LITTLE HIPPOCRAT - VI VERI UNIVERSUM VIVUS VICI

Obama Tax Calculator Widget

2008-11-03T09:55:00.001-05:00

I Write Letters

2008-09-26T14:51:00.003-04:00

Sent today to the Richmond Times-Dispatch and other central Virginia papers:

Republicans Wants Financial Catastrophe, Democrats Should Let Them Have It

I initially supported efforts by Congressional Democrats to resolve the financial crisis on Wall Street by re-writing the Paulson Proposal for bailing out the financial markets.

In the last 24 hours, however, the House GOP and Senator John McCain have turned this crisis into a craven political ploy. The House GOP, led by Henrico Rep. Eric Cantor, is pushing for more tax cuts and more deregulation as their "solution." This is a sad joke.

Senator McCain, the Republican Presidential Nominee, has injected presidential politics into the negotiations, thereby helping to wreck the whole agreement. Sen. McCain, once a towering American hero, has in this campaign become a pathetic figure.

Wall Street pundits on cable TV are now railing against the Dodd Plan - apparently, if they can't get a blank check, they don't want anything.

And finally, Friday afternoon, I saw this:

According to one GOP lawmaker, some House Republicans are saying privately that they’d rather “let the markets crash” than sign on to a massive bailout.

“For the sake of the altar of the free market system, do you accept a Great Depression?” the member asked.

If McCain, the House GOP, and Wall Street don't want the Democrats' help, then there must not be such a serious financial crisis threatening to bring down the rest of the economy. If there was such a crisis, these clowns would not be so arrogant as to reject sensible solutions from Senators Dodd, Webb and others.

I remain convinced that the economy is heading for a very deep, very painful, and very long recession. I had serious misgivings about any bailout of the financial markets, but I also realized that if the markets completely froze, as they are close to doing, that the consequences for the American economy would be catastrophic.

Now, however, given the craven political narcissism of the Republican Party, I say "let the markets crash." If the GOP wants to risk economic Armageddon, then “for the sake of the free market system” let’s “accept a Great Depression.” They have spent the last four decades rigging this “free market” for the benefit of themselves and their Wall Street cronies, so it is long past time they bore the consequences of their actions.

In the end, perhaps they will finally realize their errors when the Democrats return to Washington after the election with huge Congressional majorities and the White House. Perhaps they will realize their failure when the Democrats, responding to a total economic meltdown, are forced to nationalize most of the economy.

Hope

2008-09-20T17:32:00.001-04:00

Regarding the Big Blank Check that Paulson & Co. have asked for, I sure hope that Obama comes out and says something like this:

The Bush Administration has finally realized that it has a major economic crisis on its hands. However, the solution proposed by the White House – give Henry Paulson a big blank check and just trust him – is clearly unacceptable. This was tried with Iraq and look where it got us. Bush, Paulson and Bernanke have had months to address these problems, and they’ve simply failed. We cannot "just trust them" any longer. When the White House proposal comes to the Congress next week, I will be proposing an amendment to the bill substituting new language that I believe will address the fundamental problems facing our economy – falling housing prices, crushing consumer debt, rising unemployment, institutional insolvency, and rampant Wall Street greed and corruption. It will be a comprehensive approach that is also transparent. It will be bipartisan.

In essence, it will be everything the Bush-Paulson plan currently is not. Should the Paulson Plan reach the Senate floor in its current state, I will vote against it. Should the Administration adopt my proposals to protect homeowners, bolster employment, hold corporate executives accountable, and minimize the impact on taxpayers, then I will happily give my full support to their efforts.

Time to show that judgment trumps experience.

Bailout Nation

2008-09-19T12:41:00.002-04:00

While thousands of people have become homeless over the last year-and-a-half, due primarily to predatory lending on the part of unscrupulous brokers acting on behalf of reckless financial institutions, the federal government has been almost nothing to abate this crisis.

But when one of these major financial institutions goes under, the federal government steps in to bail out the entire financial system. And let's be clear, the bailout, in human terms, helps most the corporate executives and large investors.

The final verdict on the "conservative" philosophy of "free-market" capitalism is this: it stands for only one thing, the transference of wealth from the People of the United States to the wealthy Corporate Class by any means necessary. All losses, liabilities and burdens are to be borne by the People, with no exceptions.

This is not the country I was born into. This land is unrecognizable.

No Limits

2008-09-10T21:16:00.001-04:00

The McCain campaign continues its disregard for any limitations on campaign tactics with the release of a new ad suggesting that Obama is some sort of sexual deviant (he’s black you know, and you know how those black guys are about sex!). As I’ve said below, when winning is all you care about, then adhering to any principle that says that any absurd tactics are off limits in a campaign actually breaks the rules – when it comes to winning, the only rule is that there are no limits to what you must do to win.

As we move forward in this campaign, as the lying gets more blatant and the attacks get more perverse, we see the true nature of Bush Republicanism. This true nature is one where there are simply no rules but win or die. This will be how McCain governs if he wins. No rules. Ever.

This has a dark implication for the American Democratic Republic. To put it bluntly – authoritarianism reigns. The breakdown of rules and limits on the exercise of political power has allowed the private sector to be indistinguishable from the public sector. Lobbyists run GOP political campaigns. GOP staffers become corporate executives. Corporate executives become GOP candidates. The money, influence and graft follow them all. And at the end of eight years, you have endless war, epic corruption, and a wrecked economy.

The responsibility of governing has been abandoned in the pursuit of victory – electoral, personal, and financial. The nation’s infrastructure crumbles, its destitute citizens languish, and its influence on the world becomes toxic.

With the potential of four more years of Republican recklessness an unbearable thought, and with the GOP leaving no stone unturned in their attempt to destroy Obama, the Democrats are faced with having to descend into the cess pool in order to put a stop to the GOP. They’ll have to abandon all principle to win.

That leaves us with a choice between two parties that have now put winning at the top of the list of goals for this nation. Winning is everything, so there are no limits on power. The most fundamental motivation for the Founding Fathers to rebel against the English Crown was the belief that King George III was a tyrant – he and the Parliament had exceeded their power and violated the basic rights of man. From this belief came the thread which ties the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution of the United States – the power of the national government must be limited as much as possible or else despots would replace the People as the final source of authority.

And so here we are, less than two months out from an election that may well seal our fate as a People. Without question John McCain will try to rule as a tyrant, far exceeding even the outrageous lengths of George W. Bush. Can we possibly expect the Democrats to, once in power, place limits on themselves once they have gone to the lengths necessary in order to win? You cannot unbite the apple.

The legacy of the Bush Republican Party – fueling the transition of the American Democratic Republic to the American Authoritarian Empire.

Losing

2008-09-08T21:00:00.002-04:00

To add to the post below. If everything hinges on winning, and you plan on being the winner, then naturally some one's gotta lose. That role has been aptly played by the Democrats for a while now and a lot of people are used to that. The GOP is really used to it, so much so that they make sure that when Dems lose, they lose.

And what I mean by lose is, they suffer consequences for losing. Democrats are called every name in the book, and it often sticks in the public mind. The media makes Dems pay, by enforcing some unwritten code of imbalance that allows the GOP to always have the last word and get pretty much whatever they want out of the media. Blue states also pay - the distribution of federal funds favors Red states. The GOP gets away with condemning the coasts, NYC, San Fran, urbanites, and many other parts of America. And that's fine! Those places lost! Now if a Dem were to call Mississippi a bad name, that pol HATES AMERICA! Democrats have taken a lot of shit the last 8 years.

The GOP has no problem whatsoever dishing out the punishment for losing an election. They make you pay. The Democrats really don't. At least not on the scale the GOP does. Clinton really went out of his way to be conciliatory, regardless of what Ken Starr says. Clinton put Bill Cohen in charge of DOD. 'Nuff said. You think Bush would put Sam Nunn in charge of DOD? Would McCain put Bob Kerrey or another qualified Dem at the Pentagon? Not on your life. And while Clinton won two presidential elections and acted rather nice about it (welfare reform!), the GOP was winning one congressional election after another, and went after Clinton relentlessly. The new Dem congress? Not too dogged on all those Bush scandels.

So, to tie this to what I said in the post below, the question is whether a President Obama would make the GOP pay for losing this election. To me, this is the window into how much he really wants to win. I think he has to be committed to making the GOP suffer if they are defeated. Less conciliation, more consequences. The best way to demonstrate that is to start punishing the McCain campaign right now. Make them pay for their gaffes. Make them pay for their mistakes. Make them suffer the consequences. Strip away the aura of winning.

Here's an example from tonight's Olbermann interview with Obama - Olbermann states that Obama doesn't want to be perceived beating up on an old man or a woman. Hey! Worrying about what people think of you when you criticize your opponent is what a loser does. Winners don't care. They attack. If you feel the need to respond, use that as an opportunity to attack again. "No, I wasn't being sexist, I just don't care for her incompetence."

Here's why I think this is so important: our conciliatory gestures though noble, communicate that there are no consequences for losing. Why is this important? Well, it's pretty basic. If people are afraid of being on the losing side, they might make a better effort to make an informed decision. Or at least they might see the differences between the two sides. I think a lot of people on the fence will be motivated by the fact that if they vote against the GOP and the GOP wins, there will be hell to pay. I don't think a lot of people have the same worry about the Dems. If the Dems win, hey, I'll get free health care! No consequences. Here's my vote Mr. McCain!

The message I think Obama needs to give to the voters is simple. There will be consequences for losing an election. If the nation's security is on the line, or if there is a natural disaster, we'll take care of everybody because that's what Americans are supposed to do. But for everything else, if you vote GOP and we win, then God help you because we won't. Winners win, and losers lose.

Winning

2008-09-08T15:06:00.002-04:00

Having time to reflect after last Thursday, I finally get it. All Republicans care about only one thing – winning. Nothing else matters, and the ends justify the means. These ‘values’ they preach about – sanctity of marriage, right-to-life, patriotism, all just a means to an end. That’s why they can embrace Cheney even though he’s got a lesbian daughter and his wife writes dirty romance novels. It’s why they love Palin even though she’s clearly corrupt and a liar, and her unwed teenage kid is knocked up. Cheney and Palin care about winning above all else and thus being on the same team, all other transgressions or heresies can be easily forgiven.

This is what conservatives really had against McCain – at one time he acted as if he stood on other principles – campaign reform, ending pork barrel spending, honor, etc. By naming Palin to the ticket, it showed the base once and for all that McCain had adopted their only real important value as his own – the value to do anything to win. Win, Win, Win. It’s all they care about. That’s why they can’t (more like ‘don’t try to’) govern – governing has nothing to do with winning! It’s why they love Bush when no one else does – he’s a WINNER!

And it’s why the Dems have lost time and again, and why they are at real risk of losing this time. Obama’s trying to run a campaign with values like honor, integrity, fairness. He wants to have it all – win, but win right. He’s putting himself at a competitive disadvantage. I suspect that he is aware of this to an extent, which is why he’s running his campaign the way he is – huge fundraising and GOTV effort. He might be doing this as a way to even the odds. I’m just not confident that he can pull it off.

Bill Clinton is the only Dem in the last 40 years who understood the GOP. But he only got it half-right. He did whatever it took to win the election, but the GOP kept fighting after wards and made a mess of his administration. You can’t just win the election, you have to win everything. My GOP friends always want to win all the time. It’s almost pathological. War, politics, sports, realty shows, EVERYTHING. It’s always about winning above all else. Once McCain embraced this fundamental GOP value, he became a real threat to win the election.

Now Obama has to decide just how badly he wants to win.

You Just Got Served

2008-08-21T22:36:00.004-04:00

Who among us middle class Americans does not have "household employees"?

The McCains increased their budget for household employees from $184,000 in 2006 to $273,000 in 2007, according to John McCain’s tax returns.

If I didn't know better, I'd say this makes Saint McCain look like a "celebrity."

Man is this comeuppance gratifying.

Corporate Media Has Priorities in Order

2008-08-09T11:35:00.001-04:00

John Edwards adultery is somehow a problem for Barack Obama, while John McCain's history of adultery isn't a problem for John McCain.

In a parallel universe, John McCain's adultery would be as big a problem for John McCain as John Edwards adultery is for John Edwards.

And don't forget, the media has known about McCain's adultery the whole time he's been running for president.

This is to say nothing of the lunacy of talking about candidate X's infidelity to his/her spouse while evidence arises that the White House attempted to fabricate evidence to support the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Deep Thought

2008-08-04T12:40:00.000-04:00

Pressure gauges are to energy conservation as sunscreen is to cancer prevention.

Today's GOP: Running presidential campaigns at the intellectual level of seven-year olds.

So typical voter, are YOU a seven-year old?

Titanic

2008-07-29T08:17:00.001-04:00

Like rats from a sinking ship, embattled GOP office holders are running from George Bush and John McCain:

Nine of 12 targeted Republicans running in the most competitive Senate races this fall are either skipping the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., or have not decided whether to attend.

Still, somehow I'm sure this is great news for the GOP and John McCain.

Give Women Some Credit, Please

2008-07-28T19:39:00.000-04:00

I must have missed the memo stating that the only woman acceptable to all other women voters as Obama's VP nominee is Hillary.

I can understand the tendency in the traditional media to treat women as a monolithic and mindless voting bloc given Big Media's blatant chauvinism and the play that women's support of Hillary got in the primaries. But us DFH bloggers should be smarter than that.

I've also said I think it would backfire for Obama to choose a woman other than Hillary Clinton for a running mate. If he wants his VP choice to help boost his support among women, he should pick the woman who received more than 17 million votes for president in the primaries.

The polling is showing that Obama is doing quite well among women without Hillary on the ticket. To think he'll suffer in the women's vote if he picks a woman other than Hillary is a pretty weak, and rather dull, argument.

Would he lose support among Latinos if he picks a Latino other than Bill Richardson? I seriously doubt it. I also seriously doubt any knowledgeable person would actually try to make such an argument.

Making this argument about Hillary only plays into the media's hand that there is some sort of fight to be had between the Clinton and Obama camps on this issue. The media wants a fight to spice things up. IMHO, I doubt either Obama or Clinton will let it come to that.

Finally, what I find fascinating, and very hopeful for our democracy, is that there are several great woman candidates for the VP (in addition to the fact that there was a very good choice for POTUS) - Clinton, Sebelius, Napolitano, McCaskill, etc.

I find it absurd that women would abandon Obama in droves because he put any woman on the ticket.

Always Good News for Republicans

2008-07-28T15:09:00.001-04:00

A really stupid question:

But do consider this question: Which candidate has the bigger problem in the polls -- Obama (who seems to have hit a ceiling in the high 40s) or the better-known McCain (who’s stuck in the low 40s in many national or state polls)?

gets and even more stupid answer:

It's a problem for both, but the fact that McCain can't get past 45% in so many polls could be the bigger problem. [emphasis added]

Could be the bigger problem? WTF???

