Crux

Get on the phone! A letter will take up to 60 days to reach your Senator because of anthrax screening. Email is completely jammed. CALL YOUR SENATORS NOW TOLL-FREE AT 800-828-0498, 800-459-1887 OR 800-614-2803 AND TELL THEM TO FILIBUSTER If the toll-free numbers are jammed, then you can call Senator Murray in Washington D.C. at (202)224-2621. Senator Cantwell's number in the Capitol is (202)224-3441. It is now being reported, however, that Democrats conceded the option to filibuster in exchange for a Republican agreement to consider four Deomcratic amendments to the bill. The amendments would curtail the police-state powers being pushed by the Republicans. As I write, three of the four amendments have been voted down. It's looking like Bush will get his get-out-of-jail-free card and America will get screwed. Turn out the vote. Vote out the Neocons. Vote Democratic.

As a complacent American public now stands idly by, the United States Congress is now passing law that will move toward turning the United States into a police state -- never mind Canada! The law now being passed will revoke habeas corpus, sanction domestic spying, and legalize the torture of prisoners. Ironically, and in contrast to the apparent situation created by the Canadian hate-propaganda laws, not even a throught-crime charge such as "hate-speech" will be required to effect an arrest and imprisonment under the new American law: The accuser need only point a finger and whisper the word "enemy." "Rushing Off a Cliff"

I got a lump of coal and an owner's demo on DVD for learning how to beat out the brains of a non-virgin bride upon her mother's doorstep. And all I wanted was instructions on how to become gay. Fukin phoney-ass bastards fuked me over.

lawyers, guns, and mofa

what is the new belltown branch of the mounties?

On the other hand, it seems *Bill* knew who he was dealing with when asked on Fox News Sunday why he didn't "do more to put bin Laden and Al Qaeda out of business" when he was president: Chris Wallace never did tell the truth. As it is, in its 34 interviews with senior Bush administration officials, not once has Fox News Sunday asked those questions. In only one interview, with Donald Rumsfeld on 2004 March 28, did Wallace ask any questions whatsoever about the administration's pre 9-11 committment to fighting terrorism. Rumsfeld replied simply, "It sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority." Out of this, once again, these questions remain: Why did the Bush administration not try to do anything about Al Qaeda and bin Laden during the eight months prior to 9-11? Why did the Bush administration discontinue the Clinton anti-terror program? Why did the Bush administration ignore Clinton's battle plans to attack the Taliban and bin Laden, even after the FBI and CIA certified that Al Qaeda had attacked the United States Navy?

Oh fuk! It was like, man, there I was dancing toe-to-toe with the Fuher, and I said, like, "Hey there Adolf baby! What's up with all this crap about Jews n shit? Puttin 'em in ovens and all that? You are such a fukin piece of shit! Why don't you just be nice?" And then, next thing I know, the Fuher is tellin' efferbody that I'm an appeasor and a fornicator and a maggot-kyke and a no-good enemy of the fatherland and all that shit. Can ya fukin believe it?

Anybody have the actual content of the Chavez speech? And what's up with the reports that he received "warm ovations" while Bush got the cold shoulder? What did the Venezuelan president actually say?

Meanwhile, the book that the brash Venezuelan president waved through the rhetorical fumes, Noam Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival -- America's Quest for Global Dominance, rose from relative obscurity in the American marketplace to become the bestseller at Amazon within 36 hours. Seattle PI: "Chavez Launches Bush Broadside at U.N"

Taxi

Imagine the White House.

.

So the allegation is that Google is marketing its resources to GOP astroturf opps in DC? A plausible micro-timeline for the finest democracy money can buy: 1) Google is your friend. 2) Google is your email. 3) Your email is GOP astroturf. Whatever the case, the OP is duly noted, thanks for the heads up. -mC

