Dem's staff 'cleans up' Wikipedia entry.

I hate Wikipedia. It's just a bad idea all around. How can any "encyclopedia" be reliable if anyone can change the entries at will? Talk about being ripe for manipulation. And now we're seeing one of the ways that self-serving politicians can exploit it.

Congressional staffers of Democrat Representative Marty Meehan wrote their own bio of Meehan and replaced the previous Wikipedia entry, including any references to unpleasant facts such as Meehan's broken promise of only four terms and his massive campaign "war chest."

What's worse, there have been a thousand such revisions by congressional staffers over the past six months. And not all have been so...congenial. There's nothing like looking in an "encyclopedia" and reading that you "smell of cow dung"! Whoever these jokers are, and they appear to be staffers for Democrats, they're just hurting their own cause. When you're trying to dethrone the King of Lies, it's pretty stupid to put such a crown on your own party's head.

Hamas takes over Palestine!

My how sticky the democratic process can be. In last week's Palestinian election, a majority of votes went to a gang of terrorists whose primary goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Oops. I guess Dubya didn't see that one coming. (File it next to Harriet Miers.)

Maybe Dubya shoulda sent over some of those Diebold voting machines used in Ohio (that the GAO confirmed were rigged).

Bush says the U.S. cannot support a government who expresses a desire to destroy another country. But isn't Bush a Neocon? And didn't the Neocon 'Mein Kampf' known as the Project For A New American Century state as its first task the invasion of Iraq? I guess if that kind of behavior is good enough for America, it's probably good enough for Palestine.

SC justices on the take now, too?

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia did not attend the swearing in of new Chief Justice John Roberts because, he says, he had a prior commitment he "could not break." What was this all-important commitment? According to ABC News:

"Justice Scalia spent two nights at the luxury resort lecturing at the legal seminar where ABC News also found him on the tennis court, heading out for a fly-fishing expedition, and socializing with members of the Federalist Society, the conservative activist group that paid for the expenses of his trip." And..."One night at the resort, Justice Scalia attended a cocktail reception, sponsored in part by the same lobbying and law firm where convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff once worked."

Is there no end to the corruption of this government?

ABC also reports that many judges take such gifts. "Justice Clarence Thomas has received tens of thousands of dollars in valuable gifts, including an $800 leather jacket from NASCAR, a $1200 set of tires, a vacation trip by private jet, and a rare Bible valued at $19,000."

I don't care what the law technically says about giving gifts to judges. There is only ONE reason to give gifts to judges! And that's to curry favor, to get judicial rulings they wouldn't otherwise get.

The perception of impropriety is just as damaging as impropriety itself. Democracy only works because people believe it works.

If the Supreme Court can be bought with baubles, our whole system is bankrupt.

Get over yourself, Hillary.

Thanks to a rerun of The Daily Show, I got to see a clip of Senator Hillary Clinton's controversial "plantation" speech. I don't know if I've ever seen a worse case of a Democrat pandering to minorities. A multi-millionaire whining about getting the cold shoulder from other multi-millionaires isn't exactly my idea of a master-slave relationship. Take hint from Ted Kennedy, Hillary: just try to show us you're one FOR the people, because we're already certain you're not one OF the people.

Illegal spying now a cornerstone of Republican culture

A Republican group is offering UCLA students $100 for proof of "liberal views" being espoused by professors during class. First off, this is sleazy (but not out of character for right wingers these days). But second, it's strictly a violation of university rules. Class lectures are copyrighted protected material, and there are specific rules about the use of any recordings.

The group who is exploiting college students is called the "Bruin Alumni Association," which has no official association with the university. A bit misleading, perhaps? Of course. Orwellian in style? Definitely. Which probably explains their "black list" of professors they deem radical, all of which are supposedly liberal.