The mountain of polling shows that McCain is clearly and definitively LOSING this election, but MSNBC's First Read still must put this groaner out there - even though Obama is consistently outpolling his opponent, he may have a big problem because he's not winning by 10 points! I really don't think this piece would be any different if the poll said Obama was up 15. Or 20. Or 40.

The meme is always in place - whatever is happening, it's always good news for Republicans.

I know I shouldn't, but I expect better from something with Chuck Todd's name on it.

Insinuations

2008-07-10T14:03:00.000-04:00

So if it's ok to question Senator Obama's "American-ness" - then it must be ok to insinuate things about other people. Like.....

Rudy Guliani may be a transsexual because he has, on occasion, worn women's clothes.

And Mittster might be a sadistic serial animal torturer because he once drove hundreds of miles with his dog strapped to the roof of his car.

Let me repeat:

Rudy = transsexual;

Mitt = animal torturer.

The March to Victory

2008-07-07T15:06:00.000-04:00

John McCain promises to balance the budget by winning both the Afghan and Iraq Wars by the end of his first term.

Brilliant!

The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.

V-SM (Victory-Saint McCain) Day is January 20, 2013. Great, I've got it marked on my calendar.

Now, how's that March to Victory coming along?

Today in Afghanistan:

A car bomb went off on a crowded street Monday near the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan, killing at least 41 people and wounding more than 100, officials said.

Today in Iraq:

Mr al-Maliki’s claim to have defeated terrorism was further tested today when a female suicide bomber killed nine people in Baqouba, a town still under threat from Al Qaeda-linked militants, while 16 Iraqis were killed on Sunday in a spate of attacks.

Today in Pakistan:

One person was killed and 37 others injured on Monday in a string of six bomb blasts in Pakistan's southern city of Karachi, raising tensions a day after a major suicide attack in the capital.

I guess it's not going to be a victory for some people.

Will any of our intrepid journalists riding on the Straight Talk Express ask St. McCain this question when they present him his coffee and doughnuts:

"Saint..er, I mean Senator McCain, if ending the war allows you to balance the budget, are you saying that if there had been no war our economy wouldn't be in shambles now?"

And if winning allows us to balance the budget, then how do we keep our troops in Iraq for a hundred years. And if we have to keep our troops there until they stop getting killed, so that we can then keep them there for 100 years, then how do also claim victory? And if we have to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, how do we claim victory four years from now?

I guess I can finally see why he's called Senator Straight Talk. He's the only person on earth who can keep all the contradictions straight in his head.

Just another day on THE MARCH TO VICTORY!

Obama's Response

2008-07-03T18:19:00.000-04:00

I can understand Obama's belief that the best option for him is to support the bill minus immunity. I totally get his reasoning. Don't agree with it, but I get it and I can live with it.

What his response to the 'No on Telecom Immunity' group lacks though, is an explanation of what he'll do if the Feingold-Dodd amendment fails. His previous statements suggest that he will support the bill. His response today could also be read that way.

I'm just not convinced by Obama that he's right on this piece of it. I don't think it's the best political position. I believe he can vote NO on the bill if it includes immunity and the electorate will not only be fine with it, they may even be more inclined to vote Obama than before.

The real fundamental issue here is this: George Bush, John McCain and the GOP put corporate interests ahead of the interests of the American people. It's that simple. And it's already a well-known truth with the electorate. Giving in to the telecoms doesn't demonstrate the big Change we all want, it's simply more fealty to Corporate America. It's just another sell-out.

George Bush has spent the last 8 years selling out the interests of the American people to every corporate interest that's come along. How exactly has selling out the people's interest made us safer? Big Oil has basically destroyed the known world and through the Iraq War caused most other countries in the world to hate Americans, to say nothing of bearing the responsibility for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. How has that made us safer?

Look at the airline industry and the problems with safety inspections. Look at the food industry. Look at health care and big pharma. How has giving in to corporate interests made us safer? Standing up to the Corporate Juggernaut steamrolling over the interests of the American people will do more to keep us safe then just about any other action any person can possibly take.

Giving immunity to the telecoms is just More Of The Same. Change is standing up to Mr. 25%, St. McCain and the Telecoms and telling them to go pound sand.

If immunity is in the bill, vote no.

Deep Thought

2008-06-30T21:24:00.001-04:00

It's only ok to question a candidate's war record if he's a Democrat. If he's a Republican, the only proper way to discuss his war record is with unceasing worship.

Hands off His Saintedness

2008-06-30T16:31:00.003-04:00

Rapidly becoming irrelevant due to their corporate culture, the mainstream press makes it known that St. McCain, Greatest Human in History, is not to be touched.

There is a real lack of self-awareness on the part of the media about how they are viewed by the masses. And it's obvious where they get it from....

Trumped

2008-06-25T20:04:00.001-04:00

I am really disappointed about this.

Violating the Constitution does not protect the security of the American people.

I am so over the security vs. civil rights dichotomy. If you are willing to let the Constitution be undone by a police state, then you are by definition HARMING national security.

Principle

2008-06-24T20:10:00.002-04:00

Putting aside for the moment the travesty that is the current FISA "compromise" legislation, it seems to me that Senator Obama should use this bill as the poster child for why we need to get lobbyist cash out of politics. As long as big corporations can use their mounds of cash to buy off weak-kneed politicians (regardless of party), there is simply no assurance that can be made that even citizens' most basic rights will be protected when those rights come into conflict with the interests of major corporations.

I think Senator Obama can make a convincing (and easy) case that this bill - which violates fundamental civil rights and the Constitution - was passed by the House simply because the telecoms bought the necessary number of votes. Without lobbyist dough, this bill doesn't get passed.

Telecommunications companies donated more money, on average, to Democrats who changed their minds last week and supported immunity for those companies' cooperation with administration wiretapping practices, a report by MAPLight.org finds.
Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T donated $8,359 on average, between January 2005 and March 2008, to 94 House Democrats who switched their stances and voted yes last week on the House's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) overhaul bill.The same companies donated $4,987 on average to those who consistently opposed immunity and voted no, the study finds.
The House FISA bill would likely grant telecommunications companies legal immunity for complying with Bush administration wiretapping practices after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

This bill must be filibustered.

Logic vs. Lunacy

2008-06-23T22:14:00.001-04:00

This campaign presents two choices...a choice between real ideas to solve real problems:

What do you see as the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy?
Obama: If we don’t get a handle on our energy policy, it is possible that the kinds of trends we’ve seen over the last year will just continue. Demand is clearly outstripping supply. It’s not a problem we can drill our way out of. It can be a drag on our economy for a very long time unless we take steps to innovate and invest in the research and development that’s required to find alternative fuels. I think it’s very important for the federal government to have a role in that process.

and lunacy:

McCain: Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we’re in against Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence. Another successful attack on the United States of America could have devastating consequences. You’ve been a supporter of climate-change legislation that would essentially impose a penalty on the use of fossil fuel.

Bereft of useful ideas to solve real problems, John McCain and the GOP will play the fear card. The basic campaign theme literaly appears to be "elect John McCain, or we are all going to die!"

How can a major political party continue to be viable with a fringe idealogy?

Not Good Enough

2008-06-20T20:04:00.002-04:00

Not good enough Senator.

King George can't be trusted to adhere to the Constitution or any other law. This FISA bill is unacceptable.

We need more & better Democrats.

To hell with Bush Dog Democrats.

No Telecom Immunity

2008-06-19T20:45:00.001-04:00

Dear Senator Obama,

Please make a major speech against the latest Telecom Immunity bill and urge your fellow Democrats to vote it down.

Thanks.

I love the free market, but...

2008-06-10T20:53:00.006-04:00

....it kind of, like, fails sometimes. And that's not cool.

Obama is disarming the GOP step-by-step. Today he drilled the GOP on economics. One of the GOP's tired old attacks against Dems is to assert that any Big Dem is somehow a socialist or hates the free market. Dems have not always responded well enough to these charges. Those days are over. Obama demonstrates:

HARWOOD: On your general approach to business, you have criticized trade deals as not in the interests of American workers. You've talked about Wall Street speculators tricking people out of their homes, you've hit corporations for outsourcing. Are you a populist, and do you have any concern that your agenda might end up doing some damage to a US and global economic system that, though it's struggling now, has delivered a lot of benefits to a lot of people over the last 25 years?

Sen. OBAMA: Look. I am a pro-growth, free market guy. I love the market. I think it is the best invention to allocate resources and produce enormous prosperity for America or the world that's ever been designed.

As I said before, I think what's happened is that the market has gotten out of balance. This isn't the first time it happened. It happens often, particularly during periods of great technological and economic change. It happened, you know, when we moved from farms to factories. It happened when we shifted from factories to the information age. We're still in the process of adapting to this new environment. And there are those of us who have done very well in this new global economy. A lot of dislocations have taken place. And all I've said is let's make sure that our economy takes into account not just the winners but also the losers in the economy.

Let's make sure that the burdens and benefits of globalization are fairly distributed. Let's make sure that we are investing in what's required for long-term growth. And I don't think there's any market advocate who would suggest that if our schools are underperforming, if our investment in basic science and research is declining, if young people can't afford to go to college, if our health-care system is broken and more expensive delivering less in terms of quality care than any other advanced nation, that those are good things for the market, then, you know, we should go ahead and make those investments, make those changes, to make this marketplace work better. That's my basic philosophy.

And on trade deals, I believe in free trade. And as somebody who lived overseas, who has family overseas, I've seen what's happened in terms of rising living standards around the globe. And that's a good thing for America, it's good for our national security. But what I also believe is that if trade agreements are written only with corporate profits and Wall Street in mind and not with its possible effects on Main Street, then we're only seeing half of the equation, and we've got to take those into account.

It's really not that hard. First, shred the foundation of the question. The worst habit of many Dems is to accept the basis of a question - either from GOP hacks or from over-paid pundits. Obama doesn't have this bad habit.

So after pivoting on the question, he then lays out all of the failings of the current economic situation - and he does it in a common-sense, pro-business way. It's very hard for the GOP to debate Obama in this way because it reveals their own intellectual dishonesty, to say nothing of their hypocrisy.

Obama is a transformation candidate - everyone sees that. But he's also a sound candidate - he does all the things well that all candidates should do well. Combined with his charisma and the historical circumstances, and he appears to be a leader for the ages.

Why are we listening to these people?

2006-12-07T08:22:00.000-05:00

I keep asking myself why all the news programs and newspapers and just about every other kind of mass media outlet continues to look to people who have been completely wrong from Day One about Iraq to find a solution to the mess there. The Iraq Study Group is made up entirely of people who thought the war was a good idea and have since been proven dead wrong, yet most of the elites in this country are falling all over themselves to embrace the ISG and its findings.

Russ Feingold (one of the few people in politics with any sense) made this point last night on Countdown, here.

He (and I) also wonders why no one representing the rather sizable contigent of Americans who have always believed this war was a mistake is ever included in any discussion among political elites of the future course of this war. I think the that the Dirty Hippie Caucus might have the right solutions since they had the right viewpoint from the start.

Instead, our elected leaders, even the smart new Democrats who will take charge of Congress next month, are going to throw their lot in with the people who have gotten everything wrong from the beginning. Why? Because it makes everyone look friendly and nice? Because it makes everyone look like they are trying to get along? Because it makes everyone look bipartisan and centrist and not like a dirty fucking hippie?

Relying on the ISG to solve all our problems is an extremely foolish thing to do because a) the ISG recommendations will not improve a damn thing in Iraq; b) the American people want to see lots of our troops coming home NOW; c) the ISG was never meant to find a solution to what is happening in Iraq (its purpose is to find a political solution to save Bush's ass here); and d) the people who have gotten everything wrong before will continue to get everything wrong!

So again, I ask, why are we listening to these people???

Webb and the Class Struggle

2006-11-17T14:29:00.000-05:00

I'm really starting to like the new Senator from Virginia...

Workers Unite!

Class Struggle American workers have a chance to be heard.
BY JIM WEBB
Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

The most important--and unfortunately the least debated--issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1% now takes in an astounding 16% of national income, up from 8% in 1980. The tax codes protect them, just as they protect corporate America, through a vast system of loopholes.
Incestuous corporate boards regularly approve compensation packages for chief executives and others that are out of logic's range. As this newspaper has reported, the average CEO of a sizeable corporation makes more than $10 million a year, while the minimum wage for workers amounts to about $10,000 a year, and has not been raised in nearly a decade. When I graduated from college in the 1960s, the average CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today, that CEO makes 400 times as much.
In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn't happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth. At the same time, medical costs have risen 73% in the last six years alone. Half of that increase comes from wage-earners' pockets rather than from insurance, and 47 million Americans have no medical insurance at all.
Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Many earned pension programs have collapsed in the wake of corporate "reorganization." And workers' ability to negotiate their futures has been eviscerated by the twin threats of modern corporate America: If they complain too loudly, their jobs might either be outsourced overseas or given to illegal immigrants.
This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation's most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the "rough road of capitalism." Others claim that it's the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism.
Still others have gone so far as to argue that these divisions are the natural results of a competitive society. Furthermore, an unspoken insinuation seems to be inundating our national debate: Certain immigrant groups have the "right genetics" and thus are natural entrants to the "overclass," while others, as well as those who come from stock that has been here for 200 years and have not made it to the top, simply don't possess the necessary attributes. Most Americans reject such notions. But the true challenge is for everyone to understand that the current economic divisions in society are harmful to our future. It should be the first order of business for the new Congress to begin addressing these divisions, and to work to bring true fairness back to economic life. Workers already understand this, as they see stagnant wages and disappearing jobs.
America's elites need to understand this reality in terms of their own self-interest. A recent survey in the Economist warned that globalization was affecting the U.S. differently than other "First World" nations, and that white-collar jobs were in as much danger as the blue-collar positions which have thus far been ravaged by outsourcing and illegal immigration. That survey then warned that "unless a solution is found to sluggish real wages and rising inequality, there is a serious risk of a protectionist backlash" in America that would take us away from what they view to be the "biggest economic stimulus in world history."
More troubling is this: If it remains unchecked, this bifurcation of opportunities and advantages along class lines has the potential to bring a period of political unrest. Up to now, most American workers have simply been worried about their job prospects. Once they understand that there are (and were) clear alternatives to the policies that have dislocated careers and altered futures, they will demand more accountability from the leaders who have failed to protect their interests. The "Wal-Marting" of cheap consumer products brought in from places like China, and the easy money from low-interest home mortgage refinancing, have softened the blows in recent years. But the balance point is tipping in both cases, away from the consumer and away from our national interest.

