Keeps Getting Better

It's Bill Clinton's fault:

The Secret Service's job is to protect the president from harm, not embarrassment. Determining that the person who ran off Bauer, Weise and Young was not an agent - as the Secret Service says it has - is not enough.

The guy who did this wore an earpiece and lapel pin like an agent. Bauer, Weise and Young say the man refused to identify himself but acted like an agent.

He told them to leave before Bush arrived, not because they acted up but because Republicans feared they might disrupt the president. They had, after all, arrived in a car with a "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker. They also wore "No More Lies" T-shirts hidden under their clothes, which they had thought about exposing.

They didn't. They didn't do anything. And therein lies the scandal.

Newly disclosed memos prove that only those who agree with the president on privatizing retirement accounts get to speak at Bush's Social Security roadshow, even though it is paid for by taxpayers of all political persuasions.

At a recent forum in New York, Bush actually used the word "propaganda" to describe what he is doing.

All presidents take that approach to policy. But preemptively removing political opponents who have committed no crime nor disrupted an official White House event blurs the line between security and intimidation.

It is unconstitutional.

I don't even know what "it's Bill Clinton's fault" means, but when Republicans have nothing that's usually the answer.

I expect Tim Russert to be all over this like he is a diet.

Nice Country

No, really:

The Republican chairman walked off with the gavel, leaving Democrats shouting into turned-off microphones at a raucous hearing Friday on the Patriot Act.


The House Judiciary Committee hearing, with the two sides accusing each other of being irresponsible and undemocratic, came as President Bush was urging Congress to renew those sections of the post-Sept. 11 counterterrorism law set to expire in September.


Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the panel, abruptly gaveled the meeting to an end and walked out, followed by other Republicans. Sensenbrenner declared that much of the testimony, which veered into debate over the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, was irrelevant.


Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., protested, raising his voice as his microphone went off, came back on, and went off again.


"We are not besmirching the honor of the United States, we are trying to uphold it," he said.


Democrats asked for the hearing, the 11th the committee has held on the act since April, saying past hearings had been too slanted toward witnesses who supported the law. The four witnesses were from groups, including Amnesty International USA and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, that have questioned the constitutionality of some aspects of the act, which allows law enforcement greater authority to investigate suspected terrorists.


Nadler said Sensenbrenner, one of the authors of the Patriot Act, was "rather rude, cutting everybody off in mid-sentence with an attitude of total hostility."


Tempers flared when Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., accused Amnesty International of endangering the lives of Americans in uniform by referring to the prison at Guantanamo Bay as a "gulag." Sensenbrenner didn't allow the Amnesty representative, Chip Pitts, to respond until Nadler raised a "point of decency."


Sensenbrenner's spokesman, Jeff Lungren, said the hearing had lasted two hours and "the chairman was very accommodating, giving members extra time."


James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, speaking immediately after Sensenbrenner left, voiced dismay over the proceedings. "I'm troubled about what kind of lesson this gives" to the rest of the world, he told the Democrats remaining in the room.


House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, in a statement, said the hearing was an example of Republican abuse of power and she would ask House Speaker Dennis Hastert to order an apology from Sensenbrenner.

Hey

Don't make me goto Crawford! I'll do it, I swear!!!

Because We're Morons

Not us, the CIA & FBI. Because they're cock competing, territorial, morons, we need the Patriot Act:

The F.B.I. missed at least five chances in the months before Sept. 11, 2001, to find two hijackers as they prepared for the attacks and settled in San Diego, the Justice Department inspector general said in a report made public on Thursday after being kept secret for a year. Investigators were stymied by bureaucratic obstacles, communication breakdowns and a lack of urgency, the report said.

The blistering findings mirror those of the independent Sept. 11 commission last summer and a joint Congressional inquiry in 2002 but they also provide significant new details about the many bureaucratic breakdowns that plagued the Federal Bureau of Investigation before the attacks and are likely to fuel questions about the bureau's efforts to remake itself. The Sept. 11 commission had access to an earlier version of the inspector general's study and incorporated parts of those findings in its final report.

In the case of the San Diego hijackers, for instance, the report disclosed that an F.B.I. agent assigned to the Central Intelligence Agency wanted to pass on information to the F.B.I. about the two men in early 2000 - 19 months before the attacks - but was blocked by a C.I.A. supervisor and did not aggressively follow up. That set the stage for a series of bungled opportunities in an episode that many officials now regard as their best chance to have detected or disrupted the Sept. 11 plot.

Many passages in the public version of the report were blacked out to shield information still considered sensitive by the government; an entire 115-page section on one terror suspect was withheld.

Btw, the information was shieled so the President wouldn't have to answer questions about it during the election. Worse than Nixon.

Lights Out Mix

This just kills it.

5.30.05 DJ Vadim - "Oneself"

Pffff

It never ends:

A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children's educational programs as "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," "Arthur" and "Postcards From Buster."

In addition, the subcommittee acted to eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- which passes federal funds to public broadcasters -- starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB's budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million.

In all, the cuts would represent the most drastic cutback of public broadcasting since Congress created the nonprofit CPB in 1967. The CPB funds are particularly important for small TV and radio stations and account for about 15 percent of the public broadcasting industry's total revenue.

Expressing alarm, public broadcasters and their supporters in Congress interpreted the move as an escalation of a Republican-led campaign against a perceived liberal bias in their programming. That effort was initiated by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's own chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson.

Because all politicians are the same. Keep telling yourself that.

Latenight with Al Greenspan

I stayed up late last night watching Chairman Greenspan do some amazing things. For a second I switched over the Leno who was interviewing Vince Vaughn, but he had nothing on Al.

Amazingly, Mr. Greenspan would answer ever democrat's question with an answer Republicans would want to hear, and vice versa. Truly phenomenal!

Note: All quotes aren't exact since I was jotting drunk, but still managed to understand Mr. Greenspan on a higher level than Senator Ron Paul.

Watching the two sides ask questions is really something to behold. On the one side you have the democrats asking pointed questions about the future, and what needs to be done. Most of them just want him to admit the current policy is a failure, the rich are getting richer, and on and on.

The Republicans are more fun to watch. They're the party in power, and yet so angry. They don't even ask questions that have anything to do with economics. Usually they'll start their question off as if it's going to have something to do with economics, but it ends up just being a defense of America. Senators Robert Bennett (UT) and Ron Paul (TX) were top notch in this department.

Both Paul and Bennett continued to press Greenspan about America, claiming that we're clearly doing better than everyone else in the world, right? Paul discussed oil reserves, and the cost of, since Greenspan addressed it earlier. By like a good PWSEE (had to revert), his head must have been rammed up his ass when Greenspan addressed the issue.

