Blog Update

Thank you everyone whose been supporting the site recently. Dom and I have put in a good effort to make posts this last week, and I appreciate the comments and readership we've had so far (250 or so page views, great considering that’s all friends). I added "Notable Posts" to the sidebar. I know that not all posts are as interesting as others, but as the newest post gets the top spot, I wanted to make sure good ones don't slip through the cracks. That means, for the people who read this rarely, check out the sidebar first.

I wanted to open this post up for site suggestions. A little favor to ask: when you post a comment, I'd appreciate if you put your name. You don't have to, but I like to see who is viewing, and may refer to our comments in future posts. Thanks for your support so far!

2005 hottest year on record

Global warming is occurring, despite what Conservative think tanks will tell you. The debate isn't even if it is occurring, but how much of it is human intervention. There’s no doubt though that it is happening, and we are at least partially responsible. I'll have plenty more on climate change in the future. [Link]

The real corruption

Despite the corrupt Republicans discussed before, the Corruption in Iraqi reconstruction is far worse. $60 Billion is at stake, and an audit is finding it hard to track the results of the funds. Check out the article in the Washington Times; it's quite interesting and disappointing.

Public election financing

Democrats, Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin and Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, announced a bill to created publicly financed elections. This would mean the government gives money to each candidate, and lobbying groups are not involved. They admitted it would not initially be received well in a Republican congress.

Realistically though, this is not the way to go. How do you draw the line on who gets money? Could I run for office with 17 other people, and all of us get $500,000? How easily could this money be pocketed? Just think of Bill Frist's "charities," that gave out huge legally contracts to his friends that financed him. Also, this is a huge public expense, unless a line is drawn. Perhaps some money is given for a primary, and more afterwards. But also, what about the Green Party? They would need equal funds, or it would be unfair. And the Libertarians, Americans for Tax Reform, and whatever political party someone would want to make.

At least we're getting the discussion out there, but I don't think any party has done it right so far. Having lobbyists direct corporate funds to politicians just seems corrupt. How can the politicians be expected to vote their conscience, or the peoples' conscience? There will be a lot more ideas out there this year, and with Republicans watching their backs with these new scandals, there’s a good chance some new laws will pass this year.

Altio Democrats' "Worst Nightmare"

Republican Senator Bill Frist, current Senate Majority Leader, has said in a private meeting that Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito is a Democrats' "Worst Nightmare."

Frist was not available for comment following his remarks.

Asked about the senator's remark, Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson said that Alito "is a thoughtful mainstream conservative jurist who is well respected by his peers, by Democrats and Republicans alike."

Stevenson added, "There are liberals, many of them represented by the outside groups, who will do anything to kill any nominee put forward by this administration."

Not like you needed more evidence, but hopefully this will increase the opposition, and get a good filibuster going. Or even offend some moderate Republicans, but they usually follow the party line like sheep, so don't count on it.

Abramoff Scandal is a Republican Scandal (Updated Below)

To prove that the Jack Abramoff Scandal is a Republican scandal, you can use many sets of evidence. One is the Socratic method: Republicans get caught in the Abramoff scandal, and claim it is a bi-partisan problem. The Republicans are liars. Therefore, the Jack Abramoff scandal is a Republican scandal.

You can also point to the fact that Jack Abramoff never gave a dime to Democrats. For shits and giggles, partner Michael Scanlon is 100% Republican.

A new report on Democratic Underground showing that Abramoff clients (specifically the Indian Tribes) have decreased their Democratic Party contributions, while increasing Republican contributions. Check it out.

Despite the "liberal media" reporting that this is bipartisan, the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal is a 100% Republican problem.

Update: The Rockridge Institute, a liberal think tank that focuses on the framing of political issues (choosing the best words for a debate, essentially), has released a report on the "lobbying scandal." As they mentioned, Democratic reform legislation revealed Wednesday, phrased the bill as one for "honest government." They did not target lobbying reform, but instead reforming of congressmen, and their interaction with lobbyists. This shifts the public's attention to the congressmen as the entity for blame. With this strategy, it paints the congressmen (as mentioned above, all Republicans), as the bad guys, not just Jack Abramoff and pals. This hurts the Republicans more, which is deserved, and improve the Democrats chance of picking up seats in the House this November.

