'All Four' 21 July Suspects Held

BBC NEWS - All four failed London bomb suspects are thought to be in custody following armed raids in the UK capital and Rome.

Two London arrests are believed to be men wanted for one of the 21 July Tube attacks and the bid to bomb a bus. A third suspect was already being held.

Police said a fourth suspect arrested in Rome and named as Somali-born UK citizen Hussain Osman, was "of interest" to the inquiry.

Excellent news.

Gonzales Urged to Rescind FOIA Rules

"Where agencies were once encouraged to disclose unless disclosure would do harm, they are currently encouraged to withhold if there are legal grounds for doing so," Tom Curley, AP president and chief executive officer, said in a letter to Gonzales. "We think this change was a terrible mistake." Via Yahoo! News

I would definitely say this is a big deal. As I said earlier the Press needs to shine light in dark places. However, it is a little hard to do that if they have no access to hard information. Now granted, they shouldn't have access to everything lest they out say an undercover CIA agent but they should be able to look at Justice Department files etc.

Tom DeLay...Again

Today we get to put Tom DeLay, pork and circumventing the democratic process in one sentence.

I was reading Think Progress when I came across this letter from Representative Henry Waxman of California addressed to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

Apparently after the House's Energy Bill left committee a 30 page provision was added to the bill which includes $1.5 billion dollars in money for oil and natural gas research in Sugarland, Texas. Guess whose district that is in? 75% of the fund is to be administered by a private consortium. Normally, that much money is administered by the government. Essentially, Tom DeLay is having $1.125 billion go into a black hole fund that will be administered by oil men in his district.

Rep. Waxman is urging Mr. Hastert to have the provision deleted before the bill goes to the full House for a vote.

You have to give to Tom DeLay he is definitely trying to take care of his district.

Usurping Power?

I was getting a cup of coffee at work this morning when I saw a commercial on CNN. The ad was paid for by a PAC called "Progress For America". The ad asked people to contact their Senators and tell them that Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts should get an up or down vote. I am all for people being involved in the process but it is just that a process. Part of the process is getting out of committee. I have nothing against Judge Roberts. Frankly, I haven't read enough about him. However the tone of the ad irked me. It was in my opinion thinly veiled attempt by the White House to have their guy rubber stamped through.

When I saw this ad I started thinking and noticing other news stories of late. A question came to me: Is the Bush Administration trying to expand the powers of the Executive Branch? The founding fathers wanted checks and balances to keep everyone honest. Though if you passed Junior High School U.S. History you knew that. Admittedly, every President wants all of his nominees approved and all his proposed legislation passed but there is a different tone in some of this. I offer some additonal examples.

We, of course, have the pre-emptive ad mentioned above and this week it was reported that President Bush may use a recess appointment for United Nations Ambassador nominee John Bolton. We have been reading about Mr. Bolton for several months now and it doesn't appear as though he will ever get out of committee. The Senate panel seems to come away with more questions than answers. Several Democrats and Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio) have asked Mr. Bush to nominate someone else but he has refused.

More recently, "The Bush administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, is working to kill the amendments that GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina want to tack onto a bill setting Defense Department policy for next year."(more) The crux of this is that the administration is claiming these Senators attempt to put wording in the bill to dictate the standards for treatment of terror detainees and their interrogations would hamper the Presidents ability to fight the war on terror. Huh? Senator McClain-whom we like around here- has said that the wording is designed to hold the military to its rule book. So, what is the White House saying?

Finally, some Senate Democrats are asking for Congress to hold hearings into the CIA leak. Congress has had time in the past for the likes of Frank Zappa, Dee Snider, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa to testify about things that had nothing to do with national security maybe we could make some time for this thing. However:

"There is no oversight of the White House in this Congress. None — it's a free pass. And that is dangerous for the country." - Senator Frank Laughtenburg D-New Jersey


Where does all of this lead? Nominees who the Bush administration wants approved and if they aren't no others will be put forward. President Bush is asked by members of his own party to sign a bill that will contain language ensuring the letter of the law will be followed. Yet, following the law will somehow hamper the President's ability to wage the war on terror. And finally, some members of Congress don't feel they are being allowed to do one of their jobs: oversee the executive branch. Is this a power grab? Put it in terms of your job and your boss doing things like this in spite of his boss and get back to me.
*************************
This is an update on the above regarding the Defense spending bill that John McCain et al are adding wording too. Gun Manufacturer Liablility Gains Top Priority After Defense Bill Shelved