Greenspan discussed at length how the cost of barrel of oil was going to be high, and remain high, and that the old "$20 a barrel" is no longer realistic. Greenspan mentioned this was because of political realities, not so much economic. His point was that OPEC producing countries were having internal debates about whether to pour profits back into the oil industry, or spread the wealth to it's citizenry. Either way, costs will be high. In addition, foreign companies are not allowed to invest in this state run, or state licensed, companies. In fact, it's even written into Mexico's Constitution.

Of course, none of this mattered to Senator Paul, who then challenged Mr. Greenspan to respond to his comments about "political" factors. Paul went on to discuss "blowing up pipelines" and the "turmoil" in the Middle East. He heard what he wanted to hear, not what was said. At no point did Greenspan bring up this issues, but Paul heard "political" and that was enough for him to act like he had a clue.

Senator Bennett was equally as clueless when he discussed how great America is versus everyone else. He descibed a world where no matter how bad things get here, it's still a better option than the rest of the world, right? Regardless of our deficits, this is still the best investment for others, right? He went on, and on.

Greenspan let him know that investors come here because our Constitution does such a good job of protecting investors/investments. However, this line of questioning enabled Greenspan to make some real points.

Throughout the Q & A period Greenspan discussed the education problem in this country. He commented that over the years the United States has had the ability to reinvent itself, and continue to excel, but he sees serious problems in the future, and all of it comes right back to education. What are we going to do about this major issue, he wondered. A Congressman from New York tried to get him to admit that tax cuts short change education, and every other social policy, but he would't directly go there. He did express a dire outlook because of education. He believes America will fall behind, and that other countries are more than catching up. I don't remember the quote exactly but I believe it was "the education of American students is below the median of the rest of the world." He's not sure what can, or will be done. He has sounded these alarms, he assured everyone, but isn't sure if anyone listens.

Greenspan also admitted the only way to close the budget gaps/deficits is to raise taxes and cut spending. Since no Congressman will ever cut real spending, raising taxes is the only way. Considering he admitted that a "capitalist democratic society cannot accept growing wage inequality" (again, not a direct quote, but damn close) it's obvious how he feels about who should be taxed, at least right now.

It doesn't seem to me that any of these comments are grand enough to set off alarms, but if you watched the testimony you would be hard pressed not to realize that our education and finance issues are much larger than our terrorism issue.

Finally, Chairman Jim Saxton (NJ) is a total idiot. He was truly Hacktacular. His comments on why we're doing so "seemingly well" since unemployment is at 5.1% were truly, uhhhh, Republican. After Greenspan discussed how many people were dropping from the labor force, how many immigrants were taking jobs, and wage discrepancies, this was Saxton's response to Congresswoman Barbara Maloney's worries.

That guy should be shot right in the face for being so dumb.

Never Accountable

The Minnesota Star Tribune is again taking Bush and Blair to task over the Downing Street Memo and Iraq War. Just a couple of weeks ago they flat out called Bush a liar.

On the subject of when, why and how the United States decided to attack Iraq, American citizens' recent seeming lack of interest has been a puzzle to many in the rest of the world. As the Bush administration's stated reasons for war shifted, ebbed and flowed, many simply went with the flow, finding each succeeding reason -- well, reason enough. Some became more and more skeptical, even cynical; others just didn't know what to believe. But whatever their reasons, Americans have shown much less interest than the British in a bombshell of a memo leaked last month in London.

Tuesday provided a moment when top leaders could have helped them sort it all out, yet little was clarified -- which can only lead to increased skepticism on the part of anyone paying close attention.

A "puzzle to the rest of the world?" What do you want to know? What piece doesn't fit?

Here, let me lay it out for you.

There are Americans who do care, but whose leaders are a bunch of pansies. Then there are Americans who don't care, and can never be told America did anything wrong.

The first group, we'll call them "People With Heads Not in Their Asses" (PWHNTA) have lost any faith that the Democrats (party in opposition) can force the other party to be accountable. They have little power, and can usually be found in the nearest corner.

The PWHNTA complained loudly for a long time. They even marched in various cities, and wherever the President was speaking. However, the government used to make them stand inside a Protest Zone which was far away from the President. He never really heard them because they were so far away, and his helpers never told him the PWHNTA existed, so he didn't know of any opposition. Clearly not his fault. Blame the helpers.

Then there's the other group: People With Shit in Eyes and Ears (PWSEE - try saying this and see what you get). These people not only can't see, but they also can't hear due to the shit cloggage. For years I've been begging them to pull their heads out of their own asses, but they refuse.

Another huge problem with the PWSEEs is they hate being told they're wrong about anything. They love America soooooo much they refuse to believe America could ever do anything wrong. During the millennium the world was waiting for some catastrophic occurance, but the only thing catastrophic was what happened to this group. They went from blaming America non-stop for 8 years, to never blaming America at all. It was really freaky.

Because the PWSEEs hate admitting wrong doing they run with any excuse that makes them right. Even though they know deep down they're wrong about certain things, they believe they're right. Somehow, some way, they believe it. We often call them "believers." They will constantly change rationale, reasoning, or the excuse to meet their predetermined belief.

This last point is probably the biggest point to recognize: predetermined belief. See, the PWSEEs don't like science, and the PWHNTA love the science. This is a major conflict. I know, you're asking, "what does science have to do with any of this?" I'm telling you it has everything to do with everything, but we're going to stick to how it applies in the case of the Iraq War.

In science you face a problem, and through experimentation, examination, trial, and error you come to a conclusion. Once tested repeatedly you have your result, at least for the time being. You're not supposed to come into the experiment with a set result, but rather you're suppose to achieve a result through the trial and error phase. But nooooo, not the PWSEEs. In almost everything they do they have a predetermined set of beliefs, or goals, regardless of what happened during the trial and error phase. Often, the experiment flies in the face of their beliefs, and they get very frustrated.

It's understandable. When you're wrong time, and time again, you get frustrated, and that's why the PWSEEs hate science.

You can look at the Iraq War like an experiment. The PWSEEs had a predetermined belief, and even though they're wrong every time they continue to look for excuses, or data, to support their belief. This is probably why so few succesful scientists are PWSEEs!

Digressing from the war, if you want another example, just check out the latest experiments on the environment. The PWSEEs didn't like the data, so they just changed it.

Both Have it Wrong

Canadians will find the right balance:

The Canadian Supreme Court struck down a Quebec law banning private medical insurance today, dealing an acute blow to the publicly financed national health care system.

The court stopped short of striking down the constitutionality of the country's vaunted nationwide coverage, but legal experts said the ruling would open the door to a wave of lawsuits challenging the health care system in other provinces.

The system, providing Canadians with free doctor's services that are paid for by taxes, has generally been supported by the public, and is broadly identified with the Canadian national character.

