According to My Sources . . .

What Republicans KNOW About Voter Fraud

2011-12-13T13:42:00.000-08:00

All over the country, Republican legislatures are trying to pass voter ID laws supposedly to stop rampant voter fraud perpetrated by Democrats and their election-stealing minions. I've spent more time than I should arguing with my fellow bloggers who insist that requiring a photo ID of a voter will safeguard the integrity of our election process.

Their basic argument is that requiring a photo ID will ensure that the voter is voting legally. They claim that a signature at the polling place is insufficient. They say that elections are being stolen by people who are voting illegally. And finally they claim that requiring a photo ID causes no harm or burden to any voter.

In this brief post, I will provide evidence of illegal voting which has been compiled by the Republican National Lawyers Association. The RNLA data shows convictions in 46 states for voter or election fraud over the last TEN YEARS. In all, 308 convictions are found. Again, that's over ten years.

These 308 convictions fall into the following categories:

Absentee ballot fraud 10
Felon voting 16
Multiple voting 25
Non-citizen voting 23
Registration fraud 35
Vote buying 51
Vote fraud 47
Voter impersonation 6
Other 95
Total 308

There are only two categories here that MIGHT be addressed by photo ID laws: Multiple voting (maybe) and Voter impersonation. I challenge anyone to make a case disputing this.

So generously speaking, the REPUBLICAN National Lawyers Association has found 31 cases of voter fraud which might have been prevented by requiring a photo ID.

31 cases over 10 years.

Don't be swayed by the Republican argument that we must have voter ID laws to preserve the integrity of our elections. The ONLY goal of these laws is to allow fewer Democratic voters to exercise the franchise.

That's voter SUPPRESSION and that's what it's all about.

What is "American Exceptionalism"?

2011-11-19T12:38:00.001-08:00

I've asked this on one or two of the blogs I frequent. Although most denizens of these blogs will assert that President Obama doesn't believe in American Exceptionalism and liberals in general don't believe in American Exceptionalism, when I've asked them to define it, they haven't even tried. I suppose their attitude is, "If you don't know, I'm not going to tell you." (Yes, Dear.)

But I want to know what THEY think it is, so I'm asking the question:

What is American Exceptionalism? What does it mean and how is American Exceptionalism manifested?

Socail Security or Why I read "conservative" blogs

2011-11-19T10:28:00.000-08:00

I read more "conservative" blogs than "liberal" ones. People ask me why and I tell them that I learn so much about so many things because I read them. Notice the wording here. I didn't say "by" reading them. I said "because" I read them.

The thing is, I don't learn from the blogs themselves. The wild assertions often made on these blogs prompt me to actually research the subject and find out the "truth", or at the very least get different perspectives.

This is why I am, relatively speaking, an expert on Social Security in terms of its solvency and its place in the budget deficit discussion. Read the blogs and they'll parrot the talking point that Social Security will be going broke by 2014. Or 2036. Or it's already broke. You pick.

The above is untrue because of the existence of the Social Security Trust Fund. The Trust Fund was established in 1984 under Reagan by slightly increasing the payroll tax to collect more revenue than needed at the time to set it aside for when the Baby Boomers start collecting.

Today payroll taxes fall short of actual benefit payouts. Is SS broke? No. Two trillion dollars in the Trust Fund provides a lot of interest and is making up the difference.

In 2014 (give or take) SS outlays will exceed all SS income. Will it be broke? No. That's when the Trust Fund kicks in and the Social Security Administration will supplement revenues from payroll taxes with money from the Trust Funds to pay full benefits.

In 2036 (give or take) SS withdrawals from the Trust Fund will have depleted the fund. Will it be broke. Well, that's a matter of semantics, I suppose. Under current law, SS will only be able to pay out about 77% of full benefits in 2036 and for the next 75 years. That would hurt but I wouldn't call it broke.

A slight change in current law, like upping the income cap for payroll taxes would guarantee payment of full benefits for the next 75 years.

Many people refer to Social Security as an "entitlement" as if people feel entitled to something that they haven't earned. Are you "entitled" to the money in your savings account? Are you "entitled" to the money in your 401(k)? Are you "entitled" to the cash from your US Treasury Bonds when you cash them in?

You're damned right you are! Because it's YOUR money.

But here's the dark, conspiratorial side of the discussion. Social Security is a self-funding program in that it does not technically require funds from the annual federal budget. Workers and employers pay in; the SS administration pays out with no effect on the deficit. But the solvency discussed above is predicated on the existence of the Social Security Trust Fund. The Trust Fund is the money accumulated since 1984 to create reserves for the Baby Boomers. It is currently over $2 Trillion.

By law the accumulated Trust Fund money is invested in US Treasury Bonds, the safest investment in the world, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Of course when you are buying bonds, you are lending money. So the Social Security Trust Fund money was lent to the US Government. The problem is...they spent it. They didn't even set up a reserve account for it. They just dumped it into the general budget.

So even though I'd like to say that providing Social Security benefits to all who are entitled to them has nothing to do with the national debt or budget deficit, that's not exactly true. The 2 Trillion dollars lent to the Federal government is racking up a whole lot of interest payments (affecting the annual budget deficit) and that 2 Trillion dollars is roughly 15% of the national debt.

You will no-doubt have heard that "there is no Trust Fund. It's just a drawer full of IOUs". I worked in the trust department of a bank many years ago, and sometimes I would go down to the vault were there were rows and rows of filing cabinets filled with corporate and government bonds owned by trusts that the bank managed. We would pull out bonds and "clip coupons" to redeem the interest on the bonds. This was before the Internet, so it's mostly done electronically today.

The point is, a bond is an "IOU" and in the colorful terms of yesteryear, the bonds were kept in a drawer. The difference is, an IOU is a promise to pay and a US Treasury bond is a guarantee to pay.

All of the US national debt is Treasury bonds of one type or another. They are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. That's why people buy them. That's why they are the safest investment in the world.

So how does the United States solve the debt/deficit issues posed by the Social Security Trust Fund? Well here are three possible ways:

Grow the economy, cut general budget expenses, raise taxes and fees in order to reduce or eventually pay off the national debt including the 2 Trillion in Trust Fund dollars.
Decide not to honor the US Treasury bonds held by the Trust Fund. Break the full faith and credit promise. This basically makes any US Treasury bond worthless. No one will buy them and therefore the US government will not be able to borrow money. In the meantime, the entire world economy will be reeling from the effect of $15 Trillion going up in smoke. (I can hear some people saying "good. We shouldn't borrow anyway." But a whole lot of the lenders are US citizens, corporations and financial institutions. Good-bye US economy.)
Decide that Social Security is NOT an entitlement and the people who have paid into it are not going to get benefits because, well we just can't afford it and you all are just going to have to take one for the American team. From what I've read, this could be done by act of Congress. So the $2T debt is simply retired because it isn't needed anymore.

