Some unflattering Giuliani revelations

I'm sitting here, literally shaking in anger, because I just typed a very long post (which I will not try to recreate) that got lost because of Blogger. Nothing makes me happier than when I spend a 1/2 hour typing something, hit "Publish" and "Error" comes up. I hit the back button, and *Poof!* it's gone, just like President Bush's credibility. Some day, I have to learn to do two things: 1. Learn that the 1 time in 100 that I don't insanely save my work every two minutes, it will be lost in cyberspace, and 2. Get the hell off of Blogger. As great as this Website can be, it has lots of drawbacks, too. It's not happening anytime soon, but at some point, I will get my own Website and URL, and Count Me Blue will have a new home. Okay, rant over.

These clips are just a bit dated, but nonetheless still relevant to Rudy Giuliani. It seems that the mayor's law firm, Bracewell & Giuliani, has Citgo, the Venezuelan state-owned petroleum company, on its books as one of its clients. This should be a major embarrassment to "America's Mayor," who should know better than to begin a presidential campaign with this dirty little secret still in his closet. Venezuela's president, Hugo Chávez, is a sworn enemy of the United States. During this current Bush Administration, Chávez has made great sport of poking President Bush in the eye with inflammatory comments at the U.N. and pretty much around the world to anyone who will listen. As a result of Chávez's actions, Citgo has been the target of a well-publicized boycott by U.S. consumers. I haven't seen any Citgo stations in the Northeast in some time, but I wouldn't buy any gas in a Citgo station if there were any, just like I refuse to buy any gas at an ExxonMobile gas station. Anyway, this has got to be embarrassing to Rudy.



I'm sure more details about this will come out, but it's a pretty interesting discovery. Right or wrong, Rudy should know better. Of course the press is going to go sniffing around a candidate's personal and professional life before and during the campaign. I can't say that I always agree with it, either, but it's the reality of American politics in the 21st century. I haven't read all that much about this, but I will and I'm sure I'll have more to say. But, if true, it's outrageous.

One quick point of fact, Mr. Mayor - just shy of 3,000 Americans died on 9-11, not "four of five thousand." I'd expect "America's Mayor" to get that right.

I'm no fan of the president, which is hardly news, but Chávez is openly anti-American, and Giuliani's law firm has no business representing Citgo in any way. (Hey, I'm an American first and a Democrat second, always.)

However, there's another incident that should be at least as embarrassing to Giuliani as the Citgo revelations....



The national firefighters union is openly anti-Giuliani and has publicly stated so on many occasions during the last few weeks. At best, this should be pretty troubling to Giuliani and any of his supporters.

This is another topic that I won't pretend to know all of the facts about, but if the firefighters are this strongly opposed to "America's Mayor," on it's face I certainly give it credibility. What I do know is it's a disgrace that citizens and rescue workers were allowed in so quickly after the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. The adverse effects of this are going to be felt among some of the rescue workers and citizens of lower Manhattan will not be fully realized for years to come. The tendency to Monday Morning Quarterback some of the decisions made on 9-11 is pretty myopic, especially considering the chaos following the attacks. However, the health of residents in lower Manhattan and the rescue workers should have been the first concern, without fail. I've read some reports that the air quality in and around Ground Zero was moderately to very hazardous. It's important to remember that Guiliani was making these decisions. I've read that Rudy was concerned that the NYSE would relocate, and that was the rationale behind many of his decisions.

I take this view about 9-11 - if Guiliani is going to run on 9-11, then his record and decision making will inevitably get some scrutiny. Critics of that ought to remember John Kerry running in 2004 on his war record, and the microscope that got shoved up his derrière.

I plan on doing a whole lot more reading on Rudy later on this year, specifically a movie that examines the decisions that he made before, during and after 9-11. The book, Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11, is written by Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins. I'm waiting until June when it comes out in paperback for half the price. I only buy hardcover if I find them dirt cheap or if the book's a must read.

Anyway, the book has received a great deal of attention, and I've read it sheds a pretty bright light on Giuliani's decisions relating to 9-11. We'll see. Perhaps the book will also better explain the animosity between the FDNY and Rudy. Part of it I know stems from Rudy's calling off the recovery of some bodies, including some New York Firefighters. Was it too soon or not? Who knows, but I find it troubling that remains of 9-11 victims continue to be discovered in and around Ground Zero.

Anyway, I can't miss the opportunity to post this footage, which is truly disturbing, and hilarious.



Rudy in drag is one scary sight. I don't know whether to wince, laugh or scream out in pain while watching this. It's kinds like the sun - you just have to look away. And The Donald? What was he thinking? I know it's just a joke, and I can take a joke as well as anyone, so I guess in the end Rudy deserves some props for having the confidence and sense of humor to do it. But seriously, there's something pretty disturbing about a man in drag. Rudy makes Mrs. Doubtfire look hot.

Ummm, the benefits of chocolate

This is a fun study, but I wonder about its legitimacy. It seems a study has determined that a certain type of chocolate may boost brain function and delay decline as people age, researchers said yesterday.