But in recent years, patients have been forced to wait longer for diagnostic tests and elective surgery, while the wealthy and well connected either seek care in the United States or use influence to jump ahead on waiting lists.

The court ruled that the waiting lists had become so long that they violated patients' "liberty, safety and security" under the Quebec charter, which covers about one-quarter of Canada's population.

The best system, one the United States should employ, is the tiered system like they have in Switzerland and Germany.

The argument the Canadian Government makes is the best doctors will flood to the private hospitals, and the public system will be short changed. I find that to be a specious argument.

Certainly, the private sector will attract certain doctors, but take the legal profession. You have people who work for the government who could certainly go private, and vice versa. The private sector pays more, but the public sector certainly has benefits. Ask my sister, she'll tell ya.

Also, the private health insurance market in this country, and private hospitals get so much public assistance it's ridiculous. Why not see if the private system can function on its own in Canada?

A two tiered system would also give doctors something to strive for as well. Reaching for the top in the medical profession would be a good thing, right? Wouldn't that foster competition?

All we need now is a public health program that insures all those who opt into it, and allow others to purchase supposedly better private plans. I'm not a believer of nationalizing the entire health care industry, and I don't know many people who are. However, I'm sure Republicans would then ask that their tax dollars be used for their private plans, the same way they do for education, etc.

Cool

Or should I say "Kool":

Government lawyers asked two of their own witnesses to soften recommendations about sanctions that should be imposed on the tobacco industry if it lost a landmark civil racketeering case, one of the witnesses and sources familiar with the case said yesterday.

Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said the Justice Department's lead trial lawyer called him May 9 to say her superiors wanted him to scale back the recommendations he had made in written testimony. They sought to remove his suggestions for a ban on tobacco company methods of marketing to young people before Myers took the stand. Myers said he refused to do so.

A second witness, scientific expert Michael Eriksen, also departed from recommendations in his earlier written testimony, court documents show. Eriksen declined to comment, but four separate sources familiar with the case said Justice Department lawyers had asked him to do so.

The two men were called by the government as part of its lawsuit, which contends that the nation's largest tobacco companies engaged in a 50-year conspiracy to defraud the public about the dangers and addictiveness of smoking.

They were considered crucial in helping the government establish financial penalties and other sanctions to be imposed on cigarette manufacturers to help prevent young people from becoming smokers and to protect against what the government calls additional fraud on the public.

Nothing Has Changed

Still the minority party, and that this rate they'll continue to be.

I'm watching CNN last night listening to Bill Schneider talk about Dean's comments, and watching the statistics. Loosely, 82% of the Republican party fall into the "white Christian" group. Sorry, but that is "pretty much!" Schneider went on to say that his comment was "stupid" and that something like 60% of the nation and Democratic Party is as well. I'm sorry, but a B in Math is certainly better than a D. They're hardly the same. Amazing that CNN, using statistics no less, can't even admit his point.

Then there's Ken Mehlman who said on "Fox & Friends":

"a lot of folks who attended my Bar Mitzvah would be surprised" he heads a Christian party.

Yeah, they'd also be surprised that you're gay, douche bag.

The people at your Bar Mitzvah were probably democrats since you celebrated the event some 25+ years ago, when there weren't many Jews who would actually admit to being a republican.

Why don't we go around the country and survey people attending Bar Mitvahs and ask them which party they beieve is the party of "white Christians."

Dean's point holds, and Democrats, rather than run from it, should now ELABORATE on his comments. Either take it down a peg and continue, or run with it. Every time a Republican says something ridiculous it is followed up with a mellower version. Take Senator John Cornyn or Tom Delay on judges, both were given the chance to make their splash, and then got major media time to point out exactly what they meant, even if it is a self-reflective lie.

Not democrats, noooooo sirree. They just run from the comments.

Everyone knows what he said has a lot of truth to it, and it certainly doesn't alienate Christians who voted for Democrats. It only alienates the Christian Conservatives who want to act as if they are independent minded, and are insulted by the label. They're not switching parties anyway. They may make some noise but that's not out of being insulted, but rather, only to take advantage of the situation like they always do. People can see who is holding up the religious mantle for Christians. It's not a secret.

I know no one in my family, more than half who are Christian, would ever be insulted. In fact, they're honest, so they know what he said is true.

It's dishonest of Democrats to act like it isn't true!

Oh, and before I forget: Joe Lieberman, go fuck yourself.

Smoke 'Em if You Got 'Em, Boys

And the crowd cheers!

A Justice Department decision to seek $10 billion for a stop-smoking program in its suit against the country's leading tobacco companies, instead of the $130 billion suggested by one of its expert witnesses, set off a firestorm on Wednesday.

Several Democratic lawmakers with a longtime interest in smoking and health issues attacked the department for what they said was a politically motivated decision, as did public health groups.

Judge Gladys Kessler of Federal District Court, who is presiding in the trial here against the companies, took note of the sudden change, telling the court on Wednesday, "Perhaps it suggests that additional influences have been brought to bear on what the government's case is."

The move infuriated lawmakers who have long been critics of the tobacco industry. "It reeks of an administration whose heart isn't really in this case," said Senator Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey, at a news conference with other Democrats who suggested that Justice Department officials with ties to the tobacco industry might have grown uncomfortable with a large financial demand as part of the government's case against the companies.

The payments are intended to finance a stop-smoking program that a government witness said would cost $130 billion over 25 years. In court on Tuesday, a government lawyer, Stephen D. Brody, said the government would ask for a program costing only $10 billion to be paid out over five years.

Tobacco company lawyers expressed surprised delight at the change, saying they believed the government lawyers realized that Judge Kessler would not grant them as much as $130 billion.

"Why, in the middle of a lawsuit, would you give up, which is exactly what this administration has done?" said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. "Was it because of the power of the tobacco lobby? Was it their close connection with people within the administration? Was it the fact that they'd never had the stomach to tackle this special interest group in Washington?" He added, "I think it's all of the above."

Seriously, what did you think was going to happen? This is America! The small tobacco farmer must be breathing sighs of relief, assuming he can do it without a machine.

Unreal

The NHL staged a lockout, and the biggest issue was the salary cap. Initially, the players wouldn't budge from $50 million, then $42 million. So they compromised and got $36 Million! Nice work! You must have learned your negotiating skills from Senator Reid:

The NHL and the NHL Players' Association have agreed on a salary-cap system, eliminating the biggest stumbling block to the resumption of play next season, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported on its Web site Wednesday.

The paper reported that a source close to the owners, and another close to both owners and players, said there would be a team-by-team salary cap, based on a percentage of the revenue of each franchise.

In what is believed to be a six-year agreement, based on revenue projections by both sides, the salary cap will range from $34 million to $36 million, with the floor from $22 million to $24 million.

