Peace on Earth

Merry Christmas

from Bark Back News

Painting by Laurel Moore

Read More......

Where do the Democrats stand in Florida?

Apparently there is a rift in the Democratic National Party that is not well publicized and should bring shame to the party. The D.N.C. versus the Florida Democrats or is it the Florida Democrats versus the D.N.C.? Florida legislators moved the state’s primary Up to 29 January, despite the threats of retribution from the GOP and D.N.C.

The state hoped to have a larger role in the presidential nominating process. Instead of being a good thing, the entire weight of the D.N.C. ‘body slammed’ its own party in Florida and imposed sanction after sanction as a punishment for disrupting the D.N.C.’s primary process—apparently, a bad thing (Party Chief Has Fences to Mend, Lakeland Ledger © 12/09/2007 ). The GOP was miffed but by all means did not overreact to the 29 January change.

The majority of Florida Democrats who don’t care about party politics and usually vote along party lines are left scratching their heads at this news. But do the voters see the hypocrisy within the D.N.C.? The D.N.C. continues to boycott the state; although, party sanctioned candidates are allowed to slip in and out of the state to raise money for their campaigns. As far as I’m concerned, this is equivalent to paying someone to beat the snot out of you—the more you pay the more broken bones you will have. What a way to treat future (?) constituents, in a swing state to boot...but then again what do I know?

Frank Dzieciolowski
From Florida

END OF POST

Read More......

Pride of the Yankees defended

Yes, the Roger Clemens steroids story, if true (probably) is somewhat tragic because he was the rare modern player who knew baseball history and wanted to be in the company of its immortals. The fact that he has raised doubts about his greatness with this steroid allegation is very sad.

As for casting doubts on the Yankees late 90s dynasty, I beg to differ. First off, the major flaw in the Mitchell report is that most of its substance comes from Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski and Yankee bp pitcher and trainer Brian McNamee - both stationed in the NYC area. Mitchell's report is very flawed because we only get testimony from these guys - it became a NY based investigation - and while I believe them, there is no testimony from other trainers or suppliers in other areas. There was probably a Radomski and McNamee in every clubhouse. That is also why most of the players on the list came from the Yankees and Mets. Sheffield never played on a Yankees championship team and the same is true for Giambi.

As for many 2000 Yanks being on the list (their last WS winning team), it looks bad until you study the facts. Pettitte used HGH in 2002 the report says, Mike Stanton in 2003 (when he was on the Mets), Chuck Knoblauch sometime after the 2000 season.

Again, the testimony comes from NY based people and how do we know that the Yanks were not facing teams loaded with steroids players and beating them? This is why that era will have to be classified as the "steroids era." Also, let us not forget that the Yanks run ended with a bloop hit by Diamondback Luis Gonzalez, a steroid abuser.
Michael Hart, SI, NY

END OF POST

Read More......

Baseball, steroids and cantaloupe-sized heads

By Ken Hart
As longtime friends know, I love baseball. It's far and away my favorite sport and, aside from the noble art of fencing, the only sport I've ever really played. (OK, that was T-ball when I was 8 years old, and my defense was so bad that I was made the team's catcher and you have to know that your defense truly sucks when they make you the catcher in a league where no one pitches. But I digress.)

The long-awaited Mitchell Report came out two days ago, detailing George Mitchell's investigation into steroid and HGH abuse in baseball and offering recommendations on how to clean up the sport. But that's not what folks are focusing on right now. It's all about the 85 names of professional players, active and retired, who are accused of taking these illegal substances.

Contrary to rumors earlier in the day, it didn't shatter the industry; that is, there were only a few top-level names in the report, and most of them had already been under suspicion. No Albert Pujols, no A-Rod, no Vladimir Guerrero. But there was one really big name in there, truly the pitching counterpart to mutant slugger Barry Bonds, and that was Roger Clemens.

