Jan. 30th

Was the date Iraq was going to celebrate the establishment of a new government. Bush and Co. smiled on television, a lot. Talked like big man, tough man, smart man. Small man, pussy, idiot.

BAGHDAD: Last-minute disagreements appeared to have derailed Iraq’s hopes of unveiling a government on Thursday, nearly three months after elections, with negotiations also strained by a surge in violence.

Iraqi president Jalal Talabani told local television he did not think a deal could be reached, reversing hopes he expressed on Wednesday. Disagreement remained evident among the main factions — Shiite Muslims, Kurds and Sunnis.

“I think the government will not be announced today (Thursday)... We want to see the Sunni Arabs represented as well... Negotiations also continue over the allocation of some posts,” the Kurdish leader said.

Disputes surfaced at a meeting on Wednesday, with caretaker PM Iyad Allawi, who narrowly escaped assassination after the talks, rejecting an offer to join the Cabinet.

“The talks were going well, but the Shiites offered Allawi just two ministries, not the four that he wants, and he rejected the offer,” a source said, referring to ministries offered to Allawi’s political grouping.

“There was also continued disagreement over what ministries the Sunnis should get. The question really is whether the Shiites want to create a government of national unity, or just a Shiite-Kurd government,” he said.

This'll work.

Triple Threat

Republican, Gay, and on the money:

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference ... I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials." - president John F. Kennedy. At the time, the speech was regarded as an attempt to refute anti-Catholic prejudice. Today, wouldn't the theocons regard it as an expression of anti-Catholic prejudice? Wouldn't Bill Frist see president Kennedy as an enemy of "people of faith"? Just asking.

He's really a must read (although sometimes...)

Iraq

Do you wonder why the US doesn't show photos from these situations on TV?

Not out of respect for anyone. Actually, out of a lack of respect for the truth.

If these images were on television there'd be no coalition, and no support in America. They can keep telling you how things are going great, there's a new legislature, a Prime Minister, and all that other bullshit.

Republicans, go get your flags. Seem patriotic.

I See Now

Why parents of today are so against drugs.

Thoughts

So this guy Zacarias Moussaoui may get the Death Penalty? I always thought you had to actually kill someone to get it.

I'm all for the DP, and my threshold is a lot lower than that of many states and the Federal Government. However, there are laws, and it seems like the terrorists do win when we decide to change our own laws to suit our momentary interests, as opposed to following our laws as they exist.

This guy Moussaoui was in a jail cell on September 11, 2001.

I'm not really sure what killing a man who was willing to die, assuming you believe he was involved, really does for anyone. I'm not a fan of paying for people to be in prison, but prison seems like a much better option for this guy. He really should suffer. Most people who get the DP aren't religious fanatics who welcome it, and they fear death. Moussaoui probably believes he'll be a martyr.

Alberto Gonzales, the new AG, apparently doesn't believe in the laws on the books being that he thinks carving out legal exceptions for acts relating to 9/11 is an acceptable way to carry out the law. That's a problem.

Puhhlease

Braylon Edwards the #1 pick? The same Braylon Edwards who can make the acrobatic catch over undersized college CBs, but can't pickup a first down on a 7 yard out pattern in the final regular season game of his career against his school's biggest rival? Puhhlease.

Last year Edwards would have been the 6-8th ranked WR, and this year he's being talked about on top of the board.

Make no bones about it, Mike Williams is the best player in this draft. He and Derrick Johnson seem like the only obvious marquee players.

Mock Draft:

1) San Francisco 49ers - Aaron Rodgers, Cal
- Why not? Local kid, great arm, attitude, etc. Easier to sign than Smith. However, if he doesn't go first he really may end up going WAY late. That's sorta weird, but sorta the case.

2) Miami Dolphins - Ronnie Brown, Auburn
- Why not? They need a RB and he's supposedly the best one.

3) Cleveland Browns - Alex Smith, Utah
- Need a QB, and Smith is arguably the best one.

4) Chicago Bears - Mike Williams, USC
- I find this Braylon Edwards talk to be a hoax, and the Bears got burned with their last Michigan WR David Terrell. Williams is the best player in the draft. Bears have a RB, and can get another in the second round at #39.

5) Tampa Bay - Carnell Williams, Auburn
- Player who helps Gruden win today. Could be Edwards, but they have WRs. If Williams was here Gruden would take him.

6) Tennessee Titans - Antrel Rolle, Miami
- Team needs a cornerback.

7) Minnesota Vikings - Braylon Edwards, Michigan
- Luckily falls to them.

8) Arizona Cardinals - Derrick Johnson, Texas
- The kid is ridiculous side to side. Makes more plays than any LB since Arrington.

9) Washington Redksins - Troy Williamson, South Carolina
- Best WR available.

10) Detroit Lions - Adam Jones, West Virginia
- The Lions need DB help, and he's a kick returner.

Okay, none of these things are going to happen since there are going to be trades.

If that happens, I have no idea. Then again, no one has a clue, but it is fun!

Nothing Like Earth Day

For Republicans to show how much they don't care about it.

Sure, they care about the environment on some level, but they don't read the science pointing out the bad news, at least not half as much as they listen to the lobbyists who give them big bucks, and tell them otherwise.