I don't care what you do, just bring it back, and start slicing off expansion teams. I know it'll never happen, but one can dream, right?

The sport shouldn't exist below the Mason Dixon line, and we'll include CA and Colorado (I don't even know if Denver is below it or not).

Here's Something I Haven't Heard in a Bit

The whole sabotage angle. But fear not, it's still there:

IRAQ'S oil export pipeline to Turkey was hit by a new sabotage blast overnight, with the attack causing substantial damage, an Iraqi oil official said.

The explosion came hours after an Iraqi oil official said it would take 10 more days to repair the pipeline following a sabotage blast last Friday.

So make it 20 days. What's the difference?

Worst Compromise Ever!

worst 


Hope that's working out for you, Democrats:

Two years after President Bush first nominated her, the Senate voted 56-43 Wednesday to confirm Janice Rogers Brown as a judge on the court of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

One Democrat — Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska — joined Republicans in voting for confirmation.

Following Brown’s confirmation, the Senate voted 67-32 to end a filibuster of former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor — the last of the three nominees whom seven Democrats agreed to clear in exchange for Republicans not banning the stalling tactic.

A confirmation vote is set for Pryor on Thursday at 4 p.m.

This'll be fun.

It's clear to me Republicans have more faith in Americans than Democrats do. Granted, Republicans are putting their faith in their stupidity, but nevertheless, more faith.

If Democrats had real backbone they would have taken Senator Bill Frist head on with this filibuster thing. They didn't. Instead, they compromised and lost. They were apparently scared that Americans would buy the "this is unprecedented...straight up or down vote..." rhetoric, so they gave in.

If Frist had changed the rules, and done away with the filibuster the result would be the same as it is now. The same judges would pass through, and when it comes to Supreme Court vacancies the fight will begin again. However, had they let Frist change the rules he would have been viewed as out of touch over time, and it would have been on record. In my opinion this would have destroyed any chance of him being President. At least take him on and force him to make the move.

Historically, changing the rules would have fit in nicely with the other current disasters the Republicans have presided over (Delay, Iraq, Filibuster, Medicare). Again, sometimes things have to get worse before they get better, and one must have faith that people will see things for how they truly are and never allow them to happen again. Instead, Democrats continually allow them to get away with anything they want, which makes what they do seem normal for politics, instead of extreme, which it is.

This further helps shift the paradigm to the right.

I can't believe what a joke this people are making of this country.

Coincidence

That this article came out a few minutes ago after my post on recruits.

Yeah, the summer months when kids are at the beach, that's when they really meet their numbers.

June 7 - Even after reducing its recruiting target for May, the Army missed it by about 25 percent, Army officials said on Tuesday. The shortfall would have been even bigger had the Army stuck to its original goal for the month.

On Friday, the Army is expected to announce that it met only 75 percent of its recruiting goal for May, the fourth consecutive monthly shortfall in the number of new recruits sent to basic training. Just over 5,000 new recruits entered boot camp in May.

But the news could have appeared worse. Early last month, the Army, with no public notice, lowered its long-stated May goal to 6,700 recruits from 8,050. Compared with the original target, the Army achieved only 62.6 percent of its goal for the month.

Army officials defended the shift on Tuesday, saying it was not uncommon to change monthly goals at midyear. They said that the latest change reflected the reality that the Army was not going to meet its May goal, and that it made more sense to shift some of that quota to the summer months, traditionally a better season for recruiters to attract new high school graduates.

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES!

How does one explain the military not meeting it's recruitment goals? THe military is doing everything possible to entice kids to enlist. In addition, they're adding recruiters and fudging numbers to make things seem ok.

I wonder how a conservative would explain the diminishing numbers. Post 9/11 there was a spike in enlistment, obviously. Many people joined to fight in Afghanistan, and against terrorists. Iraq has obviously changed the perceptions of many. Before joining the military it's probably good to understand what it is exactly you're fighting for, assuming 9/11 was the motivating factor.

I'm sure 90%, if not more, of new enlistees didn't have a clue about the political factors that led us to 9/11, but still, it was a blindly patriotic moment when we even believed Giuliani wasn't a piece of trash.

Things are different now. Bush won again, and it seemed to me the War in Iraq, and Bush's supposed ability to finish what he started through his leadership were the reasons he won. The red states gave him his victory. I look daily at the men and women who have died in Iraq and they are generally from the rural states. If these are the states who gave Bush the victory, and believe in his offensive war policies, then why are the recruiting goals not being met? Shouldn't these people be pushing their children to go fight the war? Afterall, they voted for it!

I'm told time and time again when I say that mostly blue states are the economic engine of the nation that the red states provide most of our soldiers. Not sure if that's the case. I'm sure it could be looked up. Point is, I know people from the big cities who have more opportunities in life aren't racing to enlist. It also seems to me that rural areas wave their flags and vote for Bush. I can't understand why it is then that we are not meeting our recruitment goals.

Maybe it's because these people are all hypocrites just like the people they support, and are happy sucking up blue state tax dollars while getting what they want on the religious end? That seems about right.

Meanwhile, the military looks to enlist kids who have the fewest opportunities in life to make up the gap. The kids that don't vote. They're not even constituents!

There are 2 Sides to Every Story

Right? Right. Here's how Salon tells the story:

June 8, 2005 | WASHINGTON -- Three million children will die in the poorest countries of sub-Saharan Africa as a result of the failure of the global community to meet its promise of slashing the death rates of children under age 5 by 2015, the United Nations is to reveal Wednesday. With Tony Blair Tuesday struggling to persuade George W. Bush to back Britain's ambitious plans for Africa, the U.N. Development Program said the human cost to Africa in child deaths would be the equivalent of twice the combined under-5 population of New York, London and Tokyo.

A study by the UNDP -- timed to put pressure on G8 leaders ahead of their summit at Gleneagles, Scotland, next month -- showed that based on current trends, the global community will miss by a wide margin the targets it set for poverty, infant mortality and education in the millennium development goals agreed to by the U.N. in 2000.

"These numbers should serve as a wake-up call for G8 leaders," said Kevin Watkins, the director of the U.N.'s Human Development Report office. "Africa cannot afford to see the world's richest countries sleepwalk their way to a heavily signposted -- and easily avoidable -- human development disaster..."

Blair acknowledged the details were intricate and that the U.S. was reluctant to fund interest payments to the World Bank in the event of total debt cancellation. A total cancellation of multilateral debt for the poorest African countries would be worth as much as $15 billion.

The prime minister also acknowledged that the Americans seem willing to boost their aid budget further, but only for specific programs covering issues such as water and vaccination. He also said that the U.S. would not fund an aid increase through the British Treasury's chosen method of an international finance facility, a means of borrowing the money through the bond market.

