Spread Truth Liberally

2007-02-01T14:34:00.000-05:00

I decided to use this website as a platform for some writing that I did for the Fairfield University paper, The Mirror. This is the first article I've written for them, and there is a possibility I will write more in the future.

Chris Dodd to Run for President

Senator Chris Dodd, the senior Democratic Senator from Connecticut, announced he will join the widening field of candidates for the presidential nomination in 2008. Mr. Dodd has had over 30 years experience in congress, and has been a strong voice in the Democratic Party in the Senate, where he now serves as chairman of the committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Senator Dodd showed his political strength last November, when his support of longtime ally Joe Lieberman in the Senate race contributed to his victory over Ned Lamont.

So far, Dodd’s entrance into the race though has failed to make a significant impact on the race for the Democratic nomination for president. The field is currently dominated by political heavyweights Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, who are all seen as more formidable opponents. All three of these candidates are all members of the Senate, but Dodd’s experience in the Senate is ten years greater than the combined time in office of the top three candidates. Experience has already become a criticism of Barack Obama, who has only served two years in the Senate. If Dodd can exploit this, he can vault himself into the top tier of presidential candidates.

There certainly are many factors that should make us consider Chris Dodd’s candidacy as a serious contender in the race. Influential Senator Ted Kennedy has recently announced he will back Dodd in the race. Most importantly, it appears that this run will be the last campaign that the senator will run in. Dodd recently told the FEC that he has no intention of running for reelection to the Senate in 2010, when his term expires. This frees him to use all of his resources, including campaign cash of nearly $2 million, to run a serious race.

It has become clear that the 2008 race will still heavily focus on Iraq, with candidates on both sides of the aisle seeking to appeal to the majority of Americans that now want to see a conclusion to the bungled war. John Edwards recently held a high profile Martin Luther King Day speech in Harlem to promote his message on the war. “If you're in Congress and you know this war is going in the wrong direction, it is no longer enough to study your options and keep your own counsel,” said Edwards. “Silence is betrayal. Speak out, and stop this escalation now.” Senators Obama and Clinton have also positioned themselves against the war in their recent speeches and interviews.

It is Senator Dodd though who perhaps has taken the most direct action among these candidates to stop the troop surge that President Bush and Senator John McCain have been the loudest spokesmen for. Whereas some in the Senate recently called for a non-binding resolution to renounce the escalation, Senator Dodd has gone one step further. He introduced a bill that would require congressional approval for an increase in troop levels in Iraq. "Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and the time for blank checks is over," Dodd said. "Congress needs to act urgently on this matter before we send additional troops into harm's way." This would bring congress to vote on a politically unpopular war, which would make difficult positions for lawmakers, especially those who face tough elections in 2008. The bill failed to gain a majority vote of the armed services committee, garnering a 6-15 vote, with half of the Democrats approving, and every Republican voting against it. Later, Dodd voted in support of a non-binding resolution against the escalation, which passed committee with a 12-9 vote.

The chances of Senator Dodd receiving the Democratic nomination for the President appear distant at the moment, but clearly it is possible that the dynamic can change as the primary process plays out. The Senator certainly has the clout, experience, and strong voice on the war in Iraq to his credit, but strong candidates stand in his way right now.

2007-02-01T14:29:00.000-05:00

As you may note, I am using this site currently to help with search result placement of John McCain on search engines. I want to highlight a specific article that tells about his strong support of Bush's war strategy for this reason: many people get their political news and information online. Search results are ordered by how people link to the specific words in their writings. Using this site multiplies my influence, which I benevelently use to let people who search for John McCain to see that he backs Bush's war policy, which is greatly flawed. If people are wrong, I don't mind so much. But when the bad policies of George Bush and John McCain put good Americans (or any other people for that matter) in jeopardy, using American money no less, then it is the least I can do. So enjoy the various links to John McCain, and know that they are doing whats best for the world. But not John McCain.

This article alone helped a whole lot to out John McCain.

2007-02-01T14:26:00.000-05:00

Note to possible readers

While I probebly won't be writing much on the blog in the future, and certainly not on a regular basis, as other obligations are consuming my time (President of college Democrats, classes, work, etc), I am keeping up the site to preserve some of the writing from the past, and hold the possibility that future writing can occur. Feel free to browse the archives and comment as normal, but know that updates will be rare and infrequent.

2006-04-26T18:34:00.000-04:00

Cape Cod wind farm

There is currently a lot of debate about putting a wind farm up in Cape Cod. And the top reason for opposing it is the views it will cause that would drive away tourists. While it’s hard for me to step outside my environmental views on this one, I still find it hard to believe tourists wouldn’t come because of this. I actually think it would make some kind of a landmark. The windmills are 6 miles offshore, and supposedly will look “like a spec.” I’ve got to think that it comes down to providing 400,000 homes with renewable energy, and saving a whole load of carbon emissions. I think it’s a great project, and hope that Ted Kennedy and Mitt Romney will allow this one to go through.

2006-04-26T01:32:00.000-04:00

All about Oil

The President today put out a half-hearted speech about reducing the prices of gasoline for consumers. One part that resonated with me was reducing the massive tax breaks that we pay oil companies – but he only suggested we get rid of $2 billion in breaks for offshore drilling. That’s a start I suppose, but his energy bill from last year gave away over $12 billion to oil/gas/coal companies, so we’re far from progress.

The flip side of this was a reduction in environmental standards for gasoline production to last throughout the summer. The President has used catastrophes to promote his agenda before, as catalogued by Susan G at Daily Kos.