Option number one is the preferred method, to say the least. Number two would be the worst thing for the US and world economies. It would make 1929 and 2008 look like a tea party (pun intended).

Number three might be the scariest because it is NOT out of the realm of possibility. You get a Bachmann or a Cain or a Perry for president, 60 Jim DeMints in the Senate, and a majority of Eric Cantors in the House, and I could see them pulling off number three.

Anyway, let's hope our lawmakers can get their acts together sometime soon and do number one.

So, I learned all the above about Social Security facts and funding because I read the blogs and I wanted to be able to answer with facts. The latter half of this post I've basically put together by actually thinking out what those blogs are suggesting about Social Security.

Now go get some sleep. Read the report of the Social Security Trust Fund Trustees at ssa.gov. That should do it.

I guess they just can't help it

2011-07-30T11:04:00.000-07:00

Last night (July 29, 2011) on Bill Maher's Real Time Margaret Hoover, Fox News "contributor", said "Barack Obama has doubled the debt." She not only said it, but repeated it several times when Maher correctly pointed out that her assertion was simply not true.

Apparently the Fox crowd is bound by some oath to spread misinformation even when they are not in front of a Fox camera.

Here are actual FACTS from TreasuryDirect.gov:

The US Debt on 9/30/2001, the end of Clinton's last budget year, was $5.8T. The US Debt on 9/30/2009, the end of Bush's last budget year, was $11.9T. If you take away the Stimulus, which arguably was an Obama policy addition to the debt, the Bush ending debt was $11.1T.

Today's debt is about $14.3T. Subtract adjusted Bush ending debt of $11.1T and you've got an increase of $3.2T under Obama. Unless my math is really bad, $3.2T in new debt does not double $11.1T.

Furthermore, since I've already allowed for the Stimulus in the above calculations, most of the $3.2T in added debt is due to continuing deficits from previously implemented policies like tax cuts and wars. Oh yeah, and then there is the recession thing. Because, see, debts and deficits aren't always due to a "spending problem". Sometimes they're due to not enough revenue coming in to cover commitments already made.

So, Hoover, like most good little Fox News contributors, is lying.

ps: 11.1 minus 5.8 is 5.3. It was Bush who (nearly) doubled the debt. And since the Clinton budget was a surplus budget, that doubling is ALL on Bush.

The Legacy of Malcolm X

2011-04-12T14:05:00.000-07:00

A very interesting read from The Atlantic magazine. A bit long, but worth it. The destination is worth the trip.

Income Redistribution has been happening for decades

2011-02-15T12:57:00.000-08:00

Yes, it has. But not how some people would like you to believe.

See, in 1979, before Ronald Reagan took office, the top 1% of Americans took in 8.9% of all the country's income. In 2008, the top 1% of Americans took in 23.5% of all income.

Now there's some income redistribution for you!

Here are some interesting facts:

The top 1% of Americans owns more of America's wealth than 90% of Americans combined. That 1% owns 33.8% of America's wealth. One third.
400 people (the Forbes 400) owns as much wealth as the lower 50% of American households. 400 Americans own one and a half trillion dollars.
The top 10% of Americans own 90% of all stocks and bonds. Think all the wealth is in everyone's 401(k)s? Nope.

From Campaign for America's future:

Between 1979 and 2008, the top 5% of American families saw their real incomes increase 73%, according to Census data. Over the same period, the lowest-income fifth (20% of us) saw a decrease in real income of 4.1%. The rest were just stagnant or saw very little increase. This is why people are borrowing more and more, falling further and further behind.

Very few people, including liberals, want income to be taken from those who earn it or have it to be given to those who don't. Surely readers will be able to come up with a few quotes to "prove me wrong".

But people should not fall for the BIG lie that what's good for the top 1% is good for everyone else. When the middle class is shrinking, demand for goods and services shrinks. It's simple economics. No demand, no sales, no economic growth, no American dream.

Ever since Reagan took office, the "game" has become more and more rigged for the wealthiest to succeed. And while we can aspire (if we want) to the American dream of wealth, promoting that dream is really a device to get people to think it's OK that the wealthy continue to get wealthy AT THE EXPENSE of the rest of Americans.

Why Clinton Pardoned Mark Rich

2009-01-17T08:57:00.000-08:00

I never paid much attention to the Mark Rick controversy. All presidents pardon sleaze balls in the waning moments of their presidency, and I always assumed this was just another. The reports that there was monetary tit-for-tat was in keeping with the Clinton reputation.

The Mark Rich pardon is relevant today because of the Eric Holder Attorney General nomination and his role in the pardon. But it turns out there were international political reasons why Rich was pardoned and why the normal process was bypassed in his case: Rich was a key factor in Clinton's desperate attempt to achieve an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement by the end of his term.

Joe Conason writes about it at Salon:

But Holder understood that there were deeper reasons why the pardon was likely to be approved, which had nothing to do with the political and charitable contributions of Rich's ex-wife, the Manhattan socialite Denise Rich. The New York Times offered just a hint in a front-page story that appeared shortly after the Holder nomination was announced. Only at the very end did the Times mention the pressure from "the Israelis" that had persuaded Holder not to oppose the pardon...

Winning the pardon was a top priority for Israeli officials because Rich had long been a financial and intelligence asset of the Jewish state, carrying out missions in many hostile countries where he did business.

According to Conason, Holder did not defend his acquiesence (Clinton didn't need Holder's permission) so as not to bring up the foreign policy implications that heavily influenced his decision at the time. This was apparently the Obama transition team's strategy to get Holder through the Senate confirmation hearings relatively "unscathed."

"We don't know him". But these folks do

2008-10-26T10:53:00.000-07:00

Opponents will protest that "we don't know anything about Obama," but this is utter nonsense. There has been so much written about him and by him over the years, it's hard to keep a straight face when one hears this "complaint."

Here's an interesting bio from the Guardian. It's vignettes in time by people who knew him well.

Schoolfriends remember his love for comic books, basketball and teasing the girls. A former boss recalls him as a young man running a community project in Chicago. A fellow senator remembers being beaten by him at poker. Gifted student, quiet persuader, charismatic speaker, loyal friend... We speak to the people who knew Barack Obama best, revealing an intimate, often touching, portrait of a man on the brink of greatness.

