Can you say "Hypocrite"...?

House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told evangelical Christians last week that only Christianity offers a reasonable answer to basic questions about the purpose of life. - The Washington Post

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but Tom DeLay shrouding himself in the mantle of Christian virtue is rather like dressing a pig in velvet and brocade. It makes the pig uncomfortable and the velvet and brocade gets soiled and tattered. But Tom has much to be uncomfortable about as it is...not the least of which are his questionable ethics and being a hairs breadth away from an indictment in Texas. And by his actions, he soils the good name of Christianity. By past standards he would be branded a blasphemer and stoned to death.

Then there's that little thing about Christianity "...being the only reasonable answer..." to life's challenges. Well, I've got news for him...a goodly majority of the world's population has gotten along just fine without his particular brand of Christianity, thank you very much.

And, of course, there was his little speech before The Family Research Council in which he promised that Republican leaders would work to implement the political agenda of the religious right wing-nuts. But golly, can you overlook those ethics charges and possible indictments? For the whole written transcript and audio tape, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State is the website to go to. They've got all the sordid details on Tom's groveling and whining.

It should be obvious by now, to anyone capable of rational thought, that the Republicans are using religion to further their own political power while, in actuality, they do nothing more than pay lip-service to Christian virtue.

5: Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. - Matthew 7, 5-6

Citations:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A18077-2002Apr19¬Found=true

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=press_audio

Sleaze merchants, not statesmen, soil the halls of Congress

Like many Americans, I suspect, I tried to picture how I would have reacted if a bunch of smarmy, camera-seeking politicians came anywhere near a hospital room where my own relative was hooked up to life support. I imagined summoning the Clint Eastwood of "Dirty Harry," not "Million Dollar Baby." But before my fantasy could get very far, star politicians with the most to gain from playing the God card started hatching stunts whose extravagant shamelessness could upstage any humble reverie of my own.

Senator Bill Frist, the Harvard-educated heart surgeon with presidential aspirations, announced that watching videos of Ms. Schiavo had persuaded him that her doctors in Florida were mistaken about her vegetative state - a remarkable diagnosis given that he had not only failed to examine the patient ostensibly under his care but has no expertise in the medical specialty, neurology, relevant to her case. No less audacious was Tom DeLay, last seen on "60 Minutes" a few weeks ago deflecting Lesley Stahl's questions about his proximity to allegedly criminal fund-raising by saying he would talk only about children stranded by the tsunami. Those kids were quickly forgotten as he hitched his own political rehabilitation to a brain-damaged patient's feeding tube. Adopting a prayerful tone, the former exterminator from Sugar Land, Tex., took it upon himself to instruct "millions of people praying around the world this Palm Sunday weekend" to "not be afraid."

The president was not about to be outpreached by these saps. The same Mr. Bush who couldn't be bothered to interrupt his vacation during the darkening summer of 2001, not even when he received a briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," flew from his Crawford ranch to Washington to sign Congress's Schiavo bill into law. The bill could have been flown to him in Texas, but his ceremonial arrival and departure by helicopter on the White House lawn allowed him to showboat as if he had just landed on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Within hours he turned Ms. Schiavo into a slick applause line at a Social Security rally. "It is wise to always err on the side of life," he said, wisdom that apparently had not occurred to him in 1999, when he mocked the failed pleas for clemency of Karla Faye Tucker, the born-again Texas death-row inmate, in a magazine interview with Tucker Carlson. - Frank Rich, The New York Times

Listening to Dubbyuh, Bill Frist and Tom DeLay bray about the virtue of erring "...on the side of life..." just makes my skin crawl. Their utter hypocrisy, smarmy insincerity and sleazy political oportunism is shameless...but they have no shame. Their eagerness to make poltical hay from the the private tragedy of a family in agony is an apalling sign of just how far the Republic has fallen. Gone are the statesmen from America's past. In their place, we find snake-oil merchants of every stripe...wild-eyed religious fanatics...grifters...and a tiny minority of people who do care about the nation. These latter, however, are drowned out by the braying of the asses who form the majority which roams the halls of our nation's capital, soiling them with their very presence.