Republican Strategy for 2008

Carl Rove, largely responsible for crafting George Bush's election campaign, gave a speech today outlining a strategy for Republicans in the November elections. He says that Republicans should run on Bush's strength in National Security, juducial appointments, and the economy.

"We need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in," Rove told a meeting of the Republican National Committee in a rare public appearance.

"President Bush and the Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats," he said.

Let me refer you to my post on how Americans national security policy has created more terrorists. Also consider that our relationship with France is destroyed, Germany is just being rebuilt (thanks to Conservative Merkel being elected), Tony Blair has been significantly weakened by critics of the war, and Italy announced yesterday it will be removing its troops by the end of the year. The loss of our alliances does not help security. Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose, and John Kerry yesterday gave fault directly to the administration (as pointed out in our comments). This record seems quite poor on national security, and doesn't even mention the horrible failures in Iraq, despite massive military spending ($453 Billion for 2006, or 453 Billion Crispy chicken nuggets at Wendy's). I'd say Clinton, although much more moderate/conservative than most prominent Democrats today did a much better job, with the $250 billion "defense" budget of his presidency.

Update: A new article on Daily Kos gives firm numbers to the general knowledge that terrorist attacks increased during Bush's "war" on terrorism.

Labor Movements

Labor Unions have been a declining force in American politics since the 1950's. Today though, a report was released saying union membership grew this year, for the first time since 1999. Despite this news, union members grew at the rate of the economy, so they represent 12.5 percent of the workforce, same as in 2004. Stats were included, which show union members given almost 30% higher wages than non-union members, and wage increases in wages last year of 2.6%, compared to 1.6% of non-union members. Also today, the Transit Workers Union, responsible for the NYC transit strikes in December, narrowly rejected the MTAs contract offer. Perhaps a slight increase in union power is surfacing, as "trickle down" economics continue to fail the common workers, and push them to become less content with their situations, and more willing to resort to drastic, risky measure, like strikes.

I report this because labor unions are long time supporters of the Democratic Party, and represent a huge portion of their campaign contributions.

News Bits: Friday January 20th

• A follow-up on the Chris Matthews story: A website has been created for the soul purpose of getting an on-air apology from Chris Matthews for comparing Osama Bin Laden to Michael Moore. I recommend visiting the site, or emailing Hardball ( hardball@msnbc.com) to politely request their apology on the air.
• President Carter's son, Jack Carter, will be running for Senate in Nevada this November against Republican John Ensign.
• Kos has an article on the likelihood of a Democratic filibuster of Uber-conservative Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. The vibe I've been getting is that the chances of a filibuster have been rising over the last week, so keep the pressure on your senators to oppose Alito by any means.
• Talking Points Memo has a story on Bob Ney, probably the second most involved congressman with Jack Abramoff, has mentioned he won't go quietly. This is great news for Democrats; a scandal ridden Ney has a worse chance of winning an election than a new Republican candidate.

Now apperently, not just is Michael Moore in league with Osama, but all Liberals, like me and probebly you. The right wing media is out of their mind.

Bin Laden Tape hurts Bush

But first, I want to direct your attention to 2 posts below by Domenic Lanza: A Desperate Cry for Universal Healthcare, and Shit-List Volume 1. I've been posting often, pushing his posts lower, but I don't want them to go unnoticed, so check them out!


Newsday makes the argument that by releasing an audio tape today threatening fresh attacks on America, Osama Bin Laden has pointed out ineffectiveness President Bush's "war" fighting terrorism (I put war in quotes because, as Robert Reich points out in Reason, you can't fight a war on a tactic). The White House stated today that it shows he is on the run, but in reality, it shows that he is still at large. Despite huge military spending (we're above $450 billion a year now), we're failing to find the most sought-after man in the world. Perhaps if we were well-perceived in the Muslim world, it wouldn't be so easy for Osama Bin Laden to get help and hide. Also, if our troops wasting their lives (sadly, this is literally) in Iraq, they could be apprehending terrorists.