Read the entire article.

Ready to be Conmmander-in-Chief

2008-10-23T20:46:00.000-07:00

This is a great article by Joe Klein in Time Magazine on why Barack Obama is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief:

General David Petraeus deployed overwhelming force when he briefed Barack Obama and two other Senators in Baghdad last July. He knew Obama favored a 16-month timetable for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq, and he wanted to make the strongest possible case against it. And so, after he had presented an array of maps and charts and PowerPoint slides describing the current situation on the ground in great detail, Petraeus closed with a vigorous plea for "maximum flexibility" going forward.

Obama had a choice at that moment. He could thank Petraeus for the briefing and promise to take his views "under advisement." Or he could tell Petraeus what he really thought, a potentially contentious course of action — especially with a general not used to being confronted. Obama chose to speak his mind. "You know, if I were in your shoes, I would be making the exact same argument," he began. "Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential Commander in Chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security." Obama talked about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the financial costs of the occupation of Iraq, the stress it was putting on the military.
A "spirited" conversation ensued, one person who was in the room told me. "It wasn't a perfunctory recitation of talking points. They were arguing their respective positions, in a respectful way." The other two Senators — Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed — told Petraeus they agreed with Obama. According to both Obama and Petraeus, the meeting — which lasted twice as long as the usual congressional briefing — ended agreeably. Petraeus said he understood that Obama's perspective was, necessarily, going to be more strategic. Obama said that the timetable obviously would have to be flexible. But the Senator from Illinois had laid down his marker: if elected President, he would be in charge.

Read the whole article.

Fired for a magic trick

2008-05-12T19:11:00.000-07:00

A substitute teacher at a Florida middle school performed a simple magic trick and was fired for "wizardry."

The Gospel According to Scalia

2008-05-03T08:42:00.000-07:00

Ask any "conservative" how they would want Supreme Court vacancies filled, and they'll tell you they want another "Scalia." Antonin Scalia is their model as an "originalist", one who would interpret the law based on the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution.

Scalia was interviewed on "60 Minutes" on April 26, 2008. He's an intelligent man with an impressive background. It's no surprise that he believes that "Roe v. Wade", the landmark decision protecting reproductive rights, should be overturned.

What IS surprising is his view (actually it is the truth because according to him, he is always right) about the status of the so-called "unborn child", so often the focus of the anti-choice crowd. Here is a direct quote from Scalia:

My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately, and indeed there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the equal protection clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings.

I think that’s wrong. I think when the Constitution says that “persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws” I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don’t count pregnant women twice. [emphasis added]

There you go. Scalia, never wrong, clearly says that an unborn fetus is not a person. Case closed.

Shouldn't we be quaking in our boots?

2007-08-18T20:36:00.000-07:00

Genn Greenwald at Salon.com makes a great point.

Every now and then, it is worth noting that substantial portions of the right-wing political movement in the United States -- the Pajamas Media/right-wing-blogosphere/Fox News/Michelle Malkin/Rush-Limbaugh-listener strain -- actually believe that Islamists are going to take over the U.S. and impose sharia law on all of us. And then we will have to be Muslims and "our women" will be forced into burkas and there will be no more music or gay bars or churches or blogs. This is an actual fear that they have -- not a theoretical fear but one that is pressing, urgent, at the forefront of their worldview.
And their key political beliefs -- from Iraq to Iran to executive power and surveillance theories at home -- are animated by the belief that all of this is going to happen. The Republican presidential primary is, for much of the "base," a search for who will be the toughest and strongest in protecting us from the Islamic invasion -- a term that is not figurative or symbolic, but literal: the formidable effort by Islamic radicals to invade the U.S. and take over our institutions and dismantle our government and force us to submit to Islamic rule or else be killed.

Those of us of a certain age, as they say, lived through the early years of the cold war, Kruschev saying, "We will bury you" and the Cuban missile crisis obviously survived this threat. And it was truly a threat. "They" had bombers and ICBMs." We had air raid drills and some built bomb shelters, but nobody gave up their civil rights.

Have we raised a generation of cowering wimps who truly believe that the "Islamo-facists" can actually storm our shores and put our women in Burkas?

Open thread

2007-07-06T09:05:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Jay, phil, chet, and andy.

Why the wingers continue to support the war

2006-10-25T21:36:00.000-07:00

Publius at Legal Fiction is one of my favorite bloggers. He writes some of the most incredibly intelligent thoughts on the web. He is in the profession of law and has a lawyer's mind.

Today Publius writes that the reason that those who previously supported the war but now express doubts CONTINUE TO CLAIM their initial position was correct is simply because they refuse to admit that LIBERALS who were against the war at the time WERE RIGHT.

In other words, the wingers' intense hatred of liberals will lead them to pursue a clearly incorrect course simply because liberals are against it.

Read the post.

The Liar-In-Chief is at it again

2006-10-18T21:36:00.000-07:00

My "friends" on the wingnut right always challenge me to "prove that Bush lied." It's easy to do, of course, and here's another one:

Bush claims that only about 30,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the beginning of the US invasion. In last week's press conference, Bush was asked to comment on the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health study estimating the death toll to be about 655,000. Bush's response was that (get ready, here's the lie) "their methodology has been pretty well discredited."

Um, actually, no. Here some information from Altercation:

-The Washington Post interviewed Ronald Waldman, an epidemiologist at Columbia University who worked at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for many years. He called the Johns Hopkins survey method "tried and true" and added that "this is the best estimate of mortality we have."

-Sarah Leah Whitson, an official of Human Rights Watch in New York, told the Post, "We have no reason to question the findings or the accuracy" of the survey.

-Frank Harrell Jr., chairman of the biostatistics department at Vanderbilt University, told the Associated Press the study incorporated "rigorous, well-justified analysis" of the data.

-Richard Garfield, a public health professor at Columbia University who works closely with a number of the authors of the report, told The Christian Science Monitor: "That's exactly wrong. There is no discrediting of this methodology. I don't think there's anyone who's been involved in mortality research who thinks there's a better way to do it in unsecured areas. I have never heard of any argument in this field that says there's a better way to do it."

-The sampling "is solid. The methodology is as good as it gets," said John Zogby, whose polling agency, Zogby International, has done several surveys in Iraq since the war began. "It is what people in the statistics business do." Zogby said similar survey methods have been used to estimate casualty figures in other conflicts, such as Darfur and the Congo.