It's time to clean house, and put the live-stock out to pasture where they can do no harm.

The Right Wing Three Ring Circus

And that's what these sorry sacks of excrement have made of Terri Schiavo's case. They passed legislation, which was then signed by the head sack-o-crap, affecting a single individual. This pernicious bit of legislative skulduggery will allow Mrs. Schiavo's case to be heard before the federal judiciary. The Florida legislature passed a law aimed at keeping Mrs. Schiavo's PEG tube in place and had it thrown back in their faces by the Florida Supreme Court, and ignored by the SCOTUS. Barney Franks (D, MA) had it right when he said that this is a violation of the separation of powers, and that Congress' role was the determination of broad policy issues and the courts were for individual adjudication. All well and good with right wing-nuts except when they get their panties in a twist over a given issue. Then, by golly it's "Katie bar the door...!", as they bitch and whine about "activists judges" interfering with the legislative process and the "will of the people".

Only Mrs. Schiavo's case, the federal version of Florida's overturned "Terri's Law", wasn't about the "will of the people", it wasn't even about Terri Schiavo...It was about politics, pure and simple. It was reported on the news this morning that a memo circulated amongst congressional republicans stating that this case was essentially a political goldmine for republicans, particuilarly since one House republican was facing a contested election and could benefit from this issue. But what I want to know is where the concern of these sanctimonious, self-righteous twits was a year ago...? Two years age...? Seven years ago...? It was nowhere to be found. It wasn't until they thought they could get some political mileage out of it that they did anything.

And listening to Dubbyuh spout his hypocritical nonsense about "...our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life..." had me choking on my coffee this morning. This coming from a man who, as Governor of Texas, presided over more executions than any governor in the last 50 years. And let's not forget his cheerful willingness to permit the execution of the mentally retarded, and his cruel mockery on "Larry King: Live", of a woman he permitted to be executed. Dubbyuh's mouthings about the sanctity of life are nothing more than calculated remarks to appeal to a selected audience, they have all the substance of a rapidly evaporating puddle on the hot asphalt of a parking lot.

Our congressional reps in both houses should be ashamed of themselves for so shamelessly politicizing this case. As far as I can tell, they have bought and paid for their places in hell. I hope they enjoy them.

And they said the war wasn't about oil...

Before Dubbyuh started his little adventure in Iraq, a number of folks were saying that the war was about oil. Now, it appears they were right, and that the plans were being laid as early as the spring of 2001. BBC "Newsnight", in co-operation with "Harper's Magazine" have unearthed evidence which was presented in a broadcast on 3/17/05.

The story points to a conflict between the neocons in Dubbyuh's administration, and "Big Oil" interests in league with the state department. This was essentially a conflict between the dogmatic neocons and the pragmatists in the oil industry and state. The neocons were pushing to "privatize" Iraq's oil fields in an attempt to break OPEC's back by flooding the market with oil and driving the prices down to a point that the cartel could not tolerate. This plan was given the go ahead even as Bagdhad fell. This plan helped fuel the insurgency by giving them a cause to rally supporters. "Look," they would say, "We're losing our country...our wealth...to foreigners who care nothing about what happens to us!"

This plan, however, was blocked by the oil industry which feared that the privatization of Iraq's oil fields would echo that of the Russian oil fields. In this process of privatization, US oil companies were not permitted to bid in the reserves. Instead a plan was put forth to set up an Iraqi state oil company in order to give US, and other companies access to Iraq's oil fields.

We have been lied to in every manner imaginable by the Bush administration in order to justify the war in Iraq. This should be the final nail in the coffin of this Administration and its policies. There are more than sufficient grounds for the impeachment of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the Bush cabinet. It's time to clean house.

It's getting a bit drafty...Don't you think?

Uncle Sam on the prowl

By Katherine Stapp

NEW YORK - A couple of months ago, Kim Rosario found an improbable email message in her mail inbox.

