« My Lips Are Moving but I'm Not Saying Anything... | Main | Rather: "Journalists Should Speak Truth to Power" »
Permit Battle Continues...
In today's Washington Post, the battle against the continuing enclosure of public space and minds continues.
For the record, we have a permit for January 31. And the U.S Park Police have been, if not apologetic, at least concerned about the blowback from denying the original site offered.
Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post article this morning:
Demonstrators have been told to confine their gathering to the gravel walkways on the Mall between Third and Fourth streets, farther from the Capitol. The grassy areas are fenced off because they are being resodded.
Travis Morales, one of the organizers of the demonstration, said the restrictions effectively deny the protesters a meaningful public space to gather as a group. The nearest place to meet together, he said, is Seventh Street, about a mile from the Capitol.
"We are being told that turf renovation and security trump our First Amendment right to protest," he said.
The World Can't Wait is filing a lawsuit, protesting the ever-changing 'laws' that protect President Bush from hearing or seeing the dissent of the people.
Here's where you can help
They have asked us (please share among the blogosphere) to help their case by researching all known and publicized incidents where the people were prevented from protesting near the President in the past five years.
They need this information this morning.
Meanwhile, our plans continue for the DC event, wherever it will be held (it will definitely be on the west side of the Capitol somewhere).
Here is a description:
We will be on the west side of the Capitol, around and in front of the reflecting pool. The Press will be parked along 3rd Street and along the South Side of the Capitol (Independence). Cindy Sheehan and Ann Wright will speak to us (and them) at 8 pm; they will be followed by other speakers (the Rev. Yearwood and Doug Nelson, an Vietnam War vet) and then at 9, the main event will begin:
Picture a marching band/brass ensemble, a drum circle, a choir, tap dancers, a rock ensemble, hip-hop poetry, other spoken word, hootenanny, African, Asian, Irish glorious soaring rhythmic, each beginning and doing a few minutes in sequence, followed by overlapping moments, followed by at least 30 minutes of jazz-like improv, call and response, followed by one fully stunning long-held harmonious wall of sound that rises to the heavens. The whole main event will last 50 minutes, from 9-9:50. It’s possible the media might be roused from their hypnotic stance to report on it.
Thanks for helping to get the word out.
As for the larger message here, it has been appalling to note the slow seeping removal of access to public buildings and spaces here in DC, all in the name of *national security*. The message could not be clearer -- the people no longer have agency or say in how the government is run. We no longer have access to the buildings our tax dollars build and maintain. We no longer have access to dissent. We are enclosed from even the critical thoughts within our own minds by the steady stream of MSM BS.
As Travis Morales points out in today's Washington Post article:
"...the Bush administration 'is trying to push us so far away that we can't be seen or heard. . . . A protest not seen and a protest not heard is not a protest.' "
Posted on DU here ==>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2393114
Check for comments.
Also posted on dailykos here >>>
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/26/102132/291
Please give it a recommend and a comment.
Thanks
dw
This article in the Buzz Flash this morning pretty much summarizes the question of whether to filibuster.
I am a wild JK fan but right now I am pretty pissed and told his office as much. If he expects me to leave my business and spend months helping him in '08 he better get off of his ass right now and stand up to Alito. His petition and no vote are just swell but will accomplish squat.
This is your moment Democratic leaders. This is your test Senators Kerry, Clinton, and Feingold as to whether you deserve our support as our standbearer in '08. If you can't lead the Democratic Party as the buzz flash says, how can we trust you to lead the nation.
snip
"For some reason, instead of becoming outraged, the Democratic Senators act puzzled. This is why the so-called "middle Americans" don't trust the Dems on national security. The average Joe or Jill knows that if someone is threatening to beat you up, you don't hand him a bat."
snip
"As one of our readers wrote to the BuzzFlash Mailbag, reflecting the current mood of the Democrats who vote (not the ones who are Senate careerists): "I'm getting beyond my 5 year 'blame Bush' mentality, as Bush is doing just what Bush/Cheney wants, and doing it damn well and virtually unopposed. So I blame the "enablers"; those with the (D) behind their names on the Senate roll. They've gone beyond disappointing their supporters. They are about to bring disgrace onto this country, and they want us all to cheer the 'No' vote they use to camouflage their cowardice."
BuzzFlash has interviewed Harry Reid and found him candid and highly critical of Bush. But talk is cheap. What the Democrats need is a passion to save democracy and the leadership to get their stragglers in line.