Schmuff

As a regular listener to programs broadcast over the Air America Radio network, I'm glad that the upstart progressive media enterprise does not appear to be "going under." Understandably, political hacks on the right are expressing a snide glee over the easy rumor-mill material provided by news that Air America Radio is reorganizing, but reports that the network faces imminent demise appear to be misrepresentations of the kind we heard when the network started -- and before it started outperforming leading rightwing broadcasters in various broadcast markets. The AAR network continues to gain market share as many of its programs top the ratings in major markets even when competing against lucrative right-wing programs such as those hosted by Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly. When AAR started, a commercial-based progressive-format radio network was said to be unworkable by right-wing pundits for the simple reason that there would be a lack of consumer demand. Earnings, however, exceeded expectations and the network continues to grow and capture an increasing listening audience and respective advertising revenues as needed to attain long-term profitability. Notably, the same rightwing radio pundits who continue to say that AAR ultimately can't succeed because "nobody wants to listen to that stuff" are also pundits who are continuing to lose market share to AAR! While "reorganization" is not unreasonably associated with an impending demise of a business, it's also a process by which successful businesses adapt to growth and changing opportunities. In this case of AAR, the network recently acquired a new CEO to infuse business expertise as needed to sustain continued growth. And now the new CEO is implementing changes she deems prudent. Interestingly, one of the first things she did was fire Jerry Springer -- not a move that anyone in progressive media would consider a defeat! Anyway, two points in conclusion: One, what's going on with AAR now is now apparently a matter of growing pains and not a death gasp. And two, progressive broadcast media has proven commercially viable, and it is therefore here to stay -- regardless of what happens with AAR. Air America Radio. -- Hear it on AM 1090 in Seattle and AM 620 in PDX.

I'm seeing the mentioned “agenda” and background issues differently: Even during Watergate, an investigation to hold a presidential administration accountable did not require the entire Congress. To perform oversight as a check on the power of the executive branch, the Congress has long since worked out efficient procedures for conducting this historic function. If the Dems gain a majority during the midterms, look for not the whole Congress but a committee of six to commence investigation and hearings as required. I don’t think anybody can rectify the consequences of the false-conservative fiscal policies of the Bush administration in a couple years. Our kids will be paying for it, sad to say. We can, however, start turning things around toward a fiscally conservative direction as soon as Americans have chosen representatives who genuinely support such practices. About the wiretap issue, despite all the red herring in the mainstream, it has nothing to do with overseas calls. It's all about calls confined within the borders of the United States. In summary, the complaint is that Bush has been wiretapping Americans in America while refusing to get a search warrant as required by law. The administration admits to this now, but continues to refuse to comply with the law, insisting it has the right to use wiretaps to spy upon any American at anytime and anywhere at will -- no warrants, no oversight, no nothing but unchecked power. I submit that the courts and a majority of voters disagree with the Bush position, but it will take action by Congress to do something about it. The "secret bank transactions" issue is another red herring, in my opinion. Nobody is really complaining about the monitoring of bank transactions, secret or otherwise. But there is concern about the absence of oversight and unchecked power, as the information gained can be misused against domestic political enemies – a pitfall for which lessons were learned during the Nixon administration.

Rationale? One ding a lingy too many

You appear to be equivocating the numerous reports of criminal activity by our government with some kind of supermarket tabloid gossip – your apparent selection of reading material might explain that confusing “otherworldly” dementia you seem to be complaining about. Let me assure you that here in America several ongoing criminal practices by the Republican government have already been recently identified in federal courts and anybody who has been paying attention knows this. It’s no secret, and the only silence is that of the Republican-controlled Congress and the right-wing media moguls for whom you advised imprisonment and fines. All that aside, the silence from the Republican Congress over the past six years has enabled the unlawful activities of the Republican government to continue while the Democrats in Congress have consistently been expressly prohibited by the majority rule from conducting hearings on the alleged unlawful activities. As surely as the preponderance of evidence is not only NOT secret but often available in best selling published accounts, the courts have ruled, and anybody who has been paying attention has heard what the courts said. What you hear next, if anything, will be the sound of the other shoe falling with the midterm elections. That is all.

Rationale?

Congressional oversight is a necessary and sufficient condition for the exposure and censure of the alleged abuses committed by Republicans. Congressional oversight will exist if and only if Democratic representatives fill a majority of seats in Congress. If Democratic representatives fill a majority of seats in Congress after the midterm elections, then here will be Congressional oversight. Therefore, if Republicans lose enough seats in Congress during the midterms, alleged abuses will be subject to oversight and Republcans consequently held accountable. Given that our federal courts have already specified the criminal nature of some of those allege abuses in recent decisions, it is reasonable to conclude the shit will hit the fan -- to paraphrase the assertion made by CBS. .