The mother of a United States soldier, Rosario travels the country publicly denouncing Washington's policies in Iraq, and is a featured speaker at an upcoming rally in New York's Central Park to mark the second anniversary of the March 19, 2003, invasion.

"It was from the military, asking if I've ever considered a career in the navy," Rosario recalled. "I said I might if you send my son back from Iraq!"

Unintended irony aside, she believes the offer is a sign of the Pentagon's growing desperation to counter dwindling recruitment numbers - especially in the lower-income communities once viewed as fertile ground.

Reflecting the skepticism felt by many people of color toward the Iraq invasion, a study commissioned for the US Army last August concluded that "more African-Americans identify having to fight for a cause they don't support as a barrier to military service".

The true strength of an all volunteer military is making itself evident. Enlistment numbers are dropping, particularly in those areas which the military recruited heavily from before the invasion of Iraq...economically disadvantaged areas in cities and counties all across America. But with the pool of new recruits drying up, a back-door draft has been instituted through the use of stop-loss orders, extended deployments, calling up inactive reserves, and drawing ever more heavily on National Guard units which are having their own problems with recruitment and retention.

An all voluteer military will, over time, be unable to sustain manpower requirements for actions which are not supported by potential recruits. And, campaign promises to the contrary aside, the Bush administration will have to resort to a draft to provide the personel for its military adventurism abroad. And this will be the begining of the end of neocon control of the Republican party and this Administration, which can't come soon enough.

Those Wonderful Canadians!

Missile Counter-Attack

Thursday, March 3rd, 2005

By LLOYD AXWORTHY

Dear Condi,

I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.

Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.

This truth will never reach the ears of the administration as they already know it and choose to ignore it. Truth is speaking to power, but in their hubris the Administration blithely ignores it.

They're both wrong

In reaching for political power, the "religious right" has abandoned their roots. All of the great progressive movements in America have had their roots in religion. From the abolition of slavery to women's suffrage,to the end of child labor, to the civil rights movment of the 50's and 60's...All were rooted in the concepts of justice preached by Jesus in the New Testament. The people who were at the fore-front of these movements lived their religion. For them it was a thing come alive to set us all free, regardless of our beliefs.

Contrast this with the mean-spirited, narrow, dogmatic and selective vision of the "religious right" which seeks political power to impose its vision from the top down rather than the bottom up, and that contrast is stark. Rather than an inclusive view which welcomes all, theirs is exclusive..."Believe as we do or we want no part of you!" Rather than seeking solutions with aim of the good of all, they seek to blame others for America's short-comings while providing no genuine solutions beyond the imposition of their dogma upon all. Theirs is nothing short of hubris laced with the language of persecution. Their grasp for power is bad politics and even worse theology.

The left is not blameless either. They have sought to turn religion into a private expression of one's values. They fail to understand that while religion is personal, it is never private. WHatever philosophical view we hold to, either implicitly or explicitly, affects how we experience and react to the world around us. It is their failure to acknowledge it that prevents them from establishing an effective dialogue with the many religious moderates in this country who resent the religious right's hijacking of Christianity to further their political agenda. And until they do this, we will continue to see the increasing polarization in this nation, centered on a few non-issues, rather than focusing on the broader, deeper problems that face us.

We stand at a cross-roads in America today. We can take the easy path and slide into the fascist state that we seem to be headed towards. Or we can roll up our sleeves, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hinu, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic, or what have you...Do the hard work and build a new America from the ground up, rooted in the common values of our beliefs and made a living thing to set us all free.

What would Jesus do?

As debate over the bankruptcy bill becomes more heated, I would ask our lawmakers to aske themselves, "What would Jesus do?"

Would he kill a homestead exemption for senior citizens? I think not.

Would he make it more difficult for those facing a medical crisis to get back on their feet? No, that doesn't sound like something he'd do.

Would he force women cast off by their spouses to pay debts which they haven't the means to repay? That doesn't sound like him either.

Would he deny the families of our soldiers, who are making huge sacrifices overseas, the ability to clear debts accrued because of that call to arms? No, I don't think that would be him either.