"As we noted, in 2003, John Kerry, who would like to be president, promised to lead a filibuster on a nominee that fits Sam Alito to a "T." Then, lead, John Kerry, lead, or be a hypocrite and get trounced in the Iowa primaries. If you don't have the 41 votes, get them. If you want to be president, you better be able to secure the backing of your party caucus, because if you can't lead the Democrats, you can't lead the nation."
"We haven't heard you publicly call for a filibuster or heard you announce that you'll lead one, but that's what you promised in 2003. Just read your words here, in an article entitled "Kerry says he'll filibuster Supreme Court nominees who do not support abortion rights"
snip
"And Hillary Clinton just decided this week that she opposed Alito. What's that about? She should have been leading a national campaign against him the morning after Bush nominated him following the now-forgotten Harriet Miers fiasco. Do you think that they support an imperial presidency and the dismantling of the Constitution in Omaha, Hillary?
As we wrote on January 6, in one of our many Alito commentaries, "Thank God our current Senate Democrats weren't at Lexington and Concord!" There never would have been an American Revolution if the Dems were running the show. The Dems in the Senate would have been too busy rehearsing Hamlet.."
amen
For what it's worth, even the local paper here in Pensacola is calling for a filibuster of Alito, and they're getting a lot of flak for it. It's basically because the editor is a "real conservative," and he says that Alito will completely destroy the balance of powers guaranteed in the constitution. I'm glad to see that, even in this reddest area of the red state of Florida, we have journalists who realize what an enormous danger Bush's spying is to our freedom.
On a sadder note, my daughter just told me that a young Marine from Wisconsin named Vince, who shared our Thanksgiving with us, was killed in an auto accident while in training in North Carolina.
He was a fine young man who tasted Southern cornbread dressing for the first time on Thanksgiving Day. We have so many really great young people in our military. I just wish they had a better Commander in Chief to lead them- this one is wearing them down and tossing away their lives for no good reason.
It's just sad.
PLEASE READ!!!
Just got off the phone with Kerry's office in DC. They're working on other senators to filibuster on Alito. They said to tell you all to CALL YOUR SENATORS AND ASK THEM TO FILIBUSTER!!!
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt?command=congdir
PLEASE DO IT NOW!
Read some the pure genius quotes from the scrotus this morning...
BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 10:56 a.m. ET Jan. 26, 2006
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Thursday did not rule out dealing with Hamas, which won the Palestinian parliamentary elections, but said the militant Islamic group would have to renounce its call for Israel's destruction.
“Peace is never dead,” Bush said at a news conference when asked if he ruled out ever dealing with Hamas.
But he added that “if your platform is the destruction of Israel, it means you’re not a partner in peace, and we’re interested in peace.”
Bush called the election results a “wake-up call” to the old guard Palestinian leadership, many of whom are holdovers from the days of Yasser Arafat.
The Hamas victory “reminds me about the power of democracy,” he said. “You see, when you give people the vote, give them the chance to express themselves at the polls and they’re unhappy with the status quo, they’ll let you know.”
Surveillance program
On his controversial surveillance program, Bush said that “there's no doubt in my mind it is legal.”
He suggested that he might resist congressional efforts to change it.
“We’ll listen to ideas. If the attempt to write law is likely to expose the nature of the program, I’ll resist it,” the president said.
Democrats have accused the president of breaking the law in allowing eavesdropping on overseas communications to and from U.S. residents, and even some members of his own party have questioned the practice.
Asked if he would support efforts in Congress to give him express authority to continue the program, Bush cited what he said was the extreme delicacy of the operation.
“It’s so sensitive that if information gets out about how the program works, it will help the enemy,” Bush said. “Why tell the enemy what we’re doing?”
In his opening statement at the news conference, which was announced less than two hours earlier, Bush offered a preview of his State of the Union speech set for Tuesday.
“I'm going to remind people that we live in historic times ... and that we have a responsibility to lead,” he said.
The president often has press conferences with other world leaders, but only periodically on his own. His previous solo press conference was on Dec. 19 and Thursday’s event is the 22nd solo conference of his administration.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11040344/
defarge: just gave Salazr's chief of staff an earful about all the time I spent helping him get elecetd with names of Colorado State Chairmen that I will be contacting in '04 and how many of my Denver friends are really ticked at him for his refusal to support the filibuster. If you have family, friends, etc in that Senator's state it helps to mention their City and past support for that Senator to draw a local connection.
