency and join Shiites and Kurds in Iraq's fledgling political process. And by supporting Badr and other Shiite groups, Iran -- a member of President Bush's "axis of evil" that sponsors international terrorism, is thought to be seeking nuclear weapons and calls for the destruction of Israel -- has used the American-led invasion to gain influence in Iraq.
So this week, it seems that the Pentagon has in effect developed the Elliot Ness strategy:the Pentagon has assigned thousands of American troops to oversee Iraqi police units.
Thousands of American troops will be assigned to Iraqi police units to monitor their work and rein in those who abuse prisoners, according to US military officials in Baghdad.
The decision was made following a series of scandals involving Iraqi interior ministry forces including the discovery, last month, of dozens of emaciated and tortured inmates during a raid on a secret prison with almost 170 prisoners. American officials, who fear the influence of militias in the police force, have since found evidence of maltreatment in two other Baghdad prisons and another in Tal Afar in northwestern Iraq.
So, we are now assigning American troops to oversee the police and security forces who are supposed to be taking over for us. And here is a real question for President Bush: A lot of people on the left asked what the plan was to prevent the enemy from infiltrating the police and never had that answered (although to be honest we were mostly thinking of Sunni and former Baathist insurgents). The Coalition asked for all militias to disband and turn in their weapons. But now the Badr militia have new (and probably better ones) that we have generously paid for, and by now, short of disbanding the entire Iraqi police force and military and starting from scratch, they are so well infiltrated that we simply won't be able to get rid of them. The fact that the Bush administration never considered that they might pull this trick on us when they agreed to disband makes the Bush administration the 'CHUMP' of the year, for 2005 (as they were in 2003 when Iranian double agent Ahmed Chalabi gave us nightmare scenarios about Saddam being able to set up and launch massive chemical attacks against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in 45 minutes to egg the them into getting rid of Saddam, something the Iranians wanted badly but could not accomplish in a decade of war, and in 2004 when the Iranians organized a fundamentalist pro-Iranian Islamic religious party that would sweep to victory in elections whenever we held them).
And President Bush calls developments in Iraq a sign of 'progress?' I guess-- but only if you are sitting in Tehran.
Cross posted at The Divided States of Bu$hmerika.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
SPEECH TRANSCRIPT, Dated 29 February, 2006
The following is a transcript of the Speech that George W. Bush made during prime time on February 29, 2006 in defense of domestic spying and wiretaps. It appears on The Coalition For a Republican-Free America compliments of Daniel Andrew Gallagher, co founder and occasional trouble-maker.
Good evening my fellow Americans.
Tonight I want to discuss a matter of grave impotence. In recent weeks many of you have expressed concerns about my recent decision to invade the privacy of the American people. Many of you have expressed outrage and concern over the possibility that this administration might abuse the information that we obtain, or that we might engage in surveillance for purposes other than national security, or that we might reveal potentially embarrassing information to the public at large.
My fellow Americans, I under stand your concerns. When I took the Oath of Office I swore to protect and uphold Constitutional provisions which might in any and every way concentrate more and more power in the office of the Presidency, this presidency in particular. But that doesn't mean that I won't abuse the power that I have grabbed since my appointment to this position. I take your right to privacy very seriously. I am a very private and secretive individual myself. I thoroughly believe that the American people have no right to know neither what nor why I do anything. And, by the same token, I want my subjects to understand that I will do everything within my ever increasing powers to guarantee that neither the press, nor the American people will ever discover just how corrupt this administration has become.
This, my fellow Americans, is an emergency situation, and I fully intend to milk it for what it's worth. My political career is on the line and I need to do something to terrorize or at least intimidate my critics until they exercise their constitutional right to remain silent. To that end I will do anything and everything, both legal and otherwise, to guarantee my political survival, even when it comes before minor inconveniences such as integrity, honesty, and decency--qualities which should be limited to the ruled but strictly ignored by the rulers.
As your Demander and Thief I promise to protect you from the rights that have burdened us from the inception of the American Republican. As your Demander and Thief, I promise that no embarrassing or humiliating piece of information will go unpublished. No stone will remain unturned as we seek to destroy anyone who speaks out against us.
Take for example this email from a Mrs. Catherine Killigrew. In the following correspondence, dated August 27 of last year, Mrs. Killegrew writes the following letter to her son, Jonathan who is currently a resident of Madison, Wisconsin and a student at the University of Wisconsin there. Mrs Killigrew writes the following.
"Dear Jonathan. How are you doing? I am feeling better since I went to see the doctor. He says that the burning sensation that I feel when I urinate is from an infection. He gave me some antibiotics and he suspects that both, the painful urination and bladder control problem will cure itself in a few days. So how are you doing? Are your hemorrhoids doing any better? I know they can be itchy and painful, but I really think they wouldn't be such a problem if you would only change underwear more often. I think the shit stains might be a huge part of the problem. Oh well. Your brother Bobby has been wetting the bed again, and your good for nothing brother-in-law got drunker than a skunk at the Killigrew family reunion. This time he called your cousin Amanda a slut, and puked in the Hawaiian punch. He was drunk and more or less ruined the whole affair. So, dear, I have to get going. Remember to eat your oat meal, it will make you more regular, and try to stay out of trouble. Your loving Mumsie. PS. I have joined the Green Party and am having a blast. Again, your loving Mumsie."
For those of you who are interested, Mrs. Smith resides at 348 Liberty Drive in Dullsville, Alabama. Her social security number is 666-66-6666 and her phone number is 555-899-7734. She was born on February 7, 1959, and she wears a size D Cup bra, and her ex husband left her for his 24- year- old secretary on July 4th of last year. Note my fellow Americans, that Mrs. Killigrew specifically says that she is a registered member of the Green Party. This, in my infallible opinion, is utterly unacceptable. When did I give Mrs. Killigrew to disagree with me about anything? When did I give her permission to join the Green Party? People like Mrs. Killigrew simply do not get it. They do not and will not understand that it is part of my job to dominate and control them in the name of security.
In the future you will undoubtedly learn that we have been using personal or perhaps even embarrassing information to ridicule and destroy anyone who disagrees with me. Again, I want the American people to know that any and all embarrassing information will be shared with the general public. Except for the nudie pictures that we intercept which are being posted on the west wall of the Lincoln bedroom for my personal enjoyment.
This is a long and difficult battle. The war on terrorism has given us an opportunity to abolish the American Constitution, but we have yet to affect our takeover of the United States. Much remains to be done. More lies must be told. More laws must be broken. More people must be detained, and yes, tortured, before the American people accept me as their new and latest Savior. But I am confident that if we work together, we can destroy any and all opposition in the name of security. I believe in my heart of hearts that we can destroy the rest of the opposition in the same way that we co-opted and destroyed the Republican Party from within.
I want you to know that as your leader, I will not rest until my word is law.
Good night, Sieg Heil, and may I and I alone, bless America.
Your President Select
George III
Good evening my fellow Americans.
Tonight I want to discuss a matter of grave impotence. In recent weeks many of you have expressed concerns about my recent decision to invade the privacy of the American people. Many of you have expressed outrage and concern over the possibility that this administration might abuse the information that we obtain, or that we might engage in surveillance for purposes other than national security, or that we might reveal potentially embarrassing information to the public at large.
My fellow Americans, I under stand your concerns. When I took the Oath of Office I swore to protect and uphold Constitutional provisions which might in any and every way concentrate more and more power in the office of the Presidency, this presidency in particular. But that doesn't mean that I won't abuse the power that I have grabbed since my appointment to this position. I take your right to privacy very seriously. I am a very private and secretive individual myself. I thoroughly believe that the American people have no right to know neither what nor why I do anything. And, by the same token, I want my subjects to understand that I will do everything within my ever increasing powers to guarantee that neither the press, nor the American people will ever discover just how corrupt this administration has become.
This, my fellow Americans, is an emergency situation, and I fully intend to milk it for what it's worth. My political career is on the line and I need to do something to terrorize or at least intimidate my critics until they exercise their constitutional right to remain silent. To that end I will do anything and everything, both legal and otherwise, to guarantee my political survival, even when it comes before minor inconveniences such as integrity, honesty, and decency--qualities which should be limited to the ruled but strictly ignored by the rulers.
As your Demander and Thief I promise to protect you from the rights that have burdened us from the inception of the American Republican. As your Demander and Thief, I promise that no embarrassing or humiliating piece of information will go unpublished. No stone will remain unturned as we seek to destroy anyone who speaks out against us.
