The Gamut

My Way News

"I'm an anti-war activist and I'm innocent," Lindauer told WBAL-TV outside the Baltimore FBI office. "I did more to stop terrorism in this country than anybody else. I have done good things for this country. I worked to get weapons inspectors back to Iraq when everyone else said it was impossible."

As DaliyKos points out:

But when you combine the Lockerbie story with some other details surfacing in the press reports--the sheer ineptness of her spycraft, her claims of having survived multiple assassination attempts, her grandiose statements to the press ("I did more to stop terrorism in this country than anybody else. I have done good things for this country. I worked to get weapons inspectors back to Iraq when everyone else said it was impossible"), and her neighbor's comment that "she lives in a fantasy world"--it starts to look like Lindauer might pose a greater threat to her own security than to our national security.

Yes, I admit it. It's true. There are some mentally unstable people who consider themselves democrats. Why do they choose the democratic party? I don't know. Maybe for the same reason that some gays, blacks and middle and lower class whites choose the republican party. Who knows why people choose to leave their support base. Maybe it's just their way of asserting their individuality. As if she's saying, "Sure I'm delusional, but that doesn't mean I have to be a republican."

|

Yahoo! News - AP Enterprise: Rumsfeld Kept 9-11 Souvenir

The Justice Department investigation that criticized FBI agents for taking souvenirs from the World Trade Center site also found that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and a high-ranking FBI official kept items from the Sept. 11 attack scenes.

Does it ever end? I mean really, is there no end to the hypocricy and sleaziness and despicable behavior from this gang of thugs and self-proclaimed untouchables?

It's stupifying.

Karen Kwiatkowski | The New Pentagon Papers

I'm thinking maybe Karen Kwiatkowski needs a position on the cabinet.

President John Kerry
VP Max Cleland
National Security Advisor Wes Clark
Sec. of State Lt. General Claudia Kennedy
Chief of Staff Gary Hart
Sec. of Homeland Security Al Gore
Sec. of Defense Leon Fuerth
Deputy Secretary of Defense Joe Wilson
Co-Deputy Secretary of Defense Karen Kwiatkowski
Attorney General John Edwards
Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin
Surgeon General Howard Dean
EPA Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Fed Chair Paul Krugman

|

CNN.com - Teacher suspended?for showing 'Passion' clips - Mar 8, 2004

An elementary school teacher was suspended last week after school officials learned that he showed students excerpts from the movie "The Passion of the Christ."

My local paper, The Steubenville Herald Star, asked in a survey question whether this teacher should have been suspended. 72% of those who responded said no, he should not have been.

What the hell were they thinking? Now, all I can assume is that these people hadn't read the story and that they were reacting to the idea that he was being punished for being religious. Otherwise, there are more than enough reasons to fire this teacher.

First, he obviously showed them a pirated tape or CD. The movie is still in theaters. Second, the movie is rated "R," and he showed it without parental permission. Third, the movie is extremely violent and he subjected the kids to at least 60 minutes worth of it. Fourth, the movie is controversial for reasons that have nothing to do with the separation issue.

But then finally, there IS the separation issue. The teacher claims that he was showing the movie for historical reasons related to his social studies class. What was he trying to show them? How there were more white people in Jerusalem 2000 years ago than we had originally thought? Of course he showed it for religious purposes. That's the whole purpose of the movie, espousal of the traditional American version of Christianity. Even I know that, and I haven't even seen it yet.

Just the other day I mentioned that a poll showed Kerry and Bush tied with Nader taking 6% of the vote in that particular poll. The article reporting the polling results quoted a republican who was voting for Nader. I said that regardless of that one voter, if Nader was getting votes, they would come from voters who would otherwise likely support Kerry.

Well, two new polls - one from the Washington Post and ABC, the other from CNN, Gallup, and the USA Today shows precisely where Nader's supporters come from.




Clearly, these polls show that Nader's presence in the election is in no way a souce of concern for Bush at all. His numbers remain unchanged whether or not Nader is made a factor in the poll. Fortunately, these polls also demonstrate that Nader's influence at this point is also not enough to throw the election to Bush either. But that could change.