From a Reuters news story:

Scientists, speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco, presented results from early studies testing the effects on the brain of flavanols, an ingredient found in cocoa.

Funded by candy maker Mars Inc., which provided a specially formulated liquid cocoa concoction for the research, the studies suggest that flavanols increase blood flow to the brain and may hold promise for treating some vascular impairments.

Ian Macdonald of Britain's University of Nottingham Medical School, conducted a small brain imaging study on young, healthy women to see whether flavanol-rich cocoa helped boost cognitive function during challenging mental tasks.

Although the beverage did not improve their performance on the tests, it did increase blood flow to their brains for a two to three-hour period, Macdonald said.

He believes more research might show that increased blood flow could benefit older adults and those who have cognitive impairments, such as fatigue or even mini-strokes.

A U.S. study of healthy adults over 50 also found a marked rise in blood flow. It was conducted by Harvard Medical School researcher Dr. Norman Hollenberg, who has studied the effects of cocoa and flavanols on Panama's Kuna Indian population.

"The only way we can prove something is working is a large clinical trial," Hollenberg said.

Meanwhile, the researchers cautioned against rushing out to binge on the special Mars line of chocolates.

"It is a modest calorie load but it is a calorie load," Macdonald said. "As long as you are doing something to earn that 100 calories, then that's fine."

###

Okay, cool, and a neat, fun story, but Mars funded the research! Can anyone say conflict of interest? I know, it's just chocolate, and most everyone loves chocolate, and I'm not overreacting here, but I do have a point. And my point is, I believe people don't pay enough attention to who funds studies, just the results.

It reminds me of the now infamous studies "demonstrating" that global warming doesn't exist, or is inconclusive. Big Oil funded many of these studies, including ExxonMobile. Yea, like that company doesn't have a dog in the global warming fight, right?

Anyway, still a fun story.

Now pass the chocolate.

(Photo from AP)

Gore Smear II, by an oil guy!

This could be my favorite Gore smear (or should I say, attempted smear?!?), by an oil guy.

Sterling Burnett, a man who works for an organization which takes huge amounts of money from ExxonMobile, appeared on Fox News to try to smear Al Gore a little while back. (Sorry this is a bit of an old clip, but is still relevant to the global warming discussion, and I didn't hear about it right away, because I'd rather stare at a wall than watch Fox News.) Burnett is a shameful dick. He compared Gore and his film, An Inconvenient Truth, to the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

Notice how the segment ends just as Jeremy Symons tells the audience that Sterling is a paid, Big Oil shill.

Burnett: That’s the problem. If I thought Al Gore’s movie was as you like to say, fair and balanced, I’d say, everyone should go see it, but why go see propaganda? You don’t go see Joseph Goebbels films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don’t go see Al Gore films to see the truth about global warming…

Symons: Sterling is an odd one to be casting aspersions on what Al Gore’s motives are, after all the oil industry has been giving him hundreds of thousands of dollars to his organization, just like tobacco companies used to do to try undercut…

Host: That’s a whole other subject guys and we’re up against a hard break.

No, you're up against a hard, embarrassing fact, and it's disgraceful (but not surprising) that Fox would have on someone so clearly linked to Big Oil. What a transparent attempt to make a mockery out of the global warming debate. Instead, Fox simply makes a joke of its network by putting on such a circus. But, then again, we already knew Fox News was a joke. Any network that would sue Al Franken because it didn't like what the had to say about it doesn't understand free speech, America, freedom or democracy, but I digress.

Anyway, getting back to Burnett's not so sterling remarks. Nazi Germany is the most hackneyed, trite metaphor when you are out of facts (or don't have any) and you are so clearly losing any kind of debate or argument. People should stop comparing (insert topic here) to the Nazis and that horrific chapter in human history. Nothing compares - it stands alone, and using it as any kind of metaphor is childish and the mark of an amateur. Stick to what you know, Sterling, which is probably just about nothing, other than how big your paycheck is that you are getting from the oil industry to libel and slander anyone who dares stand up to it.

We're over a barrel, & I'm sick of it!

A pretty good cartoon that illustrates our leader's hypocrisy when it comes to oil. This is quickly becoming one sticky issue for the president. However, it's not Bush's approval rating that I care about (which, by the way, even the National Republican News Channel, Fox News, is reporting to be at an all-time low). What I really care about is money out of my wallet, and how we're getting screwed.

However, the best part about all of this is watching and listening to hopelessly inept politicians (mostly the Republicans in power) attempt to pander to the electorate for votes in an election year.

Probably my favorite was Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's idea of a $100 rebate to taxpayers to help pay for gas. What a hilarious joke, and a waste of $15 billion. It seems like whenever there's a problem, the Republicans have two strategies - talk about the War on Terror to scare everyone (But not the cost of the war), and offering another fucking tax cut that future generations (not Bush's) will have to pay for, with a staggering amount of interest. Thankfully, the rebate proposal appears dead in the Senate. That would be like putting a Band-Aid on a severed limb.

