General JC Christian to re-deploy to the combat zone.
Read Official Statement Here
I'm really going to miss the General's quick wit and hilarious parodies and political satire. But I have to admit, if he's as good at political campaign work as he is at making fun of conservatives and bigots and media flimflam artists, I for one feel safer just knowing he's out there serving his country on the political front lines. If the General told me that he could get a Wiccan coffee shop owner from the French Quarter elected Governor of Utah, I would believe him. I stand behind the Commander all the way and hope that after all the victories are counted and the battles won he will return home safely to resume blogging once again. Either that or run for Governor. Which would be just fine by me.
Viva patriotboy!
Faithfully yours in the uprising,
- the farmer.
And I mean that in the most heterosexual stand behind you faithfully uprising kind of way.
*
Monday, June 30, 2003
qWagmire
MSNBC:
And the Iraqi Franklin would be ...
And the Iraqi Madison would be...
And the Iraqi Jefferson would be ...
And the Iraqi Declaration of Independence ... would have been in one of the vases? With the Federalist Papers?
Not to knock the Iraqis, but I think Rummy's historical analogy is a couple of bricks shy of a load.
Rumsfeld says Iraq no quagmire or guerrilla war
During a Pentagon briefing, Rumsfeld compared the postwar situation in Iraq to the difficult path taken by the United States after declaring its independence from Britain and before establishing a new Constitution and electing a president.
Rumsfeld said the United States faced ''a period of chaos and confusion'' in its early years, including a depression, rampant inflation, no stable currency and mob uprisings.
''It took eight years before the founders finally adopted our Constitution and inaugurated our first president,'' he said, adding later: ''Were we in a quagmire for eight years? I would think not. We were in a process ... evolving from a monarchy into a democracy.''
And the Iraqi Franklin would be ...
And the Iraqi Madison would be...
And the Iraqi Jefferson would be ...
And the Iraqi Declaration of Independence ... would have been in one of the vases? With the Federalist Papers?
Not to knock the Iraqis, but I think Rummy's historical analogy is a couple of bricks shy of a load.
Carpal? Forget about it
Leigh Strope of the AP writes
Right. If we keep statistics on the injuries, we might have to find out what's causing them, and solve the problem.
aWol says: "No statistics, no problem!"
The Bush administration on Monday repealed a requirement that employers report repetitive stress injuries.
Labor unions had fought for the requirement, claiming that tracking repetitive strain injuries, also known as ergonomic injuries, would help identify potentially hazardous jobs and provide a better understanding of injury rates and trends.
"Just because the government is not going to require employers to track these injuries and just because the government is not going to enforce a safety standard doesn't mean that workers will stop becoming ill or permanently disabled on the job," [said AFL-CIO President John Sweeney.]
"OSHA concluded that an additional record keeping column would not substantially improve the national injury statistics, nor would it be of benefit to employers and workers because the column would not provide additional information useful to identifying possible causes or methods to prevent injury," an OSHA statement said.
Right. If we keep statistics on the injuries, we might have to find out what's causing them, and solve the problem.
aWol says: "No statistics, no problem!"
Counting on overtime? Forget about it
Leigh Strope of the AP writes:
So why not extend overtime to the 1 million low wage workers, and leave the rest of the rules in place?
Bush says: "Family values." Bush does: "A longer work week, so you have less time with your family."
The Labor Department says its proposal could affect as many as 22 million workers. More than 1 million low-wage workers would newly become eligible for overtime pay, or would receive a salary hike. About 640,000 professional workers would lose their overtime pay.
A union-funded study found that 8 million workers would lose their overtime pay. Opponents say those employees will be required to work longer hours without extra pay if the proposal is adopted. That's because overtime pay acts as a protection to the 40-hour work week, and employers don't want to pay that price to get more work, they say.
"Our citizens are working longer hours than ever before - longer than any other industrial nation," according to a letter sent to Chao by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and signed by 42 Senate Democrats.
"At least one in five employees now has a work week that exceeds 50 hours. Protecting the 40-hour work week is vital to balancing work responsibilities and family needs. It is certainly not family friendly to require employees to work more hours for less pay."
So why not extend overtime to the 1 million low wage workers, and leave the rest of the rules in place?
Bush says: "Family values." Bush does: "A longer work week, so you have less time with your family."
Lifting another winger rock: ALEC
Molly Ivins put me onto ALEC:
Here's ALEC's site: http://www.alec.org. Quote:
We are watching government morph into something very strange. Benito Mussolini said, "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." The real driving force behind this session is something I bet most of you have never heard of -- ALEC. ALEC is the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-funded, extremely right-wing group that sponsors conferences for state legislators and draws up model bills that are introduced all over the country. ALEC is particularly interested in privatizing government services and deregulating everything, and is anti-environment to an extent that's almost loopy.
Here's ALEC's site: http://www.alec.org. Quote:
Carbon dioxide is not a scientifically proven air quality reducer. The task force is very concerned that this attempt to validate the Kyoto Protocal at the state level will severely limit fuel diversity for energy production in all of the states.
Katrina Leung, Republican operative by day, Chinese spy by night
Josh Marshall in Washington Monthly:
Tell me again why aWol's malAdministration is better on national security? I know, the answer is tax cuts! Or maybe we should privatize the FBI... Now there's an idea...
Good thing the media's all over this one, eh?
In March, 2003, the FBI arrested a Chinese-American businesswoman and Republican fundraiser, alleging that she had passed a frighteningly broad range of American intelligence secrets to the People's Republic of China (PRC). For two decades, Katrina Leung had been a paid bureau informant, supplying information on Chinese intelligence operations in America. She'd also been sleeping with two senior FBI agents--one of whom was her so-called "handler"--for the better part of those two decades.
Her treachery touched everything: the 1997 campaign finance scandal, the investigation of Wen Ho Lee (the Chinese scientist at Los Alamos who was once suspected of selling nuclear secrets to Beijing), investigations of spies at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and much more. "They lost everything," one hawkish D.C.-based China watcher told me.
The FBI and its congressional overseers have been given no fewer than five dramatic indications that the bureau has serious deficiencies as an intelligence agency: the Ames, Hanssen, and Leung scandals, each of which stemmed from the same basic problem--poor counterintelligence measures, particularly lax compartmentation--and the Bromwich Report and Gilmore Commission, which put elected officials and the public on no uncertain notice that reform was necessary. But to each of these five challenges, the FBI and Congress failed to respond--and in each case, their failure to act enabled further intelligence failures.
This wasn't simple benign neglect. Some of the nation's most tightly-held and vital secrets were turned over to adversary states. That's the kind of failure that usually drives Republicans around the bend, and for good reason. The mere suggestion that this might have occurred in the Democratic Chinese fundraising scandal aroused paroxysms of GOP outrage: from the wildly overheated Cox Commission Report, to limitless hours of talk radio chatter, to Republican Sen. Fred Thompson's hearings, all pursuing a line of allegation--that Red Chinese money had bought favors in the American political system--that proved unfounded.
Now we have an actual Chinese spy--charged, though not convicted--who by all indications was funneling money into U.S. campaigns. Her treachery is an intelligence failure that comes on the heels of others tied to similar shortcomings at the FBI, and one in which vital secrets were given to a power, China, which these same Republicans were saying two years ago posed the greatest threat to the United States. And yet we've not had one hearing. Not one commission. There's been very little coverage in the press, nor is anyone yakking about it on talk radio.
The Republicans didn't create the problems at the FBI. But they've sat on their hands and put politics ahead of the national interest as the scope of the problem and the cost to national security have become increasingly apparent. Not only have they ignored the problem, they have actively sought to shield the FBI from the one reform that almost everyone agrees would make such breaches of national security secrets far less likely. That's not just politics as usual. It's not even garden-variety political hypocrisy. It's a betrayal of the public trust.
Tell me again why aWol's malAdministration is better on national security? I know, the answer is tax cuts! Or maybe we should privatize the FBI... Now there's an idea...
Good thing the media's all over this one, eh?
Do You Have An Opinion On Moveaways?
Probably not. Probably you're wondering what on earth a "moveaway" is. Or perhaps not. If you're a divorced custodial working mother who figured that joint custody was the way to go for the sake of your kids, and then found out you needed to move out of state for any of a number of good reasons and your ex might be able to stop you legally, even though he is still unable to have the children live with him.
I consider myself fairly well informed on issues of child and family policy but I hadn't heard the term "moveaway" or a great deal more about the impact on courts of such sociological phenomenon as the fathers' movement, until I discovered Trish Wilson's Blog.
Trish is an unabashed, unapologetic, (and isn't that freshing) left-wing feminist with a special interest and expertise in such matters, although she blogs about much else; she's been on top of the "looting of Iraqi antiquities" story from the beginning.
Okay, maybe motherhood/family issues generally don't raise your blood pressure the way another Bush lie or Rummy "vase" comment does. Well, maybe it should.
Think for a moment about the mileage Dan Quayle's puppetmaster, Bill Kristol, got out of a fictional unmarried professional woman's decision to have a baby. All it took was an Atlantic cover story with a catchy title, "Dan Quayle Was Right About Murphy Brown," by a previously barely known academic, Barbara Whitehead, to do the trick of wiping from the minds of most mainstream media the memory of how ridiculous Quayle's comments had sounded when he first said them. From such nonsense can come more serious kinds of nonsense, like "the defense of marriage" legislation. (Yes, I know, Clinton deserves a thump upside the head for that one)
The same kind of Whitehead style of flawed social science research designed to prove a point is still going on. Someone named Sanford Beaver seems to have needed to prove that maternal moveaways lead to damaged children (sound familiar). Trish tells you about it here.
Trish makes it a lot harder for Mr. Braver et al in another post here which is an extended critique of the study by Judith Wallerstein, whose own research offered the definitive challenge to Barbara Whitehead and all those other worshippers of the sanctity of marriage, like the never married childless Laura Ingraham and the divorced mother, Peggy Noonan.
Both posts include copious links to articles, many available at Trish's more formal website. Take a look at Trish's "The Truth About Joint Custody," who warns us: 'Do not call it "shared parenting." There is nothing "shared" about it.' It's an eye-opener.
Casting a genuinely feminist eye on such matters is a thankless task these days, with built-in penalities. Ask Katha Pollitt, and then ask yourself why you almost never see her guesting on any cable news shows. Or ask Trish.
It's a shame when there's such big-time nonsense abroad as the government becoming a marriage broker who bribes couples to tie the knot. As Trish points out in this post...
For added fun, Trish takes on David Frum, and you'll also learn about the real story behind a court decision out of Florida that got a lot of positive play for a while, in which a Judge took the children from a custodial working mom, and handed them over to the supposedly stay-at-home dad.
I consider myself fairly well informed on issues of child and family policy but I hadn't heard the term "moveaway" or a great deal more about the impact on courts of such sociological phenomenon as the fathers' movement, until I discovered Trish Wilson's Blog.
Trish is an unabashed, unapologetic, (and isn't that freshing) left-wing feminist with a special interest and expertise in such matters, although she blogs about much else; she's been on top of the "looting of Iraqi antiquities" story from the beginning.
Okay, maybe motherhood/family issues generally don't raise your blood pressure the way another Bush lie or Rummy "vase" comment does. Well, maybe it should.
Think for a moment about the mileage Dan Quayle's puppetmaster, Bill Kristol, got out of a fictional unmarried professional woman's decision to have a baby. All it took was an Atlantic cover story with a catchy title, "Dan Quayle Was Right About Murphy Brown," by a previously barely known academic, Barbara Whitehead, to do the trick of wiping from the minds of most mainstream media the memory of how ridiculous Quayle's comments had sounded when he first said them. From such nonsense can come more serious kinds of nonsense, like "the defense of marriage" legislation. (Yes, I know, Clinton deserves a thump upside the head for that one)
The same kind of Whitehead style of flawed social science research designed to prove a point is still going on. Someone named Sanford Beaver seems to have needed to prove that maternal moveaways lead to damaged children (sound familiar). Trish tells you about it here.