Are we surprised by this? No. The GOP/cons have been attacking education for decades because they teach people things that don't jibe with right-wing rhetoric. For them, the truth is "biased" against them. (You can imagine why big corporate polluters would be upset that a university biology class educates people about the environment. These things end up cutting into their profits, and therefore are "liberally biased." I have lungs on both the left and the right, and my totally non-partisan respiration system says there's a lot of dangerous crap in the air these days...)

If I were a UCLA professor on this black list, I would tell my classes about this spying plot. And then I would tell them that I am still willing to help them make some extra cash by beginning every class with a "liberal" statement. With about 30 students per class and three meetings per week (and, say, four courses being taught), that should cost these spies over a 15 week semester about $540,000 per semester per professor. With 31 professors on that list, that tallies up to over $33 million for the year.

And then hit them with a lawsuit once they balk at paying the students.

No surprise, Dubya LIED about why (and when) he ordered illegal wiretapping.

We recently learned that Bush had ordered the illegal NSA wiretapping well BEFORE the 9/11 attacks. Why is that important, beyond the obvious? Because King Dubya said that it was 9/11 that prompted him to take such drastic steps to protect America from further terrorist attacks.

Either Bush flat out LIED, or he has precognition (which is a whole 'nother conspiracy theory). Because there's no way he could have started illegal wiretapping in early 2001 because of attacks in late 2001.

So now we have to go back and ask the habitual liar (far worse than Clinton and Nixon combined) to provide another reason why he authorized illegal wiretaps of U.S. citizens. I fully expect the Reagan defense this time: "uh, I don't recall..."

(For a well written column on this topic, click...here.)

"Merit pay" for teachers sounds good, but is not fair or effective.

Houston just voted to link teachers' pay to their students test scores. Teachers responded with mixed reactions. Everybody's got an opinion. But for me, I just want to understand how it can be fair and effective.

A major criticism of relying on test scores is that they can easily be misleading. First off, each group of students are different. You might have a brilliant class go through one year and a struggling class go through the next year. Obviously, the scores will differ. In those cases, the teacher will simply get extra money because of the kids' talents not necessarily their own (the same quality of teaching will still get widely varied scores). This will not "incentivise" better teaching, but stronger lobbying for the better students. It will make education more political, and in all the worst ways.

If testing is done in staggered years, how do we know which teachers contributed what? If Johnny does well on his 4th grade testing, was it the 4th grade teacher or the 1st-3rd grade teachers who did had the most impact? One teacher shouldn't get all the credit (or blame) for the work of everybody else.

But it gets murkier at the higher levels. Should the history teacher be penalized because Johnny can't read on a high school level? Some high school teachers are hamstrung by students who are not prepared to be there. So many high school teachers will be "incentivized" to turn to the in-office politics of cherry picking the best students to get the rewards (and avoid shame), which tells us nothing of that teacher's ability to teach. There are already too many "good ol' boy" networks in public administration. Nothing is accomplished by adding more.

Also, not every teacher within a department has the same quality of students. Not every science teacher gets to teach the Advance Placement classes (even if every teacher is equally gifted, there's just not enough AP classes for everybody). And who's in the AP classes? The school's best students in that subject. So a great teacher who's assigned regular or sub-par students--where they are arguably needed most--will be penalized instead of rewarded.

And I won't go into the disparities from school to school, such as magnet schools (which are a good thing) who get the best students and leave other schools with lower performers. And how unfair it is to compare rural "catch-all" schools with urban specialized schools?

The media insists on painting resistance to "merit pay" as teachers wanting to avoid accountability. By and large, this is a falsehood. Good teachers would dearly love to be rewarded, and see bad teachers get their come uppance. But "merit pay" based on test scores--as typically proposed--will not accomplish this.

The only way would be to treat each district as a whole, and by tracking students longitudinally through the whole system from kindergarten to high school graduation. No teacher or school succeeds or fails in a vacuum.

Lies about American education.

ABC's John Stossel of 20/20 is a big lying fool. His "expose" about America's failing schools is nothing but a thinly-veiled whine for privatization of public schools. Why would he want that? Because his Republican and corporate masters have told him so.

