rmcgcreative
THE NBY FORUMS
RMcG Message Board


WILL RANT FOR FOOD!
PLEASE HELP ME KEEP NBY ALIVE!


NBY EXCLUSIVE!
Hundreds Line Up For Jobs Created in Wake of Tiger Attack

Despite the questionable future of a multi-million dollar Vegas stage show following the near-fatal tiger attack on enter-trainer Roy Horn, hundreds of Democrats crossed the California border to Sodom on The Sands Thursday, hoping to earn one last wage in the most part-time of part time jobs.

Citing the election of steroid-addled moron Arnold Schwarzenegger to the California governorship as further evidence of the fall of America as we know it, Democrats offered themselves up in droves to have their heads bitten off live on stage, rather than endure a life under GOP control.

"It is a good thing to help keep this show going," said job seeker Starbuck Johansen. "My grandmother hadn't even seen it yet, and we were all going to chip in and send her to the show over Thanksgivingholiday. Now, the show can go on, y'know, for Grandma. After all, she voted for that prick, Schwarzenegger! Now she can watch her little Sonny get eaten alive as result of her decision!"

It is not only political idealism that motivates the twenty-four year old Johansen, unemployed since his firm closed and sent 1,200 jobs oversees eighteen months ago. "With training, the gig only lasts about a week and a half. But on that final night, when you step into that ring with a thousand pound cat and get your head bit off, there's no bigger rush."

The rush of quick cash and an easy out, say some critics, a claim Johansen doesn't entirely dismiss.

"Yeah, there's the money," he admits. "When it's all over, they send my wife a check for $750 bucks. That's good cake for ten days work! I got a wife and kid, man! I can't move to India or China just to make ends meet!

"Plus, whatever's in the afterlife can't be as bad as hearing one more Fox News story on the brilliance of Bush's halo," Johansen pointedly adds, clearly agitated. "Hell, seeing those massive jaws chomp down around my skull will be sweet relief!"

A spokesman for the show pointed out that Mirage Resorts, legal owner of the production, will also pay for proper burial of whatever parts of the part-time employees remain uneaten by the rare white tiger.

But not everyone is happy with this new arrangement. Right-wing Christian groups are decrying the get-eaten-for-pay scheme as just one more way that liberal Democrats are looking for a free ride.

"It's just like them!" said Lurleen Tweebles of Double Wide Springs. "Us good Christians realize that, like Job, you know, in the Bible? Well, we've all got to suffer to prove our faith to the GOP. Those kids gettin' their heads bit off are looking for a quick trip to paradise, but neither Arnold nor even the Good Lord can grant you that. You got to listen to Bush and the GOP to show you The Way!"

"We're all on a level playing field now," says Tweebles. "Now that that nice Mr. Ashcroft can read our e-mails and the cable man can spy on domestic evil-doing, it's going to be a lot harder for liberal perverts to get away with those liberal pervert things they do. That can only be good for America!"

"Oh," she added, as if recalling a forgotten line from a script, "and more tax cuts, too." NBY


POLL: MOST CALIFORNIANS SUPPORT NEW GOVERNATOR

Poll points to strong leadership, ability to morph into cyborg time traveling robot killer, as key assets.

NBY EXCLUSIVE - By Atman Too

A new poll by the firm of Rook, Nemesys & Cozen indicates strong support for the Republican governor’s performance, barely 72 hours into his first term in the Sacramento state house. Californian’s gave the nascent neocon thumbs-up on his handling of the economy, as well as foreign policy and human rights, giving particularly high marks for his efforts to protect the state from time traveling robots.

“Gray Davis got the state all jaggedy,” explained Avocado Moonbeam, one of the many Californians to switch party affiliation in order to cast a vote for the steroid addled moron from Austria. “He just spittin’ booty cheddar, but Arnie will be hella kickin!”

The RNC poll showed that nearly 67% of the people who voted for Schwarzenegger realized what they were doing. Curiously, nearly 22% think the former body builder should continue doing his stage show, despite the mauling of partner Roy Horn. 82% of respondents supported Schwarzenegger for not raising taxes since he took office, and asked if they could get a quick loan, y’know, just until pay day.

