Our blogs about
America's Wars
War on Iraq
War on Drugs
War on Afghanistan
War on Columbia
War on Philippines
War on Venezuela

Matrix Masters
World Events
Katrina's Aftermath
US News
Bush Crime Family News
Science & Health
Earth News

Free Speech
News from Africa
News from Palestine
Bill of Rights Under Attack

Random Musings

. . . about Chaos,
Reason, and Hope

              U.S. News Archives        U.S. News [Home]
Hurricane Crisis Linked to Bush Policies
(Allen L Roland's Radio Weblog, August 31, 2005)
[NOTE: The following is only a brief summary of a very well documented (with links) story. If you find the following sound bites interesting, I highly recommend that you click the link above and read this story in its entirety.]

In 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency ranked a major hurricane strike on New Orleans as "among the three likeliest, most catastrophic disasters facing this country," directly behind a terrorist strike on New York City. . . . Two months ago, President Bush took an ax to budget funds that would have helped New Orleans prepare for such a disaster. The New Orleans branch of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers suffered a "record $71.2 million" reduction in federal funding, a 44.2 percent reduction from its 2001 levels. Reports at the time said that thanks to the cuts, "major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. ... Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now." (Too bad Louisiana isn't a swing state. In the aftermath of Hurricane Frances -- and the run-up to the 2004 election -- the Bush administration awarded $31 million in disaster relief to Florida residents who didn't even experience hurricane damage.) . . . The Gulf Coast wetlands form a "natural buffer that helps protect New Orleans from storms," slowing hurricanes down as they approach from sea. When he came into office, President Bush pledged to uphold the "no net loss" wetland policy his father initiated. He didn't keep his word. Bush rolled back tough wetland policies set by the Clinton administration, ordering federal agencies "to stop protecting as many as 20 million acres of wetlands and an untold number of waterways nationwide." Last year, four environmental groups issued a joint report showing that administration policies had allowed "developers to drain thousands of acres of wetlands." The result? New Orleans may be in even greater danger: "Studies show that if the wetlands keep vanishing over the next few decades, then you won't need a giant storm to devastate New Orleans -- a much weaker, more common kind of hurricane could destroy the city too." . . . As Chris Mooney (who presciently warned of the need to bulk up hurricane defenses in New Orleans last May) noted yesterday, "If we ever return to science-based policymaking based on professionalism and expertise, rather than ideology, an office like OTA would be very useful in studying how best to save a city like New Orleans . . . National Guard and Reserve soldiers are typically on the front lines responding to disasters like Katrina -- that is, if they're not fighting in Iraq. Roughly 35 percent of Louisiana's National Guard is currently deployed in Iraq . . . As the Progress Report has noted, data increasingly suggest that human-induced global warming is making these phenomena more dangerous and extreme than ever. "The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service," science author Ross Gelbspan writes. "Its real name is global warming." AP reported recently on a Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis that shows that "major storms spinning in both the Atlantic and the Pacific ... have increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent" since the 1970s, trends that are "closely linked to increases in the average temperatures of the ocean surface and also correspond to increases in global average atmospheric temperatures during the same period." Yet just last week, as Katrina was gathering steam and looming over the Gulf, the Bush administration released new CAFE standards that actually encourage automakers to produce bigger, less fuel efficient vehicles, while preventing states from taking strong, progressive action to reverse global warming.
. . . Read more!