But these are all things that Republicans, those paragons of Christian morals and values, have done. And by golly Dubbyuh, who claims Jesus as his personal savior and role-model, has backed the Republicans to the hilt on this too. But the problem is Jesus is his personal savior and role model only when it's politically expedient. The rest of the time he's out selling his soul, and his ass, for a few shekels.

Face it folks, Jesus would not be a Republican, or a Democrat for that matter. He would be working for social justice for all, which is what his teachings in the new testament were all about. I ask our law makers to read the book of Matthew 25, 34-40. These few paragraphs are about social justice, and there is no justice in this bill. It is about political payback, not justice, and no protestations to the contrary can make it otherwise.

So, why don't you take a little time and call your congressional reps and ask them, "What would Jesus do?"

History Unremembered

On February 27th, an anniversary passed which has gone, for the most part, unremembered and unremarked.

It started when the government, in the midst of an economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist. Some, like Sefton Delmer - a London Daily Express reporter on the scene - say they certainly did not, while others, like William Shirer, suggest they did.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted.

He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world.

His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones. - Common Dreams

No, it isn't George W. Bush...But the pattern is disturbingly similar.

I once had a patient whose family was amongst the powerbrokers of pre-WW II Germany, his father had been slain in the "Night of the Long-Knives", Hitler's purging of his opposition. He saw it all, from the burning of the Reichstag, through Hitler's ascendancy to power, through the horrors of WW II, through internment as a German POW.

We didn't talk much prior to the Fall of the World Trade Center. Afterwards though, we began to talk. He spoke of how similar the political events following the Fall were to those which followed on the heels of the burning of the Reichstag. He spoke of how the media lapped up Goerring's propaganda in much the same way the US media now laps up, as if it were manna from heaven, every last gobbet of excrement the Bush administration spews forth. He spoke of how Bush's use of religious language and imagery was like that used by Hitler to justify his actions. "Gott mitt uns."...God is with us.

During that period of history America and Germany, both in dire economic straights, took different courses. Hitler rewared his wealthy supporters with more wealth...allied himself with industry to the detriment of the average person...busted unions...quashed dissent...engaged in ceasless and aggressive nationalistic rhetoric...built up the economy on a mountain of debt and unchecked spending on war.

The US followed a different course with minimum wage laws...aggressive enforcement of anti-trusr laws...increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy...created Social Security...and the WPA to employ hundreds of thousands of Americans to rebuild and renew America's infrastructure.

History gives us a perspective that they didn't have then. We have seen where each path takes us, and we are again at a crossroads. The choice is ours, which course shall we take?

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. - George Santayana

Let's put the Gerrymander on the endagered species list...

Four members of Tom DeLay's Texas based PAC, TrmPAC, stand indicted of violations of campaign finance laws. More recently, five Texas democrats are suing TrmPAC for violations of Texas campaign law. These are the most visible symptoms of a fatal flaw in US election laws. That being that the majority political parties decide how to re-apportion voters and set the boundaries of legislative districts.

The whole stink in Texas is the result of Tommy's drive to seat a majority republican Texas legislature and then draw up new legislative boundaries which favored republicans, which they did. But there is a simple solution...

What is required is a Constitutional Amendment which takes the power to redraw legilative districts and put this power in the hands of a non-partisan commission in each state. After each decennial census, this board would be appointed and redraw legislative districts on the basis of, not party affiliation, but population...What a novel concept. This would provide for more representative legislatures on both the state and federal levels. This would, in turn, result in a government which, I believe, would be more in line with that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

Gerrymander - "Gerrymander refers to the drawing of boundaries of legislative districts to benefit one party or group and handicap another. Although the practice dates back to the colonial period, its name is derived from Elbridge Gerry, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a nonsigning delegate to the Federal Convention of 1787, and a leader of the Jeffersonian Republican party."

Also see:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/28/national/28delay.html

Whaaaat...?

Listening to Dubbyuh chide Putin about backsliding on "...democracy and the rule of law..." almost had me choking on my coffee this morning. If ever there was someone who needed upbraiding and an education into the meaning of democratic values, it is Dubbyuh.