Issues of national and global importance were also on the minds of the voters Tuesday, as evidenced by the strong approval numbers they gave Schwarzenegger for his handling of the Iraq crisis. “Saddam was a bad man, and was preparing to attack California,” offered Celia Bushpig of Loma Linda. “If Saddam tries anything, Arnold can morph into a cyborg and protect us. That is something I look for in a governor.” It appears most other voters agree. A stunning majority, 94%, said they think Schwarzenegger could take Saddam in hand-to-hand combat.

When asked who would have the edge if weapons of mass destruction were involved, respondents were not so sure, with only 42% giving Schwarzenegger the nod. Carmel Dudek of Hermosa Beach was concerned about the governator’s ability to reconstitute should he be hit with a nuclear tipped ICBM. “Arnie’s tough,” she said, “but, I’m not so sure he’d fare well with a direct hit. Maybe if it got him in the head he’s be okay, but a gut shot? Face it, those abs aren’t what they used to be! Maria’s been feeding him too much of that corned beef and cabbage shit. You know, Kennedy food.”

Overall, RNC polling says these numbers bode well Schwarzenegger. Last minute charges of groping and sexual misconduct appear to have been successfully laughed off by the republicans. They cite the pResident’s recent support of the Governor-elect. In a statement issued by the White House press office, Bush said “I stand fully behind Mr. Schwarzenegger. I think he’ll do a good job, because he is a good man, and that is good for the state of California.”

Spokesman Scott McClellan was quick to clarify. “Well, actually, the president stands a little to the back left of Governor-elect Schwarzenegger. Off to the side just slightly, half out of frame. Over by the flags, kinda wrapped up in them. Just until Karl tells him we’ve got the groping thing under control. Then he might even stand right up there next to him. On a box, of course.” NBY



Least Competent Criminals

We hear there may be some job openings in DC soon

Florida wildlife officials, suspecting that Israel A. Cervantes was illegally shooting at deer from his car in the Ocala National Forest in August, asked to inspect his home freezer for stored meat, and, professing innocence, Cervantes agreed. There was no deer meat, but apparently Cervantes forgot about the pound of marijuana in the freezer, and he was arrested. [Fort Myers News-Press-AP, 8- 12-03]

William Penny was arrested in Greenwood, Ind., in August, putting a halt to his alleged identity-theft business. He was caught because, three times in a three-day period, he had aroused suspicion of several people in a neighborhood by approaching a certain ATM on foot, carrying a motorcycle helmet, donning the helmet as he neared the ATM's camera, making a withdrawal (with someone else's ID, allegedly), walking away, and then removing the helmet.[WISH-TV (Indianapolis), 8-5-03]

*Source: News Of The Weird


Conservatives need to redefine the meaning of hypocrisy

Conservatives have experienced political whiplash this week, as an actor was voted Governor of what is arguably the most important state in the union, and the opinionated conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh hit the trifecta of racism, drug addiction and a criminal investigation.

Our sympathies go out to Mr. Limbaugh for getting caught.

Meanwhile, conservative apologists across the nation are busily re-writing their "Righteous Indignation" mantras, suddenly faced with the fact that two major issues they've railed against for the last umpteen years have once again bitten one of their own on the tushy.

Of course, as we good conservatives know, conservatives only make "honest mistakes." While liberals deliberately take drugs and deliberately fawn over brain-dead actors, we conservatives have been blessed by the Good Lord above to completely disconnect from the reality of any given situation.

Rush's drug use was because of the severely addictive nature of the drugs he was taking. Arnold is a strong leader in a state yearning for change.

Tonight I ask each of you, gentle readers, to say a prayer for Mr. Limbaugh, and ask God to transfer his horrible addiction to Wesley Clark or Howard Dean. In the meantime, keep burning your Barbara Streisand albums and sticking pins in your Jeannine Garafolo dolls.

If we are ever to wipe the scourge of hypocrisy from American politics, it is up to each and every one of us as conservatives to come up with some other term for bad stuff when we get caught. With so many of us in the statehouses and Washington, incidents like this are bound to increase.

Let the liberals burn in hell if they want to. We're going to Disneyland! NBY

JOHN DEAN ASKS:
IS LYING ABOUT THE REASON FOR WAR AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE?

