Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:00:03 -0400
"GO Clarkies!"
Submitted by mad4clark on July 8, 2008 - 9:03am.
Brought forward from a dead thread.
GO Clarkies!
Submitted by Kat on July 7, 2008 - 11:18pm.
From ..... wait for it...
Politico: ( you can skip page 1 if you'd like)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11532_Page2.html
snip....
The third candidate to draw online strength from his defeat in 2004 was Gen. Clark, who actively engaged bloggers and online activists, and offered a voice of military experience that bolstered the confrontational antiwar stance of his supporters. His PAC, Securing America, retained a robust following; his podcast is one of the most popular in the nation.
Clark’s attention to his online supporters was repaid last week, when Sen. John McCain’s campaign seized on Clark's comments that McCain’s military experience isn’t a qualification for executive office and accused Clark of demeaning the Arizona Republican’s service.
After Clark broke with the cycle’s pattern of huffy outrage and apology by refusing to back down, he won cheers in the blogosphere, and drew support from his online base, which flooded reporters and Internet comment sections with e-mails defending him and his remarks. When Congressional Quarterly this week asked readers of its website to choose the best running mate for Sen. Barack Obama, Clark emerged as the winner.
"Gen. Clark respects the netroots activists enough to engage them, debate them and listen to them. They in turn respect him and can see the truth in what he says even when the media doesn't,” said a Clark aide, Erick Mullen.
... snip
Average (18 votes): see individual ratings
VR spent several hours with Ex Alabama Governor Don Siegelman recently discussing his political persecution at the direction of Karl Rove and his minions. We will have the complete interv iew posted tomorrow but we wanted you to hear what he has to say about Rove’s refusal to testify under subpoena by the House Judiciary Committee.
We have two short YouTube videos where Siegelman emphatically asks everyone to contact their Congress Members and demand that Rove be held in contempt.
Please watch our YouTube Videos:
Part One:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aVOEsipQy1g
Part Two:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=NsWS6SVyf6A
CALL CONGRESS
Rove has been subpoenaed to testify on July 10th but his attorney last week informed the Judiciary Committee that he will not comply. Siegelman wants you to let Congress know that Rove must face the consequences of his actions. Please contact your Congress Members -- 202 224-3121.
Or Visit: www.house.gov
All the best,
VR
For more details visit our site !
Web: http://www.velvetrevolution.us
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
'I've heard from many of you over the past week, and I can't thank you enough for your support.'
(This was in p.s. to his post re: Darcy.)
Glad he knows we're here!!!
It's just the Wilmington News Journal, but I had to fix it...
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080708/OPINION10/80707060/1111
We learn. We change. That's progress. If we don't do that, well, we're GWB.
Good for you--and good for the publisher. A great letter.
The General gets it right.
Competence--What a concept!
Gave it a recommend, too!
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.
In case anyone is wondering how to invest in wind energy companies, the following appears (at least to me anyways) to be an ideal way of getting in and spreading the risk across multiple companies internationally:
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080701/0411944.html
An interesting perspective from T Boone Pickens is here:
(click the video on the main page)
In case you are wondering if we could generate 20% of our power from wind energy within 10 years, note that Denmark and Spain are already doing it.
In the meantime, our 'leaders' like Nancy Pelosi think that tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is really going to do anything to solve the problem.
Ironically, I was just browsing the internet for alternative energy mutual fund info. before I stopped by here.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Whoever said it, it's true.
Forget these good-for-nothing politicians - let's elect someone who sees the important issues beyond election/reelection.
From http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-07-08-t-boone-pickens-plan-wind-energy_N.htm
"We're paying $700 billion a year for foreign oil. It's breaking us as a nation, and I want to elevate that question to the presidential debate, to make it the No. 1 issue of the campaign this year," Pickens says.
Today, Pickens will take the wraps off what he's calling the Pickens Plan for cutting the USA's demand for foreign oil by more than a third in less than a decade. To promote it, he is bankrolling what his aides say will be the biggest public policy ad campaign ever.
"Neither presidential candidate is talking about solving the oil problem. So we're going to make 'em talk about it," Pickens says.
Finding solutions to other major issues, including health care, are important, he concedes. But "If you don't solve the energy problem, it's going to break us before we even get to solving health care and some of these other important issues."
Note: I typically drive by the wind farms around Sweetwater mentioned in the article above several times a year - amazing what is going on there. Already, in a few short years, we have the equivalent power generation of about 3 nuclear power plants and turbine installation is rapidly increasing.