-
Sanford Braver is on the horns of a dilemma.
On June 25, he (and his co-researchers Ira M. Ellman and William V. Fabricius) released a new study that contends that children are harmed by parental moveaways, especially when it is the custodial mother who wishes to relocate with the children. Braver wanted so badly to support his position that he ignored the findings of his own study.
The timing of this study and the deluge of press releases about it coincides with the upcoming California Supreme Court's decision on the LaMusga case, which fathers' rights groups hope will lead to the reversal of the California Burgess moveaway decision. The goal appears to be to influence public opinion against moveaways.
Trish makes it a lot harder for Mr. Braver et al in another post here which is an extended critique of the study by Judith Wallerstein, whose own research offered the definitive challenge to Barbara Whitehead and all those other worshippers of the sanctity of marriage, like the never married childless Laura Ingraham and the divorced mother, Peggy Noonan.
Both posts include copious links to articles, many available at Trish's more formal website. Take a look at Trish's "The Truth About Joint Custody," who warns us: 'Do not call it "shared parenting." There is nothing "shared" about it.' It's an eye-opener.
Casting a genuinely feminist eye on such matters is a thankless task these days, with built-in penalities. Ask Katha Pollitt, and then ask yourself why you almost never see her guesting on any cable news shows. Or ask Trish.
It's a shame when there's such big-time nonsense abroad as the government becoming a marriage broker who bribes couples to tie the knot. As Trish points out in this post...
-
Some leftists (not nearly enough, in my opinion), have pointed out conservative hypocrisy regarding marriage promotion. Not only do they question the intrusiveness of these policies, they question what right the state has to select marriage partners if the people are poor, particularly if the woman is pregnant or bore a child out-of-wedlock. This is in effect a state-sanctioned form of the shotgun wedding
For added fun, Trish takes on David Frum, and you'll also learn about the real story behind a court decision out of Florida that got a lot of positive play for a while, in which a Judge took the children from a custodial working mom, and handed them over to the supposedly stay-at-home dad.
The new spoils system
Excellent article by Nicholas Confessor in the Washington Monthly.
So, the Texas three-step: (1) Republicans privatize a government service, (2) steer the service to a politically connected firm, and (3) collect the payoff from that firm as a campaign contribution.
And K Street prepares the ideological ground for step (1). And Pennsylvania's own Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum is playing a big role here (read the article).
Gee, I wonder who's paying for all this?
After lying, looting is what the Republicans do best!
The GOP needs K Street's muscle for long-term ideological projects to remake the national government.
For years, conservatives have been pushing to divert part of Social Security into private investment accounts. Such a move, GOP operatives argued, would provide millions of new customers and potentially trillions of dollars to the mutual fund industry that would manage the private accounts. The profits earned would, of course, be shared with the GOP in the form of campaign contributions.
Bush has proposed opening up 850,000 federal jobs--about half of the total--to private contractors. And while doing so may or may not save taxpayers much money, it will divert taxpayer money out of the public sector and into private sector firms, where the GOP has a chance to steer contracts towards politically connected firms.
Anyone who doubts this eventuality need look no further than Florida. There, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman pointed out last year, Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother, has outsourced millions of dollars worth of work formerly performed by government employees to private contractors. There's little evidence that doing so has improved state services, as the governor's own staff admits. But it has vastly improved the financial state of the Florida Republican Party. According to an investigation by The Miami Herald last fall, "[t]he policy has spawned a network of contractors who have given [Bush], other Republican politicians, and the Florida GOP millions of dollars in campaign donations."
So, the Texas three-step: (1) Republicans privatize a government service, (2) steer the service to a politically connected firm, and (3) collect the payoff from that firm as a campaign contribution.
And K Street prepares the ideological ground for step (1). And Pennsylvania's own Rick "Man on Dog" Santorum is playing a big role here (read the article).
Gee, I wonder who's paying for all this?
After lying, looting is what the Republicans do best!
Our CEO President in action!
Time:
But seriously, folks...
Wrong, confected -- or crudely faked. Smarter liars, please!
UPDATE: Oh, I forgot to mention: If our danger was so "imminent" then why are the WMDs so hard to find? To put this another way, how could "evidence" of WMDs have been regarded as credible without giving their location?
President Bush skipped quickly past the niceties and went straight to his chief political obsession: Where are the weapons of mass destruction? Turning to his Baghdad proconsul, Paul Bremer, Bush asked, "Are you in charge of finding WMD?" Bremer said no, he was not. Bush then put the same question to his military commander, General Tommy Franks. But Franks said it wasn't his job either. A little exasperated, Bush asked, So who is in charge of finding WMD? After aides conferred for a moment, someone volunteered the name of Stephen Cambone, a little-known deputy to Donald Rumsfeld, back in Washington. Pause. "Who?" Bush asked.
But seriously, folks...
Administration officials have a further concern about where all these questions are leading. They fear that any problem with the prewar intelligence could undermine Bush's ability to continue his muscular campaign against terrorism overseas. The Administration has argued that to counter new kinds of threats posed by terrorists, rogue states and WMD, it has to be able to act pre-emptively. But pre-emption requires excellent intelligence, and the whole doctrine is undermined if the intelligence is wrong—or confected.
Wrong, confected -- or crudely faked. Smarter liars, please!
UPDATE: Oh, I forgot to mention: If our danger was so "imminent" then why are the WMDs so hard to find? To put this another way, how could "evidence" of WMDs have been regarded as credible without giving their location?
The Big Dog on the Airwaves
Bill Clinton writes in the NY Daily News (!):
"It's your money," says President Bush when he promotes tax cuts. I disagree with his tax policy but admire his spin. The same argument applies with greater force to whether big media conglomerates should be allowed to control more television and radio stations: "It's your airwaves." ...
The stakes are high. "At issue," says FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, "is whether a few corporations will be ceded enhanced gatekeeper control over the civil dialogue of our country; more content control over our music, entertainment and information, and veto power over the majority of what our families watch, hear and read."
People joke about my liking McDonald's, and I do. But actually I prefer to go down to Lange's Deli, a great family establishment, near my house.
In the brave new world being defined by the FCC, there will be more McMedia on our airwaves and far fewer broadcast equivalents of our favorite local diners.
Unlike restaurants, the airwaves belong to us. We shouldn't give up our right to have more choice.
Republican shamelessness
Altnough Mike Robinson of the Associated Press, in his article "Prosecutors push for tough sentence in Illinois campaign scandal" somehow forgets to mention that Scott Fawell (the convicted top aide of Governor Ryan) is a Republican, he does come up with a beautiful telling detail:
Billed taxpayers for the shredder ... That's really the beauty part, isn't it? I just love these Republicans. They are so ... so themselves.
Witnesses said at the trial that Fawell, working as Ryan's chief of staff and campaign manager, used state workers and taxpayer dollars to fuel Ryan's campaigns and pressured employees for campaign contributions.
Witnesses also said Fawell.. shredded campaign documents and even billed taxpayers for the shredder.
Billed taxpayers for the shredder ... That's really the beauty part, isn't it? I just love these Republicans. They are so ... so themselves.
aWol's newest con: The Prescription Drug Bill
Amy Goldstein of WaPo writes:
If aWol's malAdministration was serious about the Prescription Drug plan -- that is, if they wanted it as anything other than triangulation for the 2004 election --they would have (a) funded it (Not! The tax cuts!) and (b) made sure the privatization part at least had an insurance company on board.
Surely aWol's corporatist regime could have gotten at least one insurance company to sign on? They didn't. So they aren't serious.
But heck, the whole flimsy, fraudulent kludge doesn't kick in 'til 2006, well after the 2004 election, so aWol's latest con may go undetected until then.
Just amazing. A bandaid for prescription drugs, when the cancer is the lack of national health insurance. No, not amazing. Bidness as usual.
Congress's dramatic pre-dawn votes on Friday to add prescription drug benefits to Medicare were a political milestone, authorizing the biggest expansion of the program since its birth. But health policy analysts say that, even if the House and the Senate are able to resolve differences between their bills, it is far from certain the plan would work.
The drug coverage envisioned by Congress and the White House relies on two kinds of private insurance methods: separate policies solely for drugs, something that does not currently exist, and preferred-provider networks, a health plan that is common among younger people but includes few Medicare patients.
According to policy specialists, industry lobbyists, Wall Street analysts and health care executives, not one company has said publicly that it would sign up for either of these new marriages with Medicare, and the willingness of insurers to take part remains an open question.
"There is no solid commitment to participate," even though lawmakers have been developing the idea of federal drug benefits for years before last week's votes, said Robert L. Laszewski, a Washington-based health policy consultant whose clients include several of the nation's leading health insurers. "That has got to be a big yellow light to what Congress . . . is doing."
If aWol's malAdministration was serious about the Prescription Drug plan -- that is, if they wanted it as anything other than triangulation for the 2004 election --they would have (a) funded it (Not! The tax cuts!) and (b) made sure the privatization part at least had an insurance company on board.
Surely aWol's corporatist regime could have gotten at least one insurance company to sign on? They didn't. So they aren't serious.
But heck, the whole flimsy, fraudulent kludge doesn't kick in 'til 2006, well after the 2004 election, so aWol's latest con may go undetected until then.
Just amazing. A bandaid for prescription drugs, when the cancer is the lack of national health insurance. No, not amazing. Bidness as usual.
qWagmire
Now we're doing search and destroy missions... From Edmund Andrews of The Times writes:
Troops sweeping an area, and an enemy that just seems to have melted away... Remind anyone who know a little history of anything?
American forces carried out an aggressive series of predawn raids across central Iraq today, aiming to root out groups that have been attacking American and British soldiers and to project an intimidating display of power. ...
But it is not clear that today's raids produced much in the way of concrete results. Unlike a similar set of raids earlier this month, the ones today did not lead to any major fire fights. All told, military officials said in a statement released tonight, soldiers seized only 14 Kalashnikov assault rifles, two shotguns and an unidentified amount of ammunition.
Meanwhile, attacks on American troops continued today. Two soldiers were wounded and an Iraqi civilian was killed after coming under attack while in a convoy on a road leading to Baghdad International Airport, the military said.
Troops sweeping an area, and an enemy that just seems to have melted away... Remind anyone who know a little history of anything?
Fundraising over the Internet seems to work
Adam Nagourney of The Times writes:
Strange analysis, though: money is what changes a candidate from "maverick" to "more traditional contender" -- not a candidate's ideas, platform, experience, eloquence, ability to connect with the public....
Howard Dean announced yesterday that he had raised close to $9 million this year, establishing himself as a top-tier candidate in the Democratic presidential field. The figure stunned his rivals and transformed Dr. Dean from a maverick into a more traditional contender.
Much of the money was collected over the Internet, his aides said, leaving little doubt there are now ways to solicit contributions other than the telephone calls and elaborate fund-raisers that are the stock and trade for most mainstream candidates.
Strange analysis, though: money is what changes a candidate from "maverick" to "more traditional contender" -- not a candidate's ideas, platform, experience, eloquence, ability to connect with the public....
Where are the WMD? The top 10
Al Kamen in WaPo. Pretty funny (and in the mainstream, too, which is encouraging).
Here's one:
Here's one:
"They're hiding the WMD in the Boston Red Sox bullpen: Those guys are getting paid a lot of money to protect something, and it ain't leads." -- Keith Cunningham, a senior analyst with the General Accounting Office.
Texas redistricting battle heating up again
Natalie Gott of the AP:
Texas Lawmakers Head Back to Capitol for Special Session on Redistricting
So, two years later, the Republicans want to redraw the map again. "What's mine is mine, what's your's is negotiable..."
Texas Lawmakers Head Back to Capitol for Special Session on Redistricting
Normally, redistricting is done by the Legislature every 10 years based on population changes found in the census. In the 2001 legislative session, lawmakers could not agree on how to draw the districts so a map was drawn by federal judges.
