Global
Joel Wendland has written an article opposing impeachment. His claims, and all claims of impeachment opponents, have long since been answered here. But here's some redundancy:
Wendland objects to calling Conyers "no Martin Luther King". Most of us are no Martin Luther King, but the point of that comment from Ray McGovern was that Conyers is backing away from a controversial and urgent life-or-death demand for justice. He is backing away in a manner that Dr. King almost certainly would not have. Wendland opposes attempting impeachment because it is "not likely to pass in the House". That's nonsense. The Democrats could vote as a block and pass it, and some Republicans might join them. Whether it would pass the Senate is harder to predict but far from impossible, and an impeachment with an acquittal would be far better than no accountability whatsoever. It would send a signal to future administrations that breaking the law at least MIGHT be punished.
Wendland objects to calling Conyers "no Martin Luther King". Most of us are no Martin Luther King, but the point of that comment from Ray McGovern was that Conyers is backing away from a controversial and urgent life-or-death demand for justice. He is backing away in a manner that Dr. King almost certainly would not have. Wendland opposes attempting impeachment because it is "not likely to pass in the House". That's nonsense. The Democrats could vote as a block and pass it, and some Republicans might join them. Whether it would pass the Senate is harder to predict but far from impossible, and an impeachment with an acquittal would be far better than no accountability whatsoever. It would send a signal to future administrations that breaking the law at least MIGHT be punished.
On June 29, 2007, I was asked to assist Dr. Richard Hayes Phillips and Marj Creech with the photographing of 2004 ballots. It was an exhilarating experience, we were all so happy. The reason for our joyous mood, was that time was far different from when we had all gone on record gathering adventures around the state of Ohio many times since the Presidential Election of 2004. Often we had to battle Boards of Elections and County Prosecutors to get access to what is legally known as “public records”, this being the actual 2004 ballots. Some records were never given. Yet on this Friday in June, we were in the office of Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, and we were treated with respect. Doug Miller, the Manager of Security for the Ohio Secretary of State (SOS) watched over us in a room with the records Richard had requested, and Doug allowed them to be examined and photographed. Richard, Marj, and myself were just so happy, literally grinning from ear to ear.
Author’s Note: I got back from Puerto Rico over a week ago but between shooting at large rats with bottle rockets and riding my motorcycle back out to New Mexico, which, incidentally, died after an Arduous 700 miles-in-one-day-run caused the poor thing to shit a Connecting Rod right through the goddamned Engine Block ten miles over the Oklahoma border, ejecting me over the handlebars and onto a Greyhound bus. I really didn’t have the time to do the thing Justice until now. Lo Siento, Pepe. If you want faster service, pony up a little more cash. At least help me forge a Foodstamp Card, you hookers.
INTRODUCTION
Between May 2, 2006 and November 7, 2006, I observed the hand-counting of paper ballots in three elections in two New England states. The purpose of these observations was to gather first-hand data concerning the feasibility, effectiveness and accuracy of the use of HCPB. These elections were as follows:
(1) Rockport, Massachusetts (MA), on May 2, 2006, Town Election
(2) Hudson, MA, on May 8, 2006, Town Election
(3) Acton, Maine (ME), on November 7, 2006, General Election
All three hand-countings of paper ballots were conducted smoothly and were finished in a timely manner. This paper describes the various protocols used and presents recommendations for the use of hand-counted paper ballots (HCPB) in the upcoming elections of 2008. Absentee ballots, provisional ballots and chain of custody of the ballots are not dealt with in this paper, although they are also crucial elements of an HCPB system.[1]
Between May 2, 2006 and November 7, 2006, I observed the hand-counting of paper ballots in three elections in two New England states. The purpose of these observations was to gather first-hand data concerning the feasibility, effectiveness and accuracy of the use of HCPB. These elections were as follows:
(1) Rockport, Massachusetts (MA), on May 2, 2006, Town Election
(2) Hudson, MA, on May 8, 2006, Town Election
(3) Acton, Maine (ME), on November 7, 2006, General Election
All three hand-countings of paper ballots were conducted smoothly and were finished in a timely manner. This paper describes the various protocols used and presents recommendations for the use of hand-counted paper ballots (HCPB) in the upcoming elections of 2008. Absentee ballots, provisional ballots and chain of custody of the ballots are not dealt with in this paper, although they are also crucial elements of an HCPB system.[1]
Needless to say, the Bush year’s have been difficult years for progressives. Reality’s "well known liberal bias" hasn’t been enough to keep pace with Team-W’s lies, misrepresentations, and manipulations. And we haven’t resorted to torture, or to tapping phone lines (Talking Head’s prescient "Life During Wartime" plays through my head as I type that phrase: "They’re tapping phone lines/ You know that that ain’t allowed.") We’ve had to deal with Bush’s imperial reach.
Fortunately (sort of) and not surprisingly, Bush’s imperial reach has developed into imperial over-reach to the extent that all but the most "blinded by the right" Bushies are coming to see the arrogance, deceitfulness, wrongheadedness, and just plain wrongness that characterize Bush governing. But that hardly means our difficult times are over—or that our difficult times will end on their own. And, at the rate Bush is screwing things up, we can’t allow ourselves to wait until the calendar says the bum’s got to leave the White House.