Take for example this email from a Mrs. Catherine Killigrew. In the following correspondence, dated August 27 of last year, Mrs. Killegrew writes the following letter to her son, Jonathan who is currently a resident of Madison, Wisconsin and a student at the University of Wisconsin there. Mrs Killigrew writes the following.
"Dear Jonathan. How are you doing? I am feeling better since I went to see the doctor. He says that the burning sensation that I feel when I urinate is from an infection. He gave me some antibiotics and he suspects that both, the painful urination and bladder control problem will cure itself in a few days. So how are you doing? Are your hemorrhoids doing any better? I know they can be itchy and painful, but I really think they wouldn't be such a problem if you would only change underwear more often. I think the shit stains might be a huge part of the problem. Oh well. Your brother Bobby has been wetting the bed again, and your good for nothing brother-in-law got drunker than a skunk at the Killigrew family reunion. This time he called your cousin Amanda a slut, and puked in the Hawaiian punch. He was drunk and more or less ruined the whole affair. So, dear, I have to get going. Remember to eat your oat meal, it will make you more regular, and try to stay out of trouble. Your loving Mumsie. PS. I have joined the Green Party and am having a blast. Again, your loving Mumsie."
For those of you who are interested, Mrs. Smith resides at 348 Liberty Drive in Dullsville, Alabama. Her social security number is 666-66-6666 and her phone number is 555-899-7734. She was born on February 7, 1959, and she wears a size D Cup bra, and her ex husband left her for his 24- year- old secretary on July 4th of last year. Note my fellow Americans, that Mrs. Killigrew specifically says that she is a registered member of the Green Party. This, in my infallible opinion, is utterly unacceptable. When did I give Mrs. Killigrew to disagree with me about anything? When did I give her permission to join the Green Party? People like Mrs. Killigrew simply do not get it. They do not and will not understand that it is part of my job to dominate and control them in the name of security.
In the future you will undoubtedly learn that we have been using personal or perhaps even embarrassing information to ridicule and destroy anyone who disagrees with me. Again, I want the American people to know that any and all embarrassing information will be shared with the general public. Except for the nudie pictures that we intercept which are being posted on the west wall of the Lincoln bedroom for my personal enjoyment.
This is a long and difficult battle. The war on terrorism has given us an opportunity to abolish the American Constitution, but we have yet to affect our takeover of the United States. Much remains to be done. More lies must be told. More laws must be broken. More people must be detained, and yes, tortured, before the American people accept me as their new and latest Savior. But I am confident that if we work together, we can destroy any and all opposition in the name of security. I believe in my heart of hearts that we can destroy the rest of the opposition in the same way that we co-opted and destroyed the Republican Party from within.
I want you to know that as your leader, I will not rest until my word is law.
Good night, Sieg Heil, and may I and I alone, bless America.
Your President Select
George III
Saturday, December 24, 2005
NSA spying more widespread than thought.
The other day, when the NSA warrantless surveillance program first broke, President Bush said he had authorized it only a few times (I don't remember the number he said, but it was something in the thirties.)
But, knowing the Bush administration like I do, I'm not really all that surprised at a story out today which indicates that the spy program was much broader than he let on originally, in fact so broad that it involved systematic snooping of general calls from the United States to foreign countries (not even necessarily from or to people who there is any reason to suspect might have ties to terrorists). In addition, domestic phone traffic was also being monitored en masse.
NEW YORK - The volume of information gathered from telephone and Internet communications by the National Security Agency without court-approved warrants was much larger than the White House has acknowledged, The New York Times reported Saturday.
Citing current and former government officials, the Times said the information was collected by tapping directly into some of the U.S. telecommunication system’s main arteries. The officials said the NSA won the cooperation of telecommunications companies to obtain access to both domestic and international communications without first gaining warrants....
Some officials described the program as a large data mining operation, the Times said, and described it as much larger than the White House has acknowledged.
Several officials said senior government officials went to the nation’s big telecommunications companies to get access to switches that act as gateways between U.S. and international communications.
Many calls going from one foreign country to another are routed through U.S. switches and a communications expert who once worked at the NSA said in recent years government officials have been encouraging the telecommunications industry to bring more international traffic through U.S.-based switches.
Now there is one reason in particular that I thought Bush was lying last week when he suggested that this had happened in a few cases only. That reason is because if the number of cases was limited to just a few, then getting a warrant for them would not have been a problem, and there would be absolutely no reason to skirt the law when it would be simple to comply with the law. But since it now appears that there was a very large volume of information that they combed through, and that it wasn't even known who would be making phone calls to whom, that there is a reason they decided to skirt the warrant law-- the law makes it impossible to carry out this kind of operation.
Now, they do say it was to glean information on 'terror' suspects. The problem of course, is that we have already seen how this administration has been involved in spying and other operations against peaceful demonstrators under 'anti-terror' operations, how the 'no-fly' list designed to stop 'terrorists' has been applied punitively against people who simply reside on the left end of the political spectrum (like Senator Kennedy), how surveillance equipment put in place after 9/11 to track small planes that were of concern as potential terror threats was instead used to track a plane full of Texas Democratic legislators during the DeLay redistrictring fight in Texas, and how Education Secretary Rod Paige a couple of years ago categorized the National Education Association (NEA) as a 'terrorist' organization. In other words, these are people who would be willing to call Mother Teresa a terrorist if it advanced their domestic agenda.
I have no problem with giving the government the tools it needs to fight real 'terrorists,' but there have to be strict definitions of who they are and limits placed on this ability, because the abuses that this government have already committed are enough to yank their 'carte Blanche' to define 'terrorists' as they see fit.
But, knowing the Bush administration like I do, I'm not really all that surprised at a story out today which indicates that the spy program was much broader than he let on originally, in fact so broad that it involved systematic snooping of general calls from the United States to foreign countries (not even necessarily from or to people who there is any reason to suspect might have ties to terrorists). In addition, domestic phone traffic was also being monitored en masse.
NEW YORK - The volume of information gathered from telephone and Internet communications by the National Security Agency without court-approved warrants was much larger than the White House has acknowledged, The New York Times reported Saturday.
Citing current and former government officials, the Times said the information was collected by tapping directly into some of the U.S. telecommunication system’s main arteries. The officials said the NSA won the cooperation of telecommunications companies to obtain access to both domestic and international communications without first gaining warrants....
Some officials described the program as a large data mining operation, the Times said, and described it as much larger than the White House has acknowledged.
Several officials said senior government officials went to the nation’s big telecommunications companies to get access to switches that act as gateways between U.S. and international communications.
Many calls going from one foreign country to another are routed through U.S. switches and a communications expert who once worked at the NSA said in recent years government officials have been encouraging the telecommunications industry to bring more international traffic through U.S.-based switches.
Now there is one reason in particular that I thought Bush was lying last week when he suggested that this had happened in a few cases only. That reason is because if the number of cases was limited to just a few, then getting a warrant for them would not have been a problem, and there would be absolutely no reason to skirt the law when it would be simple to comply with the law. But since it now appears that there was a very large volume of information that they combed through, and that it wasn't even known who would be making phone calls to whom, that there is a reason they decided to skirt the warrant law-- the law makes it impossible to carry out this kind of operation.
Now, they do say it was to glean information on 'terror' suspects. The problem of course, is that we have already seen how this administration has been involved in spying and other operations against peaceful demonstrators under 'anti-terror' operations, how the 'no-fly' list designed to stop 'terrorists' has been applied punitively against people who simply reside on the left end of the political spectrum (like Senator Kennedy), how surveillance equipment put in place after 9/11 to track small planes that were of concern as potential terror threats was instead used to track a plane full of Texas Democratic legislators during the DeLay redistrictring fight in Texas, and how Education Secretary Rod Paige a couple of years ago categorized the National Education Association (NEA) as a 'terrorist' organization. In other words, these are people who would be willing to call Mother Teresa a terrorist if it advanced their domestic agenda.
I have no problem with giving the government the tools it needs to fight real 'terrorists,' but there have to be strict definitions of who they are and limits placed on this ability, because the abuses that this government have already committed are enough to yank their 'carte Blanche' to define 'terrorists' as they see fit.
ALL POINTS CHRISTMAS BULLETIN
Hey guys. We really hate to bother you, but we're having a huge--and we do men a HUGE-- problem with our Christmas tree this year.