So, two years later, the Republicans want to redraw the map again. "What's mine is mine, what's your's is negotiable..."
Sonny Perdue and Lester Maddox
As Steve G. noted over at Kos, the passing of Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson got almost zero media coverage (actually, it was reported here in my undisclosed location.)
Also overlooked is the fact that Georgia governor Sonny Perdue couldn´t be bothered to do anything to mark the occasion, in sharp contrast to his quick response to the death of staunch segregationist Lester Maddox. As noted at the Top 10 conservative idiots:
Also overlooked is the fact that Georgia governor Sonny Perdue couldn´t be bothered to do anything to mark the occasion, in sharp contrast to his quick response to the death of staunch segregationist Lester Maddox. As noted at the Top 10 conservative idiots:
-
Maynard Jackson, the first black mayor of Atlanta, Georgia, died last Monday at the age of 65. And to recognize the great work of this civil rights pioneer, Gov. Sonny Perdue did... absolutely nothing. Despite pleas from the public to commemorate Jackson's passing by lowering the state flags to half staff, Perdue announced that he would only lower the flags on the following Saturday, for the funeral service. But the very next day, Perdue couldn't get those flags down to half staff fast enough. A sudden change of heart? Hardly. Perdue was memorializing Lester Maddox, a former governor of Georgia who died two days after Maynard Jackson. Maddox is fondly remembered as a die-hard segregationist who chased black people away from his restaurant with a hand gun and a mob armed with axe handles the day after the Civil Rights Act was signed into law (he later sold the restaurant rather than serve blacks.) So thanks, Sonny Perdue, for demonstrating where your priorities lie.
Theocracy Watch
Kitty Kevorkian Frist calls marriage a "sacrament:"
-
"I very much feel that marriage is a sacrament, and that sacrament should extend and can extend to that legal entity of a union between, what is traditionally in our Western values has been defined, as between a man and a woman," said Frist, of Tennessee. "So I would support the amendment."
Happy Sullywatch Anniversary
Congrats to Sullywatch for reading Andrew Sullivan so we don´t have to for an entire year. Actually, Sullywatch is much more than simply a watch site - despite its focus on Crazy Andy it´s also generally very insightful about a variety of topics.
Toesucker Invades Philadelphia
A reader informs me that Dick Morris will be at the Broad St. borders in Philadelphia this evening.
That SCLM
So, let me get this straight... Tim Russert and the rest of the kool kids give Howard Dean shit because he´s off by 7% about how many troops are in Iraq (of course, the "true" number probably also includes troops stationed in Kuwait, so the whole exchange is rather meaningless), but Bush gets a pass for not even knowing who is in charge of his snipe WMD hunt?
"the lunatics are in charge of the asylum."
On Neo-Cons and the New Right
Robert Borosage writes:
"To drive such a debate, Democrats would do well to learn from how the New Right responded to life in the political wilderness in the mid-1970s, when Nixon was in disgrace and Democrats controlled everything. At that moment, New Right strategists decided not to drift to the center but to build an independent capacity to drive their message, their values and their movement into the political debate. They sought to take over the Republican party from green-eyeshade moderates and make it their vehicle. They built the Heritage Foundation, an openly right-wing propaganda center. They invested in the Moral Majority, galvanizing the right-wing evangelical movement. They nailed together a network of conservative PACs, led by the National Conservative Political Action Committee. They mobilized a movement that transformed not only the Republican Party but the national political debate as well."
See: Cracking the Conservatives; Bush's Vulnerabilities and the Seeds of Progressive Revival. By Robert Borosage
*
Robert Borosage writes:
"To drive such a debate, Democrats would do well to learn from how the New Right responded to life in the political wilderness in the mid-1970s, when Nixon was in disgrace and Democrats controlled everything. At that moment, New Right strategists decided not to drift to the center but to build an independent capacity to drive their message, their values and their movement into the political debate. They sought to take over the Republican party from green-eyeshade moderates and make it their vehicle. They built the Heritage Foundation, an openly right-wing propaganda center. They invested in the Moral Majority, galvanizing the right-wing evangelical movement. They nailed together a network of conservative PACs, led by the National Conservative Political Action Committee. They mobilized a movement that transformed not only the Republican Party but the national political debate as well."
See: Cracking the Conservatives; Bush's Vulnerabilities and the Seeds of Progressive Revival. By Robert Borosage
*
The NeoConArtist - Putting the Touch to America
A ripped mark is fed expectations and carfully prepared for the fleece. A ribbed mark is played and finally conviced that a big payoff with little or no investment on their part is a sure thing. However, once the mark has been fleeced it may become necessary to cook the mark, or to console them after the con, should the egg decide to become a comethrough and refuse to be taken.
Apparently, some "traditional conservatives" can recognize a confidence game when they see one. In a similar vein to Lambert's post below, "Bait and switch in the Iraqi war", the following observation concerning neoconservatives and the media shills and ropers in White House who gave us the WMD sham comes from a self described "traditional conservative" website titled "Original Dissent"
[begin excerpt]
"Where the neoconservative program of deceit has taken a new and interesting angle this time around is the way in which they are handling the (minimal) extent of discussion and revelation surrounding their nonexistent "evidence" for Hussein's WMD's. Knowing perfectly well that they were the agent provocateurs behind these claims, the neocons have quickly moved to cover their flank by effectively pinning whatever blame there might be on those they swindled. It's a strategy all shysters use: find a willing dupe and junior partner for your scam, and then when the effort fails, pin all of the blame on unwitting assistant."
[...]
"That leaves the American public, at least those who have the sense to remain skeptical of what they are fed by the mass media, to hold congenital liars like Kristol and his associates accountable for their actions."
[end excerpt]
For the full post see: "The Neocons and their Lies", by Max Shpak
For some additional observations on the subject of Neocons and the PNAC see:
PNAC watch (liberal perspective) and Shocking Elk's "What Is A Neoconservative", which contains links to both "Original Dissent" and to "PNAC Watch"
*
Apparently, some "traditional conservatives" can recognize a confidence game when they see one. In a similar vein to Lambert's post below, "Bait and switch in the Iraqi war", the following observation concerning neoconservatives and the media shills and ropers in White House who gave us the WMD sham comes from a self described "traditional conservative" website titled "Original Dissent"
[begin excerpt]
"Where the neoconservative program of deceit has taken a new and interesting angle this time around is the way in which they are handling the (minimal) extent of discussion and revelation surrounding their nonexistent "evidence" for Hussein's WMD's. Knowing perfectly well that they were the agent provocateurs behind these claims, the neocons have quickly moved to cover their flank by effectively pinning whatever blame there might be on those they swindled. It's a strategy all shysters use: find a willing dupe and junior partner for your scam, and then when the effort fails, pin all of the blame on unwitting assistant."
[...]
"That leaves the American public, at least those who have the sense to remain skeptical of what they are fed by the mass media, to hold congenital liars like Kristol and his associates accountable for their actions."
[end excerpt]
For the full post see: "The Neocons and their Lies", by Max Shpak
For some additional observations on the subject of Neocons and the PNAC see:
PNAC watch (liberal perspective) and Shocking Elk's "What Is A Neoconservative", which contains links to both "Original Dissent" and to "PNAC Watch"
*
Sunday, June 29, 2003
A pattern called lying
Editorial in the LA Times:
Is aWol done censoring the 9/11 report?
And what about that imminent threat of Iraqi WMDs? Any more barrels found under any more rose bushes? Any more beans?
It's becoming a pattern: The administration acts on what it declares to be good intelligence. Then, reality gets shrouded in uncertainty.
The U.S. assault on a six-vehicle convoy earlier this month near the Iraqi city of Qaim illustrates the problem. U.S. officials relied on what they first said was sound intelligence indicating that Saddam Hussein and his sons were part of the convoy. Now they concede there's no evidence they were. Instead, the world learned that U.S. troops wiped out a tiny village of Bedouins. U.S. military vehicles then sealed the area to prevent journalists from entering.
Is aWol done censoring the 9/11 report?
And what about that imminent threat of Iraqi WMDs? Any more barrels found under any more rose bushes? Any more beans?
aWol's bait and switch tactics
Classic Krugman:
This article is well worth reading today -- know your enemy!
As aWol's maladministration triangulates toward the center in preparation for 2004, we're going to see a lot of bait; and from 2005 on we're going to see a lot of switch.
And the hapless, feckless Beltway Dems sleepwalk to destruction, thinking "business as usual" ... Sigh...
Today's "conservatives" - the people formerly known as the "radical right" - don't think of a deal as a deal; they think of it as an opportunity to pull yet another bait and switch.
This article is well worth reading today -- know your enemy!
As aWol's maladministration triangulates toward the center in preparation for 2004, we're going to see a lot of bait; and from 2005 on we're going to see a lot of switch.
And the hapless, feckless Beltway Dems sleepwalk to destruction, thinking "business as usual" ... Sigh...
Bait and switch in the Iraqi war
Patrick J. McDonnell of the LA Times quotes
Sgt. 1st Class Andre LeGrant from Georgia.
First the bait:
Then the switch:
Watch what they do, not what they say.
Sgt. 1st Class Andre LeGrant from Georgia.
First the bait:
"We fought and fought to survive, and we thought we were going home," LeGrant said as he guided his Humvee through a warren of rural alleys and along stands of palm and brush — ideal ambush sites, he noted.
Then the switch:
"You're not really fighting an enemy anymore. You're more or less fighting terrorism We thought we would go home as heroes after taking Baghdad. Now look at us."
Watch what they do, not what they say.
aWol's new neighbors!
Scott Gold of the Los Angeles Times writes:
And the moral of the story:
Their site is here.
CRAWFORD, Texas -- This spring, a ponytailed, woolly-sock-wearing Muslim-Quaker peace activist — not a local, in other words — took out an $800-a-month mortgage on a $54,000 colonial home. The activist, Johnny Wolf, and a group of supporters who oppose Bush's foreign policy have dubbed it the "Crawford Peace House."
They hope to offer visitors a "center for spiritual growth and intellectual understanding," an interfaith house of worship and a place where journalists can go to find a viewpoint different than what they say is a "cult of war" at the ranch.
"One of the neighbors told me, 'Well, you're just a bunch of old hippies.' Well ... yeah," Wolf said. "And for $800 a month, we get to challenge the leader of a superpower. It's great. Every fourth or fifth car that passes waves at us. And some people tell us we're No. 1 — they flip us off."
And the moral of the story:
Wolf, like the new businesses, is taking advantage of Bush's presence: He wants to get a message across. In Wolf's mind, the war in Iraq marks the beginning of a new era of U.S. aggression, and he has grown frustrated with what he says is the Democratic Party's failure to stand up to the Bush administration.
"I guess it's up to regular people," he said. "So here we are."
Their site is here.
Bait and switch and the drug benefit
Here's what the conservatives think:
Adam Nagourney of the New York Times writes:
So what possible meaning -- beyond the 2004 elections -- can the prescription benefit have? None: After the tax cuts for the rich, there's no money to keep the program going for the long term. First the bait: a (presumed) new entitlement. Then the switch: the next administration discovers we can't really pay for it! But that's OK -- we can privatize it (and another big chunk of Medicare while we're at it.)
Bait and switch: "That's the way this administration works."
Adam Nagourney of the New York Times writes:
Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a conservative group, said Mr. Bush had been "one of the biggest-spending presidents we've had in 20 years." But, he added, "he has cut taxes, so politically that has protected him."
"A month ago, he passed this huge tax cut that I think is terrific — I mean, I'm thrilled by that — and now this month he's passing this preposterous prescription drug benefit, and I'm furious at him," Mr. Moore said. "But I can't get too angry with him because he passed this tax cut. That's the way this administration works."
