Showing posts with label 2005 Political. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2005 Political. Show all posts
Thursday, December 22, 2005
RE: California Voting Machines
I just posted a second article about the Diebold voting machine hackability. Seems that the California elections chief has some questions about using those machines. Only McPherson is putting the onus on the federal government to certify the memory card instead of ordering a state evaluation. He was quoted in the article that the software that programs the card has never been reviewed by the federal government. Isn't that kind of like Lil Red Riding Hood asking directions from the big bad wolf?
Thursday, December 15, 2005
RE: Spin flurry post Voting Machines Hackable
The Miami Herald has a story about Diebold voting machines. The county elections chief has switched to a different manufacturer because, he said, the Diebold machines can be hacked and election results can be changed. (story can be found in archives of Miami Herald, for a fee)
new link:
Brad Blog
new link:
Brad Blog
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
RE: Iraq withdrawal
Over on spinflurry I posted a link to a Washington Post item written by Ben Connable, a Marine Corp Major who is preparing to go back to Iraq for a third tour of duty. Major Connable says that the war in Iraq is winnable... that the war in Iraq is not a quagmire and that the presence of U.S. military buffers the violence.
If Major Connable believes those things then I should take a wait and watch approach. He sounded credible. Until I got to the 7th paragraph. In the lead sentence of the 7th paragraph Major Connable uses the word "precipitous" in the withdrawal timeline discussion.
Nobody is asking for that.
Why do Republicans keep insisting that we are?
Why don't Republicans argue the true points of Murtha's plan? Why do they take a word like "withdraw" and apply a false and misleading meaning by coupling it to the word precipitous?
I guess what I'm really asking is, why do they keep on lying? Men and women and children have died. More will die before this is over, whether it ends in six months or six years.
Don't the dead deserve an honest debate?
If Major Connable believes those things then I should take a wait and watch approach. He sounded credible. Until I got to the 7th paragraph. In the lead sentence of the 7th paragraph Major Connable uses the word "precipitous" in the withdrawal timeline discussion.
Nobody is asking for that.
Why do Republicans keep insisting that we are?
Why don't Republicans argue the true points of Murtha's plan? Why do they take a word like "withdraw" and apply a false and misleading meaning by coupling it to the word precipitous?
I guess what I'm really asking is, why do they keep on lying? Men and women and children have died. More will die before this is over, whether it ends in six months or six years.
Don't the dead deserve an honest debate?
Friday, December 09, 2005
Fairness Doctrine
When I heard Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld complaining to Jim Lehrer about “negative media coverage” I said to the television, be careful what you wish for. Back in the Reagan years y’all wanted to deregulate everything. One of the agencies y’all cut loose was the FCC. And President Reagan vetoed legislation that would have put the fairness doctrine into law.
Now you whine about the media not portraying your side in a good enough light.
Well what did you expect when you removed the fairness doctrine from the regulations?
the Link:
Fairness Doctrine
Now you whine about the media not portraying your side in a good enough light.
Well what did you expect when you removed the fairness doctrine from the regulations?
the Link:
Fairness Doctrine
RE: California Appellate ruling
OK I admit it. I don't get it. The court says it is OK for two fertility doctors to refuse fertility treatment to an unmarried woman who happens to be a lesbian. The patient says her being a lesbian is the reason the doctors won't help her have a child.
I'm wondering what would they do if an unmarried woman, significantly attached to a man wanted artificial insemination? Would they help her have a child? How many ways can these doctors quantize their patients lives?
Would the fertility doctors support an unmarried woman's right to have an abortion if she said it was against her religion to have a baby outside of marriage?
I'm wondering what would they do if an unmarried woman, significantly attached to a man wanted artificial insemination? Would they help her have a child? How many ways can these doctors quantize their patients lives?
Would the fertility doctors support an unmarried woman's right to have an abortion if she said it was against her religion to have a baby outside of marriage?
Thursday, December 08, 2005
I'm white, I'm blonde and I'm legal!
RE: Congresswoman Candice Miller
Over on "Gerrymander Watch" and "Spinflurry" I've posted this link to Congresswoman Candice Miller (R) web page announcement dated Dec. 6th, 2005. Mrs. Miller introduced House Joint Resolution bill #53 on June 9, 2005. A hearing on the bill was held December 6th.
Mrs. Miller was first elected to Congress in 2002 from the 10th District in Michigan. Her Congressional District in north-eastern Michigan, considered safe Republican, includes Macomb, St. Clair, LaPeer, Sanilac, and Huron. Michigan is shaped kind of like a mitten, these five counties are located in the "thumb" region. The district was created by Republican legislators to force out David Bonior (D), who had been elected from Macomb and St.Clair districts since 1976.