Sure, they care about their kids future, but they don't really think beyond that to their kids' kids because it's not tangible. It's not real to them. There's no current benefit.

Hey, if I thought the world was going to come to an end long before environmental problems caused serious problems I too would vote my own self interest. Then again, considering these people are making that a reality I guess it makes sense to ignore the environment.

The part about the MTBE and the ground water, that's really great stuff.

We're talking about a group of people who believe in the bare minimum when it comes to environmental protections. There's a reason the White House removed the first paragraph of Secretary Whitman's report. The FIRST paragraph, the one with a dire outlook.

One would think that raising gas mileage standards would be the best thing we could do. One with a brain would think that. Wouldn't THAT make us LESS RELIANT on foreign oil? Unbelievable. Wouldn't that make the United States the leaders in the car industry if we could be first to come up with alternate methods of powering cars? Wouldn't that help our car industry, like GM?

These politicians give Oil/Gas companies major tax breaks and grants to find new sources of energy. For some reason corporate giveaways is acceptable, but "giveaways" to US citizens who pay for the corporate giveaways is unacceptable! It's social welfare!

Gas and Oil companies could not be making more money if they wanted to, and this Congress is giving them more money to explore a finite resource, considered to be on its last legs. Again, by 2035 we're reaching peak oil, and drilling in the Arctic is the answer. Yet, a much smaller problem called Social Security, which has nothing to do with finite resources, in fact, the resources were given away in 2001 by our President, is a MAJOR ISSUE.

It's a major issue so you don't talk about how Republicans give billions of dollars to oil companies for exploration, but can't find the money for education, social security, medical care, or even a new, separate private investment plan that they seem to be all for (assuming it can replace Social Security).

Greenspanked

Oh, so it's not your fault?:

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said yesterday, for the first time explicitly, that he expects tax increases to be part of any eventual agreement to reduce the federal budget deficit.

Greenspan, appearing before the Senate Budget Committee, also acknowledged that his support for tax cuts in early 2001 unintentionally led to policies that helped swing the federal budget from surplus to deficits. In pointed comments, Greenspan addressed recent Democratic critics who have sought to blame him for the return to deficits.

Greenspan reminded lawmakers that government economists at the time predicted budget surpluses "as far as the eye can see." Yet Greenspan had warned then in congressional testimony that the forecasts might be wrong, and he recommended some "trigger" mechanism that would limit the tax cuts if certain budget targets were not met.

Greenspan said he thinks "it's frankly unfair" for critics to blame him now for the fact that Congress chose to "read half [his] testimony and discard the rest."

Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.) said he believed it was "fair to consider how your message would be taken" and that lawmakers saw Greenspan's 2001 remarks as "providing a green light" for tax cuts, which were enacted without triggers.

"I plead guilty to that," Greenspan said. "If indeed that is the way it was interpreted, I missed it. In other words, I did not intend it that way."

Actually, there were a lot of critics that wanted to pay down the debt with the surplus, and not waste it on tax givebacks for the primarily wealthy.

Any tax breaks the little person received in 2001 have most likely been wiped out by high energy costs, and slow wage growth relative to inflation. But not the rich! They're doing just fine, big guy.

If Greenspan was so concerned with projections, and wanted his hedge taken seriously, it probably would have been wiser to begin his forecast with a negative view of things, rather than mentioning things could go wrong. Instead, he was generally supportive of tax cuts knowing full well that Bush was using his statements for support of those cuts. There was no hedge on that.
Then there's the "trigger" mechanism that he speaks of. If you recall Bush was vehemently against the "trigger" as were all conservatives. In fact, not only were they against the trigger then, but they're for MORE tax cuts now!

A "trigger" is a mechanism that only allows future tax cuts if projected surpluses actually materialize. Bush and Republicans were against this, and thank God they were since their tax cuts have obviously done tons for society. They called this idea the "poison pill."

The reason they were against the "trigger", again, if you recall, is because Congress would continue to spend if the trigger was in place. Conservatives argued because Congress cannot control spending a trigger would allow them to continue to spend, and the tax cuts would never happen. Ahh, another Republican dream. Recall again that Bush vetoed not one bill in his first term, and this Republican Congress presided over the largest government expansion ever. Of course, they couldn't even pass their own budget in 2004.

Republicans have preset beliefs in what works, and what doesn't. Whatever works for them is what works, not whatever actually works.

"As far as the eye can see..." Well, apparently we need someone with a new vision, but thanks to your great work, Al, your time at the Fed has been extended by a great leader like George W. Bush.

Classy

Can't believe I hadn't heard about this:

Spitting on someone and then running away is not an act that usually wins much admiration.

But when the victim is Jane Fonda, what is acceptable conduct suddenly becomes debatable.

More than 200 e-mails poured into The Star after Michael D. Smith, a 54-year-old Vietnam veteran from Gladstone, sent a stream of tobacco juice at the actress at a Plaza book signing Tuesday. Dozens expressed dismay. Many more, delight.

“Spitting in Jane Fonda's face is every Vietnam vet's fantasy,” wrote a Phoenix man. “Bravo, Michael Smith. Bravo.”