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.
With this new Congress, and heading into an important presidential election in 2008, American workers have a chance to be heard in ways that have eluded them for more than a decade. Nothing is more important for the health of our society than to grant them the validity of their concerns. And our government leaders have no greater duty than to confront the growing unfairness in this age of globalization.
Mr. Webb is the Democratic senator-elect from Virginia.

Lame Duck Status

2006-11-08T08:05:00.000-05:00

Congratulations, George (and Karl). You've earned it.

The GOP Hates Democracy

2006-11-06T17:32:00.000-05:00

Faced with heavy losses in the House and possible loss of control of the Congress, the GOP has reverted to its most natural and base form - that of a totalitarian apparatus.

All for Power, and Power Only for Them.

Who's more dangerous?

2006-11-03T07:48:00.000-05:00

The terrorists trying to attack this country or the clowns who run it?

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to “leverage the Internet” to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

But in recent weeks, the site has posted some documents that weapons experts say are a danger themselves: detailed accounts of Iraq’s secret nuclear research before the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The documents, the experts say, constitute a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

-----

“For the U.S. to toss a match into this flammable area is very irresponsible,” said A. Bryan Siebert, a former director of classification at the federal Department of Energy, which runs the nation’s nuclear arms program. “There’s a lot of things about nuclear weapons that are secret and should remain so.”

-----

The campaign for the online archive was mounted by conservative publications and politicians, who said that the nation’s spy agencies had failed adequately to analyze the 48,000 boxes of documents seized since the March 2003 invasion.

-----

In Europe, a senior diplomat said atomic experts there had studied the nuclear documents on the Web site and judged their public release as potentially dangerous. “It’s a cookbook,” said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of his agency’s rules. “If you had this, it would short-circuit a lot of things.”

-----

A senior American intelligence official who deals routinely with atomic issues said the documents showed “where the Iraqis failed and how to get around the failures.” The documents, he added, could perhaps help Iran or other nations making a serious effort to develop nuclear arms, but probably not terrorists or poorly equipped states.

-----

The campaign for the Web site was led by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan. Last November, he and his Senate counterpart, Pat Roberts of Kansas, wrote to Mr. Negroponte, asking him to post the Iraqi material.

The incompetence of the GOP is really astounding. So much so that one may ask oneself, "Is it really possible for the leaders of the most powerful nation in the history of the world to do something this stupid by accident?"

So does this make George Bush a "cut-n-runner"?

2006-11-01T08:48:00.000-05:00

When they stand up, we'll stand down:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki demanded the removal of American checkpoints from the streets of Baghdad on Tuesday, in what appeared to be his latest and boldest gambit in an increasingly tense struggle for more independence from his American protectors.

Is this what the Generals told Commander Codpiece he should do?

The language of the declaration, which implied that Mr. Maliki had the power to
command American forces, seemed to overstep his authority and to be aimed at
placating his Shiite constituency.

I say if al-Maliki wants to run the show, fine. Let's bring our troops home.

George W. Bush, a failure at everything he has ever tried.

Can't Dismantle 217 Years of Contstitutional Government Fast Enough

2006-10-20T13:55:00.000-04:00

Before the ink was dry on Bush's signature the DOJ rushed over to rub the torture bill in the Judiciary's face. Habeas who?

Moving quickly to implement the bill signed by President Bush this week that authorizes military trials of enemy combatants, the administration has formally notified the U.S. District Court here that it no longer has jurisdiction to consider hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed by inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

How long before this is used on a US citizen?

Beyond those already imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, the law applies
to all non-U.S. citizens, including permanent U.S. residents.

I think that sentence is a little to certain - the bill does leave the door open for US citizens to be classified as enemy combatants, and thus, to fall under this statute.

And even if you aren't a US citizen, certain basic human rights are guaranteed. That's what a "society of laws" means. Yes, there are some very bad people down at Gitmo, but that doesn't justify the US government's abandonment of moral and legal principal.

We don't have to piss our pants just because these very bad people want to attack us and kill a lot of people - we don't need to suspend or repeal the Constitution to protect this nation. Anyone who thinks this is a coward and a fascist. They are probably also a republican.

And the first set of electrodes goes to...

2006-10-17T12:18:00.000-04:00

I see we already have several new candidates for the first "terrorists" to be "detained" under King George's new torture law.

A coalition of religious groups staged a protest against the bill outside the White House, shouting "Bush is the terrorist" and "Torture is a crime." About 15 of the protesters, standing in a light rain, refused orders to move. Police arrested them one by one.

Tyrant

2006-10-06T07:43:00.000-04:00

Is there a way to shit on the Constitution that the Bush Administration hasn't tried?

President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit the Homeland Security Department reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watchlists.

In the law Bush signed Wednesday Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.
But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."

If the Congress passes a law, the President has to obey that law. It's pretty simple. He can't exempt himself from whatever law he chooses.

These are very bad people and they endanger all of us with their tyrannical actions.

There's more of them?

2006-10-04T10:00:00.000-04:00

You have got to be kidding me...

"People are very, very concerned," Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., said Tuesday night. "I think there are going to be more disclosures." "We have heard rumors that other, similar activity has occurred involving additional congressmen and will be released prior to the November elections," said the Arlington Group, a coalition of 70 pro-family conservative
groups.

Had Enough?

2006-10-04T07:53:00.000-04:00

How much more of this are we going to have to take?

At least 17 US soldiers have been killed around Iraq since Saturday, including eight in a single day in Baghdad, the US military announced, saying the toll had brought "a tragic day". The toll represents a dramatic spike for US casualties in Iraq which generally average no more than a couple of wounded a day, especially for the Baghdad-based forces.

Very Bad People

2006-10-04T07:46:00.000-04:00

The Los Angeles Times reports that Foley's interest in nubile pages was well-known to both pages and congressman.

In interviews with the Los Angeles Times, several current and former congressional employees and others said they recalled Foley approaching young male pages, aides and interns at parties and other venues.

It also reports that Foley's former aide, now the aide to Tom Reynolds, was basically Foley's chaperone.

Another former staffer said it was an oft-repeated story around Capitol Hill that Foley's former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, would sometimes accompany the congressman to keep him out of trouble.

These people are sick and disgusting...

Who's the Boss?

2006-10-03T14:22:00.000-04:00

Representative Tom Reynolds, chair of the House Republican election campaign made this statement:

Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY), head of the House GOP's political arm, the National Republican Congressional Committee, has also implicated Hastert. "I did what most people would do in a workplace," Reynolds said at a press conference last night, “I heard something, I took it to my supervisor.” (emphasis added)

Uh, don't members of Congress work for the people who live in their congressional district?

Maybe he needs a new supervisor. Or better, his supervisors need a new employee...

Internal Review (a.k.a. Cover Up)

2006-09-30T21:28:00.000-04:00

Josh Marshall's analysis is excellent here:

The entire discussion of the 'internal review' the Speaker's office conducted seems intended to drive home the point that while pretty much the entire GOP House leadership knew about the Foley 'matter', no one beside backbencher Rodney Alexander (R-LA) actually saw the emails.

...

Now, here's the problem as far as I can see this. Supposedly, no one in a position of authority ever lays eyes on these emails, presumably because they're relatively innocuous. But at the same time they can't be seen by anyone else because "family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible." Those two points don't really square in my mind.

....

So everyone's very mindful of the privacy of the family. But somehow Rep. Boehner and Rep. Reynolds found out about it from Rep. Alexander. And Reynolds mentioned it to Hastert. But Hastert doesn't remember. And Boehner told Hastert about it too. And Hastert said it was being taken care of. Only Hastert never heard about it ...

The press release attempts to "walk-back" the assertion that Speaker Hastert and other members of the GOP leadership in the House had any real knowledge that they were protecting and covering up for a pedophile.

From the speakers' press release today:

Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall. During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus. While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold's recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.

No one in the Speaker's Office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the internet this week. In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time.

Oh, and by the way, the Democrat on the Page Board was not informed of anything:

"As the Democratic Member of the House Page Board, any statement by Mr. Reynolds or anyone else that the House Page Board ever investigated Mr. Foley is completely untrue.
"I was never informed of the allegations about Mr. Foley's inappropriate communications with a House Page and I was never involved in any inquiry into this matter.
"The first and only meeting of the House Page Board on this matter occurred on Friday, September 29 at approximately 6 p.m., after the allegations about Mr. Foley had become public."

This is an all-out attempt to ceover-up and kill this story. Something like this, which demonstrates institutional corruption and criminality, can bring down a government. Clinton was impeached for lying about sex. The GOP House leadership is covering up for a pedophile to avoid the rightful consequences of their actions - removal from power and possible criminal prosecution.

These are the men who decide to send Americans off to war in Iraq. They say the warriors are sent to protect freedom. Not the freedom of the people, but the freedom of pasty white fat asses to protect pedophiles and bribers and women-beaters. Oh, and also to rubber-stamp the tyranny of this buffoon.

From the mouths of babes...

2006-09-29T22:39:00.000-04:00

...comes the end of the GOP Majority. Racisits, con-men, and now, pedophiles.

What kind of moral leaders would cover up for a pedophile?

The US Capitol has become a cess pool of corruption and criminality.

Unconstitutional Part II

2006-09-29T13:51:00.000-04:00

Even some Republicans ackowledge the "make Bush dictator" bill is unconstitutional.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), who voted for the bill even after his amendment to preserve certain rights for detainees was defeated, called the proposal "patently unconstitutional on its face."

The Rubber-stamp Congress - vote for unconstitutional bills just because Bush wants more power.

Unconstitutional

2006-09-29T09:03:00.000-04:00

The "Military Tribunals" Act (MTA) passed by the Senate yesterday is unconstitutional. Let's compare the bill's primary stipulations with what appears in the Constitution of the United States:

MTA:
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

CUS:
Article I, Section 9: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

MTA:
The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret — there’s no requirement that this list be published.

CUS:
8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

MTA:
Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.

CUS:
Article I, Section 9: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

MTA:
Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

CUS:

Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

MTA:
Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.

CUS:

8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

MTA:
Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.

CUS:

6th Amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

MTA:
Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

CUS:
8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

In Memoriam

2006-09-29T08:16:00.000-04:00

Please pay your respects here.

Rhetoric Means Nothing Without Action

2006-09-28T19:33:00.000-04:00

The 2006 Torture Act passed tonight despite strong statements of oppostion from the following Congresspersons, among others:

Harry Reid

Hillary Clinton

Barack Obama

John Kerry

Russ Feingold

Chris Dodd

Nancy Pelosi

Pat Leahy

The final vote was 65-34. They couldn't even filibuster it. Eleven Democrats and one Independent sold out the country and helped enthrone the Bush Dictatorship. Here's the list:

Tom Carper (Del.)
Tim Johnson (S.D.)
Mary Landrieu (La.)
Frank Lautenberg (N.J.)
Bob Menendez (N.J)
Bill Nelson (Fla.)
Ben Nelson (Neb.)
Mark Pryor (Ark.)
Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.)
Ken Salazar (Co.)
Debbie Stabenow (Mich.)
Joe Lieberman (Conn.)

Another nail in the coffin of the US Constitution.

I don't understand how the Dems couldn't muster a filibuster. It's depressing. Democrats do a lot of talking, but where are they when it really matters? For these 12, they are in Bush's pocket. God Almighty.

Woodward takes off the rose-colored glasses

2006-09-28T11:32:00.000-04:00

Iraq is in a state of civil war, and it's going to get a lot worse.

When they stand up, we'll stand down...

2006-09-28T10:28:00.000-04:00

The Iraq police academy is "a disaster."

A $75 million project to build the largest police academy in Iraq has been
so grossly mismanaged that the campus now poses health risks to recruits and
might need to be partially demolished, U.S. investigators have found.

The Baghdad Police College, hailed as crucial to U.S. efforts to
prepare Iraqis to take control of the country's security, was so poorly
constructed that feces and urine rained from the ceilings in student barracks.
Floors heaved inches off the ground and cracked apart. Water dripped so
profusely in one room that it was dubbed "the rain forest."

Also, ABC will produce a new mini-series by the people who brought you "Path to 9-11." The new film will be called "Police Academy: The Path to Democracy in Iraq." A rumor has it the opening scene is a world leader landing on an aircraft carrier wearing a giant codpiece.

Sliding Toward Dictatorship

2006-09-27T11:30:00.000-04:00

The interrogation/detainee bill just gets worse and worse. Check it out:

Still another change would purport to eliminate the need to comply with the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement for searches conducted in the United States:

[T]he original compromise said that evidence seized "outside the United States" could be admitted in court even if it had been obtained without a search warrant, a provision Republicans and Democrats agreed was necessary to deal with the unusual circumstances of seizing evidence on the battlefield. The bill introduced Monday dropped the words "outside the United States," which Democrats said meant that prosecutors could ignore American legal standards on search warrants within the country.

None of this crap is constitutional. Congress does not have the authority to give the President this power nor to make laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution. Will the Supreme Court ever see a case that would allow them to overturn this if it gets passed? Color me doubtful.

I write an e-letter

2006-09-27T09:39:00.000-04:00

I had to use the web-form on the congressional web sites to send this to the following congresscritters: Allen, Warner, Clinton, Reid, Hagel, Kerry, Obama, Cantor. I was able to e-mail it to Feingold. Here's the letter:

I am writing to urge you to vote against the interrogation/military tribunal/detainee bill. This is one of the most horrible pieces of legislation ever to be considered by the US Congress. It legalizes torture, it violates the Constitution, and it erodes America’s moral authority in the world.

The bill legalizes torture. We’ve all seen the photos from the prisons in Iraq. We’ve read the reports about illegal rendition and “aggressive interrogation” tactics used by the Bush Administration on terror suspects. We’ve seen the false imprisonment of individuals who had nothing to do with terrorism. If any of these things happened to a US citizen or US soldier, we would certainly accuse their captors of torture and violating human dignity. We would demand justice.

Committing these acts in the name of protecting the American people does not make it any less a violation of fundamental human rights. Waterboarding a suspected “evil-doer” is still torture. Detaining people indefinitely with no access to legal relief is still a violation of human rights. Even if torturing someone resulted in information that saved millions of lives, it does not legally excuse the torture or make torture morally right. A nation of laws upholds the law. Those responsible for torture, no matter how justified any of us believe it to be, must be held accountable under the law.

But let’s be honest. We all know that torture…excuse me, “aggressive interrogation”…does not work except in very rare and very critical situations. This administration has used these tactics far too often and far too freely for even the “a single piece of information might save millions” argument to apply. That dog won’t hunt.