posted by Lorenzo 3:44 PM

$4 a gallon gas on the horizon
(Grace Wong, CNN, August 31, 2005)
Consumers can expect retail gas prices to rise to $4 a gallon soon, but whether they stay there depends on the long-term damage to oil facilities from Hurricane Katrina, oil and gas analysts said Wednesday. . . . "There's no question gas will hit $4 a gallon," Ben Brockwell, director of pricing at the Oil Price Information Service, said. "The question is how high will it go and how long will it last?" . . . Brockwell said with gasoline prices now exceeding $3 a gallon before even reaching the wholesale level, it "doesn't take a genius" to expect retail prices to hit $4 a gallon soon. . . . "Consumers haven't seen the worst of it yet," Brockwell said. . . .
He expects consumers in the Southeast and Northeast to be pinched first, following the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast region. . . . Katrina forced operators to close more than a tenth of the country's refining capacity and a quarter of its oil production, which sent gasoline prices surging. . . . Two major pipelines that supply gasoline to key terminals and distribution centers within the eastern U.S. were shut down due to power outages caused by the storm. . . . In a research note, Behravesh laid out a worst-case scenario that puts average prices for regular unleaded gasoline at about $3.50 a gallon for the next four to six months. . . . "The impact on consumer spending in such a scenario would be very dramatic, cutting the growth rate by as much as 3 percent and pushing real GDP growth in the fourth quarter closer to zero," he wrote. . . . In a best-case scenario, he forecast retail pump prices to peak at $3 a gallon for a couple of months, but then fall back to around $2.50 by year-end.

[COMMENT by Lorenzo: Of course, the economics department at the University of Notre Dame says"Katrina not a major blow to overall economy". It will be interesting to see how well the ND economists fair with this prediction.]
. . . Read more!

posted by Lorenzo 3:01 PM

Katrina Targeting U.S. Oil Operations
(Justin Bachman, Associated Press, August 28, 2005)
With crude oil prices already at record levels, a hurricane targeted the heart of America's oil and refinery operations Sunday, shutting down an estimated 1 million barrels of daily production and threatening to curtail refining activity in the region. . . . Katrina, a Category 5 storm expected to strike near New Orleans early Monday, was churning through the Gulf of Mexico. The area is crucial to the nation's energy infrastructure _ offshore oil and gas production, import terminals, pipeline networks and numerous refining operations throughout southern Louisiana and Mississippi. . . . Oil companies have evacuated workers and closed at about 1 million barrels of daily production in the Gulf, but that amount could be higher because not every producer reports data, said Peter Beutel, an oil analyst with Cameron Hanover. . . . "It's not looking real friendly here. This is unmitigated, bad news for consumers," he said. . . . Gasoline prices could see the largest spikes because so many refineries in the region could be shut down by flooding, power outages, or both, energy analysts said. . . . refining capacity is extraordinarily tight. As a result, prices for gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel and other products have flirted with records and could go even higher this week. . . . "If this thing knocks out significant quantities of refining capacity ... we're going to be in deep, dark trouble," said Ed Silliere, vice president of risk management at Energy Merchant LLC in New York. . . . ChevronTexaco Corp. completed evacuations of all workers in the eastern and central Gulf of Mexico and nonessential workers in the western Gulf late Saturday, company spokesman Matt Carmichael said. . . . The Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, which processes loads from tankers too large for mainland ports, evacuated all workers and stopped unloading ships on Saturday morning said Mark Bugg, the terminal's manager of scheduling. The LOOP, 20 miles offshore, is the nation's largest oil import terminal and handles 11 percent of U.S. oil imports. . . . Royal Dutch-Shell Group evacuated more than 1,000 offshore workers by Saturday. Only those in the far west remained, the company said on its Web site. BP PLC and ExxonMobil Corp. also brought workers ashore Saturday. . . . Shell estimated 420,000 barrels of oil and 1.35 million cubic feet of gas per day will be shut in at its central and eastern Gulf facilities. Exxon Mobil said it has ceased daily production of 3,000 barrels of oil and 50 million cubic feet of gas. . . . Valero Energy Corp. evacuated all but a few workers at its 260,000-barrel-a-day St. Charles refinery on Saturday. Murphy Oil Corp. also shut down its 120,000-barrel-a-day Meraux, La., refinery, and Exxon Mobil Corp. planned to shut down its 183,000-barrel-a-day refinery in Chalmette, La. . . . Motiva Enterprises, a joint venture of Royal Dutch Shell PLC and state-owned Saudi Arabian Oil Co., began implementing hurricane contingency plans at its 225,000-barrel-a-day Norco refinery on Saturday. Motiva also was exploring contingencies for its 235,000-barrel-a-day Convent refinery, about 45 miles west of New Orleans, Dow Jones Newswires reported.
. . . Read more!

