Bank seizures of U.S. homes almost doubled in January as property owners failed to make higher payments on adjustable-rate mortgages.
Repossessions rose 90 percent to 45,327 last month from the same period a year ago, according to RealtyTrac Inc., a seller of foreclosure statistics that has a database of more than 1 million properties. Total foreclosure filings, which include default and auction notices as well as bank seizures, increased 57 percent.
``The most troubling thing is that we are seeing more and more of these properties actually going all the way through the process and going back to the banks,'' Rick Sharga, executive vice president of Irvine, California-based RealtyTrac, said.
snip
More than 233,000 properties were in some stage of default last month. Total filings increased 8 percent in January from December, RealtyTrac said today in a statement.
Yes! The banks problems are the most troubling issues. Never mind the millions of American families that are or will be looking for new places to live, *IF* they can with their credit in ruin. Of course, the banks and mortgage companies are more worried about their demands for corporate welfare to keep them afloat through their hard times than they are about Joe and Suzy Sixpack living in the front seat of their car with the kids in the back seat... This is only the beginning and it is only going to get worse.
The phrase “natural born” was in early drafts of the Constitution. Scholars say notes of the Constitutional Convention give away little of the intent of the framers. Its origin may be traced to a letter from John Jay to George Washington, with Jay suggesting that to prevent foreigners from becoming commander in chief, the Constitution needed to “declare expressly” that only a natural-born citizen could be president.
Ms. Duggin and others who have explored the arcane subject in depth say legal argument and basic fairness may indeed be on the side of Mr. McCain, a longtime member of Congress from Arizona. But multiple experts and scholarly reviews say the issue has never been definitively resolved by either Congress or the Supreme Court.
Just some food for thought as conservatives seem to be on their way to nominating the first Panamanian born candidate for President of the United States of America. Not that he is likely to win, and I wonder if McCain is related to Manuel Noriega?
But not that many really, truly know just how horrific his voting record is when it comes to the troops. And it is pretty consistent – whether it is for armor and equipment, for veteran’s health care, for adequate troop rest or anything that actually, you know, supports our troops.
This is chock full of links to the roll call votes, and the roll call votes have links to the actual underlying bills and amendments. I present this so that there is support and things that can be rattled off when saying that McCain is not a friend of the military. Feel free to use it as you want, but this can be tied into the “Double Talk Express”. But here is a very quick statement - John McCain skipped close to a dozen votes on Iraq, and on at least another 10 occasions, he voted against arming and equipping the troops, providing adequate rest for the troops between deployments and for health care or other benefits for veterans.
Suicides in the U.S. Army increased 20 percent in 2007 from the previous year; that word came today in reports on internal Army documents. They showed as many as 121 suicides in the ranks in 2007. More than a quarter of those -- about 34 -- happened in Iraq. Army officials have said the troops are under increased stress, partly due to long overseas deployments.
An independent commission warned today the National Guard is even less combat-ready than it was a year ago. The commission on the National Guard and Reserves reported to Congress. It said the two forces do not have the equipment or training they need.
Some are quibbling about whether or not the "commander in chief" can be held responsible for how well our soldiers are being equipped, since Congress provides the funding for the military, but the Pentagon (and ultimately President Bush) are in charge of the funding mechanism.
I might suggest those on the blogosphere upset about this story would be better suited directing their ire at those responsible for this problem, which is certainly not new. That is, if they actually care about the men and women bravely serving our country at home and abroad.
Today Gen. George Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee with a very different take on the story. From the AP ...
Gen. George Casey, the Army's chief of staff, said Tuesday he has no reason to doubt Barack Obama's recent account by an Army captain that a rifle platoon in Afghanistan didn't have enough soldiers or weapons.
But he questioned the assertion that the shortages prevented the troops from doing their job.
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Casey said the incident would have occurred in 2003 and 2004 following the Iraq invasion. He said he remembers it as a "difficult time" trying to rush armor and other equipment to the troops.
He didn't endorse what Obama said, which there's no need for him to do. And he was frank about the supply difficulties that were widely reported at the time and which few people who follow these matters question. But mostly, if the AP report is an accurate guide, Casey sought to answer the question to the extent possible without engaging the politics of it.
This is not some partisan nit to pick. The Bush administration has had a dangerous and corrosive tendency to partisanize the Pentagon and use it to game domestic political controversies and campaigns.
"The cumulative effects of the last six-plus years at war have left our Army out of balance, consumed by the current fight and unable to do the things we know we need to do to properly sustain our all-volunteer force and restore our flexibility for an uncertain future."
John McCain can take his partisan campaign and incompetent support of bush failure and go sit in the right wingnut corner and rotate on it. America has no more room for continued GOP failures.