If the President truly wanted to reduce energy costs across the board, not just for gasoline, he could have done many things. The Democrats plan for energy independence by 2020 would be a huge way. Another idea would be increasing CAFÉ standards dramatically, which would require companies to innovate/use current technologies. Adding hybrid cars, diesel engines, or going toward smaller cars are all ways to do this without the government getting directly involved. What I like most about this is that it would encourage companies to drop gasoline-only versions of cars that have a hybrid counterpart (for example, no longer sell the Honda civic, but only the Honda civic hybrid). The CAFÉ standards function by requiring the average fuel economy of the entire fleet of cars to reach a certain goal, instead of mandating standards for each car.

2006-04-24T11:13:00.000-04:00

Profit Tax on Oil Companies revisited

Republican Arlen Specter has helped renew the call for a profit windfall tax on oil companies. The windfall tax was an idea promoted by Hillary Clinton after Hurricane Katrina, which would tax excessive profits in the industry. The idea behind the tax is the prevent price gouging, where companies seize on political events to inflate the price of oil and gasoline.

What was surprising about Specter’s call for the tax is that, as a Republican, he has come out against corporate control. “They get together, reduce the supply of oil, and that drives up prices.” He has called for stricter anti-trust laws preventing huge oil mergers, such as the Exxon-mobile merger a few years ago. Anyone who studies basic economics knows that monopoly and oligopoly businesses are bad for consumers, and good for profits. And anyone who read my post, or other similar news reports, knows that profits don’t mean employment. It’s good to see a Republican speaking out for the common good, even if this is political grandstanding. It shows that cooperation is possible in solving some common problems for all Americans.

2006-04-23T13:39:00.000-04:00

The Bush Administration used Earth Day to give lip service to environmental concerns. There was a conference to discuss ways that the private sector can develop new technologies that reduce emissions. They also laid out a whopping $58 million to help fund the project. Note: The proposed military budget for 2007 was $540 billion, before budget talks derailed. It will probably end up higher.

Here are some ideas of technology that can be invented to help reduce emissions. A “solar panel,” which creates energy from the sun. A wind turbine which would use principles of lift to generate power. “Hybrid cars,” which run on a battery engine as well as gasoline. These ideas could dramatically reduce emissions. But wait! They exists – the market has failed to use them. The market is not the way to do this until oil is $150 a barrel (twice today’s historic high of $75), then these technologies will be economically competitive. Government support is needed to implement technology that we already have. Then we will have progress. And thats why we need Democrats in office.

2006-04-22T20:05:00.000-04:00

The Democrat's agenda restated

The Democrats have been, over the last year, increasingly efficient at expressing the party’s agenda. Howard Dean, speaking in New Orleans, laid out the main points of the plan.

Dean said that Democrats will fight for a six-point plan that includes raising the minimum wage, tax ``fairness'' for the middle class, ``a complete ban on gifts and travel from lobbyists,'' the inspection of all cargo coming into U.S. ports, fixing the Medicare drug plan and ``transition'' in Iraq.

This adds to what Rahm Emanuel, leading of congressional Democrats through the DCCC, laid out on Meet the Press:

(1) making college education affordable for every American; (2) holding a summit to fix the budget; (3) achieving energy independence in part by switching to a hybrid economy; (4) creating an institute on science and technology to spur American innovation; and (5) universal health care.

These ideas of course don’t show a policy shift, but merely list some Democratic ideals to make it easy for media outlets to report. Critics may cite the lack of new ideas, but ironically these are probably the same critics that said “the Democrats have to plan.” (embarrassingly for the Republicans, their site has a poll asking when the Democrats will reveal their agenda).

I’m more happy with Emanuel’s list, simply for the inclusion of affordable college education and universal healthcare, but I like Dean’s new list as well. Complete separation of lobbyist perks, as well as raising the minimum wage are very progressive values. These bold objectives are exactly what the Democrats need to trumpet up, and of course deliver on.

2006-04-21T17:04:00.000-04:00

Democrats in 2008

John Kerry is considering running again in 2008. I like the guy, voted for the guy, and would vote for him again. But doesn’t it seem like common sense in politics that if you lose the first time around, you step aside and allow a new politician to try? The same goes for Al Gore, who has denied wanting to run again, but the suspicions are there. Only if there was a lack of new Democratic faces would I suggest they try again.

Let me also use this space to support Mark Warner for the Democratic nomination (thats him up there). I don’t think he officially announced that he is running, but he is. And he’s helping Democrats around the country to get elected. He was the governor of Virginia from 2001-2005, and had huge approval ratings (75%-80%) as a Democrat in a red state. He steps above partisan politics and puts forward practical solutions. When Democrats look at Bush, they don’t say, “I don’t like how he does Thing A, but at least he does Thing B.” It is hard to find something we like about George Bush. With Mark Warner, it could be different. Republicans may not like everything that he does, but most respect him, support him, and trust him. We need someone that can bring us together and work to solve our current and future problems. So my early support goes to Mark Warner. Do the research – its very early, but keep the name in the back of your mind. This is someone you’ll be hearing more of in the next year.

2006-04-20T17:56:00.000-04:00

The (next) War

The conflict in Iran has garnered added attention this week and last, as Iran announced it had joined the nuclear club and could enrich uranium (note: they don’t and can’t have a bomb for at least 5 years). A rumor had come out that the US had considered using tactical nukes on Iran, and I didn’t even report it. It seemed so far fetched. At a later press conference, the President was asked point-blank if they were considering a tactical nuclear strike on Iran.

"All options are on the table," he said.

What!? Nuclear weapons?! That’s ridiculous! That’s the worst bit of diplomacy I could have dreamed of. This would make us out to be the bad guy in the situation, and we’re dealing with one of the craziest leaders in the modern world. Cooler heads certainly must prevail.