“Heartfelt thanks.” “Freedom of speech.” “Made my day.” “What a true American this man is!”

There were bashers, too: “A Neanderthal.” “No sense of decency.” “Pathetic incident.”

Still, fans of the spitter, from California to Cape Cod, appeared to outnumber those who condemned his action by about 3-to-1.

The vitriol stems from Fonda's anti-war activities, particularly a 1972 visit to North Vietnam, where she was photographed at an anti-aircraft battery and visited American POWs, who she claimed were well-treated.

She has never been forgiven. That anger over a war 30 years ago, which also surfaced in the 2004 presidential election, puzzles some...

“She's someone who flaunts the system and gets away with it: rich, glamorous, guru of this, guru of that. She's like the Energizer bunny. She won't go down.”

Of course, someone who flaunts the system in every sense, avoids war, fails at every business given to him, and wears his flight jacket to grad school while not fulfilling those responsibilities (and of course, spitting in class), that guy's a hero.

Are You Sick Yet?

How can you not be?

And We're Back

Easytree was bottled up, but powers regrouped and created Dimeadozen, which is basically a mirror site.

Here's a track from a recently acquired show:

"Stagefright" - The Band 8.1.1973 - Roosevelt Stadium, Jersey City

Questionable?

I'm sure it is:

They've got a ranch in rural Texas and a nice home-office setup on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington. But for income tax purposes, President Bush and his wife Laura claim a Chicago post office box as their "home address."

On the 1040 they signed – and the White House released last week – the listed home address is "Northern Trust Co., P.O. Box 803968, Chicago, Ill. 60680."

That places the president's home in a downtown Chicago post office named for former Democratic U.S. Rep. Cardiss Collins.

White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said Tuesday that the post office box is the Bushes' home address for federal income tax purposes, and has been since he took office, because Northern Trust handles the blind trust into which the Bushes have put all their holdings. Healy said the use of the Illinois address did not mean the Bushes had to pay Illinois state income tax...

In general, the Internal Revenue Service frowns upon the use of a post office box as a home address on tax forms. IRS instructions for Form 1040 say, "Enter your box number only if your post office does not deliver mail to your home."

Not Funny/Not Accurate

So many people, especially women, like to get all upity about Maureen Dowd's columns. I've heard it from my sisters, mom, friends, and others, but she really hurts her own credibility by being so ridiculous. I refer to this:

The white smoke yesterday signaled that the Vatican thinks what it needs to bring it into modernity is the oldest pope since the 18th century: Joseph Ratzinger, a 78-year-old hidebound archconservative who ran the office that used to be called the Inquisition and who once belonged to Hitler Youth. For American Catholics - especially women and Democratic pro-choice Catholic pols - the cafeteria is officially closed. After all, Cardinal Ratzinger, nicknamed "God's Rottweiler" and "the Enforcer," helped deny Communion rights to John Kerry and other Catholic politicians in the 2004 election.

First off, the Catholic Church is what it is, regardless of how much more liberal of a society we are since the beginnings of the church. It's not the NBA where the rules get changed in order to sell more jerseys. The church has its laws, and this is the man they chose to lead the church. If you don't believe in the church's laws then don't be a Catholic. I don't believe in the laws, so I'm not. Others believe in them less, and just use the religion as a soft guidepost.

Second, for her to imply that Ratzinger is a Nazi sympathizer, or worse yet, a former Nazi, is disgusting. Almost every boy of Ratzinger's age was conscripted into Hitler's youth army. If they chose not to be they probably would be killed. Ratzinger was able to escape his service because of his religious calling, and it may have been Hitler's ideas that pushed him into the church to do some good.

Third, the name "God's Rottweiler" was given to him by his critics, not his supporters. Dowd, a supporter of Bill Clinton, can probably find a few names for him given to him by his critics, but I don't hear her using them.

Fourth, it's misleading to say Ratzinger "helped deny communion rights" to John Kerry, or any other politician. Again, the Church has its own laws, and regardless of what you think of them, it has followed them. However, Ratzinger didn't specifically deny Kerry anything, as is implied. He actually called for religious leaders to have a discussion with politicians before rushing to judgement, and he hoped they could be guided away from supporting abortion. It's his right. It certainly wasn't malicious, but rather, it is church law, and he wasn't just speaking to John Kerry. Ratzinger warned voters that casting a vote for a politician solely on that issue was a mistake, an "evil" one if you will, but this shouldn't surprise.

Again, I don't care for the Catholic Church (or any church) it's archaic views on life, it's brutal past and the problems it faces today, but I'm also not a fan of total bullshit, from either side.

...

Also, just to make a point about the age of this Pope. Sometimes your dedication and service in life warrants rewards, and just because this Pope is old doesn't mean he is not the right fit. All too often in commercial life, especially in sports, per se, young people get rewarded for what they may "potentially do," and older workers get sidelined after years of service. It's nice to see that at least one institution can honor hard work. Plus, the church doesn't need to put another 20+ year leader in place. It's probably better for everyone that Benedict is only there for a short while/transitionary period. I have a weird feeling this cat is going to live to like 103.

It also wouldn't surprise me if he made decisions out of step with past remarks, or decisions. Quite often people change their stances on issues when he/she is the final arbiter, as opposed to just an opinion giver. I don't think it was assumed Chief Justice Earl Warren would preside over a liberal Supreme Court.

