|
By Ken Brosky
Friday, Mar 14 2008, 02:57 PM
It's nice out, so spend some time outside. But it's going to rain this weekend, too, and before you turn on your TV set and kill a few more brain cells, catch up on these particular treats (I even included a video to help you cope with all the words!)
House passes FISA legislation -- And not only that, it DOES NOT include immunity for the Telecom Companies. Immunity was almost a guarantee until people started getting active and making phone calls and sending out emails. If you were a part of this, then pat yourself on the back. It's a good start.
Climate Protections killed -- by President Bush, of course. Because he believes that a FREE MARKET can regulate pollution on its own without government standards.
No, the Free Market Can't -- An article by Greg Palast about Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who argues that free markets CANNOT regulate their own pollution and are INEFFECTIVE in producing research. Thom Hartmann -- He's in Darfur following the genocide in progress. He's a liberal talk radio host, but of course Milwaukee doesn't have a liberal talk radio station. We're stuck with Mark Belling the Racist and Charlie Sykes the God-Knows-What. You can listen to Thom Hartmann LIVE for free on airamerica.com
Once you're done with those articles, please enjoy a short video compilation:
Have a great weekend,
Ken Brosky
Filed under: economy, tax stimulus, republicans, conservative, government, taxes, free market, Bush, corporate, corporations, President Bush, republican, signing statement, conservatives, congress, smear tactics, right wing, health insurance, neoliberals, universal health care, neoconservatives, dick cheney, naomi klein, telecom immunity, telecommunications act, war, war in iraq, iraq lies, impeach, books, oil spill, greg palast, september 11, 9/11, air america radio, thom hartmann, darfur, conservative radio, liberal talk radio, genocide, joseph stiglitz
Permalink |
Mail to a friend
|
By Ken Brosky
Sunday, Mar 9 2008, 11:32 AM
What's the connection between the two, you ask? Well, for starters, they're both extremely incompetent. Make no mistake about it, Osama bin Laden is an egomaniac with relatively low intelligence when it comes to terrorism (he was NOT the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. He funded them and gave his "blessing," and little else). To learn more about just how fallible al-Qaeda truly is, I suggest you pick up a copy of The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright. The book outlines al-Qaeda's history and the history of modern Islamic extremism as well as the tactics that have been used by multiple intelligence agencies in attempting to track it and/or put a stop to it. A great book, to be sure. But what does this have to do with Secretary of State Condi Rice? Turns out quite a lot. Because when Rice was the national security adviser, it was her job to brief the president on emails like "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." According to a new book coming out by New York Times Reporter Philip Shenon, Rice was more interested in playing the role of supportive wife to President Bush rather than actually attempt to do her job in a responsible manner. If this sounds slightly malicious, you're right--when our national security adviser receives DAILY reports of al-Qaeda's attempts to carry out a terrorist strike against U.S. civilian targets, it should at the VERY least be taken moderately seriously. Here are a few other emails Rice received that were subsequently ignored, according to Shenon. Read through them and ask yourself whether you would take this threat seriously.
“Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack” (May 3)
“Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot” (May 23)
“Bin Ladin’s Networks’ Plans Advancing” (May 26)
“Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent” (June 23)
“Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats” (June 25)
“Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks” (June 30)
“Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays” (July 2) Is that enough for you? Click here to read the full article.
The reason I'm posting this is because there are a lot of right-wing fantasies running around regarding Condi Rice and a run for the presidency. Not only was Rice a completely incompetent national security adviser, she is currently an extremely incompetent Secretary of State, incompetent to the point that journalists have absolutely no interest in following her around the world. Our own diplomats think she's doing an awful job. David Kay, former weapons inspector in Iraq, says she was the worst national security adviser in U.S. history. Now let's get to something related but much more important: the 9/11 Commission. Exactly how incompetent was this Republican-led investigation? Quite incompetent, it turns out. And that shouldn't come as any surprise, given that the Republican Party has argued since Reagan that government just doesn't work, which is why Republicans seem to go so far out of their way to prove it. Not only were Repubilcans defending Rice and others in the Bush administration, there is evidence now that they were attempting to discredit Richard Clarke. From ThinkProgress: "But 9/11 Commission staff director Philip Zelikow was not interested in
pursuing criticisms against Rice. Zelikow — who had worked closely with
Rice on the Bush transition team in 2000 and 2001 — “made it clear to
the team’s investigators that Clarke should not be believed, that his testimony would be suspect.” " I think one of the reasons there are so many 9/11 conspiracy theories is primarily because the 9/11 commission simply didn't answer enough questions. There are so, so many questions still unanswered, and as long as our government doesn't pursue the truth, those questions will be answered by the fringe theorists and outrage will continue to grow. But make no mistake: the incompetencies of the Bush administration--especially those of Condi Rice--helped ensure 9/11 happened. Yours, Ken Brosky
Filed under: economy, republicans, conservative, government, President Bush, barack obama, conservatives, liberals, congress, reagan, campaign lies, presidential race, president, smear campagin, neoliberals, dick cheney, secretary rice, war, war in iraq, chief justice, greg palast, september 11, 9/11 investigation, 9/11
Permalink |
Mail to a friend
|
By Ken Brosky
Friday, Feb 22 2008, 11:09 AM
Congratulations, Wisconsin, on choosing Barack Obama. It's good to see that Hillary Clinton's recent populist rhetoric isn't sucking too many people in ... Don't get me wrong, though. Clinton is definitely not a bad candidate, but her insistence that she's an economic populist is an entirely new thing, and it's beginning to show. No matter who wins, it'll be easy to support either candidate against John McCain. Speaking of which, why don't we take a look at some homework readings for the weekend? John McCain's lobbyist connections -- In case you haven't noticed, there's a lot of brew-ha-ha regarding McCain's cozy connections with one very pretty lobbyist, as well as others. When even HIS aides are getting nervous, there's definitely some substance to the story. Don't be fooled by Fox News ... McCain's lobbyist connections have existed for a long, long time. Whether more evidence surfaces or not ... we'll see. Keep an open mind. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) indicted -- Yes, he does have connections to John McCain. Muckraker has more.