Harry Reid has stepped up and assured us that there is no military option for Iran; it must be worked out diplomatically. He blames the upsurge in Anti-American feelings on Bush’s horrible handling of the war in Iraq. I’m glad he came forward and said this, considering previously the talking point from Democrats was nothing or “All options are on the table.” We need Democrats to be the rational ones here. Just because they have the right position on the Iraq war doesn’t make them the best on the conflict with Iran. I hope to see more Democrats get behind Reid on this one.

2006-04-19T21:38:00.000-04:00

My Senate Preditions for 2006

I have looked at the first quarter Senate campaign finances, and am happy with what I see. This is the list of fundraising that Democrats and Republicans have done for the Senate race this fall, including (and most importantly) their current cash on hand. Here’s what I found:

There are 10 races where the Democrat is set, with a combined $49,967,872 (Hillary has 19,703,421 of this, and will be saving for the Presidential unfortunately). On the other hand, 6 Republicans are set, with $15,639,020 cash on hand (Note: Lugar doesn’t have his numbers listed). There are 11 Races where money is needed for Democrats to help them win. Republicans are sitting on a large cash advantage here. Democrats could spread some money here and help out a lot.

All in all, I think that the only seat changes are as follows:

Pennsylvania: Santorum (R) loses to Bob Casey (D)

Montana: Burns (R) loses to John Morrison (D)

Rhode Island: Chaffee (R) loses to Whitehouse (D)

Ohio: Mike DeWine (R) loses to Sherrod Brown (D)

Missouri: Jim Talent (R) loses to Clare McCaskill (D)

These 5 are backed up by Rasmussen Reports, which tends to lean conservative.

I’m not as sure about John Ensign of Nevada losing to Carter, who is way behind with money. I also think the Dems can hold their positions. Not many seem to threatened, except in New Jersey and perhaps Minnesota. I think Dems will pick up 4-5 seats, because they might not overturn Nevada, and might lose on of the two just mentioned. I’d love to see 5 seats, tying us. This would mean Chaffee, a true moderate Republican, would be gone, so we wouldn’t really have too many moderate Republicans left. More moderate estimates still have Dems getting 2-3, noting Santorum was dead on arrival, Chaffee has problems in RI, and Burns might be arrested before the race, and if not, is in bad shape. I doubt Dems get all 6 pick ups, but it’s early, and I’m curious to see how my predictions stack up.

2006-04-19T16:09:00.000-04:00

Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton (an anti-choice and pro-choice senator, respectively) have proposed a bill that would require health insurances to cover birth control. The bill includes providing accurate sex education to low-income women. The purpose is to avoid the abortions. It tackles the problem at the root (one reason why I like Democrats).

There is no question that the rate of unintended pregnancy is too high in the United States.

Half of the 6 million pregnancies each year in this country are unintended, and nearly half of these unplanned pregnancies end in abortion. It doesn't have to be this way.

The article cites that many insurance plans cover Viagra, but not birth control. I’d love to see abortions much fewer, but like these two senators, I know that outlawing abortion doesn’t solve the problem. The Prevention First Act will certainly help. Hopefully, a receptive congress can hear this bill next year (I doubt that this would pass or even get time on the floor in the current House and Senate).

2006-04-19T11:19:00.000-04:00

Senator John McCain spoke last week on a few topics, including the war in Iraq. He proved that he was completely ignorant on the subject, or perhaps landed in the wrong country:

Overall though, the Iraq war has proven to be "far worse" than the Vietnam War, said the former Vietnam prisoner of war.

"When we left Vietnam, the Vietnamese didn't want to come after us. These people -- (Abu Musab ) al-Zarqawi, (Osama) bin Laden and others -- they want to come after us. They're not interested in Iraq as much as they're interested in destroying us and everything we stand for and believe in. There is a great deal at stake here," McCain said.

Osama and Iraq, together again. Even the President gave up on that one. It really gets me angry when people lie about September 11^th for political gain. But this is disappointing. Our senators should not confuse the war on terror with the war in Iraq.

2006-04-19T10:46:00.000-04:00

Scott McClellan has resigned from his post as White House Press Secretary. It is unconfirmed if he was lying when he said this, but chances are this was a moment of candor. "I thought he handled his assignment with class, integrity," the president said. "It's going to be hard to replace Scott.” There are plenty of Republicans in this country. Even though his approval ratings are so low, I’m sure he can find someone who can lie until they believe it.

I'm looking forward to the Daily Show tonight; I'm sure they'll give him a great send off.

2006-04-13T15:16:00.000-04:00

The Immigration bill

More on the stall on immigration legislation. Apparently, Bush is still blaming Harry Reid for blocking the immigration bill in the Senate.

“Unfortunately, the compromise was blocked by the Senate Democratic minority leader," Bush said, accusing Reid of using a "procedural gimmick" to "single-handedly" block the bill.’

This was of course referring to Harry Reid’s ability to cast all 62 votes that went against cloture. In reality, 62 people voted to stall the bill and continue debate, only one of whom was Harry Reid. Note: there are only 45 Democrats in the Senate. Only 36 people voted to end debate and vote, showing a clear divide among Republicans on what to do on this bill. Half want the guest worker program, allowing immigrants to run into a 11 year process to gain citizenship, assuming they pay a fine, back taxes, learn English, and can prove they’ve been here for five years. The other half, apparently not seeing this is a horribly drawn out process that won’t work at all, feel this is rewarding illegal immigrants.

I would recommend the fine for citizenship. Although this rewards illegal activity, it will bring them into the workforce as a taxpayer, encourage workers to be documented (we should know who lives in our country), and serves the humanitarian cause of helping those in need. This is a long-time Democratic ideal, so I expect their support, but also Republicans who wanted to help out the Iraqi people by ‘liberating’ them apparently share this compassion. We can’t criminalize them for something we didn’t enforce in the past, that’s completely un-American. But we can enforce strong borders now. And to do that, bring our troops home. That includes our troops needlessly stationed in Europe, the Philippines, Cuba, etc. I know this is revolutionary and extreme, but I believe the National Guard should guard the nation. Feel free to comment, I know that last one would get the switchboards lighting up if I had a radio show.