So what possible meaning -- beyond the 2004 elections -- can the prescription benefit have? None: After the tax cuts for the rich, there's no money to keep the program going for the long term. First the bait: a (presumed) new entitlement. Then the switch: the next administration discovers we can't really pay for it! But that's OK -- we can privatize it (and another big chunk of Medicare while we're at it.)
Bait and switch: "That's the way this administration works."
Bait and switch on "Clear Skies"
Yes, it's possible! (From Eric Pianin and Guy Gugliotta of WaPo).
What Bush said: The bait:
(Yes, extending a deadline on pumping a poisonous heavy metal into the air, with this administration, is bait.)
What Bush did: The switch:
You can bet that the same bait and switch will happen with the prescription drug benefit.
Watch what they do, not what they say...
What Bush said: The bait:
The proposal, part of the president's "Clear Skies" legislation awaiting congressional action, would for the first time regulate mercury emissions from their largest source, coal-fired power plants. Mercury pollution is linked to several public health problems, and the Clinton administration ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations on power plants beginning in 2007.
When Bush took office, he extended the deadline, calling for power plants to reduce mercury emissions by 46 percent as of 2010, and 70 percent by 2018.
(Yes, extending a deadline on pumping a poisonous heavy metal into the air, with this administration, is bait.)
What Bush did: The switch:
Some environmentalists say the administration, by design or mishap, has virtually invited Republican lawmakers to weaken what they considered a weak bill to begin with. "They touted it as a big initiative, and now they are quietly tiptoeing away from it," said Frank O'Donnell of the Clean Air Trust.
You can bet that the same bait and switch will happen with the prescription drug benefit.
Watch what they do, not what they say...
Plessy v Ferguson: The Dissent
Here's a link to Justice Harlan's lone dissent to "Plessy."
Beautifully written, it's also quite stirring, although if you read carefully, you'll notice the shadow of white supremacy hovering over the opinion.
Also notice that the notion of the Constitution as color-blind is central to Harlan's argument.
On a bitterly ironic note, assorted opponents of every civil rights victory from Brown to the Civil Rights Act to the various benchmarks in case law made by Federal Appellate Judges like Frank Johnson of Alabama, which confirmed the most expansive meaning of the 54 decision and the 65 legislation, often use Judge Harlan's dissent, which was clearly the precursor of the Civil Rights revolution that is still going on, (see the U of Michigan decision of last week) to bash those committed to making sure there is no retreat, no turning back from our committment to the completion of that revolution, as being the "new" racists.
For anyone interested, you can find out more info about Judge Johnson here. Amazon has his book here, but it's expensive. Too bad, because the book includes a transcript of a wonderful interview Bill Moyers did with the Judge for PBS in 1980, in which Johnson speaks, in slow, elegant, Southern accented English, of an important moment in his life when he re-read Justice Harlan's dissent and realized its fundamental moral rightness. Read the two customer reviews at Amazon; they're intelligent and knowledgable.
If anyone has a link to an online transcript of the interview, I'd be happy to post it.
Beautifully written, it's also quite stirring, although if you read carefully, you'll notice the shadow of white supremacy hovering over the opinion.
Also notice that the notion of the Constitution as color-blind is central to Harlan's argument.
On a bitterly ironic note, assorted opponents of every civil rights victory from Brown to the Civil Rights Act to the various benchmarks in case law made by Federal Appellate Judges like Frank Johnson of Alabama, which confirmed the most expansive meaning of the 54 decision and the 65 legislation, often use Judge Harlan's dissent, which was clearly the precursor of the Civil Rights revolution that is still going on, (see the U of Michigan decision of last week) to bash those committed to making sure there is no retreat, no turning back from our committment to the completion of that revolution, as being the "new" racists.
For anyone interested, you can find out more info about Judge Johnson here. Amazon has his book here, but it's expensive. Too bad, because the book includes a transcript of a wonderful interview Bill Moyers did with the Judge for PBS in 1980, in which Johnson speaks, in slow, elegant, Southern accented English, of an important moment in his life when he re-read Justice Harlan's dissent and realized its fundamental moral rightness. Read the two customer reviews at Amazon; they're intelligent and knowledgable.
If anyone has a link to an online transcript of the interview, I'd be happy to post it.
Nothing Short Of Astounding
Just two weeks ago, Michael Elliot and another British journalist were telling Charlie Rose that despite the Parliamentary inquiry into whether or not #10 cooked the intelligence books on Iraq, Tony Blair was fundamentally trusted by the British public, and the Conservatives were so out of it, the Labour party didn't have to worry about the next election.
Could be they were wrong. Could be something changed in the meantime. But the NYTimes is telling a different story.
I take no pleasure in the PM's poll numbers. It could weaken his ability to put pressure on Bush in regards to Israel and the Palestinians. The poll may be a hiccup; he's fought his way out of the British public's dissatisfaction before. But why is his public so much more concerned that they might have been lied into a war, than Bush's public is.
Could be they were wrong. Could be something changed in the meantime. But the NYTimes is telling a different story.
-
Blair No Longer Trustworthy, Says Newspaper Poll
By REUTERS
Filed at 5:00 p.m. ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Most Britons no longer find Prime Minister Tony Blair trustworthy and nearly half think he should quit, according to a newspaper poll Sunday.
It showed most voters also say his record on health, crime, transport and asylum-seekers is poor.
I take no pleasure in the PM's poll numbers. It could weaken his ability to put pressure on Bush in regards to Israel and the Palestinians. The poll may be a hiccup; he's fought his way out of the British public's dissatisfaction before. But why is his public so much more concerned that they might have been lied into a war, than Bush's public is.
Dennis Miller Keeps The President On His Toes
Update: Courtesy of PG, here's a link to another Kushner commencement address, this one given at Vassar.
That's what Bush said: Imagine your own scenario. Reuters reports they spent a couple of "amazing" hours together.
I guess it took the same kind of guts to attack Bill Clinton when every member of every elite was attacking him, as it takes to cuddle up to Bush, when every member of every elite is making excuses for him.
And could we get one thing straight, please; Dennis Miller as he presented himself on SNL was never a liberal
That's what Bush said: Imagine your own scenario. Reuters reports they spent a couple of "amazing" hours together.
I guess it took the same kind of guts to attack Bill Clinton when every member of every elite was attacking him, as it takes to cuddle up to Bush, when every member of every elite is making excuses for him.
And could we get one thing straight, please; Dennis Miller as he presented himself on SNL was never a liberal
Optimism Of A Supernova
Update: courtesy of PG, here's a link to another of Tony Kushner's commencement addresses, this one at Vassar.
Here's a treat, suitable for consumption with your morning Sunday coffee.
Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, gave the commencement address at Columbia College this year.
I'm always surprised by the attacks on Kushner, not those from the right, (no surprise there); the surprise is the snide vehemence of the attacks by the more respectable center/right typified by most of TNR, as if he's some type of radical nut case, completely cut off from mainstream America.
What rot. His audience, which ranges far beyond Broadway, gathers in a wider spectrum of Americans than do his critics, whose bond with the inhabitants of those red states whom they fetishize as the true America, is purely rhetorical.
What also gets to his critics is an underlying sweetness and lack of pretension, an exhuberance that makes him both "uncool," and a perfect commencement speaker. I believe he's given a number of them since America noticed that a major American talent had been revealed on a London stage. I remember reading one and marvelling at its directness, charm, wit, humor, unapologetic politics, and the bravery of that, since those politics are distinctly left wing.
This new one is a delight; come to think of it, a better description of his politics is that they are distinctly human. Bush isn't treated so much as a target than as a given, an unlovely, charmless, dangerous presence, whose real signifigance, perhaps, is in being a distraction from a larger struggle.
Contemplating the suggestion of his Chicago cabbie that..."If there's a supernova 60 light years away from here the world will be totally wiped out, we don't stand a chance," Kushner, while eschewing wishful thinking, manages to retain his optimism; what more can we ask of our artists?
Here's a treat, suitable for consumption with your morning Sunday coffee.
Tony Kushner, author of Angels in America, gave the commencement address at Columbia College this year.
I'm always surprised by the attacks on Kushner, not those from the right, (no surprise there); the surprise is the snide vehemence of the attacks by the more respectable center/right typified by most of TNR, as if he's some type of radical nut case, completely cut off from mainstream America.
What rot. His audience, which ranges far beyond Broadway, gathers in a wider spectrum of Americans than do his critics, whose bond with the inhabitants of those red states whom they fetishize as the true America, is purely rhetorical.
What also gets to his critics is an underlying sweetness and lack of pretension, an exhuberance that makes him both "uncool," and a perfect commencement speaker. I believe he's given a number of them since America noticed that a major American talent had been revealed on a London stage. I remember reading one and marvelling at its directness, charm, wit, humor, unapologetic politics, and the bravery of that, since those politics are distinctly left wing.
This new one is a delight; come to think of it, a better description of his politics is that they are distinctly human. Bush isn't treated so much as a target than as a given, an unlovely, charmless, dangerous presence, whose real signifigance, perhaps, is in being a distraction from a larger struggle.
Contemplating the suggestion of his Chicago cabbie that..."If there's a supernova 60 light years away from here the world will be totally wiped out, we don't stand a chance," Kushner, while eschewing wishful thinking, manages to retain his optimism; what more can we ask of our artists?
Rehnquist, 1952
On Plessy v. Ferguson
-
I fully realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position for which I have been excoriated by liberal colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.
Plessy v. Ferguson
1896
-
We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff's argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of any-thing found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it. The argument necessarily assumes that if, as has been more than once the case, and is not unlikely to be so again, the colored race should become the dominant power in the state legislature, and should enact a law in precisely similar terms, it would thereby relegate the white race to an inferior position. We imagine that the white race, at least, would not acquiesce in this assumption. The argument also assumes that social prejudices may be overcome by legislation, and that equal rights cannot be secured to the negro except by an enforced commingling of the two races.
Fat Tony
Bush´s favorite judge:
-
It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as "discrimination" which it is the function of our judgments to deter.
Unaccountable
The best media critic out there, Roger Ailes, discusses unaccountability at the Washington Post.
Saturday, June 28, 2003
Thurmond's "extraordinary" life
Reuters
Extraordinary? I'll say.
"Sen. Strom Thurmond led an extraordinary life," Bush said in a written statement following Thurmond's death Thursday at the age of 100. "He served his country as senator, governor and state legislator ... I saw first hand the tremendous love he had for his constituents, and the admiration the people of South Carolina had for him."
Extraordinary? I'll say.
How aWol "supports the troops"
Army Times
What what they do, not what they say...
For example, the White House griped that various pay-and-benefits incentives added to the 2004 defense budget by Congress are wasteful and unnecessary — including a modest proposal to double the $6,000 gratuity paid to families of troops who die on active duty. This comes at a time when Americans continue to die in Iraq at a rate of about one a day.
Similarly, the administration announced that on Oct. 1 it wants to roll back recent modest increases in monthly imminent-danger pay (from $225 to $150) and family-separation allowance (from $250 to $100) for troops getting shot at in combat zones.
What what they do, not what they say...
Carl Levin stands up on Iraq WMD "exaggerations"
Ken Guggenheim of AP writes:
Say, how's that 9/11 Report coming? Is aWol done censoring it yet?
Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee announced Friday plans to stage their own inquiry on the credibility of prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its links to the al-Qaida terror network.
The announcement by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the panel's top Democrat, marked an unusual split with Chairman John Warner, R-Va., on an issue with strong political overtones ahead of next year's elections. Warner and Levin are longtime colleagues on the committee and repeatedly stress bipartisan cooperation.
Levin said he has directed Democratic staff to examine the objectivity and credibility of the intelligence and its effect on Defense Department policy decisions, military planning and operations in Iraq.
He said Warner refused his request to begin such an inquiry.
The prewar intelligence has been called into question both nationally and abroad because of the military's inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Also, some evidence cited by the Bush administration has been discredited, including documents on supposed approaches to obtain uranium in Africa, which turned out to be forgeries.
Say, how's that 9/11 Report coming? Is aWol done censoring it yet?