posted by Lorenzo 3:27 PM

The Strange Sacking of General Kevin P. Byrnes
(Arianna Huffington, 8.10.2005)
Here's all the proof you need that the lunatics have taken over the Pentagon and DoD asylums (that is, if the lunacy of their Iraq policies hadn't already convinced you): . . . Four-star General Kevin Byrnes, the third most senior of the Army's 11 four-star generals, was sacked over allegations that he had an extramarital affair. Meanwhile, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib torture and abuse scandal, is being considered for promotion to, yep, four-star general. . . . Talk about your utterly perverted priorities. . . . Now, it long ago became clear that the Bushies inhabit a bizarro, topsy-turvy universe -- a place where being utterly wrong about slam-dunk WMD earns you a Medal of Freedom, dismissing a "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S." memo earns you a promotion to Secretary of State, signing off on torture makes you AG material, another 123 American soldiers being blown up is the mark of an enemy in its "last throes", and outing an undercover CIA agent (and then lying about it) merits a vote of confidence instead of a pink slip. . . . Nevertheless, the Byrnes firing is still stunning. Consider: in modern times, no four-star general has ever been relieved of duty for disciplinary reasons; prior to this incident Byrne had a spotless military record; he has been separated from his wife since May 2004; the allegations do not involve anyone under his command or connected to the DoD; and he was already set to retire in November. . . . Something doesn't add up. Would the Army really can a four-star General with 36 years of service, three months shy of his retirement, because he screwed someone other than his wife... in the middle of a war? . . . The message is clear: overseeing a system that led to prisoners being buggered with chemical lights and having electrodes attached to their genitals will get you a leg up in Bush's military; giving the high, hard one to someone other than your wife will get you booted out the door.
. . . Read more!

posted by Lorenzo 3:35 PM

Is Cheney Planning Another 9/11?
(JustinLogan.com, July 22, 2005)
According to Philip Giraldi, writing in the new issue (not online) of the American Conservative, it's to nuke Iran: The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing-- that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

The following is from Cheney's Plan: Nuke Iran- by Justin Raimondo: . . . Two points leap out at the reader - or, at least, this reader - quite apart from the moral implications of dropping nukes on Iran. The first is the completely skewed logic: if Iran has nothing to do with 9/11-II, then why target Tehran? As in Iraq, it's all a pretext: only this time, the plan is to use nuclear weapons. . . . The other weird aspect of this "nuke Iran" story is the triggering mechanism: a terrorist attack in the U.S. on the scale of 9/11. While it is certain that our government has developed a number of scenarios for post-attack action, one has to wonder: why develop this plan at this particular moment? What aren't they telling us? . . . The more I look at it, and the more I think of it, the more I sense a monumental evil casting its shadow over the world.

US Plans Nuclear Attack on Iran
(Stephen Sniegoski, 17 Jul 2005)
Philip Giraldi, a former intelligence officer in the CIA (and DIA), claims that the United States is developing a plan for the bombing of supposed military targets in Iran, which would include the use of NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The US strike would take place after a 9/11-type terrorist attack on the US. However, the US attack would not depend on Iran actually being involved in the terrorism. In short, the planned attack on Iran would be analogous to the unprovoked attack on Iraq. . . . many Americans now realize the war lies the Bush administration has relied upon, so any propaganda offensive, by itself, might be counterproductive. However, a new catastrophic terrorist event could so traumatize and anger a large sector of the American public as to provide a window of opportunity to launch an attack on Iran. The terror attack would be immediately followed by a massive propaganda barrage linking Iran to the terrorism. . . . Naturally, Israel and its supporters are spearheading the move to attack on Iran. It should be emphasized that Israel has for some time regarded Iran as a serious threat. It is a threat to Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and it provides support to Hezbollah in Lebanon and to a number of Palestinian resistance groups. . . . In late June, Israeli ambassador to the US Daniel Ayalon emphasized that Iran must be stopped from developing nuclear weapons. "The clock is ticking, and time is not on our side," Ayalon said. . . . Since a terrorist attack on the United States is, according to experts, almost inevitable, the Bush administration would likely be given the pretext to launch an attack on Iran. Would a propaganda offensive bring about public support for such an attack? With a Republican Congress it seems quite likely that there would be some type of congressional approval for a strike (not a declaration of war, of course). Maybe the Bush administration would not even seek congressional approval and launch the attack on the basis of alleged self-defense. . . . Iran is not going to stand around and take it. It is considerably stronger than Iraq. An American attack on Iran using conventional weapons would cause chaos in the Middle East. The use of nuclear weapons would have all types of terrible international ramifications—World War IV against Islam, global terrorist strikes, Sino-Russian reaction, etc. . . . As Giraldi points out, some Air Force officers are appalled by the nuclear strike plan "but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections." Perhaps, no respectable person would want to risk his career to prevent a nuclear war. But this must be done if the United States, and planet Earth, is going to avoid a catastrophe.
. . . Read more!