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/maciver/roadview/i90/

Vote to see that.

Speaches come from a can, they were put there by a man

JayB, I'm not sure that Disney/ABC has the right under federal law to unaccountably reserve the public airwaves to broadcast $40 million in free advertising for one exclusive political party. We do have election and political campaign laws, as well as regulations on the fair use of public airwaves for political purposes. While free speech issues are necessarily involved, these laws exist just the same and they have withstood constitutional challenges in the highest courts -- note the successful challenge to the dissemination of propaganda by the Bush adminsitration during its prior term in offfice, for example. I agree that the defamatory and partisan content of the production is certainly NOT grounds by itself for censure, but it is compelling evidence that the show literally comprises political advertising and that Disney/ABC is therefore acting in violation of existing election laws and fair-use provisions enforcable by the FCC. Please note that this production includes plans to disseminate the information as a historical account to schools accompanied by "educational materials" to be sent out to 100,000 highschool teachers. While you may remain unpersuaded by my statements in regard to the free speech issues, I think you will concur that this is an extraordinary event! The show has yet to be aired, but the show about the show, the metashow, if you will, is already impressive and has already incited an amazing amount of political discourse on the Internet and in broadcast and cable news media. Even as a liberal, I have followed developments in the metashow on the conservative FoxNews, and the topography of the media response to criticism has been diverse and intensive even there. Thus we see evidence that "a legion of private citizens, columnists, etc," is indeed working hard to expose the apparent travesty. For whatever it's worth, one view from the political left: http://www.usalone.com/stacey/pnum493.php Cheers

????Are you serious???? Read back to yourself what you just wrote above. Tell it to Dan Rather. Despite your past attempts to claim the middle ground, you are exposed as a political hack. Nothing wrong with choosing sides - just be honest with yourself (and others) about it. I find it telling that you, and those like you, claim to be the frontline protectors of free speech and press....until that freedom upsets you in some way. TR Your rebuttal is interesting and apparently I failed to distinguish Michael Moore’s independent film from the mainstream production now in question. For me, the contrast is self evident, but I concede that both works arguably comprise propaganda related to 9/11. About the Disney work, may it suffice to contrast it by observing that it is a major media ($40 million) dramatization (not a collection of sound bites) of events leading up to 9/11 and it will be broadcast over the public air waves. Moreover, to extend its “lessons” into schools, "educational materials" have been prepared for distribution to 100,000 high school teachers. Thus, the “docudrama” really is being delivered as a history lesson even though producers admit it is fictional. Imagine, for contrast, that the Moore film was produced on this scale, that it comprised fictional Hollywood enactments presented as historical accounts, and that it was also pumped into schools as being educational material. For many people who think the ABC presentation is an overt falsification and politicization of the facts about the centrally tragic 9/11 event, this is an upsetting development. All the specific accounts I’ve found about the movie’s contents indicate its producers insisted on weaving patently false accounts – “content that is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate” – about the things that were done or said prior to the 9/11 attacks and about the findings of the 9/11 commission. Because extreme damage is attributed to similar misrepresentations of fact in our nation’s recent history – most particularly by the false linking of Iraq with 9/11 – I think the apprehension being voiced is understandable and not necessarily a reflection of extreme political bias. According to Disney/ABC the movie in question was developed in cooperation with over 300 right-wing bloggers and political conservatives who viewed screenings and provided input.. But from the left all reports are that not one liberal or progressive has been allowed to view the movie nor participate in its development. In response to leaked transcripts, the movie has received scathing criticism from the left, but none from the right. The movie was written by Cyrus Nowrasteh, who appears to be regarded on the left as being a conservative political hack. Rush Limbaugh, the somewhat controversial right-winger who happens to be a friend of the screenwriter, advised in the production of the movie and now gushes praise for the work but yesterday boasted the movie says something quite different from what is stated in the report by the 9/11 Commission – and all the while the movie is being presented as a “docudrama” that is based on the 9/11 Report. I think what is exposed here is nothing about my own irrelevant and somewhat ordinary political views, but the fact that Disney/ABC is taking a political position on 9/11. That will be all.