The Akaka Bill

There's been some more talk recently about the Akaka Bill, and I have to say that on the surface I think that the bill makes sense. We've given back certain rights to Native Americans because, well, we dicked them over pretty hard in the past. In Hawaii America helped to orchestrate a violent coup so that we could step in and take over. Before we we came in they were a sovereign kingdom, much like Native Americans were self-governing. To me it makes sense to give Native Hawaiians similar rights to what we've given Native Americans.

Some Hawaiians agree, but others disagree.

Any thoughts?

Reticent Moderates Aren't Limited To Islam

The following was too good to just post an excerpt. It is because of people that ask questions like these that I believe we here can be successful in terms of being a helpful part of the whole.:

Reticent moderates aren’t limited to Islam
Saturday, July 23, 2005 The Columbus Dispatch
ANDREW BARNES

With each horror perpetrated against civilians in the name of Islam — from New York to Madrid to Beslan, Russia, to London — one question for many Americans is why there hasn’t been a stronger reaction from within the Muslim community condemning the attacks. Why don’t moderate Muslims call on religious leaders to condemn Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and their ilk and reclaim the mantle of Islam?

Before concluding that Islam is truly a violent religion and there really aren’t any moderate Muslims, American Christians should look at how those who speak for their religion in the political realm have changed in the past 30 years. In the Southern Baptist household and churches where I grew up, I learned that the world was a sinful place and often not a good model to follow, but I also learned that the solution was personal salvation through Jesus Christ. I was taught to live a godly life in an ungodly world, to be "in the world, but not of it," always recognizing that I would frequently fail but receive forgiveness and try again. Organized religion, then, was about providing social support for a lifestyle that was ridiculed (or tolerated as quaint) by the mainstream.

To the extent that Christianity was outward looking, it was about showing others in your daily life or convincing them through conversation that the path you had chosen — made possible by turning your life over to Christ — was a good one. It was decidedly not about using the power of government to remake society and change others’ behavior so that it would be easier to live an overtly Christian life.

Yet the loudest voices of Christianity in America today are the ones that advocate using the state to further God’s will. Organized conservative Christian groups openly endorse candidates they believe will "return morality" to public life. They support policies and judges who will make it easier to use public money for religious education and charity, reintroduce prayer in school, regulate personal relationships and teach a theory of creation and evolution derived from the Bible. The Texas Republican platform "affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation."

Furthermore, they seek to foster a particularly narrow view of God’s will. They want the Ten Commandments in public places, but not the beatitudes or Jesus’ own first and second commandments: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart," and, "Love your neighbor as yourself" with the understanding that neighbor includes even those who seem least lovable and least like you. They oppose abortion and euthanasia in the name of protecting life, but they support the death penalty and resist public support for people who are alive.

While the methods of conservative American Christians and radical Islamists are dramatically different, their goals are quite similar. They are not arguing that religion should inform their support of particular policies that could then be negotiated with others who do not share the same view. Indeed, such compromise is dangerous, dilutes the true teachings of God, and undermines the moral fabric of the country. Both groups argue that there is one correct set of policies and that, for the good of all citizens, the state should implement them.

Where, then, are the Christians who emphasize the loving, peaceful aspects of their religion and who think it is first and foremost a guide to personal behavior, rather than government policy? Are they invisible because there are no moderate Christians or because Christianity cannot coexist with other worldviews?

No. Many American Christians are nervous about the direction their country and the public face of their religion are heading, but there are several reasons their voices are not louder at the moment. Especially important, they are not well-organized, they fear being branded as traitors or as un-Christian, and they see some truth in the conservative Christians’ arguments. Maybe a healthy dose of biblical teaching in public life wouldn’t be so bad; it certainly couldn’t make things worse for moderate Christians.

