The Real Rudy And His Radios

There are still serious questions to be asked of Rudy Giuliani and his handling of 9/11. Why did Rudy sit on his ass for several years while the FDNY used out-dated radios? Why did Motorola get a no-bid contract in 2001 without doing field tests to make sure they worked? Read more and sign the petition to hold Rudy accountable.

Bush's Lies About S-CHIP

As the S-CHIP override veto vote is coming up in two days, it is important to know what we are dealing with here. The President is trying to communicate that his proposal still increases S-CHIP, but only for the poorest of the poor.

Basically he could care less about people that consider themselves "middle class." The successful passage of this bill would serve as a tremendous blow to his ideology that government must not help average Americans. But for PR's sake, he does not want to look as mean as he is so he favors a "20 percent increase in funding" or so you would believe. The traditional media is reporting it as fact, but we can never count on them to discern facts or practice journalism here. Thankfully we have Media Matters.

From Media Matters:

An October 13 Wall Street Journal editorial criticizing the response by congressional Democrats to President Bush's veto of legislation that would increase funding for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by $35 billion over five years asserted that "in truth, the Bush Administration endorses a modest expansion" of the program. The editorial went on to claim that "after his veto Mr. Bush repeatedly signaled a willingness to compromise and spend more than the $5 billion he would prefer to pump in -- which is by itself a 20% expansion." In fact, Bush's plan to "pump in" an additional $5 billion over five years would underfund the program by $9 billion during that period, according to the Congressional Budget Office. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented, in May, the CBO estimated that "maintaining the states' current programs under SCHIP would require funding of $39 billion for the 2007-2012 period." But a $5 billion increase from baseline funding -- Bush's proposal -- over five years would total $30 billion.

Bush and his handlers try to be clever, but this isn't fuzzy math here. The CBO knows what it's doing and easily exposes the President's bullshit. See, he would rather crush and underfund the program more than anything. His blind devotion to his so-called ideology is sickening to say the least.

ConEd Has A Bright Idea

I am definitely not talking about the upcoming rate hike, those are never fun. Their bright idea is rather simple and makes complete sense. The idea begs the question, how many ConEd contracted businesses does it take to install millions of energy efficient lightbulbs across the city....all without charging customers a dime?

From AM New York:

In a new citywide initiative, Con Edison is teaming up with electrical companies to install free, energy-saving compact fluorescent bulbs in residential homes. Con Ed pays the smaller companies to install the bulbs, avoiding out-of-pocket expenses for the consumer. But Con Ed also saves money because the bulbs use less electricity, lessening the need to construct power plants or upgrade existing ones. And as more customers switch to the bulbs, the risk of blackouts during times of peak demand will also decrease.

All parties involved say it's a win-win situation.

"There is such a thing as something for free in New York City," Councilman Vincent Ignizio (R-Staten Island) said yesterday at a news conference at a participating home in his district, the Woodrow section of Staten Island.

All you have to do is contact Con Ed to find out what businesses are providing the service in your area. How simple is that? This really is a win-win for everyone.

Rep. Knollenberg Ignores Constituent Questions And Has Underling Harass Him

Gotta love these GoOPers:

Giuliani Can't Raise More Than He Spends

Rudy may have raised over $10 million in the last three months, but he spent more than he raised, a troubling sign for the so-called front runner. Even though $11.4 million sounds impressive for three months time, it is nothing compared to Hillary and Obama. The numbers show the enthusiasm of campaign donors on either side and when push comes to shove, the mojo is not on the side of Giuliani or the Republican field in general.

From The Huffington Post:

Giuliani led the Republican field in fundraising this summer, according to early estimates provided by the campaigns, though his July-September total declined from his high during April-June.

Giuliani is ahead of the rest of the Republican candidates in national polls, but he lags behind former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in the leadoff caucus state of Iowa. In New Hampshire, another important early voting state, polls show the race a virtual toss-up among Giuliani, Romney and John McCain. Thompson, the "Law & Order" actor and former Tennessee senator, is also competitive with the top tier in state and national polls.

Giuliani's cash lead over the rest of the field could give him an advantage in the remaining 90 days before voters make their choices in the early contests.

