Keith Olbermann stepped up and slapped Bush's plan to use the word "sacrifice" as an excuse to send more troops to Iraq. Bush needs a new catch phrase to try and deceive the nation with, but Republican talking points won't work on the people anymore. They are fed up with Bush and this war and sending more troops to die is [...]
Read The Full Article:
Thought this poll on bad bosses was interesting with a universal theme. Everyone has a bad boss story -- or many stories. In DC, there is a particular breed of bad boss -- the self-importance factor is just off the scale. Some of the worst are former elected officials (who, of course, know everything) or the ones who think they should be elected officials. The bad boss is everywhere:
Employees stuck in an abusive relationship experienced more exhaustion, job tension, nervousness, depressed moods and mistrust, the researchers found. They found that a good working environment is often more important than pay, and that it's no coincidence that poor morale leads to lower production.Sound familiar?
"They (employees) were less likely to take on additional tasks, such as working longer or on weekends, and were generally less satisfied with their job," the study found. "Also, employees were more likely to leave if involved in an abusive relationship than if dissatisfied with pay."
The results of the study are scheduled for publication in the Fall 2007 issue of The Leadership Quarterly, a journal read by consultants, managers and executives.
The findings include:
_ 39 percent of workers said their supervisor failed to keep promises.
_ 37 percent said their supervisor failed to give credit when due.
_ 31 percent said their supervisor gave them the "silent treatment" in the past year.
_ 27 percent said their supervisor made negative comments about them to other employees or managers.
_ 24 percent said their supervisor invaded their privacy.
_ 23 percent said their supervisor blamed others to cover up mistakes or to minimize embarrassment.
I've been rather out of it because of my illness and I neglected to thank everyone for their nice Christmas books.
Thanks. I love them.
Read The Full Article:
Tonight, the newswires are a-buzz with breathless reports of the Bush regime’s upcoming NEW! IMPROVED!! plan for Iraq (V 7.15) - and that within the next week, George Bush is going to go before the American public, and ask for “sacrifice” in Iraq. Over this past weekend, the 3001st U.S. serviceperson “sacrificed” [...]
Read The Full Article:
I think Gregg Sargent is calling Holy Joe a liar when he cites all those generals achin' for a surge: The evidence is buried at the end of a Washington Post article about GOP division over the possibility of an escalation. It turns out GOP[...]
Read The Full Article:
A new look for right-wing politics? Anyone know which one is Ms. Lohan?
Oh and I forgot Sonny Bono (Cher's ex). Intellectually-challenged Republican celebrities have always been hot in right wing political circles. And now purported actress/singer, Lindsay Lohan (neither an actual actress or singer, just a much photographed teenage slut approaching her 20's), is being woo-ed by a Republican splinter organization, the New York State Independence Party. They'd like to see the tabloid fixture with her fluctuating weight, tales of ongoing debauchery, a string of occasionally high-profile male companions, family drama involving her father, and feuds with a variety of other young female celebrities, take a shot at politics. You probably think I'm making this up because I needed something to balance all the Paris Hilton coverage at DWT lately. But this is for real. One of the 2 people claiming to be Independence Party County Chairman of State Island, Frank Morano (who also has a real job working for the Curtis and Kuby radio show, claims Lohan is a role model who should "seriously consider entering the political arena."
Morano, barely older than Lohan himself, wrote her a letter last week which has been obtained by DWT:
December 27th, 2006
Dear Ms. Lohan:
I've quite simply been in awe of not only your talents as an actress, singer and model, but your remarkable ability to handle the constant media scrutiny that you've been subject to, even when it clearly crosses the line of what's appropriate. As you probably know, you're a role model to hundreds of thousands of young Americans, particularly young women all over the country. As someone in his twenties, I can't praise you enough for using this position to raise awareness on so many issues affecting young people, like substance abuse and the importance of a good work ethic.
There are so few public figures that have captivated the hearts and minds of so many Americans as you have. It's for these reasons, that I'd really like you to seriously consider entering the political arena. I'm currently the Producer of a radio talk show, but have a tremendous interest in motivating young people towards the political process. Here in NY, I'm very involved in politics and serve on the Executive Committee of The New York Independence Party...
It's absolutely critical that people in their late teens and twenties stop this disturbing trend of taking no part in shaping the policies and future of our state and country. There is quite simply no native New Yorker (and very likely no one in the whole country) that has the potential to galvanize voter interest to the extent that you do. I can't tell you how gratified I was to learn that part of the reason you decided to do the film, "Bobby" was to get young people engaged in politics. At the time you said that it was important to bring awareness of a great leader. In these trying times you couldn't be more correct. And in the 21st century, I think that you have the potential to be the great leader. I realize too, that any run for public office would require a fairly big sacrifice on your part, both in time and further media scrutiny. Sometimes though, there are things important enough to merit that kind of sacrifice and I think the generation of Young people waiting to be inspired by you would hope that it is.