Stossel repeats the same faulty refrain: our schools are failing our kids because they don't have "choice" and they perform worse than foreign kids. And that's all caused by, as you can guess, teachers' unions and tenure.

Stossel conveniently never mentions that American kids score lower than foreign kids because American schools test EVERY student the same, including special education kids. So it's not a surprise that the average is lower (America's best performs as well as anyone else). Nor does Stossel mention that charter schools test higher because they can CHERRY PICK THEIR STUDENTS. Hey if I could pick out the very brightest kids, I could teach them out of my garage and outperform the leftovers too.

Idiots like Stossel believe that a corporate-run school would somehow do better. Y'know, the same way corporate-run prisons were supposed to outperform state prisons. Where'd that end up? Inmates took over the prison and they had to be shut down. (All caused by typical corporate spending cuts.) Say what you will, but public schools still put education first. No corporation will ever put education ahead of profits. They simply are incapable of putting anything ahead of profits. They don't know how. They're not designed for it.

And notice that Stossel never mentions the role of parents or the students. They can't possibly have anything to do with it. (Hint: the number one reason a student underperforms? They don't try very hard.)

No, all the fault lies with the ones who just happen to have a union. And we all know how much rightwingers hate it when employees stand up for themselves.

Something very fishy about this 'confession.'

Here's a story that makes no sense (a follow up to the aforementioned death of a Washington journalist). A man goes in to a police station to ask why his face is on TV regarding the murder. Suddenly he's arrested, then whisked away to another police station where he 'confesses.'

Does this even pass the laugh test?

If he murdered somebody, he would NEVER show up at a police station TO ASK WHY HE'S LINKED TO THE CRIME!

The AP story says he went to "turn himself in." If so, why'd he ask a bunch of questions about his picture on TV?

None of this adds up. And from the story, it looks like the police aren't the least bit curious why.

Which is a clear sign that something's being covered up.

Real ID cards: Big Government GOP-style

Those Communist Republicans are marching America into a bunker of totalitarianism, where Big Brother obliterates our State's Rights in favor of a one-size-fits-all national identification card. This unfunded mandate will hobble the states' budgets to the tune of billions, further reducing a state's ability to be free to decide for itself how best to issue driver's licenses. What's next, Commie Republicans, numbers tatooed on our arms (or crowns) and weapon registrations?

...at least, that's what the country's Republicans would be saying if it were the Democrats passing such a law.

But, more laws demanding more tax money from citizens that reduce the 50 states to mere clerks' offices is a-okay as long as a Republican congress and president passes them. Kentucky's license fees have already jumped from $8 to 20 this past year. Thanks, GOP, for ushering in all that "change" you boasted about back in 1994 and 2000. I thought you meant "different," but you only meant "more, and lots more of it...."

Iran + nukes = GOP's wet dream?

Iran wants nukes. And Iran has the ability to develop them. But Iran is a Muslim nation that hates America. (Unfortunately, U.S. meddling in the 1950s-70s is the cause of that. But let's be good Americans and pretend that history doesn't exist...) It's not in America's interest, especially our oil-related interests, for any Muslim nation with strength and courage to have nuclear weapons. That would mean American politicians and businesses would have to actually treat them as equals, or at least with a modicum of respect. And that's just bad for our imperial agenda, not to mention bad for business in general.

The future is now being set. America will either go to war against Iran or engage in another multi-generational "cold war" against Iran and probably many other Muslim nations. A war would be our best bet of stomping their Christ-disrespectin' heathen souls back into third-rate status. A cold war might just end up giving them respect and aid from other nations who don't trust America (which is most of them, at this point).

There is one more possibility, and it's the absolute worst option: another Vietnam-like proxy war where the U.S. and Iran fight it out indirectly in a third country--like, oh, Iraq. Sadly, it's also the likeliest scenario. That way American politicians can crow to war-lovers at home and abroad that they are fighting against terrorism and nuclear proliferation without actually having to win that fight. Not losing ground is all that they need. It keeps the country in a constant state of war (complete with war powers for the president) and the military industrial complex showering in bloated contracts.