If you tell lies, you are a liar.

"To show that [he] can."

2006-09-24T16:00:00.000-07:00

Paul Krugman on the torture issue:

So why is the Bush administration so determined to torture people?

To show that it can.

The central drive of the Bush administration — more fundamental than any particular policy — has been the effort to eliminate all limits on the president's power. Torture, I believe, appeals to the president and the vice president precisely because it's a violation of both law and tradition. By making an illegal and immoral practice a key element of U.S. policy, they're asserting their right to do whatever they claim is necessary.

...

The fact is that for all his talk of being a "war president," Mr. Bush has been conspicuously unwilling to ask Americans to make sacrifices on behalf of the cause — even when, in the days after 9/11, the nation longed to be called to a higher purpose. His admirers looked at him and thought they saw Winston Churchill. But instead of offering us blood, toil, tears and sweat, he told us to go shopping and promised tax cuts.

Only now, five years after 9/11, has Mr. Bush finally found some things he wants us to sacrifice. And those things turn out to be our principles and our self-respect.

More proof that "justification" for the Iraq war is a lie

2006-09-09T21:46:00.000-07:00

Recently Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division after 9/11, and one of the people with primary responsibility for war planning was interviewed. Scheid said that Sec Def Donald Rumsfeld threatened to fire any planner who even mentioned a plan for occupying Iraq after the overthow of Saddam.

"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."

As Kevin Drum says, "The guy who was actually in charge of logistics has now directly confirmed that Rumsfeld not only didn't intend to rebuild Iraq in any serious way, but threatened to fire anyone who wasted time on the idea. Needless to say, he wouldn't have done this unless it reflected the wishes of the president."

And from Drum:

"And this also means that all of Bush's talk about democracy was nothing but hot air. If you're serious about planting democracy after a war, you don't plan to simply topple a government and then leave.

"So: the lack of postwar planning wasn't merely the result of incompetence. It was deliberate policy. There was never any intention of rebuilding Iraq and there was never any intention of wasting time on democracy promotion. That was merely a post hoc explanation after we failed to find the promised WMD. Either that or BG Scheid is lying."

There you have it. No intent to bring Democracy to Iraq.

What is "Islamo-fascism"?

2006-09-04T15:31:00.000-07:00

I don't often agree with Pat Buchanan. I don't often agree with Greorge Will, either. But these two pundits at least have a conservative integrity sorely lacking in the likes of Bush cultists like Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and O'Reilly.

Pat Buchanan wrote an op-ed piece called "Bush should drop 'Islamo-fascism'. This is a very pertinent column and speaks to why it is a nonsense term trotted out to rile the base. You should read the whole thing here and here are a few choice snippets [all emphasis added]:

There is no consensus as to what "fascism" means...

As a concept, writes Arnold Beichman of the Hoover Institution, "faschism" ... has no intellectual basis at all...

Their goal is to have Bush stuff al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran into the same "Islamo-fascist" kill box...

But Hussein was about as devout a practitioner of Isam as his hero, Joseph Stalin, was of the Russian Orthodox faith...

And whatever "Islamo-fascism" means, Syria surely is not it. It is a secular dictatorship Bush I bribed into becoming an ally in the Gulf War. The Muslim Brotherhood is outlawed in Syria...

America faces a variety of adversaries, enemies and evils. But the Bombs-Away Caucus [Buchanan has a way with words!], as Iraq and Lebanon reveal, does not always have the right formula. Al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran all present separate challenges calling forth different responses...

And once a guerrilla-terrorist movement takes over a state, it acquires state assets and interests that are then vulnerable to U.S. military and economic power.

Why did the ayatollah let the American hostages go as Reagan raised his right hand to take the oath of office? Why did Syria not rush to the rescue of Hezbollah? What [sic] did Ahmadinejad not rocket Tel Aviv in solidarity with his embattled allies in Lebanon? Res ipse loquitor. The thing speaks for itself. They don't want war with Israel, and they don't want war with the United States...

If Bush does not want a war of civilizations, he will drop these propaganda terms that are designed to inflame passions rather than inform the public of the nature of the war we are in, and the war we are not in.

American Values

2006-08-18T21:59:00.000-07:00

Here is a hypothetical, and I sincerely ask readers to think about this and give me a straight answer. This has nothing to do with anything in the past, any theories and such. It simply has to do with the next election.

So here goes:

In November 2008 there is a presidential election. The Democratic candidate is, say, John Edwards. The Republican candidate is, for the sake of argument, John McCain. The election is close 51% to 49%, but Pennsylvania and Minnesota carry the day for John McCain, and the networks declare McCain the winner.

Two days before Congress certifies the 2008 election, INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF surfaces that electronic voting machine tallies were manipulated in both Minnesota and Pennsylvania and votes for Edwards were flipped to McCain by persons associated with the Republican party. The count of the flipped votes was more than enough to reverse the McCain wins in both states and give the Electoral Vote count to Edwards.

Should the original result be certified or should the proved correct result be certified?

In other words, which is more important, Republicans retain the White House, or the election is fair and accurate?

The above setup is just for dressing. The point of this post is this question.

Any difference if the candidates are Giuliani and Clinton? What if the proof was discovered on January 22, 2009?

Oh, yes. Liberals do indeed "get it"

2006-08-12T14:29:00.000-07:00

Supporters of the current administration and its "war on terror" continue to espouse the false idea that "liberals don't get it" and "Democrats are soft on national security" and incapable of waging an effective battle against those who use terror tactics against the US.

I honestly don’t think that I or any other informed person (read liberal) would disagree with the premise that their are "evil-doers out there" who want to kill us. And I think we would also agree that there are some radical Muslims who "hate us for who we are". We even agree that there are those who want to "reinstate the Caliphate" and turn back the calendar 1300 years. (Heck, there are people in America who pretty much want to do the same thing, but that's another post.) However, most of us also realize that these radicals succeed in spreading their hate and recruiting more Muslims by getting them to "hate us for what we do."

Where most liberals disagree with the Bush administration is not that there is a radical Islam movement, not that many of those involved in the movement are rabid killers, not that they want to force their radical Islam beliefs on the rest of the world, and not that they should be eradicated. Most informed people disagree with this administration’s APPROACH to fighting and eradicating the radicals.

There are something like 1.5 billion Muslims today. Some of them, the radicals, are a very serious danger to the world. All informed people, including liberals, recognize that. Many Muslims recognize that, too, for radical Muslims have killed more Muslims than Christians or Jews.