2006-04-13T11:16:00.000-04:00

One Republican doubts war

Senator Chuck Hagel, speaking from Pakistan, said today that military action in Iran is “is not a viable, feasible, responsible option.” Great to hear, but this is interesting. Here is a country that is defying the US and the world, and certainly has intentions to build nuclear weapons, like Bush said Iraq did. Just because our military is tied up in Iraq we’re not going to attack Iran? To use that tired phrase from the Republicans, “I hate to think of the message this sends to the world.” “This will give comfort to our enemies.” Only when I say them, they're actually are relevant.

2006-04-13T00:44:00.000-04:00

A correction, of sorts.

Perhaps I wrote too soon. I just reported Iran being 16 days away from nuclear weapons, and highlighted the dangers of “crying wolf.” Basically, Bush has lied far too much to ever be taken seriously, and this was back in 2003. But already, this claim by a state department official has been debunked by Mydd.com.

Apparently, if Iran were to perfect nuclear production methods and install enough centrifuges (which they can’t plan to do in 06 at least), then they theoretically could produce nuclear grade uranium in 16 days. Woops! Minor detail missing there. I’m looking forward to the story in 2009 when it is released that Bush knew this was a garbage scare tactic before it was said, but approved the message anyway. I just hope people realize this is not a failure of government, just a failure of Republican government.

2006-04-12T23:39:00.000-04:00

Iranian nukes in 16 days

The scare tactics are beginning. Apparently, Iran can build a nuclear weapon in 16 days. The problem here is great. This could be a serious threat, but unfortunately it mirrors the lies that lead up to Iraq. Iraq is close to nukes; Iraq has mobile chemical weapons facilities; Saddam is a threat to America; secular Saddam worked with religious extremists from Al Qaeda; the list goes on and on.

And how will we know if this is true? We won’t. And this is perhaps the biggest security threat to America and the world. Bush and the Republicans are the boy who cried wolf. We need honest, respectable politicians to come into office. We need to clean house the November, and get in Democrats. If Republicans straighten out their party, rid them of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Frist, Delay (check), etc., and become a more moderate party, then I’ll try again to trust them. And Democrats take note: When you have the power back (hopefully November, or whenever), don’t abuse it.

2006-04-12T09:34:00.000-04:00

Bush…lied?!

This is old news, but it’s now official that Bush lied back in May 2003 when he said “we found the weapons of mass destruction.” This was referring to trailers found that Bush claimed were mobile laboratories to make chemical weapons. The part that makes this news again is the fact that Bush knew at the time he said it that they weren’t in any way related to weapons of any level of destruction. Apparently Bush had the intelligence report changed to ‘justify’ the war. The reports that denied the trailers were of significance were shelved and classified.

2006-04-11T14:05:00.000-04:00

News Bits – 4/11/06

Arnold Schwarzenegger came out in support of a bill to reduce emissions in the state by 25% in 2020. Great legislation, great call by Arnold. I know I support any Democrat over him, but he is one of my favorite Republicans. A Democrat in the Governors office (could happen this November) would mean more liberal legislation can be approved, more stringent environmental legislation, and equal marriage rights (I only read environmental news from Cali, I don’t know any other specifics).

The federal government, through Environmental Protection Agency administrator Stephen Johnson, warned China about its environmental record. Ironic, considering all the EPA has done under the Bush administration has resisted environmental standards and tried to roll back previous protections (not at all protecting anything but business). There is no argument though that China has a dirtier environment than ours (not per capita, but they are just getting going on clean energy), but perhaps the EU should be making this statement.

In a close election, Silvio Berlusconi has been voted out of office, and replaced with Romano Prodi. Berlusconi was a conservative billionaire, and staunch ally of Bush and the war in Iraq. Prodi is a center-left politician, and will move to end the war for Italians. If this happens, it will highlight the dwindling support, and hopefully help us get out. The election though was so close, with Prodi winning by .1%. New election rules give a huge boost to the winning party in the lower house though, so this .1% win is magnified, although parliament will still be close. The close election caused Berlusconi to refuse to concede until all checks are completed.

2006-04-10T12:17:00.000-04:00

Conservative philosophy debunked; Rich get richer, poor and middle class get poorer

This follows completely the complaints I reported from common taxpayers this year. Wages went down for salary earners (adjusted for inflation: wages increased 2.95%, inflation up 3.10%), but increased for the top 100 companies executives by 25% (to 17.9 million a year). [Link]

This is a gross injustice, and it gets worse. Productivity is up, causing corporate profits to rise 21.3%. This income is sitting at the top, surprisingly not trickling down. Furthermore, theoretically, as full employment occurs (as it did in June 2005), companies bid for workers, causing salaries to rise. Didn’t happen. When situations like this occur, it takes government action to stabilize the economy.

So what action do I propose? Eliminating wasteful tax breaks. The $14 billion for oil and gas companies in the energy bill, the break on capital gains, dividend, and interest income taxes only help the rich. Bring back the Estate tax, and reform the AMT. Raise the taxes on the top bracket back to 39.6% from 35%. These changes bring us back to where we were before Bush’s horrible tax cuts that destroyed the budget. Also, close the tax loopholes and shelters that cost us billions, and increase funding for the IRS so they can audit tax cheats (read Perfectly Legal by David Cay Johnston for details). This would help keep money flowing in the economy, not stagnating at the top while the poor are deprived.

Glad to see that the tax programs have statistically backfired on the President and Republicans. This is evidence of the flawed conservative philosophy, and reveals it as it for what it really is: the hope of rich people to get richer at any expense to the country and the citizens.

