Guests booked so far (subject to change as breaking news requires): Robert Koehler of Tribune Media Services on his spiked Election Reform column, Carol Towarnicky of Philadelphia Daily News on her Gannon/Guckert column, John Bryne of RAW STORY on Bush-Cheney’s new ties to DeLay scandal, Ted Kalo General Counsel to John Conyers and the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Larisa Alexandrovna of RAW STORY on Real ID…Uh, oh.
See BradShow.com for more details and live listening links!
Please help support The BRAD SHOW and The BRAD BLOG by making a DONATION. I hate to have to ask, but right now, your support is the only way that I can keep going with all of the above!
This is fantastic, Brad. That you are exactly on top of it, getting these interviews so quickly. Good rhythm, once again.
Brad,
Well done getting Carol, lets all hope she doesn’t get "spiked" by her higher ups, before your show airs!
Thinking aloud here…….intro music for Carol’s segment, how about Philadelphia Freedom by Elton John?
All up a sensational line-up for this show!
I’m so excited, I think I better go and have that cold shower now! Hehe!
Brad, wow!
Koehler & Carol T….that is GREAT news. Can’t wait!
Brad,
Is there a chance in hell of getting Sibel Edmonds on The Brad Show??
Brad-
Great guests! I can’t wait to listen.
Hi, Brad – work, work, work is the way to win, win, win – hang in there – hope meeting great folks makes it more fun for you. Many thanks.
The Beatles
Revolution
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it’s evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
all right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We’re doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah
ah, ah, ah, ah, ah…
You say you’ll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
Bushw@acker – Good idea re: "Philadelphia Freedom" Will see if I can track it down (still on the road! This shit ain’t easy! 🙂
Kira – Will definitely play Bright Eyes on the show… Hoping to do even better than that, however. Stay tuned…
Joan #4 and MMIIXX #7
Sibel Edmonds is under a court mandated gag order and it might be better to wait. Don’t know for sure.
But when and if she wins her case, which I think she should, then it will get out everywhere.
re #11. Dredd I share your sentiments re: Sibel Edmonds and her case but I don’t share your ‘conviction’ that what "should" happen, will happen. As a [hated] attorney once told me: "Never confuse the legal system with justice."
re #9: Kira: a small point but a vital one. As sung, it goes like this:
I agree with Bushw@cker #2 and Brad #10 re: Elton’s "Philadelphia Freedom" [and by the way did you know he’s getting married? In December, in England, just as soon as it becomes legal there!] Rock On, Elton!
I sympathize with the difficulty of finding music while on the road, Brad. Uggh! And it might even be hard work to get this stuff even when you get back home, but I really want to hear you play Cream’s "SWLABR" and especially…
Peter Gabriel: "On The Air".
I’m sure you guys have seen this on Raw Story, but STRANGELY, the exit polls in England were HUGELY accurate! How can that be??? Everyone knows that exit polls are hogwash… aren’t they? 😉
HELLO, AMERICAN MEDIA???? ANYBODY HOME????
http://media.guardian.co.uk/sit...478206,00.html
Great work Brad ……you did take "RED PILL" after all
Sibel Edmonds
Sibel Edmonds
Sibel Edmonds
Yee-Haw! Just can’t wait to hear your guests (and you too), Brad. Excellent work. Your show is the cream of the crop. Thank you.
Can you play the Bright Eyes single?
Of course the exit polls are accurate in England; they don’t have Republicans there!
I love song lists!
All Along the Watchtower words by Bob Dylan, performed by Jimi Hendrix (from the Electric Ladyland album.)