"A Trade Transformation" by David Sirota -- Read about Hillary Clinton's history on NAFTA. Turkish Troops in Iraq -- Following Kurdish separatist rebels, and of course this is making things a little sketchy in northern Iraq. Al-Sadr will extend his ceasefire -- Do you still honestly think the "Surge" quelled the violence in Baghdad? Or was it the fact that the leader of the largest militia in the country called for a ceasefire? He's now calling for an extension to the ceasefire, which will make the "Surge" look even more successful. By the way, for those of you who remember Bush saying there was going to be a troop drawdown, that's not happening anymore, either.
Filed under: liberal, economy, conservative, democrats, government, Bush, corporate, corporations, america, President Bush, republican, authoritarian, signing statement, hillary clinton, conservatives, liberals, congress, campaign lies, right wing, presidential race, muslim, neoconservatives, halliburton, dick cheney, homework, david sirota, telecom immunity, war, war in iraq, iraq lies, impeach
Permalink |
Mail to a friend
|
By Ken Brosky
Friday, Jan 25 2008, 01:09 PM
Funny how, just two years ago, there was
little to no talk about "The Economy," as if the wage disparities that
have been occurring since the Reagan era weren't worth talking about,
as if the accrued debt from working-class Americans wasn't a problem,
as if the skyrocketing health care costs and low-wage jobs were simply
an effect of a healthy "Economy."
What's changed so far this year? I'll tell you exactly what's changed: the rich are getting pinched.
Now, all of a sudden, it's a massive issue. Money is falling out of the
hands of the wealthiest one percent and now we're suddently facing a
crisis. I've got news for our government: this has been a crisis ever
since Ronald Reagan took office, ever since he began applying free
market policies like cutting taxes for the wealthiest of the wealthy in
order to let it "Trickle Down" while raising taxes for the rest of us
and shutting down as many government programs as possible, including
the Department of Labor which now almost always sides with
corporations. And then Clinton pushes through "Free Trade" that cuts
American jobs and forces the rest of the working class to compete with
desperate third-world individuals who are more than happy to work in
sweatshop-like conditions for dollars a day simply to survive in their
deregulated economies pushed through by the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund.
Conditions have been getting worse
since the 80's, and now anytime anyone suggests actually taxing the
rich at a fair level, conservatives demonize them as "Socialists."
Anything that could actually level the playing field, any regulations
or fair taxes on the rich are demonized immediately by conservative
think tanks who pretend to be defending "Freedom."
"Freedom!"
they say, "Freedom for the market to regulate itself! Freedom for
individuals who reject BIG GOVERNMENT, Freedom for all!"
Who are these people who claim to fight for freedom? Why, they're the freest people on the planet:
Rich. White. Men.
When
they cry "Freedom!" they mean only freedom for themselves and their
friends, to accumulate more wealth and push down more workers. The free market has failed miserably a number of times since the 70's,
which is why these conservative think tanks focus on demonizing all
criticism as "Socialism" and shove the word "Freedom" down our
collective mouth without a spoonful of sugar.
Now all of a
sudden the market is stumbling and the rich are losing money. And NOW,
only now, it becomes a problem. I've got news for Bush and the
Democrats: I'm taking my rebate and paying off my debt ... let this
corrupt economy continue its freefall. You think this is bad? Just wait until the security bubble bursts. The Bush administration has spent close to 1 trillion dollars propping up the military industrial complex, pouring money in that doesn't provide a return on investment (like, say, a new highway or better schools). You think this is bad? It's gonna get a lot worse.
|
More Posts
|
|