It would seem to me that an office that would be a natural fit for your candidacy would be New York City Public Advocate. It's an office that has a pretty broad and undefined statutory role and is almost completely defined by the person occupying it. Someone with your core belief system, larger than life personality and gift for dealing with the public could use the Bully Pulpit of this office top help millions of New Yorkers. There are a number of other offices, which might be a natural fit for you though. As Albany is currently a cesspool of corruption, badly in need of reform, you may also want to consider a bid for the state legislature. Many celebrities have made the transition from Hollywood to politics, ranging from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura to Sonny Bono and Ronald Regan [sic]. Few if any though, had the enormous potential that you posses.
I have a number of other ideas on how you might best influence the political process and get more young people involved. I'd very much like the opportunity to speak with you or your representatives further about this either in person or by phone. I'm tremendously excited about the prospect of a Lohan candidacy.
I hope you will be too.
Thanks very much,
NYS Independence Party
Finally tonight, a Special Comment about "Sacrifice."
If in your presence an individual tried to sacrifice an American serviceman or woman, would you intervene?
Would you at least protest?
What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them?
What if he had already sacrificed 3,003 of them — and was then to announce his intention to sacrifice hundreds, maybe thousands, more?
This is where we stand tonight with the BBC report of President Bush's "new Iraq strategy" and his impending speech to the nation, which it quotes a senior American official, will be about troop increases and "sacrifice."
The President has delayed, dawdled, and deferred for the month since the release of the Iraq Study Group.
He has seemingly heard out everybody… and listened to none of them.
If the BBC is right — and we can only pray it is not — he has settled on the only solution all the true experts agree, cannot possibly work: more American personnel in Iraq, not as trainers for Iraqi troops, but as part of some flabby plan for "sacrifice."
More American servicemen and women will have their lives risked.
More American servicemen and women will have their lives ended.
More American families will have to bear the unbearable, and rationalize the unforgivable — "sacrifice" — sacrifice now, sacrifice tomorrow, sacrifice forever.
And more Americans — more even than the two-thirds who already believe we need fewer troops in Iraq, not more — will have to conclude the President does not have any idea what he's doing - and that other Americans will have to die for that reason.
It must now be branded as propaganda — for even the President cannot truly feel that very many people still believe him to be competent in this area, let alone "the decider."
But from our impeccable reporter at the Pentagon, Jim Miklaszewski, tonight comes confirmation of something called "surge and accelerate" — as many as 20-thousand additional troops — for "political purposes"…
This, in line with what we had previously heard, that this will be proclaimed a short-term measure, for the stated purpose of increasing security in and around Baghdad, and giving an Iraqi government a chance to establish some kind of order.
This is palpable nonsense, Mr. Bush.
If this is your intention — if the centerpiece of your announcement next week will be "sacrifice" — sacrifice your intention, not more American lives!
As Senator Biden has pointed out, the new troops might improve the ratio our forces, face relative to those living in Baghdad (friend and foe), from 200 to 1, to just 100 to 1.
A drop in the bucket.
The additional men and women you have sentenced to go there, sir, will serve only as targets.
They will not be there "short-term," Mr. Bush; for many it will mean a year or more in death's shadow.
This is not temporary, Mr. Bush.
For the Americans who will die because of you… it will be as permanent as it gets.
The various rationales for what Mr. Bush will reportedly re-christen "sacrifice," constitute a very thin gruel, indeed.
The former Labor Secretary, Robert Ryke, says Senator McCain told him that the "surge" would help the "morale" of the troops already in Iraq.
If Mr. McCain truly said that, and truly believes it, he has either forgotten completely his own experience in Vietnam… or he is unaware of the recent Military Times poll indicating only 38 percent of our active military want to see more troops sent… or Mr. McCain has departed from reality.
Then there is the argument that to take any steps towards reducing troop numbers would show weakness to the enemy in Iraq, or to the terrorists around the world.
This simplistic logic ignores the inescapable fact that we have indeed already showed weakness to the enemy, and to the terrorists.
We have shown them that we will let our own people be killed, for no good reason.
We have now shown them that we will continue to do so.
We have shown them our stupidity.
Mr. Bush, your judgment about Iraq — and now about "sacrifice" — is at variance with your people's, to the point of delusion.
Your most respected generals see no value in a "surge" — they could not possibly see it in this madness of "sacrifice."
The Iraq Study Group told you it would be a mistake.
Perhaps dozens more have told you it would be a mistake.
And you threw their wisdom back, until you finally heard what you wanted to hear, like some child drawing straws and then saying "best two out of three… best three out of five… Hundredth one counts."
Your citizens, the people for whom you work, have told you they do not want this, and more over, they do not want you to do this.
Yet once again, sir, you have ignored all of us.
Mr. Bush, you do not own this country!
To those Republicans who have not broken free from the slavery of partisanship — those bonded still, to this President and this Administration — and now bonded to this "sacrifice" — proceed at your own peril.
