Imagine

There was this type of dissent during the first term?

A fourth senior member of Colin L. Powell's team at the State Department expressed strong reservations on Friday about the nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.

The official, A. Elizabeth Jones, is a veteran diplomat who stepped down in February as assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia. Among those who have now voiced public concerns about Mr. Bolton, Ms. Jones joins Lawrence Wilkerson, Mr. Powell's chief of staff; Carl W. Ford, Jr., who headed the department's intelligence bureau; and John R. Wolf, who was assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation. Associates of Mr. Powell have said he has expressed concerns of his own in private conversations with at least two Republican senators.

"I don't know if he's incapable of negotiation, but he's unwilling," Ms. Jones said in an interview. She said she believed that "the fundamental problem," if Mr. Bolton were to become United Nations ambassador, would be a reluctance on his part to make the kinds of minor, symbolic concessions necessary to build consensus among other governments and maintain the American position.

We never heard about these problems until now. Interesting.

She blinded me...

with science!

A PIONEERING form of surgery has been developed that can restore the sight of patients by using stem cells to encourage damaged eyes to repair themselves.

A team of British specialists has successfully treated more than a dozen patients with impaired corneas by transplanting human stem cells grown in a laboratory on to their eyes.

Recent operations on ten patients showed that the technique restored sight in seven cases of people who had been blinded after getting acid, alkali and boiling metal in their eyes, or because of congenital disorders.

Many of the patients treated at the Centre for Sight, Queen Victoria Hospital, in East Grinstead, West Sussex, had been told that they had no hope of getting their sight back, or had already undergone failed corneal transplants.

Recast

More proof Bush has no true plans about Social Security beyond just changing it, and keeping it on top of the page:

In attempting to fix Social Security's long-term problems without raising taxes, President Bush has chosen to recast the 70-year-old retirement program as one that would keep the lowest-income workers out of poverty but become increasingly irrelevant to the middle class and the affluent.

Under Mr. Bush's approach of "progressive indexation," a typical low-income worker who earns about $16,000 a year today would be entitled to retirement benefits equal to about 49 percent of his or her wages, the same amount promised today.

But those earning an average income, about $36,500 in today's dollars, would see big changes. Instead of replacing 36 percent of that person's working pay, as promised under today's system, benefits would cover only 26 percent of that person's pay by 2075. And people who earn $90,000 a year in today's dollars, who would continue to pay as much as ever in taxes, would receive benefits equal to only 12 percent of their pay.

In his radio address on Saturday, Mr. Bush sought to cast himself in the Democrats' traditional role as a defender of the poor. "Benefits for low-income workers should grow faster than benefits for people who are well off," he said. "By providing more generous benefits for low-income retirees, we'll make good on this commitment: If you work hard and pay into Social Security your entire life, you will not retire into poverty."

This program was supposed to be about younger workers investing! Now, all different. Now it's all about helping the poor!

Harken back to the tax cuts which were sold similarly to this. Bush consistently talked about the the lower classes, and how their taxes would be cut MORE than the rich. Of course, he was talking in percentages, and when you take into account the total tax bill for the richest, that's not even the case. Regardless, the SS effort is now being recast to fit the model of the tax cuts because that worked. Figure, why not go back to the well, right?

Social Security "reform" was initially fashioned as a way to make it solvent, and give younger workers an opportunity to invest "their money" in the market. Now that has changed because the people that don't follow polls apparently found a few of them on their desks.

More proof this has more to do with dismantling than it does reform, as well as a cover for all the other bad news going on under Bush. If the Republicans can even slightly privatize Social Security at all they will have succeeded in changing the most successful social program in US history, and then, of course, claiming it as their own.

They also tried this with "education reform" and "Medicare." Both efforts have not been good.

Republicans do not have the guts to show their true colors, and Democrats don't have the guts to call them out on it.

Damn Liberal FBI

Sniffing out trouble.

The federal probe into whether local Republican fund-raiser Tom Noe was illegally funneling money to the Bush campaign had been ongoing for months. It reached a turning point Wednesday night.

FBI agents swept into Mr. Noe’s Maumee condo about 7:30 p.m., spending three hours scouring the home of one of the most prominent Republicans in northwest Ohio. They were looking for evidence of violations of federal campaign contribution laws.

The federal probe is studying Mr. Noe’s campaign contributions to the President, and specifically contributions made by others who may have received money from Mr. Noe, possibly allowing him to exceed the $2,000 spending cap...

Mr. Noe, 50, is a coin dealer and former chairman of the Lucas County Republican Party. He manages two rare-coin funds that have received $50 million from the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation.