Many aid agencies reacted angrily to the initial smoke signals emerging from the Washington talks. They feared a Bush offer to provide $674 million for famine relief in Africa represented the limit of American generosity.

Then there's the Christian Broadcast Network's version, for balance's sake:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair got some of what he wanted from President Bush but not everything.

Blair worked out a deal on African poverty relief with the President. But he did not have as much success on global warming.

Blair is not giving up hope that President Bush will yet tackle climate change. That despite American opposition to the Kyoto protocol, and skepticism from Bush officials about the science of global warming.

That is just one of Blair's priorities for the G-8 summit that he is hosting in Scotland this July.

The other is reducing global poverty. After meeting with Blair, the President Bush announced Tuesday a new U.S. commitment -- nearly $700 million for African famine relief. That is on top of an estimated U.S. assistance to Africa of about three billion dollars in 2004.

Bush said, "So when I say we're going to do more, I think you can take that to the bank, as we say, because of what we have done…we have taken a leadership role. Second question, do I believe in my gut we can eradicate poverty? I do. I believe we can eradicate poverty."

You really should get to the bottom of the CBN article. Truly priceless.

Who's Accountable?

Anyone?

Three U.S. soldiers have been killed in two separate attacks north of Baghdad, the military said Wednesday.

Two 42nd Infantry Division Soldiers were killed in an indirect fire attack on their base in Tikrit, 130 kilometres north of Baghdad at about 10 p.m. Tuesday, the military said in a statement. A roadside bomb exploded near another U.S. vehicle at 10:30 p.m. Tuesday, fatally wounding a soldier attached to the 1st Corps Support Command north of Baghdad, the military said. The soldier was pronounced dead at a military medical facility.

The soldiers' names were being withheld pending next-of-kin notification.

As of Wednesday, at least 1,679 U.S. military members have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

During the election there was much discussion of post-war planning, or an "exit strategy." I seem to have forgotten what the Bush Administration's answer to that question was.

------
So the other day I was walking around beautiful downtown Jersey City when I came upon a few soldiers speaking with the young folk (and by young folk I mean a group of latino and black kids on the street). They were obviously learning about the benefits of joining the military. The best part about this scene was of the 5 kids there only one didn't have a job. It's not as if these kids were looking to sign up. They were just approached.

I was wondering if I ever saw this in my neighborhood growing up. I''m sure I did not.

Being the curious person that I am I stood by and listened to the recruiter talk about the benefits of world travel, education, and new experiences. Granted, these are certainly benefits, but it's not as if these guys didn't know the military existed. Whatever the case, I asked the group (had to) who here plans on voting in the primary. Not at a one had a clue what I was talking about. I pointed to the people right across the street holding Corzine/Manzo placards. One kid said his mom was "helping Manzo...he came to your house..." None of them had ever voted.

Picture this scene: recruiter, now backed up by another rather large recruiter, talking to the group on one side, and me on the other side of the group. Don't get me wrong, I feel for the recruiters, both of whom are black, because they believe in the military, surely, and are sent to this "hood" to recruit like-looking people. However, neither one of them is currently fighting a war somewhere else, and those who they sign up on the corner of Newark and Erie certainly will be. Maybe these guys fought already, who knows? All I know is there's something wrong with this picture.

I continue on talking and said to the group, "You guys are going to go fight for this country and yet you don't even vote? Isn't that weird that you let mostly white people send you to war, but don't have any say in electing these people? I think you should vote before you sign up to go fight a war." I walked away. I looked back once I crossed the street and the group was dispersing.

Maybe going into the Armed Forces is beneficial for some of these kids, but that's only because the same people sending them to war are the same people making sure their options in life are limited.

Once Again

The only people you can trust are the ones who leave:

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers.

The project is representing Rick S. Piltz, who resigned in March as a senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research. That office, now called the Climate Change Science Program, issued the documents that Mr. Cooney edited...

"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," Mr. Piltz wrote. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."

A senior Environmental Protection Agency scientist who works on climate questions said the White House environmental council, where Mr. Cooney works, had offered valuable suggestions on reports from time to time. But the scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because all agency employees are forbidden to speak with reporters without clearance, said the kinds of changes made by Mr. Cooney had damaged morale. "I have colleagues in other agencies who express the same view, that it has somewhat of a chilling effect and has created a sense of frustration," he said.

Bush couldn't have known. He's only a "delegator" not an overseer.

You're Aware

That if Reagan was President, and this was the 80s the United States would be conducting a clandestine operation in Bolivia:

Tens of thousands of Bolivian peasants and miners marched through La Paz on Tuesday as some opposition leaders urged early elections to end the crisis after President Carlos Mesa's offer to resign.

Police fired tear gas to disperse miners who lobbed dynamite sticks and rocks during a protest calling for nationalization of Bolivia's huge natural gas reserves and constitutional reforms for more representation for the poor Indian majority.

Do you think they're communists, or people who just want electricity and food?

Foiled Again

Isn't it great that this is never ending?

June 7 - Insurgents set off three simultaneous suicide car bombs this morning at checkpoints around a rebel town in northern Iraq, killing at least 20 Iraqis and wounding 30 others, a police chief said. At least seven other Iraqis were killed or found dead throughout the country, while a suicide car bomb in Baghdad injured 28 people.

The bombs exploded about 9:30 a.m. at separate checkpoints ringing the Sunni Arab stronghold of Hawija, 120 miles north of Baghdad. The casualties were Iraqi soldiers, police officers and civilians, said Maj. Gen. Torhan Abdul-Rahman, head of the police force in Kirkuk, the contested oil-rich city about 30 miles northeast of Hawija. The police discovered a bomb in a fourth car and defused it, the general said.

The attacks pointed to a revival of the spate of suicide car bombs that plagued Baghdad last month, following the appointment of the cabinet of the new Shiite-led government. Though such attacks have decreased in the capital in the last two weeks, perhaps because of a sweep here called Operation Lightning, the insurgents have demonstrated again and again that they can easily shift their targets, with startling and deadly results. Throughout the war, the insurgency has melted away in those locations where American and Iraqi forces have pressed offensives, only to re-emerge with immense ferocity in other embattled areas.

When we do pullout, the attacks will be different. At that point will begin the full scale war between Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Iranians, Syrians, whomever. It's never going to be a good thing.

As that war becomes worse what will America do? I'm going to vote nothing since Americans will not support entering into a quagmire. But fear not, Bush will pray.

Remember what I was saying about the future of American wars? There won't be any.

"We had to do something!"

That Sums It Up

Hillary speaks the trizuth:

There has never been an administration, I don't believe in our history, more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda," Mrs. Clinton told the audience at a "Women for Hillary" gathering in Midtown Manhattan this morning.