I don’t know how many Muslims in the United States or abroad are dismayed at the actions taken by those claiming most loudly to speak for their religion. But the fact is that obstacles to political organization, fear of reprisals from peers and ambivalence about whether religion and politics should be separated are all likely to be more pronounced for moderate Muslims than for American Christians. Where are the moderate Christians in American politics? If we can answer that question, then maybe we’ll be closer to understanding why moderate Muslim voices usually are quiet, too.

Andrew Barnes is an assistant professor of political science at Kent State University.

Dead Man Not A Bomber

Reuters.co.uk - A man shot dead by police at a London Underground station on Friday was not one of the four bombers who tried to attack the city's transport system on Thursday, Sky Television reported citing security sources.

That doesn't mean that this man may not be culpable to some degree.

However, if he isn't linked to the bombings, well, that's a big "OOPS."

Travel Note: Don't run from London cops this week; just lie down if someone yells at you to freeze.

CCTV Images of Latest UK Bombing Suspects

Smile! You're on Candid Camera!

I can't wait until they catch these fuckers.

Bush Pic Cause of Firing?

New York Post Online Edition (BugMeNot.com for login) - "A Long Island elementary-school teacher who is active in Republican politics claims she was canned for hanging a portrait of President Bush in a classroom display featuring him with several former U.S. leaders.

Jillian Caruso, 26, a teacher at Birch Lane Elementary School in Massapequa, said that Principal Joyce Becker-Seddio demanded her resignation after discovering Caruso's political activity last fall, according to papers filed in Brooklyn federal court.

Becker-Seddio is the wife of Brooklyn Assemblyman Frank Seddio, a Democrat."

This is just stupid, especially considering that the image was posted next to former Presidents, though that shouldn't matter.

Bush is out President after all, like it or not, and if a teacher wants a picture of our President in her classroom s/he should be allowed to have it.

London Police Shoot, Kill Potential Suicide Bomber

Another one?

Reuters.co.uk - "Police shot dead a man at a South London underground station on Friday as they hunted for bombers who struck London's transport network on Thursday.

'We can confirm that just after 10 a.m. armed officers entered Stockwell Tube station. A man was challenged by officers and subsequently shot. London Ambulance Service attended the scene. He was pronounced dead at the scene,' police said.

Media reports said the man was a suspected suicide bomber. Transport Police said they had suspended services on the city's Northern and Victoria lines which run through Stockwell station"

Well Look Who Just Caught Up?

The Sudanese government said they would accept whatever numbers the AU could provide. I am counting on that because, now that there is a new government in Sudan, they have to realize that the united government of Sudan has a responsibility for this.

And the international community is going to hold them to it. - Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice after her visit to Sudan

No, I am not just going after Ms. Rice. I am going after the press here too. In the interview Andrea Koppel expresses misgivings for the "new" tougher stance Condeleezza is speaking about following her visits with the Sudanese government and at one of the refugee camps. The press can choose to make anything an issue and have it not go away. I'll bet a few of you know who Kenny Rogers, the baseball player, is now and didn't a few weeks ago. The reports about rape and genocide type activities have been coming from the Sudan for almost 2 years and it rarely rates more than 30 seconds on the news.

Part of the job of the free and unaffected press to make the Sun shine on things trying to hide in the dark. The Bush administration has been fighting two wars, so it is understandable that the press has been a tad busy. But 300,000 people have been killed and we get B-roll on TV. These people need our help, the world's help. The press is in the position not to make the White House and Congress demand action or even the UN for that matter. But they can try to inform the citizenry so that Senators and Congressmen get letters and phone calls.(See link on the left.)

Why are we just talking to them about this? Why no peace keeping mission? Is it because Sudan is not a major trade partner with the United States? Or is it because other countries trade too much? There is another question I want to ask here but it is purely inflammatory. (Someone else said it though.)

Economic sanctions aren't likely to work here if you are the U.S. and you as of 2001 purchased 0.1% of all Sudanese exports. Frankly, that is like me calling McDonald's and telling them I won't eat there anymore. Big deal.

I am not one to come to the conclusion of using the armed forces likely, however, I figure if an estimated 300,000 people have died, countless thousands of women have been raped and close to 2 million people either live in refugee camps or have otherwise been displaced from their homes perhaps someone should go stand between them and the people hurting them.

Many people seem to be dragging their heels on this one. We need to give them a push.