That investment arrangement is currently under a separate investigation being conducted by the Ohio inspector general.

Mr. Noe also is chairman of the Ohio Turnpike Commission and a member of the Ohio Board of Regents.

B'bye.

The Charter

Of the SS Bullshit, for who are bored.

This Mix

Check it.

The Capitol Years

Playing tonight at the Knitting Factory. 11 PM SHARP.

Take a listen. Use the jukebox.

More and more people are falling into this band.

Meanwhile

Across the city, while the President was doing his thing, Congress was doing there's:

The House and Senate broke a lengthy impasse over federal spending Thursday night, narrowly adopting a $2.56 trillion federal budget for 2006 that aims to trim the growth of Medicaid by $10 billion over five years, add $106 billion in tax cuts and clear the way for oil drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge.

The back-to-back votes - 214 to 211 in the House and 52 to 47 in the Senate - ran mostly along party lines. As the roll was called in the Senate, shortly before midnight, Vice President Dick Cheney sat in the chamber, ready to cast his vote to break a tie, if necessary.

The DP

I'm all of the death penalty if it reduces costs and rids society of the worst people. I'm not for a death penalty that costs more than prisons do, and does not provide defendants with fair trials, DNA testing, and other protections.

I'm for it because I think once someone takes a life that person, assuming he/she isn't insane, has relinquished their own life, and I don't think we should pay to keep these people in prison. Sorry, but as much as I like hearing stories about tossed salads on HBO, it's really not worth it for me to have society pay to keep murderers in prison.

Governor Romney has a new proposal on the table. Lets see where this Uber-Masshole goes with it. If costs outweight costs it shouldn't be done.

If He Could, He Would!

Nothing better than hearing those words from our Genius.

Speaking to small business leaders, Bush lamented that he was powerless to cut gas prices. ``I wish I could,'' he said. ``If I could, I would.''

I'm fascinating by the fact that oil men have taken hold of the White House, and yet gas/oil prices are extremely high. Prior to this week all I heard was how ANWAR was going to make a dent in the oil price. That's such a joke.

Here's another great piece:

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who is trying to put together an energy package that can pass the Senate, said he welcomed some of the president's proposals. He is ``making it clear that energy remains a top priority of this president,'' said Domenici in a statement.

Has he made that clear to you? I think helping energy companies is certainly a priority, but I'm not sure he's helping you and me, or the environment.

The President is calling for more refineries to be built on decommissioneed military bases. Granted, there's a lot of space there, and it could help depressed communities that were built around the military bases, then abandoned, but are we really going to provide tax "incentives" for energy companies to build refineries?

The reason there are so few refineries is because energy companies realized that by cutting them down the price of gas would actually go up. For example, if a company had 4 refineries, then went down to 2, and then had to schedule long term maintenance on 1 of them, that would leave one left to refine oil, supplies would decrease, and cost would go up to the consumer. Do you think this was a random act that refineries were closed down? There's no money to be made in refining oil so the companies have no incentive to do it. Therefore, the US Government is going to provide these mammoth companies incentives to do so. It's not enough that we fight wars for them.

If you think this is all nonsense, do some research.

President Bush has nothing for years to keep the price of gasoline lower. Now, when he wants to push other parts of his agenda he's talking about ways to keep costs down, and make us less reliant on foreign sources. Lets be realistic. He's done nothing for years, and now he speaks about the issue as if he's been harping about it for ages. Sorry, Social Security is what you've been investing your time in, not energy.

Nuclear energy, that's moving up again? Simple question: What do we do with the nuclear waste from the nuclear facilities? They still haven't been able to find a repository for much of the waste we already have, and the most notable site, Yucca Mountain, has made little or no progress since the it became a possibility.

The one thing we do have control over Republicans are against. The simplest, smartest, forward thinking option, of course, is hybrid cars, alternative sources of energy, and similar ideas. Here's where we are on that issue:

The president's call for a tax credit for gas-electric hybrid automobiles and for use of clean diesel is similar to a proposal in his budget earlier this year. The hybrid tax break was left out of the energy bill passed by the House last week.

It would be nice if the President put as much into this issue as he does all the other stupid shit he talks about (Bolton, SS, Judges). Not the case. But fear not, Pete Domenici knows it's the highest priority!

We're going to hit an oil wall in about 30 years, sooner than we reach a Social Security crisis (which will never happen), yet little is being done. What's more important?

China is sucking up oil at an alarming rate, and competing with the US not just in the Middle East, but in parts of Africa as well. They invested tons of cash in Western Africa and are competing with the US for the black gold. You think China is just going to go away?