Posted by: Ira at January 26, 2006 11:25 AM
Agreed. I'm calling every senator I can, but especially those whose states I used to live in (and there are plenty!)
(Does it count how much money in lift tickets/beer I've spent in CO?)
defarge: just gave Salazar's chief of staff an earful about all the time I spent helping him get elected and how disgusted my Colorado friends are with his cowardice and opposition to the filibuster. Also mentioned names of Colorado State Chairmen and major fundraisers that I will be contacting. If you have family, friends, etc. in that Senator's state it helps to mention their City and past support for that Senator and draw a local connection.
It may not help but it sure seems to be getting their staff's attention.
Its truly pathetic that we have to confront folks that we mistakenly thought would be doing the right thing.
Senator Ken Salazar's direct Number:
Toll Free: (866) 455-9866
Phone: (303) 455-7600
Fax: (303) 455-8851
pass this number on to anyone that you know that his just voting No and Opposing the filibuster is a sign of cowardice.
Contact Numbers
Dem Senate LEADERS *NEW*
Senator Reid
528 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: 202-224-3542
Webform: http://reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm
Senator Leahy
Phone: 202-224-4242
Webform: http://leahy.senate.gov/contact.html
Senator Feingold
Phone: (202) 224-5323
Webform: http://feingold.senate.gov/contact.html
Senator Kennedy
Phone: 202-224-4543
Website: http://kennedy.senate.gov/index_low.html
Look for the bright green "Contact" link way at top of page!
Senator Boxer
Phone: (202) 224-3553
Webform: http://boxer.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm
Senator Obama
(202) 224-2854
Webform: http://obama.senate.gov/contact /
Senator Feinstein
Phone: (202) 224-3841
Webform: http://feinstein.senate.gov/email.html
THE ENTIRE GANG OF 14 + A Bonus Senator
Robert Byrd (WV)
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: http://www.byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html
Daniel Inouye (HI)
(202) 224-3934
Web Form: http://www.inouye.senate.gov/webform.html
Mary Landrieu (LA)
(202) 224-5824
Web Form: http://www.landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
Joseph Lieberman (CT)
Web Form: http://lieberman.senate.gov/contact /
(202) 224-4041
Mark Pryor (AR)
(202) 224-2353
Web Form: http://www.pryor.senate.gov/contact /
K. Salazar (CO)
(202) 224-5852
Web Form: http://salazar.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm
Lincoln Chafee (RI)
(202) 224-2921
Web Form: http://chafee.senate.gov/webform.htm
Susan Collins (ME)
Phone: (202) 224-2523
Web Form: http://collins.senate.gov/public /
Olympia Snowe (ME)
Phone: (202) 224-1946
WebForm: http://snowe.senate.gov/Webform.htm
Mike De Wine (OH)
Phone: (202) 224-2315
Web Form: http://dewine.senate.gov /
Lindsey Graham (SC)
(202) 224-5972 phone
Web Form: http://lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=contact
John McCain (AZ)
Phone: (202) 224-2235
My letter to Lieberman.
I have been very critical of you as of late, I understand you are a conservative Democrat, but sometimes I feel you forget the Democrat part. At a time in this Country when the President is insisting on unlimited Presidental Power, I and many other feel that Alito is not the person for the Supreme Court, if the Republicans want to exercise the Nuclear option I and many others say let them, they wont be in contro; forever quite possibly they wont be in control after November in the end it will come back to bite them at the same time showing that Democrats of which you are supposed to be one, have the backbone to stand up for whats right, it may be a baby step but its still a step in the right direction. I am not a citizen of your state but I did support you and Gore in 2000. Please please I am begging you to help save Democracy as we know it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11018747/
The above link is to an article where Bush points out that Bin Laden is still a threat, I guess he is shocked by the news or maybe he just likes him being out there so he can throw up the scare tactic I guess it was beyond anyone to point out that Bin Laden is still a threat because this administration fails in most cases to see him as one, unless they need to pull him out of the bag and hold him up to scare citizens of this country.
This is a great effort (the Senators)--can someone please help out with the research piece in the thread header? We really need that help too...
(blogging from work...)
Karen, what exactly do they need?
A list?
Court cases?
We all know that protesters were kept away from Bush campaign events in 2004. It happened in NYC at the RNC along with a lot more.
Or do they just want incidents that happened in DC around or near the Capitol and the White House?
In which case, it's going to be a lot harder to pin down. If the WaPo didn't report on it and there isn't another reliable local source, I'm not sure how much an internet search is going to add.