Chris Matthews likens Osama to Michael Moore

In another blow to the credibility of radical conservative media, TV program "Hardball" host Chris Matthews voices his views on the similarities between Michael Moore and Osama Bin Laden. I'm not a huge fan of Michael Moore, although I like the show of activism, but he certainly is owed an apology. Terrorism jokes like this are way out of line, and really highlight a moral bankruptcy found all too often in prominent radical conservative media icons and politicians. Video here.

Democrat's chances for taking the House

The Gadflyer posted a good article on the chances that Democrats take control of the House this November. Our college Democrats club was talking about this, and this puts some solid numbers behind our ideas. Also encouraging, Thomas Schaller (author of the article) is writing a book on how Democrats can win without focusing on the South. It only takes 16 districts moving from Republican to Democrat, out of our 435 (434 if you're Stephen Colbert), to give the Democrats a majority in the House.

URGENT! You may be a Nazi and not even know it!

Apperently in Ohio, if you aren't fighting the "secular Jihadists" who are fighting against prayer in school and the removal of religous displays from public property, you're a nazi. Is this more of that "War on Christmas" garbage that people like Bill O'Reilly used to distract Americans from the news, when shit was hitting the fan for Republicans? Either way, check it out, its a hoot.

Here are a few news bits:

1) This is comforting: Samuel Alito, the very conservative Supreme Court Justice nominee, is having trouble getting Democratic support. Unfortunately, the prospects of a filibuster by the Democrats to prevent his nomination seem low.

2) The Vatican released a statement praising the court decision in Pennsylvania that banned Intelligent Design from being taught in public schools, as intelligent design is not science. President Bush, on the other hand, wants intelligent design and evolution taught in science class, but luckily he isn't a champion of education

3) More Republican lobbying scandals, this one is in Texas. The Republican governor hired a lobbyist for 180,000 in state money. The lobbyist went from making $250 in campaign contributions to, to $75,000 after his hire to Republican candidates and political committees. Talking Points Memo has the story...

4) A law in Maine requires electronics manufacturers to pay costs involved in disposing or recycling electronics, such as computer monitors and TVs. This is commonplace in Europe, glad to see it happening here. More at ENN

And the stupidity on Iran begins in the Senate.

By a Democrat no less. Senator Bayd of Indiana proposed a worldwide halt on gasoline exports to Iran. As mentioned before, Iran imports half of the petroleum it uses. Also, it is seeking to build its own refineries, which implied a current lack of gasoline refining, or at least international dependence for it.

Does this affect the radical Iranian government? Or does it really hurt the economy and the people. If the people can't work, they can't eat. Gasoline take people to work, takes good to people, and runs select businesses like taxi, shipping, construction, etc. Losing the support of Iranians, like we did when we couldn't stop looting in Iraq (had to protect the oil wells instead), is a terrible way to begin our "diplomacy" in Iran. I hope a Democrat will be bold enough to slow the process of punishing Iran, and accept the invitation to resume talks.

Why the "War" on Terrorism is failing

The Human Rights Watch today said that the American policy of torturing prisoners backfires, and creates more terrorists. This should be expected, and is one of the main arguments I have against the war in Iraq.

Scott McClellan, Press Secretary for the White House, came out swinging.

"When a group like this makes some of these assertions, it diminishes the effectiveness of that organization," he said. "It appears to be based more on a political agenda than facts.

"The United States does more than any country in the world to advance freedom and promote human rights."

This has been the usual response; a variation on the "dissent hurts the troops" comment we've been given recently. Might I remind you that freedom of speech is something to be very patriotic about, and trying to discourage public discourse is just about as un-American as you can get.

Quick Iran Update

Germany commented today that they still was open to and seeking a diplomatic solution to the problems in Iran. Iran also indicated they are willing to compromise with the west, so hopefully we don't blow this one.