This song could also be used in conjunction with a discussion of the lawsuit Rodriguez vs Bush with the included affidavit by Edward P. Cutolo regarding his involvement in the 1976 Operation Watch Tower. 9/11 for the truth; Rodriguez vs Bush .pdf file
All Along the Watchtower
There must be some kind of way out of here
Said the joker to the thief
There’s too much confusion
I can’t get no relief
Businessman they drink my wine
Plow men dig my earth
None will level on the line
Nobody of it is worth
Hey hey
No reason to get excited
The thief he kindly spoke
There are many here among us
Who feel that life is but a joke but uh
But you and I we’ve been through that
And this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now
The hour’s getting late
Hey
Hey
All along the watchtower
Princes kept the view
While all the women came and went
Bare-foot servants to, but huh
Outside in the cold distance
A wild cat did growl
Two riders were approachin’
And the wind began to howl
Hey
Oh
All along the watchtower
Hear you sing around the watch
Gotta beware gotta beware I will
Yeah
Ooh baby
All along the watchtower
Anais Mitchell — Hymns for the Exiled
Buzzflash Review – Vermonter Anais Mitchell plus Audio Link
1984: A Song for the Inauguration
A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
Down at headquarters
there’s a big database
with black and white photos
of the side of your beautiful face
and your library records
and all your test scores
and an invitation to party
like it’s 1984
Welcome to George W. Bush, Part Deux…
Here’s an inauguration song for you — "1984" by Anais Mitchell, an up-and-comer who reviewers have compared favorably to both Ani DiFranco and the young Bob Dylan.
OT alert — JOKE alert — OT JOKE alert
Kira wrote: "Anais Mitchell, an up-and-comer who reviewers have compared favorably to both Ani DiFranco and the young Bob Dylan."
So … Anais Mitchell is … "The New Steve Forbert" !! ? 😉
WP #17
Oh No!! I want to laugh, but I admit it — I’m ignorant. Please help!!
Robert C. Koehler: "How do we make them care? How do we make them look for themselves? How do we make them stand outside with us in the rain, waiting to cast our ballot for democracy?"
A HARD RAIN’S A-GONNA FALL
Words and Music by Bob Dylan 1963 Warner Bros. Inc. (Also performed by Joan Baez)
Oh, where have you been, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, where have you been, my darling young one?
I’ve stumbled on the side of twelve misty mountains,
I’ve walked and I’ve crawled on six crooked highways,
I’ve stepped in the middle of seven sad forests,
I’ve been out in front of a dozen dead oceans,
I’ve been ten thousand miles in the mouth of a graveyard,
And it’s a hard, and it’s a hard, it’s a hard, and it’s a hard,
And it’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall.
Oh, what did you see, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, what did you see, my darling young one?
I saw a newborn baby with wild wolves all around it,
I saw a highway of diamonds with nobody on it,
I saw a black branch with blood that kept drippin’,
I saw a room full of men with their hammers a-bleedin’,
I saw a white ladder all covered with water,
I saw ten thousand talkers whose tongues were all broken,
I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children,
And it’s a hard, and it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard,
And it’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall.
And what did you hear, my blue-eyed son?
And what did you hear, my darling young one?
I heard the sound of a thunder, it roared out a warnin’,
Heard the roar of a wave that could drown the whole world,
Heard one hundred drummers whose hands were a-blazin’,
Heard ten thousand whisperin’ and nobody listenin’,
Heard one person starve, I heard many people laughin’,
Heard the song of a poet who died in the gutter,
Heard the sound of a clown who cried in the alley,
And it’s a hard, and it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard,
And it’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall.
Oh, who did you meet, my blue-eyed son?
Who did you meet, my darling young one?
I met a young child beside a dead pony,
I met a white man who walked a black dog,
I met a young woman whose body was burning,
I met a young girl, she gave me a rainbow,
I met one man who was wounded in love,
I met another man who was wounded with hatred,
And it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard,
It’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall.
Oh, what’ll you do now, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, what’ll you do now, my darling young one?
I’m a-goin’ back out ‘fore the rain starts a-fallin’,
I’ll walk to the depths of the deepest black forest,
Where the people are many and their hands are all empty,
Where the pellets of poison are flooding their waters,
Where the home in the valley meets the damp dirty prison,
Where the executioner’s face is always well hidden,
Where hunger is ugly, where souls are forgotten,
Where black is the color, where none is the number,
And I’ll tell it and think it and speak it and breathe it,
And reflect it from the mountain so all souls can see it,
Then I’ll stand on the ocean until I start sinkin’,
But I’ll know my song well before I start singin’,
And it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard, it’s a hard,
It’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall.
Hi, Kira #15 – Thanks for this posting. I am only up to page 70…and OMG! This needs to be "required reading" for everyone in the United States…in the world.
Thanks also for the beautiful poetry…
…which also should be "required reading"…
Kira thanks for #19 — and you should hear the way Roxy Music covered A Hard Rain! Too Good!