Draft

Well, the NFL Draft is this weekend and I'm excited. I love this stuff.

ESPN is conducting a live Mock Draft at 3 PM this afternoon.

I'm wondering why the Chargers, who have two first round picks, don't trade them both for first rounders next year, and the year after. Currently, Drew Brees is their QB, and he's good. The team worries if last year was a fluke. Chances are it wasn't, but just in case they are keeping Philip Rivers on the team, their first round draft pick last year. Personally, I love Rivers, and think he'll be one of the best in the game, but Brees is already there, and the Chargers can win now.

The Chargers should do everything possible to deal Rivers, and get picks for next year. If I was the Packers GM I'd go after Rivers to replace Favre. The Chargers, after seeing if Brees is legit, can use their future first round picks from next year and the following year to get themselves a QB if Brees doesn't pan out.

You Must be Kidding

Right?

Bloated budget deficits pose a danger to the nation's long-term economic health, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned anew Thursday. He issued a fresh call to policy-makers to move swiftly to get the government's fiscal house in order.

Don't worry, Greenspan is all for retiree benefit cuts to help close the gap.

Hmmm

Still wondering why Social Security is soooo important?

Inflation and interest rates are rising, stock values have plunged, a tank of gas induces sticker shock, and for nearly a year, wages have failed to keep up with the cost of living.

Yet in Washington, the political class has been consumed with the death of a brain-damaged woman in Florida, the ethics of the House majority leader, and the fate of the Senate filibuster...

People feel vulnerable and besieged," said Lawrence Mishel, president of the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute, "and they don't hear anybody talking about it."

Yet the only economic bills signed into law this year have tilted against the little guy: Legislation that restricts class-action lawsuits, and a major rewrite of the nation's bankruptcy laws, signed yesterday, that will make it harder for debt-ridden Americans to wipe out their obligations.

It's because Republicans have so much other great stuff going on.

Easy Solution

To this problem:

The nation's teenagers are increasingly trying prescription drugs such as Vicodin and OxyContin to get high, with the pill-popping members of "Generation Rx" often raiding their parents' medicine cabinets, according to the latest national study by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America.

The 17th annual study on teen drug abuse, released Thursday morning, found that about one in five teenagers has abused a prescription painkiller -- more than have experimented with either Ecstasy, cocaine, crack or LSD. One in 11 teens had abused over-the-counter products such as cough medicine, the study reported.

I think if the schools just instituted a program telling kids that drugs don't exist then they'd stop doing them!

It's just like sex...

Damn Liberals

It's too bad we all don't drink the Kool Aid like the other side. Atrios and I do not agree here:

53% of Americans Would Be Happier With Saddam Still in Power

Yes, that's a stupid way to phrase it but that's way our liberal media generally frames the issue. That's the high level of discourse we get in a world in which Tim Russert is the top intellectual. The question has never been about whether Sadddam's a bad guy, it's about whether it's worth spending $X and sacrificing Y lives and Z assorted limbs, eyes, brain regions, etc to do what we did. - Atrios

To me it's not about whether it's worth it, or not worth it, when it comes to assessing the Bush Administration's march to war. The question is: Is it okay to lie and deceive a nation into a war because you, the politicians, think it's the right thing to do?

The answer is clearly, "NO!"

That's the issue. Republicans think they're your parents, and they know what's best. The ends justify the means, so whether they have to lie, cheat, or steal, in the end they think it'll all turn up roses, and if it doesn't, well, there's always church and prayer.

There are hundreds of arguments for and against the Iraq War. Did these people conduct the war correctly? Uhh, no. Is it going well? Uhh, no. Did they lie to get the nation to go along? Uhh, yes. Could it have been accomplished better? Uhh, yes. Are they the biggest morons of all time? Uhh, Probably.

:)

Irony? Coincidence?

According to BusinessWeek, the age of the imperial CEO may be over. But it's still raging in at least one storied blue-chip. This company, which soared in the 1990s, has underperformed the S&P 500 and industry peers for several years. The CEO, at the helm for 14 years, has angered employees by seeking to slash benefits while increasing his own compensation and that of his spouse, who is a senior executive. Meanwhile, the board has just proposed a measure to allow the family that controls the firm to sell more shares while maintaining control. Oh, and its core operation lost money in the most recent quarter.

It's the sort of story that the Wall Street Journal would splash on its front page. But it won't, because this one is taking place at Dow Jones, which owns the Journal.

Comments

Because I don't allow comments (people do email me) on this page, I've decided to post some comical/thoughtful comments others have expressed.

RE: Delay & Kennedy:

I wonder what Delay's views are regarding Justice Scalia's past reference to the Talmud for underlying support in one of his decisions.