We have been through a lot in this past year and your friendship and support have meant so much to me. That is why I wanted to let you know of my decision to endorse a Democratic candidate for President - and that I have decided to support Barack Obama.
We all understand how much is at stake in this election and that it is more important than ever that we put a Democrat in the White House.
And while both of our Party's remaining candidates are extremely talented and would make excellent commanders-in-chief, I am throwing my support to the candidate who I believe will open the most eyes to our shared Democratic vision.
I'm deeply proud to be the first 2008 Democratic presidential candidate to endorse Barack Obama. He is ready to be President. And I am ready to support him - to work with him and for him and help elect him our 44th President.
Put simply, I believe Barack Obama is uniquely qualified to help us face this housing crisis, create good jobs, strengthen America's families in this 21st century global economy, unite the world against terrorism and end the war in Iraq - and perhaps most importantly, call the American people to shared service and sacrifice. In this campaign, he has drawn millions of voters into politics for the first time in their lives and shown us that we are united by so much more than that which divides us.
That is why I believe the time has come for Democrats to come together as a Party and focus on winning the general election. The stakes are too high not to.
The last seven years have been as difficult as any I can remember. More than ever, we need a President who will inspire us to take part in the political process and change our country's path.
Today, when we need it most, we are hearing a new call from Barack Obama. And I hope you, like me, will answer it in the affirmative.
In last week’s Democratic debate, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) said he was told by an Army captain that his platoon’s resources in Afghanistan were shortchanged because of the Iraq war. Seeking to turn Obama’s remarks into a political attack, Sen. John Warner (R-VA) immediately questioned the authenticity of the statement. But ABC News contacted the Army captain, who backed up Obama’s story. And now the New York Times reports that soldiers in Afghanistan are still strapped for resources:
And they felt eclipsed by Iraq. As Sgt. Erick Gallardo put it: “We don’t get supplies, assets. We scrounge for everything and live a lot more rugged. But we know the war is here. We got unfinished business.”
“You know, I’ve heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon — supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon,” he said. “Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn’t have enough ammunition, they didn’t have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.”
Well, you had to know that a statement like that–insinuating that life is not all wine and roses for our troops being sent for their third, fourth and fifth rotation into the Gulf–was just going to make the wingnuts crazy. (I won’t link them, but you’ll find links here)
Some are quibbling about whether or not the "commander in chief" can be held responsible for how well our soldiers are being equipped, since Congress provides the funding for the military, but the Pentagon (and ultimately President Bush) are in charge of the funding mechanism.
I might suggest those on the blogosphere upset about this story would be better suited directing their ire at those responsible for this problem, which is certainly not new. That is, if they actually care about the men and women bravely serving our country at home and abroad.
Do you even know what kind of support they really need? I could tell you but you politically partisan right wingnuts will not like the answers. You never did like the truth...
"Republicans for Fear!" are also known as your local and national GOP candidates and politicians - like Chris Shays, Joe Lieberman and John McCain - that have lost their frickin' minds:
Please feel free to crap your pants in fear as the GOP tries to scare you into giving up what little freedom you have left in order to protect the bush legacy of illegally spying on Americans from being fully investigated.
Or you could be more logical and patriotic by impeaching bush to protect The Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
It all depends on whether you put bush, the GOP and partisan politics above The Constitution, OR if you put country over partisan politics.
Take your pick and make your stand so we know who and what you are...
Because, somehow, my Blog has managed to grow to a "double E"? I had noticed this post over at Moue Magazine, by Brandy, and was planning on writing about this:
This post is brought to you by the letter "E" Maryanne of the excellent blog Maryannaville bestowed upon us the Excellent Blog Award. Award rules stipulate that recipients must pay it forward to ten other worthy bloggers.Here are my choices for the Excellent Blog Awards. Acceptance speeches are welcome, but not mandatory, and we reserve the right to cue the orchestra if you ramble for too long.
Surprisingly, skippy also nominated me for this... Leaving me feeling twice as humbled as Blue Girl, Red State:
It is with humble gratitude we accept this award, bestowed upon us by one of our original tour guides through the wilds of blogtopia (and yes, he did indeed coin that phrase)...Skippy!Skippy was tapped by the lovely Brandy at moue magazine, in addition to us, he also tapped some fine blogging talent (and poached some of our obvious choices) when he also reached out and touched:
Much like skippy, "we are just honored to be nominated..." Well, in my case "I am honored" since this is not a group Blog and I am not a doctor, nurse nor royalty. And doubly so, NOT just because two Bloggers singled me out but because of the quality of the other Blogs that are listed up there. There are a lot of great Blogs in Blogtopia (y!sct). Many of them are huge compared to this little corner of it, and some of them are relatively new and just developing a readership community. But they are all great in their own way.
So... Here I go before the kegs up there run out or the beer gets flat:
And yes! I am going over ten since I got it twice, and since this is about sharing some of your favorite places. Trust me... I could easily add 20 more with all of the Blogs I read.