An update on my Iran piece:

China is urging restraint, hoping to take things slower, and criticizing the west for moving so quickly to sanction Iran. "We hope all parties will exercise restraint and patience and appropriately resolve the Iran nuclear issue through peaceful means," a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said. I don't think I'll mind when there is a second superpower balancing American aggression.

Bad Healthcare Plan

I read at MyDD that Bush's highlight of the state of the union address at the end of the month will be private healthcare savings accounts: people put their own money into an account to use for healthcare when needed. I'd assume, although not said there, that the government would contribute by matching what is added or giving interest on the savings, but again, I haven't heard much, or looked at their source (check out the link for more). But an obvious problem with this plan is that the people that need healthcare won't have the spare money too contribute, and will have to spend more to pay health bills. Look out for this in the State of the Union this month.

Democrats on Reform

Today, Democrats released their proposals for lobbying reform, in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal that has touched many Republican congressmen so far, including our friend Tom DeLay. The highlights can be found here.

Yesterday, the Republicans released their own proposals. Senator Harry Reid, Senate Minority leader, said, "The idea of Republicans reforming themselves is like asking John Gotti to clean up organized crime." He's had a lot of hard-hitting quotes recently, and it looks like he's coming into his own as the Democrat's voice in the Senate.

Rushing into Iran

In the news lately has been the nuclear threat of Iran. Iran has been intent on continuing nuclear research, which many (everyone in the American, Chinese, Russian, French, English, and German governments, and the media) fear will lead to a nuclear weapon. Although this seems likely, one must consider the possibility that Iran legitimately wants a civilian nuclear power program.

Take this news from Jan 15th, stating that Iran hopes to decrease oil consumption drastically over five years. Building a nuclear power plant is certainly one way to do that. Although Iran is sitting on a huge supply of oil, they import more than half of the oil they use.

This aside, from here on in, we'll assume Iran does want to build a nuclear weapon. Just like the tens of thousands America has, and Russia has. Like the nuclear weapons that France, England, India, and Pakistan have. China having nuclear weapons proves that we can take a nation, previously viewed as a hostile (I’m talking Korean War/Cold War days, but still relevant), and bring them into the international community. This is what should be tried with the situation in Iran. Instead, we seek to have sanctions placed against them by the United Nations, that push Iran out of the international community, and give them justification to have nukes as a bargaining tool or last resort defense.

Yesterday, Iran called for talks to resume with France, England, Germany (the EU3), but has been turned down by France already. The best suggestion so far, initially declined, but apparently being reviewed by Iran, is one made by Russia. Russia says it will enrich the uranium for Iran, who would then use it in a nuclear reactor. This is similar to how President Clinton averted war with North Korea (apparently we were days from war) by making a deal where we would give a nuclear reactor to North Korea in exchange for a freeze on nuclear weapons R&D.

But unfortunately, as I write this, a story was released that asserts with certainty that Iran will be referred to the UN security counsel:

"One way or another it will move to New York," a senior European diplomat told AFP,
certain that the United Nations watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency will send
Iran before the Security Council when the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors meets in
emergency session in Vienna February 2-3.

This is disappointing, as not a lot of diplomacy has actually taken place yet. Also, Iran has threatened to forbid snap inspections by the UN Nuclear Watchdog if they are referred. A war with Iran is possible, and Republican Senator Lindsay Graham has said military action is a possibility. Even Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York was said to have agreed with Graham, although the context of the article leaves some ambiguity. Perhaps a better answer would have been that "it is far too early to consider military action." This stance was taken by Republican Trent Lott (R-Ms) and Evan Bayh (D-In), but both "strongly supported" sanctions against Iran.

The situation is clearly thorny, but moving way too fast. If Iran wants to bring us back to the bargaining table, this should be welcomed. A deal must be reached; sanctions did not work in Iraq, and would probably make things worse in Iran. The solution isn't clear, and definitely wouldn't be best known by myself and most civilians, but it is clear that military action should be a long way from discussion.

I'll have a letter in Newsday about this is the coming week, so check that out if anyone on Long Island is reading.