But whatever, this is the money quote as far as I'm concerned, "Judges can serve as long as they serve with good behavior. We want to define what good behavior means." Here he takes a clear stand against the concept of an independant judiciary in which federal judges are appointed for life, with the idea being that judges should not be swayed by the possible political ramifications of their decisions. Delay has chosen to define himself as the guy who champions the idea that judges should consider and be subject to the same political ramifications that the framers explicitly sought to avoid. What an asshole. - Si Guy

and The Boy:

I also thought it was pretty funny that Delay criticized the fact that Kennedy does his own legal research on the internet. If Delay's head wasn't stuck so far up his ass, he'd know that most of the legal research done by attorneys/judges is done on the internet (it's called westlaw or lexis). Is he actually mocking the fact that Kennedy is diligent and does his own work? God forbid somebody does their own work and forms their own independent opinions, without relying on lobbyists and polls, like delay does.

At least somebody is attacking delay finally. Here's a funny take:

Has the Internet become the devil's workshop?" said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. "Is it some infernal machine now that needs to be avoided by all right-thinking Americans? What is Mr. DeLay trying to say, as he is stretching to lash out at judges who happen to disagree with his political point of view."

Feel free to send me an email. Dissenting points of view welcome...

Whoa, What's This All About

Are you telling me the No Child Left Behind Act is failing? How can it be? They added "accountability!"

The nation's largest teachers union and school districts in three states sued the Bush administration Wednesday over the No Child Left Behind law, aiming to free schools from complying with any part not paid for by the federal government.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for eastern Michigan, is the first major challenge to President Bush's signature education policy. The outcome would apply directly to the districts in the case, but it could affect how the law is enforced in schools across the country.

Leading the fight is the National Education Association, a union of 2.7 million members and a political adversary of the administration. The union mobilized its forces for Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race, and its objections to Bush's law prompted former Education Secretary Rod Paige to call the NEA a "terrorist organization."

Democrats, and their hateful speech...

This is one of those issues the President would like to avoid talking about, as would Republicans, so rest assured Social Security will be a major issue again and again and again and again.

It's really comical to read about how people think it's a good law, but there's no funding for it.

"I'll tell ya, Bob, that Homeland Security Bill they passed is fannntastic! They promised to have a border guard every 2 miles around the whole nation, 24/7!"

"Gee, Jim, that sounds amazing, but isn't that going to cost a lot of money?"

"Not at all, Bob. They're not going to spend any many, period. I'm just talking about the bill itself. The essence of the bill, if you will."

"That is quite an essence, Jim. By the way, what's an essence?"

I Love JC

I just got a haircut for $12, and it's really a good one.

More Soft Patch

No, not cookies:

Consumer prices jumped 0.6 percent in March, the biggest inflation surge in five months, as the costs of energy, clothing and airline fares all rose sharply.

The Labor Department said last month's increase in the Consumer Price Index, the most closely watched inflation gauge, followed a 0.4 percent rise in February and left consumer inflation rising at an annual rate of 4.3 percent in the first three months of this year. That was a full percentage point above the 3.3 percent rise in prices for all of 2004.

The new report showed that even outside of food and energy, there were significant price pressures last month. The so-called core rate of inflation rose by a worrisome 0.4 percent in March, the largest jump in 2 1/2 years and double what economists had expected. It reflected higher prices for clothing, hotel rooms, airline tickets and medical care.

The government's new report on inflation showed significantly higher price pressures than had been observed in Tuesday's report on wholesale inflation, which showed a similar overall increase of 0.7 percent, reflecting a sharp jump in energy prices, but only a tiny 0.1 percent increase in prices outside of energy and food.

This is really a matter of perspective. Like the flat tax which treats everyone equally, so does a rise in prices, right? It treats us all the same!

Lets hear from John Snow about how well the economy is doing.

This Guy

What a freak:

WASHINGTON - House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's work from the bench has been "incredibly outrageous," his latest salvo at the federal judiciary in the weeks following the courts' refusal to stop Terri Schiavo's death.

DeLay also labeled a lot of the courts' Republican appointees as "judicial activists," a term applied by conservatives to judges they dislike for not following what they call strict interpretations of the Constitution.

The No. 2 Republican in the House has been openly critical of the federal courts since they refused to order the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube. And he pointed to Kennedy as an example of Republican members of the Supreme Court who were activist and isolated.

"Absolutely. We've got Justice Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States? That's just outrageous," DeLay told Fox News Radio on Tuesday. "And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."

Although Kennedy was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan, a conservative icon, he has aroused conservatives' ire by sometimes agreeing with the court's more liberal members. Nevertheless, it is unusual for a congressional leader to single out a Supreme Court justice for criticism.

Kennedy is their easy target. Delay figures since Reagan appointed him it'll be okay if conservatives attack him.

See, they have to be total wingers. None of this moderate stuff.

As for "International Law," it's pretty dumb not to follow it on some level. We're a nation whose laws are loosely based on those of England. Both Scalia and Breyer have admitted going back and looking at cases that pre-date our own Constitution when examining the intent of our Framers. I wouldn't expect a moron like this to realize that fact.

Can you believe Justice Kennedy uses the "internets?" All of them!

Tax Breaks! Get Your Tax Breaks!!!

The good times are rolling for some, just not commuters:

The House this week will consider $8 billion in tax breaks targeted to the energy industry at a time when some of those companies are enjoying soaring profits from high consumer prices.

The vast majority of the tax breaks would benefit companies that produce and supply traditional forms of energy, with a large portion going to the oil and natural gas sector.