First off, I really don't like Clemens. He's an arrogant, opportunistic, self-obsessed blowhard (which probably describes half of professional athletes). That said, he's also one of the greatest pitchers in baseball history. When steroids first crept into the public consciousness years ago, Clemens was one of those guys I put in the "Nah, not him" category. His "fitness regimen" and devotion to training were near-legendary in baseball circles. But when the news first broke about his inclusion in the Mitchell Report, I was surprised that I wasn't surprised. On some level, I guess I had suspected the truth for years. Baseball players simply don't get better as they reach and surpass the age of 40, and that's doubly true for pitchers.

The documentation about Clemens in the report is pretty damning. After the Red Sox let him walk away after the 1996 season (remember former GM Dan Duquette's infamous quote about Clemens being in "the twilight of his career"?), Clemens sought out trainer Brian McNamee, who has now admitted to having personally injected Clemens with steroids a number of times. Clemens won back-to-back Cy Young awards in 1997 and '98, at least the second of which was under McNamee's care. Without McNamee in '99 with the Yankees, Clemens' numbers went south. Once he convinced the Yankees to hire McNamee as his own trainer in 2000, Clemens' pitching power returned -- surprise! -- and he (along with other steroid-boosted players like choir boy Andy Pettitte) guided the Yankees to their third World Series victory in a row.

Now the honesty of the "Yankee Dynasty" of the late 1990s has to come into question, and Clemens and Pettitte have to be considered cheaters just as much as Barry Bonds.

A good question that many people have raised: Did George Mitchell have to list the names? To me, no doubt about it: Yes, he had to. As Mitchell indicated (and as we all know), this problem is deep, going far beyond the players mentioned in the report. The one fact that apologists for these players seem to forget is that they are, by definition, cheaters. That is, they have resorted to illegal, unethical means to gain a competitive edge over other players. And oh yeah, they're risking long-term damage to their health and making their heads look like cantaloupes in the process. They've sent a terrible signal to kids seeking to enter sports at any level.

You know what's also terrible? Clemens, like Bonds, was a guaranteed Hall of Famer before he started cheating. His accomplishments during his years in Boston were stunning -- and all natural. And now he might not get into the Hall at all. As much as I dislike him, that's tragic. So why cheat? Was he really so absorbed with himself and his image that he couldn't bear the thought of, gasp!, getting weaker in his forties? (To which I say, "Suck it up, Bozo!") Then again, this is a man so self-obsessed that he named his sons after the "K" for strikeouts: Koby, Kory, Kacy, and Kody.

Krazy. And now Kondemned.
END OF POST

Read More......

Quick Hits and Fazed Cookies

Democrats Back Down Again
After weeks of blustering about getting tough with the White House on spending issues, the Democrats in both the House and Senate caved in again yesterday, agreeing to the president's budget limit without any threatened restrictions on funding for the war in Iraq or provisions to restore funding for vetoed children's health insurance.

If those two defeats were not enough, the House leadership also lost an embarrassing battle within it's own ranks, when the House Appropriations subcommittees rebelled against a plan to cut individual members' ability to add earmarks to spending bills. The plan had been proposed by Wisconsin Democrat David Obey, who had hoped to save $9.5 billion to minimize cuts to key domestic programs. So much for reform.
END OF POST

Read More......

Barking Back: Top Reader Comments

Frank on Potential war with Iran:
"I pray it will never happen. Not only will it turn the rest of the world against us but, simply put, we do not have the troops or the logistics to sustain another front. The American people, hopefully, will not stand for it and neither should the current administration. In the last election we voted to end the current folly; HOWEVER, our demands were ignored. Now its time to throw the bums out and elect representatives that will heed our call!!!"

Talbot in Denver on Homegrown terrorism legislation:
"It's amazing that there has been so little discussion in the media about this legislation. This is so vague, the Feds could make a case for picking someone up for just about anything. Why in the world do we need these new laws? We have never uncovered so much as a single sleeper cell in the entire United States, yet we need to trample on our civil rights again? What the hell is going on in Washington?"