John McCain may still hear the applause of small crowds — he has somehow inured himself to the hypocrisy, and the tragedy, of a man who considers himself the ultimate realist, courting the votes of those who support the government telling visitors to the Grand Canyon that it was caused by the Great Flood.
That Mr. McCain is selling himself off to the irrational Right, parcel by parcel, like some great landowner facing bankruptcy, seems to be obvious to everybody but himself.
Or, maybe it is obvious to him — and he simply no longer cares.
But to the rest of you in the Republican Party.
We need you to speak up, right now, in defense of your country's most precious assets — the lives of its citizens who are in harm's way.
If you do not, you are not serving this nation's interests — nor your own.
Last November should have told you this.
The opening of the new Congress tomorrow and Thursday, should tell you this.
Next time, those missing Republicans, will be you.
And to the Democrats now yoked to the helm of this sinking ship, you proceed at your own peril, as well.
President Bush may not be very good at reality, but he and Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rove are still gifted at letting American troops be killed, and then turning their deaths to their own political advantage.
The equation is simple. This country does not want more troops in Iraq.
It wants fewer.
Go and make it happen, or go and look for other work.
Yet you Democrats must assume that even if you take the most obvious of courses, and cut off funding for the war… Mr. Bush will ignore you as long as possible, or will find the money elsewhere, or will spend the money meant to protect the troops, and re-purpose it to keep as many troops there as long as he can keep them there.
Because that's what this is all about, is it not, Mr. Bush?
That is what this "sacrifice" has been for.
To continue this senseless, endless war.
You have dressed it up in the clothing, first of a hunt for weapons of mass destruction, then of liberation… then of regional imperative… then of oil prices… and now in these new terms of "sacrifice" — it's like a damned game of Colorforms, isn't it, sir?
This senseless, endless war.
But it has not been senseless in two ways.
It has succeeded, Mr. Bush, in enabling you to deaden the collective mind of this country to the pointlessness of endless war, against the wrong people, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
It has gotten many of us, used to the idea — the virtual "white noise" — of conflict far away, of the deaths of young Americans, of vague "sacrifice" for some fluid cause, too complicated to be interpreted except in terms of the very important sounding, but ultimately meaningless phrase, "the war on terror."
And the war's second accomplishment — your second accomplishment, sir - is to have taken money out of the pockets of every American, even out of the pockets of the dead soldiers on the battlefield, and their families, and to have given that money to the war profiteers.
Because if you sell the Army a thousand Humvees, you can't sell them any more, until the first thousand have been destroyed.
The service men and women are ancillary to the equation.
This is about the planned obsolescence of ordnance, isn't, Mr. Bush? And the building of detention centers? And the design of a 125-million dollar courtroom complex at Gitmo complete with restaurants.
At least the war profiteers have made their money, sir.
And we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain.
You have insisted, Mr. Bush, that we must not lose in Iraq, that if we don't fight them there we will fight them here — as if the corollary were somehow true, that if by fighting them there we will not have to fight them here.
And yet you have re-made our country, and not re-made it for the better, on the premise that we need to be ready to "fight them here," anyway, and always.
In point of fact even if the Civil War in Iraq somehow ended tomorrow, and the risk to Americans there ended with it, we would have already suffered a defeat — not fatal, not world-changing, not, but for the lives lost, of enduring consequence.
But this country has already lost in Iraq, sir.
Your policy in Iraq has already had its crushing impact on our safety here.
You have already fomented new terrorism and new terrorists.
You have already stoked paranoia.
You have already pitted Americans, one against the other.
We… will have to live with it.
We… will have to live with what — of the fabric of our nation — you have already "sacrificed."
The only object still admissible in this debate, is the quickest and safest exit for our people there.
But you — and soon, Mr. Bush, it will be you and you alone – still insist otherwise.
And our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers will be sacrificed there tonight, Sir, so that you can say you did not "lose in Iraq."
Our policy in Iraq has been criticized for being indescribable, for being inscrutable, for being ineffable.
But it is all too easily understood now.
First, we sent Americans to their deaths for your lie, Mr. Bush.
Now we are sending them to their deaths for your ego.
If what is reported is true — if your decision is made and the "sacrifice" is ordered — take a page instead from the man at whose funeral you so eloquently spoke this morning — Gerald Ford: Put pragmatism and the healing of a nation, ahead of some kind of misguided vision.
Sacrifice, Mr. Bush?
No, sir, this is not "sacrifice." This has now become "human sacrifice."
And it must stop.
And you can stop it.
Next week, make us all look wrong.
Our meaningless sacrifice in Iraq must stop.
And you must stop it.
Read The Full Article:
about General George Casey over the past year, despite recent claims by administration officials that the President “grew concerned” about Casey.
Read The Full Article:
Carl Forti, the Communications Director for the NRCC is hanging it up after they got their heads handed to them in November. via email:Tomorrow is my last day at the NRCC. It has been a pleasure working with you for the last 7 ½ years. Not sure what is next for me yet, but in [...]
Read The Full Article: