Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » me b zola » Archives Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
me b zola's Journal - Archives
Posted by me b zola in Political Videos
Wed Jul 28th 2010, 04:39 PM
The video advocates for adoptees to have access to their birth certificates.

I loved the part where she makes eye contact with the woman walking down the street. I thought that I was the only one who spent their life looking at strangers in a crowd and wondering if they were family.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by me b zola in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Tue Nov 13th 2007, 04:39 PM
The puzzle never completes itself, does it? No amount of mirror gazing ever reveals the answers sought, only more mystery and wondering and that damned empty spot.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by me b zola in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sat Oct 13th 2007, 11:25 PM
Here's a link to the story:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...

I read the story and the comments and decided that I would not be a good world neighbor if I didn't warn Brits about this type of garbage. Here's what I wrote for the comment column:

Welcome to the USA's nightmare. The scientific community agrees on something very basic and important. Then right wingers decide that those facts don't work with their agenda, so they make an idiotic claim to the contrary and create a "debate" where there is none--at least not among sane, intelligent people.

Then print such absurdities in a Ruppert Murdoch owned media outlet and abra-cad-abra you'll end up with a George Bush of your own!

Think I'm kidding? Take a close look at American politics. About 1/3 of Americans believe that Saddam was responsible for 911. This is not because Americans are inherently stupid, it is because of orchestrated PR (public relations)being pelted upon us, and it looks a lot like this story.

For the love of all that is good, please do your own research and learn from the deadly mess that the US is presently in. Al Gore and the scientific community are correct on climate change.

"How could 59459765 Americans be so stupid?" You may soon find out.



My comment is not showing yet, I wonder if it will get past the censors.

I challenge you to be a good neighbor too.
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by me b zola in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Thu Feb 15th 2007, 10:18 PM
It looks as though Singer's smear against Kerry wasn't just because he felt like * was a guy that he would want to have a beer with:

Today we take a close look at companies known as “vulture funds.” Vulture fund companies buy up the debt of poor countries at cheap prices, and then demand payments much higher than the original amount of the debt, often taking poor countries to court when they cannot afford to repay. For an in-depth look at this issue, we turn to a BBC Newsnight documentary by investigative reporter Greg Palast.

~snip~

GREG PALAST: Here they are feeding on poor nations all over the globe. 36th floor, Elliott Associates, home of billionaire Paul Singer. Singer practically invented the vulture fund. In 1996, he bought up some of Peru's debt for $11 million, then threatened to bankrupt Peru if they didn't give him $58 million. He got his $58 million. Then Singer bought some discounted debt from Congo Brazzaville for only about $10 million. His company then sued the Congo and turned the $10 million into $127 million. But that still wasn't enough.

~snip~

Singer's company says the Congo government is corrupt and hid assets from creditors. Courts have agreed, allowing Singer to seek tripled damages under US racketeering law. They could get $400 million. Not bad for a $10 million bet. Congo was counting on George Bush to use his legal authority to stop Singer's court action. That hasn't happened. Paul Singer is the number one donor to George Bush and the Republican cause in New York City. In the run-up to the 2000 election, he gave them $300,000. In 2004, he gave them $1.2 million, including money for the so-called Swift Boat campaign, which smeared the war record of George Bush's opponent. His spokesman told us, “We have nothing to hide. We just don't do interviews.”

~much more @ link~
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid...



So now we know why it was so important to smear Kerry in the election, Singer is making tens/hundreds of millions off of his influence in the WH. Here's the kicker. Wait for it, wait for it....

Singer is "Giuliani's chief fundraiser, raising $15 million now for his presidential campaign."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read entry | Discuss (6 comments)
Posted by me b zola in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Thu Feb 08th 2007, 12:30 AM
I am watching the c-span airing of the Iraq oversight hearing, and OMG, did Waxman tear the idiot McHenry a new asshole.

Patrick McHenry spent his allotted time instead of asking questions of the witnesses go off on some nonsensical whirlwind of BS, which of course included Bill Clinton . Once McHenry's time was over Waxman spanked McHenry's ass but good:

"I know that the gentleman wants to look at partisanship under every rock, but I suggest that he return to under that rock and look at his own reasons for trying to make everything partisan."