OT again! re #17 and #18 it’s ok to be ignorant of Steve Forbert. In fact, that’s the whole point.
He’s a singer/songwriter guitarist/harmonicat who ventured to NYC [from a small town in the southeast, I think], armed only with his instruments and his tunes. Great tunes. And he made his living busking the streets, until he got ‘discovered’ by a record company exec who spirited him away into a studio where they quickly made an excellent album ["Alive On Arrival"]. The album was so good that even people who should have known much much better [such as the folks at Rolling Stone] started saying things like "Steve Forbert is the new Dylan".
He seemed to have it all: a good way with words, a wry sense of humor, heart-rending honesty and nice sense of melody. He was a solid rhythm player who also had the guitar/harmonica thing down pat; Steve seemed to have everything going for him unless you count the fact that he was a much better singer [and a better player] than Bob … and … well … um … the fact that he’s not Bob … and even though his next album was really good, and did better on the charts than its predecessor, it turned out that Steve Forbert wasn’t "the new Dylan" after all, and now something like 25 years later, nobody remembers Steve Forbert, the first "new Dylan" of the early 80’s. Nobody but me, it seems … or maybe I should say "me and a few other people". LOL.
WP # 12 I didn’t use the word conviction. It is selfish to want Sebel Edmonds, who is in the gun sights of the government, to come play "Lets See If I can Get Around The Gag Order" just to entertain bloggers.
We should support her, not tempt her.
And without a doubt SHE SHOULD WIN period, nuff said. If she does not win then the dark side of the force does win. No more, no less.
Everyone can keep their "hated" attorney feelings to themselves. I own nor care to own any of that bullshit.
There are good attorneys and there are bad ones and those who group them all in one bunch can kiss my ass.
Anyone who wants to be DeLay and say there is no justice can go ahead. DeLay is wrong.
There is both justice and injustice and those who want to group it all into one ("ustice") can also kiss my ass.
For those of you who still do not get the impact of the PEAK OIL syndrome. You will. I assure you that you will one way or the other.
"Legendary Oklahoma energy magnate, T. Boone Pickens" has made the public statement that PEAK OIL is here, and, the oil companies are not going to admit it in public (link here).
RE #25 I neglected to say that I would like to see some PEAK OIL people on the Brad Show.
This is one topic we are never likely to see in the MSM and the only folks handling it are likely to be the blogosphere and the CIA realms.
How about … Karl Schwarz for President?
Karl Schwarz held a press conference on Monday May 2nd, 2005, in front of the Republic Broadcasting Network studios to announce his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States. He will run as a candidate for the American Independent Party. Following his announcement Mr. Schwarz went on the National Intel Report with John Stadtmiller to talk about a new video that seems to raise more questions about the information reported by the mainstream media and the 911 Commission. (see photos at website) Karl Schwarz authored the recently published book, "One Way Ticket to Crawford, Texas", ("A Conservative Republican Speaks Out"), which details example after example of lies and deceit perpetrated on the American people by the Bush-Cheney administration. Based on the disappointing performance, soaring deficits and the extreme right-wing agenda set forth by the Bush team, Americans are ready for true change. Bush’s dropping approval ratings evidence growing unrest within his own party. A groundswell of political organizing from both sides of the aisle is underway to form and certify this party in all 50 states in time to address the 2006 and 2008 elections on a national and state level…A brief description of the Political Action Plan for America will be presented.
"I want to wake up the American people to the truth that neither of the major political parties represents anyone but the corporate elite," states Schwarz. Blasting the protection by the current administration of corporate executives of companies such as Global Crossing and Enron, Schwarz notes: "No one is above the law. Not even members of the current administration!"
Listen To Karl Schwartz On the National Intel Report (link at website.)
#27 that looks interesting, Thanks Kira.
Dredd in #24 deserves a more detailed reply than I can give him here but I am pressed for time so I’ll be [kinda] brief.
Dredd, you seem to have misunderstood me on several counts. It’s probably my fault. Allow me to explain…
I never meant to imply you did. I quoted it to ‘highlight’ the pun.
Quite so. People under gag orders make lousy radio anyway.
Agreed. I wasn’t lobbying to get her on the show, or at least not deliberately.
