 |
 Latest |
 Greatest |
 Lobby |
 Journals |
 Search |
 Options |
 Help |
 Login |
 Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs! |
leftrightwingnut's Journal
It does mean that radiation is being released from Fukushima north of Tokyo, in significant amounts if it can be detected easily as far south as Tokyo.
Also, when the puddles dry, the radiation will be more concentrated in dust that can be inhaled. Then it could be a real danger. I'm hoping to get a reading from one of the dried puddles in a couple of days. I'll post an update then.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
This morning, a friend in Tokyo reported to me that he went for a walk in the rain. When he came back, he checked his feet and clothing with a geiger counter and came up with a reading five times over normal background radiation -- enough to register significantly on his meter.
The wind in northern Japan has been blowing south the last day or so and is expected to continue blowing South for the next couple of days until the rain storm moves through. Posted by leftrightwingnut in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Fri Apr 17th 2009, 10:35 PM I think that I am missing a critical piece of data. In a lot of the more recent discussion, the general assumption seems to me to be that
Personally, I have not seen any evidence of this. (Admittedly, I have not looked far, that is why I'm asking.) Or is this more like what happened:
In the first case the CIA officers are the unfortunate pawns of a corrupt White House. In the second scenario, the CIA is a corrupt agency putting pressure on a compliant and equally corrupt White House. So I'm wondering: will someone point me to specific evidence of these or any other scenarios regarding the identity of the persons who originated and requested that the torture techniques take place? Posted by leftrightwingnut in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Wed Jun 11th 2008, 02:35 AM The Honorable ____________:
There was a time in my life when I had respect for the Republican Party and felt pride, as any American should, in its achievements. It is the party of my parents and though I have come to have different political leanings than my parents, like them, the Republican party still deserved and received my respect and admiration. Sadly, this is no longer true. It is unlikely that you were present on the House floor when David Kucinich presented the Articles of Impeachment of George Bush. The floor seemed to be empty. Nevertheless, I am sure that you are well aware of Representative Kucinich's efforts. I would like to call your attention to Article 20: Imprisonment of Children. If true, this is to me, the most reprehensible act of a President who has thoroughly defiled what it means to be an American. Please take the time to seriously consider all thirty five (35) articles of impeachment. If any one can be proven, there is no question that the President should be removed from office, if not imprisoned. This administration has destroyed the reputation and legacy of the Republican Party. My son, who is only six, talks endlessly about the tragedy of Iraq and how we must find a way to end it. It is a depressing subject for me and I rarely bring it up. He and his friends; however, seem to understand what kind of world they have inherited and are obsessed with finding a solution. As these children grow and are able to understand the full import of damage George Bush has wrought on the American way of life, I cannot see how they will feel anything other than revulsion for George Bush and his party. You can be certain that my son understands Article 20. You and your fellow Republicans have an opportunity to salvage some of that legacy and restore your reputation. It is time to clean house. Act in support of the Articles of Impeachment and urge your fellow Republicans to do the same. Sincerely, __________
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by leftrightwingnut in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat May 24th 2008, 01:46 PM Let me say up front: I do not support Hillary Clinton for the nomination.
Apparently, this not her first reference to assassination. So why the pile-on of outrage now? It smells like media manipulation to me. Many are anxious to see the primary end and those folks are all too ready to be swept away by the outrage. That is the brilliance of this particular manipulation. Clinton did it to herself -- it was a huge gaffe -- and the media smelled blood and nailed her. Any time that I see extremely emotional flaming outrage being fanned by media on any subject, I am extremely suspicious. I have to ask: who stands to benefit from this? Not Obama, he had only to bide his time and he was already taking on McCain and running for November. In fact, if he pushes it, he will not do himself any favors. The media could simply be tired of covering Clinton and that may have something to do with it. I fear that something big is waiting in the wings, something that will require our full attention and the media as well. Drum beats have been hard to hear this primary season. (Edited for spelling/grammar.)
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by leftrightwingnut in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat May 24th 2008, 01:23 AM I have learned since my last post that this isn't the first time Hillary said something like this. Well, why the outrage now? Even as I wonder why Clinton would mention assassination several times, I cannot help but notice the parallel. Taken in it's original context, the general reaction was a bit surprising to me. In the context of several references, it is worrisome.
I am always highly suspicious of emotional flaming outrage fanned by the MSM, regardless of nature or source. You should be too. It is a proven and effective way to manipulate people. Just because you share the outrage doesn't make it less effective or make you any less manipulated. I prefer to reserve judgment until I have more facts and a cooler head. Perhaps she deserves it, nevertheless, I am concerned about whose agenda is best served by pushing Clinton out of the race as soon as possible. (And I don't mean Obama.)