Before the redistricting, Gore won the district, Gore = 48.8% / Bush = 46.6%
In 2004, after the redistricting, Bush won the district, Bush = 51.8% / Kerry = 47.1%
Now comes Candice Miller - Congresswoman, with the idea that only legal citizens should be considered when Congressional Districts are allocated.
Our Constitution currently states ALL citizens must be counted and considered. You know why? Because when the men wrote the Constitution they wanted Congress to be representative of EVERYONE. They would never have thought to forsee a situation whereby men and women would get themselves elected from a certain political party and act as if the only folks in their Congressional District who deserved to be represented were the ones who voted for them.
So now, if Mrs. Miller gets her way, the only citizens who matter will be the legals. Oh sure, she dresses it all up to sound like she is doing America a big favor, but what she would really accomplish if her bill were to pass is knock a big chunk out of the bedrock of our foundation.
Who will you target next, Mrs. Miller, the Democrats or the Independents?
Over on "Gerrymander Watch" and "Spinflurry" I've posted this link to Congresswoman Candice Miller (R) web page announcement dated Dec. 6th, 2005. Mrs. Miller introduced House Joint Resolution bill #53 on June 9, 2005. A hearing on the bill was held December 6th.
Mrs. Miller was first elected to Congress in 2002 from the 10th District in Michigan. Her Congressional District in north-eastern Michigan, considered safe Republican, includes Macomb, St. Clair, LaPeer, Sanilac, and Huron. Michigan is shaped kind of like a mitten, these five counties are located in the "thumb" region. The district was created by Republican legislators to force out David Bonior (D), who had been elected from Macomb and St.Clair districts since 1976.
Before the redistricting, Gore won the district, Gore = 48.8% / Bush = 46.6%
In 2004, after the redistricting, Bush won the district, Bush = 51.8% / Kerry = 47.1%
Now comes Candice Miller - Congresswoman, with the idea that only legal citizens should be considered when Congressional Districts are allocated.
Our Constitution currently states ALL citizens must be counted and considered. You know why? Because when the men wrote the Constitution they wanted Congress to be representative of EVERYONE. They would never have thought to forsee a situation whereby men and women would get themselves elected from a certain political party and act as if the only folks in their Congressional District who deserved to be represented were the ones who voted for them.
So now, if Mrs. Miller gets her way, the only citizens who matter will be the legals. Oh sure, she dresses it all up to sound like she is doing America a big favor, but what she would really accomplish if her bill were to pass is knock a big chunk out of the bedrock of our foundation.
Who will you target next, Mrs. Miller, the Democrats or the Independents?
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
RE: John Kerry address to the DLCC Aug. 19, 2005 John Kerry gets it
This speech was given before Katrina hit New Orleans, but it sounds like something a lot of folks were saying after Aug. 29th. John Kerry, it turns out, is a darn good prognosticator. His comments about ideological agendas taking precedence over the effort to help find a solution... WOW .... sounds as if he was already hearing the screams for help from the stranded Katrina victims.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Re Spinflurry post: Lobbyist, small Ohio town at...
I saw Marilyn Geewax on the C-Span Washington Journal, November 28, 2005 talking about this article she has researched and written. Many of the callers were opposed to any raise in the minimum wage because it might force the employer to raise the price of whatever it is the company is selling.
Not necessarily true, Ms. Geewax told the caller. If workers had more money to spend, they might buy more of the product and thereby increase the sellers income and if that happened the merchant wouldn't have to raise the price.
Marilyn Geewax doesn't pretend to know all the answers. She readily admitted that the American economy was a complex problem to solve.
One of the callers talked about his increased costs if the minimum wage went up. He said he would have to pay more in Social Security and other taxes.
What will that cost him? The employer matches Social Security. Current rate is 6.25 %
If you are earning $5.50 an hour, your employer pays thirty-five cents for every hour you work. If you worked 40 hours a week your employer would pay $14.00 to the Social Security account in your name. You would have the same amount deducted from your paycheck.
If the minimum wage increased to $7.15 an hour your employer would owe forty-five cents per hour / $18.00 per 40 hour work week.
Not necessarily true, Ms. Geewax told the caller. If workers had more money to spend, they might buy more of the product and thereby increase the sellers income and if that happened the merchant wouldn't have to raise the price.