Three London Underground Stations Evacuated

Yahoo! News - Three London Underground stations were evacuated at midday Thursday following reports of incidents, British Transport Police said. The Fire Brigade was investigating a report of smoke at one station.

Please, not again.

---

Update

Yes, unfortunately again:

CNN - Three small devices have exploded at three separate Underground subway stations in London, two weeks after the July 7 terror attacks, police said.

The explosions do not appear to be as bad this time, but still, it's fucked up.

Does this mean that the U.S. should bomb Mecca now?

---

Update 2

BBC News - The minor explosions - just two weeks after blasts killed 56 - involved detonators only, a BBC reporter said.

In addition, a blast was reported on the top deck of a Number 26 bus in Hackney Road in Bethnal Green.

There were no injuries and the bus suffered no structural damage.

Eyewitnesses heard bangs and saw abandoned rucksacks at the sites of the incidents at Warren Street, Shepherd's Bush Hammersmith and City line and Oval tube stations as well as the number 26 bus.

I am glad that it is relatively minor. I have to admit, one of my first thoughts when I heard about the explosions this morning was "copycat." Looks like I'm not alone:

Reuters - "The worst-case scenario with the non-explosions or minor explosions would be that these are devices that haven't triggered properly. Beyond that, it looks like it may be people messing around, copycat-type stuff," said analyst Shane Brighton of the Royal United Services Institute, a London think-tank.

Whether it was a failed terrorist plot or a copycat(s) it's still a tragedy, but somehow more sick IMHO that someone would want to copy the bombs from two weeks ago to get attention.

Hey! Look over there!

Technically this isn't playing politics because any Supreme Court nomination had to come soon in order to give everyone proper time to prepare before the hearings which are projected to be in September. However the timing couldn't be better for Karl Rove and the White House.

I have no opinion about The Honorable John G. Roberts Jr. I am sure he is conservative enough to please Bush's base. I base this on quote from people like Orin Hatch who are nearly peeing themselves with glee.

Until I learn more, I will try to remain above the fray. I am certain that some groups on either side of major issues are already mounting attacks or defense on this man. I have enough faith in people like Arlen Specter that if he doesn't belong on the bench; he won't get through the hearings.

In the meantime, the White House gets a break and the dull roar of a Supreme Court nomination process begins.

Open Mouth Insert Both Feet

Talk show host Pat Campbell asked the Littleton Republican how the country should respond if terrorists struck several U.S. cities with nuclear weapons.

"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Representative Tom Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.more

I wonder how long after he said that it took his top aides to go hide.

When I close my eyes, I see Muslims and other Americans of Middle Eastern descent holding press conferences and Representaive Tancredo offering some bumbling apology/explanation.

I hadn't heard of Congressman Tancredo before today. I will bet a lot of people hadn't. Welcome to the national scene and enjoy the heat.

---

Update

Michael here; I just wanted to note that the the spin has begun:

Denver Post - [Press secretary] Adams tried to equivocate: There's a "widespread misconception about what he said. Congressman Tancredo is not advocating bombing Mecca or Medina or anybody's holy site."

Next up: a discussion of what the meaning of "yeah" is.

I can see how that "yeah" could be misconstrued.

And we have some more here...

Yes, ladies and gentlemen the story that will not go away. President Bush is now saying that anyone who works for the White House convicted of a crime in the Plame affair(?) will be fired. Perhaps, the paraphrase in article is wrong because it should really say indicted. People convicted of a felony, particularly treason can't work in the White House. Stop me if I am wrong.

Basically, the President is now parsing his words from two years ago when he said that anyone who leaked this would be fired. In doing so he is using the same kind legalease that made most Republicans become enraged while the country was discussing Bill, Monica and the definition of sex.

Btw, oral counts. Just in case we have some "virgins" out there.

Second Source of Plame Leak May Have Come From Cheney's Chief of Staff

The vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was a source along with the president's chief political adviser for a Time story that identified a
CIA officer, the magazine reporter said Sunday, further countering White House claims that neither aide was involved in the leak.
more

What is going on in D.C? Are these people lying to their bosses and people like Scott McClellan thinking they will get away with it? Or do their bosses know, there are so many bad things if that is true, and are advising them to cover it up?