Treat yourselves to something nice... guaranteed to lower your blood pressure a little...
I Heard Elizabeth Edwards Speak Last Night
by mrsdbrown1
[snipped a lot]
The last section of Mrs. Edwards' speech focused on who the Democrats are, and how we need to communicate that image to the American people. Just because the Republicans say something about the Dems--and say it over and over and over again--doesn't make it so. They may say all Dems do is complain, that we stand for nothing, for example.
So what do Dems all too often do? We make it easier for the Republicans to smear us. We go on talk show after talk show and read out long lists of programs and policies we support, instead of saying who we are.
Democrats are the party of those who are working, those who have finished working, and those who want to work. We fight for their wages, we fight for their jobs, we fight for their pensions.
We are the party of principle, guided by what is right and what is moral. We're the party of the sick, the old, the young--the party of social justice and fiscal responsibility.
She pointed out that all the time the Republicans were out telling the public that Democrats had no moral core, they were showing over and over again how little moral core THEY had.
Mrs. Edwards closed her prepared remarks with a call to unity. Democrats don't always agree on programs, policies, or language. But we do agree to do the right thing, the moral thing, the noble thing, and when we do, we restore our country.
[snipped a lot more]
read the rest here and see the pictures that the diarist took...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/26/83027/4666
Chuck in Doha being Contrarian:
OK, I'm not even going to attempt to be on topic. First, it only takes one Senator to filibuster. One Wayne Morse, one Robert Byrd. Second, assume that no more than three or four Democratic Senators will vote for cloture, or what ever the heck that is. Then, suppose you can find at least 50 GOP Senators to vote to change the 1917 rules on cloture (amended in the 1970's, I think, from 3/4 to 3/5), which, effectively, will end the filibuster practice (all the King's horses and all the King's men, couldn't put humpty-dumpty together again -- and NonnyO, by the way, what in the heck is the provenance of that nursery rhyme?). Now, Alito is on the court, and the filibuster is history. How is that showing backbone? What is gained?
Now, having said that, if it is done in an incoherent manner, Lindsey Graham will have a field day in November, 2006, saying "what a bunch of immature whiney losers -- look how they made that poor woman cry." If it is done right, just right, maybe folks in Rhode Island and Maine might say, whoa, we sort of liked those folks, but my goodness, who imagined they would sacrifice the filibuster in order to grant unlimited power to the President to declare war and any other thing under the sun, and make abortion illegal to boot?
Filibustering is a TACTIC, not a GOAL. If a filibuster is done right, we might get some traction. If done wrong, we might loose some traction.
So, to be contrarian, might the focus on the TACTIC of whether or not certain Senators should filibuster and whether others in that case would vote against cloture (if I have that right), be MISDIRECTED, when that focus could be on why a "yes" vote for Alito (regardless of whether or not a Senator decides to filibuster) is bad and dangerous to the real GOAL?
I know if feels good to fight sometimes. But I also know it feels better to fight and win.
Chuck in Doha
The GOAL is what Dwahzon just posted -- fight for the salt of the earth and against intolerance.
Chuck in Doha
chuck where do we stop if we say its OK to not support the filibuster b/c the Regressives will change the rules if we do. When Regressives keep votes open for hours, when Redistricting steals 5 of your congresspeople, when hundreds of thousands of dollars are illegally laundered through corporations contributions, when congressional hearing rooms are closed to the opposing party?
My question is when do we say no to these Regressives; when they decide that before you vote you have to pay a poll tax or sign a loyalty oath?
When do we draw a line in the sand chuck?
Isn't doing absolutely nothing, which it seems likely we will do, just reinforcing and encouraging this thuggery and encoraging more aberant behavior. I still remember the pavlovian studies in psychology where the dog through positive reinforcement kept coming back back for more treats.
Well Tim Johnson just cratered so it seems like its over. Somehow I just can't imagine Frist or DeLay allowing these kinds of party fraction.
Ira:
Give me a second, I've got to go google Tim Johnson.
Chuck in Doha
Ira:
OK, start with 45. - Johnson (SD) - Nelson (NE) - Landrieu (LA) = 42. So it's not over, I don't think. And mind you, I would prefer to see a filibuster fight IF the troops are ready -- focused and disciplined and on-message and ready to stick to those guns through November. I am simply just not in a position to make an educated guess as to where the troops are at just now in that respect. I'll make another post to try and illustrate what I mean.
Chuck in Doha
Feinstein (unbelievably) and Pryor Chuck=40.