Marilyn Geewax doesn't pretend to know all the answers. She readily admitted that the American economy was a complex problem to solve.
One of the callers talked about his increased costs if the minimum wage went up. He said he would have to pay more in Social Security and other taxes.
What will that cost him? The employer matches Social Security. Current rate is 6.25 %
If you are earning $5.50 an hour, your employer pays thirty-five cents for every hour you work. If you worked 40 hours a week your employer would pay $14.00 to the Social Security account in your name. You would have the same amount deducted from your paycheck.
If the minimum wage increased to $7.15 an hour your employer would owe forty-five cents per hour / $18.00 per 40 hour work week.
Can't we do better?
My 300 foot walk to the mailbox yielded a 'Dear Friend' letter from Senator Harry Reid. I first thought the letter was from HRC, which, had it been, would have went straight to the trash can. When I saw Reid's name in the upper left corner I thought I'd like to see what he had to say. Turned out that Senator Reid has a lot of complaints. About the numerous Republicans under indictment these days. The price of gasoline. The Harriet Miers nomination.
Reid tells me he thinks American people deserve better.
On page 2 Reid actually suggests that Karl Rove should be history. If its true KR is Bush's brain that is a dangerous thing to demand. Going into his windup, Reid asks me to help take away the Republican majority in the Senate so the Democrats can stop Bush from "doing even more damage to our country".... with a gift of $50 - $75, or more.
Reid closes his letter with the phrase, "Together, America can do better."
Thank you for the letter Senator Reid, but I can't send you the money right now, I will, however, give you something better. Retire the phrase "America can do better" Stop telling me something I've been hearing since Howard Dean began his Presidential campaign. I've heard it so often it has become an annoying complaint. Which makes you and all the other Democrats who say that and the more common, "we can do better," nagging scolds.
I know America can do better.
You know America can do better.
We all know America can do better.
Tell me something I don't know.
Tell me this: "WE WILL DO BETTER"
and sound like you mean it.
Reid tells me he thinks American people deserve better.
On page 2 Reid actually suggests that Karl Rove should be history. If its true KR is Bush's brain that is a dangerous thing to demand. Going into his windup, Reid asks me to help take away the Republican majority in the Senate so the Democrats can stop Bush from "doing even more damage to our country".... with a gift of $50 - $75, or more.
Reid closes his letter with the phrase, "Together, America can do better."
Thank you for the letter Senator Reid, but I can't send you the money right now, I will, however, give you something better. Retire the phrase "America can do better" Stop telling me something I've been hearing since Howard Dean began his Presidential campaign. I've heard it so often it has become an annoying complaint. Which makes you and all the other Democrats who say that and the more common, "we can do better," nagging scolds.
I know America can do better.
You know America can do better.
We all know America can do better.
Tell me something I don't know.
Tell me this: "WE WILL DO BETTER"
and sound like you mean it.
Friday, November 18, 2005
To C-Span - Washington Journal
Date: November 18, 2005 8:30:29 AM EST
To: journal@c-span.org
Subject: Maureen Dowd
One thing I will say about Maureen Dowd, she is not attempting to smear the entire Republican Party.
My question for Ms. Dowd,
If it is true that President Clinton looked at the same CIA intelligence in the 90's why is it Clinton did not go to war with Iraq? I know he was busy with that other matter, but, why didn't he take America to war with Iraq to change the subject?
To: journal@c-span.org
Subject: Maureen Dowd
One thing I will say about Maureen Dowd, she is not attempting to smear the entire Republican Party.
My question for Ms. Dowd,
If it is true that President Clinton looked at the same CIA intelligence in the 90's why is it Clinton did not go to war with Iraq? I know he was busy with that other matter, but, why didn't he take America to war with Iraq to change the subject?
To C-Span - Washington Journal
Date: November 11, 2005 7:54:51 AM EST Veteran's Day
To: journal@c-span.org
Subject: there you go again! - guest - Michelle Malkin
Looking for relief from the constant conservative drone that passes for news these days. Turn to C-Span.
What do I find?
Call-In
Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild
C-SPAN, Washington Journal
Michelle Malkin
Why on earth do y'all encourage this? Why do you insult your viewers? Yes, I take it personal because it was meant to insult me. Her choice of the word 'exposing' implies that liberalism is guilty of wrongdoing as if liberals were criminals.
This type of publication passing itself off as journalism has exhausted my interest. I had to make up a word, Pornalism, to describe these rude and crude publishing efforts. I'm sick and tired of decent broadcasts such as Washington Journal giving pornalism a national audience. Your listeners do NOT deserve to have this crap foisted on them.