Pickens is a smart man.
Though not metioned in the article, offshore windpower has huge potential. These huge wind turbines have a minimum wind speed that is required to turn them. The winds offshore have a higher average wind speeed and are more consistent then on-shore winds.
Most of the wind turbines Denmark has are located offshore (and Denmark gets 20% of its power from wind).
Sure beats drilling for oil in the water and polluting the sea and beaches (even if a few seagulls end up getting chopped up in the blades)
And most of our largest cities are located right along the coast where we wouldn't lose as much energy in the transmission of that energy.
One interesting thing is that wind power is proportional to the cube of the wind velocity (i.e. - a location with twice the average wind speed can generate 8 times the energy)
Wind Turbine Power:
P = 0.5 x rho x A x Cp x V3 x Ng x Nb
where:
P = power in watts (746 watts = 1 hp) (1,000 watts = 1 kilowatt)
rho = air density (about 1.225 kg/m3 at sea level, less higher up)
A = rotor swept area, exposed to the wind (m2)
Cp = Coefficient of performance (.59 {Betz limit} is the maximum thoretically possible, .35 for a good design)
V = wind speed in meters/sec (20 mph = 9 m/s)
Ng = generator efficiency (50% for car alternator, 80% or possibly more for a permanent magnet generator or grid-connected induction generator)
Nb = gearbox/bearings efficiency (depends, could be as high as 95% if good)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#25594262
Tomorrow will be an historically sad day for our country.
No matter how you try.... there's just no way to put lipstick on this pig.
Here is the final part of the exchange between Constitutional scholar extraordinaire - Jonathan Turley, and Rachel Maddow:
=====================================================
Turley: -- I think that the Founders would have found this incomprehensible. It expands his power to the point of including what is now defined as a 'Federal crime'. The Democrats have learned well from Bush.... Because the telecoms are losing in court-- because the administration is losing in court... they're just going to change the rules. So that these public interest organizations that have brought these cases... will all lose by a vote of fiat-
By the Democrats!
It's otherworldly...
Maddow: Senator Obama says he's supporting this bill as a compromise. Is this a compromise? Is that the right term for it? Is he right?
Turley: I gotta tell you, I am, I am, completely astonished by Senator Obama's position... and obviously disappointed. You know, all of these senators need to respect us enough not to call it a "compromise".
It's a cave in.
If it was a compromise, why aren't civil libertarians supporting it? Because we don't like to receive a good deal? The civil libertarians are opposed to this. It's terrible, it's like one of those stories where someone is assaulted on the street, and 100 witnesses do nothing.
In this case The 4th amendment is going to be eviscerated tomorrow. And 100 people are going to watch it happen....because it's just not their problem.
The only reason it didn't happen today is it was delayed for a funeral! That's how much these people put into the 4th amendment.
But when you talk about expanding the President's power... it's coming out of the marrow of the 4th amendment. It's coming out of the bone. And it's going to hurt. And it's being done for political convenience. There's not an ounce of principal, not an ounce of public interest in this legislation. So at least show us the respect of not calling it a "compromise".
[...]
Turley: The fact is that the fix is in.
Tomorrow night there's going to be a lot of celebrating among telecom lobbyists that have just poured money into this campaign. And they're going to have a great victory -- but it's a pirate victory for the rest of us.
And what we will lose tomorrow is something very precious.
It's gonna be part of the 4th amendment. And that is beyond measure.
(silence)
Maddow: It's just ...gut wrenching. Honestly. Gut wrenching.
prolly both my Senators will vote to pass
that atrocity. I've emailed them them til I'm blue in the face...I get one response with nothing but gobbeldy gook and nothing from the other (up for
re-election this year, only a token opponent). Sigh...they are not listening. :(
On July 6, 2004 Kerry announced that Edwards would be his running mate. Any indication of when Obama will make his pick? I can't wait to see Wes vs. Lieberman. Talk about smack down!
and the Constitution:
Dear Colleague,
During the Fourth of July holiday a WWII veteran stood ram-rod straight in his crisp dress uniform and saluted our flag as it passed in a parade. His silent reverential stance was a powerful reminder of the love of country that is reflected in our veterans of all generations and all services.
It is also a powerful reminder of the responsibilities of the President of the Untied States in his capacity as Commander in Chief.
