Log in

No account? Create an account
Pushing the Left Wing Agenda

> recent entries
> calendar
> friends
> profile
> next 20 entries

Monday, January 24th, 2005
6:39 pm - Write Your Representative About Alberto Gonzales.

Who: Alberto Gonzales, the Bush nominee for Attorney General

What: If you are interested in why this guy is unfit to be attorney general for reasons of torture or what he did in Texas with regards to the death penalty, that is another story. The latest story is that he perjured himself by giving an incorrect account of an incident in Texas to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Long story short, he was covering up a Bush DUI - the same one that came out in the 2000 election - back in '96. He didn't want to share this with the Senate Judiciary Committee, so he lied.

Where: Newsweek has the full scoop

When: The Gonzales vote in the Judiciary Committee is expected to be Wednesday (Jan 26).

Why: 1) He's a sick fuck and 2) we have a chance to prevent him from being confirmed


The most notable news from the Sunday shows is that on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Joe Biden said his “inclination” is to vote against the nomination of Alberto Gonzales.

That’s the second Dem member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, after Ted Kennedy, to publicly announce their leaning against confirmation.

But Biden’s announcement is much more important than Kennedy’s.

Since Biden is considered more centrist than Kennedy, Biden’s move makes it easier for other “deferential” Dems to stand up to Bush.

Biden may not publicly acknowledge it, but it is doubtful that he would entertain a “No” vote absent pressure from the grassroots.

But while we now have some momentum, we don’t have any “No” votes in hand.

If the pressure doesn’t continue, it is far less likely that the Dems will vote their values -- making it clear which party believes torture harms our nation’s efforts to spread freedom, and which party doesn’t.

How: Contact members of the Senate Judiciary Committee

You can see examples of other letters to Senators here and here.

(comment on this)

Saturday, January 22nd, 2005
1:15 am - Valerie Plame Wilson

Update on the Valerie Plame Wilson leak

If you didn't hear about this when it happened, here is the long story short. Valerie Plame Wilson's husband said something that pissed off Bush. A few days later, a "senior official" from the White House (which typically refers to someone as high up as, say, Cheney) leaked to 6 columnists that his wife, Valerie, is a covert CIA agent. If you've got the full story, post it as a comment please.

The significance: Leaking such information is a HUGE crime. It put her life in danger and our national security in danger. Also, training for people like her does not come easy, and it's not every person who could even do the job. Whoever committed this crime put the nation at a disadvantage in terms of fighting terrorism.

Why it still matters: The Bush administration has been stonewalling on this from the start. Instead of taking action to get to the bottom of this, the Bush administration is trying to slow things down and keep it out of the news spotlight.

Earlier this year I read Worse Than Watergate by John Dean. He was involved in Watergate and the book details the parallels of secrecy between the Nixon administration and the Bush administration. While it starts as an honest academic comparison, it ends more as a criticism of Bush. The book is a quick read and very informative. I highly recommend it. The Valerie Plame Wilson thing is one of several potential Bush scandals he writes about in the book.

(comment on this)

Friday, January 21st, 2005
2:00 am - The Lies of the Right

Claim vs. Fact Database

Brought to you by the Center for American Progress

(comment on this)

Thursday, January 20th, 2005
10:33 am - Act for change


I get this newsletter with action alerts on it. Here is the website above - instead of me posting all the action alerts!

(comment on this)

12:38 am - Social Security: NOT in Crisis

Wow, look at the Republicans, lying again. I am shocked. Read their lies listed below. Then scroll further down for the truth.

The Right's Social Security Talking Points

Opponents of President Bush's plan to rescue and modernize Social Security increasingly are claiming "there is no crisis." But Social Security is pledged to pay out $25 trillion more by 2077 than it expects to have available.1 How can that not be a crisis?

* In 15 years we will need to use 25 percent of federal income tax revenues just to cover the funding needs of Social Security and Medicare. By 2030, we will need half.2

* Medicare and Social Security's combined unfunded liability is seven times the size of our economy.

* The "Social Security Trust Fund" is essentially an IOU from the federal government. As such, from the taxpayers' perspective, the Trust Fund is essentially nonexistent. When Social Security starts needing Trust Fund assets to pay benefits, taxpayers will be expected to pony up cash - $5 trillion worth4 - to restore funds spent from what many mistakenly believe is a genuine trust fund.

* Social Security will need to tap the "Trust Fund" in approximately 2018.5 But, because the federal government has gotten used to spending Social Security taxes as if they were general revenues, the Social Security cash crunch - the "crisis," if you will - actually begins in 2009, the year the Social Security revenue surplus begins to shrink.