DéLay and Westar
Pete Yost of the AP writes: Another Republican in Congress returns Westar campaign donations.
When will Tom DéLay give back his Westar loot?
When will Tom DéLay give back his Westar loot?
Good cop, bad cop
Tom Raum of the AP writes:
Bush being the more "moderate" Good Cop, DéLay being the Bad Cop. You might even call it triangulation. Look for more of this as 2004 approaches ...
So far, Bush seems to be having it both ways.
He publicly urged House leaders to join him in supporting a Senate-passed $10 billion, 10-year bill extending the child tax credit for minimum wage workers. But instead the House lumped it into a much more ambitious $82 billion plan of tax cuts.
Now, the House and Senate differences are so great that the child tax credit for low income families appears doomed.
Bush can thus claim credit for supporting the measure, while DeLay and other conservatives possibly can point to victory for blocking its ultimate passage.
Likewise, Bush's support of extending the assault rifle ban cheered by moderates is a largely symbolic gesture. Sentiment is strong in the GOP-controlled Congress to let the ban expire and Bush does not seem to be putting much energy into efforts to extend it.
Bush being the more "moderate" Good Cop, DéLay being the Bad Cop. You might even call it triangulation. Look for more of this as 2004 approaches ...
"What Kind Of America Do You Want To Live In?"
That question is asked and answered in the inimitable style of the Slaktivist, otherwise known as Fred Clark.
Fred's posts are difficult to describe, which is also what mesk them so worth reading. This one prods at growing inequalities of income and that Republican favorite, the politics of envy, using a newspaper skybox ad that offers homeowners the chance to own their very own luxary spa.
Frank Capra makes an appearance, along with Mr. Potter and George Bailey himself, who was living that "wonderful life" we'd all like to, and didn't know it.
Fred also links to and discusses a story, out of Alabama, I've seen little about elsewhere; seems the new Governor there is determined to bring some fairness into the way the state taxes its citizens, all the more interesting because that Governor, Bob Riley, is a Bible-thumping conservative Republican. In pressing for what you and I might think of as a liberal reform, Governor Riley "has framed his tax reform effort in explicitly moral and religious language." And that could be significant, as Fred sees it.
Check out this post, too:
You'll be surprised by who and what is being metaphorized.
It's also always fun when Fred clears out his attic. Go, you'll see what I mean.
Fred's posts are difficult to describe, which is also what mesk them so worth reading. This one prods at growing inequalities of income and that Republican favorite, the politics of envy, using a newspaper skybox ad that offers homeowners the chance to own their very own luxary spa.
Frank Capra makes an appearance, along with Mr. Potter and George Bailey himself, who was living that "wonderful life" we'd all like to, and didn't know it.
Fred also links to and discusses a story, out of Alabama, I've seen little about elsewhere; seems the new Governor there is determined to bring some fairness into the way the state taxes its citizens, all the more interesting because that Governor, Bob Riley, is a Bible-thumping conservative Republican. In pressing for what you and I might think of as a liberal reform, Governor Riley "has framed his tax reform effort in explicitly moral and religious language." And that could be significant, as Fred sees it.
Check out this post, too:
-
A DAY AT THE RACES
A tortured, obvious and over-extended metaphor.
You'll be surprised by who and what is being metaphorized.
It's also always fun when Fred clears out his attic. Go, you'll see what I mean.
Oh Dear Indeed
It appears Ted Barlow has joined the other 402,000 new jobless this week. Go buy him a virtual drink.
Jeebus
I´ve really made an effort to not post the story every time another soldier dies in Iraq. It´s a shame, really, as our media seems pretty quiet about it - these poor souls aren´t exactly getting much of a tribute by our Shocked and Awed media. But, deservedly or not it would appear that I was using their deaths to score cheap points - something only the right wing hacks of the blogosphere and the RNC are allowed to do.
But, I´m really starting to get angry.
But, I´m really starting to get angry.
Friday, June 27, 2003
McAuliffe Calling Kos
One result of Kos's participation in the ePatriot's blogger program - the DNC's head guy put a call in to talk with Kos, who tells us all about it here.
Seems to me that Kos said all the right things about the potential importance of the blogisphere to the Dems, and from his paraphrase of the conversation, one gets the clear impression so did McAuliffe.
Kos gets the ball rolling with some excellent suggestions of his own. So far there are 130 plus comments on the thread. Pay a visit and leave a comment. And/or leave one here. We should assume that this will be an on-going discussion across blogdom.
While you're there, Kos has been doing a series on how specific Democratic candidates could put together a win; one such scenario for Howard Dean can be found here; a discussion of non CW scenarios by one of Kos's commentators is here.
Steve Gilliard has another post about Iraq and Kos has one on how complete a screwing military enlistees are getting from the Bush administration.
You could probably spend the whole afternoon there and not a minute would be wasted.
Do come back at some point, I'm working on a post about the Medicare nightmare that is about to descend upon us and our older loved ones, and whether or not we can do anything about it.
Seems to me that Kos said all the right things about the potential importance of the blogisphere to the Dems, and from his paraphrase of the conversation, one gets the clear impression so did McAuliffe.
-
McAuliffe asked point blank: "How do you think we should do that?"
It's a question I want you guys to weigh in on, since I promised to put together a memo with suggestions.
Kos gets the ball rolling with some excellent suggestions of his own. So far there are 130 plus comments on the thread. Pay a visit and leave a comment. And/or leave one here. We should assume that this will be an on-going discussion across blogdom.
While you're there, Kos has been doing a series on how specific Democratic candidates could put together a win; one such scenario for Howard Dean can be found here; a discussion of non CW scenarios by one of Kos's commentators is here.
Steve Gilliard has another post about Iraq and Kos has one on how complete a screwing military enlistees are getting from the Bush administration.
You could probably spend the whole afternoon there and not a minute would be wasted.
Do come back at some point, I'm working on a post about the Medicare nightmare that is about to descend upon us and our older loved ones, and whether or not we can do anything about it.
In Case You Missed It
Posts roll out of sight and therefore mind awfully quickly with more than one person posting.
So if anyone didn't catch the farmer's post in honor of "Appropriate Michael Savage's Name Day," you can just click here.
And if anyone missed the comments thread to the "Ben Franklin" post, I recommend it;lots of Franklin info, good humor, intelligent conversation, with just a soupcon of bile to add some intensity to the flavor.
So if anyone didn't catch the farmer's post in honor of "Appropriate Michael Savage's Name Day," you can just click here.
And if anyone missed the comments thread to the "Ben Franklin" post, I recommend it;lots of Franklin info, good humor, intelligent conversation, with just a soupcon of bile to add some intensity to the flavor.
The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations
As we all know, Howard Dean was savaged by Tim Russert and all responsible pundits for being off by a whopping 7% on the number of troops stationed in Iraq. Bob Somerby reminds us of the somewhat more indulgent treatment President ADHD received a mere 4 years ago.
Over at the New York Times, meanwhile, Paul Krugman continues his lonely work documenting the ongoing takeover of our political system, but then asks the faux naif question, "Why isn't the ongoing transformation of U.S. politics — which may well put an end to serious two-party competition — getting more attention?"
I can only assume that, just as he was once forbidden to use "lie" in connection with Bush Administration utterances, Krugman is constrained from using "whores" to describe a profession of which Krugman is one of the few remaining exceptions. Something tells me that rule won't be lifted anytime soon.
Over at the New York Times, meanwhile, Paul Krugman continues his lonely work documenting the ongoing takeover of our political system, but then asks the faux naif question, "Why isn't the ongoing transformation of U.S. politics — which may well put an end to serious two-party competition — getting more attention?"
I can only assume that, just as he was once forbidden to use "lie" in connection with Bush Administration utterances, Krugman is constrained from using "whores" to describe a profession of which Krugman is one of the few remaining exceptions. Something tells me that rule won't be lifted anytime soon.
MoveOn Primary Results Available
Thanks to Gabe for the tip.
Here's where to find them.
No one got fifty percent. That's all I'm telling.
Here's where to find them.
No one got fifty percent. That's all I'm telling.
Getting The Attention Of Voters
There's already been some reference here to Michael Tomasky's TAP column that lays out Russert's use of statistical talking points about Bush tax cuts prepared, at his request, by the Bush administration, the better to help Russert ambush Howard Dan last Sunday.
The whole column is worth a read. More than Russert's perfidy, Tomasky's larger focus is on what kind of arguments Democrats should be making about those tax cuts.
Tomasky is all for that, but he thinks it's not enough. He gives three reasons why not, the third being the most important, that arguments which focus exclusively on fairness imply that self-interest is antithetic to equity.
I think Tomasky is onto something important here, about which there is much more to be said. See what you think.
The whole column is worth a read. More than Russert's perfidy, Tomasky's larger focus is on what kind of arguments Democrats should be making about those tax cuts.
-
But the more important question....has to do with Bush's line of attack in the coming presidential election, and how Democrats should respond to it.
Bush will use the campaign to hammer home two economic points: first, that the tax cuts, now scheduled to sunset after seven years (he had to agree to this position to ensure their passage) must be made permanent. And second, that attempts by Democrats to repeal the cuts, or even Democratic opposition to making them permanent, will lead to a massive tax increase on working Americans.
That won't be easy to argue against
(edit)
Democrats' historical tendency is to express it in terms of equity and fairness....
Tomasky is all for that, but he thinks it's not enough. He gives three reasons why not, the third being the most important, that arguments which focus exclusively on fairness imply that self-interest is antithetic to equity.
-
This is a huge problem for post-1960s liberalism, which has decided that self-interest is bad. It's not. Self-interest is just fine. Selfishness is bad. There's a big difference between the two. It's the difference between the basically decent instincts of most Americans and the atrociously indecent agenda of the radical right.
I think Tomasky is onto something important here, about which there is much more to be said. See what you think.
Attention Must Be Paid
Yeah, yeah, and what else isn't news.
Gene Lyons tell us in his latest column, which the Smirking Chimp has kindly posted on his site for us.
Others have asked why General Clark's mention, on MTP, of having been urged to come to the appropriate conclusion about the "Saddam has WMD" intelligence by someone in the Bush administration, didn't get more attention, by Tim Russert at the time, and by anyone else since.
Lyons notices something else that's gone unnoticed:
But you can bet we'll probably never come near to knowing, unless you think that hand-picked team of new inspectors are going to spend much time trying to figure out if some of the missing WMD and the associated infrastructure got taken out by anything associated with the Clinton administration.
Gene Lyons tell us in his latest column, which the Smirking Chimp has kindly posted on his site for us.
Others have asked why General Clark's mention, on MTP, of having been urged to come to the appropriate conclusion about the "Saddam has WMD" intelligence by someone in the Bush administration, didn't get more attention, by Tim Russert at the time, and by anyone else since.
Lyons notices something else that's gone unnoticed:
-
After acknowledging that banned weapons may yet materialize in Iraq, although nothing resembling the "imminent threat that many feared," Clark reminded Russert of something the pundit - fixated like everybody in Washington on Bill Clinton's zipper at the time - had probably forgotten. "We struck [Iraq] very hard in December of '98," Clark said. "Did everything we knew, all of his [Saddam's] facilities. I think it was an effective set of strikes. Tony Zinni commanded that, called Operation Desert Fox, and I think that set them back a long ways. But we never believed that that was the end of the problem."
Back then, Republicans charged that Clinton bombed suspected Iraqi WMD sites to distract the public from his Oval Office sex antics, as if THAT were possible. But it's beginning to look as if economic sanctions, UNSCOM inspectors and cruise missiles may have done the job.
But you can bet we'll probably never come near to knowing, unless you think that hand-picked team of new inspectors are going to spend much time trying to figure out if some of the missing WMD and the associated infrastructure got taken out by anything associated with the Clinton administration.
Goodbye To All That
If you were wondering how to respond to the passing of Strom Thurmond appropriately, without losing your own humanity, TBogg has figured it out for you here.