As I said, I could easily add another 20 Blogs and still have left some very worthy places out but it is my hope that some of the Blogs I chose will, by sheer luck, pick them out... And all of those Blogs are not necessarily in any particular order. They truly are all great in their own way!
We noted this yesterday. But The Washington Postdoes a good job today in sizing up the situation and its possible mammoth consequences for McCain's campaign.
There are really two completely separate issues here.
First, McCain opted in to the public finance system for the primaries last year. It meant that his struggling campaign would get $5.8 million in public matching funds in March. Now that he's effectively the Republican nominee, he wants out, because the system entails a spending limit of $54 million through the end of August. He's almost spent that much already, according to the Post.
So the McCain campaign sent the Federal Election Commission a letter (pdf) earlier this month saying that he was opting out. But there's a problem. And FEC Chairman David Mason, a Republican, made it plain in his letter (pdf) yesterday: McCain can't tell the FEC that he's out of the system. He can only ask.
And the FEC, which normally has six commissioners, can't give him an answer until it has a quorum of four commissioners. It currently only has two. That's because the Senate has been deadlocked over four nominees; Democrats insist on a separate confirmation vote for vote-suppression guru Hans von Spakovsky, and Republicans insist on a single vote for all nominees.
The Double Talk Express is oh so out of gas having already vaporized his entire campaign stash.
Now... You my be wondering if this is really that serious an issue?
I was kinda liking the theory that McCain himself planted the story to offset the age issue and show that he's a spry little sex poodle.
Stranger theorizes that's not far off the mark (although the motivation is quite different).
You have to look at the timing of this whole thing. By letting the legal teams hash out the release of the story for three months before acquiescing to its publication, we see the release of the story just as McCain seems poised to take the GOP monination - but still pretty far out from Election Day. Given that many TV pundits have already decided that this story will only hang around for a couple of days, all McCain needs to do is deny, deny, deny until it dies down, and presto! - he's innoculated! Any revisiting of the story between now and November - whether or not there are new revelations - will be written off by the McCain campaign as 'old news.'
But it doesn't stop there - not by a shot. Over at Politico, McCain advisor Charlie Black lets slip that after negotiating with the Times over the story for months, now they're going to cash in on it.
That's one of what we're sure is going to be hundreds of theories surrounding the timing and reason for this story. With this one, we share Stranger's intrigue of how the NY Times has vetted it with their people as well as McCain's.
“Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young and Pearl Jam have contributed tunes to the anti-war soundtrack for a documentary about a U.S. soldier paralyzed in Iraq. The 30-song, two-disc album ‘Body of War: Songs That Inspired an Iraq War Veteran’ will be released March 18 via Warner Music’s Sire Records label. All proceeds from the sale of the album will benefit Iraq Veterans Against the War.”
Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder is behind the effort to support Iraq Veterans Against the War and the album will include songs like "No war" - "Masters of War" - "Devils & Dust" - The Restless Consumer" - "Yo George" - "Son of a Bush" - "Bushonomics" - and a bunch of other inspiring tunes.
Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) was founded by Iraq war veterans in July 2004 at the annual convention of Veterans for Peace (VFP) in Boston to give a voice to the large number of active duty service people and veterans who are against this war, but are under various pressures to remain silent.
From its inception, IVAW has called for:
Immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces in Iraq;
Reparations for the human and structural damages Iraq has suffered, and stopping the corporate pillaging of Iraq so that their people can control their own lives and future; and
Full benefits, adequate healthcare (including mental health), and other supports for returning servicemen and women.
Our membership includes recent veterans and active duty servicemen and women from all branches of military service, National Guard members, and reservists who have served in the United States military since September 11, 2001.
IVAW’s strategy is to mobilize the military community to withdraw its support for the war and occupation in Iraq. Therefore, IVAW is leading the movement of veterans and GIs who are working to bring the troops home now.
Today, IVAW members are in 48 states, Washington, D.C., Canada, and on numerous bases overseas, including Iraq. IVAW has chapters around the country and in Canada. IVAW members educate the public about the realities of the Iraq war by speaking in communities and to the media about their experiences. Members also dialogue with youth in classrooms about the realities of military service. IVAW supports all those resisting the war, including Conscientious Objectors and others facing military prosecution for their refusal to fight. IVAW advocates for full funding for the Veterans Administration, and full quality health treatment (including mental health) and benefits for veterans when they return from duty.
To learn more about IVAW's strategy to end the war and bring the troops home now, you can download our strategy pamphlet in PDF format here.
