Friday, April 27, 2007
Let's go there, Bill
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
More impeachment rumblings...
April 23, 2007 at 07:24:47
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Happy Earth Day
I haven't been the cause of a car accident in over 20 years, but in the last two months, I've smashed up my SUV twice. I would say that's a sign. Within the next month, I'm trading it in for a hybrid -- most likely a Prius.
- Keep your car in good condition: Get your engine tuned up regularly, change the oil, and keep your tires properly inflated -- proper maintenance can increase your car's fuel efficiency by 10 percent and reduce emissions.
Switch to compact fluorescent bulbs: Change the three bulbs you use most in your house to compact fluorescents. Each compact fluorescent will keep half a ton of carbon dioxide out of the air over its lifetime. And while they may be slightly more expensive than the incandescent bulbs you're used to using, compact fluorescents last ten times as long and can save $30 per year in electricity costs.
- Buy energy efficient products: When buying new appliances or electronics, shop for the highest energy-efficiency rating. Look for the yellow and black Energy Guide label on the product. According to the EPA, the typical American household can save about $400 per year in energy bills with products that carry the Energy Star label as the most efficient in its class.
Turn off lights and other electrical appliances such as televisions and radios when you're not using them: This is a very simple step, but it's surprising how many times we forget. Install automatic timers for lights that people in your house frequently forget to flick off when leaving a room. Use dimmers when you can.
Choose PVC-free building products: this can reduce the exposure of your family to toxins in your home environment. Steer clear of vinyl windows and doors and choose wood instead. Adhesives, caulk, grout, and sealants may also contain phthalates. You can check for phthalate ingredients in these products using the National Institutes of Health's Household Products Database: http://www.householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/.
Choose toys carefully: this is another important step to reduce your children's exposure to toxins. Look for toys and feeding products for babies and young children that are labeled "PVC free."
(Images from Northern Sun Merchandising )
Friday, April 20, 2007
You can hear the quiet rumblings of impeachment (FINALLY)
MONTPELIER, Vermont (AP) -- Vermont senators voted Friday to call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, saying their actions in Iraq and the U.S. "raise serious questions of constitutionality." (More...)
I highly doubt the impeachment talk is going to go anywhere, but at least the subject is being raised. It's about time, huh.
On a side note, that very same day, I got a call from Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriot's Fund, asking me to be a part of their Patriot Corps. I gladly accepted. I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- Feingold should be the candidate. Maybe next time...
I believe it's only a matter of time before Russ brings up the "I" word, too.
And, of course, Feingold is ahead of the curve on this issue:
Co-Sponsor the Feingold-Reid 'Power of the Purse' Bill to Safely Redeploy our Troops from Iraq
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Bring back the gun debate
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Maybe he should light one up in public?
You know what I liked most about this interview? When Barack put the politics aside and talked about his struggle to quit smoking. I think he should do more of that.
When you share your flaws, you connect with people. It can make the average person sit up, take notice, and say, ya know, I've got that problem, too.
And, like Letterman jokingly said, it would be kinda cool to have a President that smoked.
Okay, okay, before anyone bites my head off -- I know that smoking is bad for you. I'm just saying that nobody's perfect, and he could use that to his advantage. He'd get the smoker's vote, for sure.
Monday, April 09, 2007
A difficult conversation
I brought my truck into the shop last week and was able to pick it up Saturday. The shop's owner, a Republican, has 2 sons in Iraq, as well as a daughter that may be sent there, as well.
When I came in to pick up my truck, he noticed my "Impeach Cheney First" button that I wear on my army coat. He said, "ahh, but he's such a nice man." Even though I knew he was a Repub, I was taken aback by that comment. He was serious.
I really like this mechanic and his wife. They are good people. I kept that, and their children's situation in mind while we proceeded to have a semi-lengthy discussion about Iraq.
They went on about how the media isn't reporting all the good things that are happening, about how Halliburton isn't all bad, and how the new oil project that is underway is going to help all of the families there.
This was a tough one. I did my best to counter with the facts, but the look in their eyes made it very hard for me to lay it on.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Our worst fear, realized
They have no intention of leaving office in 2009.
I knew something like this was going to happen. They can't leave office yet. Their work isn't done. There are still more countries to invade, there are still more civil liberties to be squashed. After everything they've set in motion, did we really think they'd stand by and let the next administration undo all of that?
From the NY Times:
Cheney: Bush Administration May Challenge 22nd Amendment in 2008 Election.