Also courtesy of Tom, don't miss this Bruce Stirling piece about Rumsfeld and why this administration is giving the rest of the known world a tizzie fit.
Or this Bogg post about some bitch slapping going on between conservatives.
Or Tom's take on all the rightwing Rainsesian shock (Claude, not Howell) about Presidential executive orders, Clinton's actual EOs and Gephardt's prospective ones
Or his takedown of Hitchens on Kerry. Josh Marshall does this one, too.
And TBogg is still skank-central for all things Coulter.
Also courtesy of Tom, don't miss this Bruce Stirling piece about Rumsfeld and why this administration is giving the rest of the known world a tizzie fit.
Or this Bogg post about some bitch slapping going on between conservatives.
Or Tom's take on all the rightwing Rainsesian shock (Claude, not Howell) about Presidential executive orders, Clinton's actual EOs and Gephardt's prospective ones
Or his takedown of Hitchens on Kerry. Josh Marshall does this one, too.
And TBogg is still skank-central for all things Coulter.
Why Did Benjamin Franklin hate America?
Avedon Carol at The Sideshow discovers a delightful essay that explains why Anne Coulter ought to be asking that question. Seems that firefighters in Colonial Philadelphia worked at the behest of private insurance companies, a system which worked for no one but the companies.
If a robust public sector is unAmerican, so is Ben. Wonder if he made it into "TREASON!"?
-
Eventually, the absurdity and outright danger of this system led one prominent Philadelphia citizen to come up with the idea of a publicly funded and administered fire department.
His name was Benjamin Franklin: America’s first anti-free-enterprise commie pinko nut-case.
If a robust public sector is unAmerican, so is Ben. Wonder if he made it into "TREASON!"?
Money talks
Compare this:
to this:
Any questions?
(Thanks to alert reader david for the pointer on South Carolina.)
The Bush-Cheney campaign says the president expects to raise $27 million to $30 million during the three-month fund-raising period that ends June 30 - and Bush didn't even launch his re-election campaign until May 16.
to this:
Seven months before the presidential primary in South Carolina, the state Democratic Party doesn't have the money to pay for it, raising doubts about whether the first-in-the-South primary will take place.
Any questions?
(Thanks to alert reader david for the pointer on South Carolina.)
Thomas Confirmation Hearing
1991
-
Now, Judge, in your view, does the Liberty Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protect the right of women to decide for themselves in certain instances whether or not to terminate pregnancy?
JUDGE THOMAS: Senator, first of all, let me look at that in the context other than with natural law principles.
SENATOR BIDEN: Let's forget about natural law for a minute.
JUDGE THOMAS: My view is that there is a right to privacy in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gay Gay Gay
I have to admit I´m rather annoyed at the limited view the media seems to be taking with the Lawrence decision. It isn´t a victory for gay civil rights - it´s a victory for civil rights period. And, an incredibly sweeping one.
Start your day with Special K
Here:
Read and discuss. (And what to do?)
The foundations for one-party rule [in the United States] are being laid right now.
Read and discuss. (And what to do?)
Appropriating Michael Savage Day
And what a day it was, thanks to Justice Kennedy's exquisite sense of timing.
Thanks to all (see below at "Do not go to these sites") and especially to Neal Pollack.
Thanks to all (see below at "Do not go to these sites") and especially to Neal Pollack.
Thursday, June 26, 2003
Special operations and aWol's charade
William M. Arkin writes in the LA Times:
Let's repeat: "Even as the president was making his case to the public for going to war, special operations forces were already at work inside Iraq."
So "making the case" was just a charade, right? So the Congressional resolution was just a charade, right? So the power of Congress to declare war is just a charade, right?
And our secret, unaccountable shadow government grows and grows and grows....
Since the war on terrorism began, [the] flexibility and secretiveness of [special operations forces] have made them a favorite with the Bush administration and with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who has pushed for an ever bigger role for special operations.
Even as the president was making his case to the public for going to war, special operations forces were already at work inside Iraq. When Turkey denied U.S. ground forces permission to use its territory, special ops were allowed in anyway. After Jordan and Saudi Arabia publicly restricted U.S. troops from their soil, they still privately let thousands of special operations forces work from their bases.
In the end, of course, there were no Scud missiles for Iraq to launch at Israel, and there were no weapons of mass destruction on the battlefield. At Hadithah and other dam sites, the U.S. found no firm evidence that Iraqis were preparing to blow them up. In the northern and southern oil fields, Iraqi demolition efforts were nothing like the methodical sabotage by Iraq of Kuwait's oil infrastructure in 1991. Local forces south and east of Baghdad successfully destroyed a couple of bridges, but the Iraqi command doesn't appear to have attempted a scorched-earth plan.
What special operators actually achieved on the ground is therefore difficult to confirm.
Rumsfeld's enthusiasm for special operations remains unchecked by any questions about their effectiveness.
Perhaps most discomforting, though, is the culture of special operators. Like intelligence professionals, they are attracted to the mystique associated with secret operations. They have a "desire," as one senior officer told me, "to be clandestine." Sometimes secrecy is crucial. And sometimes it's just a way of life — one that prevents operators from ever having to worry about public and media scrutiny.
Let's repeat: "Even as the president was making his case to the public for going to war, special operations forces were already at work inside Iraq."
So "making the case" was just a charade, right? So the Congressional resolution was just a charade, right? So the power of Congress to declare war is just a charade, right?
And our secret, unaccountable shadow government grows and grows and grows....
Connecting the dots on WorldCom
It's hard to run an occupation with no phone system. And why would that be a problem? Trudy Rubin writes:
Worst of all, the Pentagon provided no communications system for the civilian occupation team - even though U.S. bombs had destroyed Baghdad's phone network. The civilians tasked with running the country couldn't even talk to each other until the end of May, let alone to the Iraqi ministries they were supposedly running. Only now are they getting a limited cell-phone network.
Why the delay? In part, due to political machinations back in Washington over the phone contract. Guess who got the $45 million no-bid deal? MCI/WorldCom, the company that bilked its shareholders out of $11 billion and has very little experience in building wireless networks.
The bungled peace in Iraq
Trudy Rubin in our own Inky editorializes:
Starting to look like photo-ops and lying is all these guys are really good at.
Whoever was responsible at top levels in the Pentagon for postwar planning should be fired.
But then no one would be fired. Three weeks in Iraq makes very clear that no one in the Bush administration made serious postwar plans before the start of the Iraq war.
Back in November, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told me he believed that the London-based Iraqi opposition (headed by Ahmad Chalabi) would return to Baghdad and assume the reins of power, just as Gen. Charles DeGaulle and the Free French returned triumphantly to postwar France.
Top White House and Pentagon officials refused to listen to warnings that Chalabi and other Iraqi exiles did not command sufficient support inside Iraq. Nor did they heed warnings that Saddam's highly centralized government structure would collapse once he was ousted.
"The expectations at the Pentagon were that [government] ministries would emerge unscathed" and take over the running of the country, one senior U.S. official told me when I was in Baghdad. No one foresaw the virtual collapse of many ministries, nor their physical destruction by looters.
"We failed in our duty on the looting," the official continued, a reference to the fact that the military failed to secure ministries, key infrastructure and suspected weapons sites. "I didn't think [the administration] would let it get so out of hand."
Starting to look like photo-ops and lying is all these guys are really good at.
Act NOW on voting machines in Washington state
Alert reader Tresy points out that contact information and suggested letters to Gov. Locke and the Elections Commission can be found at here and that the deadline for comments is TOMORROW.
Do your bit to preserve democracy, Washingtonians! (If that is the word for a citizen of the state of Washington)
Do your bit to preserve democracy, Washingtonians! (If that is the word for a citizen of the state of Washington)
What To Do About Inconvenient Facts? Edit Them Out?
Molly Ivins' latest is Molly at her best.
She starts out with the administration's answer to the problem of global warming - "edit it out."
There's a reason why that last sentence is coming back in vogue. Denial has become a central principle of governance since Bush took office. It's almost another Bush Doctrine. And when we say governance, let us not forget that with this administration, the political is policy, policy is the political.
Molly proceeds to discuss the API (American Petroleum Institute to you), AmeriCorps, and gutsy girl that she is, brings up that whole issue of the "L" word.
She starts out with the administration's answer to the problem of global warming - "edit it out."
-
Think of the possibilities presented by this ingenious solution. Let's edit out AIDS and all problems with drugs both legal and illegal. We could get rid of Libya and Syria this way – take 'em off the maps. We can do away with unemployment, the uninsured, heart disease, obesity and the coming Social Security crunch. We could try editing out death and taxes, but I don't think we should overreach right away. Just start with something simple, like years of scientific research on global warming, and blue pencil that sucker out of existence. Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
There's a reason why that last sentence is coming back in vogue. Denial has become a central principle of governance since Bush took office. It's almost another Bush Doctrine. And when we say governance, let us not forget that with this administration, the political is policy, policy is the political.
-
Inspiring as the remarkable Bush approach to resolving global warming is – the simplicity of it, the beauty of it, I cannot get over it – does it not suggest a certain cavalier je ne sais quoi about the future? What I mean is, is anybody there concerned about what happens to people?
Molly proceeds to discuss the API (American Petroleum Institute to you), AmeriCorps, and gutsy girl that she is, brings up that whole issue of the "L" word.
Sweets To The Sweet, Riches To The Richest
Thank God and President Bush for those tax cuts.
FDR would be floored; so would his cousin, Teddy; so would Harry Truman; so would President Eisenhower; so would JFK and LBJ and RFK.......be my guest, make your own list.
-
The nation's richest people paid a lower proportion of their income in federal taxes last year than in 1992, new government figures show.
(edit)
Over the nine-year period, the minimum adjusted gross income to get on the top 400 list more than tripled, from $24.4 million to $86.8 million.
In 2000, the 400 paid 22.3% of their income to federal income taxes, down from 26.4% in 1992.
The richest 400 made 1.09% of U.S. income in 2000, more than double the percentage in 1992, when they accounted for just 0.52%, the IRS said.
FDR would be floored; so would his cousin, Teddy; so would Harry Truman; so would President Eisenhower; so would JFK and LBJ and RFK.......be my guest, make your own list.
Russert a shill for aWol, and Kurtz buries the story again
Remember how Atrios pointed out yesterday that Tim Russert of MTP actually called the White House to get his talking points when he interviewed Howard Dean? And that this was the real story of the interview?
Well, Howard Kurtz does include this material in his column, give the guy credit. Quoting Michael Tomasky:
So, a supposedly independent SCLM gets aWol to write a script for them. That's the story.
But Kurtz spins the real story away in two ways. First, his lead-in says that "Michael Tomasky says Dean was sandbagged." Not the point, Howard!
Second, he buries this material in the middle of a ton of quotes on the MoveOn primary.
With this interview, Russert propelled himself to the top of the heap as a candidate for MW of 2003, and it can't get a headline in WaPo. C'mon, Howard! How hard does Tim have to work to get a little recognition?
Well, Howard Kurtz does include this material in his column, give the guy credit. Quoting Michael Tomasky:
Here, an independent news organization went to a sitting administration, asked it to work up numbers for its benefit, and then used those numbers to launch what amounted to a rhetorical sting operation on a candidate of the other party.
"Do you suppose MTP ever asked the Clinton administration to produce research proving that the Harry and Louise ad campaign against the Clinton health plan was full of lies? Or asked the Gore campaign to offer up a study debunking Bush's explanation of how he'd cut billions in taxes and keep the surplus going?
"And it goes without saying -- except it matters, so I'll say it -- that the research was selective. The analysis excluded single people and low-income couples -- the two groups that benefit least from the tax cuts."
So, a supposedly independent SCLM gets aWol to write a script for them. That's the story.
But Kurtz spins the real story away in two ways. First, his lead-in says that "Michael Tomasky says Dean was sandbagged." Not the point, Howard!