Damn, I can't say enough how much I respect Rep. Waxman.
Read entry | Discuss (23 comments)
Posted by me b zola in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Thu Sep 28th 2006, 10:11 PM
The following is Halliburton's statement re the attacked convoy where three of their drivers were killed and was caught on tape, per MSNBC's Scarborough Country:

"{Halliburton's} priority has always been the safety and security of its employees, regardless of where they work around the world. The U.S. military has command and control of all {Halliburton} convoys in Iraq, such as supplying pre-trip threat assessments and determining routes, and is required to provide security for {Halliburton's} employees through the company's contract with the Army. Every potential employee on the...contract receives very specific warnings about the dangers of working in a war zone."



Cathy Mann
Director, Communications
Halliburton



There are a few serious issues that jump out at me from this statement:

1. It seems that Halliburton (once again) avoids liability by working under the military--without the oversite and legal obligations. "The military was command & control..."

2. Why is our military doing the dangerous grunt work for a company who is profiteering from the lawlessness in Iraq? I thought that Halliburton's KBR specializes in security--oh, that's right, they have to pay their security personnel upwards of $100,000/year to work in Iraq, and besides, why would they send out their highly paid personnel when Cheney/Rumsfeld will send them military personel to work for them for free?!

3. How many of our men & women in uniform have died protecting Halliburton? I really want to know.




Read entry | Discuss (15 comments)
Posted by me b zola in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Fri Sep 15th 2006, 06:10 PM
Another day of reports of dozens of dead, mutilated bodies being found in Baghdad killed by Iraqi death squads. It's becoming a daily occurence:


Fifty more bodies found in Baghdad

BAGHDAD, Sept 15 (Reuters) - The bound bodies of dozens more torture victims were found in Baghdad in the past day, officials said on Friday, fuelling anarchic sectarian anger as political leaders square off over an issue some say could mean civil war.

In all, police retrieved 50 bodies in the 24 hours to Friday morning, most shot in the head after being trussed and tortured, a senior Interior Ministry official told Reuters. That took the body count in the city for three days to at least 130.

(...)

"It's barbaric but sadly we've become used to it," the Interior Ministry official said of bodies found around the capital, in both Sunni and Shi'ite areas. "Forty bodies, 60 bodies -- it's become a daily routine."

The White House, defending its Iraq policy from fierce criticism ahead of November's congressional elections, called the body counts "horrible".

~more @ link~
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L...


Here's a Newsweek article from Jan,2005 that says that the
Pentagon was considering using death squads in Iraq. I've posted this
article a few times within other people's threads, but it has now
become clear that it needs to be seen by as many people as possible.



‘The Salvador Option’
The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq

AP
Nuns pray over the bodies of four American sisters killed by the military in El Salvador in 1980

By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
Newsweek
Updated: 5:59 p.m. PT Jan 14, 2005


Jan. 8 - What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November’s operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency—as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time—than in spreading it out.

Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras. There is no evidence, however, that Negroponte knew anything about the Salvadoran death squads or the Iran-Contra scandal at the time. The Iraq ambassador, in a phone call to NEWSWEEK on Jan. 10, said he was not involved in military strategy in Iraq. He called the insertion of his name into this report "utterly gratuitous.")

Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.

~more @ link~
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/n...



The media is reporting on the death squads and the carnage in Baghdad,
but they suffer from memory loss. I think that they need to be
of this report.








Read entry | Discuss (23 comments)
Posted by me b zola in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Sat Aug 19th 2006, 03:45 PM
I have transcribed some of Jesse Jackson's remarks made today at the DNC's general session. Jackson spoke to many issues, but for this post I focused on his remarks about the CT Senate race.

(...)
There's been a big debate lately, Chairman, about how and why did Lamont win in CT. How did he reclaim the moral center? As we move toward the fall, the team with the broadest most (?) coalition, whose direction and priorities address our fears and hopes will win.

There'll be two teams on the field. You must not be decieved even by those who seek to be on one team, and gains benifits from another.

There will be black and white and brown players on both teams. We cannot choose teams by skin color, but by direction, by uniform color, by where they are going. So one team, so all players must be on their own team, in their own huddle.

There's a Trent Lott from MS team, he rolls with Strom Thurman. There's a Tom Delay on their team, with gerrymandered districts for black and Latino voters, & forced to resign from office in disgrace. There's the Bill Frist. There's George Allen with his love affair of the confederacy. There's Gingrich, who authored the infamous contract on America. There's Condaliza Rice, & there's Steele, and Swan, and Blackwell and bush & cheney--that's their team.

Now, they have a right to be on that team, but not in our huddle.

