- 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004
- 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
- 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005
- 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005
- 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005
- 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005
- 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005
- 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005
- 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005
- 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005
- 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005
- 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005
- 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005
- 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005
- 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006
- 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006
- 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006
- 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006
- 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006
- 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006
- 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006
- 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006
- 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006
- 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006
- 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006
- 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006
- 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007
- 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007
- 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007
- 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007
- 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007
- 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007
- 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007
- 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007
- 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007
- 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008
A tribute to Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush who, despite voluminious evidence to the contrary, said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile," adding that "even in retrospect" there was "nothing" to suggest that" and "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," respectively.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Part of this story is how the administration convinced the New York Times to delay publication due to national security concerns. The Times, apparently, sat on the story for over a year and presumably had the story prior to the 2004 elections.
So here's the rub. The administration has known for well over a year that someone had leaked what they called classified information. This information purportedly was vital to the national security interests yet they did not begin an investigation until now. So why is that? Is it because they knew what they were doing was illegal and could impact the 2004 elections? Or, do they only care when the information causes them some embarassment.
If the leak was a detrimental as they claim, what's the excuse for not investigating until now? Something is wrong with this picture.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
The most blatant and well-known example is that of Michael (heck of a job) Brown formerly the head of FEMA. But, sadly, he is just one of many. Either by political connections, political contributions, political activism or corporate connections, this incestual relationship permeates the current administration to the detriment of the American taxpayer.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
One needs to look to when the "state rights" mantra becomes inconvenient such as Bush v. Gore or in the Terri Schiavo case and the centralization of control become more evident. Additionally, programs like "No Child Left Behind," which thankfully was underfunded, is another attempt by Washington to exert control over the individual states by the making requisite compliance with federal dictates in order to receive federal funds.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Despots thrive where there is no check on their power. Co-equal branches of government are meant to provide the cherished "checks and balances" which are the vanguard protections of the United States Constitution.
It's not surprising that one who would usurp the office would then thereafter attempt to usurp the powers of the other branches.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
If this sounds good to you, move to Cuba!
Either you're for the Bill of Rights or you're against it!
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Kerry on defensive on ‘foreign leaders’ claim
The White House kept up the pressure Monday. “If Senator Kerry is going to say he has support from foreign leaders, then he needs to be straightforward with the American people and say who it is that he has spoken with and who it is that supports him,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters.
BTW, where are all the "rule of law" republicans on this issue demanding that justice be served.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Remember taking the SAT and getting questions like, "Which one of the following does not belong with the others?"
Other journalists cited in the Jan. 22, 2004 subpoena, one of three sent to the White House that day are:
Robert Novak, "Crossfire," "Capital Gang" and the Chicago Sun-Times; Knut Royce and Timothy M. Phelps, Newsday; Walter Pincus, Richard Leiby, Mike Allen, Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post; Matthew Cooper, John Dickerson, Massimo Calabresi, Michael Duffy and James Carney, Time magazine; Evan Thomas, Newsweek; Andrea Mitchell, "Meet the Press," NBC; Chris Matthews, "Hardball," MSNBC; Tim Russert, Campbell Brown, NBC; Nicholas D. Kristof, David E. Sanger and Judith Miller, The New York Times; Greg Hitt and Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal; John Solomon, The Associated Press; and Jeff Gannon, Talon News.
Granted, this is a trick question because so many on the list are journalistic prostitutes, but the key is which one is not an employee of a major news organization.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Last night, ABC News ran a story about how the EPA mileage estimates for hybrid cars falls well short of the mileage realized by drivers in the real world. This same issue was dealt with nearly a year and a half ago by John Gartner in his article Hybrid Mileage Comes Up Short.
ABC reported than one such hybrid vehicle is rated at 60 miles per gallon but actually delivers 35 miles per gallon in real life conditions. Now, this got me to thinking, “How could the estimates be so far off?” This isn’t a minor difference; it’s like buying a pound of butter that’s 9.28 ounces. Supposedly, the differences are attributed to the EPA’s testing method using lab conditions and not actually directly measuring fuel consumption, a method which they’ve been using for the last 19 years. Let’s see, 19 years ago, that would put Reagan in office.
Virginia Postrel’s article in 2001, titled Setting fuel-efficiency targets for vehicle fleets makes little sense, notes the following:
Under the complex CAFE system, the federal government sets a minimum average mileage requirement for each manufacturer's fleet. Domestic and imported cars are averaged separately, and automakers that do better than the mandate, often because they make mostly small cars, can save credits for future use. Toyota and Honda used these credits when they introduced their luxury lines.
The federal government has imposed fuel efficiency standards on the auto industry not based on individual vehicles, but instead, how their fleet of vehicles performs mileage wise. So, does anyone benefit from these exaggerated estimates? Certainly not the consumer. But, what is the effect overall for the auto industry? Is compliance based on just more flawed research. Note: These requirements were fully in force when Reagan came into office in 1981 and shortly thereafter, these testing procedures were adopted.
All this prompts the following questions”
Is this discrepancy the result of flawed testing or is it the EPA’s way of helping the auto industry comply with fleet mileage requirements for its cars under the CAFE system.
What testing procedure did the EPA use prior to the current (inaccurate) method and was it more realistic than what we have here.
What prompted the EPA to use this testing procedure? Was there pressure from the industry or White House to do so?
If more accurate mileage ratings were used, would the fleets of the major auto manufacturers comply with the CAFE requirements?
Would the EPA put forth false information to protect business interests? Ask the workers at “ground zero!”
Have all the lies made me more cynical?
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Showing his much touted compassionate conservatism, President Bush demonstates how poor Americans can heat their homes this winter.
Monday, December 05, 2005
The questions will gain even more relevance with a revelation coming in Sunday’s New York Times. It seems that in a part of the 35-page “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq” document posted on the White House web site, a few key strokes by those in know reveal that the document’s originator or author, is one “feaver-p.”
This person is Dr. Peter D. Feaver, a 43-year-old Duke University political scientist who joined the National Security Council staff as a special adviser in June. White House officials, while saying the document contained contributions from many federal departments, confirmed, according to the Times, that “its creation and presentation strongly reflected the public opinion research” of Dr. Feaver.
Feaver, the Times’ Scott Shane writes, “was recruited after he and Duke colleagues presented to administration officials their analysis of polls about the Iraq war in 2003 and 2004.
They concluded that Americans would support a war with mounting casualties on one condition: that they believe it would ultimately succeed."
Editor & Publisher
Then Old Fashioned Patriot Notices This Suspicious Pattern:
Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead!
"This list isn't all inclusive but I am noticing a pattern here:"
Nov 19th - 9 US Soldiers Killed
Nov 20th - al-Zarqawi Dead? Al Qaeda Terrorist Perhaps Killed in Firefight
Nov 16th - 8 US Soldiers Killed
Nov 16th - IRAQ: US MILITARY ANNOUNCES CAPTURE OF KEY AL-QAEDA OFFICER
Nov 2nd - 7 US Soldiers Killed
Nov 3rd - Top Al Qaeda Leader Believed Captured
Sep 28th - 7 US Soldiers Killed
Sep 28th - Al-Qaida chief killed, says Pakistan
posted by George @ 12/03/2005 06:17:00 PM
Probably just another morbid coincidence and not an attempt to assuage public opinion.
Another great entry for the idiocy archives!