I really hope it is just people like Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby lying because the firestorm that would be created if Cheney and Bush are advising a cover up is worse than anything Bill and Monica ever did. It creates the huge notion of "If they lied about this then what else are they lying about?" Eesh.

*****
This article was first brought to our attention via The Huffington Post.

'Duke" Not Running Amid Contractor Scandal

SFGate.com - Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham, a Vietnam War fighter pilot whose house was raided by the FBI this month in an investigation of his ties to a defense contractor, announced Thursday that he will not seek re-election.

'I learned in Vietnam that no one person is more important than the mission, and I do not intend to forget that lesson now,' the eight-term House member said in San Marcos (San Diego County).

The announcement made Cunningham, R-Del Mar, the first casualty of a growing controversy over the ethical conduct of a number of senior House members, including Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. Democrats have vowed to try to use the issue before next year's midterm elections to make a broad case against Republican abuse of power, but Republicans say Democrats are equally vulnerable."

Good, get the crooks out.

Also, be mindful of that last sentence. Shady Democrats need to get the boot as well.

How much longer before DeLay gets the boot on account of his ethics, or lack thereof?

In case you don't read The Huffington Post

You may have missed this post by Cenk Uygur. My only comment is that I wanted to applaud.

Put Your Country Above Your Party

Many of the responses I have received to my posts lately have started with the premise that I am a partisan. The supposition is that I want to bring down the Bush administration because I am a liberal Democrat.

Well, here’s the funny thing – I’ve been a life-long Republican. I just happen to care more about my country than I do about my party.

I’m not a Zell Miller like pretender, a Democrat posing as a Republican. I supported Ronald Reagan (though I understand that he had many faults). I voted for and whole-heartedly supported – and to this day continue to support – George H.W. Bush. I’m against affirmative action, I’m a fiscal hawk and I held pro-war rallies during the first Persian Gulf War.more

Election Reform Daydreaming

I'm daydreaming right now but I had a couple of thoughts about election reform:

• Shorten the campaign season: Mid-term elections aren't for 16 months, yet already I'm hearing all kinds of ass-smooching and mudslinging as people start to gear up for the next election. Here in Michigan there have already been polls as to whom people would vote for Governor (with the inherent mudslinging as well). There are already groups paying for ads based on who MIGHT be selected for the Supreme Court. Now, I realize the last one I mentioned doesn’t really fall into the normal campaign season type stuff, but how soon before we see our first campaign ad? Not long. Tell you what: let’s save some money and cut down on the bullshit by shortening the entire campaign season down to six weeks. At the end of September the candidates are off to the races and if they can’t manage to get their message across in six weeks that’sjust fine, especially if people can…


• Vote for “none of the above”: I think it is ironic to take cues from Russia, but they have a nifty idea when it comes to elections. Parties put their candidates on the ballets but voters have the option for voting for “none of the above.” If “none of the above” gets more votes than any of the candidates the election is scrapped and in six weeks there’s a new election with different candidates.

Now, right away I know some people might say “well what happens if after the first election no one is elected, and the same with the second, we have to have a President come January!!!!”

Dude, chill. If it has to be done, we can move elections back six weeks. I realize that the Constitution says that we have to have elections at such and such a time. We can either change the Constitution, or easier yet, we can delay the start of the next Presidential term. The latter really isn’t such a big deal.

If I remember correctly the Presidential term used to start in March (or something) but was moved to its current date.

Besides, a President can be President for up to 10 years, so unless there was an extensive delay there wouldn’t be a problem. Even if there was an extensive delay, there’s always the Vice President, so again no problem.

Any thoughts?

A letter to Congresswoman Deborah Pryce

Congresswoman Pryce,

I believe that the issue with Mr. Rove and the special prosecutor
involves two things. Did Mr. Rove commit a treasonous act and if he did
anything of the like is President Bush a man of his word. If Mr. Rove
is not guilty the truth will set him free. If he is guilty of treason
or at the very least the source of the leak with outed a CIA agent, he
should be fired as Mr. Bush promised 2 years ago.

However, in the meantime, it seems to me that the RNC and people like
yourself going on camera and making statements about partisan politics
are the people responsible for making this a partisan issue. Please,
stop trying to drive a wedge between the citizens of this country when
what we should all be concerned about is the truth. Also, crying
partisan politics is unbecoming. It has always seemed to me that
anytime someone on either side of the aisle does so it is akin to a
small child crying, "They're not playing nice!"