posted by Lorenzo 12:47 PM

MSNBC's Tucker Carlson supports terrorist violence
During the June 22, 2005, edition of his MSNBC show, The Situation with Tucker Carlson, Mr. Carlson stated that he has always respected France for blowing up the Greenpeace ship the Rainbow Warrior. The Rainbow Warrior was blown up in Auckland Harbor by French agents on July 10, 1985.

From "The Situation with Tucker Carlson,"
MSNBC, June 22, 2005

CARLSON: I am objectively pro-France. You know, France blew up the Rainbow Warrior, that Greenpeace ship in Auckland Harbor in the '80s. And I've always respected them . . .

MADDOW: That made you like them?

CARLSON: Yes. Yes. It won me over.

Fernando Pereira, the shipÂ’s photographer, drowned below deck on the Greenpeace ship that France attacked in a terrorist incident, leaving behind two young children. Fernando Pereira, the ship's photographer, drowned below deck, leaving behind two young children. The bombing was later proven to be an act of state-sponsored terrorism sanctioned by the French government. Two of the agents involved were charged and sent to prison. . . . On July 28, 2005, John Passacantando wrote to Neal Shapiro, president of NBC/MSNBC News, and to Bill Wolff, executive producer of the "Situation with Tucker Carlson", demanding that the network hold Tucker Carlson accountable for his remarks and fire him. . . . On the afternoon of August 3, Mr. Carlson telephoned John. Far from apologizing or retracting his remark, he was defiant. He insisted that the French government's action was "vandalism," not terrorism, adding that "“vandalizing the ship was impressive on France's part." He referred to Greenpeace acts of civil protest, such as blocking entrances as "vandalism", but he declined to respond when asked whether he would consider Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi to be vandals. He also declined to answer when asked whether he was proud of what he said and whether he would say it again. Instead, he concluded the call by saying, "I am not hanging up. I am returning the handset to the cradle."

[COMMENT by Lorenzo: Oh, now that's really acting like an adult, Tucker. . . . Personally, I think Tucker Carlson has violated several provisions of the anti-Patriot Act and should be sent to Guantanamo Bay prison for the rest of his sad, sick life. What a despicablepicable person that moron Carlson is.]
. . . Read more!