We've got issues and the it's obvious we don't have the right people trying to solve them. You want people who will make sacrifices today in order to create a better tomorrow. Of course, our President, when asked how he felt he'd be viewed in the future was unconcerned. This is what our Moron said:

“After the second interview with him on Dec. 11, we got up and walked over to one of the doors. There are all of these doors in the Oval Office that lead outside. And he had his hands in his pocket, and I just asked, ‘Well, how is history likely to judge your Iraq war,’” says Woodward.

“And he said, ‘History,’ and then he took his hands out of his pocket and kind of shrugged and extended his hands as if this is a way off. And then he said, ‘History, we don’t know. We’ll all be dead.’”

Zen

Zen 

The Mosters

Beeeeep...Beeeeeep...Beeeeeep...Oh, don't be alarmed. Just move out of the way as I back up the truck here.

So the President has a Social Security plan, or somewhat of one, and it's as compassionate as can be. He's going to protect those who need it "most." What a fellow.

He's going to slow down benefits for the middle class because although they carry the brunt of the nation on their backs, and foot the bill, they need a scaleback. But you rich people, you're not escaping scot free. You will also have some rollback (shhhh, don't worry rich people, I've been cutting your taxes for years).

So there it is, part of a plan. Riiiiight.

There's no plan; there's delay. Being that both sides of the aisle disagree with his plans it's time to change it up, throw a Texas curveball if you will. Lets toss some compassion out there and help the "most."

Here's what the Times has to say:

President Bush called on Congress last night to curtail future Social Security benefits for all but low-income retirees in an urgent new effort to address the popular program's shaky finances.

With virtually every Democrat, as well as many Republicans, opposed to his plan for private investment accounts, Bush sought to shift the focus of the Social Security debate to a new proposal that would reduce benefits more as workers' incomes rise.

"I believe the reformed system should protect those who depend on Social Security the most," he said in a nationally televised news conference. "So I propose a Social Security system in the future where benefits for low-income workers will grow faster than benefits for people who are better off." This is the first time Bush has backed a specific plan to reduce future benefits for tens of millions of Americans.

Bush also urged Iraq to follow the U.S.-brokered timetable to complete its political transition, intensified pressure on a nuclear-armed North Korea, defended embattled U.N. ambassador nominee John R. Bolton and pointedly disagreed with social conservatives who say Democrats' efforts to block the president's judges amount to an attack on people of faith.

That last part is really impressive.

Here's the guy who drags religion into the White House, uses it to divide everyone in the world, and then takes the soft side on religious fundamentalism in the United States. What a moderate!

There's a reason Republicans aren't big on public education, and you're witnessing that reason.

Primetime

I can hear Deion now, "Primetime, primetime, primetime..."

The President holds a news conference where the press gets to ask him questions, and it's a big ratings decision by the networks.

That's America.

"Can we ask the king a question, please, oh please!?!?!"

But in the end, the president's aides appeared to be every bit as canny as those representing Mr. Trump. The decision by the White House to move up the starting time of its news conference by a half-hour - a move that NBC sought, at least in part to protect the starting time of Mr. Trump's "Apprentice" show - set off a chain of events that wound up garnering the president live coverage on all four major broadcast networks.

The decision, announced in the evening, had the effect of putting sufficient pressure on CBS-TV and Fox Broadcasting, to prompt them to announce that they, too, would carry the news conference live on their main networks, reversing decisions that they had announced publicly earlier in the day.

ABC had announced early in the day that it intended to carry the president live, regardless of the starting time.

I Propose

Two things:

1) Rename Iraq to "Lingering Tensions." Solely for expediecy on television. I mean, they have to say it every time, "There are lingering tensions in Iraq today..." Lingering from when? Forever? When we got there? When did the tensions begin? I want to know so when I tell my kids about "lingering tensions" I can actually give them a starting point. Then they can continue to count from that point on, and pass it on to their kids. It's all about family values, and what you can pass on.

2) I really am proposing the "Hey, Dumbass, Leave This Country for a Week" Policy. This is government hand out, one red staters will love even more than the tax dollars the blue states send them.

Simple policy. Every person living a marathon's distance from the nearest post office gets $2000, once, to be used on a family vacation. But here's the catch: they have to leave the country, and Mexico doesn't count since it would be unfair to force them to the land inhabited by the people they seem to hate most.
Anywhere will do. They can goto that country called Europe, Canada, anywhere, as long as they go and see how other people live. I think it would be tremendously beneficial in trying to help these insulated folk learn about the world around them, and what the overall opinion of the United States really is.

If they choose the Christian pilgrimage to the Middle East we'll throw in an extra $5 Hundy.