The truth that the GOP is trying to avoid discussing... Has nothing to do with the fact that McCain cheated repeatedly on his first wife, finally leaving her when he found a suitable stepping stone spouse for his political career. I could deal with The Real McCain's family values disgraces but I'll leave that to the ostriches in the conservative echo chamber to choke on:
According to Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief, February 1, 2008, "[John McCain] used nepotism to get ahead: When he was rejected by the National War College, he used his father's contacts with the Secretary of the Navy to make them reconsider." Skousen also notes that "McCain cheated on his first wife after she had a severe accident. He then divorced her and married his multi-millionaire mistress, whose daddy bought McCain a spot in the Congress."
It has also never been explained why the son and grandson of Navy admirals would not rise to the rank of Admiral himself. (He exited the Navy as a Captain.) Was it his numerous adulterous affairs or his violent temper? Or both?
In issuing a very specific, point-by-point denial of the NYT story, McCain specifically denied that he ever talked to Paxson's CEO, Lowell Paxson (or any other Paxson representative) about this matter:
No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay discussed with Senator McCain the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proceeding. . . . No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay personally asked Senator McCain to send a letter to the FCC regarding this proceeding.
Au contraire, my fuzzy, feathery pet neocons:
But Newsweek's Mike Isikoff today obtained (or was given) the transcripts of deposition testimony which McCain himself gave under oath several years ago in litigation over the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold. In that testimony, McCain repeatedly and unequivocally stated the opposite of what he said in this week's NYT denial: namely, that he had unquestionably spoken with Paxson himself over the pending FCC matter:
"I was contacted by Mr. Paxson on this issue," McCain said in the Sept. 25, 2002, deposition obtained by NEWSWEEK. "He wanted their approval very bad for purposes of his business. I believe that Mr. Paxson had a legitimate complaint."
While McCain said "I don't recall" if he ever directly spoke to the firm's lobbyist about the issue -- an apparent reference to Iseman, though she is not named -- "I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]."
It's hard to imagine how there could be a clearer contradiction in McCain's statements than (a) "I'm sure I spoke to [Paxson]" and (b) "No representative of Paxson or Alcalde and Fay discussed with Senator McCain the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proceeding."
Set aside the issue of the nature of his relationship with Iseman, and you have the undeniable conflict of McCain, the chest-beating reformer, being so undeniably close to lobbyists. That, many have pointed out, is the real story. The man who's absurdly proclaimed that "I’m the only one the special interests don’t give any money to" is surrounded by lobbyists.
And The Washington Post, a day after it ran its own Iseman story on page one, goes with that story on today's front page under the concise headline, "The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists."
"I don't have any more comment about this issue. I had a press conference yesterday morning, and I answered every question," McCain said.
"I'm moving on. I'm talking about the issues and the challenges of America and the big issues that Americans are concerned about. I addressed the issue and addressed every question that was addressed to me.
"I do not intend to discuss it further," he told reporters.
After omitting the fact that he lied at that press conference yesterday, McCain then goes on to exactly what he said he wouldn't do: Discuss it further:
"I square it one way," McCain said. "The right to represent interests or groups of Americans is a constitutional right. There are people that represent firemen, civil servants, retirees, and those people are legitimate representatives of a variety of interests in America.
WOOOHOOO! The old "Constitutionally protected" argument from a candidate that regularly ignores and tramples on The Constitution when it comes to your rights and mine. When McCain says he isn't going to talk about it anymore... He is really just praying that we will stop asking and digging on it. Good luck on that one!
So much for the Straight talk express. He’s been trying to spin the influence that Ms. Iseman had on him overall and specifically regarding the Paxson deal. McCain’s camp had this to say:
Statements from McCain’s office said Iseman met only with staff and indicated that a staff member was involved in drafting and sending the letter. Thursday’s statement went to lengths to say why McCain could not have met with Paxson.
There’s a slight problem with that. Bud Paxson basically called McCain a liar.
Broadcaster Lowell “Bud” Paxson yesterday contradicted statements from Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign that the senator did not meet with Paxson or his lobbyist before sending two controversial letters to the Federal Communications Commission on Paxson’s behalf.
Paxson said he talked with McCain in his Washington office several weeks before the Arizona Republican wrote the letters in 1999 to the FCC urging a rapid decision on Paxson’s quest to acquire a Pittsburgh television station.
And what about Vicki Iseman, you know, the lobbyist that McCain called a “friend?”
Paxson also recalled that his lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, likely attended the meeting in McCain’s office and that Iseman helped arrange the meeting. “Was Vicki there? Probably,” Paxson said in an interview with The Washington Post yesterday. “The woman was a professional. She was good. She could get us meetings.”
Keith Olbermann brings on Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson to discuss the horrific history behind Bill O’Reilly’s casual and callous use of the phrase “lynching party” in reference to Michelle Obama’s quote about being really proud of this country and the implications one may draw from it.