USA Today has it right today - $3 per gallon has been about 25 years in the making. This is the result of a piss-poor energy policy since the days of the Jimmy Carter presidency, and it's certainly been exacerbated by the current Bush presidency. Bush and Cheney, two former oil men, and now they see $3 per gallon and proclaim, "We need to do something about that." It's a mess that Republicans have largely created. Who gets the lion's share of campaign contributions? Republicans do. To be fair, Democrats deserve nearly as much blame, though. Why? Because they are too wimpy to fight for what's right - conservation and alternative fuel sources.

I love how conservation has pretty much always been painted by the Republicans as some sort of liberal elitist plot to prevent people from being able to drive the cars they want without any consequences. Wasn't it Dick Cheney who implied that conservation is a personal virtue, but really it translates into some sort of moral weakness? What a surprise. Bush and Cheney have spent their political careers protecting the oil industry and people like this man:

Former ExxonMobile CEO Lee Raymond (who Bill Mahr has dubbed "Fat Bastard" - priceless), who just received a $400 million golden parachute from the company. Raymond gets the golden parachute, the American public gets the golden shower. ExxonMobile, the world's biggest oil company and historically one of President Bush's biggest political donors, has reported staggering profits in the last few years, including $8.4 billion in the first three months of this year alone, its best first quarter ever. Oil executives and politicians are getting rich off our hard-earned money, and I'm sick of it.

Of course, as soon as prices spike, members of Congress rush to get in the front of the cameras, promising an investigation into price gouging. Without fail, it never happens or nothing turns up. Bush said last week that there was no evidence of gouging. Wow, that was a pretty thorough and quick investigation. From start to finish, that was, what - 2-3 weeks? It took him over a year to agree to a watered down 9-11 investigation.

Probably my favorite Bush line last week was his refusal to support an excess profits tax for the oil companies. He reasoned that was not necessary, suggesting that oil companies reinvest their profits to increase refining capacity. I love how the president suggests things and then points to it as doing something about a problem. Kind of like how he campaigned during the 2000 election on the mandatory curbing of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide emissions. Once he got into office, he quickly backed away from that promise, instead encouraging voluntary reductions. Way to take a stand, W. Nothing like further appeasement of your big oil/big business friends.

Two other Republican initiatives crack me up when it comes to lowering the price of oil - ANWR and the strategic petroleum reserve. ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, contains lots of oil underneath it. Republicans have been clamoring for their oil buddies' permission to drill for oil there, and Democrats to date have successfully blocked it. I have three words for that idea - NO FUCKING WAY. I've got one word why: Valdez. Exxon destroyed the lives and livelihoods of many people, to say nothing of the environment. Of course the company claims that if allowed to drill in ANWR that it would be safe and environmentally friendly. Sure. To make matters worse, Exxon has refused to pay out a $5 billion court-ordered settlement to the fisherman and citizens whose lives were devastated by the oil spill. What's more, we now import 60% of our oil. We cannot drill our way out of foreign oil dependence - there simply isn't enough oil available under our country to make that happen.

I get a kick out of the president's pledge to release some oil from the strategic petroleum reserve to ease price of oil, when 1. it really won't make much of a difference, and 2. we lack adequate refining capacity, so putting more oil on the market is like giving a cadaver a tax cut. Psst - don't tell that idea to Bush or Senate Republicans - nothing like courting the cadaver vote.

So what can we do? I've got a few ideas, but the three best ideas are conserve, conserve and conserve.

I know, it's not easy. But, here are 8 great ideas that can help conserve the amount of gasoline you use: 1. Run multiple errands at once 2. Make sure your car is tuned up and the tires are at the recommended inflation. 3. Buy a car that's good on gas, preferably a domestic hybrid, if Detroit ever starts producing decent ones. My current favorite is the Toyota Prius. 4. Don't buy gas from ExxonMobile. Yes, I know that EM supplies gas to some retailers like Wawa, but you can still make a statement by not buying at Exxon or Mobile stations. 5. Support public transportation and candidates (no matter their party!) who support mass transit initiatives. 6. Write letters to your legislators voicing your opinion on mass transit. 7. Flat out drive less when you can, by changing jobs when possible (I'm doing this before our wedding, and part of it is the rising cost of gas and my disgust with commuting - I'm getting a job in the city I can walk to), riding a bike or... GASP! Walking! It's great exercise and costs nothing but time. 8. (And this one is awfully tough for me) - When you do drive, slow down. You'd be amazed at the gas you save by driving 55. It's something I have to work on, but I'm trying.

It's time for Americans to do something about the rising cost of gasoline other than bitching about it. Let's fan the flames of discontent by firing all of these lawmakers who are soaked in oil and gas and who are happy to stage PR gimmicks like "investigating" price gouging. We know we are being gouged, but the same lawmakers who receive massive campaign money from oil companies aren't going to punish those companies for predatory business practices like price gouging. So, let's punish the oil companies and their political patrons buy using less and pulling the voting lever.