Governments that engage in torture must be held accountable. Presidents that order that torture be carried out must be held accountable. By passing this bill, the US Congress not only will refuse to hold this Administration accountable, it will throw its lot in with this President, thereby becoming an accomplice to his crimes. The only lawful, constitutional, and moral course is to vote down this bill.

This nation decided long ago that no individual was above the law. September 11th did not change that. If Congress passes this bill, then it attempts to place the President above the law. This bill will, in essence, give the President the power to do anything in the name of protecting the country from terror with no accountability for his actions. This is unconstitutional. The President does not have the authority to define what torture is and the Congress does not have the authority to empower him to define it. The Congress should either redefine torture specifically or scrap this bill entirely. I urge the latter.

I hear our political leaders say we are a nation of laws. How then, is torture lawful? I hear from some of our political leaders that we are a Christian nation. Then, is torture a Christian value? I hear from our political leaders that we are a nation of freedom and liberty. In what way does torture make us freer?

Think about your oath of office. How can you honestly tell your constituents you have fulfilled your oath if you have not aggressively worked to defeat this bill? The bill is a violation of the Constitution and it is a moral abomination. The only moral action here is to do everything in your power to stop this bill from passing.

Torture is wrong. I urge you to stop this bill.

Angry Preznit

2006-09-26T14:36:00.000-04:00

He's P-I-S-S-E-D!!!

Here's Angry Preznit on releasing the Classified National Intelligence Estimate alleged to say that the war in Iraq has made the US less safe:

It will stop all the speculation, all the politics about somebody saying something about Iraq; you know, somebody trying to confuse the American people about the nature of this enemy

Right. I'm sure no one will have anything to say about Iraq after reading it. It's a "slam-dunk!" Bush also says:

We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this
war.

So, first it's "somebody" who is leaking the report for partisan political purposes, then it's "the enemy" using lies and propoganda to dictate how we "win" the war.

Are these the comments of an adult human being? It doesn't even make any sense, but there will surely be some morons who read this as anyone who says the NIE says such-and-such is an "enemy." GOPers, you have your script!

Commander Codpiece really needs to get his rage under control. What a weak, petty little clown.

Today in Freedom:

2006-09-26T13:57:00.000-04:00

A Senator gives an ode to freedom...

A Congressman gives an ode to protecting Freedom...

A blogger gives an ode to protecting Freedom...

A General gives an ode to protecting Freedom...

This has been "Today in Freedom"

HULK SMASH!!!

2006-09-26T07:50:00.000-04:00

Click here and then play the video.

Ah, Constitutionally protected rights...

2006-09-26T07:32:00.000-04:00

Remember when they were important and human rights were something the US promoted and tried to safeguard? Good times...

In the Post-9/11 world, Republicans believe that only by destroying freedom can we save it from TERRA!

More here.

I Write Another Letter

2006-09-22T13:51:00.000-04:00

Bravo Mr. Somerby:

Bravo!

Your work over the last 7-plus years has been superlative, but this piece rises above even your own lofty standards. I've watched Broder for years on MTP pander to the criminals now in charge of this country. Criminals, as you point out, he helped put in place.

I read this most recent column of his and I see a lazy, inept, bitter old man who perhaps finally realizes just how horrible a mistake he has made. I wonder how difficult it is for him to clean his soiled britches now that he's realized he's helped empower a "reckless, lawless" administration.

On the other hand, it could all just be a ruse. Wouldn't be the first time! The realization that his abuse of the lofty position of "Dean of the Capitol Press Corps" has enabled a would-be tryant to tear away the last vestiges of democracy from the fabric of this nation may be too much for the old clown to comprehend or to bare. No, if he points the finger and screams "RECKLESS, LAWLESS!" loud enough, in his mind perhaps he absolves himself of any blame for the current predicament. "No one could have seen this coming! How could this have happened?"

The Dean is a vile old bastard. He and his cohort turned a blind eye for the last six years while a would-be boy-king and his minions trashed the Republic. For shame.

Best.

Inspect This

2006-09-22T07:48:00.000-04:00

On my way home from work last night, Deputy Barney Fife himself pulled me over in my own neighborhood because I don't have a state inspection sticker. How do I know it was Barney Fife? Well, he was shaking as he walked up to the car and he didn't know what the fine was for my "offense" or the methods in which I could pay it. Oh, and he looked like he was 12.

So, according to Deputy Fife, if I get a state inspection done by my court date (that's right, you have to go to fucking court for a $15 infraction), the violation will be forgiven. So, now I have to find a mechanic who gives good inspection. Let's put it this way, I want to go in, pay $15, and ten minutes later walk out with the damn decal. If I go somewhere and they tell me I need $300 in mainenance to pass inspection, I might just go postal.

And for the record, the inspection law is one of the worst abuses of government regulation known to human kind. It does nothing to improve vehicle safety or protect the environment. It's essentially legalized extortion. The large corporations that own most franchised repair shops dump cash into politicians' campaign funds, the politicians put this law in place and direct law enforcement to emphasize enforcement of it, and you and I get hosed. We have to comply with the law by having some mechanic tell us ten diffferent things that have to be repaired or we fail inspection. "Mr. Hippocrat, item #15 on the list of things we've found - wiper blades are worn, $50 to replace." Hence, a $300 repair bill and big profits for the CEOs and corporate boards.

Most government functions in this country today are a result of the corporate sector buying government power and using it to transfer wealth from the middle and working class to the super wealthy. That is why I am not a down-the-line liberal - government is far too invasive and far too powerful. I am against the concentration of power, regardless of the cause or purpose.

I Write Letters

2006-07-16T14:23:00.000-04:00

An e-mail I just sent to Anne Kornblut of the New York Times:

This is the beginning of your piece entitled "Clinton, in Arkansas, Says Democrats Are 'Wasting Time'" dated July 16, 2006:

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, returning to her red-state ties, chastised Democrats Saturday for taking on issues that arouse conservatives and turn out Republican voters rather than finding consensus on mainstream subjects.

Without mentioning specific subjects like gay marriage, Mrs. Clinton said: “We do things that are controversial. We do things that try to inflame their base.”

“We are wasting time,” the senator told a group of Democratic women here, on part of a two-day swing through a state that could provide an alternate hub to New York if she starts a national political campaign."

Here's what she actually said:

"You have to ask yourself, we have all these problems, and we have solutions sitting out there, why can't we move in the right direction? And it really comes down to a difference in values and philosophy. You know the nine women Democratic Senators, anybody see us on Larry King's show? We put out what we call our Checklist for Change. I don't know about you, but I am a list maker. I guess it's like a part of the DNA for women. I make lists about lists. And so we were talking one day and saying, you know, we as individuals, we have all of this legislation, we can't get it on the floor of the Senate. We can't get a vote on it because the Republican majority wants to vote on other things. So we pulled all our best ideas together. Wouldn't this be a good agenda for America: safeguard America's pensions; good jobs for Americans; make college affordable for all; protect America and our military families; prepare for future disasters; make America energy independent; make small business and healthcare affordable, invest in life saving science; and protect our air, land, and water. You know, Blanche Lincoln has a bill to make healthcare affordable for small business, I have a bill I was talking to you about with respect to energy independence, we have legislation sitting in the Senate to address these problems. But with the Republican majority, that's not their priority. So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates. I think we are wasting time, we are wasting lives, we need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way." You should take this piece down and issue a correction. You owe Senator Clinton and your readers an apology. Emphasis added

The Senator is clearly pointing at the Republican majority when she levels her criticism about nothing substantitve coming out of this Congress, not her fellow Democrats. Your article grossly distorts her message in order to fit it into the script you and you millionaire pundit cohort have developed - i.e., that the fringe left of the Democratic party hates Hillary and she's got to play to the red-state voters if she wants to be President. It's a joke. It's the GOP that brings up gay marriage, flag-burning, and all of these social issues that are not high in the list of prorities of the average American. That's what the Senator is getting at.

How many more times is the NYT going to be intimidated by the right-wing accusations of treason before it stands up and fights back? How many times are you going to spew the GOP's talking points before you realize that no amount of kissing the right's behind is going to stop their using the NYT as a punching bag?

How much longer are you going to make the decent Americans in this country put up with this pathetic political discourse that you keep shoving in our faces? How much more of this garbage are we going to have to take?

Armageddon

2006-07-15T16:19:00.000-04:00

Those that celebrate the coming of Armageddon will be the first to be cast into the pit of fire.

K My A, Part II

2006-05-06T20:11:00.000-04:00

First, it is widely reported that Patrick Kennedy is battling addiction to pain killers and this would have something to do with his accident at the Capitol. So naturally, for the mainstream media, this development makes the story bigger than the landing on the moon.

Hey, isn't there a big-time right-wing gas bag with the same problem (no, not this problem) - except that he pleaded guilty to a crime related to his problem so why isn't this an even bigger story than one involving Ted Kennedy's kid?

Second, Laura Rozen reports over at her blog "War and Piece" that there is much, much more to Goss' resignation than most of media is willing to discuss, here and here.

The Mainstream Media Can Kiss My Ass

2006-05-05T14:09:00.000-04:00

Which is the bigger story?

A) At least six current and former members of the US Congress are tied up in a bribery scandal involving tons of cash, hookers, and the Watergate Hotel of all places, or

B) A single-car fender-bender involving a lone Congressman having a bad reaction to sleep medication?

If you go to CNN.com, MSNBC.com, or FAUX News, you'd get the idea that it's B. And you'd also get played for a complete and total fool. I can't imagine what these douchebags are saying on their cable networks.

It just goes on and on, day after day. The media just can't accept that MOST OF THE COUNTRY believes that this administration and the foppish clowns who report on it for the big media are completely untrustworthy and have sold us all out for money and power.

PS - And not a peep from any of the three regarding the fact that Porter Goss is neck-deep in the scandal described in choice A and perhaps this is why he's stepping down. Read their write-ups of his resignation and try to believe they completely ignored this little piece of dynamite.

PPS - Jesus Christ it took Bob Barr of all people to invoke the name of Duke Cunningham. Un-EFFING-believable.

UPDATE: Jennifer Loven's AP article on Goss has no mention of Goss' connection to the Cunningham Scandal. Now, google her name and see how much the right-wing has beaten up on her in the moronosphere. A little 'working-the-refs' strategy pays off. -2:44PM

Coming Full-Circle

2006-04-28T11:34:00.000-04:00

And yes, that title was just too easy. Speaking of easy, it looks like several members of the GOP Congress have been a little loosey with their doodles.

Could our current CIA Director be part of the possey?

Yes, it's been fifteen long years since the whole GOP obsession with Clenis' sexual escapades began. Now, finally, the most powerful of all the incarnations of Supreme Being-ness has finally said "Enough is Enough."

At long last, the Most Powereful Lord-God Schadenfreude and his only-begotten Son, Poetic Justice, have come to cast Satan (a.k.a Hypocrisy) and his GOP minions into the Pit of Fire.

Finally, a GOP-scandal the mainstream media will actually be interested in investigating to the fullest extent possible. This is going to be better than a Bill O'Reilly novel!

Hat-tip to the Poor Man Institute for the Divine Revelation.

Gee, this is surprising

2006-04-28T09:51:00.000-04:00

From an article at CNNMoney:

Chevron pumps higher profit American oil company beats estimates on surging crude prices.
April 28, 2006: 9:16 AM EDT NEW YORK
(Reuters) - Chevron Corp., the No. 2 U.S. oil company, posted a sharp rise in quarterly profit Friday, boosted by a strong surge in crude oil prices. Net income in the first quarter increased to $4 billion, or $1.80 a share, from $2.7 billion, or $1.28, in the year-earlier period.
Analysts, on average, expected a profit of $1.78 a share, according to Reuters Estimates. Chevron (Research) revenue jumped to $54.62 billion from $41.61 a year
earlier. Oil and gas companies are enjoying an unusually robust quarter, propelled largely by the surge in oil prices due to fears of supply disruptions and booming demand.

Assholes.

On Presidential Power

2006-04-08T18:59:00.000-04:00

As a person with a Master's in public administration and a BA in history, I've followed the emerging revelations regarding the Bush Administration's use of power in the pursuit of it's administrative and political goals. As a student of government, and the history of American government specifically, I've watched the federal government claim greater and greater authority in the name of security, only to see this authority used for partisan political purposes, or even worse, for personal enrichment. Over the last few months, it has become clear that the current administration sees no limit to its authority.

To put it more bluntly, the current government claims to possess unlimited power. This is unacceptable - no government, under any circumstances, should ever have this power. It is never used to protect and defend -- the oath of any federal office holder. It is only sought for the worst reasons. It leads to oppression and suffering. In all cases - history is replete with examples. As a nation, we are on a dangerous and dire path. We must change directions suffer the judgment of history as the generation that failed the great American experiment. Atrios spots this post, which I think is right on the money (referencing testimony given by AG Gonzales to the United States Congress):

This theory, taken to its logical conclusions, gives the President the ability to treat anyone living in the United States, including particularly U.S. citizens, as wartime enemies without having to prove their disloyalty to anyone outside the executive branch. In so doing, it offers him what can only be called dictatorial powers-- that is, the power to suspend ordinary civil liberties protections on his say so. The limits on what the President may do under this theory are entirely political-- the question is whether the American people will stand for what the President has done if they discover what he has done in their name. But if the American people don't know what their executive is doing, they can hardly be in a position to object. And so the President has tried to keep secret exactly what he has done under the unreasonable and overreaching theory of Presidential power that his Administration has repeatedly asserted in its legal briefs and public statements.

Attorney General Gonzales' latest admission should hardly surprise us once we understand how much power the President actually thinks he has. Given that we will probably never know what the President has been doing in our name, we can only hope that he has not actually tried to exercise all the power he (wrongfully) thinks he possesses.

Even worse, a majority of the current Congress will not refute this claim. This is insane. How can the US Congress, historically always jealous of executive power, not rise up in open opposition against such a claim? This should transcend party lines. If the administration ignores the Congress, then every single administration initiative should be ignored by Congress in return. A little belligerence can go a long way. Oh, yea, impeachment articles should be drafted too. And a hearing wouldn't hurt either.

But this Congress won't do that. Even most of the Democrats won't do it. A few, like Fiengold in the Senate and a few others in the House are fighting. But most are afraid of sliding in the polls by supporting something as mild as censure. Well, here's a little news for them - most Americans want someone to put this administrations in its place. If this Congress is unwilling to protect the Constitution, then we need a new Congress that will. The people already see that, and I believe, will act on it.

The seeds of the November revolution are being sewn. Let's hope it's not too late.