To: journal@c-span.org
Subject: there you go again! - guest - Michelle Malkin
Looking for relief from the constant conservative drone that passes for news these days. Turn to C-Span.
What do I find?
Call-In
Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild
C-SPAN, Washington Journal
Michelle Malkin
Why on earth do y'all encourage this? Why do you insult your viewers? Yes, I take it personal because it was meant to insult me. Her choice of the word 'exposing' implies that liberalism is guilty of wrongdoing as if liberals were criminals.
This type of publication passing itself off as journalism has exhausted my interest. I had to make up a word, Pornalism, to describe these rude and crude publishing efforts. I'm sick and tired of decent broadcasts such as Washington Journal giving pornalism a national audience. Your listeners do NOT deserve to have this crap foisted on them.
To C-Span - Washington Journal
Date: November 7, 2005 7:31:40 AM EST
To: journal@c-span.org
Subject: programming / guests - Steve Chabot , R-OH ; Brian DeBose , Washington Times ; Roger Clegg , Center for Equal Opportunity
Good morning, tell you what, today would be a good day to watch Washington Journal if I needed another conservative thought infusion.
To: journal@c-span.org
Subject: programming / guests - Steve Chabot , R-OH ; Brian DeBose , Washington Times ; Roger Clegg , Center for Equal Opportunity
Good morning, tell you what, today would be a good day to watch Washington Journal if I needed another conservative thought infusion.
To C-Span / Washington Journal
Date: November 3, 2005 7:51:38 AM EST
To: journal@c-span.org
Subject: eminent domain / guest - Congressman Bob Goodlatte R-Va.
I thought the Supreme Court had finally made a decision the conservatives would like.
Seemed like SCOTUS was backing up the state law in this case.
Now come republican legislators trying to make a one size fits all law.
It should be up to the State to make a law about this matter.
To: journal@c-span.org
Subject: eminent domain / guest - Congressman Bob Goodlatte R-Va.
I thought the Supreme Court had finally made a decision the conservatives would like.
Seemed like SCOTUS was backing up the state law in this case.
Now come republican legislators trying to make a one size fits all law.
It should be up to the State to make a law about this matter.
To C-Span / Washington Journal
Date: November 1, 2005 8:45:47 AM EST
To: journal@c-span.org
Subject: Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
Mr. Perkins, you respect Mr. Alito's stand because he stood with the voters and expressed his opinion that women should talk with their husbands before they have an abortion.
Most voters want abortion to remain legal, does that mean Judge Alito would not overturn Roe v Wade?
To: journal@c-span.org
Subject: Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council
Mr. Perkins, you respect Mr. Alito's stand because he stood with the voters and expressed his opinion that women should talk with their husbands before they have an abortion.
Most voters want abortion to remain legal, does that mean Judge Alito would not overturn Roe v Wade?
to C-Span / Washington Journal
Date: October 29, 2005 8:28:08 AM EDT
To: journal@c-span.org
Subject: Sandy Berger comment
Pedro,
You should have assured the caller that Sandy Berger did NOT destroy the only copy of documents. He was looking at copies and a COPY of the original is what he took away.
To: journal@c-span.org
Subject: Sandy Berger comment
Pedro,
You should have assured the caller that Sandy Berger did NOT destroy the only copy of documents. He was looking at copies and a COPY of the original is what he took away.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Re Spinflurry: Alito nomination
I have four reasons for the Democrats to not oppose Alito.
1. If y'all make a big fight out of the SCOTUS nomination it will take the Wilson/Leak news off the front page.
2. The Democrats would befuddle the conservatives if they did not scream and kick about the Alito nomination.
3. Schoolyard bully tactics 101 - Don't take the bait.
4. The Democrats who voted FOR Alito in 1991 won't have to lay low until the January, 2006 Senate hearings.
Another thing, I listened to Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council talking on C-Span about the Samuel Alito nomination. Mr. Perkins expressed his opinion that the Alito nomination is the perfect chance to educate the public about the importance of the judiciary........... Well, in my opinion, when a fellow tells you he wants to educate you about something you learned in seventh grade what he really means to do is blot out all you learned and fill the void with his way of thinking.
Last but not least, the same fellows who like Alito, love state rights and want to overturn Roe v Wade because in their view, Roe v Wade imposes federal standards on the states. So I got to wondering, why not quit worrying about what happens with Roe v Wade in the Supreme Court? Pro choice folks ought to be meeting with state legislators and have a pro choice law put on the books in as many states as possible. Or maybe better, put abortion choice to a vote in every state. Let the voters decide once and for all. Maybe then the state right fellows will stop their snipe-snipe.