You are more optimistic than I am.
I was trying to say that I hated the attorney I quoted. I don’t hate ’em all. I don’t hate very many people, and certainly not any group, all at once like that. But this guy was a total jerk who took advantage of a lot of people including a certain WP.
Mine too!
I’m not trying to be DeLay and I never said there is no justice.
Surely there is justice, but is doesn’t always come from seeing that the laws are enforced. And what I was trying to say is that the role of the legal system is to see that the laws are enforced. This is not the same as justice, especially if the laws are stupid or if their enforcement is arbitrary. The legal system doesn’t often seem to care about whether the laws are just. It mostly seems to care about enfocing them.
There are many cases in which the legal system appears to have done something unjust, but it has turned out that everybody was following a stupid law to the letter.
On the other hand, we sometimes see acts that seem like they should be crimes, but which are not prosecuted because they are not expressly forbidden [as illustrated on a neighboring thread].
I’m sorry to say this, Dredd, because the guy was a total jerk and I really did hate him, but in this case I think he was right. There’s justice and then there’s the legal system and the two are definitely not the same. The legal system produces justice sometimes but not always.
I think this attorney [who just happened to be a jerk and who I just happened to hate] was correct to remind me of this distinction. We may not like what he said (and I definitely don’t like the person who said it), but that doesn’t make it false.
Looks like there’s going to be lots of kissing going on but as far as I can tell I will not be required to partake. Sorry for the misunderstanding and I hope all is clear now. If not, ask questions!
another OT alert [OMG, WP!!] following up on #23:
I loved Steve Forbert’s music, saw him live and thought he was great, and blamed the rapid decline in his career on the fact that he had been compared to Bob Dylan so often and in such glowing terms. Talk about high expectations!! How do you meet them? What can you do? If on your next album, you try to sound a little more like Dylan, people will say "nahhh — he’s trying to sound like Dylan" … and if you don’t they’ll say "nahhh — not the new Dylan after all" … So in my opinion, being compared to Dylan is a career-threatening event. And whenever I see this happening to a young songwriter, I say to myself: "Aha! Here comes the new Steve Forbert!"
So there’s the heart of a joke, laid bare for all to see. I hate when that happens… 😉
Might as well give Steve Forbert the last word here:
Can anyone comment on the legitimacy of this *"Febble"* person? She’s the psychologist from the U. of Nottingham who claims to prove that exit polls wrong and the votes are right. I’m having real trouble figuring out (a) why all the attention (WashPost, etc.) and (b) what her motivations are
WP #28 The attorney you hate fed you a line and you went for it.
First of all, just by your dialogue I can tell you do not understand the american legal system well enough to make distinctions.
You group them all into one bag. Big fucking mistake. It is like putting all republicans in the neocon bag. Big fucking mistake.
This is so very unreal and a dream world. It is the harbor of the intellectually lazy. I read almost every Supreme Court decision, keep up on the Federal Circuit decisions, and generally try to watch what is going on. It is not easy.
The attorney you hate must not do that because for some reason you hate him (that is not indicative of good attorney client relations) and that is not what the legal system expects nor requires of attorneys in its rules. Attorneys should serve clients.
Yet you follow his opinion blindly. You like what he said so much. Something is smelling fishy here.
Let me give you a short glimpse into the workings of the federal circuit courts. I have said this ad nauseum here that the law is different in the circuits and even among the states.
Those who pass right by that and still put all the courts in one basket can kiss my ass.
Getting back to the point, there is a significant battle going on right now. The Ninth Circuit, which I have said here over and over, is picked on by the Supreme Court a lot. Guess what … that is not because the Ninth Circuit is in the same bag.
Those who think all the Circuit Courts are the same and who want to put them all in one bag can kiss my ass.
Getting back to the point. I offer just this one case in point for the moment (link here).
The balsy Ninth Circuit is asking whether or not the AEDPA is constitutional or not.
The background is that dorks like DeLay who like to put all judges and lawyers in one bag (he can kiss my ass) passed the AEDPA to tell the judges what cases to look at when making their decisions.
The balsy Ninth Circuit may hold that unconstitutional and tell the Congress to get off its ass and mind its own business.
They are not all the same but so long as people who think they are all the same (and who can kiss my ass) then it will be DeLay time.