You know what lynching was?Lynching was a horrific practice of murder, torture, dismemberment, burning alive, hanging, and the only purpose of lynching was to perpetuate white supremacy in the Jim Crow south.It wasn’t…the idea of course, wasn’t to lynch all black people, but by lynching a few black people…not a few, by lynching some black people to demonstrate to other African Americans that this could happen to you, that you have no power, that we have all the power, and that we can take anything we want from you, including your life.There’s nothing funny about lynching.There’s certainly nothing at all funny or remotely appropriate about the use of a lynching reference to talk about Michelle Obama.And the word “unless” followed by “we’ll track it down,” is way beyond the pale.
I have written on this subject before, and I agree with Eugene Robinson on this topic, but I also think that it goes beyond just the racial issues:
I'm sure race has nothing to with the recent surge of nooses in the news since we are soooo over bigotry in the U.S.
Police are looking for whoever dangled a 3-foot rope with a small loop at its end from a tree outside a campus cultural center that is home to several black organizations. The incident is being treated as a possible hate crime.
"This is bigger than a noose," Black Student Union President Altmann Pannell told his fellow students, many of whom were wearing "Terps as one" buttons."
"This is bigger than a noose because we as a community know that something else is going on in this country," Pannell said to murmurs of agreement. linkage
That "something else" is not missed by minority communties, especially when the disparities in justice are blatantly tied to the color of one's skin.
For a year, Jena (pronounced JEEN-uh), a poor mining community of 3,000 people, has been embroiled in racial tensions pitting the black community against white school officials and a white prosecutor. It began last August when a black student asked at an assembly if black students could sit under a tree where white students usually sat. The next day, two nooses hung from the tree.
Black parents were outraged by the symbolism, recalling the mob lynchings of black men. They complained to school officials. District superintendent Roy Breithaupt and the school board gave three-day suspensions to the white students who hung the nooses, overruling the recommendation of then-principal Scott Windham that the students be expelled.
The case of the Jena Six has been covered extensively by fellow bloggers, such as Hello, Negro with information on how to donate to the defense fund; also My Right Mind! who offers a slew of tips to assist these young teens.
Nooses are more than just complex slip knots in a rope - they are both symbolic and directly representative of torture, murder and racist mob rule.
But before you go there, I want you to think about this:
Lynching is sometimes justified by its supporters as the administration of justice (in a social-moral sense, not in law) without the delays and inefficiencies inherent to the legal system; in this way it echoes the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, which was justified by the claim:
"Terror is nothing other than prompt, severe, inflexible justice."
What are some of the possible reasons why racism seems to be on the rise in the Good Ol' USA? Hey! It's not like anyone in our government would ever encourage this kind of terrorizing behavior with its own actions and ideologies...
The "traditional" conservative Claes G. Ryn has argued that neoconservatives are "a variety of neo-Jacobins." Ryn maintains that true conservatives deny the existence of a universal political and economic philosophy and model that is suitable for all societies and cultures, and believe that a society's institutions should be adjusted to suit its culture, while Neo-Jacobins
are attached in the end to ahistorical, supranational principles that they believe should supplant the traditions of particular societies. The new Jacobins see themselves as on the side of right and fighting evil and are not prone to respecting or looking for common ground with countries that do not share their democratic preferences. (Ryn 2003: 387)
Further examining the relationship between Neoconservatism and moral rhetoric, Ryn argues that
Neo-Jacobinism regards America as founded on universal principles and assigns to the United States the role of supervising the remaking of the world. Its adherents have the intense dogmatic commitment of true believers and are highly prone to moralistic rhetoric. They demand, among other things, "moral clarity" in dealing with regimes that stand in the way of America's universal purpose. They see themselves as champions of "virtue." (p. 384).
Thus, according to Ryn, neoconservatism is analogous to Bolshevism: in the same way that the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy established ways of life throughout the world to replace them with communism, the neoconservatives want to do the same, only imposing free-market capitalism and American-style liberal democracy instead of socialism.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, had the following to say in a December, 2005 interview with the German weekly Der Spiegel:
"They are not new conservatives. They're Jacobins. Their predecessor is French Revolution leader Maximilien Robespierre."
Sheeple see... Sheeple do... Or some terrorizing thought like that?
His statement makes Bill O'Reilly both racist and a homegrown terrorist, IMHO. The Jacobins used lynching to terrorize the people during the French revolution, and the neoconservatives/Jacobins do it today.
The prospect of even a symbolic press lynching party is a horrible and disgusting message for O'Reilly to send to Michelle Obama and it is meant to go to the entire African American community in the USA... But it is also part of the "Fear Campaign" meant for the consumption and terrorizing of all Americans and to spill over to the rest of the world.
Marco had this to say in comments on my previous Chris Healy Post:
You know - your comments are really tasteless and really indicate what a senseless boor you are.