If Giuliani is the leader, then things are definitely not looking good for Republicans in 2008. The entire field over there is pathetic, even with Mitt's millions and Fred's acting money. Ron Paul is the most fiscally prudent even if he doesn't seem to have a chance at winning anything when the primaries start in three months time. The free media is working out best for him and the internet buzz is fantastic for the libertarian (who I must say practices what he's preaching), even if his message falls on many deaf right-wing ears.

Unlike Ron Paul who flies commercial, Rudy has pulled out all the stops. He spends millions on staff and travel, even with comped airplanes from supporter and venture capitalist Paul Singer. Add paid media to the mix in the form of print and radio and you have a campaign that ran in the red for the third quarter.

What's A Dollar Worth To You?

A dollar doesn't buy much these days...forty minutes at a parking meter, a can of soda, a bagel from the street vendor....It does however make a difference in how you get married in New York. Straight couples are charged a dollar less ($35 vs. $36) than those in domestic partnerships. The marriage license fees are different due to the different bureaucracies from which they came, nothing intentional about it. Yet it should be evened out and now the Mayor is on the case.

From The NY Times:

The reason for the $1 discrepancy lies in the way that the two fees evolved. In New York City, marriage fees are administered by the City Clerk; in the rest of the state, they are administered by the state’s Department of Health. In 2002, an effort to increase the marriage fee in New York City was defeated in the budget process. The state was able to increase their fee to $40 (the result of which is you effectively get a 10 percent discount for filing within the city).

In contrast, domestic partnership registration fees are set by the city. At the same time of the budget process, the City Clerk asked the Office of Management and Budget to determine mathematically a fair fee for domestic partnership registration, one that encompassed processing and other costs. The result? $36.

The process of achieving fee parity is expected to take several months, the mayor’s office said.

Meanwhile, a reader noted (in response to City Room’s doomed wedding wall post) that domestic partnerships are treated differently from marriages. For one, there is no mandatory 24-hour waiting period. Secondly, no wedding ceremony is required.

I guess there are pros and cons to everything, but we should still work to put everything on an even playing field

Flippin' Romney

You don't need a grill to know how Romney can flip on....anything:

The Inconvenient Truth About Gore's British Challenge

Rob Marciano and conservative global warming skeptics from here to the U.K. rejoiced at a judge's ruling that required schools to warn viewers that the film has "inaccuracies." Well just as Woodward and Bernstein were told to follow the money when investigating Watergate, so should we in this case. It turns out that the money trail has a lot to do with the "little guy" that brought the case to trial.

From The Guardian:

The school governor who challenged the screening of Al Gore's climate change documentary in secondary schools was funded by a Scottish quarrying magnate who established a controversial lobbying group to attack environmentalists' claims about global warming.

Stewart Dimmock's high-profile fight to ban the film being shown in schools was depicted as a David and Goliath battle, with the Kent school governor taking on the state by arguing that the government was 'brainwashing' pupils.

(snip)

The Observer has established that Dimmock's case was supported by a powerful network of business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies. He was also supported by a Conservative councillor in Hampshire, Derek Tipp.

Dimmock credited the little-known New Party with supporting him in the test case but did not elaborate on its involvement. The obscure Scotland-based party calls itself 'centre right' and campaigns for lower taxes and expanding nuclear power.

Well isn't that interesting? Stewart Dimmock may be a concerned parent, but the most concerning thing is where the money came from to fund the trial. Kudos to the Guardian and Observer for doing their due diligence.

Pelosi Admits Congress Isn't Doing Its Job

Speaker Pelosi made an appearance on the Sunday TV talk show circuit and the most important question that came up was about how Congress is dealing with the war. By and large, the majority came about because Americans want out of Iraq and they thought that Pelosi would help lead us out, yet nothing has changed yet. Even non-binding resolutions have trouble getting passed and our troops continue to die for an illegitimate war. So what does she have to say for herself?

From The Hill:

Pelosi said Democrats are “doing all we can to change the debate” but stressed that they do not have the kind of power that the White House has.

The speaker, in an interview aired on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” stated it was ironic that, as an outspoken opponent to the Iraq campaign, anti-war activists are targeting her now. However, Pelosi added that she understands and respects the frustrations of the Democratic base.

“We will continue to pass legislation to make that point [that the war should end],” she said. “And we happen to be blocked by a 60-vote hurdle in the Senate, but the public doesn’t want -- care about that. They just want us to end the war.”