Carter McCoy on Bush and the National Intelligence Estimate:
"The trouble with intelligence assessments these days is the fact that the White House has blamed so many of their own screw ups on the intelligence community that the two sides hate each other. There are going to be a heck of a lot of fences to be mended when these jokers finally leave office --whether the next president is a Republican or a Dem."
END OF POST

Read More......

NIE report proves Bush hyped Iran threat

By Scott Cavanagh
George Bush, Dick Cheney and company spent the better part of last year warning of possible World War III scenarios resulting from an insatiable Iranian thirst to acquire a nuclear arsenal. At the same time they had, in their possession, the National Intelligence Estimate that debunked all of their claims.

Not only did the NIE (compiled through research from all 16 US intelligence-related agencies) state emphatically that Iran was nowhere near acquiring a nuclear weapon, it indicated that the country had given up its nuclear weapons program as far back as 2003. Of course this did not stop the president from trying his best to scare the American people into another bloody pre-emptive war of choice -- an effort that continues to this day. At the same time, the publication of the NIE was being held from the public while the administration tried to force intelligence officials to change and reword the documents to make them sound more supportive of the president's military plans.

When the results of the NIE became public last week (thanks to the demands of career intelligence officers) the president tried his best to have it both ways -- claiming that he had not seen or been briefed on the findings, but maintaining that he knew Iran was a threat. Based on what --his gut feelings?

As Keith Olbermann pointed out, that explanation proves Mr. Bush either incredibly incompetent or dishonest -- or both. He can't blame this one on the intelligence community, as he has done so many times with Iraq. The only trouble with this report is that he didn't manage to twist enough arms to keep it quiet. So, either he is dead wrong on Iran and has been blatantly lying for the past year, or he is an incompetent that doesn't even look at his own National Intelligence Estimates. Either way, his shortcomings have already resulted in disaster after disaster. Under no circumstances can we let our men and women in uniform be put in harm's way again because of the gut feelings of "The Decider."

Read a declassified version of the NIE.
Watch Olbermann's special comment from Thursday.
END OF POST

Read More......

If you thought the Patriot Act was special

Posted by Scott Cavanagh
If you thought the Patriot Act was special, or that the recruitment of phone companies to bug your fellow citizens prior to 9/11 was just fine – you’ll love the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.

Featuring the opening language “AN ACT - To prevent homegrown terrorism, and for other purposes”, the legislation gives the federal government new wide-ranging powers to investigate, harass and detain American citizens.

Passed recently by an astounding margin of 404-6, the legislation is based on the RAND Corporation's 2005 study "Trends in Terrorism" -- particularly the chapter titled "Homegrown Terrorist Threats to the United States." RAND is a government think tank with a long history of ties to the military-industrial complex and an even cozier relationship with the bill's co-sponsor, Rep. Jane Harmon (D-Calif.). RAND also has a complex history of connection to this White House. Donald Rumsfeld served as its chairman for six years, while both Scooter Libby and Condoleeza Rice were trustees.

Those connections aside, it's the content of both the congressional legislation and it's mother document that should alarm anyone who reads it. RAND maintains that "homegrown terrorism" will not be the result of jihadist sleeper cells, but rather will result from anti-globalists and radical environmentalists who "challenge the intrinsic qualities of capitalism, charging that in the insatiable quest for growth and profit, the philosophy is serving to destroy the world's ecology, indigenous cultures, and individual welfare."

So now we need special "anti-terrorist" legislation to protect multi-national corporations from environmental groups and "anti-globalists" concerned with the welfare of individuals? Who then constitutes an anti-globalist? A union organizer tired of his guys' jobs being sent overseas? A tax reformer disgusted by Halliburton squandering millions of American no-bid tax dollars and relocating to Dubai to avoid paying ANY US taxes? How about a citizens group that's just tired of having their toothpaste, pet food and children poisoned by cheap Chinese imports?

The mainstream media has been haplessly quiet on this issue, but there have been some very informative pieces published in print and on the web. Here are a few:

Robert Wetzel’s story from Truthout
Video background of the legislation from Democracy Now
Lee Rogers' breakdown of the legislation

Read at your own risk – Big Brother is already watching.
END OF POST

Read More......