Yours has long proclaimed itself to be the party of personal
responsibility perhaps it could also be one of restraint.

Sincerely,
Sean Harmon
______________________________________________

I love democracy. I get to nicely chastise my elected representative.
Maybe someday I will get a response but probably not.

The GOP's Karl Rove Spin

GOP.com - "It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party. The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks."

Why is the GOP trying to turn this into a partisan issue? Also, what's with this spin that Karl was trying to help a reporter? Somehow I doubt that his motives were altruistic, but that's hardly the point. Was what he did illegal? That has yet to be decided, but certainly his actions (if he is in fact the leak) were dishonorable and unethical. Leaking this information potentially exposed Plame's contacts, possibly risking lives. All of this because of the White House's vendetta against Plame's husband? That seems rather childish and reckless to me.

Bush himself said that if someone in his administration was the source of the leak that we would fire them. Let's see if he does so.

Also, I'd like to note that I am eager to see what Adam has to say on this subject.

A side thought: You'd think that being the party of "personal responsibility" that if confirmed that Rove is in fact the leak the GOP would call for his head and also demand that he be fired. Obviously, they're not. It's also pretty obvious to political observers that Rove has had a lot to do with the rise in power of the GOP, specifically with this current administration. Could it be that GOP is drunk with the power that they now have and are unwilling to risk losing any of that? Obviously they wouldn't lose power now, but like I said, Rove was one of the architects of the Republican takeover and could be indispensable in the future. Is the GOP afraid to lose him at the cost of their moral center?

Can Anyone Govern California?

Issues that challenge the entire nation often hit California more intensely. Take political polarization. A liberal from Oakland next to a conservative from the Central Valley seem like foreigners, not neighbors...

It was not always this way. California was once dominated by centrists and its legislature reflected a culture of cross-aisle cooperation.

This article largely deals with Gov. Schwarzenegger's recent popularity drop and how he is finding it increasingly difficult to govern the state but the center portion of the article deals with how California is quickly becoming a microcosm of the partisan, polarized politics that plague our country.

Bush aid Rove was Time reporter's source - Newsweek

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Top White House advisor Karl Rove was one of the secret sources that spoke to reporters about a covert CIA operative whose identity was leaked to the media, Newsweek magazine reported in its latest edition.

The magazine said Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove talked to Time magazine about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame.
(more)

Whether or not Mr. Rove is quilty of a crime is up to prosecutors, judge and jury but at the very least he should not be working at the White House or for any branch of the government.

---

Great minds think alike. I posted on this as well, then noticed that Sean had just done the same. So, I've removed my post and have now added it to his.

Enjoy:

The Huffington Post - This new evidence could place Rove in serious political, if not legal, jeopardy (or, at least it should). If what I am told is true, this is proof that the Bush White House was using any information it could gather on Joseph Wilson -- even classified information related to national security -- to pursue a vendetta against Wilson, a White House critic. Even if it turns out Rove did not break the law regarding the naming of intelligence officials, this new disclosure could prove Rove guilty of leaking a national security secret to a reporter for political ends. What would George W. Bush do about that?

So, being that Rove orchestrates much of everything that this Presidency does, how much did the White House know?

This could get sticky.

The Media Will Be Held Accountable As Well...

"My first thought when I heard - just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, 'Hmmm, time to buy.'"- Fox News's Brit Hume From Media Matters

Now this may have been his reaction much later after the markets had opened and he saw the futures prices. His first reaction may have been one of simple human emotion. But the way this quote reads, even in its entirity, could make one think less of Mr. Hume.

People profit from tragedy all of the time. Don't think so? Do you think houses rebuilt after fires, hurricanes or tornadoes are done so at the expense of contractors? Didn't think so. However, it is something completely different to advertise the fact that you plan to make money from it. Particularly, when you are someone with a pulpit potential as large as Mr. Hume's.

This quote was first made known to this blog by David Sirota's post on The Huffington Post.

Explosions In London Subway

Article From The BBC

           
            UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said it was "reasonably clear" there had been a series of terrorist attacks.