The other night, I caught a few minutes of Tim Robbins speaking with Larry King. Robbins said it was arrogant for democrats to suggest that Nader's candidacy stole votes from their party. He seemed miffed at the very idea that democrats would suggest that those are "our votes." And that's true. If we want to court any potential Nader votes, we have to make sure we don't insult their delicate sensitivities by suggesting in any way that we own their vote. We do not own their vote.

But, if they vote for Nader, Bush owns their vote. In fact, for every Nader vote, Bush owns two votes; one Nader vote and the Kerry vote it cancels out.

Consider the following scenario. With no Nader on the ballot in state X, Kerry wins 51% of the vote. With Nader on the ballot in state X, Nader takes 2% of the vote, Kerry loses 2% and Bush picks up zero percentage points, but Bush wins the state. Nader has no use for that 2%, but Kerry did, and they gave the state to Bush. So who benefits? Not Kerry. Not Nader. And certainly not the Nader voter.

I had what I consider a flash of brilliance today. An epiphany! It concerns the problem with black box voting. As you probably know since you were smart enough to find this blog, many states (including my home-state of Ohio) are considering or have decided to use electronic voting devices which do not leave a verifiable paper trail. I've been concerned about this, as I truly fear monkey business in the upcoming general election.

When I voted in March, I asked the women at my polling place if we were going to have the electronic devices in November. They didn't know. I asked if there would be an announcement giving me time to get an absentee ballot. Again, they didn't know. So I checked the web. There is nothing there that I can find answering my questions.

Then it hit me. The solution to all our problems. Write in voting!

I don't know if there is something in the law prohibiting it, but I intend to look into it. I will have an answer soon. But for now, what I plan to do, and what I suggest that everybody else do is - where it is legal, ask for a write in ballot and then write in Kerry's name. DO NOT make the mistake of voting for him the standard way, checking his name and also making a write in ballot. That would be considered an over-vote, and both of your votes would be void.

I think it's brilliant. If we all refuse to use the machines, and if we all write Kerry's name on a write-in ballot, we will have the only verifiable votes in the event of a recount. AND if they rig the machines, we can expose them.

Consider: if a million people vote in Ohio and 800,000 of us write in Kerry, there will be no way that they can give the vote to Bush. It's perfect!

|

Bush wants to portray Kerry as a flip-flopper because of supposed shifts in his position over his thirty+ year career.

• Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.

• Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.

• Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.

• Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.

• Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.

• Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.

• Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.

• Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

• Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.

• Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.

• Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits

• Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.

• Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.

• Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.

• Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will

• Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.

• Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote

• Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.

• Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.

List courtesy of the Daily Kos.

|

Recently someone asked me the following question in an attempted defense of the pResident's shifting attitudes on certain issues since the 2000 campaign:

"I'm saying a lot of people's views changed due to 9-11, including George Bush's. Are you saying your's didn't?"

This was my answer:

Actually, no, nothing in my core views changed at all. I was already sure that terrorism was more of a danger than the GOP was prepared to acknowledge. I was also sure even before 9/11 that we were doing too little to approach the causes of terrorism at the root. I also knew that nation building was not workable as middle eastern policy.

Beyond that, I was even then of the hope that - as Thomas Paine once said - "the example which ye have unwisely set, of mingling religion with politics, may be disavowed and reprobated by every inhabitant of America." I also knew in 2000 that Bush was not then suggesting tax cuts because of the looming recession as there was no looming recession at the time, so I know now that his claim that the tax cuts were and are necessary to bolster the faltering economy is a rationalization and a lie.

I knew that our liberties were what made our country special, and that giving them up was surrendering to our enemies. I knew that dissent was necessary for a strong democracy to remain democratic. I knew that good leaders worked with their opposers to change their hearts rather than slough them off as if they don't matter.

So, no, none of my views have changed since 9/11. But if the only view you had that changed was that you went from thinking that we were safe from terrorism to now thinking that we are at such risk that we should surrender our freedom to be protected by that fool dubya, well, my friend, your views just went from wrong to wronger. And I feel sorry for you.

|