posted by Lorenzo 10:58 AM

As Soldiers Die, Americans Question Bush
Six heros and a chickenhawk(Tom Raum, Associated Press, 05 August 2005)
The deadly recent attacks on American troops in Iraq are increasing the pressure on President Bush to develop an exit strategy. The US death toll from the war is now over 1,800, and a new AP-Ipsos poll shows the lowest approval yet for Bush's handling of Iraq, just 38 percent. . . . The president's fellow Republicans are growing nervous as they head into an election year. . . . Yet the administration must also confront the possibility that a US drawdown of troops - tentatively planned to begin next spring - could further embolden the insurgents and throw Iraq into civil war. . . . "We will stay the course. We will complete the job in Iraq," Bush pledged anew during a news conference on his Texas ranch with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. . . . Bush suggested his resolve was only strengthened by a videotaped warning earlier Thursday from al-Qaida's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri, threatening more terror attacks in Britain and tens of thousands of US military deaths if the United States doesn't withdraw. . . . There has been little outward sign of progress in US-led efforts to defeat the insurgency and to beef up the Iraqi army and police so they can take over security responsibilities and allow an orderly withdrawal of American forces. . . . Particularly lethal bombings over the past few weeks, including a roadside bomb that claimed the lives of 14 Marines on Wednesday, have made the situation look even bleaker than US military experts suggest it is. . . . That translates into a continued erosion of public support for Bush's Iraq policy at home. . . . An AP-Ipsos poll taken Monday through Wednesday indicated that just 38 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq. A year ago, the public was evenly divided on Iraq, and Bush's stance on the war and terrorism helped him to election victory. . . . Bush has lost support most dramatically among younger women, especially those who live in the suburbs, and among men with a high school education or less. . . . The war will be a major factor in the 2006 midterm congressional races and could be one in the 2008 presidential race, said Stephen Cimbala, a Pennsylvania State University political scientist who has studied the impact of wars on American politics. . . . "If you look at it from a Republican point of view, by the 2006 congressional elections, you're going to want to have a timetable in place for withdrawal of US forces and their replacement by Iraqis. And by the fall of 2008, you will want to have most US forces out of there," Cimbala said.
. . . Read more!

posted by Lorenzo 3:20 PM

Cheney orders plans for nuclear attack against Iran
(Greg Szymanski, The Arctic Beacon, July 28, 2005)
A number of political observers and activists today sounded 'a red alert' after reports surfaced this week Vice President Dick Cheney directly ordered Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to make contingency plans for a nuclear strike against Iran in the aftermath of another '9/11 type attack' on America. . . . "Vice President Cheney's office has specifically told the Pentagon that the military should be prepared for an attack on Iran in the immediate aftermath of "another 9-11." That's "not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States," notes Geraldi's article. . . . The statement was then distributed widely over the internet as a number of political observers have issued "world wide" warning statements," declaring Cheney's order to be interpreted as "sounding the bell for World War III." . . . In response to Cheney's order, outspoken political activist and former candidate for U.S. President, Lyndon La Rouche, Wednesday issued a "world wide" internet warning covering the time period of August 2005, saying: "Vice President Dick Cheney, with the full collusion of the circles of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, to unleash the recently exposed plans to stage a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against Iran. . . . "The danger of such a mad, Hitler-in-the-bunker action from the Cheney circles would be even further heightened, were the United States Congress to stick with its present schedule, and go into recess on July 30 until September 4. With Congress out of Washington, the Cheney-led White House would almost certainly unleash a "Guns of August" attack on Iran." . . . The report claims that Cheney already ordered the Strategic Command to prepare contingency plans for a conventional and tactical nuclear strike against hundreds of targets in Iran, in the event of a "new 9/11-style attack" on the United States. . . . the Bush Administration, under CONPLAN 8022, had already placed the relevant "mini-nukes" under the control of theater military commanders, as part of a new Global Strike doctrine, a doctrine originally conceived when Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s. . . . "The recent bombings in London have provided Tony Blair with his own "Reichstag fire" incident, and the full resources of the British "liberal imperial" faction can now be expected to weigh in behind the brutish Cheney circles in Washington, added La Rouche. . . . "The most compelling evidence of this "Guns of August" plan in discussions I’ve had with colleagues is the pattern of eyewitness reports of Dick Cheney's state of mind. Cheney is living out an American version of "Hitler in the bunker," lashing out at Republican Senators who have dared to resist his mad tirades, accusing anyone who fails to follow his orders--including senior members of the United States Senate--of being "traitors" and worse."
. . . Read more!

