Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Why we love Palast!
Greg Palast has done it again. He took a largely de-newsworthy appearance by Monica Goodling and exposed the nugget of damning testimony. Monica Goodling testified in her opening statement that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty (Not former Chief of Staff Kyle Sampson as it says in the linked Truthout article) had been apprised of Tim Griffins vote 'caging'. Not ONE Congressman asked what the hell she was talking about. It's alright blogheads. I'm going to email every member of the House Judiciary Committe and see what happens:)
Palast tells it best:
Our BBC team broke the story at the top of the nightly news everywhere on the planet - except the USA - only because America's news networks simply refused to cover this evidence of the electoral coup d'etat that chose our President in 2004.
Here's how caging worked, and along with Griffin's thoughtful emails themselves you'll understand it all in no time.
The Bush-Cheney operatives sent hundreds of thousands of letters marked "Do not forward" to voters' homes. Letters returned ("caged") were used as evidence to block these voters' right to cast a ballot on grounds they were registered at phony addresses. Who were the evil fakers? Homeless men, students on vacation and - you got to love this - American soldiers. Oh yeah: most of them are Black voters.
Why weren't these African-American voters home when the Republican letters arrived? The homeless men were on park benches, the students were on vacation - and the soldiers were overseas. Go to Baghdad, lose your vote. Mission Accomplished.
How do I know? I have the caging lists...
I have them because they are attached to the emails Rove insists can't be found. I have the emails. 500 of them - sent to our team at BBC after the Rove-bots accidentally sent them to a web domain owned by our friend John Wooden.
Here's what you need to know - and the Committee would have discovered, if only they'd asked:
1. 'Caging' voters is a crime, a go-to-jail felony. 2. Griffin wasn't "involved" in the caging, Ms. Goodling. Griffin, Rove's right-hand man (right-hand claw), was directing the illegal purge and challenge campaign. How do I know? It's in the email I got. Thanks. And it's posted above. 3. On December 7, 2006, the ragin', cagin' Griffin was named, on Rove's personal demand, US Attorney for Arkansas. Perpetrator became prosecutor.
More to come on this. Tune into the Naked Zoo on 90.5FM KWMR.org for more...
Stay smiling and as always...
Sunday, January 14, 2007
It was 40 Years Ago today...
This post pretty much speaks for itself. A huge thank goes out to our buddy Chris Breyer for forwarding this along:)
LBJ, Jan. 10, 1967: We have chosen to fight a limited war in
Stay dry and as always...
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Best On-line Story EVER!
HOW MANY 12-YEAR-OLDS I COULD BEAT UP BEFORE THEY OVERTOOK ME.
BY MATT SCHWEIGER
- - - -
Your average 12-year-old boy is about 5 feet tall, weighs in the area of a buck-fifteen, and has developed little muscle mass.
I am 21, approximately 6 feet tall, tip the scales at an even 180, and have a moderately athletic and muscular build.
Judging on these statistics and what I assume would be a natural ferocity that would spring forth in a moment of physical danger, I estimate that I could beat up seven 12-year-olds before they overtook me. Of course, these would have to be the aforementioned average-sized 12-year-olds. Future linebackers, NBA players, and all Scandinavian children would throw off this equation. On the flip side, if these were some wimpy, four-square-playing, future-jockey 12-year-olds, I imagine the number would skyrocket to anywhere between 12 and 15. It's simple exponential math.
This is also assuming that my opponents are smart enough to organize themselves into a circular attack instead of coming at me one by one. If it were an individual, king-of-the-mountain battle royale, I could endlessly pummel 12-year-olds without mercy. But we're assuming at least a sixth-grade education in a marginal public school as well as some exposure to kung-fu movies, so these kids would form a circle.
However, using my quick wits, I would charge one portion of the circle, landing a devastating blow on the unlucky individual, which would make the others proceed with hesitancy. One on one, I feel like I could deliver a lot of punishment to a 12-year-old. There would be one or two brave ones who would jump on my back, distracting me and thus enabling the others to attack. At best, I could fight off the two heroes on my back and maybe take out four on the ground before I was felled by fatigue and numerous kicks to my groin and shins. This would equal a grand total of seven.
My friend Brian, who stands about 6 feet 2 inches and is stronger than myself, estimates that he could take down a dozen 12-year-olds. I find this hard to believe, but he has been in a fight with people his own age and is a little taller, making groin shots more difficult. Brian's reach is much longer than mine as well, which is a huge advantage. If you can land solid shots from a distance longer than the 12-year-olds' legs, there is no need to worry about groin kicks.
He says he would attack one portion of the circle in a fury, scaring off any would-be heroes who wanted to jump on his back and sacrifice themselves for the group. Then he would deal massive blows until fatigue and the inevitable groin shots brought him to the ground. I told him I'd give him nine or ten, but even for the above-average Brian, taking down a dozen 12-year-olds seems like a lot.
If it weren't for the law and my own morals, we could put these pressing questions to rest. Alas, these barriers still stand in our way.
I'm a pacifist anyway.
Stay Pacifistic and as always...
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
How much did you say this picture cost?
Friday, December 01, 2006
Sometimes you just gotta smile.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
The Smiling Face of Facism
Good Morning, boys and girls. That smiling and attractive fellow is Newt Gingrich who probably would like to be President of the United States beginning in January 2009. He "hasn't made up his mind" yet, of course, but he does turn up on CSPAN's "Road to the White House" with the rest of the hopefuls and otherwise acts like a presidential candidate.
So why are we using the "F" word for Mr. Gingrich ? Easy. Because of a report from the Vermont Union Leader today in which he calls for "changes to the rules" regarding Free Speech to help fight terror. Changes are needed, he says, "before we lose a city".
Mr. Gingrich did not spell out the connection between Free Speech as protected by the Constitution and the loss of a city, nor how his unspecified changes might avoid this result. We don't care.
It could not matter less what price in freedom Mr. Gingrich thinks it appropriate for us to pay for some illusory security. Freedom of speech is not a noted feature of Russia and the restrictions did not prevent the Beslan school outrage.
Restrictions on freedom are never to protect the people and always to protect the privilege of the few.
Mr. Gingrich had some other dishonest things to say about free speech. He attacked campaign finance reform and said it did little to stem "attack ads". Actually, the ill that campaign finance reform is designed to deal with is corruption of public officials.
All right class, take a pen or a pencil or a crayon or a sharpie or whatever you have and draw a clear line through the name "Newt Gingrich" on your list of presidential candidates for 2008. And if any of your mommies or daddies are in a position to have Mr. Gingrich identified as an Al Quaeda operative, subjected to extraordinary rendition and transported to Egypt for a few months, we would all be grateful.