Since we brought him home on the day after Thanksgiving, and continuing throughout the month of December, we have suspected that he might be dislodging himself from his plastic Christmas Tree stand and going for protracted evening excursions in the countryside. We became suspicious when we found a trail of pine needles, shreaded garland, and chips of colored glass leading from our living room, to the front door, and down the front drive, but we dismissed this unusual occurance as yet another Yuletide prank from our feisty Siamese cat.
But when we opened our local paper and began to read about a series of unusual car accidents in which the survivors claimed that they had been forced to swerve off the road to avoid a "maniacal Christmas tree" that had "lept into the lane of oncoming traffic" we began to have some serious concerns about what our tree might be doing.
We tried to warn the local authorities about this, but they only looked at us like we were a couple of nuts. Our local police truly believe that these are random accidents caused by dangerous winter weather conditions; slippery ice-covered roads,; reckless, drunk driving, or carless road etiquette.
But my partner CJ and I know better.
This really isn't funny. In the past two days our killer Christmas tree has caused at least four fatalties by jumping into the paths of unsuspecting motorists. We have no idea as to how far our tree can travel, so please, PLEASE be on the laert while traveling during this Holiday Season.
For those of ou who are interested, our tree is approximately 6 1/2 feet tall. It is decorated in multicolored minilights, gold garland, and an assortment of antique, glass ornaments. It answers to the name of Hector. We have posted a recent photo in the upper right hand corner of this post for your convenience.
Please be careful. This tree is armed and dangerous. If you see him, do not try to apprehend him on your own. Instead, contact your nearest emergency lawn care providers and instruct him to spray Hector with a lethal dose of weed killer; or,f you are an environmentalist, please call your local village or city hall and request the immediate use of a wood chipper.
Your assistance in this matter would be highly appreciated and might well save many lives.
And while you're at it, please be so kind as to....
HAVE A VERY SAFE AND A VERY HAPPY HOLIDAY.
Yours truly
Daniel Andrew Gallagher
and
CJ
Friday, December 23, 2005
HAVE A GOOD ONE NO MATTER WHAT YOU CALL IT
Click on to as many or as few relate to your situation.
A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS
A VERY HAPPY HANUKKAH
A VERY HAPPY WINTER SOLSTICE
A VERY HAPPY SATURNALIA
I know, I know, but it is named after the Roman God Saturn--besides--I've always liked these images of the planet Saturn.
A very Happy Kwanza
And this for nonbelievers
I hope we didn't miss anybody.
Have a good one no matter what it is
Kyle and Brandon and the Crew at
THE COALITION FOR A REPUBLICAN-FREE AMERICA
A VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS
A VERY HAPPY HANUKKAH
A VERY HAPPY WINTER SOLSTICE
A VERY HAPPY SATURNALIA
I know, I know, but it is named after the Roman God Saturn--besides--I've always liked these images of the planet Saturn.
A very Happy Kwanza
And this for nonbelievers
I hope we didn't miss anybody.
Have a good one no matter what it is
Kyle and Brandon and the Crew at
THE COALITION FOR A REPUBLICAN-FREE AMERICA
Monday, December 19, 2005
The price of tax cuts
The Conference committee budget cut bill agreed to includes substantial cuts to programs aimed at low income families.
Cuts in Medicaid will require higher co-payments and lower benefits to poor people on the program. Now, I realize that everyone in America, even if they have insurance, are now seeing higher co-payments and lower benefits. And in that context, it is worth noting that the 'managed care' plans we have now ARE the Republican answer to the Democratic proposal for Universal Heathcare in 1994. However, the failure of the GOP model should not mean that we will now penalize the poorest of Americans, in one of the few programs where people CAN avoid having to worry about changing their doctor or being turned away for healthcare due to lack of coverage.
Higher benefit cuts in the area of 'asset protection' for middle class people who want nursing home care than were in either the original House bill or the original Senate bill. 'Asset protection' allows people to have something left they can pass on to their families even if they need long term health care.
For example, one provision of the House bill that appears to have been retained in the conference report would penalize many non-affluent individuals who make modest gifts to relatives or contributions to charity, and then experience an unexpected decline in their health several years later that causes them to need long-term care. So, if for example, your parents gave you some money last year, or made a donation to Hurricane Katrina relief or tsunami relief, and then in a few years they get sick and need nursing home care, they will be asked to give that same money to the nursing home, or what is spent on their care will decline commensurately. This makes clear that the people who are always going on about how bad inheritance taxes are (they prefer to use the term, 'death tax') want to make sure that if you are middle class and have a lingering disease, no you won't have anything to pass on-- the nursing home will get it all (and it makes it clear that the position of the Bush administration opposing the Oregon voluntary euthanasia law is actually quite sinister-- it almost seems as though it is their INTENT to make sure that every penny that can be stolen from the middle class and redistributed to corporate interests is taken-- even if it means forcing terminal patients to suffer for years until every penny they have ever earned is snatched away by health care providers.)
The conference agreement includes Medicaid reductions in this area of $2.4 billion over five years and $6.4 billion over ten years (higher than the $2.2 billion over five years and $5.8 billion over ten years in the House-passed bill). The Senate’s more targeted and carefully designed provisions in this area would have produced savings of $335 million over five years and $890 million over ten years.
There were some winners in the budget bill, however:
The conference report’s health care provisions also move toward the House bill in another respect: they cater to powerful special interests — in particular, the pharmaceutical and managed care industries — at the expense of low-income beneficiaries...
The conference report also protects Medicare managed care plans. It drops a Senate provision that would have eliminated a wasteful $10 billion slush fund to encourage participation in Medicare by regional Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs). The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) — the official, independent advisory body to Congress on Medicare payment policy — recommended this summer, in a nearly unanimous vote, that this fund be eliminated because it is unnecessary and unwarranted and provides an unfair competitive advantage to PPOs over traditional Medicare fee-for-service and other managed care plans such as Medicare HMOs. Nevertheless, the conference agreement leaves this fund fully intact.
This is the provision by which PPO's are paid to be willing to accept other government money that comes via Medicare. A payment to be willing to get paid. But this remains intact.
Partially gutting another provision to curb overpayments to managed care plans: There is near-universal agreement among analysts that the current Medicare payment structure provides excessive payments to managed care plans, and the Administration announced earlier this year that it would act administratively to eliminate a feature of the payment formula that is responsible for a significant volume of excessive payments... it appears that the conference agreement is written so the part of the Medicare payment formula that would be reformed would revert to its current, problematic status after five years, and after that time, managed care plans would again receive the overpayments this provision is supposed to curb.
Outright overpayment to some healthcare providers, and they can't even permanently eliminate that. I wonder if there is also a line in there somewhere for continuing to fund fraud.
Other cuts included in the bill include cuts in child support enforcement (obviously lobbying for the votes of deadbeat parents), welfare-to-work programs (I guess because they have been so successful, they no longer have enough 'welfare queens' to beat up on so they need to create a new generation of them to support right-wing rhetoric), child care funding, SSI disability payments, and foster care funding.
Maybe that is why the House leadership was forced to change the rules and release, let members study and vote on this monster in four and a half hours, between 1:12 a.m. and 5:43 a.m. this morning.
Cuts in Medicaid will require higher co-payments and lower benefits to poor people on the program. Now, I realize that everyone in America, even if they have insurance, are now seeing higher co-payments and lower benefits. And in that context, it is worth noting that the 'managed care' plans we have now ARE the Republican answer to the Democratic proposal for Universal Heathcare in 1994. However, the failure of the GOP model should not mean that we will now penalize the poorest of Americans, in one of the few programs where people CAN avoid having to worry about changing their doctor or being turned away for healthcare due to lack of coverage.
Higher benefit cuts in the area of 'asset protection' for middle class people who want nursing home care than were in either the original House bill or the original Senate bill. 'Asset protection' allows people to have something left they can pass on to their families even if they need long term health care.
For example, one provision of the House bill that appears to have been retained in the conference report would penalize many non-affluent individuals who make modest gifts to relatives or contributions to charity, and then experience an unexpected decline in their health several years later that causes them to need long-term care. So, if for example, your parents gave you some money last year, or made a donation to Hurricane Katrina relief or tsunami relief, and then in a few years they get sick and need nursing home care, they will be asked to give that same money to the nursing home, or what is spent on their care will decline commensurately. This makes clear that the people who are always going on about how bad inheritance taxes are (they prefer to use the term, 'death tax') want to make sure that if you are middle class and have a lingering disease, no you won't have anything to pass on-- the nursing home will get it all (and it makes it clear that the position of the Bush administration opposing the Oregon voluntary euthanasia law is actually quite sinister-- it almost seems as though it is their INTENT to make sure that every penny that can be stolen from the middle class and redistributed to corporate interests is taken-- even if it means forcing terminal patients to suffer for years until every penny they have ever earned is snatched away by health care providers.)