Memories

Of another time:

From the St. Petersburg Times, September 26, 1999: "From virtually the beginning of Clinton's presidency, [Republicans] have blocked, stalled and shut down judicial confirmations in an attempt to keep jurists with the slightest liberal bent off the bench. Of the 62 judicial nominations put up by Clinton this year, the Senate has voted to confirm only 17."

From the San Diego Union-Tribune, January 22, 2000: "Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., [said] that he and at least 13 other Republicans will block confirmation votes on every judicial nominee sent to the Senate by President Clinton in his last year in office."

From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, February 11, 2000: "Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott pushed through the confirmation of two federal judges Thursday, defying an effort by his fellow Republicans to block all nominations submitted by the Clinton administration."

From the San Francisco Chronicle, March 10, 2000: "Confirmation votes [on two nominees] had been delayed for years by conservative Republican senators who charged [they] were liberal activists named to a federal appeals court that already leans too far to the left. [One nominee] had to wait four years before yesterday's vote, the longest delay in history for any federal judicial nominee."

I can hear Republicans now, "That was almost last century, you're talking about."

Do I Really?

Yes, you have to.

The President's giving a News Conference tonight. Remember, back in the day, when President's did this all the time? That's right, Presidents used to field questions from reporters all the time.

Check some numbers:

Bush has held 15 solo news conferences since taking office. At the same point in their presidencies, according to research by Martha Joynt Kumar of Towson University in Maryland, Bill Clinton had held 42; George H.W. Bush, 83; Ronald Reagan, 26; Jimmy Carter, 59; Gerald R. Ford, 39; Richard M. Nixon, 29; Lyndon B. Johnson, 88; John F. Kennedy, 65; and Dwight D. Eisenhower, 94.

Coincidentally, check which two had the fewest (aside from Bush). Birds of a feather flock together.

But don't worry, this NEWS Conference will be covered as if a Pope died. Everytime he talks the media treats it as if he's doing us a favor.

So, why's he doing it? Well, things aren't doing so well down on the stupid farm, and in order to get their judges in place they need positive vibrations. Enter The Danger Zone.

When Bush Co. decides that he actually has to go on television and talk, things are bad. With high oil prices, people against his Social Security plan (it's nice of me to even call it a plan), John Bolton, and the absurdities that swirl up above the Conservatives these days, it's time for the President to say a few things.

Of course, today is the day the Iraqis agreed on some things, so he'll mention that, and it is the first 100 days of his second term, so that's another reason. But it's really because of the negative news, and nothing more. Fingers are surely crossed.

Can you believe this putz won again? One would think he would become more presidential over time, but every time I see him I just think, "Is it me or does he actually LOOK dumber?"

Okay, okay, so all in all, if he doesn't have good news he can't get the Congress to change the rules so they can put their judges in place. If they can't put their judges in place in the next 3 years then they've failed. If the economy is bad, and people aren't happy, he won't be able to do it. Tonight they hope to hang on, especially with today's bad economic news.

He Didn't Know

The House Majority Leader, Tom Delay, is going to say, "I didn't know who paid for my trips..." That's a legitimate excuse, according to his lawyers. If you can prove you weren't aware of who paid for what you can get off. No, really! There's a congressional rule that allows for that.

Show of hands here. Who here has ever been on an airplane, or a vacation, and has no idea who paid for it? Anyone? Anyone?

Of course not! Yet, one of the most powerful men in the United States has no idea. Guys like this, they're responsible for crafting laws like the Patriot Act. They're responsible for the Department of Homeland Security. If you were in an airport and were being questioned by DHS, and they asked you, "Who paid for this ticket?" If you said you didn't know because you truly didn't know, chances are you'd have some issues to deal with. I'm not talking about jail, or anything. I'm talking about looking like a fucking idiot in front of minimum wage employees, and a line full of people who think you're a moron.

Who doesn't know? Tom Delay, that's who. A man responsible for crafting laws has no idea who pays for his vacations and trips. He also has no idea who pays for his dinner, his golf, and other fun stuff. Just won't have a clue.

Ok, so lets say he has a clue, and doesn't use the, "I'm really a moron. No, really!" Defense, and House members come to his defense by accusing others of doing the same thing, won't that tell us a lot about "Personal Responsibility?" Afterall, they are the party that claims such a mantra.

Conservatives are your parents. I know they claim to desire less government control, but they know best. Trust them. Think back again to when you were a child, around the age of 7, or 8, and you did something wrong in school like stole a 6 pack of soda from the janitor's office (that's just a random thought...:) Lets say you got caught, and your excuse was, "Well, it wasn't just me that did it..." Parents never seem to care about what the other kid did since it was YOUR responsibility to control YOUR actions. Well, Mr. Schiav...uhh, Delay, parent to everyone, will surely allow that defense to be used. I know this because I have eyes and ears, and have seen and heard it already.