He said it was "particularly barbaric" that it was timed to coincide with the G8 summit. He is returning to London.

An Islamist website has posted a statement - purportedly from al-Qaeda - claiming it was behind the attacks.

Terrorism is as whole a cowardly practice that is carried out against those that have very little to say in the policies that lead terrorists to think such actions are necessary.  I know they think they are soldiers fighting a war but if that is so they need to attack soldiers not commuters.  Not that this website wants them to attack anyone.

Pursuant to Plame Issue Below

This cartoon has me pretty worked up.

Perhaps, I am missing the issue here.  If the source is actually the person who outed Valerie Plame then the reporters aren't really protecting a source they are protecting a criminal.  If, however, the source is someone with first hand knowledge of said criminal then the issue gets a little stickier.  But if this person is not the criminal and fears reprisals isn't that why we have a witness protection program?

Though about the press, I would be elated if some of them were as zealous about digging into the corruption in our government system as sports journalists seem to be about tearing into Kenny Rogers for shoving a camera man.

Post by mail test

"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress,
but I repeat myself." - Mark Twain

These Are The Kind of People We Like

From A Hard Evening On Hardball on The Huffington Post

...Upon further consideration, I think we all, myself included, could learn a lot from Billy Graham. God is neither a Republican or a Democrat. Both parties could be negatively critiqued from scripture. And when it comes time to vote, every American must try to figure out what will help save our nation, in the words of scripture, “with fear and trembling.” In politics we have to be careful about declaring what is the will of God.

We Are Just Going To Throw This One Out There

And see what sticks.

Gay-marriage OK gets mixed reviews

Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Felix Hoover and Dennis M . Mahoney
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

The vote by the United Church of Christ in support of gay marriage might prompt congregations to leave the denomination, some clergy said yesterday.

But it also might bring in new members, said the Rev. Timothy Ahrens, who has been performing gay "covenantunion ceremonies" for 12 years.

Methane? Columbus, OH might see it's garbage turned into clean energy

Columbus Dispatch -

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

At last, a waste-burning scheme that might produce some energy for central Ohio without torching the taxpayers.

Three decades after Columbus voters first heard of the seemingly swell idea of burning the city’s garbage to produce electricity, that oncepromising enterprise is just a bad memory and a $28 million debt.

This is reminiscent of what oil companies used to do with the natural gas that comes out of the ground when you drill an oil well: they used to just burn it off. Then one day some enterprising individual realized that if they bottled it they could sell it.(I like my steaks medium rare off of the grill, thank you.) To be sure, their motives were profit driven but this proves it is possible to be environmentally friendly and still make a profit. Or as is the case in this article save the taxpayers some cash. After all, there will always be garbage.

Exclusive Congressional Reports Now Available Online

PCWorld.com - Some of the most coveted research on Capitol Hill has long been available only to members of Congress. But now, thanks to a project led by the Center for Democracy and Technology, reports on anything from Internet identity theft to spyware, and more, are now accessible to all with a click of a mouse.

Knowledge IS power, so if you're looking for a way to see into the actual Congressional Record as opposed to lip-flapping and ass smooching this is an excellent tool.

Anything that gives more power to the people is a good thing, yes?

A Mick, a Spic, and the World's Tallest Midget

Two lefties and a conservative
ranting on a blog
p-o-s-t-i-n-g
First comes loathing, then comes action
looking for truth for the centrist faction!

Someone has to start it.

A group of friends of mine, whom I hope will be posting here shortly, and myself have been having discussions since well before the 2004 elections about the direction of politics in the United States. Some of us would describe ourselves as Democrats and others Republicans but nearly all of us are pragmatists who at least try to look at issues objectively. Sometimes we fail in this endeavor but rarely do our discussions ever turn into the finger pointing and name calling sessions that seem to dominate the "debate" of our elected officials. We are of the hope that not everyone is a "lefty loony" or a member of the "conservative Christian right" as some politicians and most of the mainstream media would have you believe.

So, here is to whatever this turns out to be and hopefully in some way it will be the beginnings of a push for the return of real debate on issues in this country. We will be pointing out those we think are "idiots" or "slimy" on both sides of the aisle, along with the good we find from independents, "third" parties, Republicans and Democrats.