posted by Lorenzo 1:18 PM

Two Israeli Agents Charged in Pentagon Security Breach
(Mark Sherman, Associated Press, August 4, 2005)
Two former employees of a pro-Israel lobbying organization were indicted Thursday on charges they conspired to obtain and disclose classified U.S. defense information. . . . An indictment unsealed in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., named Steven Rosen, formerly the director of foreign policy issues for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Keith Weissman, the organization's former senior Iran analyst. . . . The five-count indictment also spells out in greater detail the government's case against Pentagon analyst Lawrence A. Franklin, who already was facing charges that he leaked classified military information to an Israeli official and the AIPAC employees. . . . Rosen and Weissman disclosed sensitive information as far back as 1999 on a variety of topics that included terrorist activities in Central Asia, the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, al-Qaida and U.S. policy in Iran, the indictment said. Among their contacts were U.S. and foreign government officials and reporters, the indictment said. . . . The FBI's long-running investigation has focused on whether Franklin, of Kearneysville, W.Va., passed classified U.S. material on Iran to AIPAC, the influential main pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington, and whether that group in turn passed it on to Israel.
. . . Read more!

posted by Lorenzo 5:22 PM

E L. Doctorow, slams Bush's insensitivity
(E.L. Doctorow, The East Hampton Star, September 9, 2004)
I fault this president for not knowing what death is. He does not suffer the death of our 21-year-olds who wanted to be what they could be. . . . this president does not know what death is. He hasn't the mind for it. You see him joking with the press, peering under the table for the weapons of mass destruction he can't seem to find, you see him at rallies strutting up to the stage in shirt sleeves to the roar of the carefully screened crowd, smiling and waving, triumphal, a he-man. . . . He does not mourn. He doesn't understand why he should mourn. He is satisfied during the course of a speech written for him to look solemn for a moment and speak of the brave young Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. . . . But you study him, you look into his eyes and know he dissembles an emotion which he does not feel in the depths of his being because he has no capacity for it. He does not feel a personal responsibility for the 1,000 dead young men and women who wanted to be what they could be. . . . To mourn is to express regret and he regrets nothing. He does not regret that his reason for going to war was, as he knew, unsubstantiated by the facts. He does not regret that his bungled plan for the war's aftermath has made of his mission-accomplished a disaster. He does not regret that, rather than controlling terrorism, his war in Iraq has licensed it. So he never mourns for the dead and crippled youngsters who have fought this war of his choice. . . . He wanted to go to war and he did. He had not the mind to perceive the costs of war, or to listen to those who knew those costs. He did not understand that you do not go to war when it is one of the options but when it is the only option; you go not because you want to but because you have to. . . . This president and his supporters would seem to have a mind for only one thing -- to take power, to remain in power, and to use that power for the sake of themselves and their friends. . . . A war will do that as well as anything. You become a wartime leader. The country gets behind you. Dissent becomes inappropriate. And so he does not drop to his knees, he is not contrite, he does not sit in the church with the grieving parents and wives and children. He is the president who does not feel. He does not feel for the families of the dead, he does not feel for the 35 million of us who live in poverty, he does not feel for the 40 percent who cannot afford health insurance, he does not feel for the miners whose lungs are turning black or for the working people he has deprived of the chance to work overtime at time-and-a-half to pay their bills - it is amazing for how many people in this country this president does not feel. . . . The greatest democratic republic in history was turning its back on the future, using its extraordinary power and standing not to advance the ideal of a concordance of civilizations but to endorse the kind of tribal combat that originated with the Neanderthals, a people, now extinct, who could imagine ensuring their survival by no other means than pre-emptive war. . . . The president we get is the country we get. . . . The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble. . . . Finally, the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail. How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.
. . . Read more!

posted by Lorenzo 11:30 AM

Treat yourself to a laugh
Hillary can't wait till 2008
For some reason, this Flash presentation seems a little funnier than most . . . maybe it's because there isn't much else to laugh about these days.

[PLEASE NOTE: This is in no way meant to imply any sort of an endorsement of Hillary Clinton for President. IMHO she would only be marginally better than our current Benevolent Dictator . . . better to have a known traitor in the White House than a wolf in sheep's clothing.]
. . . Read more!

posted by Lorenzo 11:10 AM

This site Web

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Copyright © 2000 - 2005 by Lawrence Hagerty
Copyrights on material published on this website remain the property of their respective owners.

News    Palenque Norte     Changing Ages    Passionate Causes    dotNeters    Random Musings    Our Amazon Store    About Us