"I know it's frustrating for many of you; it's frustrating for me: Why can't the Democrats do more to stop them?" she continued to growing applause and cheers. "I can tell you this: It's very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they're doing. It is very hard to tell people that they are making decisions that will undermine our checks and balances and constitutional system of government who don't care. It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth."

----------------

Note: I get emails from people who write things like, "I can't connect to the links...I don't have a Times subscription..." Listen, if you don't have a NY Times web subscription there's no point in reading my site. It's FREE, as are most papers websites. Do yourself the favor and sign up for the Times, LA Times, and maybe one or two others.

This is an Issue in America, Of Course

This issue is not funny, per se, but the Ohio Congressman's objection sure is:

The calls for a "nurse-in" began on the Internet mere moments after Barbara Walters uttered a negative remark about public breast-feeding on her ABC talk show, "The View."

The protest, inspired by similar events organized by a growing group of unlikely activists nationwide in the last year, brought about 200 women to ABC's headquarters yesterday. They stood nursing their babies in the unmistakably public venue of Columbus Avenue and West 67th Street. They held signs reading, "Shame on View," and "Babies are born to be breastfed." Ms. Walters, who remarked a few weeks ago on the show that the sight of a woman breast-feeding on an airplane next to her had made her uncomfortable, said through a spokesman that "it was a particular circumstance and we are surprised that it warrants a protest."

But the rally at ABC is only the most visible example of a recent wave of "lactivism." Prodded by mothers who say they are tired of being asked to adjourn to the bathroom while nursing in a public space, six states have recently passed laws giving a woman the right to breast-feed wherever she "is otherwise authorized to be."

An Ohio bill saying a woman is "entitled to breast-feed her baby in any place of public accommodation" passed last month over the objection of one representative who wanted to exempt businesses from liability for accidents caused by "spillage."

I actually have some knowledge on this issue, and no, it's not because of my extremely large breasts, but rather because of my sister's. Wait, did I just write that? Hold on, have to vomit...Alright, I'm back. Actually, her breats aren't even that...wait, I keep going with this.

Alright, my sister does breast feed publicly, and is a major proponent of doing so. It makes some uncomfortable. Why, I have no idea. Maybe because inside they have the minds of children? Probably. But breast feeding is probably the most natural thing a mother and child can do. I think people really need to get over it.

However, in Barbara Walters' case, she has the right to feel uncomfortable. I don't think she asked that the woman not do it in her presence. If she had then I can understand the "Lactivists" heading down to ABC, but regardless it's good to see them standing up for themselves.

Walters has one adopted daughter, so she probably has little personal experience with the issue, outside of jealousy, I assume.

More surprising, and weak, are the women who refuse to do it because of cosmetic reasons. Even worse than that are the women who have nannies spending more time with their kids than they do immediately after birth, so they can get their weight back down as quickly as possible. That's just so, uhhh, again, American.

I don't hate America at all. I just can't stand a lot of people who live here.

Only in this country is this an issue. Take a few guesses why that is.

Bush Tour

Last Bush post of the day, promise, but hopefully this gets out there.

The President met the other day with a group from the Radio-Television News Directors Association, and the irony is it wasn't broadcast.

Asked while he was sailing the S.S. Bullshit around the nation he explained:

On why he's keeps plugging away on his meticulously stage-managed and strikingly repetitive national tour on Social Security: "Part of the reason I'm going around the country, by the way, is because not everyone gets their news from the national news. In all due respect to the national Pooh-Bahs, most people get their news from the local news. And if you're trying to influence opinion, the best way to do it is to travel hard around the country and give the people their dues."

That's the biggest crock of shit in the game.

Lets focus on why he's doing all this sailing.

First off, the President knows if Republicans can reinvent Social Security, or just tweak it, it becomes their own. It will be the new talking point, about how they changed Social Security, "the longest and most succesful government program in our history..." I can hear it now, and so can you. They tried this initially with the "No Child Left Behind Act" and Medicare. Both not doing too well.

Second, Bush is uncomfortable in Washington and he has admitted so since Day 1. He's "not an insider" he would tell us (putting aside the fact his dad was President). While not at ease in DC where his words can get him into trouble, he feels more at home in the small towns around the country with well placed fans to cheer him on. He does his speech, waves, picks up a dog, and kisses a white child. It's good times for him.

Bush mentions most people get their news from the "local news" and not the national news. Well, that's total bullshit on many levels, but here's how it works for them. Bush comes to a small town, and Christian Taliban members flock from miles around. This becomes THE local story, covered not by the national news who won't send a team to cover every small town meeting, but the local news will be there. He personalizes the event, and the local news, aka, "the people you can trust", are covering it, throwing flowers and confetti. All the local reporters get one on ones with Bush staffers and there's zero oppostion. Bush gets his message out and it's more like a festival than a real discussion of any issues. Just how they like it. No one to knock him off his horse. No one would dare.

Finally, is he really needed in Washington? The answer is a tricky one since a real president would be needed in Washington during a time of war and tension, but not Bush. He's stumping for Social Security, a program that needs some fixing, but certainly shouldn't be a current priority. I don't think Dick Cheney needs him there, that's for sure. Truth is, he's not needed.

Doesn't Follow Polls

President Puppet:

A clear majority of Americans say President Bush is ignoring the public's concerns and instead has become distracted by issues that most people say they care little about, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 58 percent of those interviewed said Bush is concentrating mainly in his second term on problems and partisan squabbles that these respondents said were unimportant to them. Four in 10 -- 41 percent -- said the president was focused on important problems -- a double-digit drop from three years ago.

Ominously for Bush and the Republicans, a strong majority of self-described political independents -- 68 percent -- say they disagreed with the president's priorities. That suggests Bush's mixed record in the second term on issues the public views as critical -- particularly on Iraq and the economy -- may be as much a liability for GOP candidates in next year's mid-term election as his performance in his first term was an asset to Republican congressional hopefuls last year and in 2002.

Actually, at this point he doesn't care about polls. His only concern now is being a champion for the hard right conservatives. He's really that big of a fool, and thinks God really did choose him to be the man who will drag his religious beliefs into politics. Rearranging the courts would help accomplish that end.

The most important thing to note about Bush is his insecurity. Unlike his father he has really accomplished nothing on his own. Granted, his father too had an influential father, but nothing close to what George Jr has.

This guy has been a failure at everything he has done, and the presidency was his chance to break away from that. Granted, the Republicans had to build this fortress around him, taking away media access, protest, all the while scripting every step he took/takes, but that's fine since he eventually grew into it. As he did he became "more presidential."

One day he woke up and realized he really did have the power. It may be true that other people tell him what, when, and how to do things, but it is really his thing. Being he still doesn't have the ability to come up with original thought he fell back on religion because that's easy.