Alito: the issue that matters.

The most disconcerting fact about Alito is that the conservatives have evolved. They used to rely on simplistic Bush-like speech that any half-witted liberal could blow a hole straight through. But Alito, like John Roberts and the Intelligent Design proponents, is on a whole new track. Now they use the same dull, monotonous, excessively wordy jargon-laden ramblings that the "liberal elite" is known for. Which can lull a listener into a zombie-like state where they think they've heard something profound but actually only dodges the question.

The other trick is to reject anything resembling a specific answer on any issue that the judge might have to rule on later. My, how convenient since--for the Supreme Court--that includes everything.

We won't hear anything controversial from Alito. The cons are now smart enough to keep their anti-constitutional views to themselves, waiting for their chance to let their freedom-destroying rulings do their real talking.

If polar bears all turn bisexual, it's our own damn fault.

Somehow, flame-proofing chemicals for furniture is causing
gender/sex confusion in polar bears. To the point of making them hermaphrodites.

We're. Killing. This. Planet.

Bremer: "I'm Bush's scapegoat."

In his new book, Paul Bremer (former head of the coalition provisional authority in Iraq) says he's being used as a scapegoat by the Bush administration, that he's being blamed for their failures. Particularly, Bremer insists he wanted many more troops to quell the insurgency but was refused. He also says the coalition was of the "unwilling," because of their hesitancy towards fighting.

Bremer indeed deserves some of the blame for the mess in Iraq. He disbanded the Iraqi military, for one thing. But the failures of Bremer are actually the failures of Bush. Bremer had no qualifications for the job. Which may have been his greatest qualification of all. Since it was a virtual certainty that Iraq would immediately devolve into chaos, why put someone valuable in charge? Instead, put in a crony who's expendable and then let him take the blame for what happens.

No doubt, Bush defenders will now dismiss Bremer as a "disgruntled employee" with "an axe to grind" seeking quick cash from a book deal. Well, so what? That retort is exhausted to the point of cliche. All that matters is whether he's telling the truth. And if the truth gives him vindictive satisfaction or fattens his bank account, well bully for him. Because if anything should be profitable in the land of the free, it should be the truth.

Tice: A Real American Hero

Luckily, no matter how much the GOP wants to run our federal government like the Italian mafia there are still Americans willing to blow the whistle on abuse and corruption. Russell Tice is the NSA employee who let America know that our President ordered the agency to break the law. We should all thank Mr. Tice for daring to speak truth to power. And for putting it all in a book for us to read unfiltered by political partisans. (He'll need the income, since--of course--the NSA dismissed him.)

Pondering what's behind the news...

Maybe I'm paranoid, but this story strikes me as something more than just a simple crime. A journalist gets killed in a 'regular' mugging outside his home. He's mortally wounded to his head, his wallet is gone, and two guys are seen leaving the scene. It could be a run-of-the-mill mugging. Two thugs looking for drug money.

But isn't this how you'd expect the crime to be reported, even if it was a conspiracy to shut up an award-winning investigative reporter--like in the movies? This man, David Rosenbaum, covered federal budget stories in Washington DC for the New York Times. Big stuff. And during a time rife with budget scandals and super-secret anti-constitutional behavior. (I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out the scenario.) If he had discovered something he shouldn't have, and if he had been silenced, isn't this exactly the story we'd expect to see?

POSTSCRIPT:
After posting the above, this story appeared. Apparently I'm not the only one who thought this sounded peculiar. Police already suspect this might not have been just a robbery.

Your phone activity is for sale. And could be helping the terrorists.

Holy crap. For just $110 Al Qaida, the mafia, or anybody can get a list of all the calls made to or from a particular cell phone--in just a few hours. And the government knows all about it, but lets it continue.

Anybody can get the activity of any cell phone number (the more you pay, the more details you get) from this website. There are many other such services as well. Some can do land-line numbers too.