2006-04-10T12:01:00.000-04:00

Everyone should support lenient immigration reform

The immigration bill is dead for now, thanks to infighting in the Republican Party. George Bush wants a guest worker program, opposed by the more conservative of Republicans. Democrats in the Senate were poised to accept a bill that appeared to be a compromise, which called for immigrants in the nation more than 5 years to pay a fine, learn English, and pay back taxes. This was considered a more moderate bill. Let me comment on this; isn’t forcing someone to learn English against American ideals? It would be an advantage to the immigrant, and no doubt the immigrant would strive to assimilate themselves, and therefore attempt to learn it on their own. Forcing them too is just another hurtle, and forces our culture on others. The fines I see as reasonable; you can’t let people break the law and go completely free, unless they are high ranking Republicans like George Bush, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzalez, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Frist, Bob Ney, Rick Santorum, Conrad Burns, etc. (Their crimes include Illegal wiretapping, lying about the war, Abramoff bribes, Frist’s charity scam/insider trading, and Santorum’s K street project). Back taxes are a little different though. Undocumented workers don’t have any way to prove their past income, let alone how long they were in the country. The only way that you can legalize illegal immigrants is to fine them to gain citizenship, and register them. This would get them paying taxes, registered for security purposes, able to buy health insurance, get loans, and participate fully in the economy.

Granting illegal aliens residency would also allow them to vote, which brings up complications. Each party wants to be open to these immigrants, and the large Hispanic population that is sensitive to the issue. Republicans balking at this one is hurting them with the growing Hispanic voting block. This article shows the power of the immigrants. Rarely are their huge marches like this, including 500,000 in Los Angeles today. May 1^st is a general strike for all immigrants, legal and illegal, including refraining from work, buying, or selling. This is the power of democracy in action, and I fully support them in this fight. It is the American way to accept immigrants, and helps to promote our culture and government, which I think is the best in the world (despite my criticisms). For moral, cultural, and political reasons, all politicians should be open to immigration reform, and make it much more lenient than the current proposals are.

2006-04-09T23:54:00.000-04:00

The 527 loophole

Recently, Republicans proposed closing the 527 loophole, which gave the Democrats more than three times as much funding as Republicans. The bill is completely politically motivated, but is actually quite progressive. Democrats naturally dragged their feet on it, but should in fact support it for many reasons.

First of all, the bill is progressive in nature. It bans unlimited contributions from moneyed interests, which puts the power in the hands of common people. Taking huge payments out of the system would take some of the influence away from corporations, unions (although I agree with their causes, the union members could provide their support instead hopefully), and billionaires. The politicians would be dependent upon small donations from lots of people. Recall when the soft money ban was put in place by McCain-Feingold. This was supposed to destroy the Democratic Party, but instead boosted its fundraising ability, and expanded the power of people in the party.

I just read an article that said taking the 527 organization and operations into the Democratic Party would be a huge advantage. While the Republicans do door-to-door and direct mailing, Democrats do on a smaller scale, and depend on 527's, such as environmental groups, to get support. This would improve the Democratic Party, if it picked up the slack and harnessed this grassroots support. Most importantly, if the Party took over these operations, it would let people know what the Democratic Party is all about. Of course our informed readers know what the Party is all about, but it would take away the criticism from ignorant Republicans. All in all, we should be right behind this bill, and pass it with our full support. This would show Democrats are not hypocritical on their values, and also help us out tons.

2006-04-08T00:26:00.000-04:00

The middle class HATES Bush more than ever

I love when my blog can give you an exclusive report on something, like my visit to the protest in Bridgeport on Wed (for which I made the front page of the Connecticut Post), or my Trip to the Jefferson Jackson Baley dinner in Hartford. Now I can give you some insight into how a cross-section of 750 people feel about Bush’s handling of the economy.

Sure, you’ve seen the numbers. Those who approve his handling of the economy are usually right down there with the general approval ratings, around mid 30’s to low 40’s. My dad does taxes for middle class workers, teachers, and retirees mostly. He has heard constantly complaints on Bush this year, unique to previous years. They complain that his tactics of pandering to big business has left them unprotected. While Bush supports exploding pays of CEOs, people get laid off if profits are down. Wages are generally stagnant compared to last year. I’ve personally seen this when I organize their files, looking at 2 year comparison reports.

The middle class is suffering the brunt of the tax shortfall. The estate tax has been repealed, capital gains taxes are down to 15%, interest income and dividends are down. Sure, a few of his clients benefit from this. But most of them are saving $35, or some insignificant amount. Most don’t have any significant interest income or dividends, and capital gains are rare. What is common though is the alternative minimum tax. This was a tax put in place to prevent rich people from avoiding taxes by taking excessive deductions. Because the tax is not adjusted for inflation, it is encroaching on the middle class with alarming growth. This means higher taxes for almost all of the middle tax, while small tax cuts land on the poor, and huge tax cuts affect the rich.

People. Are. Pissed.

Sure, he’s been terrible for years. But this is the first time my father has heard it from lots and lots of tax payers. This is how you get angry voters to the polls. This is how you keep angry Republicans from the polls, or to defect against their party. This has change election written all over it.

And to fix the problem, Menendez of NJ has proposed a bill to reform the Alternative minimum tax, instead of abolishing it. We need the tax revenue, but it should come from the rich. Bravo senator, just another reason I like Senator Menendez, after his awesome speech and rejection of Samuel Alito. Either way, this is something to pounce on, and will get those people usually agnostic in politics to the polls. I’ll get more info on this and tell you what should be done. But this is great, and unreported news.

2006-04-07T13:37:00.000-04:00

Republicans care about public opinion now?