His criticism of Putin for limiting freedom of the press in Russia rings rather hollow in the face of Dubbyuh's desire for a pliable and complacent news media in this country. And while Dubbyuh may not be issuing executive orders limiting the press, his campaign backers, many of whom own major news outlets are quasing editorial dissent. Although, the political appointees to the board of PBS seem to be doing a splendid job of gutting that media outlet of anything but the party line.

As for democracy and the rule of law, the Reichpublican...er...Republican party seems to be of the mind that they are above the law and can do anything they wish. All protestations to the contrary aside, their moral values on this issue are more than a little lacking. Their record on democracy is more than a little questionable as well. Republican support for a verifiable paper audit trail for electronic voting systems is tepid, at best. Such systems were used in Nevada in 2004, contrary to the protestations of folks from Diebold, and others that it wa not feasible to do so. In fact, the most hard-core gambler in the sleaziest gambling-hell in Vegas has more and greater protections in place on gaming machines than the nation does for their voting machines.

So, Dubbyuh, save the hypocrisy for someone who will buy it. It certainly isn't me, and the increasing number of Americans who aren't buying your crap. BTW If you can't push your Social Security "reform" through, are we going to start haveing terror threat alerts again so you can sneak it through? Ya pig.

Coming home to roost...

At least the chickens from the Bush administration's economic policies are. With Asian markets already saturated by US debt, South Korea announced that it was seeking to diversify its holdings in non-dollar equities. This in the face of record US trade and budget deficits and an already weak dollar. The net result was a drop in US bond prices with a rise in the yields. Down the road, this will result in higher consumer interest rates at a time when already over-stretched US borrowers can ill afford it. Also of note here is that more European central banks are starting to shift their holdings from dollar to euros

Of course, this will likely result in a whole slew of new bankruptcies. And, if the new bankruptcty bill makes it out of the House and Senate, otherwise responsible folks will be facing years of indentured servitude to their creditors when they default on their debt due to medical emergencies, job loss or divorce. But the little fact that the majority of bankruptcies are the result of these causes has done little to deter the bills passage through committee...So much for compassionate conservatism. If creditors want to limit their losses, they need to stop extending credit to dead-beats. Can you say "responsible lending"...? I knew you could.

So, I hope you see that the fiscal irresponsiblity of the Bush administration has broad and far reaching consequences, both at home and abroad. My wife and I are going to be re-financing out of our ARM for a fixed rate mortgage in May, I would suggest anyone else with an ARM do the same.

Links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4287413.stm

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/6934a1a6-8541-11d9-a172-00000e2511c8.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_bill.html

Outsourcing Torure

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. - CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE

"Extaordinary rendition"...a polite euphemism for transporting detainees to third party nations which, by the way, are neither signatory nor parties to any treaty prohibiting torture. A favorite destination is Syria. The act of transporting persons to such nations for the purpose of torture is a violation of the UN Convention Against Torture. Now, I'm sure some sick bastard will say that the US is under no obligation to adhere to the provision of the Convention, and this is true since the US is only signatory to the Convention and has not, much to our shame, ratified the it. While not legally bound to honor the provisions of the Convention, as signatory to it, the US is MORALLY obligated to honor its provisions. You know...The moral issue was a big one for the Republicans in 2004. But hey, they were more concerned with keeping same-gender couples from getting married than from preventing some rag-head from being tortured. We gotta keep our priorities straight...Right?

Under the "Foreign Affairs Reform and Resturucturing Act of 1998", however, This activity is a violation of US law. Yet we now have as the Attorney General of the United States a man who worked to justify such activities, and as President we have a man who has sanctions these activities. These activities demand the appointment of a special prosecutor and, if sufficient grounds are found, the trial and impeachment of all who aided and abetted this violation of US law, international treaties and human decency.

For further information on this issue, I am providing the following links:

http://www.aclu.org/ImmigrantsRights/ImmigrantsRights.cfm?ID=16165&c=95

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/050214fa_fact6 (the same link as in the header if it shouldn't work)

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/rl32276.pdf

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Surprise...!