But the danger of radical Muslim's terror tactics is more than just killing Christians and Jews. They use terrorist tactics against the West NOT SIMPLY to kill westerners, but to get the West to react. Why? Because it is the reaction of the West that recruits many more of those 1.5 billion to join the radicals in their movement.

Some people apparently think that the attacks of 911 were carried out merely to kill masses of Americans and make the survivors crouch in fear? I think that is a very simplistic view of the event. And as such, that event would have been a massive failure. I’m not trying to minimize the tragedy of the death and destruction of 911, but only 3,000 out of 300,000,000 Americans were killed and only a few buildings were destroyed and damaged. And only a few Americans, like our friend the Game, are crouching in fear. The rest of us go about our daily business with a heightened awareness of danger, but with little fear.

On the other hand, as a means of getting the US to react, the 911 attacks were a massive success. The invasion of Iraq has recruited many more Muslims to the support of the radicals than we could ever hope to kill. Are we to think that al-Qaeda is so stupid that they didn’t know that the US would react to a homeland attack by invading Iraq? The neocons were writing about it and pushing it for at least a decade before 911. And PNAC virtually assured the world that Iraq would be invaded should a new Pearl Harbor-like attack occur. Should we not think that Bin Laden prayed every day to Allah that George W. Bush would become president of the United States? And did everything in his power to ensure his re-election in 2004?

I don’t believe that 1.5 billion people in this world get born hating civilization and wanting to kill westerners. They have to be taught that, and they have to have a reason to believe in it. You will NEVER stop people from using terror tactics as long as there is a 1.5 billion and growing supply of people to incite and recruit. And the best way to incite and recruit them is to get the West to do the job for them.

You can’t stop terrorism by bombing one fourth of the worlds population into vapor.

So, “understanding” your enemy or "understanding" terrorists has nothing to do with sympathy and has nothing to do with being soft on terrorism. It has to do with knowing what their goals are, what their strategy is, and figuring out how to thwart both through intelligent policies, effective strategies, and competent execution, none of which the Bush administration has been able to offer or demonstrate. The Bush administration has shown no desire nor capability to provide the kind of leadership that would ever give us hope of success against the threat of radical Islam.

That’s why those who truly understand what the “war on terror” is all about are against the war in Iraq, are against the policies of the Bush administration, and are obviously more capable of waging an effective fight to preserve our country, our rights, and our way of life.

Nuclear power

2006-07-17T21:32:00.000-07:00

It just occurred to me tonight...

When discussing oil prices, energy policies, and global warming with our friends on the right, you will often hear the rant about how it is all the fault of enrivonmentalists who fought against the building of nuclear powerplants in the past.

It occurred to me, who really has benefitted from the lack of nuclear power over the past 30 years? The oil industry!

I can't prove it, and I don't remember reading anything that suggested this, but it makes sense to me. I'll bet that the oil companies are just as responsible for suppressing nuclear power as the environmentalists. Maybe even more.

What do you think?

Who benefits from the growing economy

2006-07-17T19:51:00.000-07:00

Read this item from Washington Monthly that cites a Wall Street Journal news item showing how the administration's latest economic numbers indicate that the "growing economy" primarily benefits the wealthiest. It's from the Wall Street Journal, remember, not some "liberal rag."

Check it out.

If you knew Cheney

2006-07-16T18:34:00.000-07:00

If you have read much about Dick Cheney's career, you know that he carries a lot of baggage from his experience in the Nixon administration. And much of that baggage has to do with executive power.

Cheney believes that the events of the Nixon presidency severely weakened the executive branch of the government, and consequently he has been on a crusade of sorts to restore or even broaden the power of the executive.

Here's an editorial from the New York Times today:

Over and over again, the same pattern emerges: Given a choice between following the rules or carving out some unprecedented executive power, the White House always shrugged off the legal constraints. Even when the only challenge was to get required approval from an ever-cooperative Congress, the president and his staff preferred to go it alone. While no one questions the determination of the White House to fight terrorism, the methods this administration has used to do it have been shaped by another, perverse determination: never to consult, never to ask and always to fight against any constraint on the executive branch.

Perhaps the saddest part of what's going on is that the GOP-controlled Congress seems to be gladly relinquishing power to the Bush administration thus weakening the checks and balances created by the founding fathers.

There is a reason that the powers of the legislative branch are created in Article I of the Constitution and only afterwards are the powers of the executive enumerated in Article II. And this is why it is imperative that the opposition party regain control of the Congress and restore the checks and balances that the Republics have ignored.

The Cheney - Rumsfeld administration

2006-07-16T09:14:00.000-07:00

You know, this foreign policy stuff is hard work. It's complex and it's serious stuff.

Unfortunately, George W. Bush has no grasp of the realities of foreign affairs or hard work for that matter.

Can you believe Republics voted for a man for president who for all intents and purposes had never set foot outside of the United States? This man was never a success at anything in his life until he became governor of Texas.

So why was George W. Bush elected president? Because Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld couldn't be. However, they could maneuver their way to become the two most powerful men in Government. And they did.

Who chose Dick Cheney to be Vice-President? Dick Cheney did. (For those who may have forgotten, Bush asked Cheney to lead the effort to select a running mate for the 2000 election. Cheney selected...Cheney.)

Here is a great article on the subject from Rolling Stone Magazine: The Curst of Dick Cheney, The veep's career has been marred by one disaster after another.

Dick Cheney has served in key positions in four Republic administrations. Nixon, Ford, Bush I, and Bush II. With luck, Bush II will be the first of them to complete two terms. Why?

Cheney and Rumsfeld are bold thinkers. The problem is, they never think about the consequences of their boldness. Instead, they expect to win every "chess match" with one bold move.

So using their connections in the Republic establishment, they have used an intellectually incurious, incompetent man with a folksy manner and a Christian heart to gain the power to make the bold moves they have been hoping to make for decades, bold moves that Bush I and his administration refused to do.

And they made the bold move. In Iraq. And they screwed up. Because they thought they could make the bold move and the rest would take care of itself. Forget about the consequences.

They are trying to pin it on the CIA. "Slam dunk", "bad intelligence", and all that. The fact is, and this is beyond dispute, they cherry-picked the intelligence to support their bold move. The CIA believed that Saddam had WMD, but they knew there were reasonable and serious doubts.

So now here we are in a mess, a huge mess. The Right asks of the Democrats "where is their plan?" But this administration has put this country in a position where there are no good options.