The Republicans are very worried about their public opinion falling to all-time lows for the administration. Right before an election year, there is also strong sentiment to kick out old members of congress. When asked who people would prefer in control of congress, they answered 33% for Republicans, and 49% for Democrats. The other key factor in a huge election is conservative voter turnout. We know angry Democrats and independents will turn out, because they more than ever want a change. But will Republicans? Republicans are angry at the budget deficit, handling of the war.

For the first time in this poll, people trust Democrats to better handle national security than Republicans. Finally, people are seeing the light! The Democratic plan for national security focuses on fighting terrorism, expanding the national guard and reserve troops, adding spies and special forces, and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I completely agree with all of this, as long as it’s coupled with a huge reduction in military spending (we don’t need nukes, bases all over the world, and 1.5 million troops.) Let’s bring them home to protect our borders and airports, serve as police where needed, and be on reserve to serve on UN peacekeeping missions.

2006-04-07T00:52:00.000-04:00

Budget Problems

The 2007 fiscal budget has been put on hold for a while, while there is a recess approaching for congress. The hold up appears to have come from Republican infighting. As we know, when elections come, and Republicans need to get more support, they mimic Democrats to fool voters. Some moderates want extra money for health and services. Also, the $70 billion in tax cuts appears to have failed. This is great news, as the tax on Capital gains goes back up to 20%, and dividends are counted in normal income. The benefit of this is that this affects the rich, who are able to fund the government without interrupting their livelihoods, instead of our usual “screw the poor and middle class” Republican philosophy. This will help keep our deficit in the “terribly bloated” range, and not in the “criminally excessive” range. I’d have no problems with a deficit to fund constituent services, and not our $547 military bill.

Also to note: this could be the last budget that the Republicans completely control. Next budget should have a Democratic House to work with!

2006-04-06T09:27:00.000-04:00

Bribes against public good

I know one way to cut drug costs, and therefore state debts and healthcare costs! Stop drug companies from spending $44 million to influence state parties, who have summarily balked at passing price reduction legislation. That’s a huge investment return for drug companies, and a huge burden on tax payers and people who use prescriptions. Meanwhile, drug companies are one of the most bloated profitable industries, like the oil industry, that is getting a break from the government at our expense. This shows why more than ever, we need a Democratic government.

Also, note that this was for the 2003-2004 election cycle, when Republicans received 66% of the pharmaceutical campaign contributions. Republicans currently get 68% for this election cycle.

2006-04-05T22:52:00.000-04:00

Bush in Bridgeport

Today I have no national news headlines – well, sort of. This morning, we in Bridgeport had the honor of hosting the President. When I first heard he was coming to Bridgeport and holding an event with Chris Shays, I was nervous. A fundraiser like this could bring in a million dollars for Shays, and could tilt a close race. Of course there would be a backlash against Shays, due to Bush’s incredibly low approval ratings, coupled with Shays’ assertions that he is a moderate Republican.

It turns out that Shays was only at a town hall style Q+A with the president. So he only gets the backlash, and none of the money. Excellent news for all. Ironically, none of the audience were from Bridgeport, or any of the fourth district of CT, where Shays represents. The Q+A session dealt with Health Savings Accounts, which allow tax breaks to help pay for medical bills. Of course, those who can save money like this are the people who have health care already, so this does nothing for those without health care. For the President to come to one of the poorest cities in the country and talk about this plan shows that he has no serious plans for healthcare. Shays getting caught up in this was a terrible idea for him, and quite telling of his “moderate” stance. Shays was also for the war in Iraq, privatizing social security, No Child Left Behind, etc.

Afterwards, Dianne Farrell, Shays challenger, held a press conference. It was quick, and she outlined a plan for Universal Healthcare, which is part of the Democrat’s national agenda. She spoke about Massachusetts, which yesterday passed a plan for near universal healthcare. Businesses over 10 employees that don’t provide healthcare pay $295 per employee. The money is used to give those without health insurance free or reduced price state health insurance. They estimate 95% of the uninsured will be covered.

Also, Farrell spoke about a plan for withdrawal. Unfortunately, she didn’t say “lets get out immediately, or at the end oft the year.” What she did suggest was a timetable based on events, such as Iraqi’s getting security, electric power, water, employment, and oil production necessary to finance a portion of their government. I haven’t heard a similar approach, but it seems like a quite reasonable one. She took questions, and although it was hard to hear much else, it was a great press conference and a great political move.

I look forward to seeing the President again, although I only got to witness his motorcade speed in and speed away. There was a good sized group of between 50-100 protestors, and we were interviewed by the Connecticut Post. I’ll let you know if I’m in it tomorrow!

2006-04-04T15:42:00.000-04:00

Climate change exists for Republicans too?

Congress has finally begun debate on climate change, starting in the Senate Energy Committee. I suppose this is historic, as this is a Republican led Senate acknowledging reality. The steps were minor, and are hampered by Republican committee leader Pete Domenici, who “has warned it would be "impossible" to pass legislation to cut heat-trapping gas emissions in 2006 because of election-year gridlock.” My take on that is, he won’t be able to receive as many utility company campaign contributions if he proceeds with legislation (I’m assuming he’s like the rest of Republicans, who receive 85% of the oil and gas industries' campaign contributions).

He did state that we can start legislation in 2007, which is somewhat promising. The plan to fight climate change is a mandatory cap on emissions. Those who release under that cap can sell their excess to those who fail to go under the cap. This system adds cost to “dirty” power like coal, and subsidizes cleaner energy, but all takes place in the private sector. Objections were raised as to who pays for the technology, that we already have, to be implemented. Another problem to be worked out is how high the caps will be, how expensive the credits will be, and when this will go into effect. The good part is, this system seems imminent. It is suggested that this could go into effect as early as 2010. Comically, the argument was made that mandatory caps are not necessary, because corporations are doing this themselves. That’s a joke; it’s obvious that government stimulus is the only way to do this effectively and quickly.