The conference agreement includes Medicaid reductions in this area of $2.4 billion over five years and $6.4 billion over ten years (higher than the $2.2 billion over five years and $5.8 billion over ten years in the House-passed bill). The Senate’s more targeted and carefully designed provisions in this area would have produced savings of $335 million over five years and $890 million over ten years.
There were some winners in the budget bill, however:
The conference report’s health care provisions also move toward the House bill in another respect: they cater to powerful special interests — in particular, the pharmaceutical and managed care industries — at the expense of low-income beneficiaries...
The conference report also protects Medicare managed care plans. It drops a Senate provision that would have eliminated a wasteful $10 billion slush fund to encourage participation in Medicare by regional Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs). The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) — the official, independent advisory body to Congress on Medicare payment policy — recommended this summer, in a nearly unanimous vote, that this fund be eliminated because it is unnecessary and unwarranted and provides an unfair competitive advantage to PPOs over traditional Medicare fee-for-service and other managed care plans such as Medicare HMOs. Nevertheless, the conference agreement leaves this fund fully intact.
This is the provision by which PPO's are paid to be willing to accept other government money that comes via Medicare. A payment to be willing to get paid. But this remains intact.
Partially gutting another provision to curb overpayments to managed care plans: There is near-universal agreement among analysts that the current Medicare payment structure provides excessive payments to managed care plans, and the Administration announced earlier this year that it would act administratively to eliminate a feature of the payment formula that is responsible for a significant volume of excessive payments... it appears that the conference agreement is written so the part of the Medicare payment formula that would be reformed would revert to its current, problematic status after five years, and after that time, managed care plans would again receive the overpayments this provision is supposed to curb.
Outright overpayment to some healthcare providers, and they can't even permanently eliminate that. I wonder if there is also a line in there somewhere for continuing to fund fraud.
Other cuts included in the bill include cuts in child support enforcement (obviously lobbying for the votes of deadbeat parents), welfare-to-work programs (I guess because they have been so successful, they no longer have enough 'welfare queens' to beat up on so they need to create a new generation of them to support right-wing rhetoric), child care funding, SSI disability payments, and foster care funding.
Maybe that is why the House leadership was forced to change the rules and release, let members study and vote on this monster in four and a half hours, between 1:12 a.m. and 5:43 a.m. this morning.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Quit calling it 'a mistake.' Call paying to fix the news GOP policy.
How can you tell the difference between 'an aberration' and a serious problem?
How about when it keeps happening.
We have seen over the past five years, an ongoing stream of scandals, all related to manipulation of the news by planting or creating it. First, there was the revelation that a 'local news' segment on an anti-drug program by a reporter named Mike Morris that aired just before the Super Bowl was just the most visible example of literally hundreds of fake, prepackaged 'local news' segments that had been put together by the White House public relations department and distributed to local stations coast to coast.
Then, we had the Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher scandals-- in which conservative commentators had been paid with taxpayer funds to promote specific White House policies on their shows or in columns.
After that, there was the local newspaper scandal, in which hundreds of identical letters were mass mailed (with local addresses) to editorial boards of newspapers all over the country. That scam was picked up on by an editor in Tacoma when they made a rare mistake and sent him two copies of the same letter, under different names.
Then, we had Gannon/Guckert-gate, in which an amateur conservative commentator who no one had heard of before and whose online 'news service' was only created the day before, was given a much sought after White House press pass ahead of reporters who had literally been in line for years, and used it to ask softball questions (he would be called on every press conference) that were mostly designed to smear Democrats and make the President look good. His running a gay prostitution ring out of the White House came extra, at no charge.
Last week, we had the revelation that this has now gone international, with the revelation that the White House has been paying Iraqi news papers to run stories written by the Pentagon.
So today, we see yet another example, courtesy of indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is swiftly becoming radioactive in Washington. Turns out that Abramoff paid conservative commentator Doug Bandow to write articles friendly to Abramoff's clients and supporters.
WASHINGTON - A conservative commentator paid by ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff for writing newspaper columns that aligned with Abramoff’s interests has had his column suspended, the Copley News Service said Friday.
“We are suspending Doug Bandow’s column immediately,” Copley editor and vice president Glenda Winders said in a statement. “It has never been our policy to distribute work paid for by third parties whose role is not disclosed by the columnist.”
Bandow also has resigned from the libertarian Cato Institute, where he held a senior fellowship, a think tank spokesman said.
The hazard of this kind of thing should be obvious. But just in case any conservatives are too dense to figure it out, here it is in English:
Journalists are supposed to be independent professionals. Having and writing about an opinion or viewpoint is fine, and there are conservative and liberal commentators who do that. And being paid for your work is fine, so long as it is by someone who you have disclosed your agreement with and it is spelled out in your contract (these journalists all do have an employer, after all).
But when you take a payment from someone who you either may need to write about, or who you would not have otherwise written about, or to to otherwise compromise the professional job you do, then it is compromising your professional integrity. It would be no different than if, for example, a hiring director accepted a payment to put someone's resume at the top of the pile, or if an emergency room doctor accepted a payment to see someone who came in the door with a less than urgent problem ahead of people who had been waiting longer in the waiting room. It is like paying a police officer to not give you a ticket.
True, the other resumes will get looked at, and sooner or later the other people in the emergency room will be seen, and no one will be the wiser for the fixed ticket but if the cop has a quota then someone else will get the ticket, but by taking the payment, the professional in question benefits one person in particular to the detriment of everyone else.
And, if in the first example, the person gets hired because their resume is at the top, then there is someone else who does not (and as we all know, press coverage is a finite resource, so if you get one minute on the news or are the beneficiary of a weekly column, then someone else is not).
To compromise the professionalism of a reporter solely for the purpose of getting your propaganda published or on the air as 'news' is disgusting. And beyond that, there is a word which describes what it is:
BRIBERY.
How about when it keeps happening.
We have seen over the past five years, an ongoing stream of scandals, all related to manipulation of the news by planting or creating it. First, there was the revelation that a 'local news' segment on an anti-drug program by a reporter named Mike Morris that aired just before the Super Bowl was just the most visible example of literally hundreds of fake, prepackaged 'local news' segments that had been put together by the White House public relations department and distributed to local stations coast to coast.
Then, we had the Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher scandals-- in which conservative commentators had been paid with taxpayer funds to promote specific White House policies on their shows or in columns.
After that, there was the local newspaper scandal, in which hundreds of identical letters were mass mailed (with local addresses) to editorial boards of newspapers all over the country. That scam was picked up on by an editor in Tacoma when they made a rare mistake and sent him two copies of the same letter, under different names.
Then, we had Gannon/Guckert-gate, in which an amateur conservative commentator who no one had heard of before and whose online 'news service' was only created the day before, was given a much sought after White House press pass ahead of reporters who had literally been in line for years, and used it to ask softball questions (he would be called on every press conference) that were mostly designed to smear Democrats and make the President look good. His running a gay prostitution ring out of the White House came extra, at no charge.
Last week, we had the revelation that this has now gone international, with the revelation that the White House has been paying Iraqi news papers to run stories written by the Pentagon.
So today, we see yet another example, courtesy of indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is swiftly becoming radioactive in Washington. Turns out that Abramoff paid conservative commentator Doug Bandow to write articles friendly to Abramoff's clients and supporters.
WASHINGTON - A conservative commentator paid by ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff for writing newspaper columns that aligned with Abramoff’s interests has had his column suspended, the Copley News Service said Friday.
“We are suspending Doug Bandow’s column immediately,” Copley editor and vice president Glenda Winders said in a statement. “It has never been our policy to distribute work paid for by third parties whose role is not disclosed by the columnist.”
Bandow also has resigned from the libertarian Cato Institute, where he held a senior fellowship, a think tank spokesman said.
The hazard of this kind of thing should be obvious. But just in case any conservatives are too dense to figure it out, here it is in English:
Journalists are supposed to be independent professionals. Having and writing about an opinion or viewpoint is fine, and there are conservative and liberal commentators who do that. And being paid for your work is fine, so long as it is by someone who you have disclosed your agreement with and it is spelled out in your contract (these journalists all do have an employer, after all).