Shame on you.
Being critical of policy is one thing but making such nasty remarks is really unnecessary and very juvenile.
People lose all sense of humor and perspective when it is their child gone all wrong… So much so that lil’ marco pulled a michelle malkin and stalked me to my Blog to leave an infantile faux superiority complex message. One word for ya marco, and learn it well child:
Snark
But let’s assume you are right in calling me a juvenile, nasty, tasteless and senseless bore when Healy says this:
U.S. Rep. John B. Larson’s take on the Republican walkout Thursday at the U.S. House: “The political theater enacted by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle today was akin to Otter and Boone leading the Deltas out of the student body at Faber College.”
Republican State Chairman Chris Healy wasted no time with this retort: “Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”
Sorry, but you are 100% wrong in your name calling, marco. This is the reality of what Healy is. He is a hypocrite. He is an adult child gone wrong. Irresponsible and untrustworthy. He represents everything wrong in today’s republican party.
Including the stated qualifiers to the question in bold, ACR. Your answer is only arguing with your own made up point that I did not make. I know you can read and give an honest answer to the question, ACR, but I also know that you can cherry pick what you answer.
Did you not get the memo? People don’t discuss politics on republican terms anymore, ACR. And some of us play hardball. If you want to keep swinging at pitches I didn’t even make, you’ll strike out every time.
I am not a Dem…
Strike one!
I didn’t ask you that question, and you are smart enough to know that…
Strike two!
Care to take a third swing?
Though, I suggest ACR puts down the republican whiffle bat before he tries to answer.
SEO principles have long reminded us that blogrolling doesn’t parse well for search engines, which have conveniently been configured to ignore blogrolls. The code which Wordpress, Blogger, Typepad, et al use to generate blogrolls automatically gets ignored by spiders. That’s why, whenever i add someone to my blogroll, i try to do a couple of things:
announce it. you saw me do that yesterday. announcing it ensures that your expression of endorsement, friendship, commonality, or whatever, is made visible to spiders.
click it. providing a link isn’t enough. if you want that link to show up in that blogger’s statistics, clicking the link you just made is essential. the spiders may eventually discover the link you provided in your post about blogrolling said blogger, but that can be up to three-to-four weeks later. after someone else has clicked the link in your blogroll. repeatedly. faithfully, even.
one thing that spiders do recognize is link titles. link titles are a handy way to increase the visibility of your site through your blogroll, and to increase the visibility of those whom you blogroll. link titles are a win-win for everyone involved. Wordpress’ blogroll system, for example, uses a “Description” field that is rendered as link titles in the blogroll. what i do when i blogroll someone is use their blog’s tagline as their blogroll description. this results in very nice links in this particular theme, which provides a specially-formatted popup for link titles. so, if for example, your blog has a tagline of “i like to eat live chickens”, anyone who does a search on “eat live chickens” will find not only you, but by association, me—provided, of course, that the link from me to you is clicked on.
Worth the read. Especially if your mother is computer illiterate and wouldn't be able to tell you this stuff even if you thought to ask about her it. And Geez… All I will end up with is a bunch of plastered people that want to drink more showing up at my place with my tagline:
Grab your favorite libation and Drink Liberally with the only Blogger guaranteed to be plastered all over the Internet!
Most of the time I try to use keywords for links to others' (and my own) posts because I know a bit about that Googlebomb effect, and how words used can make someone an "authority" on a topic. Also, I already use the links on my Blogroll to go to all of the Blogs there. Click! Click! Click! I think that many people use readers these days, but I want people to know that I, or even occasionally someone else, have visited from my Blog. Now, I know that that was/is a good policy for practical purposes.
I guess that I’ll have to add the practice of announcing links on my Blogroll among a few of other things as well. I'll have some more to write about this later, I think?
State Rep. Jason Bartlett put rumors to rest Tuesday when he announced publicly that he's gay.
Bartlett, a Democrat who represents portions of Bethel, Redding and Danbury, said he has been open about his sexual orientation with relatives and decided now was the time to speak publicly.
"For me the decision came down to why not now," said Bartlett, 41, during a meeting with The News-Times Tuesday. "To me this is about having a conversation with my larger family - the people of Greater Danbury who voted for me."
The announcement makes Bartlett the nation’s first and only openly LGBT African American state legislator.
I am glad for him that he feels comfortable enough to come out. This should be a non-issue but some close minded individuals may try to make it one. It is not likely that he has the hypocrisy baggage of your typical republican on this issue.
Bartlett said he never misled voters about his sexual orientation, either in how he described his domestic life or by positions he has taken on gay issues. He said he always has supported gay rights, including same-sex civil unions and gay marriage.
We laugh, we yell, we worry. But, thankfully, we live in a time and a world where we can do something. While Clinton and Obama are focused on winning the nomination, we have a job to do.