Second, he buries this material in the middle of a ton of quotes on the MoveOn primary.
With this interview, Russert propelled himself to the top of the heap as a candidate for MW of 2003, and it can't get a headline in WaPo. C'mon, Howard! How hard does Tim have to work to get a little recognition?
I'm Not Micheal Savage, I've Never Known Michael Savage, Michael Savage Is Not A Friend Of Mine, And You, Dear Reader, Are No Michael Savage
But that doesn't mean we can't take his name in vain. in honor of this glorious day when the sanctity of privacy, in order for we, the people, "to be secure in our persons," has been upheld FOR ALL AMERICANS by those funky 'Supremes,' God love'em.
And what better way than to commemorate the anniversary of the establishment of a minimum wage in this country. Okay, Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act on June 25, 1938, but I just know FDR wouldn't mind us being a day late if it means our memory of him can be included when we take Michael Savage's name in vain.
Roosevelt signed the law in order to assure American workers of "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work."
The minimum wage today is $5.15 an hour; that's a yearly income of $10,712 a year. Think about that for a moment. Think about the average rent in your neck of the woods. In mine, rental prices have gone through the roof. Think about what you pay for food. Maybe you think these minimum wage workers don't have families? Maybe you think they are mostly teenagers? Or undocumented workers who risk their lives to be able to come here and earn it? As Holly Sklar insists, think again.
Think about all those single mothers who managed to find jobs after the welfare reform bill put time limits on eligibility, and think about what the unemployment rate was then, and what it is now.
So why should we care about any of this, other than for "compassion" purposes, (a word I've always thought was used wrongly in discussions of what is a just society, even before Bush got hold of it)? Turns out there's a reason that we all prosper in a society that cares about fairness for all wage earners:
There's no surer way to stimulate an economy than to get money into the hands of families who need to spend it to make ends meet. And then there's this, too:
It doesn't have to be this way. Go see why, and in the bargain, Sklar will give you a good reason for indulging yourself in a fast food burger. Like Lambert, I'm a devotee of the Slow Food movement, but every once in a while, if I'm assured that the help is being well paid and fairly treated...
And what better way than to commemorate the anniversary of the establishment of a minimum wage in this country. Okay, Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act on June 25, 1938, but I just know FDR wouldn't mind us being a day late if it means our memory of him can be included when we take Michael Savage's name in vain.
Roosevelt signed the law in order to assure American workers of "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work."
The minimum wage today is $5.15 an hour; that's a yearly income of $10,712 a year. Think about that for a moment. Think about the average rent in your neck of the woods. In mine, rental prices have gone through the roof. Think about what you pay for food. Maybe you think these minimum wage workers don't have families? Maybe you think they are mostly teenagers? Or undocumented workers who risk their lives to be able to come here and earn it? As Holly Sklar insists, think again.
-
Think of adult women working at checkout counters and in childcare, of healthcare aides taking care of your parents or grandparents – without employer health benefits, paid sick days or paid vacation.
(edit)
A single parent with one child needs to work more than two full-time minimum wage jobs to make ends meet. It takes more than three jobs at minimum wage to support a family of four. Maybe the Bush administration's marriage promotion programs will push polygamy.
See if you can make ends meet on minimum wage with a new interactive wage and household budget calculator on the web at www.raisethefloor.org. Or will you be choosing between food and rent, healthcare and childcare?
Think about all those single mothers who managed to find jobs after the welfare reform bill put time limits on eligibility, and think about what the unemployment rate was then, and what it is now.
So why should we care about any of this, other than for "compassion" purposes, (a word I've always thought was used wrongly in discussions of what is a just society, even before Bush got hold of it)? Turns out there's a reason that we all prosper in a society that cares about fairness for all wage earners:
-
Roosevelt knew that to stimulate the economy, you boost workers and their families, you don't pile on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
For decades, the minimum wage and worker productivity rose together. Between 1947 and 1973, worker productivity rose 108 percent while the minimum wage rose 101 percent, adjusting for inflation.
Since then, workers have put in their fair day's work without getting their fair day's pay. Between 1973 and 2000, worker productivity rose 52 percent, but the minimum wage fell 17 percent and hourly average wages fell 10 percent, adjusting for inflation. Between 2000 and 2002, productivity rose 6 percent; the real minimum wage fell 4 percent.
The current minimum wage of $5.15 an hour is lower than the real minimum wage of 1950 ($5.71).
There's no surer way to stimulate an economy than to get money into the hands of families who need to spend it to make ends meet. And then there's this, too:
-
When the minimum wage is stuck in quicksand, it drags down wages for average workers as well. About one out of four workers makes $8.70 an hour or less. That's not much more than 1968's real minimum wage.
It doesn't have to be this way. Go see why, and in the bargain, Sklar will give you a good reason for indulging yourself in a fast food burger. Like Lambert, I'm a devotee of the Slow Food movement, but every once in a while, if I'm assured that the help is being well paid and fairly treated...
Trashing our national parks and lying about it
Elizabeth Shogren of the LA Times writes:
Ooh, "less than candid" ... Good one!
What was that other great euphemism Rosenbaum came up with in The Newspaper of Record (not!) -- "exaggerate"?
Why not just say that they lie?
The Bush administration, citing a report by Yellowstone National Park's professional staff, is asking a United Nations committee to remove the park from a list of World Heritage sites that are "in danger" of losing their grandeur. ...
But there is one hitch: The professional staff appears to disagree with the administration's assessment that the government is addressing all the problems that put Yellowstone on the endangered list in 1995. A draft report by the staff earlier this year identified continuing threats to the quality of the park's streams, bison herd and cutthroat trout populations — and to visitors' overall experience of the park. ...
"Tinkering with scientific information, either striking it from reports or altering it, is becoming a pattern of behavior," said Roger G. Kennedy, a former director of the National Park Service. "It represents the politicizing of a scientific process, which at once manifests a disdain for professional scientists working for our government and a willingness to be less than candid with the American people."
Ooh, "less than candid" ... Good one!
What was that other great euphemism Rosenbaum came up with in The Newspaper of Record (not!) -- "exaggerate"?
Why not just say that they lie?
Faux can dish it out...
... but they sure can't take it. Typical MBFs!
P.S. Any lawyers out there who want to take on Faux on behalf of the little guys? Check it out...
P.S. Any lawyers out there who want to take on Faux on behalf of the little guys? Check it out...
Liberty
Kennedy writes:
Food for thought. ... And noble words. Maybe our country is not entirely lost.
Liberty protects the person from unwarranted govern-
ment intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In
our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home.
And there are other spheres of our lives and existence,
outside the home, where the State should not be a domi-
nant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds.
Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes free-
dom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate
conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person
both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.
Food for thought. ... And noble words. Maybe our country is not entirely lost.
Sniping Aside...
This Supreme Court decision is truly a monumentally Good Thing. It´s nice to have something to celebrate for a change, Scalia´s idiocy aside.
Praise Jeebus.
Praise Jeebus.
This is a great legal mind?
Fat Tony sez that the Court "has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda."
The imminent threat that wasn't so imminent
John Lumpkin of the AP writes
So, no uranium (the document from Niger "proving" that was a crude fake), hundreds of centrifuges needed but parts for one found... Where was that imminent threat again? Sounds to me like the sanctions and inspection regime was doing exactly what it was supposed to be doing.
(I am still not Michael Savage, for which I am very very grateful. Though I do take his name in vain.)
Obeidi turned over a two-foot-tall stack of documents that includes detailed designs for centrifuges, intelligence officials said. Obeidi told intelligence officials the parts from his garden were among the more difficult-to-produce components of a centrifuge.
Assembled, the components would not be useful in making much uranium. Hundreds of centrifuges are necessary to make enough to construct a nuclear weapon in such programs.
So, no uranium (the document from Niger "proving" that was a crude fake), hundreds of centrifuges needed but parts for one found... Where was that imminent threat again? Sounds to me like the sanctions and inspection regime was doing exactly what it was supposed to be doing.
(I am still not Michael Savage, for which I am very very grateful. Though I do take his name in vain.)
Electronic voting machines
(I am not the Savage Weiner, though I do take his name in vain.)
This is one of those under-the-radar, quietly-growing-cancer-on-democracy stories...
This I didn't know:
Hmm....
Meanwhile, unauditable systems are being jammed through in Seattle.
My ATM transactions can be audited, but not my vote? Is there a way to insist on a paper ballot, even in an electronic jurisdiction?
UPDATE: Here is an informational site on this issue. Electronic voting must be auditable! Voting machine systems (like most of those sold today) that do not leave an audit trail are open invitations to fraud. (Not that anything like that could ever happen!) It's hard to imagine anything more corrosive to our democracy.
This is one of those under-the-radar, quietly-growing-cancer-on-democracy stories...
This I didn't know:
Election.com, a struggling Garden City start-up scheduled to provide online absentee ballots for U.S. military personnel in the 2004 federal election, has quietly sold controlling power to an investment group with ties to unnamed Saudi nationals, according to company correspondence.
Hmm....
Meanwhile, unauditable systems are being jammed through in Seattle.
My ATM transactions can be audited, but not my vote? Is there a way to insist on a paper ballot, even in an electronic jurisdiction?
UPDATE: Here is an informational site on this issue. Electronic voting must be auditable! Voting machine systems (like most of those sold today) that do not leave an audit trail are open invitations to fraud. (Not that anything like that could ever happen!) It's hard to imagine anything more corrosive to our democracy.
What has aWol got to hide on Medicare?
(I'm still not Michael Savage, though I am taking his name in vain.)
Laura Meckler of the AP writes:
Only threatened to fire? Instead of leaving a horse's head in his bed, like Unka Karl would?
Why our feckless Beltway Dems are allowing aWol to steal this issue from them is beyond my understanding. And given the tax cuts, we can't pay for it long-term anyhow, so the whole thing is an obvious charade for 2004.
And what do I tell my Mom? Is her coverage going to get better, or worse? Worse, I guess -- otherwise, they'd release the memo!
P.S. Funny thing -- I thought Scully and his actuary worked for me -- since I'm the citizen paying him. What shameless arrogance!
Laura Meckler of the AP writes:
The Bush administration's top Medicare accountant has calculated how millions of senior citizens would be affected by bringing private managed care into the program, but the administration won't release the information.
An earlier analysis suggested that a Republican plan to inject market forces into Medicare could increase premiums for those who stay in traditional programs by as much as 25 percent. ...
The administration's Medicare chief threatened to fire his top actuary, Rick Foster, if Foster released his calculations to Capitol Hill Democrats who requested the analysis, officials said.
"They don't have the right on the Hill to call up my actuary and demand things," said Scully, chief of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. "These people work for the executive branch, period."
Scully said he would release the analysis "if I feel like it."
Only threatened to fire? Instead of leaving a horse's head in his bed, like Unka Karl would?
Why our feckless Beltway Dems are allowing aWol to steal this issue from them is beyond my understanding. And given the tax cuts, we can't pay for it long-term anyhow, so the whole thing is an obvious charade for 2004.
And what do I tell my Mom? Is her coverage going to get better, or worse? Worse, I guess -- otherwise, they'd release the memo!
P.S. Funny thing -- I thought Scully and his actuary worked for me -- since I'm the citizen paying him. What shameless arrogance!
Harman stands up (sorta)
(I'm not really Michael Savage, OK?)
Ken Guggenheim of AP writes:
As opposed to "hard facts"-- "Faith is the subtance of things hoped for, the evadence of things not seen" (Heb 11:1). Faith-based warmongering...
Ken Guggenheim of AP writes:
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jane Harman of California ... said the early stages of that review found that the administration ignored doubts about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons capability. But Harman said she still believes Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction that could now be in the hands of anti-American fighters in Iraq or terrorists elsewhere.
She said the early stages of her committee's review has made clear that Iraq once had chemical and biological weapons and that these weapons were easy to hide - but administration officials "rarely included the caveats and qualifiers attached to the intelligence community's judgments."