The House legislation, approved last week by the Ways and Means Committee, is at odds with the Bush administration's approach. The president's proposed budget calls for $6.7 billion in tax breaks for energy, with 72 percent going toward renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency, compared with about 6 percent in the House plan.

Dana M. Perino, a White House spokeswoman, would not comment on the House measure but referred to comments made by President Bush last week. "I will tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore," Bush said in a speech to newspaper editors in Washington. "There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent."

It's so funny to watch the House make Bush seem the environmentalist. Talk to me when a bill actually passes.

Bush no need to give away the farm anymore for his campaigning is over...

What's the Matter with Oklahoma?

I remember the day the Murrah building in Oklahoma City was shattered by a couple of American terrorists. White, American, terrorists. The news didn't make that assumption from the get go. I called my Pop at work, and asked him if he saw the news. He hadn't. He went over to the television and watched the footage. All he could say is, "That's terrible...that's really terrible..." It stopped him in his tracks; he truly felt for the people involved. I did too. He raised me, so it only made sense that we'd feel the same way.

But here we are, ten years later, and as Oklahoma City mourns the disaster I lack the emotions I once had. Frankly, I don't feel much remorse at all. I wish I did. The day it happened all I could think about was the children in the play center who had no opportunity to live life, and the parents and adults who went to work without an iota of why it happened.

It happened because people are out of their minds, and have no compassion or care for mankind. Truly a terrible moment in time.

However, it's a moment that tends to repeat itself worldwide, consistently, and yet Americans seem to care little for the plight of millions around the world. For some reason we have a greater attachment for the people living in Oklahoma than we do the people of Indonesia, Zaire, Algeria, Rwanda, Spain and countless other places. Part of me tends to think it's because most of the people who died are white, like myself, and the other part believes it's because we've grasped onto this concept of "America, the Greatest!" We are all a team!!! Yeah, whatever.

We live in a world where we're all interconnected. As the pace of everything speeds up for those who are on the ball, the pace for others stays the same, which means they're actually moving slower, and life is becoming even more difficult. It's hard for me to be so concerned with the people who have options, but suffer relatively little, when so many suffer due to the speed at which we move. It's a crazy ass paradox.

Digress.

The state of Oklahoma just elected a US Senator named Tom Coburn, former House member. He advocated the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions. No joke. This man, who is illegally practicing medicine against Senate rules, advocated death for doctors who perform a legal function on behalf of all women. This is not normal.

It is probably this reason alone that I find it hard to sympathize with people who voted into office a man who has no compassion, and drags his own religious views into public office. Surely, not all the people who suffered are supporters of Coburn, but still, those that are not did not do enough to make sure a man like him did not get the opportunity to bring his hatred into the US Government.

I'm sorry, but you should have done more.

The people of Oklahoma, time and time again have compared their plight with those hurt on September 11, 2001. I'm sorry, but there is no comparison. The person who dies in a car crash at the hands of a person who just left a Klan meeting drunk is not on the same level with a victim of that day. We call this 'reality.'

The people of Oklahoma, to me at least, want what they believe is coming to them because of a terrorist act. They see people in the Northeast receiving cash settlements because of supposed government negligance, and guess what, they want a piece of that. That to me makes sense since the state voted a man into office who is to the far right of President George W. Bush, a man with no true thought about anything. At least Coburn has that, if I can give him any credit. Yet, like Bush supporters, money is the driving factor. I mean, afterall, Bush basically bought votes the first time around, and then screwed farmers the second time. That's you, Oklahoma.

Don't expect people of New York and Los Angeles, the epicenters of media, to shed a tear for the people of Oklahoma when the people of Oklahoma turned their backs on humanity by electing the nation's biggest scum bags. We don't sympathize with you on the same level because apparently you don't understand that we are sympathizing not just for you, and your neighbors, but the world. The area of the country most affected by terror was vehemently against the people you put into office, and then and now you've seeked our compassion. Please.

We have attemped to treated all people as well as we could. It is you, the people of Oklahoma, who have not. You want change, make the changes.

This is not a note that holds no compassion. It is a request for those who ask for compassion to realize what compassion truly is.

Financing as Low as .01%!!!

Did you know that GM provides health care for .01% of the nation?
That's a lot of people. That's a big problem for a company that has BIG PROBLEMS.

If someone told GM the government was going to provide health care for their employees do you think they'd say "no?" Right, cause they wouldn't. Granted, a national health plan wouldn't absolve GM of their responsibilities, but it certainly would have stopped GM from providing it the last 7 years.

Point being, business wasn't against a national health care plan; REPUBLICANS WERE.

American Idol

At least for the right:

The inconsistency of the conservative war on judges was apparent in the Terri Schiavo ordeal. Mr. DeLay, an outspoken critic of activist courts, does not want to investigate the federal trial judge and the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit for judicial activism, but for the opposite: for refusing to overturn the Florida state courts' legal decisions, and Michael Schiavo's decisions about his wife's medical care.

The classic example of conservative inconsistency remains Bush v. Gore. Not only did the court's conservative bloc trample on the Florida state courts and stop the vote counting - it declared its ruling would not be a precedent for future cases. How does Justice Scalia explain that decision? In a recent New Yorker profile, he is quoted as saying, with startling candor, that "the only issue was whether we should put an end to it, after three weeks of looking like a fool in the eyes of the world." That, of course, isn't a constitutional argument - it is an unapologetic defense of judicial activism.