But when you take a payment from someone who you either may need to write about, or who you would not have otherwise written about, or to to otherwise compromise the professional job you do, then it is compromising your professional integrity. It would be no different than if, for example, a hiring director accepted a payment to put someone's resume at the top of the pile, or if an emergency room doctor accepted a payment to see someone who came in the door with a less than urgent problem ahead of people who had been waiting longer in the waiting room. It is like paying a police officer to not give you a ticket.
True, the other resumes will get looked at, and sooner or later the other people in the emergency room will be seen, and no one will be the wiser for the fixed ticket but if the cop has a quota then someone else will get the ticket, but by taking the payment, the professional in question benefits one person in particular to the detriment of everyone else.
And, if in the first example, the person gets hired because their resume is at the top, then there is someone else who does not (and as we all know, press coverage is a finite resource, so if you get one minute on the news or are the beneficiary of a weekly column, then someone else is not).
To compromise the professionalism of a reporter solely for the purpose of getting your propaganda published or on the air as 'news' is disgusting. And beyond that, there is a word which describes what it is:
BRIBERY.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
No wonder we can't find bin Laden-- the Pentagon's surveillance team is stateside
It seems that the Pentagon is collecting intelligence. Not about terrorists, not about anyone who we are actually supposed to be at war against, but about domestic peace activists, who are engaged in exercising their constitutional rights.
WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.
A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period....
“It means that they’re actually collecting information about who’s at those protests, the descriptions of vehicles at those protests,” says [military analyst Bill ]Arkin. “On the domestic level, this is unprecedented,” he says. “I think it's the beginning of enormous problems and enormous mischief for the military.”...
The military’s penchant for collecting domestic intelligence is disturbing — but familiar — to Christopher Pyle, a former Army intelligence officer.
“Some people never learn,” he says. During the Vietnam War, Pyle blew the whistle on the Defense Department for monitoring and infiltrating anti-war and civil rights protests when he published an article in the Washington Monthly in January 1970.
The public was outraged and a lengthy congressional investigation followed that revealed that the military had conducted investigations on at least 100,000 American citizens. Pyle got more than 100 military agents to testify that they had been ordered to spy on U.S. citizens — many of them anti-war protestors and civil rights advocates. In the wake of the investigations, Pyle helped Congress write a law placing new limits on military spying inside the U.S. ...
“The documents tell me that military intelligence is back conducting investigations and maintaining records on civilian political activity. The military made promises that it would not do this again,” he says....
One of the CIFA-funded database projects being developed by Northrop Grumman and dubbed “Person Search,” is designed “to provide comprehensive information about people of interest.” It will include the ability to search government as well as commercial databases. Another project, “The Insider Threat Initiative,” intends to “develop systems able to detect, mitigate and investigate insider threats,” as well as the ability to “identify and document normal and abnormal activities and ‘behaviors,’” according to the Computer Sciences Corp. contract. A separate CIFA contract with a small Virginia-based defense contractor seeks to develop methods “to track and monitor activities of suspect individuals.”
“The military has the right to protect its installations, and to protect its recruiting services,” says Pyle. “It does not have the right to maintain extensive files on lawful protests of their recruiting activities, or of their base activities,” he argues....
Bert Tussing, director of Homeland Defense and Security Issues at the U.S. Army War College and a former Marine, says “there is very little that could justify the collection of domestic intelligence by the Unites States military. If we start going down this slippery slope it would be too easy to go back to a place we never want to see again,” he says.
Some of the targets of the U.S. military’s recent collection efforts say they have already gone too far.
“It's absolute paranoia — at the highest levels of our government,” says Hersh of The Truth Project.
“I mean, we're based here at the Quaker Meeting House,” says Truth Project member Marie Zwicker, “and several of us are Quakers.”
The Defense Department refused to comment on how it obtained information on the Lake Worth meeting or why it considers a dozen or so anti-war activists a “threat.”
Now there is a reason why there was public outrage (even from conservatives) back when this happened during the Vietnam era. It is because the military is tasked with defending our country from enemies, not from Americans who don't agree. Further, the Posse Comitatus Act makes it illegal for the military to conduct operations against Americans in America. Just that simple. Further, if someone really is a threat, don't we have the FBI, which has the legal right to monitor that person?
The concern here is that we may be headed back to the bad old days when peaceful protest was seen as grounds for military surveillance (and what would that lead to? You don't collect intelligence unless you at least consider that there is a possibility that you will use it.
WASHINGTON - A year ago, at a Quaker Meeting House in Lake Worth, Fla., a small group of activists met to plan a protest of military recruiting at local high schools. What they didn't know was that their meeting had come to the attention of the U.S. military.
A secret 400-page Defense Department document obtained by NBC News lists the Lake Worth meeting as a “threat” and one of more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” across the country over a recent 10-month period....
“It means that they’re actually collecting information about who’s at those protests, the descriptions of vehicles at those protests,” says [military analyst Bill ]Arkin. “On the domestic level, this is unprecedented,” he says. “I think it's the beginning of enormous problems and enormous mischief for the military.”...
The military’s penchant for collecting domestic intelligence is disturbing — but familiar — to Christopher Pyle, a former Army intelligence officer.
“Some people never learn,” he says. During the Vietnam War, Pyle blew the whistle on the Defense Department for monitoring and infiltrating anti-war and civil rights protests when he published an article in the Washington Monthly in January 1970.
The public was outraged and a lengthy congressional investigation followed that revealed that the military had conducted investigations on at least 100,000 American citizens. Pyle got more than 100 military agents to testify that they had been ordered to spy on U.S. citizens — many of them anti-war protestors and civil rights advocates. In the wake of the investigations, Pyle helped Congress write a law placing new limits on military spying inside the U.S. ...
“The documents tell me that military intelligence is back conducting investigations and maintaining records on civilian political activity. The military made promises that it would not do this again,” he says....
One of the CIFA-funded database projects being developed by Northrop Grumman and dubbed “Person Search,” is designed “to provide comprehensive information about people of interest.” It will include the ability to search government as well as commercial databases. Another project, “The Insider Threat Initiative,” intends to “develop systems able to detect, mitigate and investigate insider threats,” as well as the ability to “identify and document normal and abnormal activities and ‘behaviors,’” according to the Computer Sciences Corp. contract. A separate CIFA contract with a small Virginia-based defense contractor seeks to develop methods “to track and monitor activities of suspect individuals.”
“The military has the right to protect its installations, and to protect its recruiting services,” says Pyle. “It does not have the right to maintain extensive files on lawful protests of their recruiting activities, or of their base activities,” he argues....
Bert Tussing, director of Homeland Defense and Security Issues at the U.S. Army War College and a former Marine, says “there is very little that could justify the collection of domestic intelligence by the Unites States military. If we start going down this slippery slope it would be too easy to go back to a place we never want to see again,” he says.
Some of the targets of the U.S. military’s recent collection efforts say they have already gone too far.
“It's absolute paranoia — at the highest levels of our government,” says Hersh of The Truth Project.
“I mean, we're based here at the Quaker Meeting House,” says Truth Project member Marie Zwicker, “and several of us are Quakers.”
The Defense Department refused to comment on how it obtained information on the Lake Worth meeting or why it considers a dozen or so anti-war activists a “threat.”
Now there is a reason why there was public outrage (even from conservatives) back when this happened during the Vietnam era. It is because the military is tasked with defending our country from enemies, not from Americans who don't agree. Further, the Posse Comitatus Act makes it illegal for the military to conduct operations against Americans in America. Just that simple. Further, if someone really is a threat, don't we have the FBI, which has the legal right to monitor that person?
The concern here is that we may be headed back to the bad old days when peaceful protest was seen as grounds for military surveillance (and what would that lead to? You don't collect intelligence unless you at least consider that there is a possibility that you will use it.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Christmas out of the stores, Christmas in the stores
In 1935, Charles Darrow was awarded the patent for the board game, 'Monopoly,' which he later sold to Parker Brothers. In those old games, the houses and hotels were made of wood, but much has stayed the same as when Darrow was making the sets by hand. That includes this Community Chest card.
Now today, you will hear some right wing 'Christians' claim that there is suddenly a 'war on Christmas.' They claim that secular America is out to get rid of Christmas, all in the name of political correctness.
Well, as we see from the card above, the idea of separating the holiday aspect from the religious aspect (Christ) was alive and well decades ago. So it is certainly nothing new.
Besides, wasn't it until a year or two ago that the same people were bemoaning the 'commercialization' of Christmas? They were worried about how the 'true meaning of Christmas' was being swallowed up in a giant rush to the malls. But let a mall store greet you with 'Happy Holidays,' now they will rush to a microphone and tell you that the store in question is part of some giant conspiracy to do away with Christmas.