We Don't Care

2006-02-23T10:08:00.000-05:00

President George W. Bush on the port agreement with UAE:

This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America.

He's clearly not concerned. Now watch this drive.....

I Can't Take It Anymore

2006-02-22T13:59:00.000-05:00

I give up. I can't take it anymore. Everytime I turn around another piece of this country is being acquired, sold, or given away. Now Mister "I'll do whatever it takes to protect Amurca" is going to give our ports over to a company owned by a government whose royal family fraternizes with a guy who is actively trying to kill as many of us as he can. Read it and weep:

The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan, the agency's director, George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks in the United States on Thursday.

Money. Get your hands off of my stash.

"Horseshit and Elbow Grease"

2005-12-02T23:00:00.000-05:00

I highly recommend "Homecoming." It's on Showtime's Masters of Horror series. It's great.

I Write a Letter

2005-11-21T12:33:00.000-05:00

An e-mail I recently sent to a friend currently serving in Iraq:

I was thinking about you when I read Murtha's speech regarding the war. I am glad you are aware of what's happening here. What struck me most about his comments was the fact that, as an 'insider' he almost certainly would not make such a bold and controversial statement without having thoroughly discussed his concerns with his associates in the defense establishment, or without a strong feeling that he was taking a position that wouldn't be considered by serious people as extreme. He strikes me as a reasonable man, and a man fully informed about the consequences of the use of American military power.

I watched the floor debate in the House Friday evening when the sham "Murtha Resolution" was introduced (it basically said 'let's just cut-and-run'), and it was deeply disturbing and disappointing. I found Murtha's actual proposal well thought-out and worthy of honest debate - as it would open the door to a debate about just what our role should be in Iraq over the next two or three years. It is a national discussion that we most sorely need. With the Administration so weakened politically, and with the public no longer taking the Administration's word for granted, in my judgment it is the natural course for us as a national citizenry to reevaluate our role in Iraq. Instead, what the Cabal in the House arranged was a farce. The comments by the Ohio rep (the one who barely defeated veteran Paul Hackett in Sept) made a complete mockery of the entire House and of our public discourse. And it was all orchestrated.

It is quite clear that our political leaders (and I'm limiting this term to mean those who really control the instruments of power) are unwilling to engage the public in discussion of the real policy issues relating to this war. Forget for a moment the issue of whether we should be there or not, or why we went in or any of the other post-mortem issues. Just on the issue of what should we be doing today and tomorrow, most of our leaders simply are unwilling to have a real honest discussion and debate. It's all politics.

The American people are far ahead of their elected leaders on the war - and Murtha rightly pointed that out. The public wants to reevaluate and honestly debate this war and then decide on a strategy that serves the best purposes. That is what I believe. I also believe that having an honest discussion of the war will go a long way to restoring the public's confidence that we can, ultimately, find an acceptable solution - both political and humanitarian.

But, what is occurring, it seems to me, is an age-old tactic of repression - take the reasonable objections (of reasonable people) to the status quo and equate them with uber-extreme ideologies to stifle change or alteration. Make patriots into traitors, decent men into pariahs, liars and cheats into the guardians of virtue. This is dangerous.

Who's to say that after an honest debate occurs, that a renewed commitment to success in Iraq is not agreed to by all? Why is it that those opposed to a debate think that "debate" equals "cut-and-run" or cowardice? Maybe through honest dialogue we find a solution where everyone wins. How could that be a bad thing? Maybe it's true, maybe wise men are protecting us from ourselves and what horror we might unleash if we go down this road of honest assessment. But if they were so wise, why are things not going better?

As I said, a majority of people in this country are ready to examine this war from top to bottom so that we find a solution that serves everyone, or at least as many people as possible. At some point, the public will tire of politicians who refuse to recognize this. I only hope that this tipping point occurs soon - both for our own interests and for those of the millions of Iraqis whose very lives hang in the balance.

America: Welcome to the Michael Moore Wing!

2005-11-17T22:21:00.000-05:00

Scott Mclellan made this statement today for the C+ Augustus Administration:

Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic party. The eve of an historic democratic election in Iraq is not the time to surrender to the terrorists. After seeing his statement, we remain baffled -- nowhere does he explain how retreating from Iraq makes America safer.

In other words, the Administration believes that a majority of the people of this country inhabit the Michael Moore wing of the Democratic party. That's it boys and girls, keep on attacking the position that most Americans have taken. Just don't whine to us Michael Moore-wingers when you find yourselves the minority party a year from now.

UPDATE (10:55pm): Armando at Daily Kos has more - Mclellan thinks most Americans are surrender-monkeys!

Reeling from the strong indictment by Rep. John Murtha of the Bush Administration's Iraq Debacle, Scott McClellan appears to have lost his sanity completely. He now accuses the majority of the American People of being traitors.

And check out the Newsweek poll:

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Nov. 10-11, 2005. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
"We'd like your opinion of the way George W. Bush is handling certain aspects of his job. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

Approve 30%

Disapprove 65%

Unsure 5%

Way to win back the public's support!

Finally - The Speech I've Been Waiting For

2005-11-17T22:06:00.000-05:00

Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha's speech calling for the immediate redeployment of US troops from Iraq. I've been waiting for someone in a leadership position to make this statement:

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us.

Maybe now the rest of the Democrats will line up with Murtha and give the American public a real alternative in the '06 midterms.

Revisionist History

2005-11-17T12:53:00.000-05:00

Being one who opposed the war before it started, I am not affected by the Administration's criticism of those who voted in favor of the Iraq Resolution but now oppose the Administration's conduct of the war.

And because I have a B.A. in history, I feel I am more qualified to discuss the history of events leading up to this conflict than Preznit C+ Augustus. Of course, I'm also efficient, so I can make use of the information that's out there for everyone to see. Here's a taste from Knight-Ridder:

ASSERTION: In his speech, Bush noted that "more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate - who had access to the same intelligence - voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."

CONTEXT: This isn't true.

The Congress didn't have access to the President's Daily Brief, a top-secret compendium of intelligence on the most pressing national security issues that was sent to the president every morning by former CIA Director George Tenet.

As for prewar intelligence on Iraq, senior administration officials had access to other information and sources that weren't available to lawmakers.

Cheney and his aides visited the CIA and other intelligence agencies to view raw intelligence reports, received briefings and engaged in highly unusual give-and-take sessions with analysts. Moreover, officials in the White House and the Pentagon received information directly from the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an exile group, circumventing U.S. intelligence agencies, which greatly distrusted the organization.

The INC's information came from Iraqi defectors who claimed that Iraq was hiding chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, had mobile biological-warfare facilities and was training Islamic radicals in assassinations, bombings and hijackings.

The White House emphasized these claims in making its case for war, even though the defectors had shown fabrication or deception in lie-detector tests or had been rejected as unreliable by U.S. intelligence professionals.
All of the exiles' claims turned out to be bogus or remain unproven. (Emphasis added)

One other point - a recent Wall St. Journal/NBC News poll and an AP-Ipsos poll found 57% of Americans believe the Administration misled the country in the lead-up to the war. Does this Administration really want to get into this debate by calling nearly three-fifths of the country "dishonest and reprehensible."

Fitz Goofed! Recite the New Pleasing Narrative!

2005-11-16T22:37:00.000-05:00

Now we have real drama! I thought up some pleasing headlines:

"Libby Wasn't First to Reveal Plame to Reporters!"

"Fitz's Case in Shambles!"

"Bush and Everything He's Ever Done - Justified!"

Woodward creates Deep Throat, Jr., so the press must indulge in this lunacy. First mentioned by ABC News (by the pretty Elizabeth Vargas) earlier, and now in the WaPo. From the Washinton Post.com:

Woodward testified Monday that contrary to Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's public statements, a senior government official -- not Libby -- was the first Bush administration official to tell a reporter about Plame and her role at the CIA.

Wow - compelling! Fitz didn't know about Woodward! I almost want to start a 'Free Scooter' Movement!

Surely, Fitz is an incompetent. Good thing the Corpse hasn't been giving him repeated tounge baths regarding his meticulousness and attention to detail.

Of course, Fitz never said that Libby was the first to reveal Plame to reporters. He said on the day of the indictments Libby was the first known official to do so as of that time. But that doesn't stop the press from pursuing their newest pleasing narrative!

When I read this Woodward piece at the WaPo, it jumped of the screen at me. I guess an open-and-shut case against Scooter wasn't going to be interesting enough for the Corpse, so they are going to manufacture the drama.

It's appalling what our modern discourse as evolved into over the last several years.

Republicans are tyrants, but the Democrats are enablers.

2005-05-25T09:30:00.000-04:00

So a group of moderates (read conservatives) made a deal on judges and the Radical Repugnicans are already talking about breaking it, here and here. How stupid can the Democrats be? Did Reid really expect the Frist to hold to the deal? The Democrats just won’t learn. You can’t make deals with a group of people (Republicans) who do not understand the meaning of the word “trust.”

The problem with the Democrats, in my view, is that they are simply too committed to maintaining their place in the current system and will salvage any scrap of perceived progress to keep from losing that place. The ruthless Repugnicans are too adept at this game for the Democrats to fathom. So the R’s threaten the Dems in the Senate with something they have absolutely no authority to do, and they likely couldn’t actually pull off anyway, so that they can eviscerate the role of the opposition, knowing that the Dems are predisposed to compromising to avoid losing big.

So the Dems promise not to filibuster except only in extreme cases in order to be allowed to filibuster at all. They will also allow several extremely unacceptable nominees to go through. So what exactly have the Dem preserved? If Owens and Brown are not “extreme cases,” then which nominees would be? When exactly can the Dems filibuster now? And by giving up the previously filibustered nominees, the Dems all but conceded that political expediency trumps principle. “Well, these nominees are only worth filibustering if we aren’t threatened with losing our rights as the minority party and the opposition.”

That’s horse manure.

Any moron would see that the Repugs will break their part of the deal the first chance they get. And they will go all over TV and radio saying it was the Dems who broke the deal! It’s so F-ING OBVIOUS.

Nice job, folks, you pissed away any sort of useful opposition to the extreme right wing so that you go to sleep at night thinking you preserved your place in the system.

The Democrats are not the solution; they are part of the problem.

Hypocrisy in Full Bloom

2005-05-13T10:10:00.000-04:00

Don't you just love spring? Flowers are blooming, grass is growing, and hypocrisy is shining through in the warm May sun.

A friend sent this hilarious op-ed from the Palm Beach Post.

I responded thusly:

Those damn liberals – they just have NO CLASS (here). All they want to do is practice the politics of personal destruction (here and here). It doesn’t matter how much of a lying, corrupt hypocrite I am (here). When a liberal attacks my personal life, it’s a character assassination that weakens the security of the country (here and here), hurts our troops (here), and aids the terrorists (and here).

Baseball Blog

2005-05-08T19:36:00.000-04:00

I started a baseball-only blog called Nationals Pastime. The main focus of the blog will be to keep up with the Washington Nationals, but I'll also put some more general baseball items up as well.

Check it out!

Progressives Should State Their Core Theme First

2005-05-03T16:46:00.000-04:00

As the Social Security debate unfolds, I’ve grown a little frustrated with my fellow progressives. This new front in the battle to save the heart of the New Deal opened when Bush proposed turning this successful and not-so-much-in-trouble-as-we’ve-been-told universal social insurance program into a large, elderly-focused welfare program. After he laid out “reform” ideas last week, many of the interested parties have delved into discussing things like progressive indexing, or income classes, or investment options. Congresspeople have been on TV, pundits have written articles in newspapers, and activists have blogged and blogged about the endless details.

Progressives are opposed to the President’s plans and for good reason – the very core of the New Deal and modern liberalism is threatened with annihilation if Bush and the GOP get their way. Yet, when progressives go on TV or write articles in newspapers or on web sites, I’ve noticed that most of them don’t start the argument with this fundamental core belief. They jump right into technical reasons why Bush’s plan is misleading, or wrong, or just won’t work. They get wonky.

Now I’m not saying that this is a total waste of time and energy – there is a time and a place to make technical and reasoned arguments for defending the current Social Security system and opposing the changes proposed by Bush, his corporate masters, and some in the GOP. I do not think, though, that these arguments motivate the general public to support our views as well as they could. Why do I think this?

I believe the Democrats have failed to win the support of a majority of the voters in the last two presidential elections and the last six congressional election cycles because they did not begin their arguments with a clear, underlying set of values to frame the context of their message, and why their way was the only real alternative to the GOP’ swath of destruction. And they risk losing support on Social Security for the same reason.

Bush has cleverly turned the discussion from incurring trillions in debt by starting up private accounts to increasing the benefits for the poor (with no mention of the debt that would be incurred). That is, the argument shifts from an unpopular (as in it didn’t poll well) idea to a popular one. Of course, his plan doesn’t do a damned thing for the poor, and it screws almost everyone else, but that doesn’t matter. What he says gets repeated endlessly by the MSM, so it becomes the reality. And the new message backs Democrats into a corner – either they go along with this scheme or they risk being labeled as hypocrites by the GOP and the press for abandoning the poor.

Again, this past week Democrats fanned out to defend SS with highly complex, technical arguments. Unfortunately, they were utterly incoherent. Nancy Pelosi got nailed on ABC’s This Week because she was not sufficiently prepared – not only did she not lay out a clear, underlying theme for what all progressives stand for regarding SS, but she wasn’t even prepared to handle the technical issues either! Personally, I think Pelosi would be great presenting only the general theme and context of the debate and letting others handle the discussion of the technical details. She’s a decent spokesperson when she sticks to her strengths – assuming she understands that the Democrats do have a core theme.

Democrats cannot expect to win public opinion over with these woeful performances. And it is quite clear that only a handful of Democrats have the capacity to handle the discussions of the complex details once the general theme and context have been established in the first place.

So let’s quit flailing and get on the same page. A clear, concise message must preface all progressive discussion of the Social Security debate. In fact, this message may very well work for almost social and domestic policy discussions.

The Heart of the Matter

Every progressive should start the discussion this way; every Democrat should utter these words; everyone who cares about the future of the country should understand this truth:

George Bush and the Republicans’ ultimate goal is this – they want to destroy the New Deal and return this country to the dark days of the robber barons that preceded the Great Depression. George Bush’s “plan” for Social Security has only one goal – the destruction of Social Security. Every word he and the GOP says and every “idea” he and the GOP lays out comes from their core belief that Social Security cannot be allowed to continue and the New Deal must be wiped out.

This is the theme that must be reinforced over and over and over, by every progressive and Democrat in every public venue. Whenever L’il Russ tosses up one of his sandbag quotes on MTP, have five examples of why the GOP wants to destroy SS and dismantle the New Deal. Trust me, just Google it and the examples will come.