* A December 2004 Washington Post-ABC News poll found 63 percent of Americans do not think Social Security will have enough money to pay the benefits they are entitled to, while 74 percent believe Social Security faces either major problems or is in crisis.

America's options to solve the crisis: Reduce benefits to seniors, or increase savings to avert the cash crunch. President Bush is choosing the latter option. Doesn't it make sense for critics to work with the White House to craft the best plan possible, rather than deny action is needed?

From the Left

Two major points: 1) There's no problem and 2) Whether there's a problem or no, Bush's plan makes it worse not better

Social Security, the Wrong Retirement Crisis
President Bush has been working hard to promote belief in a Social Security crisis. Unfortunately for him, the numbers refuse to cooperate. The latest numbers from the Social Security trustees show that the program can pay all scheduled benefits through the year 2042 with no changes whatsoever.

White House Memo Implies Tax Hike
On January 3, an internal White House memo on Social Security privatization made the rounds in Washington. It outlines in rough sketches, the president's plan to privatize Social Security. Two things are clear about this plan: First, it will mean higher taxes in the future; and second, workers will receive worse benefits and face a greater gamble with their retirement savings in return.

Cross-posted in demsforchange

(comment on this)

Wednesday, January 19th, 2005
11:53 pm - Condi Rice Confirmed

Condi Rice Confirmed on Senate Vote 16-2

My thanks to Barbara Boxer and John Kerry...not that they made a difference.

(comment on this)

2:48 pm

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011905W.shtml - click on link for whole story

British Army Chief Condemns Abuse
BBC News

Perhaps inevitably some people in the media have described this as Britain's Abu Ghraib.
-- BBC correspondent Paul Adams

(comment on this)

Tuesday, January 18th, 2005
8:39 pm - Scandals of the Bush Administration


This documents 34 scandals, each one purportedly worse than watergate.

By the way, there is an EXCELLENT book called Worse Than Watergate, written by John Dean. I read it and loved it. Highly HIGHLY recommended to everyone.

(comment on this)

2:47 am - Four More Wars?

Cross posted in anti_righty, humanmajority, live_n_let_live, and the_leftorium

Published on Monday, January 17, 2004 by the Associated Press
U.S. Gathering Nuclear Intelligence Inside Iran for Possible Strike: New Yorker

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran said Sunday that environmental samples taken from a military complex this weekend by UN nuclear inspectors will prove that the country's atomic program is for peaceful purposes and not for making weapons as the United States alleges.

Meanwhile, the New Yorker magazine reported Monday that Washington has been conducting secret reconnaissance of Iranian nuclear installations inside that country for several months as a possible prelude to a military strike.Read more...Collapse )

(comment on this)

1:15 am


"It is white." —after being asked by a child in Britain what the White House was like, July 19, 2001

Yeah, so half of them are out of context. Fuck you.




Have fun. Liberal-Link-Man AWAY!!!

(1 comment | comment on this)

Monday, January 17th, 2005
3:55 pm

So, what's an alternative to Privatization of Social Security? I haven't heard any.

x psotetd

(3 comments | comment on this)

1:54 am - Top 10 Things Bush Does Not Want You to Know about Scalia and Thomas

Taken from The Center for American Progress

SCALIA OPPOSES EFFORTS TO DESEGREGATE SCHOOLS: In his concurrence on Freeman v. Pitts, Scalia indicated he would favor stripping the authority of Federal courts to regulate school desegregation, "even for those schools that remain significantly segregated." [Freeman v Pitts 1992]

THOMAS FAVORS STATE-SPONSORED RELIGION: Thomas has "advanced the position" that constitutionally mandated church/state separation applies "to the federal government, but not to individual states – a position that would allow Virginia, for example, to declare a state religion." He would allow individual states to "adopt particular religions and use tax money to proselytize for them." [Elk Grove v. Newdow, 2004]

SCALIA SUPPORTS SEX DISCRIMINATION: Scalia dissented from the Court's 7-to-1 decision that rejected the Virginia Military Institute's male-only admissions policy. He called the male-only admissions standard at the school a "well-rooted" tradition. [U.S. v. Virginia, 1996]

THOMAS WOULD ALLOW THE PRESIDENT TO EFFECTIVELY WAIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS: In last term's confrontation over detainees in the war on terror, eight of the nine Justices squarely rejected the Bush administration's sweeping claim that it could detain citizens indefinitely as enemy combatants based merely on the executive branch's assertion of enemy combatant status. "Only Thomas supported the Bush administration's position." He claimed "due process requires nothing more than a good-faith executive determination." [Rasul v. Bush, 2004]