No Worries

If you can't be Senator there's always Supreme Court Justice for you.

Ughhh

"Politicians, they're all the same..."


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Polls...

I'm surprised these people are so pro-life, considering they'll never pull out:

Half of all Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Organization reported this morning.

"This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003," the pollsters observed. "At that time, 31% said the administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004."

Also, according to the latest poll, more than half of Americans, 54%, disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 43% approve. In early February, Americans were more evenly divided on the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, with 50% approving and 48% disapproving.

Last week Gallup reported that 53% now believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "not worth it." But Frank Newport, editor in chief at Gallup, recalled today that although a majority of the public began to think the Vietnam war was a mistake in the summer of 1968, the United States did not pull out of Vietnam for more than five years, after thousands of more American lives were lost.

Pulling out would be admitting a mistake, and staying in...well, I'd say it's their baby, but it unfortunately belongs to everyone.

Doing The Peoples' Work

Congress.

In Other Words

We're willing to admit the way we handled the ethics rules was, well, unethical:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert said he is prepared to ``step back'' from ethics rules changes to end a deadlock with Democrats that has blocked the chamber's ethics panel from operating this year.

Representative Deborah Pryce of Ohio, who chairs the House Republican Conference, said Hastert pressed lawmakers at a meeting this morning to support a reversal of the ethics rules passed in January. Hastert later told reporters that he would send a letter to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi with an offer to end the impasse.

``I'm willing to step back,'' Hastert said. Republicans ``need to move forward. We need to put this behind us.''

Now that Republicans are doing this they've already begun their move to blame everyone else, including Delay. They didn't even waste a day before they started moving against Democrats for supposed ethics violations.

I cannot believe this is the party that considers itself the party of God.

Wait, of course I believe it. Who am I kidding?

Keep Your Eye on the Ball

Mr. and Mrs. Media Guy.

I can see it now, the defense of Tom Delay on the Sunday talk shows and the Right Wing Radio Puppet shows. "What Tom Delay is something all members of Congress have done...Nancy Pelosi did it..." Even though, apparently, she didn't.

Tom Delay's issues with regard to travel, paying his wife and daughter, and his problems with his Texas PAC are much larger than whether, or not, someone filed the right expense form.

It's not the same, but I'm sure with people like Bob Novak, Sean Hannity, and hilarious people like Dennis Miller, they'll certainly make it seem like it is.

Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy

JC, Bitches:

The 20 Happiest Cities

1. Laredo, TX: A+

2. El Paso, TX: A+

3. Jersey City, NJ: A+

4. Corpus Christi, TX: A+

5. Baton Rouge, LA: A

6. Honolulu, HI: A-

7. Fresno, CA: A-

8. San Jose, CA: A-

9. Lincoln, NE: B+

10. Bakersfield, CA: B+

11. Buffalo, NY: B+

12. Anchorage, AK: B+

13. Stockton, CA: B+

14. Shreveport, LA: B+

15. (3-way tie) Madison, WI: B, Montgomery, AL: B, and Des Moines, IA: B

18. Wichita, KS: B

19. (tie) Sacramento, CA: B and Omaha, NE: B

The 20 Most Depressed Cities

1. Philadelphia, PA: F

2. Detroit, MI: F

3. St. Petersburg, FL: F

4. St. Louis, MO: F

5. Tampa, FL: F

6. Indianapolis, IN: F

7. (3-way tie) Mesa, AZ: F, Phoenix, AZ: F, and Scottsdale, AZ: F

10. Cleveland, OH: F

11. New York, NY: D-

12. Salt Lake City, UT: D-

13. Atlanta, GA: D

14. (3-way tie) Yonkers, NY: D, Pittsburgh, PA: D, and Kansas City, MO: D

17. (3-way tie) Long Beach, CA: D, Los Angeles, CA: D, Nashville, TN" D

20. Portland, OR: D

They Don't Follow Polls

They're bold:

As the Senate moves toward a major confrontation over judicial appointments, a strong majority of Americans oppose changing the rules to make it easier for Republican leaders to win confirmation of President Bush's court nominees, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

GOP leaders are threatening a rule change to prohibit the use of filibusters to block judicial nominees and have stepped up their criticism of the Democrats for using the tactic on some of Bush's nominees to the federal appellate courts. They say they are prepared to invoke what has become known as the "nuclear option" to ensure that Bush's nominees receive an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

But by a 2 to 1 ratio, the public rejected easing Senate rules in a way that would make it harder for Democratic senators to prevent final action on Bush's nominees. Even many Republicans were reluctant to abandon current Senate confirmation procedures: Nearly half opposed any rule changes, joining eight in 10 Democrats and seven in 10 political independents, the poll found.