CLICK HERE FOR ESSAY

THE RIGHT JUST AIN'T RIGHT!
An educated electorate is the right-wing's worst nightmare! Learn their tricks and tactics in this enlightening slide presentation...
CLICK HERE FOR SLIDE SHOW







Volume 2, Number 7
"HIGHS & LOW"
10.10.03

• CONDI RICE: FAILING UPWARD
THE SELF-LIMITING SUPERPOWER
• CONYERS LETTER SEEKING ROVE'S RESIGNATION
• WHAT REAL PEOPLE ARE SAYING...
• ACTIVIST JOURNAL: WHAT'S A DISSIDENT TO DO?
• ARI'S SOILED BRIEFS: REDEFINING HYPOCRISY

NBY DEEP THOUGHT:
"California's recall -- a riot of millionaires masquerading as a 'revolt of the people'."
- George Will

CONDI RICE: FAILING UPWARD

This commentary from TNR was written by Lawrence F. Kaplan .

This week's creation of a White House Iraq Stabilization Group, whose function, according to President Bush, will be "to coordinate efforts, interagency efforts," was unanimously interpreted by the press as a slap at Donald Rumsfeld. And for good reason. The defense department will be ceding a measure of control to the Iraq Stabilization group, which will consist of counterterrorism, economic development, political affairs, and communications sub-groups, all run by National Security Council (NSC) officials.

Still, this hardly qualifies as a ringing endorsement of Condoleezza Rice's tenure as national security adviser. In an attempt to downplay the significance of the bureaucratic shift, Rumsfeld admonished an interviewer that the memo establishing the Iraq Stabilization Group "says the NSC is going to do that which it is chartered to do." He's right: The media's infatuation with Rice notwithstanding, the very need to restate her formal duties in an interagency memo confirms that she has failed to perform the most basic functions of a national security adviser. And that, in turn, accounts for much of why America's occupation of Iraq appears to be coming apart at the seams.


"The media's infatuation with Rice notwithstanding, the very need to restate her formal duties in an interagency memo confirms that she has failed to perform the most basic functions of a national security adviser."

There is a backstory here. When it comes to postwar Iraq, there is enough blame, as Robert Kennedy used to say about Vietnam, to go around. Much of that blame rightly accrues to the Defense Department, which at times seems to approach the postwar as a theological exercise -- over-investing in unreliable Iraqi proxies, committing insufficient numbers of U.S. troops, and, in a reprise of Saigon's five-o'clock follies, regularly assuring us that all has gone according to plan. It has not. But the fault hardly rests with the Pentagon alone. The White House -- and, specifically, the NSC -- bears ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the war in Iraq and its aftermath. It does so because it is the responsibility of the president and his national security adviser to have the final say on matters of foreign and defense policy and, as such, to mediate the frequent disputes between State and Defense. They have done neither.

Rather than coordinate the positions of the State and Defense departments, Rice has been overpowered by them. On Iran, North Korea, the United Nations, and Iraq, the United States has not one, but two policies. As a result, issues that normally would be settled far down the bureaucratic food chain often go unresolved until they capture the attention of cabinet-rank officials in principals' meetings. And, even then, administration officials claim that Secretary of State Colin Powell and Rumsfeld routinely revert to their respective and diametrically opposed positions as soon as they walk out the door. Compounding the problem has been Rice's reluctance to delegate to NSC staff members, and her apparent inability to balance her role as the president's adviser with her role as interagency referee. No doubt, the statures of Powell and Rumsfeld make her task more difficult. And, no doubt, when it comes to the particulars of postwar Iraq, the president may not evince much in the way of firmly-held convictions. Still, Rice has been on the job for nearly three years.

The establishment of an Iraq Stabilization Group does nothing to address these fundamental problems. To begin with, the motives behind its creation -- coming as it does on the eve of a vote by Congress, whose members have demanded some evidence of competence in the management of Iraq's affairs, on Iraq funding -- are transparently political. None of this would matter if the results weren't purely cosmetic. But they are. The Iraq Stabilization Group is but the latest of dozens of Iraq "groups," each adding a new layer of bureaucracy to the thicket. True, the new organization will replace an "executive steering group" composed of assistant secretaries with a group of undersecretaries, a bona fide upgrade. But even undersecretaries do nothing without the direction of their superiors.

Indeed, so long as Rumsfeld and Powell occupy their respective posts, no amount of bureaucratic reshuffling will settle the ideological disputes that cripple the administration. Those disputes persist even today. So much so that Powell has threatened to draft reluctant foreign service officers for Iraq duty, while for their part, Defense Department officials have vowed to block certain State Department hands from serving in Iraq. The obstacles here aren't bureaucratic. They're philosophical. And we don't need a committee to resolve them. We need a national security adviser. SOURCE

Return To Top of Page



THE SELF-LIMITING SUPERPOWER
T
he only force capable of checking the excesses of the world's lone superpower is the American public.