SCALIA AND THOMAS OPPOSE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE: The Family and Medical Leave Act "guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one." Last year, the Court upheld the law, but Scalia and Thomas voted to strike it down, arguing that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003]

SCALIA AND THOMAS SUPPORT EXECUTING THE MENTALLY RETARDED: Scalia and Thomas dissented from the Court's 6-3 ruling that executing mentally retarded convicts constituted "cruel and unusual punishment." [Atkins v. Virginia, 2002]

SCALIA AND THOMAS SUPPORT BRUTALITY AGAINST PRISONERS: A recent case considered a Louisiana inmate who "was shackled and then punched and kicked by two prison guards while a supervisor looked on." The beating left the inmate "with a swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate." The Court ruled the inmate's treatment violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, but Scalia and Thomas dissented, arguing "the Eighth Amendment was not violated by the 'insignificant' harm the inmate suffered." In another case last year, Scalia and Thomas dissented from a 6-3 decision to ban the Alabama practice of chaining prisoners to outdoor ''hitching posts'' and abandoning them for hours without food, water, or a chance to use the bathroom. [Hudson v. McMillan, 1992; Hope v. Pelzer, 2002]

SCALIA AND THOMAS SUPPORT CRIMINALIZING CONSENSUAL SEX: Scalia and Thomas dissented from the Court's 6-3 decision to strike down a Texas state "sodomy" law, "banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex" and approvingly cited the execution of homosexuals during colonial times. Scalia lashed into the decision for pandering to the "so-called homosexual agenda." [Lawrence v. Texas, 2003]

SCALIA AND THOMAS OPPOSE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF POLLUTERS: Scalia and Thomas voted to strip the EPA "of the authority to prevent damaging air pollution by industries when state agencies improperly fail to do so." They dissented from the Court's decision that the EPA could make polluting companies use the "best available control technology" to limit pollution when they built new facilities. [Alaska v. EPA, 2004]

SCALIA AND THOMAS WOULD ALLOW STATES TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE DISABLED: After a Tennessee man was arrested for failure to appear in court because he was unwilling to crawl or be carried up the stairs to his second-story courtroom, Scalia and Thomas argued the state was right to arrest him because the Americans with Disabilities Act could only be enforced at the federal level. [Tennessee v. Lane, 2004]

Need more documentation on these before you believe them? Go to the original article and click all of their links to facts, quotes, and cases.

(1 comment | comment on this)

Friday, January 14th, 2005
12:34 pm

I've added to my entry below with the big list of all the websites. Nonetheless, this deserves its own post.

There are two sites that are going to really make a difference if we use them well. If we boycott companies that give big bucks to the Republicans and patronize those that give to Democrats, maybe we'll get somewhere. It always kills me that I go around canvassing for MoveOn.org and then pour half my paycheck into companies that are giving rightwing 527s like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth all the money they need to make dishonest ads against us.

http://www.choosetheblue.com - Find which companies give to Democrats

http://www.buyblue.org - Same as above. This site is in the process of being built but it looks promising as they are not only checking political contributions but also other practices (companies that pay a living wage, have ethical business practices, are environmentally friendly, do not discriminate against minorites, women, and homosexuals, etc)

(comment on this)

2:37 am - For Religious Lefties

To All Religious Lefties

There is a new website called http://www.FaithfulAmerica.org. They are like a religious version of MoveOn.org. Lately they have had success airing an interfaith commercial on Arab television showing that Americans are diverse and many different faiths oppose torture. You might wish to check it out.

Here is what they say they stand for:

* Respecting the dignity and equality of all people as part of a single human family;

* Working to end human suffering in all forms and in all places;

* Promoting unity, inclusion and peace among all people and all faiths;

* Acting as stewards of God’s creation;

* Practicing and promoting respectful, sincere political & religious debate that looks for truth on all sides and seeks only the common good;

* Striving in our own lives, as a community and as a nation to live up to the values we proclaim and being honest with ourselves when we do not.

(comment on this)

Thursday, January 13th, 2005
8:48 pm - Lefty Sites

Ok everyone -

We're up against Fox News and the Heritage Foundation. We need to use what we've got!

Here are my recommendations:

(3 comments | comment on this)

Thursday, December 23rd, 2004
3:39 pm - This is the most hideously bad thing ever.

WASHINGTON — After long defining itself as an undisputed defender of abortion rights, the Democratic Party is suddenly locked in an internal struggle over whether to redefine its position to appeal to a broader array of voters.Collapse )

(comment on this)

Thursday, December 16th, 2004
1:14 am



(comment on this)

> next 20 entries
> top of page