There are no answers with religion, so he can't be wrong. That's why it's his thing. At least Senator Santorum, and others, are different. They've accomplished on their own, and while certainly religious, have ideas of their own. They are not one trick ponies. Bush is. Same speech on terror, same speech on Social Security, same, same, same. Never deviates. Again, at least Santorum will speak off the cuff without fear. Bush would never.

From this point on Bush wants to separate himself from his father, and all other Presidents. He doesn't care about how America, or he, is viewed abroad since these are places he doesn't go. In his mind, we're all powerful so there's nothing to worry about. The United States will just keep chugging along, and he'll never have to make a sacrifice. He doesn't care about the laws of this country, which is obviously evident. This is why dragging religion into the public space doesn't faze him. Religion helped him, so it can help you! His father understood laws. His father is a smart man. George Jr. is not. But if he can put a George W. Bush stamp on this country completely separate from something his father did he'll do it, regardless of what it means to the future of this country. Again, he doesn't care because as he said on 60 Minutes: he won't be here when he's judged. He just wants to have his own legacy, regardless of what others tell him. The more he hears that "his father never would have done that" the happier he is.

Worst part about it all is he has always been called an idiot, etc. , so when people who are smarter than him challenge him, or give advice, he is inclined to ignore them (check the fired staff). He doesn't like elitists (by that I mean anyone who can think). He's a simple man. If he can prove that his simplicity works, and that he can accomplish things while making an impression, that's a slap in the face to all his doubters. He doesn't care what it takes to make a name for himself, so he'll ride any pony that gets him there. He chose the religious pony, and when he's out of office that pony is going to pay dividends, which of course won't be taxed...

He wants a legacy, and there are so many loving idiots who will flock to see him when he's out of office. Regardless of who they are, or what they represent, as long as the cameras make it seem like he's loved, and the media does the same, he'll be happy. He can just point and say, "Look at all them peoples."

Why Is It?

That when there are voter fruad issues it seems the Republicans are always the ones who start with more votes? If this was just a random occurance odds are Democrats would have to end up with more as well, right?

Just another one of those crazy coincidences.

States' Rights

You know how I always like to tell that story about States' Rights?

This is part of that story.

Mr. Not-Beholden-to-Special-Interests

Remember that?

When wealthy contributors write checks to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, they often get a few canapes and a drink — and a secret telephone number that grants them access to his closest advisors and even the governor himself.

Twice a month, donors can become insiders' insiders — invited to participate in conference calls featuring information about Schwarzenegger campaign strategy that his political enemies would love to have. In turn, donors who dial in can give the governor advice.

In the latest such call, a few days ago, Schwarzenegger's media expert, Don Sipple, outlined a strategy "based on a lot of polling" to create a "phenomenon of anger" among voters toward public employee unions. Firefighters, police officers, teachers and other state-paid workers have become the governor's harshest critics this year.

Arnold has really proven to be a perfect Republican. First he ran as this outsider not beholden, and as the moderate. Things are different now. If you've ever been unfortunate enough to hear him on the Sean Hannity show (and I'm sure numerous others) you know this guy is the biggest shill around. Totally self interested, like a good Republican.

If he were a real moderate he'd act more like fellow Predator co-star Jesse Ventura who never toed the line for anyone. Regardless of what one thought of Ventura he told it like it is. Granted, he wasn't a Republican, but when he ran he too claimed to be something different, independent, a moderate.

Arnold goes on the radio programs of the most conservative people in the country and has nothing but accolades for these people. He doesn't challenge their views on anything, and they don't challenge him. They are all just happy as pigs in shit that success has come their way. It's the Republican way. Arnold is a fraud.

People wonder how Maria Shriver can be with this guy especially considering her extended family. Please, she's probably no different. She chooses to spend her time with this guy, which makes her what? I'm not surprised at all.

Just a Bit of Piss

I'm still waiting for the White House retraction:

"It is unfortunate that some have chosen to take out of context a few isolated incidents by a few individuals," presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said in a statement.

Joe Lockhart, former press secretary for President Clinton, said that when a news organization — such as Newsweek — makes a factual mistake, White House officials are tempted to try to discredit the entire story.

"I think on this issue, they fell into a trap," Lockhart said. "They saw a way to push back on a damaging story by making it look like it was just out-of-control journalists, and now they've had to admit that it has happened."

McClellan's statements after the Newsweek report left an impression that no desecration at all had occurred at Guantanamo, Lockhart said.

"While the news organization got an example wrong, they got the practice right," he said. "I think certainly the public is within their right, in this case, to believe they were misled."

The Pentagon confirmed Friday evening — after the networks' evening news shows had aired — that a U.S. soldier had deliberately kicked a prisoner's holy book. The report also said prison guards had thrown water balloons in a cell block, causing an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet; a guard's urine had splashed on a detainee and his Quran; an interrogator had stepped on a Quran during an interrogation; and a two-word obscenity had been written in English on the inside cover of a Quran.

You know how that is, right? You're walking around, you're pissing, and some of it splashes on the reading material of others. Happens all the time, right? Makes sense to me.

This war needs to be renamed away from the "War on Terror" to the "War Conducted by Few." This is the only name that truly makes sense.

President Bush time and time again claims we can't let WMD get into the hands of a "few terrorists", and the people of Iraq want freedom, but a "few terrorists" in their desperation, of course, are lashing out. Then, again, it's only a "few soldiers" who tortured people at Abu Gharib, and a "few soldiers" who did the same at Guantanamo.

These groups of "few" seem to be hurting the lives of many, so while "few" may represent a small amount, apparently they can cause large amounts and lasting damage.

America: Being Run by a Few Morons.

Who's He Kidding?

My friend wrote me a nice note about this, and it really is something I believe in hardcore, especially the bottom. Since I posted it on Sunday of last week some readers may not have read it, some I'm re-posting it.

It's a rare occassion that I do this, but I think the end is really where it's at.

-----------------------

Don't know if you noticed but the NYTIMES now displays what the 5 most emailed articles from their site to others are, and on top of today's list is a column by David Brooks.

Brooks is one of two conservatives writing for the Times Editorial page these days (the other John Tierney), and can be seen almost nightly on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. He's a pretty decent guy, and occassionally speaks out against President Bush's policies. When he does it's mostly about the little things, and not about the Iraq War, or things that matter too much. For conservatives it's fun to do the little things to make it seem as if they're moderate.

This is why I find Brooks' column about Karl Marx's "Manifesto" to be so surprising. He's speaking about the biggest thing: education. Bush's education policy has been nothing short of bad, and conservatives favor "competition" at every turn to improve schools. Brooks is one of those conservatives.

In his latest piece he comments about problems both democrats and republicans/liberals and conservatives have, but it seems to me it's more about conservatives than liberals, with that tiny bit of liberal blame, again, to make himself seem moderate.