Maybe this will placate them in their new obsession: How about a mall that features a nativity display, sponsored by Visa (It's everywhere you want to be). Joseph will be dressed in a very nice suit by Ralph Lauren (shoes by Bruno Magli). Mary will be dressed in a very sharp outfit from Pendleton (plus sizes available), with solid wood platform shoes by Steve Madden, exclusively available at Nine West. The three kings will be modeling Patagonia sportswear, with Nike tennis shoes. The infant will be modeling swaddling clothes from Baby Gap. Gold, Frankincense and Myrrh will be on loan from Bank of America. Animals will be wearing collars that read, ILoveAlpacas.com.
Get commercialism out of Christmas. Put Christmas into commercialism. But only the way we tell you to. No wonder these people are never happy. They get their way, and they aren't satisfied with the results. And I bet some of them will grumble about it all the way to the Department store and buy something that hearkens back to the 'good old days' when nobody thought twice about saying, 'Christmas.' Something that brings back pleasant memories from when they were kids. Maybe even a game of Monopoly.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Now we know how conservatives plan to deal with global warming-- straight out of looney tunes.
We know that Republicans tend to ignore any scientific research or data that doesn't fit their ideology, that this administration has completely ignored global warming related data even when it is as clear as a picture. So not surprisingly, they continued this stance at a global warming conference in Montreal this weekend, where other countries agreed to begin working towards a second round of emission reductions with or without the United States.
We now have, as was predicted by global warming models years ago, more and bigger hurricanes. The excuse the conservatives gave that we were entering a 'natural cycle' gave up the ghost with this years hurricane season, which set and shattered records for, among other things, most named storms, most hurricanes, most hurricanes striking land and most large (cat 4 or higher) hurricanes. Also, the lowest barometric pressure ever recorded in a hurricane-- and three of the top six (five of the six of which have been recorded since 1980). Records that were kept since the 1850's. So, clearly what happened this year was something unnatural. And that was on the heels of the disastrous 2004 hurricane season. Of course, we see that the global warming model is backed up by measurably higher water surface temperatures across the globe. And ocean levels are rising-- everywhere. Climate change has also fallen into other patterns predicted up to 20 years ago by global warming researchers. For example, here in the southwestern United States, we are getting hotter and drier, which was predicted by models even as far back as the 1970's.
We also know that Republicans are generally against creating big government spending programs on anything (especially when it comes to basic research).
That is what makes this story all too ironic, to the point of being funny.
And while it's still a bit of a long shot, Uncle Sam could be called in to sponsor research to find ways to blast dangerous storms out of the sky or put rain clouds over parched land.
"This is a fascinating subject to me, and the idea that we can actually impact weather is exciting, and I guess, frightening in some ways," Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said during a November hearing on a bill that could start up a federal weather modification research program.
In a bill introduced this year by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, a new board of scientists would be able to dole out federal research money for weather modification, which she said is important, especially considering this year's record-breaking hurricane season. Highlighted by hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, the 26-named storm season continued past its official end date of Nov. 30 this year. Tropical Depression Epsilon, formerly a hurricane, was still chugging along the north Atlantic on Thursday evening.
Stop and consider. Republicans have painted themselves into a corner. Global warming is obviously happening, everywhere from Mt. Kilimanjaro, with its crater bare for the first time in 11,000 years, to your local news reports (for example, here in Arizona, our four worst fire seasons have been 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, as drought and heat ravaged forests succumb first to bark beetle infestation which finishes killing the trees, and then to fires-- and when some of the fire ravaged regions begin to grow back, it is with desert vegetation, not more trees). They can't reverse themselves in their steadfast denial that it is happening-- this would be the mother of all flip flops, nor can they ignore the ruinous effects that these weather cycles are having on the economy back home, so now Republicans like Hutchison propose at least making some token payments to show that they are doing something.
Weather modification is a pipe dream at best, featuring in some quarters proposals to blast apart hurricanes with huge bombs and ideas that have proved fruitless and futile in the past and tinkering with something we know very little about at worst, but it seems to be the Republican solution to the problem of global climate change.
Think about it. Blow up hurricanes. Move the clouds. Doesn't this sound like something it would take Republicans to come up with?
We now have, as was predicted by global warming models years ago, more and bigger hurricanes. The excuse the conservatives gave that we were entering a 'natural cycle' gave up the ghost with this years hurricane season, which set and shattered records for, among other things, most named storms, most hurricanes, most hurricanes striking land and most large (cat 4 or higher) hurricanes. Also, the lowest barometric pressure ever recorded in a hurricane-- and three of the top six (five of the six of which have been recorded since 1980). Records that were kept since the 1850's. So, clearly what happened this year was something unnatural. And that was on the heels of the disastrous 2004 hurricane season. Of course, we see that the global warming model is backed up by measurably higher water surface temperatures across the globe. And ocean levels are rising-- everywhere. Climate change has also fallen into other patterns predicted up to 20 years ago by global warming researchers. For example, here in the southwestern United States, we are getting hotter and drier, which was predicted by models even as far back as the 1970's.
We also know that Republicans are generally against creating big government spending programs on anything (especially when it comes to basic research).
That is what makes this story all too ironic, to the point of being funny.
And while it's still a bit of a long shot, Uncle Sam could be called in to sponsor research to find ways to blast dangerous storms out of the sky or put rain clouds over parched land.
"This is a fascinating subject to me, and the idea that we can actually impact weather is exciting, and I guess, frightening in some ways," Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said during a November hearing on a bill that could start up a federal weather modification research program.
In a bill introduced this year by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, a new board of scientists would be able to dole out federal research money for weather modification, which she said is important, especially considering this year's record-breaking hurricane season. Highlighted by hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, the 26-named storm season continued past its official end date of Nov. 30 this year. Tropical Depression Epsilon, formerly a hurricane, was still chugging along the north Atlantic on Thursday evening.
Stop and consider. Republicans have painted themselves into a corner. Global warming is obviously happening, everywhere from Mt. Kilimanjaro, with its crater bare for the first time in 11,000 years, to your local news reports (for example, here in Arizona, our four worst fire seasons have been 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, as drought and heat ravaged forests succumb first to bark beetle infestation which finishes killing the trees, and then to fires-- and when some of the fire ravaged regions begin to grow back, it is with desert vegetation, not more trees). They can't reverse themselves in their steadfast denial that it is happening-- this would be the mother of all flip flops, nor can they ignore the ruinous effects that these weather cycles are having on the economy back home, so now Republicans like Hutchison propose at least making some token payments to show that they are doing something.
Weather modification is a pipe dream at best, featuring in some quarters proposals to blast apart hurricanes with huge bombs and ideas that have proved fruitless and futile in the past and tinkering with something we know very little about at worst, but it seems to be the Republican solution to the problem of global climate change.
Think about it. Blow up hurricanes. Move the clouds. Doesn't this sound like something it would take Republicans to come up with?
Thursday, December 08, 2005
REMEMBERING PEARL HARBOR: Submitted by Eli Blake
Editor's note
When I logged in this morning I discovered that we had a new member named Eli who had submitted the following comment on another post. From time to time the members on this blog will select a comment which we then offer as a post in its own right.. This is one of those comments. Eli's remarks are a stunning condemnation of the Bush War in Iraq, In addition, they also turn the GOP arguments back on themselves in a way that I had not imagined possible.
Eli, we have not been properly introduced. Suffice it to say for now that I am Brandon's half brother and a co-founder of the new and improved Coalition for a Republican-Free America. I hope you don't mind the fact that I used your material, but rest assured that your effort is highly appreciated.
Thanks much,
Kyle Alexander James Kilpatrick
REMEMBERING PEARL HARBOR
Submitted by Eli Blake
A very interesting letter today in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune from a retired career Naval Officer:
Remembering Pearl Harbor seems doubly -- or even triply -- important today. With that memory comes also the voice (rebroadcast almost every year) of President Franklin D. Roosevelt declaring to Congress and the nation, "Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked ..."
My 31 years of service as an officer in the U.S. Navy were richly satisfying -- in large measure because of the men and women with whom I served. But even more, my satisfaction came from an appreciation for living in and serving a nation dedicated to the principles of freedom and opportunity and justice for all, and of nobody being above the law.
But now, we are living in a country whose administration both declares and acts upon the belief that preemptive strikes are wise foreign policy, are a legitimate use of our military. Was the attack on Pearl Harbor anything other than a preemptive strike?