In other news, California is working on legislation to cut emissions by 25% by 2020, in a variety of sectors. This is similar to the Northeast, which has created the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which cuts power plant emissions gradually in future years.

2006-04-03T23:31:00.000-04:00

Delay is gone

Tom Delay, disgraced former Republican congressional leader, will not run again in 2006. This comes in the midst of many legal/ethical troubles. This is bad for Democrats, because this would have been a good takedown, and a moral booster. A new candidate, without Delay’s baggage, has a much better chance.

Tom Delay is a politician I will never forget. Because of him, I decided to go into politics. It all goes back to the new source review law. This law was a horrible handout to the oil refineries, who are perhaps the least in need of money. It said that refineries that expand output are not subject to environmental restrictions that new plants are subject to. The law was in place to prevent companies from expanding refineries without improving their emissions, instead of building a new refinery which would be subject to these laws. Everyone had voted, and the measure to destroy the new source review had failed. Phew! But Republican Denny Hastert didn’t announce the result. This gave time for Tom Delay to yell at Republicans that had sided with Justice, and make them change their vote. This took 45 minutes, and finally there were enough votes to destroy the bill. The Senate had the sense not to pass the bill, so his efforts were in vain. And their was a backlash, me getting into politics, that came from that.

We’ll miss you Tom, but I’m sure another corrupt Republican will rise up to your position of the most criminal member of Congress.

2006-04-03T11:53:00.000-04:00

Monday Morning News Bits

Rick Santorum is crazy. Apparently, Europe is being overrun by some unknown force because of their enlightened stance on religious tolerance (secular society), and their culture is dying. Wow. Watch the video, its hilarious.

NASA will no longer censer its scientists, which is very god news. This comes from scandal a little while back involving a 24 year old college dropout (he lied about the dropping out part, and said he graduated) who would force scientists to write “theory” when discussing the big bang. Also, he tried to stop a lead scientist from going to an interview on NPR. I find it the worst that they tried to put a muzzle on science. If we’re paying for the research, which we should, we should certainly led the results be said, unfiltered.

An American company has found a way to make stem cells from testes. The experiment has been demonstrated, but not tested by other scientists, or subject to the same scrutiny that other experiments are. In other words, this is a claim, and we’re a ways away from this being a reality. This could take the ethical debate away from stem cell research though, and get this crucial research on track after long delays by Bush and some Republicans.

And finally, the Supreme Court refused to review a case by “enemy combatant” Jose Padilla. Padilla was held for three years in a military prison and not given his right to trial, because he was deemed an enemy combatant. In January he was transferred to federal prison, and will go on trial in federal court soon. This made the case moot, according to six Justices and the honorable Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. This case would have challenged the President’s power to detain indefinitely without habeas corpus.

Oh, and I shouldn't forget to mention, V for Vendetta is doing very well in theaters, grossing $56 million and counting. I love this movie, if you haven't seen it, go see it soon before its gone. Movies at home don't get the same effect.

2006-04-02T20:24:00.000-04:00

Matt Stoller from MyDD has a good post on the immigration debate currently going on. It criticizes the McCain-Kennedy bill, which they say ignores the problem of income disparities between the two countries (US and Mexico) that leads to mass immigration, legal and illegal. It argues that the bill focuses too much on legalizing new immigrants through guest-worker programs, and not enough on the root cause of why people immigrate to America for jobs.

The unanswered question is, how do you fix the root problem of income disparities. It would seem that NAFTA is actually a step in the right direction in that regard. I know that most Democrats are opposed to this, but I have to think this tackles the problem quite well.

I should add, I agree with speeding up legalizing the working immigrants. We should enforce our borders (without machine guns and citizen militias) for security concerns, but also be accepting to allowing new immigrants if work is available.

2006-04-02T14:45:00.000-04:00

"Let Bush be Bush"

There is a new White House strategy to get the President’s approval rating up: “Let Bush be Bush.” In other words, ‘don’t pick on him, he’s incompetent. While this may be true, it distracts from the real problem. The conservative political philosophy is what fails. Its not Bush’s fault, its Republican domination in action. Republicans control both houses of congress, the Supreme Court, and the White House. Nothing is holding them back from their policies, so what you are seeing is conservative government in action, not Bush being Bush.

Take the Dubai Ports debacle. This shows who wears the pants in the American government – Republicans in congress. It’s not only that Bush is screwing up, it’s that the Republicans are at the wheel. The Iraq War, the massive, massive deficit, the reverse Robin Hood budget, the destruction of faith in government, our horrible international relations (can you believe we have thorny relations with Venezuela?!), all a Republican problem. So let Bush be Bush, or in other words, an incompetent Republican, and you don’t fix the problem. It’s lipstick on a pig.

Since I don’t see George Bush leaving the failed Republican philosophy, the lets let Bush be Bush. And take down the whole Republican Party with him.

2006-04-01T17:48:00.000-05:00

Just a brief post, I want to let you guys know there is a great online polling site for political races in 2006. I like the setup of the site, and they get a poll each month for each governor and senator, for the most part. Check it out, you can see the rises and falls of each person, with a little explanation. [Link]

2006-03-31T16:47:00.000-05:00

We're no longer flawless

Condoleezza Rice visited Britain today, and admitted that the US has made “thousands” of errors in Iraq. She still clings to the idea that it was a good move in theory, because Saddam Hussein was a threat. She didn’t use the lie that somehow the US was threatened, or that Al Qaeda had something to do with it. It’s a first step, I suppose, towards admitting that the war was a horrible idea with horrible consequences. We rocked a stable part of the Middle East, created instability, and killed more than Saddam could have dreamed of killing in three years. I’m not expecting this confession from Rice, but at least they’re talking.