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Is it a naive attempt to keep oil prices low? Or is it simply the first of a series of major preemptive military actions whose aim is to secure a dwindling resource? I doubt that the U.S. and China will confront one another directly; however, we are locked in the beginnings of a brutal war to keep the supply of cheap but nonrenewable energy feeding the relentless growth on which modern economics is based.
The first feeders in that chain are, of course, the "energy" companies. Fortunately, the payoff is somewhat indirect and intangible. The immediate result is higher energy costs and a starving economy. By taking action, we have forced ourselves into the very economic situation that we wished to avoid. When petroleum is finally depleted beyond any reasonable utility, perhaps we will have gained more of it by choosing this path, but how will we know? History will lament the riches wasted in this effort. How much suffering, economically and physically, could have been avoided by investing those trillions in alternative energy research? Driven by short term greed and complete blindness to any long term vision, we are missing what could be a one-time opportunity in human history. Are we headed toward long-term decline to our "primitive" beginnings? Or can we figure out how to harness the bounty of energy that radiates us every day with more energy than the world uses in a year?
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by leftrightwingnut in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Wed May 07th 2008, 09:56 AM Puh-leeze! The VP slot is *not* the "co-President" slot.
True, the "message" doesn't fit Clinton right now -- she's running *against* Obama. She can change it! I believe that she has changed her message or, at least, shifted her message to suit political expediency. She can do it one more time. Obama's message need not change. He has left the door open to Clinton. And it would work -- but only if Clinton embraces his message. (She called herself the "change" candidate once, didn't she?) Clinton has received nearly half the votes and nearly half the delegates. Clinton tends to win in rural areas where Republicans tend to win. A politically savvy person would say perhaps Obama needs to figure out how to accommodate Clinton supporters in the general election. How to do that? Hmmm. Any ideas? Anyone? Anyone? That said, Obama could take the calculated risk and pick a virtual unknown (to the average person) for V.P. He can probably squeak it out as long as he gets the full support of Clinton. Possible, as long as Clinton doesn't go nuclear and run with McCain. It would be a highly principled decision for Obama to go this way, and one could only respect it. Certainly, the more difficult path. On the other hand, I could easily respect his decision to compromise and take on Clinton as the V.P. Compromise means not getting it all your way. I remember learning in grade school that compromise is fundamental to good decision-making. If both parties find the agreement acceptable but neither one is completely happy, then it is probably a good agreement and decision. How does that song go? "You can't always get what you want..."
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Read entry | Discuss (2 comments)
http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JC...
Mar 15, 2008 Forget Spitzer, fire BernankeBy Chan Akya There must be something about men achieving power that exposes them to frequent misuses of authority. In particular, infidelity seems a particular curse for the powerful across the world. This week's events involving the governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, may however have helped to hide a more egregious misuse of authority, namely that of Federal Reserve chief Ben Bernanke and his central banking cohorts around the world. In another one of those nice coincidences that seem to happen whenever Wall Street is down and out, the unpopular governor of New York was found consorting with prostitutes through a Federal investigation that has all the hallmarks of a "hit job" ordered from the very top. Spitzer was deeply unpopular in the corridors of power, and especially with the current Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, for daring to take various Wall Street firms down a few notches earlier this decade. ... Walter Bagehot, the patron saint of central bankers, suggested the following basic principles for central banks to help the banks under their supervision to avoid liquidity runs. A. Only lend against good collateral to avoid losses for taxpayers at a later date. B. Lend at extremely high interest rates to avoid the facility being used willy-nilly by greedy bankers. C. Make public the availability of such facilities, so as to prevent doubts and suspicions in the minds of depositors and other creditors. This week's announcement by the Fed violates EVERY one of those principles. Firstly, the collateral being accepted by the Fed is tainted as the market’s complete lack of appetite (at any price) for the securities shows. By providing the ability to liquefy these securities, the Fed has effectively signaled that it would accept just about any junk. Secondly, the cost of borrowing is not punitive; indeed it is agreeably low for anyone who cares to fill out a couple of forms. Thirdly, this facility was not used previously; therefore the market has been in some doubt about really how useful it could be. In essence, this is a US$200 billion facility that is being misapplied to rescue a specific part of the financial system at a preferential rate, and without any disclosure required on usage. Given all this, it is impossible for anyone to expect that the ultimate cost of this facility will not be borne by US taxpayers. ... More at http://atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JC... Posted by leftrightwingnut in General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)
Sat Mar 15th 2008, 10:44 AM The entire Iraq war is a fraud, so why do it? Bush and Cheney saw an opportunity to get a foothold in the area and took it. My cynical side says that the reason we are having so much trouble keeping the peace in Iraq is that it gives us an excuse to stay. I have long believed that a sudden trend toward a rosier picture in Iraq (real or not) would presage an attack on Iran.