The wide-ranging survey also recorded a precipitous decline in support for the centerpiece of Bush's Social Security plan -- private or personal accounts -- despite the fact that the president and other administration officials have been stumping the country in a 60-day blitz to mobilize support. The Post-ABC poll found that a bare majority -- 51 percent -- opposed such accounts, while 45 percent supported them.

The poll also registered drops in key Bush performance ratings, growing pessimism about the economy and continuing concern about U.S. involvement in Iraq.

On the issue that has consumed the capital's political community this spring, four in 10 said that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, under fire for alleged ethics violations, should resign his leadership post, while a third of the public said he should remain in his job. Among the 36 percent who said they have been following the allegations against DeLay, nearly two in three said DeLay should step down.

Imagine if the last issue was actually in the news? 4 in 10 said step down, but for those who have a clue, 2 out of 3.

Here It Is

Supposedly, the Texas Board of Education was late in notifying its schools and districts as to whether they met the No Child Left Behind standards. Therefore, the Federal Government is fining them.

In other words, schools that fail will receive less money as a punishment, and somehow this is going to make those schools better in the future.

Makes sense.

More absurd is the issue between Texas and the Fed is over how many students can be classified as learning disabled, and given easier tests. I'm sure state governments are manipulating that number, but I'm equally sure a lot more students have learning disabilities than we assume. I don't think withholding money from an already tremendously underfunded educational system is going to fix that.

Then again, the whole point of the Bush plan is failure. When it all comes and done, and both teachers and students can't reach the goals setup they can bring their case forward again about why privatization is better than the public system, and why diverting money to religious schools is a must.

Thank God...

...we went into Iraq when we did.

The official, official, OFFICIAL WMD Report resembles the interior of Bush's skull: There's nothing there.

WASHINGTON - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.

“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”

Had we not gone in when we did things could have been disastrous. I just want to explain to all the foreigners who read this site about the primary, but hidden, raison d'etre for our going in:

Had the Iraqis figured out there were no WMD they would have all killed themselves out of fear. There were concerns that had the Iranians realized the Iraqis were defenseless another war would have begun, and Iraq would have been wiped out. Putting pride first, Iraqis would not have let the Iranians dominate them, so they all would have committed suicide. However, thank goodness the United States of America came to the rescue and established a presence there. Our goal has always been saving Iraqis from themselves.

So this whole, official no WMD nonsense is just that, nonsense.

By the way, if you don't buy our reason for going in, don't worry about it, we've got a book full of others equally as unbelievable. Whichever one works for you, roll with it. I suggest knowing all of them because you'll encounter many dumb fucks across this country who will surely use one of them on you. If you want to be able to counter absurdity you need to really wrap yourself around it, be with, suck it.

Who Gives a Rat's Ass?

This whole John Bolton to the UN thing, who really cares? Do regular, every day, average Jane and Joe people give a shit? No. In fact, most of my friends don't care either.

Here's 5 random people I asked. A doctor, head of a company, an assistant, a scientist, and a saleaman:

Salesman

WEINISH: who's John Bolton?
JuanEpstein: ?
WEINISH: just wondering if you knew who John Bolton was.
JuanEpstein: nope

Doctor

WEINISH: who's John Bolton?
Doctor: a bad singer

Business Owner

WEINISH: who's John Bolton?
LevMeister: no clue
WEINISH: thank you.
LevMeister: np

Financial Assistant (Whose Husband Knows Everything)

WEINISH: do you know who John Bolton is?
SherpaGirl: OH HA! some loser singer from way back then with long hair!

Scientist

WEINISH: Who's John Bolton?
TheBigMoo: the guy who Bush is trying to get to be as the Ambassador to the UN, no?WEINISH: yes
TheBigMoo: y?
TheBigMoo: just checking my Civics knowlege?
WEINISH: sorta. you'll see on my site.

Yeah, thought so.

Sure, I could have hit up my friends who I talk politics with, but there's no point. Average people who I don't speak politics with have no idea. TheBigMoo I knew would know since we do occassionally talk politics, but more to the point he actually is interested, and I knew that. The others are just like most people I know: succesful, smart, interested in the world around them. However, no one really knows, nor cares, who John Bolton is. Apparetnly, Michael Bolton is on the tips of many tongues.

More to the point, this is the kind of battle Democrats may actually win, and a battle I really could care less if they did.