Fortunately (sort of) and not surprisingly, Bush’s imperial reach has developed into imperial over-reach to the extent that all but the most "blinded by the right" Bushies are coming to see the arrogance, deceitfulness, wrongheadedness, and just plain wrongness that characterize Bush governing. But that hardly means our difficult times are over—or that our difficult times will end on their own. And, at the rate Bush is screwing things up, we can’t allow ourselves to wait until the calendar says the bum’s got to leave the White House.
CORNUCOPIA, WI: A new study, published in the British Journal of Nutrition, showed that organic dairy and meat products in a mother’s diet positively affect the nutritional quality of her breast milk—markedly increasing beneficial fatty acids.
Specifically, a diet in which 90% or more of dairy and meat products are organic is correlated with measurably higher levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). CLA is a type of fat that is believed to have anti-carcinogenic, anti-atherosclerotic, anti-diabetic and immune-enhancing effects, as well as a favorable influence on body fat composition. For newborns specifically, CLA is believed to especially aid immune system development.
“These findings provide scientific support for common sense, by showing that organic foods are healthier,” says Dr. Lukas Rist, who is the lead author of the study and the head of research at the Paracelsus Hospital in Switzerland. The study involved 312 breastfeeding women with 1-month old infants from the Netherlands.
“The study shows that breastfeeding mothers can influence the supply and quality of fatty acids for their infants, by eating a diet with organic dairy,” adds Rist.
Specifically, a diet in which 90% or more of dairy and meat products are organic is correlated with measurably higher levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA). CLA is a type of fat that is believed to have anti-carcinogenic, anti-atherosclerotic, anti-diabetic and immune-enhancing effects, as well as a favorable influence on body fat composition. For newborns specifically, CLA is believed to especially aid immune system development.
“These findings provide scientific support for common sense, by showing that organic foods are healthier,” says Dr. Lukas Rist, who is the lead author of the study and the head of research at the Paracelsus Hospital in Switzerland. The study involved 312 breastfeeding women with 1-month old infants from the Netherlands.
“The study shows that breastfeeding mothers can influence the supply and quality of fatty acids for their infants, by eating a diet with organic dairy,” adds Rist.
The first awful, horrendous truth is we don’t know our own real enemy. It’s not Al Qaeda, it’s not Saddam Hussein, and it’s not terror. None of these pose a threat to the existence of our democracy. Properly managed, Al Qaeda has far less ability to inflict physical injury on Americans than do Americans who misuse hand guns and automatic weapons. In 2005, handguns killed over 30,000 people in America. Even with these deaths, we do not feel our democracy is in danger.
The second awful, horrendous truth is that almost all our elected Democratic and Republican leaders incorrectly believe there is no enemy. They do correctly understand that we are not fighting the war in Iraq against an enemy, but rather for a reason—a strategic objective: the control of Middle Eastern oil. But our elected leaders are wrong in thinking there is no enemy.
The second awful, horrendous truth is that almost all our elected Democratic and Republican leaders incorrectly believe there is no enemy. They do correctly understand that we are not fighting the war in Iraq against an enemy, but rather for a reason—a strategic objective: the control of Middle Eastern oil. But our elected leaders are wrong in thinking there is no enemy.
In these trying times of wars, famines and all sort of manmade disasters, I
strongly believe that we ought to confront our popular apathy and the
abundant arrogance of our business, political, religious and military
leaders. It is time for some serious introspection; without it we 'the
common people', will continue to be duped into the simplistic media view of
the world, that of the good and the bad.
Everyday I wonder what atrocity I am going to be enlightened with when I turn on the television set, Google the news or access the newspapers and magazines. Every time I wonder what messaging I am going to hear from leaders and experts, what angle they are going to take, either to justify one atrocity or to prepare us for another.
Why people are not taking to the streets, why we are not having collective global strikes, boycotting our bankers or rejecting the payment of our taxes.
Dramatic as this may sound, I cannot help but wonder if we are witnessing the disintegration of our 'civilized society' beneath the challenges permeating our world.
Everyday I wonder what atrocity I am going to be enlightened with when I turn on the television set, Google the news or access the newspapers and magazines. Every time I wonder what messaging I am going to hear from leaders and experts, what angle they are going to take, either to justify one atrocity or to prepare us for another.
Why people are not taking to the streets, why we are not having collective global strikes, boycotting our bankers or rejecting the payment of our taxes.
Dramatic as this may sound, I cannot help but wonder if we are witnessing the disintegration of our 'civilized society' beneath the challenges permeating our world.
It was a slumber party on Capital Hill. Democrats held an all-nighter on July 17 in an attempt to mollify the great antiwar sentiment that is raging across the land. But their challenge to Bush's war on Iraq was sanctimonious and superficial at best. Not only were the Democrat's pleas to set a timetable for withdraw fully pathetic, so too was their moral indignation.
The Democrats certainly don't contest Bush's Middle East foreign policy, they embrace it. Last week the Senate voted 97-0 in favor of moving toward war with Iran. So while the Democrats call for withdraw of our troops from Iraq in the future, they insist we must keep an eye on Iran, for the Iranians are opposing the occupation of Iraq by allegedly arming the Shia resistance.
The Democrats certainly don't contest Bush's Middle East foreign policy, they embrace it. Last week the Senate voted 97-0 in favor of moving toward war with Iran. So while the Democrats call for withdraw of our troops from Iraq in the future, they insist we must keep an eye on Iran, for the Iranians are opposing the occupation of Iraq by allegedly arming the Shia resistance.