It is worse than heartbreaking that George W. Bush, as Commander in Chief, caused this country to go to war based on information which was false, and which he knew to be false. The consequences for our troops have been devastating. We have lost 4,116 of our beloved servicemen and women since the war began, with over 30,000 physically wounded and countless others emotionally wounded. The toll on the service persons and their families will be felt throughout their lives.
There can be no greater responsibility of a Commander in Chief than to command based on facts on the ground, and to command in fact and in truth. There can be no greater offense of a Commander in Chief than to misrepresent a cause of war and to send our brave men and women into harm's way based on those misrepresentations.
There has been a breach of faith between the Commander in Chief and the troops. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Al Qaeda's role in 9/11. Iraq had neither the intention nor the capability of attacking the United States. Iraq did not have weapons of Mass of Destruction. Yet George W. Bush took our troops to war under all of these false assumptions. Given the profound and irreversible consequences to our troops, if his decision was the result of a mistake, he must be impeached. Since his decision was based on lies, impeachment as a remedy falls short, but represents at least some effort on our part to demonstrate our concern about the sacrifices our troops have made.
This Thursday evening I will bring a privileged resolution to the House with a single Article of Impeachment of President Bush for taking our nation and our troops to war based on lies. We owe it to our troops who even at this hour stand as sentinels of America because they love this country and will give their lives for it. What are we willing to do to match their valor and the valor of their successors? Are we at least willing to defend the Constitution from the comfort and security of our Washington, DC offices?
Sincerely,
/s/
Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress
Boston Globe
By Susan Milligan
Globe Staff / July 9, 2008
"McGovern: War heroism doesn't make a president."
WASHINGTON - He was a pilot in World War II, bombing targets in Europe to stop Hitler. But former senator and 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern says that didn't qualify him to run the country - and the same goes for GOP presumptive nominee John McCain.
"I don't have any regrets about that," the antiwar Democratic stalwart said in a brief interview yesterday on Capitol Hill. "While bombing is a terrible thing, we smashed Hitler's oil refineries all over Europe."
"But I don't recall ever saying that experience as a bomber pilot equipped me to be very strong on how to run a war, how to command the armed forces," said McGovern, who will turn 86 on July 18.
Retired General Wesley Clark, a onetime candidate for president himself, raised ire when he said recently that McCain's experience in Vietnam - while laudable - did not qualify him to be commander in chief. While noting that he honored McCain's service - including his years as a prisoner of war - Clark said late last month that McCain has not held "executive responsibility," and added, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is qualification to be president."
The remarks on CBS's "Face the Nation" were immediately derided by McCain's supporters.
But McGovern said Clark had it right.
"I think General Clark was misunderstood," McGovern said yesterday evening as he visited the House chamber where he once served. "He wasn't belittling [McCain] at all."
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran test-fired nine missiles on Wednesday and warned the United States and Israel it was ready to retaliate if they attacked the Islamic Republic over its disputed nuclear projects.
Washington, which says Iran seeks atomic bombs, told Tehran to halt further tests if it wanted the world to trust it. Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer, insists its nuclear program aims only at generating electricity.
Rising tensions have rattled financial markets. Oil prices, which had slipped from record highs, rebounded about $2 a barrel after Wednesday's tests.
Speculation that Israel could strike Iran has mounted since its air force staged an exercise last month that U.S. officials said involved 100 aircraft. The United States has not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the nuclear row.
this could happen.
It is an understatement to say how very foolish it was for the Obama team to undercut General Clark. It was obvious to me that somewhere down the line he would need Wes as one of his National security spokesmen, not to mention Wes's sound advice.
People are going to look for some kind of reassurance here, and this kind of thing doesn't come from a neophyte.
On torture and U.S. military values:
We thought we were in this uniform because we stood for something. We stood for what was right, what was fair, what was just: we didn't torture people. I certainly wouldn't have stayed in an armed forces or worked with a government that I thought was doing the same skulduggery that the Soviets and the rest of them were doing. That's what we were against. How can it be that we think we can condone that kind of stuff now?
Torture not justified because there are "bad people":
We've heard that argument. We heard it in Argentina with the desaparecidos. We've heard it all over Latin America. We've heard it in Europe. We read it in novels. We know enough, surely, not to trust it. We've seen it in history. We've seen great empires like Rome lose their moral authority totally when they departed from humane standards of treatment.
From remarks by Gen. Wesley K. Clark at UCLA