IG NEWS: WCW GOT THE SITE THEY PROMISED.
Travis and Marylou were called over to the Reflecting Pool area of the Capitol--the site they were promised in the first meeting--and they were given the permit for Jan. 31 there!!
(This is a victory)
Ira: Is 40 the killer or 39?
Chuck
Why doesn't Reid or Dean or whoever have control of the party? Either the party is for something or it is against it. Too many fractured fairytales going on.
I thought the opposition needed 60 votes for cloture.
Amazingly that might actually put Lincoln Chafee as the deciding vote and on the hot seat along with Snowe and Collins. That might be a really interesting scenario to see if he caves to Frist and Bush and probably insures his defeat this Nov.That alone would be worth the filibuster.
Want to remain a US Senator, Senator Chafee in a generally Democratic state Senator?
We probably need at least 1 or 2 of those Senators to prevail chuck.
Chuck in Doha again on Filibustering:
OK, here's my illustration. Making a splashing stand is not always the best tactic, even if it looks like showing "backbone." Look at the German choice at the battle of Stalingrad, for example. On the other hand, a retreat is not necessarily cowardly or "spineless" -- look at Washington high-tailing it up to Valley Forge. Now, of course, history is repleat with examples where the obverse is true, that is, where a retreat was a disaster and a desparate last-stand saved the day. My point being, declaring a position on cloture in this instance is not necessarily an indication of "spine" or lack thereof. I am dissapointed that it seems like we don't have the organization and discipline yet to make a meaningful stand on this filibuster ground. If it is true that we don't, I guess we have our work cut out for us.
Chuck in Doha
PS: It does still seem that the magic number of cloture votes of 40 is still holding.
What's up with Feinstein? Is she actually going to vote for this incredibly dangerous dork? I think we need to let any senator who votes for Alito know that they'll face oppositon in their next primary from someone who is a real Democrat, committed to the separation of powers in the constitution. When we phone them, we might just bring that up.
I'm not normally in favor of litmus tests, but when it comes to believing in the Constitution and supporting its basic tenets, that SHOULD be a litmus test for any candidate from our party.
And we need to support any democratic candidate who opposes Tim Johnson and Ben Nelson in their next primaries with our pocketbooks. They're both worthless as far as I'm concerned. They should get not one red cent from today on from the Democratic party.
Ira:
I totally agree -- it would be a wothwhile fight if it flushed a couple Yankee Republicans out.
Veritas:
A party is not a monolithic organization. No organization is. Few organizations approach even the appearance of iron discipline without using intimidation and corruption unless there is some other issue perceived as urgent and important that can galvanize public opinion. My whole point was, which issue does Alito frame that could be that touchpoint? Without that groundwork, maybe leadership in this case is best served by cutting loses while whittling away at the other side and intensifying preparations for the right moment.
We can't use intimidation or corruption because we have no power.
Just a thought anyway.
Chuck in Doha
Posted by: Linda Enterkin at January 26, 2006 01:58 PM
Linda, that's exactly what I mean by exercising party discipline. Somewhere along the way, somebody was more desperate to see a (D) after the name than they were to have someone who actually acted like one.
Posted by: chuck at January 26, 2006 02:03 PM
Chuck, Alito frames the bedrock issue for Democrats: human rights. The Constitution describes them, protects them. Alito doesn't believe in human rights. He doesn't believe in the Constitution either.
How much more of a frame do we need than the "Framers" already wrote?
Linda:
I think it's that Feinstein (and apparently four other Democratic Senators) will vote for cloture. Feinstein will probably vote against Alito. I think only Tim Johnson and Ben Nelson, amongst the Democrats, have declared the further step of actually voting for confirmation.
Chuck in Doha
Veritas:
So, do you think that making a splash on Alito over human rights will be a more effective frame come November than angry obstructionist partisan Democrats that make poor women cry? Is that the ground we want to fight on come November?
Maybe it would, I'm just trying to put it in perspective.
Me, I would stress the unitary executive thing (catchy phrase huh?) and abortion (which also may not be the best ground).
Chuck in Doha
"Because we have such a full plate of pressing issues before Congress, a filibuster at this time would be, in my view, very counterproductive," said Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-Louisiana, who wants the Senate to concentrate on Hurricane Katrina rebuilding programs. "We simply cannot afford to bring the Senate to a halt at a time when we need its action the most."