By John Feffer, TomPaine.com

If the laws of physics apply to geopolitics, the U.S. empire will continue to march forward until met with an equal but opposite force. The Bush administration sees no such hindrances on the horizon. No matter that the Chinese outnumber us five to one, the European Union's economy nearly rivals ours, Russia still has nukes aplenty, or the "international community" routinely inveighs against our unilateral tendencies. The Chinese are more than a decade away from superpowerdom, the euro is not (yet) the international currency of choice, Russia can barely control domestic affairs much less circumstances beyond its borders, and the "international community," like the Pope, commands no divisions.

This preponderance of U.S. power and its largely unchecked exercise has, not surprisingly, generated a good deal of hostility and a lesser quantity of constructive suggestions. A limitless war on terrorism and the relentless targeting of one region after another for preemptive action make our allies uneasy, particularly when it involves their treasuries and their body bags. The French and Germans are pushing for a more multilateral approach in Iraq. The Russians are urging greater diplomatic adroitness in Iran. The South Koreans are pleading for a non-military solution to the standoff with North Korea.


"If there is no significant external check on the imperial ambitions of the United States -- aside from those that arise from the sheer messiness of reality such as the sovereign aspirations of Iraqis or the impossibility of taking out North Korea's dispersed nuclear facilities with "surgical" strikes -- we must look elsewhere for the force that will establish limits. We must turn our gaze inward -- to the American public itself.

Some of the recommendations are more far-reaching. Take, for instance, a recent comment by Janusz Onyszkiewicz. This former Polish foreign minister and a long time friend of America called on Washington to become a "self-limiting superpower."

The phrase "self-limiting" has particular resonance for the Poles. During the 1980s, Polish dissidents rallied around the concept of a "self-limiting revolution." The pragmatists in the immensely popular Solidarity trade union chose to avoid making maximal demands that might put the Polish communist government in the awkward position of "inviting" Soviet troops into the country to quell disorder. Although commanding the sympathies of the vast majority of the population – and thus enjoying preponderant though largely unexercised power – Solidarity recognized that its actions could have devastating consequences. It decided to pull its political punches and seek revolutionary change through evolutionary means.

Onyszkiewicz and others would no doubt like to see the current team in Washington return to their conservative roots and become reacquainted with the virtues of restraint. The Bush administration will not voluntarily absorb this particular Polish wisdom. The Soviet Union is no longer a threat, and no single country has taken its place. An ethos of restraint runs counter to the habits of empires, which rule by fear and force compared to the "soft power" of mere hegemons. And, perhaps most importantly, the Bush team subscribes to the two doctrines of American exceptionalism. They believe that America is an exception to such historical trends as the overreach and collapse of empires. They also believe that the exceptional American model should be the standard operating system for humanity – imposed Microsoft-style if necessary.

If there is no significant external check on the imperial ambitions of the United States – aside from those that arise from the sheer messiness of reality such as the sovereign aspirations of Iraqis or the impossibility of taking out North Korea's dispersed nuclear facilities with "surgical" strikes – we must look elsewhere for the force that will establish limits. We must turn our gaze inward – to the American public itself.

It is a bitter irony that the citizens of the most powerful country in the world – and thus, indirectly, the shapers of U.S. foreign policy – are notoriously ill-informed about the outside world. We don't speak foreign languages; we restrict our travel abroad to cloistered resorts; we get our information about the world, if at all, from magazines (Time, Newsweek) and evening TV news programs that have gradually cut back on foreign coverage. It is no surprise, then, that seven out of ten American citizens, according to a Washington Post poll, continue to erroneously connect the dots between Saddam and 9/11

A slim majority of Americans still support the decision to go to war in Iraq. Whether out of ignorance or knowledge, however, Americans do not take a fancy to empire. As such, the limits of American empire will be set not in the sands of Iraq but in the ballot boxes of the American heartland.

According to a Pew Research Center poll from Sept. 23, a majority of Americans opposes the price tag for occupying Iraq (59 percent) and favors a significant role for the U.N. in rebuilding the country (70 percent). In a Pew poll from September 4, three-quarters of Americans believe we live in a more dangerous world two years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 – this after billions spent on two wars, a significant increase in military spending overall, and a strong go-it-alone approach. In addition, according to a Newsweek poll from September, 70 percent of Americans believe that the cost of the war in Iraq is hurting the economy – a linkage that will become all the more salient as the economy once again becomes the electoral issue.