"For many Americans, the administration's certainty gave the impression there was even stronger intelligence about Iraq's possession of and intention to use WMD," she said.
Harman said the committee was reviewing whether intelligence agencies "made clear to policy-makers and Congress that most of its analytic judgments were based on things like aerial photographs, Iraqi defector interviews - not hard facts."
Harman also said that intelligence linking al-Qaida to Iraq "is conflicting, contrary to what was claimed by the administration."
As opposed to "hard facts"-- "Faith is the subtance of things hoped for, the evadence of things not seen" (Heb 11:1). Faith-based warmongering...
Supreme Court desecrates Michael Savage day!
Anne Gearan of AP
Why does Kennedy hate white males?
UPDATE: The opinion is here.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Sex Ban
The 6-3 ruling reverses course from a ruling 17 years ago that states could punish homosexuals for what such laws historically called deviant sex.
Laws forbidding homosexual sex, once universal, now are rare. Those on the books are rarely enforced but underpin other kinds of discrimination, lawyers for two Texas men had argued to the court.
The men "are entitled to respect for their private lives," Kennedy wrote.
"The state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime," he said.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.
"The court has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda," Scalia wrote for the three. He took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench.
"The court has taken sides in the culture war," Scalia said, adding that he has "nothing against homosexuals."
Why does Kennedy hate white males?
UPDATE: The opinion is here.
Do not go to these sites!
They take the name of the Savage Weiner in vain!
These sites are not Michael Savage sites! Do not be deceived!
http://www.michaelsavagesucks.com/
http://www.savagestupidity.com/
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/
More:
http://www.pandagon.net/
More?
http://www.southknoxbubba.net/skblog (Thanks, alert reader SK Bubba)
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/mean.html
http://savagecruelbigot.blogspot.com/
http://leftpedal.com/
http://thedailyharrumph.blogspot.com/2003_06_01_thedailyharrumph_archive.html (thanks to alert reader Hunter)
http://www.iwannaspankjenniferlovehewitt.com/ (rather tasteless from alert reader Relatively Anonymous Jerk).
http://offthekuff.com/mt/
http://sheldman.blogspot.com/
http://tedbarlow.blogspot.com/
UPDATE: Neal Pollack has another list and a nice note of thanks to all. I'm especially grateful I don't have to be Michael Savage any more. That was, well, kinda like that really stomach-churning scene in Alien ....
Two more from alert reader Anonymous Jerk:
http://www.suckful.net/ (not very tasteful)
http://armyoffun.blogspot.com/
And more:
http://www.yarsrevenge.blogspot.com/2003_06_22_yarsrevenge_archive.html
http://byword.blogspot.com/2003_06_01_byword_archive.html
http://www.blah3.com/
http://veryveryhappy.blogspot.com/2003_06_22_veryveryhappy_archive.html
Thanks to all for a happy and successful Micheal Weiner Appropriation Day!
These sites are not Michael Savage sites! Do not be deceived!
http://www.michaelsavagesucks.com/
http://www.savagestupidity.com/
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/
More:
http://www.pandagon.net/
More?
http://www.southknoxbubba.net/skblog (Thanks, alert reader SK Bubba)
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/mean.html
http://savagecruelbigot.blogspot.com/
http://leftpedal.com/
http://thedailyharrumph.blogspot.com/2003_06_01_thedailyharrumph_archive.html (thanks to alert reader Hunter)
http://www.iwannaspankjenniferlovehewitt.com/ (rather tasteless from alert reader Relatively Anonymous Jerk).
http://offthekuff.com/mt/
http://sheldman.blogspot.com/
http://tedbarlow.blogspot.com/
UPDATE: Neal Pollack has another list and a nice note of thanks to all. I'm especially grateful I don't have to be Michael Savage any more. That was, well, kinda like that really stomach-churning scene in Alien ....
Two more from alert reader Anonymous Jerk:
http://www.suckful.net/ (not very tasteful)
http://armyoffun.blogspot.com/
And more:
http://www.yarsrevenge.blogspot.com/2003_06_22_yarsrevenge_archive.html
http://byword.blogspot.com/2003_06_01_byword_archive.html
http://www.blah3.com/
http://veryveryhappy.blogspot.com/2003_06_22_veryveryhappy_archive.html
Thanks to all for a happy and successful Micheal Weiner Appropriation Day!
Why does GE hate white males?
Read the hateful propaganda on GE's site!:
Who cares how wetbacks and homesexuals "perform," or whether they're "flexible"?
Write GE and tell them what you think!
Diversity
In the area of diversity, the company is dedicated to developing the careers of women, and minorities by providing the right level of training and development and basing promotions on performance.
Who cares how wetbacks and homesexuals "perform," or whether they're "flexible"?
Write GE and tell them what you think!
White males who are not homosexuals or immigrants: Please do NOT contact KSTE!
This is the KSTE not to call -- it's the one in Sacramento.
KSTE has already been overwhelmed by your messages of support!
And don't contact Clear Channel either! They already know how great I am!
Talk 650 KSTE
1440 Ethan Way, Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
Tel: (916) 929-5325
Fax: (916) 922-2236
A Clear Channel Station
Advertising: SarahSimpson@clearchannel.com
General comments: kfbknews@clearchannel.com
KSTE has already been overwhelmed by your messages of support!
And don't contact Clear Channel either! They already know how great I am!
Radio
Phone 1-210-822-2828
Public Relations lisadollinger@clearchannel.com
Misunderstood
I´ve become quite a controversial figure lately due to the fact that many of my statements are misunderstood by the media and other liberals. For example, when I said:
I meant it all in a good way. As I explain here, I love Latinos, particular illegal immigrant Latinos, and the more of them the merrier I say. And, I enjoy them so much that I think that cutting down on the white race is actually a good thing. White people just don´t appreciate the Savage Weiner quite as much as those wetbacks who are willing to do anything - and I mean anything! - to cross the border into our country.
So, to set the record straight - I love Latinos and homosexuals, and I hate white people.
Along those same lines, I got in a bit of trouble when I said that people like Sandra Day O´Connor had "feminized and homosexualized much of America, to the point where the nation has become passive, receptive and masochistic" I meant this unequivocally as a good thing! I mean, the more passive, receptive, and masochistic Americans are the more fun the Savage Weiner has. Especially wetback-Americans.
There, I hope I´ve cleared a few things up for you all. Now, stop writing those angry letters to MSNBC president Erik Sorensen at erik.sorensen@msnbc.com. He considers me to be "brash, passionate, and smart" and how could anyone argue with that?
-
With the [Latino] population that has emerged, since they breed like rabbits, in many cases the whites will become a minority in their own nation... The white people don't breed as often for whatever reason. I guess many homosexuals are involved. That is also part of the grand plan, to push homosexuality to cut down on the white race.
I meant it all in a good way. As I explain here, I love Latinos, particular illegal immigrant Latinos, and the more of them the merrier I say. And, I enjoy them so much that I think that cutting down on the white race is actually a good thing. White people just don´t appreciate the Savage Weiner quite as much as those wetbacks who are willing to do anything - and I mean anything! - to cross the border into our country.
So, to set the record straight - I love Latinos and homosexuals, and I hate white people.
Along those same lines, I got in a bit of trouble when I said that people like Sandra Day O´Connor had "feminized and homosexualized much of America, to the point where the nation has become passive, receptive and masochistic" I meant this unequivocally as a good thing! I mean, the more passive, receptive, and masochistic Americans are the more fun the Savage Weiner has. Especially wetback-Americans.
There, I hope I´ve cleared a few things up for you all. Now, stop writing those angry letters to MSNBC president Erik Sorensen at erik.sorensen@msnbc.com. He considers me to be "brash, passionate, and smart" and how could anyone argue with that?
Stick It In Your Ear Michael Savage
The Savage UberOaf Circus Krone Band, announces the release of their new music CD, "Solid Waste"
"brash, passionate and smart."
The critics all agree: MSNBC president Erik Sorenson describes Michael Savage as "brash, passionate and smart."
Twenty-six soon to be classics await you on this debut music release from celebrity media bauble Michael Savage and friends.
SIDE ONE:
1- You Rats, You Dirty Rats!
2- Breeding Out of Control
3- Defecate on our Country
4- Feminist Zealots Rule
5- Like Little Devils
6- Hiding in the Sewers
7- The Girls from Branson
8- Toting AK47s
9- Hormones Rage
10- At a Million Dyke March
11- Mind-Slut in a Big Pair of Glasses
12- Raped in a Dumpster While Giving out a Turkey Sandwich
13- Homosexuals Are Involved
SIDE TWO:
14- Latinos Breeding Like Rabbits
15- Turd-World Cesspool
16- Freaks and Cripples and Mental Defectives
17- I'm Going to Find Out Where You Get Your Money
18- They're Not Kids They're Ghetto Slime
19- I'll Put You In Jail
20- Under John Ashcroft!
21- Roll Over Like a Pussy
22- Right-Wing Radio Folk (traditional)
23- Our National Glue
24- Savage Weiner Waltz
25- Pill Salesman
26- The Roy Masters Headshrinker Medley (instrumental)
The Savage UberOaf Circus Krone Band is:
Mike Savage - vocals, fuzz box distortion pedal
Joe "Kurly-Lip" Scarborough - 5 string guitar and backup vocals
*Rush Limbaugh - dittochord, drum beater
*Sean Hannity - mouth organ
*Bill O'Reilly - air horn
Neal Boortz - grunting noises
Anne Coulter - gongs, whistles, hissing valves
Buy the CD today. Feed your head with "Solid Waste" - or get the hell out of the country!
Available from Bigot Spigot Productions and Media Suite Neuer-Bund Cult Promotions Inc. (MSNBCP)
*Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh appear courtesy of Fox Noise Corp. and Fear Channel Worldwide.
And remember to check out all the June 26th Michael Savage Tribute Day celebration events going on right here.
###
"brash, passionate and smart."
The critics all agree: MSNBC president Erik Sorenson describes Michael Savage as "brash, passionate and smart."
Twenty-six soon to be classics await you on this debut music release from celebrity media bauble Michael Savage and friends.
SIDE ONE:
1- You Rats, You Dirty Rats!
2- Breeding Out of Control
3- Defecate on our Country
4- Feminist Zealots Rule
5- Like Little Devils
6- Hiding in the Sewers
7- The Girls from Branson
8- Toting AK47s
9- Hormones Rage
10- At a Million Dyke March
11- Mind-Slut in a Big Pair of Glasses
12- Raped in a Dumpster While Giving out a Turkey Sandwich
13- Homosexuals Are Involved
SIDE TWO:
14- Latinos Breeding Like Rabbits
15- Turd-World Cesspool
16- Freaks and Cripples and Mental Defectives
17- I'm Going to Find Out Where You Get Your Money
18- They're Not Kids They're Ghetto Slime
19- I'll Put You In Jail
20- Under John Ashcroft!
21- Roll Over Like a Pussy
22- Right-Wing Radio Folk (traditional)
23- Our National Glue
24- Savage Weiner Waltz
25- Pill Salesman
26- The Roy Masters Headshrinker Medley (instrumental)
The Savage UberOaf Circus Krone Band is:
Mike Savage - vocals, fuzz box distortion pedal
Joe "Kurly-Lip" Scarborough - 5 string guitar and backup vocals
*Rush Limbaugh - dittochord, drum beater
*Sean Hannity - mouth organ
*Bill O'Reilly - air horn
Neal Boortz - grunting noises
Anne Coulter - gongs, whistles, hissing valves
Buy the CD today. Feed your head with "Solid Waste" - or get the hell out of the country!
Available from Bigot Spigot Productions and Media Suite Neuer-Bund Cult Promotions Inc. (MSNBCP)
*Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh appear courtesy of Fox Noise Corp. and Fear Channel Worldwide.
And remember to check out all the June 26th Michael Savage Tribute Day celebration events going on right here.
###