Will you invest a dollar for every year you think John McCain will keep us in Iraq? A dollar now could quite possibly save us from the decades of "more wars" McCain has promised. Make an investment
At a time when all television spots are fundraised around helping a particular candidate win, there is a critically important role for online communications to play. We can reach hundreds of thousands online, instantly. Wired just did an article about this.
Brave New Films was on the case over a year ago with The REAL McCain, and it looked like America was through with him after that. But now he's back and more dangerous than ever. We must act now!
Is the torture issue a red herring? The 9/11 Commission was not tasked with investigating interrogation methods or detainee treatment. The commission was tasked with investigating al Qaeda's participation in the 9/11 attack and determining the perpetrators of the terrorist event. There was no reason to withhold from the commission video evidence of confessions implicating al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
Was the video evidence withheld from the 9/11 Commission because the alleged participants in the plot did not confess, did not implicate al Qaeda, and did not implicate bin Laden?
There is no reason for the Bush administration to fear the torture issue. The Justice Department's memos have legalized the practice, and Congress has passed legislation, signed by President Bush, giving retroactive protection to US interrogators who tortured detainees. The Military Commissions Act passed in September 2006 and signed by Bush in October 2006 strips detainees of protections provided by the Geneva Conventions: "No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights." Other provisions of the act strip detainees of speedy trials and of protection against torture and self-incrimination. The law has a provision that retroactively protects torturers against prosecution for war crimes.
Did the Bush administration cleverly take advantage of the torture claims in order to spin the destruction of the CIA video tapes as a "torture story." It is conceivable that the tapes were destroyed because they reveal the absence of confession to the plot. As Kean and Hamilton ask, without evidence how do we know the truth?
By now, you've probably heard of the new attack line from the Hillary campaign, accusing Obama of plagiarism because an ad-libbed portion of his stump speech mimicked the language and rhythm of a two-year-old speech by his friend and supporter, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.
Patrick told the New York Times that he and Obama freely exchange speech ideas and that he didn't feel like a citation was needed.
The Clinton campaign held a conference call this morning to continue pushing this line of attack. TPM Election Central asked campaign adviser Howard Wolfson about Patrick's remarks:
Wolfson said the plagiarism charge still holds because listeners go in with the assumption that Obama's speeches are original, unless credit is given. "So I think it's fine that Deval Patrick said that," Wolfson said. "But what I'm concerned about is that the public has an expectation that Sen. Obama's words are his own."
Wolfson's concern for the public's fragile expectations would be quaint if it wasn't so transparently self-serving. Obviously, this isn't plagiarism.
But like the flip-flop line of attack Hillary is pressing on Obama's public financing pledge, the attack speaks to her campaign's effort to undermine the very thing that has been the centerpiece of Obama's candidacy: his authenticity.
Sure he gives better speeches than I do, the Hillary line goes, but the words aren't even his own.
Wikileaks.org, as it is known, was cut off from the internet following a California court ruling, the site says. The case was brought by a Swiss bank after "several hundred" documents were posted about its offshore activities.
Other versions of the pages, hosted in countries such as Belgium and India, can still be accessed.
However, the main site was taken offline after the court ordered that Dynadot, which controls the site's domain name, should remove all traces of wikileak from its servers.
The following release has not been proofed due to time constraints.
Transparency group Wikileaks forcibly censored at ex-parte Californian hearing -- ordered to print blank pages -- 'wikileaks.org' name forcibly deleted from Californian domain registrar -- the best justice Cayman Islands money launderers can buy?
When the transparency group Wikileaks was censored in China last year, no-one was too surprised. After all, the Chinese government also censors the Paris based Reporters Sans Frontiers and New York Based Human Rights Watch. And when Wikileaks published the secret censorship lists of Thailand's military Junta, no-one was too surprised when people in that country had to go to extra lengths to read the site. But on Friday the 15th, February 2008, in the home of the free and the land of the brave, and a constitution which states "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press", the Wikileaks.org press was shutdown:
BANK JULIUS BAER & CO. LTD, a Swiss entity; and JULIUS BAER BANK AND TRUST CO. LTD, a Cayman Island ORDER GRANTING entity, PERMANENT INJUNCTION
WIKILEAKS, an entity of unknown form; WIKILEAKS.ORG, an entity of unknown form; DYNADOT, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
[..]
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
[..]
Dynadot shall immediately clear and remove all DNS hosting records for the wikileaks.org domain name and prevent the domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or any other website or server other than a blank park page, until further order of this Court.