If you want to know something just ask.
Plan to do all I can to help you stay on the air. Hope I am not alone. I know until you can expand your audience and attract advertisers we are responsible for keeping you on air!
Alan #30 Could you be more specific with some links or whatever.
I do not want to make a Feeble attempt to respond without and understanding of where you are coming from.
New Listener # 32 You are not alone. Make contact with Steve (#5) or WP (#14 )if you want to participate in helping the Brad Blog.
Dredd, honey, you’re hot tonight!! At this point I don’t feel worthy to kiss your ass.
I’m sorry, I know it’s a serious subject, but you managed to keep a sense of humor too. I’m chuckling (not much … just a little … you understand.)
And thank you for being one of the great lawyers who have managed to keep your integrity. You along with the legal team in Ohio and many, many others. My grandfather was an honest lawyer, too (in Georgia !!).
And BTW, you beat me to the "feeble" joke! I wanted that link too.
re #34 it’ll be easier if you contact Steve.
Winter Patriot, thanks for the explanation re: Steve Forbert. I must have missed him somehow 😀
I will get around to listening to him over the ‘net, however, I’ve had awful trouble for many days with sporadic connection. Everytime I look up 9/11 or Feeney (haha!).
Anais Mitchell sounds like a combination of several of my favorite female musicians — Rickie Lee Jones for one.
Hey again Dredd
I understand that the laws are different in various states and that things are done differently depending on where you are in the country, and in the system. As you may remember, I am not among those who say that all republicans are neocons and I have said the opposite with as much force as I can muster both here and at my blog. So I think some of your comments above are misdirected.
I am not in the mood for an argument but I am hoping to learn something here. As you said, "if you want to know something just ask". So I’m asking a few specific questions here …
[1] Re: the lawyer I didn’t like who told me not to confuse justice with the legal system:
I still don’t like the guy but I think what he said was true. I don’t think he was a good lawyer but this does not mean I think all lawyers are bad. And I’m not following his statement blindly. I am recognizing that what he said coincides with other things I already know. And that even people who are not very good at their jobs can sometimes say things that are true.
My thinking runs this way: In the USA…
* guilty people sometimes go free
* innocent people sometimes go to prison
* if you are white and wealthy, your chance of going free goes way up
* if you are black and poor, your chance of going free goes way down
* this is not justice but it is what our legal system does
* therefore the legal system and justice are not the same
And here’s my question: Which of these statements would you dispute?
[2] Re: Sibel Edmonds: I am not expecting that she will get a fair shake for many reasons. One of the reasons is that her opponents carry considerable political muscle. Another reason, perhaps a result of the first, is that her right to due process appears to have been compromised. For instance, a few days ago she and her attorneys were removed from her hearing so that the judge could consult in private with attorneys representing the administration.
Two questions this time:
[1] Does it seem to you as if justice is about to be done here?
[2] Do judges normally consult privately with attorneys from one side only?
Thanks again for your input, Dredd.
Sibel Edmonds Alert!
Appeals Court, Without Opinion, Affirms Dismissal of Sibel Edmonds’ Case
Court Allows Government to Use Secrecy to Avoid Accountability
Re: #30 (Febble and exit polls)
Have a look at http://www.mysterypollster.com
(The pollster in question is considered to be a Democratic pollster.) I’ve been reading the studies and some of the other conversations. While I am not a statistician or a pollster it seems that there are some legitimate questions about possible/probable artifacts in the data used by USC.
I don’t think Febble is saying there wasn’t fraud. Rather, she is pointing to indications that certain conclusions–not all–reached by USCV may not be accurate.
It would be helpful if USCV would respond to some of the technical questions that are being raised.
WP #38
I don’t care if you hate the lawyer, but it is going to hurt you more than him. He is the one that needs some. So I would prefer that you not, but each to his own.
The fundamental problem the lawyer who turned you off had was that the equated a system with injustice. He said not to confuse justice with the legal system in general, rather than specific terms case by case.
That is the same rhetoric that Pat Robertson uses to issue harangue’s against … and get this … judges who do not make the same decision Pat Robertson would make.
In other words, if a judge or court makes a decision contrary to what he thinks then they are more dangerous than the terrorists (link here).