One progressive made a good start of it today. Matt Yglesias, who writes is own blog and contributes on other liberal blogs, slapped a similar argument as the one above on John Fund of the Wall Street Journal Editorial page – a bastion of right-wing corporate cronyism. Read Matt’s discussion here.

Even if the general public doesn’t necessarily think the GOP is as evil as we claim, at least they will understand that Democrats will fight like hell to save Social Security. And the polling data still indicates that the general public likes SS and wants it to be strong. And they don’t trust the GOP on it. When we’ve convinced the public that we know how to protect SS, the GOP will be stopped dead on it, and will carry the baggage of having tried to destroy a very popular American institution. Every progressive candidate should then repeat this fact in 2006 and 2008.

Leave the Table

2005-05-03T11:47:00.000-04:00

Good piece by E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post - finally a liberal pundit gets it!

Bush has refused to put his own tax cuts on the table as part of a Social Security fix. Repealing Bush's tax cuts for those earning more than $350,000 a year could cover all or most of the 75-year Social Security shortfall. Keeping part of the estate tax in place could cover a quarter to half of the shortfall. Some of the hole could be filled in by a modest surtax on dividends or capital gains.

But Bush is resolute about protecting the interests of the truly rich by making sure that any taxes on wealth are ruled out of the game from the beginning. The Social Security cuts he is proposing for the wealthy are a pittance compared with the benefits they get from his tax cuts. The president is keeping his eye on what really matters to him.

.........

Walking away from a rigged game is hard for some people, especially when those running it and the respected opinion-makers who support them insist that this time the game will truly be on the level. But, especially when the danger involves gambling away the future of Social Security, the truly responsible thing is to leave the table.

Bush’s press conference

2005-04-29T10:58:00.000-04:00

I watched the President’s press conference last night and here are a few thoughts.

The line of the night was the comment comparing governing by polls to a dog chasing his own tail. Forget for a moment that this administration clearly does govern by polls (hello Karl!), but could there be a better description for this train wreck of an administration?

Clearly, the current angle of attack on Social Security is to try to reduce benefits. I’ve read in various news articles and blogs that what the president meant by keeping benefits for future generations at least equal to those that seniors receive today was that they’d be adjusted for inflation, but I’m not so sure that he did mean that. I think he could actually mean keeping them equal in real terms – which would be even more disastrous for future beneficiaries. I think he’s that arrogant – he really believes that if he promises to keep benefits at least equal, that the public will swallow it whole and be happy about it.

Talking Points Memo picks up on this whopper of a contradiction during the Social Security discussion:

You don't have to worry about private accounts, he said, because if you want you can fill your account with US Treasury bonds which have no risk at all. They're backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. But he says that the very same Treasury notes, when they're in the Trust Fund, are just worthless IOUs.

And naturally, no reporters followed up on this OBVIOUS contradiction. I’ll do it for them – it’s really not that hard:

Mr. President, how can you justify encouraging Americans to invest in Treasury bonds when you’ve recently said that those same bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund are worthless IOU’s?

His comments about North Korea were so incoherent, it’s frightening. I really would prefer that a President of the United States at least sound like he knows what he’s talking about regarding a hard-line rogue nation that might possibly possess nukes.

I wanted to throw something at the TV when he said he didn’t think opposition to his judges was also being against "people of faith.” Why then is your personal hand-maiden in the Senate (Frist) running around the country saying that it is?

Many of the questions from the press were absolutely ridiculous. Even with Bush at his most unpopular, they are afraid to be aggressive. Who needs fake reporter/GOP life-line Jeff Gannon when the real press is so toothless?

Why Does Big Oil Hate America?

2005-04-28T13:47:00.000-04:00

Set against the backdrop of high fuel costs, today the economic slowdown. Well, while most Americans have less money to spend on other things thanks to the 60% increase in the price of gas, these fortunate companies are literally rolling in moolah:

- USA Today reports "Exxon Mobil said Thursday that first-quarter earnings soared 44% from last year, due mainly to strong crude and natural gas prices...The company's net income surged to $7.86 billion."

- Reuters reports "Royal Dutch/Shell comfortably beat analysts' forecasts to report a 28 percent rise in first-quarter profits, helped by surging oil prices and strong refining margins...The company's earnings rose to $5.548 billion."

- The Houston Chronicle reports "ConocoPhillips, the nation's third-largest oil and gas company, said today that first-quarter earnings soared year-over-year on high oil prices, though they were partially offset by unplanned downtime in the company's exploration and production unit. The company's net income jumped to $2.91 billion."

Are patriotic American oil companies not willing to forgo some of their record profit by keeping prices from rising too high in order to allow other businesses dependent upon fuel to maintain production levels sufficient to keep the economy growing? Are patriotic American oil companies not willing to forgo some of their record profit by keeping prices from rising to high in order to allow the patriotic American consumer - the pillar of the American economy - to have sufficient disposable income so that consumer spending continues to improve?

The high fuel prices are directly responsible for the slowing economy - and it wasn't moving along all that briskly to begin with. So faced with the choice to help America get stronger through economic growth by making a small sacrifice in profit margin or to reap the profits from extremely high fuel prices while likely triggering, if we're lucky, and economic "soft patch" (a recession if we aren't so lucky), these companies have chosen to screw America.

Why does Big Oil hate America?

Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!

2005-04-27T08:33:00.000-04:00

The three-ring circus held this past sunday in Louisville known as "Justice Sunday" was organized by one Tony Perkins. Mr. Perkins it appears, has a long history of pandering to white supremacists. More at the Nation:

Senate majority leader Bill Frist appeared through a telecast as a speaker at "Justice Sunday," at the invitation of the event's main sponsor, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. "Justice Sunday" was promoted as a rally to portray Democrats as being "against people of faith." Many of the speakers compared the plight of conservative Christians to the civil rights movement. But in sharing the stage with Perkins, who introduced him to the rally, Frist was associating himself with someone who has longstanding ties to racist organizations.

There's nothing like the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.

The Radical Right-wing has really done a great job duping the mainstream media into believing as if these people have some strong moral fiber - but the truth is a lot of the people in this movement were segregationists and racists a generation ago. Is it possible they have seen the light and abandoned their prejudice?

Um, no! Look at the language they spewed at this event, and the things they say in the media - they still push hate and intolerance, they've just changed the names that they are calling the groups they are inflicting their venom on.

The End of All Things

2005-04-22T15:24:00.000-04:00

With Ann Coulter, the shrill right-wing pin-up pundit making the cover of Time magazine and receiving what can best be described as a wet, sloppy tongue bath in the form of a cover story by one John Cloud, it’s become quite clear to me that the world has indeed entered into The End of Days.

With Bush safely ensconced in the WH for another four years, the leaders of the Right-wing Machine that currently controls both the government and most major private institutions have begun to impose their full agenda on the Republic. From dismantling Social Security to eviscerating the judiciary to controlling all aspects of private behavior to wrecking international institutions, the right-wing is pursuing its agenda on many fronts.

Being that a well-informed, intelligent populace steeped in common sense would pose a serious challenge to the full implementation of the right-wing vision; the Machine’s masters have spent decades undermining the public’s primary tools for keeping this ever-present Machine in check – an independent press and a free and open discourse – with an endless barrage of defamation and sabotage. Liberal bias has long been the charge used to undermine the public’s confidence in its press. Recent barrages in this long siege, such as Memogate, Fox News and Jeff Gannon, only make a further mockery of public discourse, contributing to the further decline of that essential institution.

Now, here in the spring of 2005, we cross a new threshold of escalation in the War on Public Discourse. The attempt by Time Magazine (owned by Time Warner, one of the largest corporations on the planet) to “mainstream” a fringe character like Coulter signifies the final stage of this conflict. If successful, the acceptance of such a complete buffoon by the general public will signal to the right wing that absolutely nothing is off limits. No behavior by a public servant will seem too corrupt. No amount of presidential deception will be impeachable. No invasion of privacy will be deemed too unwarranted.

And the greatest joy to the right wing – the public will be completely unable to recognize what’s transpiring. The Daily Howler explains:

In just the past five years, the “press corps,” lacking all conviction, has made Gore seem crazy and Coulter seem sane. Their first performance put Bush in the White House; the latter act leads to a pitiless future. Quite plainly, Coulter’s the craziest one of them all—and your denatured “press corps” sends boys out to pimp her, boys who say they can’t find her mistakes! Don’t be fooled—Coulter is the stalking-horse, the test-case to see if there is anything so absurd, so insane, so bizarre, that your modern “press corps” won’t let it be peddled. This week, Time gave its answer: No. The mag said it couldn’t find Coulter’s mistakes—and that her comments are made in good fun.
Powdered, perfumed, disastrously overpaid, your celebrified press corps lacks all conviction. Our question: If your “press corps” won’t even object to this, is there anything they’ll ever confront or challenge? Is there any intellectual or moral tradition they’ll defend; is there any intellectual or moral tradition that will survive their abdication? Your “press corps” clowns at dinner parties, singing “happy birthday” to favorite pols and pretending that they don’t notice the Coulters. (Emphasis Added)

The only thing standing between freedom and a tyranny unlike anything the world has ever seen (thanks to technology) is a public (that is, a body of private citizens who actually believe in the principles of a free society) that is unwilling to accept the concentration of power in the hands of a small minority, and that overcomes even the most insidious attempts to hide or distort the truth. But if the public can believe that Coulter is actually normal or typical, then the war is already over.

And it is not enough for a handful of liberal or progressive intellectuals to point out the unacceptable abdication of responsibility demonstrated by Time and any other entity that bows to the right-wing power mongers. Those opposed to the right-wing machine, or at the least who care more about the principles of a free society, must do battle within their peer groups. Coulter is a lawyer, as are other right-wing radicals who are trying to dismantle the judiciary or bashing it in public (Texas Senator John Cornyn, Justice Scalia).

Where are the many other lawyers out there, especially the conservative ones who actually still believe in the rule of law, fighting back against this attack on their livelihood? How can they not disown a disgrace like Coulter, who hacked her way to prominence by plagiarizing, lying, and breaking every basic rule of editing known to man? Where’s the outrage when a lawyer like Cornyn says that judges bring the violence on themselves for following the rule of law? Where’s the condemnations when Supreme Court Justice Scalia further stains the profession by saying that judges “only have themselves to blame.”

The Daily Howler rightly calls out liberals who fail to publicize and criticize so-called liberals who attacked their own using bogus right-wing spin – he asks why they don’t name names.

Well, I think the same is true in other peer groups. The Bar should be all over hacks like Cornyn, Scalia and Coulter for their nonsense. Bill Frist should have his medical license revoked. But no, everyone’s too nice for that. Why is everyone so gosh darn nice? Well, as afar as it concerns the press, Slate’s Jack Shafer puts it this way:

SHAFER (4/8/05): I started writing press criticism at Washington City Paper back in 1986, because as editor I couldn't get anybody else to do it. Writers were frightened that if they penned something scathing about the Washington Post or the New York Times they'd screw themselves out of a future job.

The Good Ol’ Boy network! I have to be nice or I might not get that job that will allow be to buy that over-priced house or that gas guzzling super-SUV or that vacation at Martha’s Vineyard. Scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours? So this is how it works? With the right-wing Machine, it’s more like: Scratch my back while I rob you blind and burn your house down.

Hypocrisy Award - cue "Rocky Top"

2005-04-19T14:41:00.000-04:00

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) is the latest Hypocrisy Award recipient for his blatant lies about filibuster history now that the record has become quite inconvenient for his presidential ambitions.

The Lies:

In a speech to the Federalist Society arguing against the filibuster, Senator Frist said:

Tonight I want to share with you my thoughts about the filibuster of judicial nominees: it is radical; it is dangerous; and it must be overcome.
The Senate must be allowed to confirm judges who fairly, justly and independently interpret the law. The current Minority has filibustered 10 -- and threatened to filibuster another 6 -- nominees to federal appeals courts. This is unprecedented in over 200 years of Senate history. Never before has a Minority blocked a judicial nominee that has majority support for an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
Never.

….Bob Dole’s Republican Minority didn’t filibuster Democrat Bill Clinton’s nominees.

The Hypocrisy:

Two specific attempts to filibuster Clinton judicial nominees in 2000 failed – that is not enough Republican Senators were willing to join the filibustering minority in order for it to succeed. Furthermore, the filibuster was used to defeat LBJ’s Chief Justice Nominee in 1968 – so it has been done.

Only ten of Bush’s 229 judicial nominees have been successfully filibustered. Because the Dems are the minority, the filibuster is the only check against the ample poor judgment in competence this President has so repeatedly demonstrated (see John Bolton) in his appointments.

And let’s make an important distinction; the Republicans didn’t need to filibuster against Clinton because they were in the majority (beginning in 1995), which means as chairs of the committees overseeing the initial hearings they didn’t even need to bring his nominees up on committee agendas.

Of course, for the first two years of the Bush administration, when the Dems had a one vote majority thanks to Jim Jeffords defection, they returned the favor for the GOP’s not holding hearings on dozens of Clinton nominees by doing the same thing to Bush’s nominees. However, after the GOP returned to majority status in 2003, they have had no excuse for not at least moving these votes to the floor.

The problem for the GOP, though, is the threat of Democratic filibusters means potential embarrassment to the party as well as greater exposure and public scrutiny of some of Bush’s nominees as extremists. This is what they are afraid of, and so we see this urgent need to get rid of the filibuster so they can quickly and quietly continue pandering to the fringe fundamentalist wing of their party.

Frist knows this, and his statements to the Federalist Society, meant for broader public consumption, are patently false. His latest gambit to equate filibustering to being “against people of faith” -Justice Sunday- is yet one more reckless example of political pandering to a small group of fundamentalists bent on remaking the US as a theocratic, authoritarian state.

Hypocrisy Follows the “Expanding Universe Model”

2005-03-29T17:12:00.000-05:00

I like to read articles about astronomy and physics, and many of the articles I’ve read try to answer the question of whether the universe is expanding, and if so, if that expansion is accelerating. Well, based on the evidence I’ve seen in the last five years, I think that in the Hypocritical Universe the answer to that question is an unqualified yes. Each week I am amazed at how rapidly the universe of hypocrisy has expanded.

This item is not only the hypocrisy of the week; it may be the hypocrisy of the year. Rep. Tom Delay of Texas, AKA the Hammer or the Exterminator, took up the fight two weeks ago to have Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube reinserted. Even though a dozen judges have consistently ruled that the husband’s decision to cease life-prolonging treatment was within his rights as her guardian, Delay and his colleagues in Congress decided to intervene to “save Terry.” Delay said “what God has brought to us is Terri Schiavo”…. apparently to battle against death-loving liberals who kill babies and pull the plug on anyone with anything as debilitating as a cold.