In perhaps the most extensive tracking of American attitudes toward empire, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) discovered in February 2003 that only 12 percent of Americans think that the United States should "continue to be the preeminent world leader in solving international problem" compared to 76 percent who support working with other countries, a finding that was remarkably consistent over the previous two and a half years of Bush's tenure. In a subsequent April 2003 poll, PIPA found that a strong majority (62 percent) believes that the United States acts as world's policeman more often than it should. These poll results, coming before the costs of the Iraq war hit the headlines, suggest that a reluctance to assume the mantle of empire is not solely a pocketbook issue.

More critically, these polls reveal that the current leadership in Washington has lost sight of what 19th century presidents often described as "the affections of the people." As James Buchanan declared in his last state of the union address in 1860, "The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion.... If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish." Our empire similarly rests upon public opinion, and the coercive powers currently deployed to remake the world in our own image can never enjoy the general affections of the American people.

The limits on American power will not be imposed by another imperial power nor will the scales fall from our leaders' eyes. We the people must impose and will impose these limits by ourselves.

That's not just what one Pole suggests. It's what all the polls suggest.

Return To Top of Page


A CALL FOR KARL ROVE'S RESIGNATION
By Rep. John Conyers, Jr.

Dear Mr. Rove:

I write to ask you to resign from the White House staff. Recent press reports have indicated that, while you may or may not have been the source of the Robert Novak column which revealed the status and name of a covert operative, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, you were involved in a subsequent effort to push this classified information to other reporters and give it even wider currency. This itself may be a federal crime, but regardless of that fact, your actions are morally indefensible. In my view, it is shameful and unethical that an Administration that promised to govern with "honor and integrity" and "change the tone" in Washington has now engaged in an orchestrated campaign to smear and intimidate truth-telling critics, placing them in possible physical harm and impairing the efforts and operations of the CIA.

Recent reports indicate that you told the journalist, Chris Matthews, and perhaps others, that Mr. Wilson's wife and her undercover status were "fair game." Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, Oct. 13, 2003. Since these initial allegations have arisen, neither the White House nor your office have denied your involvement in furthering the leak. Repeated press inquiries into this matter have been rebuffed with technical jargon and narrow legalisms, instead of broader ethical issues. Indeed, in the same article it appears a White House source acknowledged that you contacted Matthews and other journalists, indicating that "it was reasonable to discuss who sent Wilson to Niger."

It should be noted that these actions may well have violated 18 U.S.C. - 793, which prohibits the willful or grossly negligent distribution of national defense information that could possibly be used against the United States. The law states that even if you lawfully knew of Mr. Wilson's wife's status, you were obliged to come forward and report the press leak to the proper authorities – not inflame the situation by encouraging further dissemination. 18 U.S.C. - 793(f). Larger than whether any one statute can be read to find criminal responsibility is the issue of whether officials of your stature will be allowed to use their influence to intimidate whistle-blowers.

Over three decades ago, our nation was scarred by an Administration that would stop at nothing to smear and intimidate its critics. I do not believe the Nation will countenance a repeat of such activities. For your role in this campaign, I would ask that you resign immediately.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Minority Member

cc: The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary

Return To Top of Page


WHAT REAL PEOPLE ARE SAYING:
What kind of person does it take to vote Republican? And what happens next when we can't even vote the bums out?

What they're saying about the BushCo Iraq marketing campaign...

We've all heard how Bush has been whining lately that the media "filter" is leaving out all the progress being made in Iraq...

Well, here's the counter-argument: Whatever progress is being made, (and brother, it ain't a lot!) no progress is worth the cost in American boys and girls lives. Over 300 dead to get the lights back on in Iraq! (Not to mention we were the ones that put 'em out in the first place.)

What, a couple of hundred arms and legs to get the water running again? (Not to mention several billion spent that we could use right here)

No, Mr. pResident, whatever "accomplishments" you may lay claim to, they are overshadowed by the blood it cost to acheive them.

Posted on DU Forums by "rooddood743" Click here for original message.


What they're saying about voting Republican...

A co-worker was grousing about her boyfriend voting Republican. She said the reason he gives for supporting the GOP is he wants to be rich. (I am NOT making this up.)