I ask President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld -- are we now to view Pearl Harbor as the product of a sound foreign policy by a nation with a strong military? Or would we instead be wise to remember that December 7, 1941, is still a date which will live in infamy?
ALAN YOUEL, RICHFIELD
In other words, if we use the Bush policy on pre-emptive war as a standard, then the Pearl Harbor attack was justified (since there is no question that the U.S. military in 1941 was a far greater threat to Japan than Saddam Hussein was to us in 2003.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Herrrreeee's KATIE!
The cast and crew at the Coalition for a Republican-Free America is proud to present its latest feature.
"ASK KATIE"
We don't know if we're the first blog to offer a bona fide advice column, but whether we're the first or not, we'd like to think that we're a little different from your typical, run of the mill Dear Abby look alike.
Katie will field questions on a wide range of topics. No issue is too obscure; no subject is too controversial; no reader so bizarre that we can't.....Okay, I won't go quite that far, but for the most part, Katie will be more than happy to answer our readers' inquiries.
If you're interested, why not drop her a line at:
kateques@gmail.com
I'm sure she'd be delighted to hear from you.
Brandon
"ASK KATIE"
We don't know if we're the first blog to offer a bona fide advice column, but whether we're the first or not, we'd like to think that we're a little different from your typical, run of the mill Dear Abby look alike.
Katie will field questions on a wide range of topics. No issue is too obscure; no subject is too controversial; no reader so bizarre that we can't.....Okay, I won't go quite that far, but for the most part, Katie will be more than happy to answer our readers' inquiries.
If you're interested, why not drop her a line at:
kateques@gmail.com
I'm sure she'd be delighted to hear from you.
Brandon
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
NEW FEATURES
We're making a few additions here at The Coalition for a Republican-Free America.
First, I am proud to announce that my fiancee, Kelli has rejoined the group after a lengthy hiatus. To be honest, I've missed her around here, so it will be nice to have the future Mrs. MacKenzie on hand to keep me in line.
Second, we are adding a new screen for group efforts. From time to time our team members work in groups, producing lengthy posts which almost invariably end up going under one member's name while the coauthors are left out in the cold. We try to give credit where credit is due, but after consulting with some of my associates here, we decided that it would be a good idea to post group efforts under the heading of GROUP EFFORTS and then list the indvidual authors in a subheading as a part of the actual post.
Third, we are quite literally in the process of creating an advice column. This may come as a surprise to some of you, perhaps even to some of my team mates, so I should probably explain what we're doing around here. During the last few weeks Advocate 1 and another member have been discussing the possibility of a COALITION ADVICE COLUMN, the actual title of which will be decided at a future date. Initially, I didn't take the idea seriously, but the more Advocate talked about it the more I liked it. I can't say for certain just when the feature will be up and running, or the exact form it will take, because we're still trying to work out a few of the details, but from what Advocate 1 has told me, and from what I know about our potential Advisor, I think it will be a very informative, and at times, amusing addition to our effort here.
Again, we thank our readers for their continued patience and loyal patronage.
Brandon Alexander Geraghty-MacKenzie
First, I am proud to announce that my fiancee, Kelli has rejoined the group after a lengthy hiatus. To be honest, I've missed her around here, so it will be nice to have the future Mrs. MacKenzie on hand to keep me in line.
Second, we are adding a new screen for group efforts. From time to time our team members work in groups, producing lengthy posts which almost invariably end up going under one member's name while the coauthors are left out in the cold. We try to give credit where credit is due, but after consulting with some of my associates here, we decided that it would be a good idea to post group efforts under the heading of GROUP EFFORTS and then list the indvidual authors in a subheading as a part of the actual post.
Third, we are quite literally in the process of creating an advice column. This may come as a surprise to some of you, perhaps even to some of my team mates, so I should probably explain what we're doing around here. During the last few weeks Advocate 1 and another member have been discussing the possibility of a COALITION ADVICE COLUMN, the actual title of which will be decided at a future date. Initially, I didn't take the idea seriously, but the more Advocate talked about it the more I liked it. I can't say for certain just when the feature will be up and running, or the exact form it will take, because we're still trying to work out a few of the details, but from what Advocate 1 has told me, and from what I know about our potential Advisor, I think it will be a very informative, and at times, amusing addition to our effort here.
Again, we thank our readers for their continued patience and loyal patronage.
Brandon Alexander Geraghty-MacKenzie
Monday, December 05, 2005
I am Royally P.O.ed
It is official. I am now royally pissed off.
It is 1:07 p.m. Central time. I had a 9:00 a.m. appointment with Allison's doctor. She'd had a case of the sniffles for the past few weeks and it seemed to be getting worse, so I figured, "okay, time to demand a face to face appointment with the doctor instead of another telephone conversation in which I keep getting the same old run around."
So what went wrong?
Where would you like to begin?
First, this eye, ear, nose, and wallet man kept me waiting for the better part of 120 minutes. Maybe it's me, but I was raised by punctual parents who believed that when you make an appointment for 9:00 a.m. you get your ass in the doctor's office at least five minutes early, so that you won't miss our appointment.
This morning was no different. The office opens at 8:30 a.m. and I was there by 8:47 on his clock. And yet, I didn't get in to see him until 10:55 a.m. During that time Alison began to cry. At first I thought she needed changing, but that wasn't the case. As it turned out she was hungry; so being the dedicated mother that I am I decicded to feed my daughter.
I've been breast feeding this child since we brought her home from the hospital a few months ago; and since there is a Wisconsin law which grants us the right to nurse our children in public, I decided it would be a better idea to nurse her than to let her scream, go hungry, and upset the entire waiting room full of waiting patients. Luckily, Alison settled down, and fed quietly. But now the damned fool sitting three seats away from me decided that he wanted to have a hissy fit because I was breast feeding my infant daughter.
After an off color remark about how natural breast feeding is "indecent," I decided that this guy--who had to be at least 47 to 50 years old--probably never STOPPED breast feeding, although I didn't express that feeling right off the bat. Noooo, it took a remark about my "spoiled little brat," before I tossed out well-deserved comment about the Wisconsin law which protects my right to nurse.
Now this wasn't as if I were flaunting a bare breast. I very carefully made certain that both Allison, and the offending organ (which shouldn't have been offensive at all) were well-concealed under a light blanket, so I really have to wonder.
Was this immature, brainless wonder upset by what he saw or what he didn't see? Considering the degree of emotional immaturity that I saw in this "person" I suspect the latter. To make a long story short, the bonehead kept sputtering under his breath until the receptionist announced my name and I was able to get away from this male chauvanistic oinker.
Thankfully, my doctor was fully supportive of my right to breast feed. He should have been--we would have been home for her mid morning feeding if the stupid little man had actually been on time. But then, as if to rub salt into an already open wound, he gives my daughter a quick, five minute exam, and informs me that she probably has a minor cold and that it isn't anything to worry about. That made me feel a little better.
As I left the office, I asked this quack if he had been held up to handle an emergency at one of the local hospitals. I figured he wouldn't have been late for a trivial reason.
Boy did I have THAT one wrong.
"Noooo.," my doctor responded. "My wife and I kind of over celebrated at our wedding anniversary last night and I came in a little late this morning.
By this time I'm ready to lose it. The imbecile with whom I have trusted my daughter's health has just admitted that he got sloshed the night before and came in late with a flippin' hangover.
Maybe I offended someone by breastfeeding in my doctor's waiting room, but I really can't sign off without saying what I've been thinking all morning.
Will the real boob please stand up?
GAWD!
Karen
It is 1:07 p.m. Central time. I had a 9:00 a.m. appointment with Allison's doctor. She'd had a case of the sniffles for the past few weeks and it seemed to be getting worse, so I figured, "okay, time to demand a face to face appointment with the doctor instead of another telephone conversation in which I keep getting the same old run around."
So what went wrong?
Where would you like to begin?
First, this eye, ear, nose, and wallet man kept me waiting for the better part of 120 minutes. Maybe it's me, but I was raised by punctual parents who believed that when you make an appointment for 9:00 a.m. you get your ass in the doctor's office at least five minutes early, so that you won't miss our appointment.
This morning was no different. The office opens at 8:30 a.m. and I was there by 8:47 on his clock. And yet, I didn't get in to see him until 10:55 a.m. During that time Alison began to cry. At first I thought she needed changing, but that wasn't the case. As it turned out she was hungry; so being the dedicated mother that I am I decicded to feed my daughter.