The Cayman Islands is located between Cuba and Honduras. In July 2000, the United States Department of the Treasure Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued an advisory states stating that there were "serious deficiencies in the counter-money laundering systems of the Cayman Islands", "Cayman Islands law makes it impossible for the supervisory and regulatory authority to obtain information held by financial institutions regarding their client's identity", "Failure of financial institutions in the Cayman Islands to report suspicious transactions is not subject to penalty" and that "These deficiencies, among others, have caused the Cayman Islands to be identified by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (The 'FATF') as non-cooperative in the fight against money laundering". As of 2006 the U.S. State Department listed the Cayman Islands in its money laundering "Countries of Primary Concern".
The Cayman's case is not the first time Wikileaks has tackled bad banks. In the second half of last year Wikileaks exposed over $4,500,000,000's worth of money laundering including by the former president of Kenya, Daniel Arap Moi (see http://wikileaks.be/wiki/The_looting_of_Kenya_under_President_moi which became the Guardian's front page story in September 2007 and swung the Kenyan vote by 10% leading into the December 2007 election and http://wikileaks.be/wiki/A_Charter_House_of_horrors reported in the Nairobi paper The Standard and now the subject of a High Court Case in Kenya).
To find an injunction similar to the Cayman's case, we need to go back to Monday June 15, 1971 when the New York Times published excepts of of Daniel Ellsberg's leaked "Pentagon Papers" and found itself enjoined the following day. The Wikileaks injunction is the equivalent of forcing the Times' printers to print blank pages and its power company to turn off press power. The supreme court found the Times censorship injunction unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision.
The Wikileaks.org injunction is ex-parte, engages in prior restraint and is clearly unconstitutional. It was granted on Thursday afternoon by California district court judge White, Bush appointee and former prosecutor.
The order was written by Cayman Island's Bank Julius Baer lawyers and was accepted by judge White without amendment, or representations by Wikileaks or amicus. The case is over several Wikileaks articles, public commentary and documents dating prior to 2003. The documents allegedly reveal secret Julius Baer trust structures used for asset hiding, money laundering and tax evasion. The bank alleges the documents were disclosed to Wikileaks by offshore banking whistleblower and former Vice President the Cayman Island's operation, Rudolf Elmer. Unable to lawfully attack Wikileaks servers which are based in several countries, the order was served on the intermediary Wikileaks purchased the 'Wikileaks.org' name through -- California registrar Dynadot, who then used its access to the internet website name registration system to delete the records for 'Wikileaks.org'. The order also enjoins every person who has heard about the order from from even linking to the documents.
In order to deal with Chinese censorship, Wikileaks has many backup sites such as wikileaks.be (Belgium) and wikileaks.de (Germany) which remain active. Wikileaks never expected to be using the alternative servers to deal with censorship attacks, from, of all places, the United States.
The order is clearly unconstitutional and exceeds its jurisdiction.
Wikileaks will keep on publishing, in-fact, given the level of suppression involved in this case, Wikileaks will step up publication of documents pertaining to illegal or unethical banking practices.
Wikileaks has six pro-bono attorney's in S.F on roster to deal with a legal assault, however Wikileaks was given only hours notice "by email" prior to the hearing. Wikileaks was NOT represented. Wikileaks pre-litigation California council Julie Turner attended the start of hearing in a personal capacity but was then asked to leave the court room.
White signed the order, drafted by the Cayman Islands bank's lawyers without a single amendment.
The injunction claims to be permanent, although the case is only preliminary.
As of Friday, February 15, those going to Wikileaks.org have gotten Server not found messages. Today I received a message explaining that a California court has granted an injunction written and requested by lawyers for the Cayman Island's Bank Julius Baer. It seems that the bank is trying to keep the public from accessing documents that may reveal shady dealings.
... could become as important a journalistic tool as the Freedom of Information Act.
„
— Time Magazine
Important enough as a journalistic tool that some, with shady dealings, seem to see a need to shut it down. Welcome to the bush and GOP created and corporate owned America.
This is just another chapter in a bigger battle, IMHO:
One challenge in any reconstruction, though, would be balancing the interests of various constituencies. The first time around, researchers were able to toil away in their labs quietly. Industry is playing a bigger role this time, and law enforcement is bound to make its needs for wiretapping known.
There's no evidence they are meddling yet, but once any research looks promising, "a number of people [will] want to be in the drawing room," said Jonathan Zittrain, a law professor affiliated with Oxford and Harvard universities. "They'll be wearing coats and ties and spilling out of the venue."
The big telcoms have already shown a willingness to try and take control of the internet AND will sell out your right to privacy at the drop of an FBI letter.
Yeah... Ya gotta sleep with one effin' eye open at all times in this modern America. Freedom ain't Free, it'll cost ya a lot of sleep.
A little something you can do about this, as well as helping spread the word for Wikileaks, via Save the Internet:
You can help make the internet faster, more open and accessible to all. Tell Congress to preserve Net Neutrality and help ensure that the benefits and promise of the Internet are available to all Americans.
