suspicions

Hearing the Republicans pound their chests as the anti-earmark crusaders has me laughing. I decided it was time to look for some historical data on earmarks, which ended up validating my suspicions.

First thing you will notice is that the source of this chart is from the very conservative Heritage Foundation, using data from the also very conservative Citizens Against Government Waste and Taxpayers for Common Sense. I wonder if these two groups recognize what I have in the data? Look at the biggest years of earmark spending and the number of earmark bills. The two biggest years just so happen to be years that the Republican Party controlled Congress.

But apparently these groups didn’t even look at their own charts. Read the top part; “Despite pledges from President Obama and congressional leaders to curtail earmark spending, the practice has continued at previous levels”. While the number of earmarks is still high (though much less than in 2005), the cost of these projects have seen a pretty substantial drop.

The saga of Tiger Woods keeps getting more interesting:

A Florida highway patrol request for blood tests of Tiger Woods the morning of his accident was denied. The development comes with suspicions he was driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

I bet the judge who refused this subpoena was worried about some kind of “fame outrage”.

Should this organization really have such an influence in our politics?

The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

We get called "terrorist sympathizers" for complaining about torture and the removal of Habeas. What the hell is this? These people think those suspects should have guns (and yes - they are suspects). How can the Republicans defend this? So you don't get a right to a speedy trial, yet you do get the right to a gun? I missed the part where one constitutional right trumps the other.

I think the Republicans should be asked if they will denounce this stance by the NRA. If the ACLU went out and said that terrorism suspects had a right to bear arms, then they would be branded as terrorists themselves. Something is very wrong here.

A Deibold insider who gave an exclusive report to
Brad Friedman of BradBlog
earlier this year has now spoken to

Raw Story. The following is some excerpts from the article but I encourage
you to visit

Raw Story and read the article in full.

The Diebold insider, who took on the appellation “Dieb-Throat” in an
interview with voting rights advocate Brad Friedman (BradBlog.com), was once
a staunch supporter of electronic voting’s potential to produce more
accurate results than punch cards.

But the company insider became disillusioned after witnessing repeated
efforts by Diebold to evade meeting legal requirements or implementing
appropriate security measures, putting corporate interests ahead of the
interests of voters.

[..]

Previous revelations from the whistleblower have included evidence that
Diebold’s upper management and top government officials knew of backdoor
software in Diebold’s central tabulator before the 2004 election, but
ignored urgent warnings—such as a Homeland Security alert posted on the
Internet.

[..]

The insider harbors suspicions that Diebold may be involved in tampering
with elections through its army of employees and independent contractors.
The 2002 gubernatorial election in Georgia raised serious red flags, the
source said.

For those of you who did not have the displeasure of reading the coverage the
Washington Post gave to the DSM hearing on Thursday, here is the

link. This was a total trash piece and sadly was the only coverage the
Washington Post gave to this important hearing. Below is a copy of the letter I
have sent to the Washington Post, and I encourage all of you to do the same. At
the end of this post is the email addresses to Dana Milbank, who wrote the
article and also Michael Abramowitz who is the national editor. The fact that
this article was not only in bad taste but also filled with lies is a disgrace
to the people of this country, the members who attended this hearing, the
witnesses and most importantly the families of the fallen soldiers who took the
time to attend. Please voice your opinion of how you feel regarding this letter.

Dear Sirs;

I was highly upset when I read the coverage that a once great newspaper
gave to the hearing on the Downing Street Memo. Dana Milbank’s portrayal of
the actual meeting would leave one to wonder if he was even present for it, or
did he get his reporting from Bill O’Reilly.