We applaud them as the loyal opposition in this battle of ideas. They cannot be on their team and in our huddle. There's another team--Senator Harry Reed and Hillary Clinton, and Congresswoman (?), and Loretta Sanchez, and Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters, and Senators Obama and Kennedy, and Gov. Richardson, and Mayor Shirley (?), and Congressman Woo and Watt and (?)---that's our team.

Stay on your team.


It's not a perfect team, but it's our team. It looks like America. It's contrast is strong. It's not a perfect team, but it's a clear alternative. Last week Ned Lamont showed us the way and CT people responded.

Watch this. Why did Dick Cheney and Chairmen Melman try to choose our winner? Exault the loser and denegrate the winner? What interest do they have in our huddle? What interest do they have in the party huddle of the Democratic Party? We do not need Cheney and bush* to explain Lamont. The people of CT did that--thank you.

How did Lamont win? He ran as a Democrat--with spine and strength, and touched the souls of those who long for change hope. He was a rich man teaching poor children to learn. Inspiring their parents to become involved. He learned first hand the life options. He didn't treat them as pariahs. He knew the results of children with a late start at home and at school with inadaquate resources leading to early dismissal. In contrast to kids a few miles away in the sub-burbs with resources driven by property taxes and (?) advantage.

He was attacked for being wealthy, as if he had betrayed some covenent. The Good Samaritan was a man of means. Charactor is measured by how you treat people, not by what you have. How did he win? He stood for universal pre-Kindergarden care, a life often afforded to the well-off. (....?....). How'd he win? Support for universal health care. A coal miner dies every six hours of black lung disease, 500,000 die every year from cancer. We need comprehensive health care for every American.

He won because he made sense. It was not a one issue campaign.

How'd he win? He supports public education for all, not vouchers for a few. He supports affirmative action, a law designed to off-set years of negative action imposed upon women and people of color. Thus it is a majority issue, not a minority issue.

How'd he win? He declared that war is not a single issue--in Iraq it is the central issue. Impacting terror in the world and our national security. The impact of this war is not limited to one corner of the earth. This war is built on a false foundation. We've been lied to, spied on. We're losing lives, and money, and honor, making bad choices. We chose to (?) in Iraq over UN observers which bush* sought to discredit.

We went to the dentist with a toothache and pulled the wrong tooth. Now we have a mouth full of blood and we're still aching. It's time to change the direction. It's time to change the direction.

These positions are not some lunatic left, this is the moral center.

(...)


Jackson goes on to close with scalding the rw with their hypocracy using the word moral to describe their policies, and explains why the Democratic platform is truly moral--but that should have a thread of it's own!!

Jesse Jackson was fabulous!!!







edited to correct a spelling error.




Read entry | Discuss (64 comments)
Posted by me b zola in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Wed Aug 02nd 2006, 06:02 PM
Okay, so he got my name wrong, he said Zita, not Zola---but who cares?!!!!!


on edit, here's my letter!!!!

Rep Conyers is spot on. As Bush promotes bombing the Middle East to convince them of the advantages of constitutional democracy, our own Constitution lies in tatters. Spying on Americans, detaining Americans without due process, an Executive Office acting unilaterally bypassing the Congress and many laws. I no longer recognize my contry.

This is the destruction of America that Bin Ladin never could have accomplished.




Hoot!! Cafferty shaved a few things off, I had origionally ended my letter by telling America to Wake-up. Oh well!!!!


Read entry | Discuss (58 comments)
Posted by me b zola in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Sat Jul 22nd 2006, 11:21 PM
I was just a child, I was born in '63. But the hope, optimism that people could make a difference, and mass movements was a very special time in our history.

Since then corporate amerika has taken over the media, so even when 500,000 of us march on Washington, no one sees it because that is an image that corporate amerika doesn't want people to see. Instead they showed a brief clip from a camera angle that makes it look as though we may have been just a hundred people, and give equal time to less than a hundred people who were there to oppose us--making it look as though there was an equal sentiment on both sides of the issue.

The gop hadn't infiltrated churches and turned them into political groups back in the 60's. Many people of faith naturally opposed the death penalty and war, and supported civil rights. Some people may have been bigots and still went to church, but at least they did not hide behind their church as they worked to oppress others. Now churches have been turned into instruments of hatred & oppression, and Jesus has been tossed into the gutter as I am forced to hear politicians "preach" to me.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by me b zola in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Wed Jul 19th 2006, 01:55 AM
But I think that there are far fewer hard-liners, on either side of the issue, then what the responses within threads seem to suggest.