Over the weekend, one of the blogs I frequent linked to an LA Times story that revealed Delay himself faced a similar family tragedy several years ago. This story has since made its way into the other major dailies and onto the Internets. Bill Saletan discusses it today in Slate.

No, you are not hallucinating – Saletan talks about how Delay’s family decided against prolonging his own father‘s life when he slipped into a persistent vegetative state. So what happened in the intervening 16 years to not only change Delay’s viewpoint on the issue of a family’s decision to cease life-prolonging medical procedures, but also to use the power of the US Congress to intervene in a state matter and attempt to overrule state courts?

Is it that Delay found Jesus and had a change of heart about such things?

Is it as Saletan argues that Delay sees Terry Schiavo differently than he saw his father because he’s looking at her from a politician’s standpoint while he looked on his father as a son would? Quoting Saletan:

Why the difference between then and now? Maybe because DeLay saw his father as a human being. He speaks of Schiavo as something more and less….

This is what happens when you approach a tragedy as a politician rather than as a family member. You see quality of life as a slippery-slope abstraction, not as a reality affecting someone you love. You find it easy to impose a standard of documentation that would have forced your family to break the law. You second-guess a spouse in a way you would never second-guess your mother. You challenge people's competence and impugn their character. You perceive the afflicted person more as God's tool than as God's child.

A tool Saletan says! So, is it that he found an issue he thought he could work to great political advantage (D’oh!), enabling him to deflect media attention from his myriad of ethical and legal problems while at the same time beating up on those death-loving, baby-killing, godless Democrats?

I look at Delay’s antics over his career and what I see is a corrupt politician who cares nothing for the well-being and dignity of people like Terry Schiavo. His only real passion is for power and dominance over others. If this issue is so important to him morally, then wouldn’t he have been discussing this case for a period longer than the last two weeks? (Can anyone find a mention of it by Delay previous to March 2005? I can’t.)

Saletan covers for Delay by suggesting that because he’s looking at Schiavo as a politician and not as a family member he loses touch with the human tragedy of her and her family’s predicament. That justification doesn’t really cut it for me – it assumes that Delay is simply misguided and that he really has good intentions. Saletan seems to suggest that Delay’s religious beliefs motivate his perception of Schiavo as a tool for furthering the cause of the right-wing Christian-fundamentalists – causes that in their minds (and according to Saletan, also in Delay’s mind) are just and worthy. I would argue that Delay’s moral bankruptcy and totally corrupt thirst for power motivates his perception that the religious right is a tool he can use to maintain his grip on power and that this particular case is just one more string he can tug to manipulate his puppets in this voting bloc.

Tom Delay is a man whose hypocrisy knows no bounds – I sincerely believe that he would use any cause, any ideal, or anyone’s misfortune to feed his own appetite for power. Sadly, he isn’t the only one – there is plenty of competition for the power that exists in this country. If there wasn’t, Delay wouldn’t be fighting so hard to hold it for himself. As long as citizens allow vast amounts of influence and power to consolidate in so few people, Delay and those like him will continue to thirst for possession of it and attempt to destroy those standing in their way.

This consolidation of power is dangerous and runs counter to basic tenets of American democracy. Our founding fathers warned us many, many times against the danger of excessive power – George Washington warned us in the most symbolic ways by refusing kingship and leaving the Presidency voluntarily. Thomas Jefferson’s warnings came through his many elegant writings. My friend pinkgator is right, as usual – Jefferson did have beautiful penmanship:

But as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other. -April 22, 1820

We have ignored their warnings, believing in our arrogance that we could handle this power responsibly and justly. With Tom Delay, George Bush, and their corporate masters, we are now witnessing what can be unleashed when power is entrusted to lesser men.

Thanking my Lazy Stars

2005-03-29T10:53:00.000-05:00

My good friend pinkgator over at Lazy Stars deserves many thanks from the Little Hippocrat for linking to my blog.

For anyone checking out the blog, I have a question to ponder regarding the Terry Schiavo case.

Why is it that if you are conservative and believe that the Congress shouldn’t get involved in the Schiavo case it means you are a libertarian, but if you are a liberal/progressive and believe Congress should not get involved it means you are a very bad person?

Why They're Really Doing It

2005-03-22T15:43:00.000-05:00

Being a native Floridian, I’ve known about the Schiavo case for a long time. It’s a sad tale, and the spectacle being made of it by politicians and activists is nauseating. No longer is it a tragic private matter for an unfortunate Florida family, this case has become the rallying cry for a small group of fundamentalist zealots bent on remaking the world in an image pleasing to them. Once the Delay Republicans in Congress took up the case, I realized it had become a proxy fight for the right-to-life crowd, otherwise known as anti-abortion crusaders. Here Kos provides some evidence:

DeLay thinks Schiavo gives him a reprieve from his ethics woes. The anti-abortion movement, on the other hand, thinks this gives their cause a boost.

Christian evangelicals, a key component in President Bush's Republican Party, believe the case of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo may help inject new life into their long campaign against abortion.

“The right-to-life issue has been with us for over 30 years but never has it dominated the news headlines day after day as it is doing now," said Louis Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.

"This case has generated a kind of inspirational activism. It is giving revival and renewal to millions of people who feel strongly about the culture of life and the protection of life," he said.
Schiavo is a prop for their real agenda.

Not surprisingly, a number of less extremist conservatives recognize the inherent danger posed by a Congressional leadership that decides to override the rule of law. Kos again:

Conservative bloggers aren't standing pat on the Schiavo case, and some are even more passionately against Frist's and DeLay's actions than we are. John Cole is one of them.
It's important to remember that the latest ABC News poll (PDF) on the issue clocked conservative support for removing the feeding tube at 54-40. That's a solid majority, among conservatives. Heck, even among evangelicals, there is narrow support for removing the feeding tubes, 44-40.
What we have here is a Republican Party held captive by a narrow, fringe, extremist part of its base. Your average Republican is looking in horror at the current congressional spectacle. The GOP majority has neatly segued itself into the party of Big Intrusive Government.

Chris Bowers at MyDD has uncovered the financial connections between the big-money operatives of the GOP and conservative movement and the parents of Schiavo, who are campaigning to keep her alive.

Schindler lawyer Pat Anderson "was paid directly" by the anti-abortion Life Legal Defense Foundation, which "has already spent over $300,000 on this case," according to the foundation's Web site. Much of the support for Life Legal Defense Foundation, in turn, comes from the Alliance Defense Fund, an anti-gay rights group which collected more than $15 million in private donations in 2002 and admits to having spent money on the Schiavo case "in the six figures," according to a recent article in the Palm Beach Post. Mediatransparency.org states that between 1994 and 2002, the Alliance Defense Fund received $142,000 from Philanthropy Roundtable members that include the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation and the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation.

Most of the public favors the court rulings, which basically says that Schiavo’s husband is her guardian and his (private) decision that she would not want to go on living is what everyone should respect. So why are politicians jumping on this as a great issue? Because the big money behind the GOP wants them to. As Kos says, this is a small, extremist faction of the GOP. And it’s obvious that they do not care about public opinion, the rule of law, or the privacy of individuals. They will do anything to exercise their power.

And not only are the politicians in their pockets, but so too are the big media corporations. If you’ve seen the network coverage of this circus (or almost anything else recently), you know what I mean.

Unfortunately for those of us in the reality-based community, the country’s political alliances are so fractured, and our public discourse so awful, that no real discussion of the long term consequences of these events can take place. Thus, no coherent argument will form to educate the public consciousness about how this latest action by the Congress and President has eroded the rule of law, weakened our civil liberties, or the further jeopardized our ability to control our own government.

So tomorrow, and each day hence forth, will bring another over-reaching power-grabbing action by a government that has run amok. And each day it will continue until the very foundation of the country crumbles beneath the rubble of the Republican Revolution.

2005-03-18T23:40:00.000-05:00

Last minute Friday Cat Blogging

G-Coefficient Update

2005-03-14T18:20:00.000-05:00

I’ve neglected to post any updates on fantasy baseball for a couple of weeks. The main reason for this dereliction is the discovery of an error in my player projections! I’ve recently updated the stats and will soon post the corrected files. Here is the schedule for posts of the Top 20 players at each position (top 40 for OF and SP):

First Base: Tues. March 15
Second Base: Wed. March 16
Third Base: Thurs. March 17
Shortstop: Mon. March 21
Outfield: Tues. March 22
Catchers: Wed. March 23
Starting Pitchers: Mon. March 28
Closers: Tues. March 29
Top 40 hitters: Wed. March 30
Top 40 pitchers: Thurs. March 31

UPDATE: I'm having a few problems getting files squared away, so it will be a day or two before I can start posting updates. I'll try to catch things up so I can stay on schedule. -LH

That’s right, it really is BS

2005-03-14T17:12:00.000-05:00

From the “Too Good to be True” Files:

To the veteran watchers of the federal government, it is probably no surprise that there is a unit in the State Department with the acronym “OBS.” For the Bush Administration, though, there is not an agency of government better suited to carry out its core mission. The Center for American Progress has more:

OFFICE OF B.S.: The Office of Broadcasting Services is a branch of the State Department which traditionally has acted as a clearinghouse for video from news conferences. That all changed three years ago. In 2002, "with close editorial direction from the White House," the unit started producing fake news segments to back up President Bush's rationale for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. As one senior official told Congress, the phony segments were "powerful strategic tools" used to influence public opinion. In all, the office produced nearly 60 segments, which were then distributed around the world for local stations to use as actual news footage. Although the White House has claimed ignorance about the use of fake news, it was well aware this was happening. A White House memo in January 2003 actually said segments the State Department disseminated about the liberation of Afghan women were "a prime example" of how "White-House led efforts could facilitate strategic, proactive communications in the war on terror."

This past weekend, the New York Times published a rather startling expose of just how pervasive the Bush Administration’s use of covert propaganda really is.

Yes, for once, this name actually does tell you what the organization does.

Friday Cat Blogging from the laundry basket

2005-03-11T18:24:00.000-05:00

He doesn't seem to mind the smelly socks.

Hippocrat Hypocrisy Award: St. Alan

2005-03-11T15:42:00.000-05:00

This week’s winner of the Hippocrat Hypocrisy Award is the saintly Chairman of the US Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan. Yes, Mr. Andrea Mitchell displayed an unusual penchant for hypocrisy with his testimony before the Congressional Committee on the Budget last week.

The important part of his testimony occurs here:

… our budget position is unlikely to improve substantially in the coming years unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken. (Emphasis Added)

Now, I may be hallucinating, but I do recall Mr. Greenspan advocating tax cuts in 2001 in order to reduce the size of the surplus that was being generated at that time (in spite of the fact that it would be several more years before the total federal debt could actually be retired). Let’s see, I’m sure he testified to Congress about this…oh yeah – here it is:

…we must avoid a situation in which we come upon the level of irreducible debt so abruptly that the only alternative to the accumulation of private assets would be a sharp reduction in taxes and/or an increase in expenditures.

… it is far better, in my judgment, that the surpluses be lowered by tax reductions…

Now I realize this statement seems a bit convoluted, as I’m sure St. Alan intended. To be clear, though, he is advocating a reduction in taxes in order to avoid paying off the government’s debt too quickly.

At the time, St. Alan’s testimony was a boon to the illegitimate president who came storming in on a “mandate” of conservatism and fiscal irresponsibility. Bush’s subsequent tax cuts blew a hole in the budget the size of Texas. Well, I guess his saintliness is no longer kept up at night with nightmares of too-rapidly paid down deficits!

So now we need “major deficit-reducing actions” in order to improve our “budget position.” OK, I got a suggestion – FIRE GREENSPAN. Here’s the logic, if we hadn’t put in place the huge tax cuts he so happily endorsed in 2001, the deficit in recent years would be significantly reduced! So if we fire him now, we at least have a chance to stem the bleeding in the future.

Oh, why the hypocrisy award you ask? Well, I’ll let Senator Reid explain here and Ron Brownstein of the LA Times explain here.

Let’s de-canonize St. Alan of Hypocrisy!

Abomination

2005-03-11T14:42:00.000-05:00

Eighteen Senate Democrats joined the 55 Republicans to pass the heinous bankruptcy reform bill. For the record, here's the 18 turncoats:

Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Jeff Bingaman, Robert Byrd, Tom Carper, Kent Conrad, Daniel Inouye, Tim Johnson, Herb Kohl, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Harry Reid, Ken Salazar and Debbie Stabenow.

Reid's vote is extremely disappointing, given his ability to rally the Democrats into a strong opposition on both Social Security privatization and judicial nominations. He should have shown that leadership on this issue - one the Democrats could have campaigned on in 2006.

A clear pattern of Republican Robber Baron behavior has emerged with several bills that essentially steal money from the wallets of millions of middle and working class people and gather this cash into large wads to stuff into the pockets of giant corporations. If the Democrats could have unified to fight against all of these bills, they could have waged an effective legislative battle against the GOP while building a compelling case indicting the GOP for openly waging war on the middle and working class.

Building the idea in the minds of voters that Democrats stand for protecting middle and working class families from predatory credit card companies (bankruptcy bill), reckless pharmaceutical industries (prescription drug bill, FDA oversight), and greedy Wall Street brokers (Social Security privatization) would be an effective way to reach many voting blocs that are not traditionally Democrat. Many conservatives are deeply disturbed by the bankruptcy bill, and some traditional conservatives could be reached by making this issue a centerpiece of a political campaign.

Do Democrats lose to Republicans because people see the GOP as the more moral party, or do GOP candidates win because Democratic candidates fail to make a compelling moral argument for the validity of their beliefs? This is an ongoing debate within the Democratic party right now, but regardless of the correct answer, I think it is clear by the actions of the Administration and the Republicans in Congress that they are neither very moral nor are their moral arguments very valid. Let's quit debating which strategy is correct and attack the GOP on both fronts- they are growing increasingly weak on both.

Bankruptcy Bill Demonstrates the Problem with Current American Politics

2005-03-10T17:03:00.000-05:00

Digby really encapsulates all that is wrong with the American political system at this point in time in this post about the bankruptcy bill:

An administration beholding to large and especially greedy corporations;

An administration that continuously dissembles and claims up is down, misleading the public as it enacts horrible policy after horrible policy;

A corrupt congress that is out of control and incapable of standing up to big money;

An opposition party that is so compromised by the corruption of the current system that it is next to impossible for all of its members to stand united against abominable bills;

An opposition party that enables the tyranny of the majority party by allowing its individual members to cooperate with and provide cover for majority malfeasance; and

A governing system that has no forethought to the consequences of the actions of that government on the everyday lives of its citizens.