And because this administration turned its back on many of our staunchest allies, because it pre-emptively attacked a country without being 100% dead certain of its justification, it gets little sympathy, much less help from other countries.

So our military, great as they are, victorious as they were in swiftly toppling Saddam, are stretched thin and tired. Few allies and tired soldiers leave us with fewer options in fighting this so-called World War III.

I read on blogs and from William Kristol calls for yet more "bold moves" again with respect to Iran and North Korea. They want more bold moves from men who have weakened our world position instead of strengthened it due to a series of cluster f**ks riddled with hubris mixed with incompetence.

And some on the Right lament that Bush is out of ideas? He's never had one. The ideas are Cheney's, Rumsfeld's, Wolfowitz's, and Rove's. And look where they've put us.

Some on the Right claim, "Democratic Party leaders want to pretend we can declare peace and everything will be fine." This is absurd, of course. The US is years from peace, and the Democrats know that. They also know that this administration has put us in a bad place, and they know there's got to be a better way.

How can intelligent people on the Right possibly keep supporting this administration of failed ideology and bold f**kups?

Things you need to believe . . .

2006-07-14T18:34:00.000-07:00

Recently on Casting Pearls Before Swine, Mark posted a list of "things you have to believe to be a liberal." It was mildly amusing in its absurdity.

In response, I offer this list of things you need to believe to be a Republic(an):

Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals, Arabs, and Hillary Clinton.

Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney and Rumsfeld did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush couldn't find Bin Laden.

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle and antagonize our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

A President lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a President lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's and Dick Cheney's driving records are none of our business.

Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

Supporting "Executive Privilege" is imperative for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born in perpetuity.

What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

Wrong Again...

2006-07-12T21:20:00.000-07:00

So over at Right from the Right, the Game cites Robert Novak's statement regarding his role in the Valerie Plame Leak affair then comments on Novak and the case, ranting as he often does about how the "left" wants to regain power. Duh?!

Game demonstrates once again his failure to grasp the documented realities of this situation even to the point of making assertions that are patently false.

For example, Game says, "NO ONE EVER said the name Valerie Plame or Wison, NO ONE....except JOE WILSON....that is who he found out the information from." This is untrue of course because Joe Wilson did not give this information to Novak or anyone else. Novak admits that he was given information that "Wilson's wife" was a CIA operative. The right and Game assert that this single "fact" lets everyone off the hook because the "name" of the operative was not leaked. So I guess that means if I were to reveal that the man who lives at 123 Main St. is a CIA operative, I'm not divulging classified information.

How absurd is that notion?

Game said, "a person that was not really undercover if all you had to do was look up her name." Again, how absurd is that notion?

Game seems to think that to actually be a covert agent, you must become one of the "Men In Black" and completely lose your identity. The fact that "V" actually did have an identity in no way makes her covert status public knowledge.

The right claims that Plame wasn't covert because Novak got her name out of "Who's Who". They and Game seem to forget that Joe Wilson was a United States ambassador and he and who he was married to would reasonably be found in "Who's Who". But "Who's Who" does not describe Plame as a covert CIA operative. And the CIA has repeatedly stated that Plame was a covert agent and that that information was classified. Patrick Fitzgerald confirmed that in October of 2005 stating that her being a covert CIA operative was unknown OUTSIDE of the intelligence community.

So Novak divulged CLASSIFIED INFORMATION given to him by government officials. To the right and Game, this is OK because it is somehow different from the NY Times printing information about a "secret" financial intelligence program or a possibly illegal wire-tapping program.

Why would one be upset about the former and not the latter? Because there is a good case that the "vital" anti-terrorism programs were conducted without proper congressional and judicial oversight whereas the damaging leak of CLASSIFIED information about the identity of a covert CIA agent was done purely for political purposes.

Note: I welcome comments about this and other posts on my blog. If you wish to debate with facts and citations of reputable sources, that would be great. If the gist of your comment is an ad hominem attack, I will probably delete your comment. I reserve the right to give you a warning or not. You do not have to agree with me. But you do have to present a fact-based argument or an informed opinion.

The Medical Malpractice Myth

2006-07-11T19:21:00.000-07:00

I've written here about this before, but it bears repeating. The high cost of healthcare is not due to frivolous malpractice suits nor outragious jury awards. It's a myth, which is a polite way of saying it's a lie, perpetrated by insurance companies for the most part. And it's a myth in so many ways.

Ezra Klein in Slate writes about the subject:

The Republican answer to runaway health-care spending is to cap jury awards in medical malpractice suits...

But rather than capping jury awards, [Hillary Clinton and Brarak Obama] hope to cut the number of medical malpractice cases by reducing medical errors..

Seems that multiple studies done by such organizations as the Harvard Medical Practice and RAND show that the reason medical malpractice costs are high (yet only 0.5% of total healthcare costs) is that there is more malpractice. What a concept!

When doctors and medical organizations such as the American Society of Anesthesiologists completed a study of increased malpractice suits, they worked at reducing malpractice rather than trying to cap awards. They instituted measures to reduce medical errors and that resulted in premiums being rolled back to 1985 levels.

There's lots more in this article. Check it out.

Estate Tax by the numbers

2006-06-01T20:45:00.000-07:00

This is one of my pet subjects, the Estate Tax, or as spun by the Republics and their "base", the "Death Tax."

I read a couple of items lately. One from a column in the San Francisco Chronicle cited a Brookings Institute study which said that the Estate Tax as currently written would affect only a bit over 12,000 families and already-scheduled increases in the exemption would affect only a bit over 7,000 families.

And the cost of reducing or eliminating the Estate Tax will cost 1 trillion dollars over 10 years.

12,000 families vs 1 trillion dollars. Hmmm.

Under a more modest reform proposed by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 99.7% of all estates would pay no estate tax at all. And only 50 small businesses and farms would owe any estate tax.

Of Course! It makes sense.

2006-03-09T21:02:00.000-08:00

From the editor of Vanity Fair on why Bush always sounds like he's talking to five year-olds:

"He speaks to the audience as if they're idiots. I think the reason he does that is because that's the way these issues were explained to him." - Graydon Carter

It's all very familiar if you really consider it

2006-03-08T21:03:00.000-08:00

Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Today General Odom published this column at Nieman Watchdog. I ask readers to step back from the politics of this war and the last one and examine the policies that got us there, kept us there, and will ultimately drive us out.

Jason, I believe you will read this article, and if you do, you will seriously consider the message it offers.

Another great quote that sums it up . . .