When I came to DU I thought that Israel was far more innocent then I do now. Now I see a whole lot of gray. I think that is how the majority of posters feel, of course with many shades of gray. But it seems as though the discussions degenerate into people assuming that they other person holds one side completely innocent and the other totally culpable, which usually isn't true of the person who is being accused of that.

There may be a handful of posters who believe that Israel is completely innocent. There may be a handful who believe that Israel is completely culpable. I truly doubt, though, that any here believe that H'zbollah or Hamas are wonderful organizations.

I could be wrong, but I think that most of us see the horror that is happening in the ME in shades of gray as to who is the bad guy and we just want the killing to stop.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by me b zola in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Wed Jun 28th 2006, 01:34 PM
Roman Catholics used to vote heavily Democratic because the party stood/stands for issues that are morally relevent to them. The NT instructs it readers to work for social justice. The teachings of Jesus were one of the main factors that made me a liberal. That has not changed for me.

The RC church now is fairly spit in their vote because, like many of the other large christian religions, they have been targetted by the rw to push a rw message from the inside. This didn't begin to happen in 2000, this push began years ago in a similar timeline as the rw invasion of the radio with rw hate-talkers. The chrisian coalition and other faux christian groups were organized by politicos to infiltrate mainstream christian churches and turn them into political organizations.

I cannot disagree strongly enough to the targetting of religious groups. It demeans both the Constitution and the church. The Democratic platform is (or has been & should continue to be) built around concepts of social justice. When government & society works well for the little guy, it works well for everybody. When we promote strong environmental protections, then we are honoring those who will come after us by leaving them a safe place to live. If someone proclaims themselves to be a christian and yet do not value these things enough to vote Democratic, then there are other issues besides their "christianity" that pushes them to vote repub.

I think the answer is rather than "target" the religious vote by eroding our values and beliefs, do a better job, like Al Gore does with global warming, of explaining why our platform is the only "moral" choice. The rw targetted churches BECAUSE DEMS HAVE THE MORAL AUTHORITY on issues. The rw is the party who's agenda (greed & power)is based upon exploitation of the average person to accumulate great wealth so that it will be used to continue to exploit more and more people. They depend on smoke and mirrors to confuse the issues, and they ended up with a message that we are godless and they are morally superior. Insane, eh?

The answer is to return to our values and strengthen our message. Civil rights is a moral issue (this includes a woman's right to choose and gay rights). Unions and fair wages, benifits, & working conditions are moral issues. Regulating big business so that they do not damage the environment nor endanger their workers, and pay their fair share are moral issues. Envirnmental protections is a moral issue. Honoring our veterans by ensuring that all of the services that they deserve are fully funded is a moral issue. Saving public education and strengthening it so that ALL children can recieve a good education is a moral issue. Universal health care is a moral issue. A foreign policy that relies on diplomacy not dropping bombs on people is a moral issue. A social safety net is a moral issue. A strong national security that takes logical steps to protect us without stripping away civil liberties is a moral issue. RESPECTING OUR CONSTITUTION, BILL OF RIGHTS, AND THE RULE OF LAW IS A MORAL ISSUE.

Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by me b zola in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Fri Jun 23rd 2006, 08:18 PM
All of the little gop-bot voters who are cheerleading for all of the changes that are being made to our country by the neocons will wake up one day and regret will not begin to describe what they will be feeling.

A few of the things that RWers now are cheerleading that they will come to regret:

~rw judges that rule the way (they think)that they want

~dismantling of social programs--the privatization of services

~the destruction of seperation of church & state

~tax system that favors the wealthy & corporations

~destruction of our civil liberties



These fools who refuse to wake up continue to enable the destruction of our country from within.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by me b zola in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Thu Jun 08th 2006, 10:40 AM
I'm so impressed with her. I would love to see her as VP candidate, grooming her for POTUS, but I suppose that I would settle--for now--to see her in the Senate.

Does anybody else feel the same way??
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
Posted by me b zola in General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007)
Wed Jun 07th 2006, 07:44 PM
The rw had been successful for so long in creating the perception that they speak for the victims of 911 and GI's (and they have used them so well as backdrops). They're mad as hell that a little reality is making it's way into the public consciousness in the form of Cindy Sheehan and other GSFFP, and 911 widows.

"Liberal infallibility" is just more neocon double speak. It translates like this:

"You have ripped the mask off of the perception of conservative/neocon infallibility, so now we must accuse you of that which we can no longer get away with w/o scrutiny."
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.