I asked her if he played the lottery.

She said no.

"Why not?" I asked.

"He says it is a sucker's bet?"

"Really?" I replied. "Then the next time the subject of the GOP and his support for it because he wants to be rich comes up, remind him why he doesn't play the lottery. Then, when he asks what that has to do with it, point out that while the lottery is sold with the idea that "anyone" can win, they don't lie and tell you everyone can. They can't. There would not be enough money. Instead, everyone contributes to the kitty, and one or two lucky people win. "Now," I continued, "if it is logical to understand that not everyone can win the lottery because it is an impossibility, why is it then logical to assume that if you support the GOP you will become rich? After all, the GOP is not going to hand you the money. Further, the people who are rich stay rich by hoarding the wealth there is. And as much money as there is, it, like so many things, is finite. There is only so much to go around. "Put another way, if all the money - or more accurately, all the wealth there is - was spread around evenly, would there really be any rich people left? "It's like the lottery. Only a few ever win, but the GOP sells it like everyone will. It's a sucker bet..."

Posted on the Titty Board by "searching_elephants." Click here for original message.


What they're saying about Getting Involved...

In the post-recall mess, everyone got right to work figuring out the next move, analyzing returns, etc. with a minimum of crying in our beer and finger pointing. (Hey we're allowed a little whining).

You are now seasoned Dem campaigners. Just like the pro's, you came in the next day, read the paper, put on a cup of coffee and started figuring out what to do next.

This stuff is ungodly painful and frightening. I'm not a well versed historian, but I'd venture to say this is the biggest threat to democracy from within our country since the civil war. To see all of you and those on other forums stand firm and look the beast in the eyes and not blink - well, its just great.

Not that long ago, many our age thought of politics as nasty or boring, but we've learned to become part of the system and make it ours. Our generation is learning to do the hard work of leading our own country, just like others have done before. Good work, everyone. You're amazing.

Posted on BartCop Forums by "demgirl." Click here for original message.


I don't want to be a drag here, but I can't seem to help it. I am mentally drained. Despondent is a good word, after the Texas redistricting, the California shenanigans, Iraq, our complacent media, our whipped Democratic leadership, it goes on and on. I wish I knew how to get out of this funk. Time is the only cure. That, and maybe a good pep talk. But I am feeling so demoralized as to be practically speechless. I don't want to listen to the radio, all bad news. I don't want to watch TV, mostly mindless drivel and propaganda. I don't want to read the newspaper, mostly bad news and murder. I've been here before, and dammit, I'm back again. Perhaps I'll finally take that Zoloft I've been keeping in my desk.

I read what Kerry said, and while my intellectual mind can agree that this is a critical time for Democrats, I just can't seem to muster up the energy. I'm sorry. They say timing is everything, and I guess mine sucks.

So I am stepping back from this and all Forums for awhile. I've always been a moody mo-fo, and I'm reaching a new (Ralph) nadir. I'll stop now so as not to depress anyone else any further.

See yall later, and good luck. I'm going to go scream now.

Posted on BartCop Forums by "RussBLib." Click here for original message.


What they're saying about The Philadelphia Bug...

Do the electoral Math.

Bush plans on winning all the states he won in 2000 with the exception of Florida but picking up Pennslyvania. The states that Gore won in 2000 will equal 260 electoral votes in 2004. If you add Florida to the mix that gives the Democrats 287 electoral votes. Now take away PA. That gives us 266 votes. Bush gets 272. How is Bush going to win PA. Easy here is how:

Philadelphia in 2000 voted 80.04% to 17.99% for Gore or

449,182 to 100,959. If the Republicans can gain control of the city it can change the vote to 350,000 to 200,000 and that number would be ignored. But it would change the popular vote enough in the state to hand it to Bush.

Is this making sense now? Do you comprehend why Bush had the office of the Mayor Street's office bugged?

Lose that city and Bush wins in 2004. It is that simple. One city can change the entire outcome.

Posted on DU Forums by "CoffeePlease1947." Click here for original message.

Return To Top of Page


WHAT'S A DISSIDENT TO DO?
The next revolution will start online. But what if they pull the plug? Is it possible to "go underground" in the digital age?