The system is irreparably broken and only a near-total takedown (as in the electoral defeat of at least half or maybe two-thirds of incumbents in the next two election cycles) can provide any hope of getting a government in place that actually protects its citizens.

'Bankruptcy Reform' Equals 'Screw the Middle Class'

2005-03-09T10:48:00.000-05:00

Today, the US Senate will pass a “bankruptcy reform” bill - Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. This bill is anything but reform. It does nothing to 'protect' consumers. The bill essentially gives the credit card industry a green light to swindle American consumers, gives creditors greater opportunity to profit from personal family crises while hanging those families out to dry, and gives protections to anti-abortion zealots who are held civilly responsible for the damage they inflict in the course of crusading against abortion.

Professor Elizabeth Warren spelled out the worst of the bill at Talking Points Memo:

• Make debtors pay more to creditors, both in bankruptcy and after bankruptcy, so that a bankruptcy filing will leave a family with more credit card debt, higher car loans, more owed to their banks and to payday lenders.
• Make it more expensive to file for bankruptcy by driving up lawyers’ fees with new paperwork, new affidavits, and new liability for lawyers, so that the people in the most trouble can’t afford to file.
• Make more hurdles and traps, with deadlines that a judge cannot waive even if someone has a heart attack or an ex-husband who won’t give up a copy of the tax returns, so that more people will get pushed out of bankruptcy with no discharge.
• Make it harder to repay debts in Chapter 13 by increasing the payments necessary to confirm in a repayment plan, so that more people will be pushed out of bankruptcy without ever getting a discharge of debt.

These are the main provisions, but there are even more hideous components that really stick it to the average Joe while there is nothing to reign in the real crooks – the Ken Lays of the world.

Here’s some of the things the bill allows:

No cap on interest that credit card companies can charge (an amendment to cap rates at 30% was defeated),

No protection for families who experience economic distress as a result of caring for ill family members,

No protection for families and individuals whose debt is caused by medical emergencies,

The bill would force elderly homeowners to lose their home when they declare bankruptcy,

Allows really rich people to place their assets in “protected trusts” that cannot be touched by creditors – call this one the Ken Lay special,

Gives no protection to employees’ earnings, pensions, or retirement benefits when their employer declares bankruptcy,

Limits the amount of closure required by credit card companies regarding interest, fees, and other “hidden” requirements of credit card agreements.

The Democrats could have stopped this bill if they had united in the way they have on Social Security – 41 votes (there are 44 D Senators) would have prevented this bill from coming to a vote. But these Democrats voted to bring the bill up:

Biden-DE
Byrd-WV
Carper-DE
Conrad-ND
Johnson-SD
Kohl-WI
Landrieu-LA
Lieberman-CT
Lincoln-AR
Nelson-FL
Nelson-NE
Pryor-AR
Salazar-CO
Stabenow-MI

Furthermore, Senators Biden, Nelson of Nebraska, Carper, Landrieu and Salazar have consistently voted against Democratic amendments to insert some protections for the elderly, military, and those caught in financial crisis by health care costs. Oh, and every single Republican looks to be on board for this bill – as if you had to wonder.

Let’s see how many vote for this rotten bill’s passage. Update to come later.

New Blog - Lazy Stars

2005-03-01T15:19:00.000-05:00

A good friend of mine has started her own blog, and it can be found here.

She posted an excellent slideshow of the Hubble Space Telescope here.

Response to Senator Nelson

2005-02-25T16:34:00.000-05:00

After reading Bob Herbert’s column in today’s New York Times, I sent this e-mail to Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), regarding the Gonzalez nomination, in response to his letter to me justifying his vote.

Senator Nelson: A few weeks ago I wrote urging you to vote against the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General of the United States. I received your reply explaining why you voted in favor of his nomination, and I thank you for your response. However, I am deeply disappointed in your vote, as your explanation (in my opinion) is quite insufficient to justify a vote in favor of someone where the evidence of his complicity in illegal US policy is so clear and incontrovertible.
In your e-mail response to me, dated February 14, you say “I supported his nomination because I believe that deference should be given to the President’s selection of executive cabinet members, and that unless there is evidence that one of these nominees isunqualified or unfit to serve, Congress should not oppose these nominees. After several meetings with Judge Gonzales, I felt assured that he is qualified to serve as attorney general and fully understands the role he will play as attorney general in representing the people’s interest as a nation that honors the rule of law.”

It would help me to understand your vote better if I knew just what evidence you require that would convince you that a person is “unfit.” Would evidence of violating US and International law by condoning torture and supporting an illegal policy of extraordinary
rendition make a person unfit?

I refer you to this piece in the New York Times by columnist Bob Herbert http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/opinion/25herbert.html?) where he states, “. . In the fall of 2002 Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen, suddenly found himself caught up in the cruel mockery of justice that the Bush administration has substituted for the rule of law in the post-Sept. 11 world. While attempting to change planes at Kennedy Airport on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunisia, he was seized by American authorities, interrogated and thrown into jail. He was not charged with anything, and he never would be charged with anything, but his life would be ruined. Mr. Arar was surreptitiously flown out of the United States to Jordan and then driven to Syria, where he was kept like a nocturnal animal in an unlit, underground, rat-infested cell that was the size of a grave. From time to time he was tortured. He wept. He begged not to be beaten anymore. He signed whatever confessions he was told to sign. He prayed.”

He goes on further to say, “The Justice Department has alleged, without disclosing any evidence whatsoever, that Mr. Arar is a member of, or somehow linked to, Al Qaeda. If that's so, how can the administration possibly allow him to roam free? The Syrians, who tortured him, have concluded that Mr. Arar is not linked in any way to terrorism.

He concludes, “. . . A lawsuit on Mr. Arar's behalf has been filed against the United States by the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. Barbara Olshansky, a lawyer with the center, noted yesterday that the government is arguing that none of Mr. Arar's claims can even be adjudicated because they "would involve the revelation of state secrets." This is a government that feels it is answerable to no one.”

Did this case or any others like it come up in your discussions with Mr. Gonzales? Did you discuss extraordinary rendition? What about the torture memos? If so, what could Mr. Gonzales have possibly said to you to justify his previous actions in regard to these issues that would convince you that this man should be entrusted with the power and responsibility of the nation’s top law enforcement official? I respectfully request that you address this issue with all of your constituents.

Deference to a President’s prerogative does not exclude your right and responsibility to hold him and his cabinet accountable for his administration’s unconstitutional actions. I urge you to reconsider your judgment of Attorney General Gonzales and to use the
powers of your office to undertake efforts to investigate him, the Justice Department and any other federal entities that may be involved in torture practices and extraordinary rendition.

Thank you for your attention.

I’ll post his response when it arrives.

We have lift-off!

2005-02-25T09:31:00.000-05:00

From today's LA Times:

Scientists on Tuesday reported that perchlorate, a toxic component of rocket fuel, was contaminating virtually all samples of women's breast milk and its levels were found to be, on average, five times greater than in cow's milk.

I knew there was a reasonable explanation for my many years of chronic, explosive diarrhea.

Also, I am starting to manufacture women’s t-shirts with the words: “Caution: Extremely Flammable!” emblazened across the chest.

Seriously, I wonder if this might be tied to the explosion of autism cases. Or maybe the cause is some other extremely toxic chemical our toddlers are injesting. Who the hell knows anymore?

The Tortoise and the Hippo

2005-02-24T17:22:00.000-05:00

Nice piece about a baby hippo and his adoptive parent, a giant turtle.

G-Coefficient - Third Base

2005-02-21T18:48:00.000-05:00

Third base turns out to be the second strongest position on the G-Coefficient, behind outfielders. Several outstanding players are entering their prime years, and there has been an influx of talented hitters on the hot corner over the last couple of seasons. The depth of the position is apparent by the fact that last season's home run champion (Beltre) is forecast to have another great year (38 HR, 110 RBI) but is only rated 10th among third baseman.

Given the talent level at this position, it would seem wise to pay the premium for talent here, and look for salary savings elsewhere, like at second base.

RIP, Hunter S. Thompson

2005-02-21T11:00:00.000-05:00

Hunter, we rubes will miss you.

Presidents Day

2005-02-21T10:45:00.000-05:00

A recent Gallup poll indicates that 20% of the respondents believe Ronald Reagan was the greatest president - the largest share of the vote for any president. Clinton came in second at 15%. Lincoln was third at 14, FDR and JFK were at 12 each. GW Bush and George Washington (father of the country) each came in at 5% each.

The only thing this poll tells me is how generally ignorant of history most Americans are. Now I don't have the entire poll results in front of me, but I do wonder if Gallup tried to screen this poll in any way by asking each respondent what they knew from history of each president. They screen the electoral preference polls by asking about a person's voting habits, so it would make sense to screen a poll like this for a person's knowledge of history. My gut tells me they don't though.

Obviously, the older the president the less likely people generally are to know about him. Still, the true giants like Washington, Jefferson (who's not on the Gallup list!), and Lincoln should be pretty well known given their mythologies. Given that, for them all to come in behind both Reagan and Clinton seems almost absurd to me.

Are we that ignorant of history as a society, or is it that we are generally familiar with our basic history but seem to think that this current era is by far the greatest of times and we the greatest of Americans?

Either way, I think it's really sad.

G-Coefficient: Second Base

2005-02-20T12:37:00.000-05:00

Second base turns out to be the weakest position besides catcher under the G-Co. There are no '50-point' players, and only four players are projected to pass the 500-point mark on the CDM scoring system. Soriano, no surprise, is projected as the best value, but in order to place him on the roster a player above 50 on the G-Co at another position would have to be left off the roster. Behind Soriano, though, there are good values with low salaries. This you won't find at the catcher position (catchers will be posted later in the week).

Hippocrat Hypocrisy Award, Ed. 2

2005-02-18T17:30:00.000-05:00

This week's hypocrisy was a very difficult choice. Here's a rundown of the week's prominent hypocrisies that made it to the finals of the weekly award judgment:

Major League Baseball denies steroid claim: Former A's slugger Jose Canseco and a former FBI agent claim that MLB owners and the MLB front office knew Canseco and others were using steroids. MLB Executive VP of Baseball Operations Sandy Alderson, who was the A's general manager in the 80s and 90s, claimed on "60 Minutes'" to have not known about Canseco (although he did admit to a suspicion) despite the fact that Canseco had admitted openly to then-A's manager Tony LaRussa and the team that he 'got help' with his physical training.

Senator Bill Nelson defends Gonzales vote: In a constituent e-mail to me, Senator Nelson defended his vote in favor of approving Alberto Gonzales' nomination as US Attorney General, saying "I supported his nomination because I believe that deference should be given to the President's selection of executive cabinet members, and that unless there is evidence that one of these nominees is unqualified or unfit to serve, Congress should not oppose these nominees." Apparently, Senator Nelson believes that ignoring the Geneva Conventions against torture is not sufficient evidence of Gonzales' unfitness.

Right-wing blogs cry foul over Gannon/Guckert affair: Of course, we all know Jeff Gannon as the disgraced GOP hack posing as a journalist who attended daily White House press briefings under the "Talon News" banner. We know that he was outed as a fake and then as a male prostitute by the lefty blogs. Now the wingnut blogs are all pissy about the fact that lefty blogs are attacking Gannon's alleged escort activities as being a big part of the whole story.

Well boo-frickety-hoo!

These chumps love nothing more than to level personal attacks against liberals for what occurs in their private lives whether it's true or not. But when one of their own gets cold-busted for engaging in an illicit activity, oh then it's off limits for anyone to talk about it!

This Week's Winner

Yes, these are three excellent candidates, countryman -- rich in hypocrisy and comic value. The panel of judges for the Hippocrat Hypocrisy Award, however, are not influenced by the hilarity of a given candidate's submission. This award is about pure hypocrisy. And who better represents pure hypocrisy then President Bush's new nominee as National Intelligence Director.

That's right, John Negroponte is this week's winner of the Hippocrat Hypocrisy Award! As may or may not be common knowledge, Mr. Negroponte first came to prominence in the Reagan Administration for lying to Congress about death squads in Honduras.

He resurfaced in Junior's administration as ambassador to the UN, where he proceeded to lie to the world about Iraqi WMD.

Finally, he was named ambassador to Iraq last year at the "handover" of power. He made a point of declaring, "But for these policies [in Iraq] to succeed, we will need to proceed with resolve, constancy and unity of purpose."

Despite his love affair with resolution and constancy, Mr. Negroponte has also been quoted as saying, "I want to get out of Baghdad as soon as possible." Really? I hear the weather there is real nice this time of year.

And like all good liars and incompetents in this administration, he gets rewarded with a promotion to a cabinet level position in the administration. Sweet. Yes, countryman, Negroponte's commitment to democratic processes (Honduras, UN, Iraq) cannot be denied. What is clearly a shame, though, and thus this week's Rankest Hypocrisy, is his unwillingness to take credit for the great successes he's achieved. I find it hypocritical that he would fight so vehemently for what he believes, but not stand up to the critics and the allegations made against him. Clearly a man so right can't possibly be that wrong. Could he?

Why doesn't he go on the record about what happened in Honduras and make the case that, despite the carnage, the world is better off? Why cover it up and make like it never happened?

(Psssst. It might be because he's a hypocrite.)

Why not come clean with the UN and admit that, no, Iraq really didn't have WMD but the results justify the whole exercise and isn't the world better off? Why act like he never made the WMD case?

(Psssst. Um, hypocrite.)

Why not admit that Baghdad has become a hell-hole and he just wants to get the hell out of there?

(Come on, he's so obviously a hypocrite.)

Why not admit he really just wants to go off into the private sector and make some dough, or get a cushy gubmint job and set himself up for a big private contractor payoff in a couple of years? Hey, he served his country, he's entitled! What's so wrong with that?

(In case you haven't realized it yet, it's because he's a hypocrite.)

No, that just won't do. It is much better to publicly cover it all up and pretend it never happened (it's not like the SCLM is going to call him on it) than to admit to being a liar, criminal, hack, coward and hypocrite. So, Mr. Negroponte, enjoy your new job and the fame that comes with being this week's winner of the Hippocrat Hypocrisy Award. You deserve it!

Friday Cat Blogging

2005-02-18T12:49:00.000-05:00

Friday Cat Blogging

G-Coefficient: First Baseman

2005-02-17T19:48:00.000-05:00

Above is the first set of players rated by the G-Co - first baseman. Despite his high salary, Pujols still produces enough to be worth having on the roster. If Nick Johnson could stay healthy, he'd be a steal at 1350. Bad news for Delgado & Bagwell - not worth the price tag.

Tomorrow, second base.