Ahh ... Yeah!
Corporate Power: End of the Enron Era?
When I first caught this article, I thought someone had hijacked the American Progress Action Fund's email list and created a spoof email. I am quite pleased that they sent out an email like this, because I think most Americans will believe that the 10 - 11 guys that have been caught are now convicted, so this whole mess is behind us. Not true.
I have been a huge proponent of anti-corporatism, but I am a hypocrit after all because I am currently working for a large company (nobody is clicking on the Google ads, and apparently you aren't telling your friends about me either). There is very little that any of us can do about it. The our elected officials love their corporate backers so they don't/won't take them to task. We people can't afford to not shop at our local mega mart because going to a locally owned market costs to much. I try to stick as close as I can to the 100-mile diet, but there again it is a change because a gallon of mil costs twice a much if I try to get local milk of where I know the source.
I have been trying to trudge through David Sirota's book Hostile Takeover, but so far I have gotten very little in the way of things that we can do differently. Especially since the corporations are the ones in control of the bulk of the media. Even when someone like NBC puts on a show like The Book of Daniel (remember?), it gets yanked because some who hasn't even seen the show is offended and the advertisers are getting ready to pull out.
It was my hope that when someone like Al Gore was going to get involved with a television network I was thinking that it would have been something worth watching (Liberal version of Fox perhaps?).
Now that you have made it through that rant I get down to, tell your conservative friends that they need to get their act together and get information from sources that aren't mainstream. Rawstory.com, a good start.
Hayden Confirmed
Hayden has been confirmed. My "Senators" were among those, who voted for Hayden. Sarbanes is retiring so I am not so concerned having to not vote for him again. However, I will not be voting for Mikulski this year. I will be looking more deeply into her voting records for the next couple of days to see what else she has done that I have not agreed with.
This just adds to my general disdain for Mikulski.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2006-160
Prosecutors: Cheney can't avoid testifying
Jean Sarah Rohe vs. McCain and his lackeys
I am "on top" of this New School commencement speech thing. I guess that it shouldn't suprise me that she caused some much of a stir. But again, the right has decided to poorly handle the situation even further and caused it to be bigger than it needed to be.
My biggest complaint is that every talking head I hear is saying something similar to: it took so much courage to do that. I think that public criticism from unexpected sources is the only way that some of these policitians are going to pay attention.
I think that if Cheney and Rumsfeld were heckled a little more, instead of watching Fox News. They would be more in tune with the American people.
I think that I could care less what her message was or what his message was. I am more interested in seeing more of it, even if the polictian is doing well.
The NSA
Disclaimer: I am an Information Assurance Professional. My job for the last four years has included the securing and assessment of government systems and reporting on those findings. I have used checklists and documentation by the NSA in order to fulfill my job function.
I first refer you to the NSA's web site specifically to the mission statement page. Note the prominent use of the word foreign throughout the signal intelligence statement. I won't argue that they do a suberb, albeit sometime overly-paranoid job of the information assurance mission, they are not chartered for domestic survelliance. In fact, the original intent of the NSA was to work with the CIA, FBI and DoD to provide communications intelligence against foreign governments.
I then refer you to Executive Order 12333, in which the role of the agency is redefined somewhat. The original intent is not lost however, we keep talking about foreign intelligence. The main difference is that we aren't talking about foreign governments anymore. Which isn't a big deal. It is also supposed to protect the communication security of the US Government.
But do remember that this is a component of the Department of Defense, the Executive Order states that the NSA is for all intensive purposes, a service organization. It doesn't say that it makes up what it is supposed to do and then goes and does it. It gets its cues from the Director of Central Intelligence and the Defense Department. On occasion it is allowed to play with the FBI, under the supervision of adults like Congress, the White House and the Attorney General.
They have internal directives that they developed, but apparently don't follow. Whatever the spin tells you, whoever says I don't mind that they are logging my calls, the fact remains that it was done illegally. The USSID 18 specifically calls out that the NSA is not allowed to intentionally collect communication to, from or about U.S. persons without the FISA court, Attorney General or unless it is an emergency. Of course a 3 year program is not an emergency.
To those who say we weren't listening we were just making a big flowchart the key phrase in the USSID 18 is about U.S. Persons. That's when you say it was to look for terrorism. Correct, you are looking for foreign terrorists but it was apparently to broad for the Attorney General to sign, and they knew that they wouldn't get it by the FISA court.
So I guess in the end, if the machine wants to prove that they did this correctly. The General Counsel of the NSA needs to provide some documents and some proof, not some spin.
Illegal Immigration
I have been agonizing over how is the best way to talk about illegal immigration. I don't even know where to start. I was going to bore you with a lot of facts and figures on that the growth from 1980 until now. When I started that research process, I realized that nobody knows anything about anything. I'll explain.