When it comes to judicial activism, conservative judges are no better than liberal ones - and, it must be said, no worse. If conservatives are going to continue their war on the judiciary, though, they should be honest. They do not want to get rid of judicial activists, a standard that would bring down even Justice Scalia. They want to rid the courts of judges who disagree with them.

Of course, what would a conservative idol really be if he wasn't a hypocrite?

Love That Fetus

Another great American battle:

In some states, legislators are pushing laws that would explicitly grant pharmacists the right to refuse to dispense drugs related to contraception or abortion on moral grounds. Others want to require pharmacies to fill any legal prescription for birth control, much like Governor Blagojevich's emergency rule in Illinois, which requires pharmacies that stock the morning-after pill to dispense it without delay. And in some states, there are proposals or newly enacted laws to make the morning-after pill more accessible, by requiring hospitals to offer it to rape victims or allowing certain pharmacists to sell it without a prescription.

On "moral grounds!" It's moral to force someone to have a child. This, of course, is not archaic.

It's also moral to fight against sex education, and for abstinence only education. Then of course, once you've done that, deny someone the morning after pill.

I don't care if a pharmacist won't fill the order, frankly. There are so many huge pharmacies that will, and if a pharmacist wants to do that, fine, be that person. Hopefully people will recognize it and sales will suffer, putting that pharmacist out of business, which is really better than any law that can be passed.

Pope Watch

Poped from behind.

Blessed Congress

Ever since Tom Brady made an appearance at the State of the Union, and President Bush tackled the pressing issue of steroids in baseball (an issue he avoided completely as a baseball owner), I have been nothing but relieved to see my US Congress, hard at work, clamping down on the steroids issue.

Sports are so important. More important than the Iraq War, for sure. I mean, you've seen the pictures? Troops huddled around a tv, taking a break from their fighting duties, rooting for Oklahoma and the New England Patriots. Obviously, if they're putting the war on hold, it's a good thing Congress is too.

C'mon Congress, make us proud. Keep doing what you do so well: nothing.

Pope Watch

Smoke blows from the chimney:

On Monday, Ratzinger, who was the powerful dean of the College of Cardinals, used his homily at the Mass dedicated to electing the next pope to warn the faithful about tendencies that he considered dangers to the faith: sects, ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism, agnosticism and relativism — the ideology that there are no absolute truths.

"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism," he said, speaking in Italian. "Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching,' looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards.

Ratzinger served John Paul II since 1981 as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In that position, he has disciplined church dissidents and upheld church policy against attempts by liberals for reforms.

He had gone into the conclave with the most buzz among two dozen leading candidates. He had impressed many faithful with his stirring homily at the funeral of John Paul II, who died April 2 at age 84.

President Bush called him a "man of great wisdom and knowledge."

"We remember well his sermon at the pope's funeral in Rome, how his words touched our hearts and the hearts of millions," Bush said. "We join with our fellow citizens and millions around the world who pray for continued strength and wisdom as His Holiness leads the Catholic Church."

And apparently more smoke gets blown up our asses.

Like President Bush has any idea about this guy, his "wisdom" or his "knowledge?"

Anyway, I'm reading this Pope is a "hardliner" which won't be good for the Catholic Church.

The Catholic religion is losing priests at a pretty alarming rate. It's also losing members when compared with other religions, like Islam (ruh roh). But seriously, the priesthood isn't doing so well, and a hardline Pope isn't going to help that issue.

If a more "liberal" Pope had been chosen, assuming this one isn't, he might push for changing the priesthood, and allowing married men to become priests. Hey, I'm not Catholic, but I feel Catholicism would have fewer issues if priests were allowed to marry. Does anyone disagree with this? Lets not forget, 25% of Catholic Priests were said to have committed some type of sexual assault, however minor. That's what the numbers said, and chances are the numbers are skewing low.

Add to this, the first Pope, Pope Peter (there's debate about whether or not he was a Pope, but whatever), was married, and it was only over time that the Catholic Church decided men must remain celibate in order to become a priest. There are a few reasons why, but all you need to know is it wasn't always the case. There's no reason the Catholic Church shouldn't revert back.

The church doesn't even have enough priests to serve Catholics worldwide, and it's certainly true there'd be fewer issues. Hopefully this Pope is open to this concept in order to help the religion. However, considering the age of this Pope, it seems he's really a stop gap measure, and not a long term solution. Maybe this will buy the Church some time and allow them to see what direction the next next Pope should head.

Excited!!!

There's a new Pope! 

The S.S. Bullshit

The boat that refuses to dock, and a media that continues to fuel it.

If you've ever been unfortunate enough to listen to Rush Limbaugh (due to the lack of good radio in NY/NJ I'm sure you have), you've probably heard him say something along these lines:

See, that's what liberals and democrats do, they create focus groups. They don't have real conviction like the President. They do polls, and then make their decisions, which is why they keep losing!

