100th out of 100

So I was recently asked which current Senator I most wanted to see defeated this year. My questioner, clearly expecting Santorum or Allen and were incredibly surprised when I brought out our old friend, the junior senator from Connecticut. Simply put, no one member of the Senate would do more to slow down the agenda of Progressivism and Change in the 110th congress; no one member would do more to ensure the rubber stamping of the administration.

For evidence of the fact that Joseph Lieberman is not a Democrat, just read the Hartford Courant (or look at the main link summary on the dKos). Despite the fact that Lieberman has stated in a highly equivocal matter that he intends to caucus with the Dems, he claims to have no view on the gubernatorial race on CT and, more importantly, NO OPINION AS TO WHO SHOULD CONTROL THE HOUSE. Simply put, while disagreeing with the party line on occasion is reasonable, no lawmaker should be considered a member of a political party unless he/she believes that their party should control both houses of congress. If you are a lawmaker, and do not believe the Democrats should control the house, you are NOT A DEMOCRAT. Please repeat this to everybody you know, especially registered voters in CT.

To repeat, the worst possible situation in the senate would be to take 6 seats but lose LIE-berman's (we call this the 50+1 scenario). This would then in effect leave Little Joe the ability to determine control of the chamber, a position that he would translate into chairmanship (GOP or Dem) of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee...the exact committee that would likely have primary responsibility in subpoenaing Joe's best friends, members of the Chimp Administration. This can not be allowed to happen. This prima donna can not be given veto-power over great democratic senators like Webb, Tester and Brown. This election can not be lost because one man can not accept that his time in the spotlight has come to an end.

Right Wing Conspiracy or Just a Coincidence?

I wanted to post on the US Gulag Creation Act of 2006, but I held off despite the fact that the truly despicable thing got almost no press.

I wanted to post on Foley, but that's gotten a lot of press and I definitely can't add much.

But this one affected me personally so I wanted to put it up.

For those of you in the vast majority who don't quite get what I do for a living, let me simplify it by saying that it leaves a little bit of time during the day for a bit of internet surfing. JPM company policy is something like "reasonable personal use" which I take to mean checking baseball scores, paying bills and reading DailyKos and some other political stuff. Today, I try to log onto dKos...and I get denied by the "secure computing" daemon. I figure it is either a) some kind of error or b) JPM being super worry-ish about what their employees are looking at.

Get home to get my fill of the Daily, and i find this little guy in the recco diaries. For those of you who read my site but are too lazy to try out the links (yes i know that's redundant) basically dKos got added to Secure Computing's site (which would filter down to my getting shut out at work) as containing Profanity and "Mature". I can only assume "Mature" means that its posters generally don't engage in infantile activities like calling their political opponents unpatriotic or hitting on 16-year-old male employees (ok i had to get 1 in).

Funny thing is...comparable sites on the conservative side...and when i say comparable i mean wonderful publications like RedState, LGF and RUSH LIBAUGH's homepage are NOT listed by Secure Computing. Now, admittedly dKos has probably been a touch R-rated over the last 3 days, but then again so have all the majors. I don't know how sites get listed on Secure Computing, but I suggest you go to this link for Secure Computing and fill out the form to state in no uncertain terms that dKos is invaluable part of the global media...and the ability of them to get their information out at places of employment is critical for freedom of speech.