1. If y'all make a big fight out of the SCOTUS nomination it will take the Wilson/Leak news off the front page.
2. The Democrats would befuddle the conservatives if they did not scream and kick about the Alito nomination.
3. Schoolyard bully tactics 101 - Don't take the bait.
4. The Democrats who voted FOR Alito in 1991 won't have to lay low until the January, 2006 Senate hearings.
Another thing, I listened to Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council talking on C-Span about the Samuel Alito nomination. Mr. Perkins expressed his opinion that the Alito nomination is the perfect chance to educate the public about the importance of the judiciary........... Well, in my opinion, when a fellow tells you he wants to educate you about something you learned in seventh grade what he really means to do is blot out all you learned and fill the void with his way of thinking.
Last but not least, the same fellows who like Alito, love state rights and want to overturn Roe v Wade because in their view, Roe v Wade imposes federal standards on the states. So I got to wondering, why not quit worrying about what happens with Roe v Wade in the Supreme Court? Pro choice folks ought to be meeting with state legislators and have a pro choice law put on the books in as many states as possible. Or maybe better, put abortion choice to a vote in every state. Let the voters decide once and for all. Maybe then the state right fellows will stop their snipe-snipe.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
RE: Spinflurry - Scooter Libby Indictment
Early talking points:
Democrats:
America went to war based on a lie. Good men died.
Republicans:
Sandy Berger stole documents. George Bush is still President. Democrats aren't happy with anything. Fitzpatrick has completed his investigation no more indictments will come along.
Others:
Bush will pardon Libby, so it doesn't matter anyway.
Joke:
What was the last thing Scooter Libby said when he left the White House?
answer:
Pardon me.
Democrats:
America went to war based on a lie. Good men died.
Republicans:
Sandy Berger stole documents. George Bush is still President. Democrats aren't happy with anything. Fitzpatrick has completed his investigation no more indictments will come along.
Others:
Bush will pardon Libby, so it doesn't matter anyway.
Joke:
What was the last thing Scooter Libby said when he left the White House?
answer:
Pardon me.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Re: Spinflurry post: Libby Indicted
If I was a news editor right now, I'd be mighty bullish about the future.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
Repealing GPO and WEP
In a letter dated July 5, 2005, which I did not receive until mid October, Congressman David L. Hobson tells me Congress is currently debating how to best address Social Security, Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). Congressman Hobson has co-sponsored with Buck McKeon H.R> 147 which would totally repeal the GPO and WEP.
Since this letter was written BKRW- before Katrina, Rita and Wilma, passage of the bill may be in jeopardy.
If you care to notice, there is a lot of stuff going on with Social Security. A bill here, a little bill there, will these little bills eventually add up to the reform George Bush wants so much? I remember President Bush was criticized for his "full bore all out approach" to Social Security reform.
Did he decide he would gain more using tweezers instead of a steam roller?
Since this letter was written BKRW- before Katrina, Rita and Wilma, passage of the bill may be in jeopardy.
If you care to notice, there is a lot of stuff going on with Social Security. A bill here, a little bill there, will these little bills eventually add up to the reform George Bush wants so much? I remember President Bush was criticized for his "full bore all out approach" to Social Security reform.
Did he decide he would gain more using tweezers instead of a steam roller?
More on Ohio Issues
I'll vote "YES" on 1 and 2. Yes to the possibility of more jobs and more voters.
I'll vote "NO" on 3, 4, and 5. No to anything that limits my rights.
3 limits my rights because it would tell me that no matter HOW MUCH I could afford to contribute I would be limited to $2,000 for statewide candidates and $1,000 for legislative candidates.
4 limits my rights because they want to select a slate of private persons to draw legislative districts. If this issue passes, we won't be able to vote for or against the commission members. So how would we remove them from office if they didn't behave?
5 limits my rights for the same reason as #4. A non elected committee to oversee elections.
I'll vote "NO" on 3, 4, and 5. No to anything that limits my rights.
3 limits my rights because it would tell me that no matter HOW MUCH I could afford to contribute I would be limited to $2,000 for statewide candidates and $1,000 for legislative candidates.
4 limits my rights because they want to select a slate of private persons to draw legislative districts. If this issue passes, we won't be able to vote for or against the commission members. So how would we remove them from office if they didn't behave?
5 limits my rights for the same reason as #4. A non elected committee to oversee elections.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)