By PHILIP MCKRACK
Published: April 1, 2007
JACKSONVILLE, North Carolina. April 1 — Vice President Cheney delivered a speech early Sunday morning before a formation of soldiers at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. The speech was not publicized and the prepared remarks were intended to boost troop morale. The comments were fairly unremarkable except for one short comment near the end of the speech in which Mr. Cheney suggested that the Bush Administration may seek to challenge the 22nd amendment in the 2008 presidential election in an effort to ensure that the war in Iraq is successful.
Mr. Cheney again cited the war in Iraq as a key component in the effort to combat terrorism, saying "The war in Iraq is such a crucial part of the greater war on terror that we currently have our legal advisors looking into the possibility that the 22nd Amendment may not apply in 2008."
Because the speech was not publicized and was held on a secure military base, very few journalists were present, and none were able to ask questions about what the Vice President's comments might mean. Repeated efforts to contact the Vice President's Office to clarify the comment were unsuccessful.
The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits U.S. Presidents from running for a third term, stating "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...". The 22nd Amendment was passed in 1951 after President Franklin Roosevelt broke a tradition that dated back to George Washington, in which Presidents voluntarily refused to run for a third term.
Political pundits and Constitutional experts are split on what the Vice President's comments could mean. Some see the comments as an effort to extend the Administration's "war powers" due to the fact that the country is at war. They argue that there is a tenuous case to be made that the 22nd Amendment doesn't apply during war time since the Congress waited until after WW II to introduce such an Amendment. Others say that the mere fact that the country had just ended the war in 1951, when the Amendment was passed, suggests that the Congress would have put such an exception into the language of the Amendment if they had intended it not apply during times of war.
Others say that the Bush Administration will argue that the 2000 race was not actually decided by an election and that the Bush administration has technically only been "elected" once since the Supreme Court's Decision in Bush v. Gore effectively nullified the popular vote. Anonymous sources inside the White House have corrborated that this may indeed be the Administration's plan.
Arguing that it was not actually elected would be a very interesting approach for the administration to say the least, but most experts agree that it is certainly possible given the Bush administration's history of creative interpretation of the law with regard to such cases as:
- the assertion that The Geneva Conventions do not apply to U.S. detainees captured on the battlefield,
- suggestions that the legal definition of "torture" only includes activities that cause death or organ failure,
- the argument that U.S. Citizens do not have a right to "due process" if declared "enemy combatants", which was recently rejected by the Supreme Court,
- Attorney General Albert Gonzales's testimony before Congress that the Constitution doesn't guarantee U.S. Citizens a right to Habeas Corpus,
- The Administration's claim that the FISA law does not apply to their warrantless wire taps of Americans.
Critics of the Administration argue that these cases are all the proof needed to believe that The Bush Administration would try to argue that its own victory in 2000 demonstrates that it could run for a third term in 2008.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Monday, April 02, 2007
Over the last few months, I've heard talk here & there that 9/11 was an inside job. I was like everyone else in that hearing something so horrifying was too much to bear, and far too much to stomach.
But, it stuck with me, so I started looking into it. I watched the documentary "Confronting the Evidence," and others. There are well over 60 documentaries on the subject. The information out there is substantial.
Alex Jones' Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State, is the one my sister recommends. This film exposes not just who was behind the 9-11 attacks, but the roots and history of its orchestrators.
When she was telling me about this film, she mentioned Marvin Bush and his connection to World Trade Center building 7. I said "wait, wait, wait, hold on a second, Marvin Bush, who is that?" She said, "it's another brother." I said, "there's ANOTHER one?" Yes, there is indeed another one, folks. Fuck.
I know I'm going out on a limb with this post, so please, do your own research and make your own conclusions. Research building 7 to start. It was not hit by a plane and it was barely on fire, yet it came down as fast as the others.
[WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal]
Look at the Pentagon crash next. A 757 is a big plane. Where is the debris?
And, finally, take a hard look at the Twin Towers. A 110 story steel building cannot come down in 10 seconds, without help.
Do not believe the official story. Do you believe anything else they've said? You shouldn't treat this any differently.
Who gained from 9/11? Who used our fear to put their plans into action, and do whatever else they wanted? Why did Bush sit in that chair for 7 minutes after being told that the "nation was under attack?" I know he's an idiot, but come on! And, why aren't they really looking for Bin Laden?
I know it's the worst possible thing to imagine that it was an inside job. I do, and I'm not alone.