2006-02-22T21:45:00.000-08:00

The Mighty Middle website cites a Michael Hirsh column from Newsweek:

How then did we arrive at this day, with anti-American Islamist governments rising in the Mideast, bin Laden sneering at us, Qaeda lieutenants escaping from prison, Iran brazenly enriching uranium, and America as hated and mistrusted as it ever has been? The answer, in a word, is incompetence. We now have testimony from enough Republicans and Bush loyalists—from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill to former CIA senior director Paul Pillar — that the administration knew all along how flimsy its WMD case against Iraq was. We also now know, from Berntsen and others, that the administration knew then how solid the intel on bin Laden's and Zawahiri's whereabouts was. So catastrophic was Bush's decision to shift his attention and resources to Iraq, when bin Laden was panting at Tora Bora, that one is tempted to rank it with Adolf Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941, at a time when Great Britain was prostrate and America was still out of the war (a decision that almost certainly cost Hitler the war then and there). Yes, Iraq may some day become a legitimate democracy. But for now it is mainly a jihadi factory, cranking out new generations of hardened bomb-ready Islamists, as we have seen with the cross-pollination that has brought Iraqi-style suicide bombs back to Afghanistan.

The Mighty Middle concludes:

The President is not an evil man, not a man who trades "blood for oil," not an imperialist aggressor, but a simple screw-up, a small man in way over his head, a weak man who has succumbed under pressure to megalomania, an incompetent.

L. Paul Bremmer demonstrates the value of the Medal Of Freedom

2006-01-16T10:10:00.000-08:00

I saw Bremmer on Meet The Press, January 15th. The Medal of Freedom seems to buy a lot of lies. This guy makes Rice look like Mother Theresa. And that is not easy.

Why anybody would believe a word he says now is beyond me. Russert was (unusually) relentless. Bremmer backed off of virtually everything he wrote in his book and has said and written in the past.

If you didn't see it, watch it or read it. I think you will be astonished.

Open thread for year end

2005-12-31T22:18:00.000-08:00

Post here. I know you want to say something.

I've been away . . . so to speak

2005-12-28T11:53:00.000-08:00

I haven't done much posting here recently. I've been galavanting around some of the "conservative" blogosphere trying to refute misleading statements (or lies) and generally sticking up for people and organizations that I think deserve it.

But to quote a famous president, "It's hard work." And unfortunately, it seldom pays off. There are only a few people out there who are actually willing to debate the issues of the day. More often than not, the "discussion" consists of snippets from "my guy's" writings and" your guy is a hateful, anti-American, Bush-hating scum bag." It started out as fun because it really got me to put my thoughts together and to actually look up some of the source material that's out there to read.

But I found only one or two people who would actually give a little if I give a little. To most, it's just "I'm right, you're wrong, and you are [choose any two of the following] (looney, a pussy, not man enough to get a date, an idiot, liberal lunatic, psychotic . . . ).

So I'm going to try to get back to my origianl purpose which is to present information from sources which I find interesting and which I find many citations and links to orginal source material. This information may not be the final "truth", but I usually think it makes sense and has enough backing, source-wise, to make it legitimate for inclusion and discussion.

In another post I'm going to lay down some guidelines for this blog. I'm not calling them rules because I'm going to leave myself room for judgement.

But I do expect the discussions to be civil and respectful, something I rarely find where I've been. Again, there have been exceptions (marginally), and you know who you are.

Condi back on the job. Oh, great!

2005-12-14T21:20:00.000-08:00

I love this from Think Progress. Remember in Ocotober of 2003 Bush appointed Condi head of the "Iraq Stabilization Group" with the authority to manage postwar Iraq and the rebuilding of Afghanistan?

As we know, THAT didn't work out so well, did it? Seven months later, the Washington Post wrote that a search of the White House website revealed no public mention of the Iraq Stabilization Group since back in October 2003.

Today the Financial Times reports that "[t]he White House formally gave Condoleezza Rice authority on Wednesday to take the lead in planning and reconstruction efforts in conflict areas such as Iraq.

As Think Progess suggests, her first task, no doubt, will be to clean up the mess the Iraq Stabilization Group left.

Corruption in every part of the Bush Administration

2005-12-01T22:05:00.000-08:00

The Washington post has obtained a Justice Department memo which concluded that the Texas congressional resdistricting plan spearheaded by Tom Delay violated the Voting Rights Act. However senior Justice officials overruled the memo's recommendation that the plan be overturned and then suppressed the memo.

From the Washington Post:

The memo, unanimously endorsed by six lawyers and two analysts in the department's voting section, said the redistricting plan illegally diluted black and Hispanic voting power in two congressional districts. It also said the plan eliminated several other districts in which minorities had a substantial, though not necessarily decisive, influence in elections.

They have no shame.

A man of eloquence

2005-09-05T21:57:00.000-07:00

Keith Olberman nails it:

http://media.putfile.com/OlbermannSwings

I need not comment further.

Letter from one who "chose" not to evacuate New Orleans

2005-09-05T17:15:00.000-07:00

Dear sir,

My name is John Smith. I am married with two young children. My wife's elderly mother is sickly and lives with us.

I had a decent job working as a dockworker at the port of New Orleans. I made enough money to make payments on my own home, feed my wife and kids, and take care of my mother-in-law. I don't have a car because insurance costs too much, gas costs too much, and I can get to work by bus. We can walk to church and the grocery store. I'm taking care of us and doing OK.

A lot of us in our neighborhood are in the same situation. Doing OK, barely, but working hard to get by. We don't get any money from the government, just what I make at the docks.

When hurricane Katrina was headed for New Orleans and the mayor said to get ourselves out of here, I looked in the garage for the car I don't have. Then I looked at the bus schedule for the buses that weren't running, and that I didn't have money for 5 bus fares for, and then I called the Holiday Inn up in Baton Rouge that was all booked up and I had no money for anyway. I told them we'd be willing to share a room if they had a courtesy van to pick us up and would let us stay for a few months for the twenty dollars I had in my pocket. That $20 is going to have to last a long time because I don't think I'm going to be able to work if the hurricane floods the city.

So exactly how the f**k am I supposed to evacuate myself and my wife, kids, and mother-in-law? Walk a hundred miles in the storm through the night with everyone tied together with a rope and flashlights? And where the f**k am I supposed to stay once I get to Baton Rouge? I don't have any relatives there and nobody set up any shelters there for a hundred thousand people.