Thanks to these a-holes, any CIA or FBI undercover agent can be discovered (and snuffed out) in a few hours. Just get their cell phone number and see who they've been talking to.

A Democrat introduced a bill to stop this that so far has gone nowhere. Curious how the GOP has no interest in stopping this.

'Hook me up to the matrix, Neo. I'm too stupid to be free.'

This just freaks me out. All I can say is that I would rather be dead than live in a world where we stick RFID implants in ourselves because we're too stupid to keep up with simple things like passwords and door keys.

Bush's attack on the Constitution.

Americans cannot afford to overlook the attitude of this White House. To do so could imperil our entire democracy. This is not hyperbole.

Bush's recent "bill-signing statement" which said he can torture anybody he feels like anytime he feels like (ostensibly for "national security") is the wake up call. As it turns out, Bush has issued some 500 such signing statements in just 5 years declaring he doesn't have to obey the new law. That's over three times as many as his dad, GHW Bush, who signed 146 in 4 years. (Clinton signed only 105 and Reagan 71 in their full 8 year tenures.)

Bill-signing statements are basically the President's comment when he signs a bill into law. It offers his opinion about the law and provides clarification and/or direction for the administration's agencies to go by. This administration has taken the practice to a whole new level, both in frequency and subversive intent.

The Constitution provides a provision for the President to reject a bill passed by Congress. It's called a veto.

But Bush wants no part of a veto. By using a Constitutional veto, Congress then has the option of overriding that veto by a 2/3 majority vote. Instead, Bush uses a tactic that force the issue into the courts. A process that would take years instead of weeks to resolve, giving Bush plenty of extra time for his torture-spree. (And don't get me started on the obvious hypocrisy here, where the GOP is always crying about the courts deciding the law.)

Bush defenders will say these signings are nothing new. True, but Bush took us to war to (allegedly) end Saddam's torture of the Iraqi people. (Apparently, it's not the torture that Bush wanted to end, but that it was Saddam doing the torturing.)

That said, this isn't about torture per se. It's about the Constitutional process. Are we going to protect it? Can we let a president unravel the fabric of our democracy simply because he wants ever so much more power for himself?

Or is Bush right when he says the Constitution is "just a goddamn piece of paper"...?

The price of tax cuts for the rich: more dead Americans in Iraq.

It's great to see that Dubya and the Republicans "support our troops."

A study by the Pentagon finds that "at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops..."

Apparently the Democrats weren't just whining when they kept bringing this up over the past couple of years.

Thanks, George, for all the tax cuts for the rich. Now we know the cost.

No-Fly list: tool for petty politics.

The author of "Bush's Brain," James Moore, has been put on the "no-fly" list. Y'know, the list of terrorists or potential terrorists who can't board our planes. That's what you get for writing about Bush for the last 25 years.

So, being a critic of Bush makes you a terrorist. Pretty soon, they'll just start asking us (in thick German accent): "Do you haff papers?"

Florida Supreme Court rejects vouchers.

Link.

What's disturbing is this: "Barry Richard, representing the state, told the court in a hearing last June that lawmakers have the "quintessential power" to spend state money as they see fit, including spending state money on private school vouchers."

As they see fit?

Note to GOP: The Constitution applies to you. You can't spend money illegally, or write unconstitutional laws. Sorry about the whole "checks and balances" thing getting in the way of your autocratic dreams...

Bird flu migrates to Turkey (no pun intended).

Bird flu is now spreading outside of Southeast Asia, having killed a 14-year old boy in Turkey.

To rehab, or to punish: what's a prison for?

A Vermont man convicted of repeatedly raping a young girl was sentenced to 60 days in jail plus sex offense rehabilitation. That's a bit shy of Vermont's usual range of 8 to 20 years.

The judge said he no longer believes in punishment, that it doesn't work. And that's true, as many sociology and criminology studies have repeatedly proved. But there is something to be said for keeping sex offenders off the street. Whether it's classified as rehab or punishment doesn't matter, keeping these predators away from the rest of us does.