The White House and Congress have been talking about a 10-12 million number as how many illegals there are. This was based on the 2000 census, and then adjusted by expected birth & death rates, entrances made daily, and the other factors. None of which really matter or are correct because we know that like most numbers the government comes up with, they are wrong in one way or another. The next time you meet an illegal ask them if they would/did participate in the census. The actual number is somewhere closer to 30 million. http://www.theamericanresistance.com/ref/illegal_alien_numbers.html
The 10-12 million number probably encompasses those that are coming from Mexico, or specifically a racial profile against Latinos. Why target them you say? Those are the ones that are costing us money, or so perceived by the Republicans. Those are the ones that are most likely to vote Democrat as well. They typically don't have insurance of any kind, rarely pay their emergency room bills and otherwise put a drain on public institutions (or so the machine wants you to believe. This isn't even talking about the Chinese, Indians, etc.
I am not sure what the reality is, but I can assure you that no matter what is being said about illegal immigration, there are still 30-40 million people in this country that are considered part of the working poor. So if you couple those two numbers together, you end up around 50 million. So what is happening is that the Republicans mark those that have no recourse and say they're the reason why there is a drain on the economy. So let's round them all up and tag them with some biometrics.
But none of this matters because it is just like the Gay Marriage Amendment, the Republicans needed a banner to rally behind so that the Democrats could vote against it for the attack ads coming out in August - October.
I am not sure what the answer here is, because if the Democrats say let's go further and fully fund a bunch of border security initiatives including more money for the Coast Guard, Customs, INS and Border patrol. Because then we get marked as going to far and spending too much, even though Democrats could say that we were interested in homeland security, and Republicans aren't.
What not to do
Send a bunch of National Guard troops to "protect" the Mexican border.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051400773.html My Thoughts:
- Hurricane season is about to start;
- Tornado and Flood season isn't over;
- You never know about that big one in California;
- Minutemen, (send the National Guard to hang out with the Minutemen - too many Weekend Warriors in the same location);
- Training, are they trained for this?
If he is adament about going through with this then, he should hand out Border Patrol applications when the troops show up.
And that's why all the state Democratic parties need money from the National Dem party.
Some Local Politics
This is most upsetting and it happened only a few miles away. I first read this letter to the editor in the Washington Post, by Christopher J. Reynolds: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR2006050501858.html This week was the Republican response, authored by Tom Kelley. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/13/AR2006051300028.html Obviously, I have a clear "blue" bias in a "red" county. However, Reynolds was correct and the Kelley has, at best, poor spin control abilities. I don't doubt that the Republicans have the right to free speech, but the point of the Reynolds letter was to show that the Calvert County Board of Education and the Republican Party in Calvert County allowed a fundraising event on school grounds. There were plenty of other places that the Republicans could have held their event (maybe). Could it be that the tides are turning, and nobody wanted to have their venue tarnished by Coulter? Or could it have been that the Republicans simply forgot to mention that it was a fundraising event? Then I found this: http://www.gazette.net/stories/042806/polia%20s194454_31957.shtml This article states that the Republicans knew about the issue of hosting the fundraiser on school grounds, at least a week before the event. Instead of reading the Reynolds letter and say that they moved the main fundraiser off school grounds; the Republican response attacked Reynolds, as whiner and that he represents a "'party of negativity'". The Kelley letter could have summarized the Gazette article by saying that the only thing that happened on school grounds was a speech, and that attendees needed to cover the costs. But that isn't what happened, its obvious by the way that the Kelley letter didn't have any facts or figures. It immediately went on the offensive, and started with the name calling. If you have nothing to hide, then tell us where the $200 pre-event reception took place and we’ll try to believe. But when you use language like in the Kelley letter, we have to believe that something went wrong. CC: The Washington Post, The Calvert Recorder, The Calvert Independent, Christopher J. Reynolds, Tom Kelley
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
When I first read about it, from the title I was a little upset. But then I got further along and found out that Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) used her power of language to distinguish that investigations should be opened but that "'You never kow where is leads to'". That's super and I think its the right move, not that my opinion matters.
Sorry / Vent
For anyone who has bothered to read: Sorry for not writing anything. Been busy.
For everyone else: Hello, I will try to keep writing. My issue is that I have got too many/too few places to look for news. I'll explain. I have an RSS aggregator that I use to try and keep up. I am subscribed to so many and only a few have actual original content. So when I think that I am getting something new, I am actually getting something older. Then there is the search for real truth. Trying to figure out the spin from the talking points ... you get the idea. It is almost to the point where the reporters are the ones that need to make news in order to get the news out, example David Gregory or to some extent Stephen Colbert (not necessarily a reporter but to some a news source). Gregory seems to be the only one who wants to get real answers to questions, and doesn't want to keep getting the "ongoing investigation" line. So I do disagree with Tom Brokaw in the link provided, but it points out the he is not afraid to ask some questions. There is also a quality/quantity issue. Some times the post subjects I get from Blogs are something like: "READ THIS NOW!!" and then the actually post is something as trivial as "Bush is still not my president". And that is why I haven't posted, I do not want alienate my audience with a no content post like the one above.
|
|