Bolton is a HORRAWFUL choice for the UN, but that didn't stop the White House from throwing him up there. In fact, I now believe they intentionally threw the worst possible candidate up there just to create another distraction!

Seriously, they had to know he was the worst choice possible. Person after person has come forward and said he is impossible to work for, he doesn't tolerate disent, and he tries to intimidate workers who disagree with him. There are many positions in government where these tactics probably could work, maybe even beneficial. But Ambassador to the UN? I think not.

To start with Bolton has been a critic of the UN and multinational treaties. Who takes a job that don't want? Who votes for a person to hold an office the person criticizes? No one, of course!

The UN is a deliberative body where nations use diplomacy to achieve success. The Bush Administration has the worst diplomacy record I can think of, and yet they've nominated the worst person possible to conduct it on our behalf. What?!?!? Is there not one Senator who will actually call them out on this? It's as plain as white bread. They want this guy to get hung up. They want it in the news.

First off, the White House knows there are so many goose-stepping hack Republican Senators who will vote to confirm no matter what, so it's not like the White House has to waste political capital on them. For those Senators who have actually mulled over the vote (Lincoln Chafee, Chuck Hagel), they can conjure up many reasons why he should be confirmed, and why he shouldn't be. In the end, it's win/win.

It looks more and more like Bolton won't be confirmed, and if Chafee votes against him (and any other Republican Senator) it creates the illusion he is "an independent." This suits Chafee perfectly because he's from Rhode Island which isn't exactly Bush country. This gives him a chance to show some of that BIPARTISANSHIP!

Voting down a man like Bolton for UN Ambassador would be like voting against Strom Thurmond to lead the Office of Racial Harmony. But it works great for those bold Senators worried about not seeming to close to the Bush White House, which isn't exactly racking up good poll numbers. In fact, Bush has the lowest approval rating of any second term president at this point in history.

Second, as I already mentioned, this is a distraction from all the problems we as a nation face. Bad news in Iraq, bad news on the economy, the President is stumping for a Social Security Reform plan that has no support, AND no details! What?!?!? Yet the news seems focused not on States turning down No Child Left Behind money, or the Farm Bill, or Senator Frist conducting politics in churches, or Congressman Tom Delay's problems. No, the news is focused on some mustached Jackass who has no business being US Ambassador to the UN.

Perfect.

Bolton may be qualified to do other things in government, but of all the people uner Bush there could not be someone less suited for this position, and yet there's a battle in the Senate. To think, he actually MIGHT BE CONFIRMED!

Guess what? Ironically, I'm all for his confirmation! I want this guy to goto the UN and put a face on the Bush Administration that most of the world has already seen. True colors, I'm all for it. That actually make this cover up worth it. The theory of "things need to get worse before they get better" is something I'm firmly behind. However, it won't pan out like that.

There are many situations Americans care about, but no one's talking about them. We're talking about another cover.

:)

Bush Country:

Putting more evangelicals on the court will mean rulings more in tune with the religious convictions of churchgoers, said R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.

"We are not asking for persons merely to be moral," Mohler said. "We want them to be believers in the Lord Jesus Christ."

These are the people Senator Leader Bill Frist is speaking to.

Headline Scenario

"Bush Urges Saudis to Boost Oil Production"

"Saudis Say to Bush, 'Blow Me'"

"Bush Tells Saudis He Has Been For Years"

"Saudis Tell Bush He Needs Work on Blowing Skills"

"Bush Confronts Saudis: Most Americans Think I Blow"

"Saudis Respond: Most People Think You Blow"

"Bush Finds Common Ground With Saudis"

"Democrats Confused: Think Bush Blows, but Also Saw Him in Flight Suit"

Who's Your Daddy?

It's even better when his best friend says it:

One of Bush's closest confidants and longtime chief of staff, Andy Card, described the president's own vision of his role as president: "It struck me as I was speaking to people in Bangor, Maine, that this president sees America as we think about a ten-year-old child. ... I know, as a parent, I would sacrifice all for my children." In Bush's case, paternalism isn't a metaphor. It's a commitment worth trillions of dollars of other people's money.

This article is a good take on where Conservatism is today.

I'll give Andy a pass on his assessment of "liberalism" because it's very hard to discuss it without actually admitting how much conservatives lie in pushing their own agenda. It's something that always gets left out for some reason.

Back Pocket

Bush's Boy 


Watch the footage of today's meeting in Crawford because CNN has already shown pictures of the two men holding hands (this is an older picture).

How many other world leaders does Bush hold hands with? Must feel pretty comfortable with the leader of the world's most oppressive theocracy.