America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government. I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline. I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely, or not at all. - George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, 02/02/05 (emphasis mine)

Looks like sound fiscal policy to me. And I'm certain that that will surprise many of you to see me agreeing with Dubbyuh. And I would agree with him if he actually meant it, but he doesn't.

On Monday, the failure of Dubbyuh's pet project, the national missile defense system, was reported(1.)...again. At $85 million a pop, that adds up rather quickly. This Reagan-era weapons program does squat all to protect our borders from a pocket nuke in a shipping container, it has been plagued by technical problems and has, thus far, proven anything but successful. The program is not getting results, by any definition. By the standards Dubbyuh laid out in the SOTUS, funding for this program should be eliminated.

Already facing budget cuts(2.) because of the reliability issues, there are other forces at work to cut funding to the program. First and foremost of these is the "war on terror". After 9/11, the focus was shifted from a conventional military threat to the unconventional threat posed by international terrorism. Despite the $10 billion already poured down this particular rat-hole, there remains "no demonstrated capability" to even get off the ground, much less knock down an incoming missile. But that simply doesn't appear to enter into the calculus. How many humvees would that $10 billion have armored? How many flak-jackets would it have provided?

Thus far, however, funding is only being cut for the program, when, according to the criteria laid out in the SOTUS, it should be cancelled. But this apparent contradiction should come as no surprise to anyone. Dubbyuh has a long and checkered history of saying one thing and doing another.

Citations:

(1.) The San Francisco Chronicle, pg A3, 02/15/2005. Also, here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/15/MNGISBB1R01.DTL&type=printable

(2.) Business Week Online, 02/04/05

Budget...? What budget...?

Dubbyuh's budget, such as it is, calls for some $350 billion in cuts to discretionary and mandatory programs for 2006. In addition, the budget includes a number of tax changes that would reduce revenue by $1.3 trillion dollars over the next ten years. (And he wants to spend $2 trillion to "save" Social Security?!?!)

Since Dubbyuh rolled into DC, the ability of the government to raise revenue has dropped precipitously. At less than 17% of GDP, federal revenue is lower than it has been in the last 40 years. And, contrary to Dubbyuh's contentions, government spending is not "out of control". The most recent increase in spending has not beenon social safety net programs, but rather in higher defense and national security spending.

In the four years since Dubbyuh first graced the corridors of the White House, America has gone from a surplus of some $236 billion to a deficit of nearly $427 billion. And despite Dubbyuh's, and his handler's, claims otherwise, the dficit has only deepened. The 2006 budget doesn't include the costs, even estimated, of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also conveniently excluded are the costs of Dubbyuh's "plan" to save Social Security and fixes to the Alternative Minimum Tax. When you add these costs, as well as the interest on them, the deficits over the next ten years soars to nearly $5 trillion

And don't expect any changes in Dubbyuh's tax policy...More of the same crap different day. He's pushing to make the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent, costing more than $1 trillion. He's also proposing other tax changes that will cost $117 billion over the next ten years. Also buried in the budget is the elimination of the "PEP" and "PEASE" provisions of the tax code which limit the size of personal exemptions and itemized deductions the wealthiest taxpayers can take. This will some $115 billion through the end of the decade, with 97% of the benefit going to households earning more than $200,000 per year. According to Tax Policy Center estimates, extending teh provisions of 2001/2004 tax changes would yield about $150,000 in tax cuts for those making over $1 million per year while yielding a significantly smaller proportion in tax relief to middle class taxpayers. The Adminstration seems bent on continuing its policies which extends preferential treatment to income generated by capital rather than by work. These tax policies are punitive towards work while they allow the very wealthy to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

The process is skewed even further and the deficit deepened by PayGo rules which mandate expansions in government services to be paid for by cuts elswhere in the budget, however the proposed tax cuts and other changes to the tax code which will further reduce federal revenues are exempt from these rules.