So please, the next time it occurs to you that I puposely didn't heed the warnings of the approaching storm and chose to ignore the evacuation orders, why don't you take your elitist head out of you big honky ass before you evacuate yourself.

Sincerely,
John Smith

Department of Homeland Security

2005-09-03T14:04:00.000-07:00

This is from the homepage of the Department of Homeland Security website:

In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility on March 1st for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort. The new Department will also prioritize the important issue of citizen preparedness.

Nice job!

Constitutional "originalists"

2005-08-18T21:06:00.000-07:00

President Bush has appointed John Roberts to be the next Justice of the Supreme Court. He has selected Roberts because Bush believes Roberts has the same judicial philosophy as his model justices, Scalia and Thomas. He wants an "originalist" who will make decisions based on the Constitution as it was originally written.

Allen Snyder writes about what all this "original" talk means in terms of how cases should be decided:

1) Strict Constructionist: The Constitution means today what its words and phrases meant when they were first written down by those who drafted and ratified it.

2) Original Intent: Interpretation should be consistent with what it was originally intended to mean by those who drafted and ratified it.

3) Original Meaning: Interpretation of the Constitution should be based on what it would commonly have been understood to mean by reasonable persons living at the time of its ratification.

Then Snyder cites Article II, Section I of the US Constitution wherein the qualifications and manner of election for the President are laid out including the Presidential Oath of Office:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: - "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Something's missing isn't it? No, this is exactly as written in the Constitution. But what does every president say when he takes the oath? "...so help me God."

So how do we interpret Article II, Section I according to the "originalists?" Either:

1) "Say the Oath as printed -- if we wanted God in there, we'd have put him in there."

2) "Say the Oath as printed -- if we wanted God in there, we'd have put him in there."

3) "Say the Oath as printed -- if we wanted God in there, we'd have put him in there."

Why no objection from the "originalists" to the inclusion of "So help me God"? Because being a Constitutional preservationist, strict constructionist, or originalists has nothing to do with interpreting the Constitution. From Snyder:

It's about turning back the clock on defending the rights of individuals, women, minorities, and the environment . . . It's about doing away with regulations that provide for a safe workplace, eliminating limits on pollution and the defiling of the natural landscape, ending affirmative action, ending campaign finance limits, allowing prayer and bible crap in public schools, posting the ten commandments, bringing back discrimination and segregation, criminalizing homosexuality, and reducing the power of the legislative branch while exalting that of the executive.

Because none of that stuff is in the Constitution, is it?

"Support Our Troops" as code

2005-08-17T19:58:00.000-07:00

The ubiquitous magnetic ribbons in yellow, red-white-and-blue, all the colors of the rainbow. On the backs of cars, trucks, vans.

"Support Our Troops"

Of course, we all support our troops. That is, we pray for their safety, for their success, for their home-coming as whole persons, body and mind. Thus, on its face, "Support Our Troops" is akin to "Breathe".

So why the ribbons? It's "code" of course. Code for "support our president." It implies that if you don't support Bush, you are not supporting the troops, and you wish them ill.

Many of us support the troops but don't support their mission. "Nonsense!" say the wingers. "You can't be supporting the troops if you don't support their mission." And since their mission is Bush's policy, if you don't support Bush and his policy and the mission he has given the military then you are not supporting the troops. You are unpatriotic.

Horse manure, I say. Can't criticize the president during war? Well, I'm afraid there is precedent for criticizing the president during war. Kos provides some quotes from when Clinton committed troops to Bosnia. Here are a few:

"You can support the troops but not the president."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

As Kos reminds us, "Funny thing is, we won that war without a single killed in action."

"It's only a matter of how much humiliation..."

2005-08-14T13:26:00.000-07:00

I remember a couple of years ago I saw or read someone experienced in foreign policy say, in essence, that the US had already "lost" Iraq and that the only question left was how much humiliation the US would reap by leaving then or later.

I don't know if the US has "lost", failing to achieve its goal in Iraq. I don't know what the US goal is because the Administration does not have a clearly defined goal, at least one that lasts for more than a few weeks. And I haven't heard any that appear to be achievable at this point. The Administration has put us in a situation where there are no good alternatives.

I was not a proponent of invading Iraq. When the invasion was inevitable, it was my fervant hope that the US forces would win the shooting war as quickly as possible and with the fewest possible casualties. This is one facet of the effort that was successful. However, due to the stubborness of Rumsfeld and his adherence to policies which were at odds with those who had knowledge and experience with invasion and occupancy, the Iraq effort was lost within the first thirty days following Saddam's ouster. The failure to provide enough military strength at the beginning to secure the country, its people, and its infrastructure was critical. The opportunity for success was destroyed by the chaos that began with the looting of the national museum and continues today with the daily car bombs. Like a precious vase shattered, it cannot be glued back together.

The Washington Post today reports that "The US Lowers Sights on What Can Be Achieved in Iraq." Here's the money quote:

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning." [emphasis added]

Frank Rick in today's New York Times says, "Someone Tell the President the War is Over." I recommend reading this. Rich writes:

"Nothing that happens on the ground in Iraq can turn around the fate of this war in America: not a shotgun constitution rushed to meet an arbitrary deadline, not another Iraqi election, not higher terrorist body counts, not another battle for Falluja (where insurgents may again regroup, The Los Angeles Times reported last week). A citizenry that was asked to accept tax cuts, not sacrifice, at the war's inception is hardly in the mood to start sacrificing now. There will be neither the volunteers nor the money required to field the wholesale additional American troops that might bolster the security situation in Iraq."

Someone please tell me what realistically possible outcome in Iraq will have been worth the sacrifice of life, limbs, treasure, and reputation that the US has lost since April of 2003.

The terrible "death tax"

2005-08-11T21:17:00.000-07:00

High on the Bush agenda is abolishment of the Estate Tax, or as the Right calls it, "the death tax." Their claim is that thousands of family farms and businesses will need to be sold off to pay the estate tax.

The thing is, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, in 2000 only 300 farms would have had to pay the estate tax and only 27 of those didn't have enough liquid assets to pay the tax. That's under a $1.5 million exemption. Democrats have proposed raising the exemption to $3 million or $5 million in order to "protect" more families, but the Republicans want it abolished altogether. Read more at Think Progress.

Now the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is starting to affect many, many thousands of middle income families who were never intended to be subject to this tax. Bush will only approve a fix to this growing burden to the middle class if the remedy is "revenue neutral." But the estate tax must go with no plan to make up the difference, estimated to be almost $1 trillion over the first ten years.

That's fair!!! Right???