Get out and vote Bush, Jews!

Admission

Why am I not surprised:

The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry but important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations. But for this week's meeting in Guatemala City, politics has barged onto the agenda. At least four of the two dozen or so U.S. delegates selected for the meeting, sources tell TIME, have been bumped by the White House because they supported John Kerry's 2004 campaign.

The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush's second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.

The White House admits as much: "We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and--call us nutty--it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that," says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Those barred from the trip include employees of Qualcomm and Nokia, two of the largest telecom firms operating in the U.S., as well as Ibiquity, a digital-radio-technology company in Columbia, Md. One nixed participant, who has been to many of these telecom meetings and who wants to remain anonymous, gave just $250 to the Democratic Party. Says Nokia vice president Bill Plummer: "We do not view sending experts to international meetings on telecom issues to be a partisan matter. We would welcome clarification from the White House."

It actually makes perfect sense.

The Republicans do not have confidence in their own message, so they only way to keep it out there is to completely supress the ther message. For a bunch of people who claim to like the "marketplace" they certainly have a strange way of employing one when it comes to the "marketplace for ideas."

Like everything else it's only their message they want you to hear, or others to hear. This is why analysts at the Pentago, CIA, FBI, and other offices are silenced. Critics are fired. Protestors are moved into "Protest Zones." If other messages made it out into the public support for their ideas was crumble more than they already are. They don't have positive poll numbers on any front and center issue right now. Imagine if there was actually a competing idea on the same side of the aisle?

On some level it's pretty dumb not to have a markerplace within the party since that would give their constituents choices, and maybe a better idea would emerge. This is a chance the White House doesn't seem to want to take (probably because they're really not concerned with Social Security). Staying on message and forcing it down your throats is the only way they see their plans working, hence never an apology for a mistake.

It all gets back to them being your parents, and knowing what is best for everyone. If you read the news it seems Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa is not for the President's Social Security borrowing plan, but you hear little about Grassley's plan, and his actually has SOME detail.

It's all a scripted event because Bush is too dumb to think on his own, and he himself admitted it.

It's Amazing

How dumb Americans are.

You think the rich pay their "fair share?" Think again.

Just another way these people get away with not paying their taxes.

You Sign a Contract...

You live by it! That's what I keep hearing from commentators about NFL WR Terrell Owens.

I for one have always been a believer of that statement, but when it comes to Owens I disagree. Recently, Owens took a shot at Eagles QB Donovan McNabb when he said, "I'm not the one who got tired in the Superbowl..." Well, if you saw the Superbowl one would have to take it a step further and say, "I'm not the one who sucked in the Superbowl and did nothing to help us win..." Owens, on the other hand, did everything. Pre-Owens, the Eagles were knocked out of the NFC Title game 2 or 3 times. Owens took the team to the next level, and put on one of the greatest performances in the history of sports by playing through a terrible injury, and risking his entire career to win the title for Philadelphia fans.

Historically, Philly fans have been the most classless fans in all of sports. They rival British Hooligans. All Eagles fans care about is winning, and Owens proved that's all he cares about. Why do Eagles fans care that he wants more money?

Some may say the Eagles rescued Owens from Baltimore, a place he didn't want to play, but in reality, after last season you have to say, "Owens rescured McNabb, and carried the Eagles to the Superbowl." Say what you want about McNabb, but is there anyone who didn't think it was Owens' team that day?

Anyway, I am generally all for honoring a contract, but Owens and the Eagles did a rush deal just to get him onto the team. He did his part. In good faith, the Eagles should come to Owens and renegotiate because he is the best WR in football, and quite possibly the hardest working player in the game. He deserves to get paid like it.

He went on television and cried about not being able to feed his family. People laughed considering how much money he does make. However, we cannot assume how many people he actually does house and feed, and we are not aware of the expenses he has for himself. He may live like a king, and should considering his status in the NFL. Those tears he shed, while seemingly ridiculous, have a lot to do with the fact that he put his career on the line to win the Superbowl, and had he lost his career he would have actually had a hard time feeding people who are used to being fed by T.O.

Yes, there's something absurd about all of that, but also some truth in it. I've never noticed Owens to be a disingenuous, or dishonest, person. He always seems straightforward, and I view this situation no differently.

The Eagles did him a favor, Owens did them a favor, and now it's time to give this guy what he deserves, relative to other athletes of his calibur. Plus, on the field you may hate the guy, but considering his wild persona you'd expect to hear negative things about him off the field. With T.O. you never hear a bad thing about him off the field. He leaves everything on the field.

Without Terrell Owens the Eagles are not the going anywhere except back to the places they were before he arrived.