Well, anyhow, sorry for bloviating so much and I feel like I'm acting like a wet-blanket. But what I am trying to get at is that the deeper problem is that a lot of people who don't like the direction the country is heading in just plain don't feel in their guts that we can win, so they look for a hero on a white horse to miraculously save the day or they tune out politics. I think we've got plenty of fine generals, but lack an army, or at least colonels and sargeants (lots of Lieutenants though). And I really am not trying to be critical at all, this is just my observation, or my sense, of the bigger picture. I personally wish the Democratic Party had the wherewithal to make this fight if only to get the Maine and Rhode Island Republican Senators on the record. If not, then we'll have to settle for the recorded up/down votes and go on to the next fight using what we have to the best advantage.
Chuck in Doha
PS: I think I really like Barbara Boxer.
Also, that Palestinian election is a bit of a boat-rocker, don't you think? Just over five weeks and I'm outta this neck of the world!!!!
God willing, as they say.
Chuck in Doha
CBO projects $337 billion budget deficit
Figure expected to rise due to tax cuts, hurricane relief, war in Iraq
WASHINGTON - The deficit will reach at least $337 billion for the current budget year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates, and the deficit is likely to go higher because of tax cuts and new additional spending for hurricane relief and the war in Iraq.
more... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11041190/
Visualize John Conyers as the chairman of a House Committee with subpoena power:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012606O.shtml
Vizualize victory.
Chuck in Doha
what generals? they should have their appalades removed. We are the army and personally I am sick and tired of being cannon fodder for Frist/DeLay and Lindsey Graham.
"I think we've got plenty of fine generals, but lack an army, said chuck"..
we are the foot soldiers without a voice..or a leader..
did you read the buzz flash article I posted earlier and how they think the American public must be reacting about this whimpish behavior and the message it must be sending with the comment, why would the American public trust Dems with national security if they can't even lead their own party?
You may be right, Ira. And you certainly have a lot more experience in that regard than me. I still like our generals, though. I like Dean, Kerry, Gore, Boxer, Clinton (both) and several others. Also, maybe I had it wrong -- we've got the soldiers but are low on sargeants and colonels, which would make the best generals and soldiers worthless. I guess, from the outside looking in (for now), I just don't see the evidence of organization and infrastructure in the Democratic Party (sargeants and colonels).
Chuck in Doha
PS: OK, I'll quit while I'm behind!
News break at lunch: (Google News)
International -
Looks like a Hamas victory & can we be so surprised, as Islamic militancy may have grown in response to blunt diplomacy & continual barking up the wrong tree by warhawks & their few allies. & now Bush & Condi have no choice but to acknowledge them, throw out words about peace and that they must play nicely, please.
So if Pakistan has an oil pipeline deal with Iran, and India is hosting Saudi officials - that may be why they are both standing up to the US rather than fighting with each other (India won't agree to vote with US at the UN).
For all we know, our international calls are spied on, yet Iran may soon have actual air flights to US, at same time we are talking sanctions and worse.
If Britain's fake rock that they used for spying caused "tens of millions of pounds," then that is almost doubled in US dollars. That is quite alot for a pet rock.
It's surprising to me to read the new Pope on love and sex and to find that he sounds more sensible than Fallwell or Robertson.
I'll also have to back off a little on Germany's Merkel, as Bono lauds her for donating a certain percentage of the GNP to his pet cause.
Domestic -
Damned if we do, damned if we don't (Alito).
Democratic unity is apparently too much to expect?!
Meanwhile Bush is distancing himself from Abramoff and calling photos of the both of them together "irrelevant" like he used to call the UN "irrelevant." & then it's "ok" to spy on anyone he chooses, though the speech was given to the NSA, who had been reported to have low morale. & no papers about FEMA & Katrina - another dept. with low morale.
A 3rd dept. with low morale - the Army & Marines. The story about saying they're at a "breaking point" appears to grow legs - from Vets for Peace and TruthOut to NPR to all the papers.
Well, back to work.
CNN BREAKING NEWS: Sen. John Kerry calls for filibuster on Samuel Alito.
Karen-United for Peace and Justice put up with and resolved a lot with the RNC Convention. Worth a call?
Marjorie...
Karen reported back to us earlier:
BIG NEWS: WCW GOT THE SITE THEY PROMISED.
Travis and Marylou were called over to the Reflecting Pool area of the Capitol--the site they were promised in the first meeting--and they were given the permit for Jan. 31 there!!
(This is a victory)
Posted by: karen at January 26, 2006 01:24 PM