But I wager you this, Pat Robertson cannot discuss the legal, ethical, and governmental principles he claims to be passionate about. He argues from an ignorance of them rather than from a grasp of them.
He does not even have the slightest grasp of the dangers he is espousing. He is ignorant of history and what our forefathers put in place to protect us, their children.
Your position, if course, is not so skewed, however, but please be careful not to topple over in the direction you are tilting toward.
You say guilty people sometimes go free and innocent people sometimes go to prison and therefore lead me to wonder if you think perfection is the only way a system can be just.
Human social systems will not be perfect and those who would hang that requirement on such systems will experience unending frustration. All that can be done is to make them as good as possible.
When you design systems where the components are human, and the issues are difficult, and the traffic is heavy, I do not know who would not expect mistakes.
The system designers themselves expected mistakes and to offset that potential provided for appeals in higher courts to monitor the lower courts. The system is designed to expect mistakes.
But as you pointed out, even the system designed to catch mistakes misses some. How much percentage wise would be instructive.
You say if you are white and wealthy, your chance of going free goes way up … if you are black and poor, your chance of going free goes way down, but that is a generality that does not always bear out. Social injustice is not a legal system matter, it is a sickness of the entire nation.
The legal system is where they go most often to vindicate their rights. Brown v Board of Education is not an act of congress or an executive order. It is a court case.
The public defenders win a lot of cases for poor whites, blacks, and mexican americans. Probably more quantity wise because there are many more cases involving poor folk than there are the wealthy. Percapita wise I am not sure.
Free lawyers must be provided to those who cannot afford one. That was imposed in a court case and it was imposed on all branches of government by the legal system.
But the same argument applies that I applied earlier. You are saying the system is biased as you express your bias against it.
You say this is not justice but it is what our legal system does. Justice must be measured on a case by case basis.
For example take the situation where in case A justice was done, but in case B justice was not. An unjust system by definition cannot produce any cases of justice, so focusing on the system in condemnation is misplaced.
The proper focus is to improve the activities of those human actors in the system. That is why I protested in the streets a week or so ago.
The neocons are screaming that the system is bad and the only way to fix it is to put rabid judges who think like Pat Robertson into it.
The way to fix it is to analyze it outside of tantrum mode and find out where it is most problematic and work there first.
You say therefore the legal system and justice are not the same which is a non-sequiter because it is like saying the mother system and her children are not the same.
So? They are not the same by definition as it should be.
Justice or the lack thereof is the fruit of the system, the tree, it is not the tree. The tree and its fruit are not the same. The fruit can be improved by taking better care of the tree. Nurture it.
As to Sibel Edmonds, she has already been treated unjustly by the legal system of the Administrative Branch of government. She has been given a chance, by the legal system of the Judicial Branch of government, to correct or reverse those injustices.
The problem in this case is the intoxicants that have been injected into all these systems in recent times by the 9/11 debacle.
Anger and fear make nations drunk or intoxicated. Within these intoxicated systems are those who are struggling to recover sobriety.
Her case is an extreme one. She should, according to rights, win. If she does not it is a sure sign that some in the system are still intoxicated.
But others are not and have handed down major decisions against the treatment of human beings at Guantanamo and elsewhere.
So what we must not do is put them all in one bag and throw the good guys away with the bad guys.
Lets hope we can shake our intoxication and get sober and sound. Then keep improving.
Torqued #42
They are taking the case to the Supreme Court now.
It will be months before the Supremes decide to hear it or not.
Lets hope they do.
Please go to DU and keep this post kicked for the show
http://www.democraticundergroun...esg_id=3613754
Yay! Thanks for removing the Spam-O-Rama.
Yes! Larisa on BRAD SHOW again… and on the Real (Human Tracker) ID act.
re #39: poof! no more spam-o-rama!
re #40: I agree with Torqued — again!
Re: comment #43, questions over the USCV study (mystery pollster, Febble, Brady and others) I received an email from Bruce O’Dell at USCV. They will shortly be coming out with a new paper that addresses some of the points that have been raised. They hope to have their first draft paper ready for a conference this weekend, and will revise it for publication shortly thereafter.
I am delighted that they are going to address these questions, and clarify what conclusions can and can’t be drawn from the polling data that is available so far.