Thats right, we want you to end the war Madame Speaker. Although she said herself she would not give Congress high marks on its performance to end the war, she shifted the blame on the White House (deservedly) and the fact that the Senate is not filibuster-proof.

Frankly, that is not good enough. Ending the war can be as simple as not funding it. Yet Pelosi and other Dems are too cowardly to take such a principled stance. They would rather cower in fear of Bush's empty rhetoric and Senate Republicans' threats to filibuster, even though they haven't done so yet. If Pelosi wants a passing grade, she might want to take a look at defunding the war...while Congress still has the power of the purse.

Standing Up For Al Gore

Sam Donaldson does a great job of it as well as speaking up for the reality of climate change against conservative George Will on ABC yesterday morning:

Filling The Journalistic Gaps

It has been clear that in these times, the quality of investigative journalism has deteriorated significantly. As newspapers consolidate and newsrooms become more about profit than product, the nation suffers from a lack of in-depth reporting that uncovers stories and scandals, not just PR-laded soundbites. A story like Watergate would almost be impossible to come out now, a budget would never allow for months and months of investigation without anything to show for it. The plot of Watergate is better suited for a movie script than to take place in reality these days.

However, there is a group coming together that wants to fill in the cracks that journalism has formed lately. It is a non-profit center that will have the resources to do the people's work and fulfill some semblance of the fourth estate.

From The New York Times:

The nonprofit group, called Pro Publica, will pitch each project to a newspaper or magazine (and occasionally to other media) where the group hopes the work will make the strongest impression. The plan is to do long-term projects, uncovering misdeeds in government, business and organizations.

Nothing quite like it has been attempted, and despite having a lot going for it, Pro Publica will be something of an experiment, inventing its practices by trial and error. It remains to be seen how well it can attract talent and win the cooperation of the mainstream media.

“It is the deep-dive stuff and the aggressive follow-up that is most challenged in the budget process,” said Mr. Steiger, who will be Pro Publica’s president and editor in chief. He gave up the title of managing editor of The Journal in May, but is staying on through the end of the year as editor at large; during his tenure, the newsroom won 16 Pulitzer Prizes.

Pro Publica is the creation of Herbert M. and Marion O. Sandler, the former chief executives of the Golden West Financial Corporation, based in California, which was one of the nation’s largest mortgage lenders and savings and loans. They have committed $10 million a year to the project, while various foundations have provided smaller amounts. Mr. Sandler will serve as chairman of the group, which will begin operations early next year.

Despite the skepticism in the second paragraph above in the Times, attracting true talent shouldn't be too hard. For the real journalists that are left, free reign to do actual reporting without budgetary constraints is a dream come true. As the Times itself notes, their own moron-in-chief, Bill Keller said in the article he would be willing to use the work Pro Publica puts out.

Something has to be done for the state of journalism in this country. Pro Publica seems to have a great shot at making a difference for us all.

Vito Attacks Nobel Laureate Gore

It seems that Vito Fossella doesn't have much to do these days being part of the minority in Congress. Now he spends all of his time attacking needy children, the priorities of New Yorkers and now Al Gore. Like the good conservative lackey that he is, Vito followed in the steps of Hannity and Kristol to diminish the Nobel Peace Prize and the reason why Al Gore won it.

From Newshounds:

Republican Congressman Vito Fossella at least had the good manners to congratulate Gore. But in a more delicate way, he also criticized Gore and the prize. “What calls to me is this notion of, I think, diluting what the Nobel Peace Prize is.” Fossella reiterated Hannity’s complaint that Gorbachev and Arafat had won and then named what he thought were obviously better candidates. “I would think people like the United States Air Force or the Marine Corps that brings about peace in this world or Ronald Reagan who was denied it. I think it dilutes what it all means and it calls into question what it’s all about. Are there legitimate issues that the vice president has raised over time? Yes, but I do think the American people deserve more truth.

I agree with Vito on that last point, Americans do deserve more truth. That truth certainly won't come from Fossella or any of his cohorts. They consistently twist facts to fit their delusional take on the world, whether it is about the economy or climate change. Peace does not come from the weapons of war, to even explain the ridiculousness of that statement is pointless. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can see through their hare-brained ideas.