I've been breast feeding this child since we brought her home from the hospital a few months ago; and since there is a Wisconsin law which grants us the right to nurse our children in public, I decided it would be a better idea to nurse her than to let her scream, go hungry, and upset the entire waiting room full of waiting patients. Luckily, Alison settled down, and fed quietly. But now the damned fool sitting three seats away from me decided that he wanted to have a hissy fit because I was breast feeding my infant daughter.
After an off color remark about how natural breast feeding is "indecent," I decided that this guy--who had to be at least 47 to 50 years old--probably never STOPPED breast feeding, although I didn't express that feeling right off the bat. Noooo, it took a remark about my "spoiled little brat," before I tossed out well-deserved comment about the Wisconsin law which protects my right to nurse.
Now this wasn't as if I were flaunting a bare breast. I very carefully made certain that both Allison, and the offending organ (which shouldn't have been offensive at all) were well-concealed under a light blanket, so I really have to wonder.
Was this immature, brainless wonder upset by what he saw or what he didn't see? Considering the degree of emotional immaturity that I saw in this "person" I suspect the latter. To make a long story short, the bonehead kept sputtering under his breath until the receptionist announced my name and I was able to get away from this male chauvanistic oinker.
Thankfully, my doctor was fully supportive of my right to breast feed. He should have been--we would have been home for her mid morning feeding if the stupid little man had actually been on time. But then, as if to rub salt into an already open wound, he gives my daughter a quick, five minute exam, and informs me that she probably has a minor cold and that it isn't anything to worry about. That made me feel a little better.
As I left the office, I asked this quack if he had been held up to handle an emergency at one of the local hospitals. I figured he wouldn't have been late for a trivial reason.
Boy did I have THAT one wrong.
"Noooo.," my doctor responded. "My wife and I kind of over celebrated at our wedding anniversary last night and I came in a little late this morning.
By this time I'm ready to lose it. The imbecile with whom I have trusted my daughter's health has just admitted that he got sloshed the night before and came in late with a flippin' hangover.
Maybe I offended someone by breastfeeding in my doctor's waiting room, but I really can't sign off without saying what I've been thinking all morning.
Will the real boob please stand up?
GAWD!
Karen
THE RENDON GROUP: Yet MORE Proof Bush lied
With new allegations about the Lincoln Group and phony news stories in Iraq, a more important aspect of the propaganda which preceded the Iraq Invasion has either been under reported out actually ignored.
In case you were wondering, some of the Bush Administration's information about Weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq actually came from a pathological liar named Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri. For those of you who missed this story, al-Haideri was an Iraqi defector who flunked a polygraph test, but whose lurid story about secret Weapons of Mass Destruction was accepted hook, line, and sinker by the all to eager Bush Administration during the run up to our invasion of Iraq.
So just who pray tell is Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri? Put simply, Al Haideri is a stooge for the Iraqi International Congress, a front organization which was created by the right wing Rendon Group in 1991. In other words, the organization which had been pushing for the removal of Saddam Hussein was actually the creation of the ubiquitous right wing Rendon Group. It installed Achmed Chalabi to run the organization, and acted as a an advisor to the Iraqi National Congress throughout the 1990s. More important, it also served as a right wing media advisor, pciking two friendly journalists, the now infamous Judith Miller who wrote the first story which officially claimed that there was evidence for WMDs in Iraq, and an Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist,Paul Moran who had ties to both, the Iraqi National Congress and to Rendon. (Moran, incidentally, was killed on March 22, 2003 in a car bomb explosionn in Northern Kurdistan.)
Once again it appears as a Bush Administration's sources (al-Haideri and Rendon) are proven liars. In the case of Al Haideri, the man flunked a polygraph test and yet his information was deemed factual.
For those of you who would like to read the full length story as it appeared in the November online edition of Rolling Stone Magazine, please be so kind as to click on "The Man Who Sold The War: Meet John Rendon, Bush's General in the Propaganda War."
In case you were wondering, some of the Bush Administration's information about Weapons of mass Destruction in Iraq actually came from a pathological liar named Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri. For those of you who missed this story, al-Haideri was an Iraqi defector who flunked a polygraph test, but whose lurid story about secret Weapons of Mass Destruction was accepted hook, line, and sinker by the all to eager Bush Administration during the run up to our invasion of Iraq.
So just who pray tell is Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri? Put simply, Al Haideri is a stooge for the Iraqi International Congress, a front organization which was created by the right wing Rendon Group in 1991. In other words, the organization which had been pushing for the removal of Saddam Hussein was actually the creation of the ubiquitous right wing Rendon Group. It installed Achmed Chalabi to run the organization, and acted as a an advisor to the Iraqi National Congress throughout the 1990s. More important, it also served as a right wing media advisor, pciking two friendly journalists, the now infamous Judith Miller who wrote the first story which officially claimed that there was evidence for WMDs in Iraq, and an Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist,Paul Moran who had ties to both, the Iraqi National Congress and to Rendon. (Moran, incidentally, was killed on March 22, 2003 in a car bomb explosionn in Northern Kurdistan.)
Once again it appears as a Bush Administration's sources (al-Haideri and Rendon) are proven liars. In the case of Al Haideri, the man flunked a polygraph test and yet his information was deemed factual.
For those of you who would like to read the full length story as it appeared in the November online edition of Rolling Stone Magazine, please be so kind as to click on "The Man Who Sold The War: Meet John Rendon, Bush's General in the Propaganda War."
Saturday, December 03, 2005
THE CURVE BALL SAGA: More Proof That Bush Lied
In case you're still among the shrinking minority of people who still believe George W. Bush told the truth during the prologue to the travesty in Iraq, I would like to present the following story.
I don't know how many of you read the November 20 edition of the LA Times, but for those of you who are intesreted, reporters Bob Drogin and John Goetz wrote lengthy, and I might add, revealing, article about how the Germans obtained faulty intelligence from an Iraqi dissident.
In a nutshell, the sorty goes likes this:
An Iraqi immigrant snookered the German equivalent of the CIA, convinicng them that Saddam possessed Wapons of Mass Destruction. That may sound good to the decreasing few who still support this misguided Administration, but there's a smoking gun in the picture. German intelligence discovered that their informant was a pathological liar. He wanted to guarantee his status as an Iraqi immigrant in Germany, so he made up a story about Weapons of Mass Destruction to guarantee acceptance. To make matters even worse, the German intelligence service caught on to all of this and actually tried to warn the United States government that their inofmration had been incorrect. When did this warning come forth?
Brace yourselves.
Before Colin Powell made his infamous presentation before the United Nations; before we went to war in Iraq.
For those of you who want to read the entire story, you may do so by looking at the November 20 2005 edition of The Los Angeles Times in 13 page (7,000 word story) called The Curve Ball Saga: How U.S. Fell Under The Spell of Curve Ball.
And Brian, I'm sorry it took me so long to get hopping on this. Thanks for the information It was quite, quite helpful. I usually read a broad range of mateiral, from the New York Times to the Weekly Standard, and a lot of things in between, but for some reason this one never reached me until today. Thanks for the input.
Peace
Brandon
I don't know how many of you read the November 20 edition of the LA Times, but for those of you who are intesreted, reporters Bob Drogin and John Goetz wrote lengthy, and I might add, revealing, article about how the Germans obtained faulty intelligence from an Iraqi dissident.
In a nutshell, the sorty goes likes this:
An Iraqi immigrant snookered the German equivalent of the CIA, convinicng them that Saddam possessed Wapons of Mass Destruction. That may sound good to the decreasing few who still support this misguided Administration, but there's a smoking gun in the picture. German intelligence discovered that their informant was a pathological liar. He wanted to guarantee his status as an Iraqi immigrant in Germany, so he made up a story about Weapons of Mass Destruction to guarantee acceptance. To make matters even worse, the German intelligence service caught on to all of this and actually tried to warn the United States government that their inofmration had been incorrect. When did this warning come forth?
Brace yourselves.
Before Colin Powell made his infamous presentation before the United Nations; before we went to war in Iraq.
For those of you who want to read the entire story, you may do so by looking at the November 20 2005 edition of The Los Angeles Times in 13 page (7,000 word story) called The Curve Ball Saga: How U.S. Fell Under The Spell of Curve Ball.
And Brian, I'm sorry it took me so long to get hopping on this. Thanks for the information It was quite, quite helpful. I usually read a broad range of mateiral, from the New York Times to the Weekly Standard, and a lot of things in between, but for some reason this one never reached me until today. Thanks for the input.
Peace
Brandon
Friday, December 02, 2005
SECRECY V. REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)