The judge based his decision on two things. One, his own experience tells him punishment changes nothing. And two, the defendant is classified (not by the judge) as "low risk" which means he is not eligible for in-prison rehab. Therefore, a long prison sentence doesn't solve this problem.

Well, maybe not for the rapist. But it sure does a lot for society. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the best reason for prison is to remove threats from society. When a person's in jail, they can't rape innocent children.

I agree with the judge's sentiments, but sex offenders are notorious for recidivism. They're not good candidates for this kind of experimentation.

The Madness of King George.

Once again, Bush just wiped his ass with that "goddamn piece of paper" the rest of us call the U.S. Constitution.

Congress sent Bush a bill outlawing torture of detainees, and he responded by saying he'll "waive the law's restrictions" if he feels like it. Ergo, he'll do whatever he damn well pleases.

But note that Bush did not have enough respect for our Constitutional system to veto the bill that he so obviously rejects. Oh no. He signed the bill into law anyway, and then issued a statement saying he'll ignore it.

This should make every American's skin crawl.

Church and State II

Indiana's legislature is having a fight over just how much Jesus they can cram into each day's session. Apparently, beginning the day with Gospel songs is too much.

Now, if they'd only stop distributing the collection plate...

Church and State

Read it for yourself, but somehow there is a court case in Italy where an athiest has sued a Catholic priest to prove the historical existence of Jesus.

They're lying about Clinton again.

Here they go again...

Bush is insisting that he doesn't have to obey FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) laws regarding no-warrant searches, and his defenders (Limbaugh, Hannity, etc) are claiming that Bush is only doing what Clinton did. Not true by a long shot.

In 1994 Deputy-Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, on behalf of Clinton, did argue the executive branch had the "inherent right" to order no-warrant physical searches. (Clinton did not argue he had the "inherent right" to order no-warrant electronic searches.) But physical searches are not electronic searches, and were not then covered by FISA.

Bush's defenders are deceitfully taking the Gorelick quote grossly out of context. She was defending in 1994 what was legal at the time. It only became illegal later. And the Clinton administration not only supported the inclusion of physical searches within FISA, they went to Congress and requested it in the first place.

And, of course, Clinton was talking about searches of foreigners. Bush is conducting these searches on U.S. citizens. That's kind of a monumental difference.

What's happening is Bush borrowed Clinton's phrase "inherent right" and is applying it to ANY act he wishes to conduct. Bush says he can do anything, so long as he can claim it's done to "fight terrorism." But the law is clear. Bush can't do what he says he can do. His no-warrant searches violate the Constitution.

This man is totally out of control. If we don't impeach him soon, who knows how far he will go to shred that "goddam piece of paper" we call the U.S. Constitution. (Yep, that's what Dubya called it. Google it for yourself.)

But one thing is certain. The likes of Limbaugh and FoxNews will be right there to help make it all happen.

Big Brother is in your printer.

Beware what you print out from your home or work computer, the government is watching you and the corporations are helping them.

Ostensibly (and sensibly) this this technology is intended to catch counterfeiters. That's all well and good. The printers insert microscopic yellow dots into the document which identifies the printer of origin. Not just the brand or model, but the very machine. Surely, this will help the police catch and convict counterfeiters. But it also means that registering your newly purchased printer is to unwittingly put yourself on some kind of people-to-spy-on list.

The problem is, there is no oversight. No mechanism to prevent abuse. The feds can use this to spy on any American citizens for any imaginable (however unjustifiable, unconstitutional, or partisan) excuse. And given how much effort the feds expend chasing after U.S. citizens like the ACLU and Greenpeace, it's easy to see how this unregulated behavior will be used.

Make no mistake, this how Big Brother is created. It will not be a single overt legislative act with obvious mustached villains chanting tyrannical rhetoric. It will be many small, unnoticed back door policies, laws, and agreements (with corporate assistance) that add up to the government watching your every move--all under the guise of "protecting" you.

I, for one, don't need that kind of protecting.