We are already reaping the bitter harvest of Dubbyuh's previous domestic policy decisions. States all over the country are cutting funding to Medicaide programs, education and infrasturcture. Under this budget, these cuts will only deepen, leading to cuts in health and long-term care benefits for over 50 million people. The republican governnor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee said, "People need to remember that to balance the budget off the backs of the poorest people inthe country is simply unacceptable. You don't pull feeding tubes from people. You don't pull the wheelchair out from under the child with muscular dystrophy." The truly sad part of this is that the proposed cuts won't even begin to balance the budget.

Dubbyuh has made much of his "record" on defense and the "war" on terror. But guess what...? The Department of Homeland security only gets a 1% increase in its fiscal '06 budget, which doesn't even keep up with inflation. And as the need for troops is increasing due to casualties and attrition, the budget contains no funds to increase the size of the Army, the Army Reserve, or the Army National Guard. Can you say "draft"? I knew you could.

That the policies Dubbyuh is putting forth are contrary to American values is a gross understatement. It fails the poor and the middle classes, who must work ever harder to keep their heads above water while the wealthiest 1% bask in the benefits of those policies. And we have yet to pay the piper for these policies. But you can rest assured that the poor and the middle class will be the ones to take it in the shorts.

Iran...Uh, yeah...right...

With the rhetoric against Iran from the Bush administration growing ever more bellicose, it would behoove him and his handlers to pay close attention to the realpolitik of any actio against Iran.

China is about to ink a $70 billion deal to develope oil fields in Iran. Since China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, any attempt to garner support for sanctions against Iran will fail. Venezuela is already in the process of diverting some of its production away from US markets and to Chinese markets. THis has the effect of limiting US leverage with oil producers as there now exist large, hungry oil markets elsewhere in the world

Europe is unlikely to provide any support for military action against Iran, and the US will be left pretty much to it's own devices. Unless, of course, you count whatever third world banana republics Dubbyuh's administration blackmails into supporting the venture.

Pursuing military action in Iran will effectively isolate America from the rest of the world and risk destabilizing not only the US economy, but also economies the world over, making the Great Depression look like a Sunday school picnic. Accompanying such an event would be a wave of terrorists activity before which all others pale in comparison. But Dubbyuh doesn't think in such terms. He only thinks in terms of his own infallibility and self-appointed mission for God. So, he will foolishly go where angels fear to tread.

Can anyone appreciate the irony...

...Of the stink being raised over illegal oil trades by Benon Sevan, administrator of the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program in Iraq? After all, we're talking $1 million in illegal oil sales...Money that went into Saddam's coffers rather than to aid the Iraqi people. And, of course, the picture wouldn't be complete without trying to implicate Kofi Annan and his son Kojo in the affair. Another ironic twist to this already twisted tale, is that the Administration turned a blind eye to the illegal oil sales as the embargo was hurting the economies of Jordan and Turkey.

Contrast this with what happened on Proconsul Bremer's watch in Iraq. During his time as head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, approximately $8.8 billion simply went missing...unaccounted for...gone. In one case, of a payroll of 8,206 names, only 602 could be verified and there was no paper trail to verify the disposition of the the rest of the cash. Yet, aside from a few small pieces hidden in Time, and elsewhere, there seems to be little media interest in the story, and no interest in hauling Bremer before a grand jury to ddemand an accounting else he face charges of misappropriations of governemnt funds.

And to think this boob recieved the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his incompetence. But that seems to be a pattern for Dubbyuh's administration. Now, I'm just trying to figure out where Rummy screwed up and succeeded at something to get knocked out of the running for a medal.

Holy flashback Batman...!

Shades of Campaign '04! Never ones to retire old tricks, Dubbyuh's handlers have stacked the audiences at Dubbyuh's appearances on the stump for his "plan" to "save" social security with party loyalists. No dissenting voices are allowed. Just like the good ole days out on the campaign trail, where never is heard a dissenting word.

But the election is over, and yes, the chuckle-head won. And no, he DOESN'T have a mandate, no matter how much he wishes otherwise. His own party is beginning to feed on its own as the whole issue of social security rears its head. And, his ratings in the polls are sinking like the Titanic.