RMCG: I started journaling today. I had my little mini-cassette recorder with me, the one I use to verbally jot down ideas that suddenly hit me. This little rant started out as one such idea, and grew into quite an editorial. I'll probably never listen to it or transcribe it, and I honestly don't know how long this journaling thing will last. It just isn't "me." But what I was writing about...well, here's the quicky version.

I was on my way out to a retreat I have in the woods. The 70 minute drive down country roads was particularly nice. The leaves are turning. I stopped at a little market to grab some provisions, and paid for my order in cash. I actually had cash in my pocket. That is an increasingly rare phenomenon with me, as I have pretty much embraced the idea of the VISA check card. That's when it hit me.

In this digital age, where our cell phones report our whereabouts as we crisscross the countryside, where our check cards provide a log of what we bought, (and more disturbingly, where we bought it and at what time), just how the hell would a modern dissident "go underground" these days? This web site is getting noticed. Traffic has increased steadily over the months since I put the political page up. Moveon.org has online petitions. Meetups are coordinated online. Protest rallies are posted on message boards. Independant Woodward & Bernstiens Google up dirt on politicians.

But what do we do when Ashcroft decides the internet is too freewheeling, too open to abuse by the evil doers? And when he ultimately decides that dissent itself is a Patriot Act offense, who has a mimeograph machine in their basement ready to organize a rally?

Just a little something to think about, and just the very beginning of my thoughts on the subject. But, should you start to find yourself thinking of such things as I did, consider the man in the following article, and what must be going through his head every waking moment, wondering whether his tea is mickeyed or if the brake lines on his car are intact. But heroic acts of patriotism are the stuff this great country was made of. I just don't know how they did it all back in the 1700's without even an iMac. Sheesh!


THE INPIRATIONAL STORY OF THE MAN WHO STOOD UP TO SADDAM. AND THEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

By David Talbot, Salon.com

In 1991, President George Bush introduced Joseph Wilson to his war Cabinet, calling the veteran diplomat "a true American hero." By any standard, Wilson deserved such praise. As the senior U.S. diplomat in Iraq during Operation Desert Shield, the massive U.S. military buildup in Saudi Arabia after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, Wilson was responsible for freeing 150 American hostages seized by the Iraqi dictator. Indeed, he was the last U.S. diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein, in August 1990, following Saddam's notorious July 25 meeting with U.S. ambassador April Glaspie, who failed to warn Saddam not to invade Kuwait. Wilson advocated a muscular response to Saddam's aggression, and though he sought a diplomatic solution, supported Operation Desert Storm. During his highly decorated 23-year career, Wilson also held the position of political advisor to the commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces in Europe and was ambassador to Gabon.

In July this year, Wilson staked out another claim to heroism when he revealed in a New York Times piece that Bush administration claims that Saddam was seeking to acquire uranium from the African nation of Niger were known by the Bush administration to be false. In February 2002 Wilson himself had been assigned by the CIA -- acting, ironically, at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney -- to investigate the uranium allegations in an attempt to strengthen the administration's arguments for war. He reported back to his superiors that there was no basis for the claims. But in January 2003, to Wilson's amazement, President Bush made the same discredited claim in hyping the terrifying nuclear threat posed by Saddam. In the New York Times article, Wilson wrote that that "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

Along with a host of other revelations about cherry-picked intelligence, bogus claims about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and arm-twisting from administration officials to find usable evidence, Wilson's bombshell made it clear that the Bush administration had decided to go to war first and come up with the justification for it second. As 9/11 hysteria faded, WMD failed to turn up and the invasion's aftermath turned brutally ugly, the fact that false evidence was used to sell the war became a major political problem for Bush. Questions about his leadership of the "war on terror" -- the heart of his appeal -- became louder. The GOP had to stop the bleeding. A decision was reached that the best way to do that was to take Wilson down. Continues at Salon.com - subscription or free day pass required.

Return To Top of Page


--- FAIR USE NOTICE ---
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. RMcG Creative/NBY is making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml . If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Site design Copr. 2002-2003 Rob McGrath/RMcG. All artwork on this site Copyright Rob McGrath unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.
"Bitch" scrawl, HOO Cares!, International Cheese & Tobacco are trademarks or service marks of fictitious companies or entities...and I own 'em.
All other insignias or trademarks are the property of the respective registrants. PLEASE RESPECT COPYRIGHTS.
HOME | PORTFOLIO | RMcG BIO | COMICS | "BITCH" | MESSAGE BOARD | E-MAIL | STORE | PRIVACY