Cutting to the chase, Brooks focuses on poorer people remaining in lower classes and vice versa because the poor don't have access to better education, and the wealthier don't make moving up any easier. It's completely true, and always will be. Where I find fault is with Brooks' solution to this problem (none really offered, but I know his stance). He represents a group of people who fight against affirmative action programs, higher spending on education, and for for-profit schooling.

Yes, there are too many failing schools in America. That's a problem. There shouldn't be any at all. The answer isn't to close failing schools, bus kids to their "choice", and pressure teachers to do a better job (although, that's not the worst thing). The answer is taking the education system by the reigns, giving states options, but more control, and the most important thing: MORE MONEY!

Do you know how many times I've heard jackasses on David Brooks' side say, "We continue to throw money at the problem and we're getting no results! We need competition!"? Too many times to count. That's really the most ridiculous and annoying comment in the game. If someone needed medicine to help cure an ill, and all the person had was half the money to buy half the medicine the person would never become healthy, and most likely would become more ill over time. Essentially, that's the "throwing money at the problem" Republican argument. I would agree, that is, in a sense, a waste of money. Luckily, for a few people, they seem to make do with the medicine they have, overcome their ills, and succeed. They become the examples Republicans use to push their ideology. It's the perseverance argument.

Solving the class and education problem involves spending A LOT MORE MONEY on public education, and when there are failing schools we shouldn't close them, but FIX them.

Fortunately for me I went to schools in a town where most people were educated, and the town was generally middle class. The school was practically private, and most all competed to be really good at something. If there were 40 kids in my Physics class it wouldn't have mattered. The class was always in control because the parents had control at home.

The town next to me, assuming they even had Physics, if there are 40 kids in the class it's going to be uncontrollable. That's just a fact. Lower class, more poorly educated parents, and children with bigger problems than most of my classmates ever had results in children no better than what they came from. Many of these children came from tough homes.

Since my school could handle the standard 30 kids in a class that's how many should be in the class. But in school systems that cannot handle large classrooms there should be half the amount in any class, and maybe even a teacher's aide to keep control. This concept that all school systems get equal money, and are treated equally is flat out retarded. We're not equal.

The system is unfortunately set to fail with liberals asking for more money for schools, and conservatives pointing to the failing children and the one who persevered to prove their points. Obviously, most conservatives don't care about the failing children, or the starving ones, so they compete with the liberals over the issue. What results is the sick person who only gets 50% of the medicine, which from a conservative perspective on "class" is really just fine (at least in the back of their minds).

Of course, not paying triple (or more) for education only results in more problems, which inevitably results in the creation of more social programs to fix the problems. Now being that people like George Bush and Senator Rick Santorum want more public money going to Faith Based Initiatives this is probably all part of their bigger plan to get everyone on the Jesus Train in the end...kidding...but am I?

Sorta Sidenote:

I'm not some super champion of all the oppressed, poor, starving, hungry, and mistreated, but my heart is certainly in a much better place than the people David Brooks supports. It's comical to see him write a piece about these issues. I do what I can, and would like to see others do more, which is why I do this.

When liberals, especially the wealthey ones, advocate for the poor and downtrodden conservatives love to laugh. They think it's funny that Susan Sarandon is so wealthy, but acts like she's poor, or that Ariana Huffington drives an SUV, or some stupid bullshit like that. It's always the easy road for these people. They're busy pointing out supposed hypocrisy rather than doing anything themselves to solve problems I, or David Brooks, talk about. It's easy.

Those who have bigger hearts and more concerns are pushed into a position of seemingly being out of touch with the peoples we advocate for because of conservatives. Just because we advocate for the poor, sick, old, etc. doesn't mean we have to be those people. We realize it doesn't take much to do a lot more good, so we advocate. A liberal shouldn't feel bad about owning 3 houses and a Porsche. A liberal should instead feel rewarded because she, or he, has done the right thing, and deserves to reep the benefits.

No skin will come off my back to triple the education budget and fix the problems. It wouldn't even make a noticeable dent in the wallets of almost every person, but we don't do it. Why? Because it does take the skin off the backs of the conservatives who want to keep the classes just as they are.

Zactly

And it grows.

Chris "Sux" Cox

I went back to see what I wrote about Donaldson in January of '03 because actually remember thinking I didn't have much on this guy. At the time I thought Donald Marron was going to be the guy, and then Charles Schwab. Then came Donaldson. I'm pretty positive I had no serious beef outside of assuming he'd be another puppet. Thank goodness he was not.

Continuing...

How can anyone take a Republican seriously when they mention "bipartisanship."

Look at what the Times had to say:

Under Mr. Donaldson, a Rockefeller Republican whose credentials on Wall Street and corporate America led some to believe he would be a cautious caretaker, the commission responded to a wave of business scandals through a series of restrictive regulations and tough enforcement cases.

On the big votes, he often broke ranks with the commission's two Republicans, Cynthia A. Glassman and Paul S. Atkins, who complained repeatedly that the rules and enforcement cases promoted by Mr. Donaldson and the two Democrats were unnecessary and overly burdensome.

Here's a Republican, Donaldson, who occassionally breaks ranks to protect investors, and he's viewed as a poor choice by conservatives.

A well respected, independent, Wall St. veteran who cannot be swayed by donors, corporations, and other special interests. A man who made decisions based on the situation as presented to him as opposed to a man like Cox who most likely has predetermined answers and solutions to problems that will arise. Just like a douche bag conservative, goose-stepping with the rest of them.

Mr. Cox proposed a bill in Congress that was much harsher than the Senate bill that eventually passed, making it more difficult for investors to files lawsuits. Just like a good Republican: against individuals' right to sue. His bill would have made investors cover all legal fees of both parties if they lost a case. Of course, that would result in few, if any lawsuits because investors would have to pick up an enormous tab, and would have to face an army of trial lawyers. That's right! Big Business uses trial lawyers!

It seems like the only Republicans you can trust these days are the ones who leave the Bush Administration since they're the only ones who are ever right about anything.

Cox is just another messenger boy.

Ok, Back...

I do that from time to time.

Just want to weigh in on a few things.

First off, Josh Marshall's take on the Mark Felt coverage couldn't be more right on. Every fucking channel interviews the people responsible for Watergate, and those who went to prison. All these people seem to think Felt did the wrong thing!!!

What a fucking shocker! Here's one for ya, Mr. Media, BLOW ME.

It was a high crime by the President of the United States, and his minions. From the day Nixon took over the office he attempted the control the message/control the world way. It's the same way we're currently living under.

G. Gordon Liddy? Charles Colson? These are the people getting press coverage?

Enough with the "balanced" media. It makes such a joke of America.

The media is giving the Republicans an opportunity to whitewash Watergate. It really is beyond the pale.