Before Dubbyuh decided to create a crisis in social security, the Social Security commission reported that it would be solvent until 2042, at which point, it would begin paying out more than it took in. But the reality of the matter is that in 14 of the last 47 years Social Security has paid out more than it took in, so this dire warning is essentially meaningless. If, as the Administration talking points imply or state outright that Social Security trust funds have no real assets, then the treasury bonds held all over the world aren't real assets either, and not worth the paper they are printed on. That's a real confidence builder for the folks overseas that are holding US debt.

As Dubbyuh told the Wall Street Journal, the real debate on the issue will be one of whether there is actually a problem or not. Of course, Dubbyuh would have alot more credibility if he hadn't been beating this horse since 1978, when he first ran for Congress. In '78, he said the Social Security was going to be "...flat bust..." by 1988. The only thing that went "flat bust" in Dubbyuh's little world was Arbusto Energy.

So, Dubbyuh fields softball questions from slavishly adoring crowds, safe in his bubble. Unsullied by the real world, our very own American Nero fiddles on.

Holy shit Batman!

Gay marriage ban hits the fan

Be it Resolved by the People of the State of Ohio:

That the Constitution of the State of Ohio be amended by adopting a section to be designated as Section 11 of Article XV thereof, to read as follows:

Article XV

Section 11. Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.

Issue 1, as it was listed on the balllot in November, was passed by around 61% of Ohio voters. The problem is, they didn't read it very carefully. As a result, the first steaming legal dogpile its passage left behind has been steppped in.

In Cuyahoga County, the Public Defender's Office is using this amendment to dismiss domestic violence cases involving unmarried individuals who are living together and have no children. Their rationale is that, under this amendment, the state can only recognize the relationship bewteen a married couple of different genders. However, if the state recognizes that domestic violence occurs between two unrelated, unmarried people who are cohabitating regardless of gender, the state would be recognizing that relationship. Based upon this interpretation of Ohio's Constitution, that is simply not allowed.

The crux of the issue here is that this interpretaion would place the amendment in violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution. Maried couples would have protections under domestic violence laws which are unavailable to unwed couples who are living together. And, like it or not, that protection applies to same gender couples as well. If it doesn't, the Constitution isn't worth the match it would take to burn it. It applies to all, or it applies to none. Deal with it.

Republicans play the race card...

Listening to Orrin Hatch play the race card with regards to Alberto Gonzales' confirmation as AG rather put me to mind of a prostitute sermonizing on the virtues of chastity in Sunday school. The last time the party of Lincoln had anything truly constructive to do with race relations in this country was during Lincoln's era and shortly thereafter. It might be said that they helped pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957, but that was simply due to the number of boll weevil democrats who voted against the Act and later switched their party affiliations to that of...Republican. But the Democratic party was better off without them.

Mr. Hatch, and the other Republicans who seem to have sold their souls to the devil, and their asses to the highest bidder, just don't care to understand that opposition to Alberto Gonzales does not stem from his race but rather his principles or, more appropriately, his lack thereof. Mr. Gonzales was the principle architect of policies which run counter to those of the rest of the civilized world. He dismissed the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and "obsolete". He helped narrow the definition of torture to "...injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions ...". At ihs request, the DOJ drafted a memo authorizing the CIA to transfer Iraqi detainees to other nations which would have no compunction against torturing these individuals which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions and federal law. He argued that there was essentially no limit to the authority of the POTUS to invade any nation he suspected of harboring terrorists whter or no they were linked to any specific incidence, this contrary to the narrow language of the joint resolution passed on 9/14/01 which limited his authority to attack only those countries specifically linked to the attacks of 9/11.

In short, the Senate Republicans seem intent on confirming as USAG, responsible for upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States, a man seemingly more intent upon subverting and underminig said document. What this says about the intent of the Republican leadership, which has seized control of all three branches of government, is unclear. But their apparent eagerness to confirm Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, despite his history...present and past, will give us a good idea of the America they want. And it seems a sure bet that it's nothing the Founding Fathers envisioned.

Call your Senators...TODAY! The vote for his confirmation is tomorrow.