It's funny that he actually says this since he's usually talking about Bill Clinton when he makes the references, and Clinton didn't lose anything. In fact, he would have won this last election with ease, and if allowed to he would've beaten Bush the first time, considering Al Gore did.

The part Limbaugh leaves out (I'm sure a lot of puppets do this to on other stations) is how President Bush and Repubicans have changed the questions SSA is asking Americans about the usefulness/effectiveness of Social Security.

The AP reported that the Social Security Administration hired Gallup under former President Clinton to find out how well-informed people were about the program.

The Bush administration changed the poll in 2003, removing two statements that at least 75 percent of those surveyed earlier had agreed with: "Social Security benefits play a major role in keeping many senior citizens out of poverty" and "Social Security is the largest single source of income for most elderly Americans."

At the same time, the administration added questions that sought to determine when people thought the federal retirement program would run out of money and whether people knew anything about Bush's plan to let workers invest part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts.

You can debate whether or not Congress under Clinton's watch should be asking these questions, but you cannot debate the intent of the two polls/presidents.

Clinton was asking whether people believed the program was working, and if they understood its nuances. Bush, of course, is using the poll, and your tax dollars, to change the program completely. Sure, Congress supposedly controls the SSA, and while I believe it's possible Clinton didn't have much to do with the poll outside of using the information to stump, I'd bet my life Bush Co. is controlling the poll to suit their agenda.

What was that, Rush?

This article in New York Magazine discusses how the Social Security issue is really a sham issue. On that issue alone, it's right on point.

During the election the President barely, if ever, mentioned privatizing Social Security, but the moment he received his "mandate" it has been the only isssue discussed. Why is that? If it was so important to him you'd think he would run on it, right? I mean, this was a close election, and he hasn't stopped talking about it since.

Don't be silly.

They don't care about this issue at all. They have nothing going on right now except the desire to change Senate rules, and confirm their own judges. This has been the most important issue since the day they signed Bush up to run.

Social Security is the most succesful government run program in our history, and it would be absurd for them to harm it. If they can change it they will because it will prove to them nothing is sacred. If they were truly concerned with giving people money to invest they would create a separate program to do that, an optional program where taxpayers give the government their money to invest for them. Doesn't exactly sound like a conservative idea, now does it?

The polls show Americans are not for changing Social Security, yet they push on, and the media covers the President from town to town.

Tell me, what the hell is he doing traveling the nation to discuss a program that only the hardcore Bush fans care about changing? Is there not a war in Iraq? Is North Korea not becoming a nuclear threat? Is Iran not in a prime position to dominate the Middle East? Is our education system not crapping out? Are gas prices not as high as you can ever remember? How's Wall St. doing these days? How about those farm subsidies he's quietly cutting back after he just jacked them up two years ago? What about the House Majority Leader Tom Delay and his ethics investigation? What about the fact that we'll reach "peak oil" just as soon as Social Security will supposedly go bankrupt?

What's more important: Oil or Social Security? Ask Bush that and I wonder what answer you'll get, yet they're doing ZERO about that, except opening the Arctic up for friends to explore.

And these assholes are playing politics with Social Security, traveling the country, town to town, talking about how important this issue is. The media is covering this thing like it's a bolemic chick with a tube in her throat!

All they want is to change Senate rules while no one is looking, confirm their judges, cut taxes for the rich, and hope Iraq doesn't became a disaster. But Iraq doesn't even matter for them that much, and by them I mean all Republicans who would still vote for Bush since that's probably going to be the biggest waste of lives and dollars in US History.

Rush Limbaugh may be right, they may not care about polls too much. They only care about deception and lies, two things they are masters at.

--------

Op-Ed about the SSA Polls.

Pfff

Be serious:

"I believe I have a duty to ask people to bring ideas forward," Mr. Bush told the South Carolina Legislature. "I brought a few myself."

It works on so many levels!

BTW

Half of the ultimate fighters/fans who I've spoken with about politics voted for Bush. Of those it seems a few wish they had their vote back. The general reason they voted for Bush is because they didn't believe in Kerry. Ask them to explain that and not much gets said. Usually we arrived at the "cut my taxes" portion of the discussion, but then I bring up the whole thing about local/state taxes, at which point the conversation doesn't go very far.

Keep in mind, these are ultimate fighters, or fans of, so politics isn't necessarily their thing. Point being, these are tough guys, and it's widely believed Bush captured the "tough guy" vote, being the tough guy that he is, of course.

Most of the fighters aren't idiots, but they're not exactly into politics either. I assumed that most of them probably voted for Bush being from the midwest, and backwoods areas in other parts of the country. It was nice to know I was wrong.

If I were to come across someone who voted for Bush, and still supported him, I wonder what the primary reasons are for doing so. Is it the great economy? Is it the "We Had to Do Something" policies in the Middle East and Asia? It must be the price of gas. Is it the desire to have Christian Fundamentalism inserted into our way of life? Must be the pressing need to "fix" Social Security, right? Is it the changing of rules when a Republican gets in trouble? Is it the changing of Congressional laws in order to put judges in place? I think some of these issues are too deep for them, so it must be the simplistic reason: money. He cut our taxes!!! And YES, we're that dumb!!!

I'm Back

And I can't help but wonder what worries you more: "Big Government" or "The Religious Right"?