One of the biggest problems with Iran is that it has begun trading petroleum products for Euros -- not dollars. Up until recently, one could only buy petroleum with dollars. It is one of the reasons the dollar has been so strong, historically. I cannot help but think this would be a big problem for the US economy (which is, ironically, already in the toilet.) The Iranian Bourse opened on 2/15, I think. So, I would not be surprised at an attack coming sooner, rather than later. Bush tried his best to get some traction with this on his Middle East tour, but failed miserably. He has no credibility. My guess, is a staged attack on US military interests or a civilian 'terrorist' bombing will be the excuse. The only kink I see in the timing on this thing is the Democratic primary. I'm not sure what Obama's surprise showing does to the time table. I have a suspicion that it would be better for the powers that be if Clinton has the nomination sewn up before an Iranian attack. Otherwise, there is likely to be a huge groundswell of support for Obama and Clinton won't have a chance of stealing the nomination. On the other hand, it may not matter, which means sooner, rather than later. Mad musings of an armchair poli amateur...
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by leftrightwingnut in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat Mar 15th 2008, 07:35 AM I've been on the receiving end of that particular brand of prejudice more than once. I don't like it.
It seems very possible that WinOneAlready has monitored DU all throughout the primary season and has only recently registered this month in order to spew tens of posts with Hillary's negative talking points about Obama at everyone. Why wait until now? Well, the fact that Hillary seems to be losing would be a good reason. (Don't let me talk for you, WinOneAlready.) I'm glad to see that Hillary is finally getting her negative campaign machine organized and doing this right. It was downright embarrassing when she was standing up on stage actually spewing negatives *herself*. I'm far less than impressed; her campaign has been a disaster. And hiring Penn -- the same consultant that McCain uses!? -- brilliant in the very short term, sheer stupidity in the long run. Take a long hard look at post #1, folks. It's tried and true right wing propaganda at it's best. I guess Hillary is getting her money's worth.
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by leftrightwingnut in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Mon Mar 10th 2008, 07:55 AM I thought that the negative attacks by Clinton herself were the bad judgment. Now I know the root of it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...
Read entry | Discuss (0 comments)
Posted by leftrightwingnut in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Mon Mar 10th 2008, 07:23 AM Penn's conflict of interest is so blatant, how could she ever employ him? Did she know McCain was a client? Maybe she was duped.
I wondered who was responsible for the negative campaign. It is bad advice on its own because it alienates everyone who is sitting on the fence and is sick of this kind of same kind of crap we have put up with for at least eight years. The generally uninformed might go for it. Hillary supporters would go for it and I guess it kind of energizes her base -- but it is incredibly short-sighted. The worst mistake in the negativity is Clinton herself pushing it. It really tarnishes her. This kind of stuff should have been pushed by whisper campaigns and campaign operatives, not the candidate herself. That's why a lot of people perceive that she has gone "too far." It's not the negativity that is turns me off about Clinton. It is the astoundingly bad judgment she has demonstrated in her campaign.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
Posted by leftrightwingnut in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Sat Mar 08th 2008, 10:13 PM Clinton needs to net only 50 or so delegates to have a shot at the nomination at the convention. If Obama's lead is less than 100 pledged delegates, she could reasonably persuade the super delegates to throw the nomination to her.
My guess is that if things continue along current trends, she will be lucky to net 25 pledged delegates. Even so, she still won't drop out because she has a reasonable shot at persuading pledged delegates to switch. That tactic would be rather rancorous, but I don't think she will care. Then there are Florida and Michigan. Unless there is a redo, Clinton could pick up enough to put her solidly in super delegate decision land. As much as some would like her to, Clinton will not go away. I expect increasingly ugly fighting until the lights go out at the convention. She will, of course, insist on getting the nomination with Obama as Veep, regardless of what the final pledged delegate count is. I think the final firewall for her is the Veep slot. And she will use the threat of throwing the nomination to herself as the means to get it.
Read entry | Discuss (1 comments)
|
Latest Threads
The ten most recent threads posted on
the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums. So apparently Rachel Maddow wants a ticker tape parade to celebrate the end of the Iraq War By Leopolds Ghost Check-in: So who else is here? By Leopolds Ghost The Right wing forgot some in the contraception controversy By DainBramaged 'National Review' calls on Gingrich to quit race By DainBramaged Small towns try to save vital grocery stores By DainBramaged ACLU: New Questions About Legality of Drone Strikes By No Elephants Who voted against the NDAA? By No Elephants Greatest Threads
The ten most recommended threads posted
on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the
last 24 hours.  Some things I enjoy about DU2 in its current configuration. 10 recs : By No Elephants Consulting firm with ties to Rahm behind paying astroturf groups to attend meetings? 7 recs : By madfloridian Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Random Journal
 |