2006-03-31T00:58:00.000-05:00

The State of the Lieberman Campaign

Tonight I got to attend the Jefferson Jackson Baily dinner in Hartford, CT. This was a huge meeting of CT dems, and had speeches by Senator Dodd, Lieberman, and Obama. There were only Democrats (I went with Diane Farrell’s CT-4 campaign), which included Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman, with their teams.

First, Senator Dodd had a fiery and excellent speech. He then introduced Joe Lieberman. Here is the amazing part. In a room full of Democrats, Joe Lieberman GOT BOOED when he took the stage. He had a dry speech that included everything but passion. He had to “shush” the crowd four times, but most people still talked amongst themselves. It was amazing, and I almost felt bad for him for a moment. Then I remembered his unrelenting support of a war that killed twice as many Americans as the occupancy in the room. Regardless, I was inspired by the support among influential Democrats. If any were Lamont supporters, you’d expect them to be closet supporters, hoping to keep the cash flow from Lieberman into their campaigns. But there was a vocal opposition to Joe Lieberman, and I was happy for it.

To close, Senator Obama showed us how to give a great speech. He spoke of the Democrat’s great history, and their current support for all that is holy (jobs, equality, social security, national security, health care, I’m preaching to the choir here). He included strong support for Lieberman, but I can’t expect a different reaction.

Moral of the story; the Lamont campaign is no fringe movement. This is a large movement that has support even from the rich and entrenched CT Democratic Party leaders.

2006-03-30T09:35:00.000-05:00

Fuel Efficiency

CAFE standards for light trucks were raised yesterday by the Bush administration. Oddly, this is good policy, although the changes were minimal, and don’t take effect until 2011. The important and shocking feature to me though is that cars like the Hummer, and Ford Excursion (cars exceeding 8000 pounds) will be regulated under CAFE standards.

MyDD also ran a piece on Brazil, which recently completed a switch of its entire oil industry to sugar-cane ethanol. This was a process beginning with the 1970s oil crisis, which resulted in cheaper, natural fuel. Scott Shields cites our massive, influential oil industry for America’s lack of advancement, as well as the greater expense of corn, compared to Brazil’s sugar cane. But, like Shields, I believe the richest nation in the world could take some initiative here and decrease our dependence. Truth is though, Republicans can’t, and Democrats will.

2006-03-29T21:09:00.000-05:00

National Security and Energy Independence

The Democrats, led by Sen. Minority leader Harry Reid, revealed an impressive Democratic strategy on national security. There were five keys points.

The first was reforming the military, which includes proper equipment, stronger national guard, quality health care for troops, and maintaining Democrat-led pay raises.

Second, fighting terrorism, which includes eliminating Osama Bin Laden, finishing the war in Afghanistan, doubling our special forces and spies, and securing nuclear material worldwide by 2010. I especially like the special forces point, because that shows a shift away from massive infantry and worldwide bases, toward specialized tactical forces that can combat terrorists. The traditional military was designed to fight armies, destroy nations, and occupy them.

Third, the Democrats want to improve national security by implementing all recommendations made by the 9/11 commission immediately (Its already been 2 years since its release), screen 100% of our incoming cargo containers, not sell our security to foreign entities (this would seem obvious, but they're cashing in on the Dubai debacle), and improve training and equipment for police, fire, and medical agencies, so they can be better prepared for natural or biological disasters.

Fourth, the plan highlights Iraq. This involves handing over most of the governmental roles to the Iraqis in 2006. I suppose this is the next best thing to a complete withdrawal, and is probably written in this language to prevent criticism on quick removal. Also, it wants to hold those accountable for pre-war misinformation.

Lastly, and my favorite tenant of their national security plan, is energy independence. They want to achieve this by 2020 (impressive, given the 6 years of setbacks by Republican controlled government). To do this, they will embrace alternative fuels, ethanol in gasoline, hybrid cars, and energy efficiency. I'd like to have seen more funding for mass-transit, not to mention making it less than $23 to go to the city and back on Metro-North.

This represents a great move by the Democrats. The only thing that I don't like is that they don't mention massive military spending is not necessary to accomplish this. I would vote for almost anyone who would cut our massive military budget, Democrat or Republican. This plan does insinuate that they would decrease the budget a lot, but at least a little, from the horrible $547 billion from 2007. This is a blow to Republicans, who will regardless continue to say the Democrats have no plan. Also, the makes the Democrat's plan party-wide, not just the liberal plan that most Democrats support. This was the right move for the Democrats to make.

2006-03-15T22:17:00.000-05:00

A common misconception about the Middle East is that most of the oil consumed by the United States is drawn from the said region. As a matter of fact, only twenty-percent of the U.S.'s oil comes from the Middle East in its entirety. Approximately fifteen-percent comes from Saudi Arabia, four from Iraq, and one from Kuwait. Who provides the United States with the largest percentage of oil? Our neighbors to the North: Canada.

Another falsehood lies in the belief that gas and oil prices are rising dramatically. When adjusted for inflation, oil prices have risen only one-hundreth of a percent since 1980.

2006-03-15T22:12:00.000-05:00

While it is true that the United States spends more than any other country on the military (in terms of sheer dollars), I would like to quell the notion that they spend the most... While this sounds slightly contradictory, allow me to explain.

The best way to determine spending is as a percentage of GDP, or Gross Domestic Product. Forty-six countries spend more on the military based on this measure. Countries of note include: Israel, Saudi Arabia, China, Greece, Argentina, Pakistan, Turkey, and France. And most other countries (such as Germany, the U.K., and Canada) are within one-tenth of one percent of the U.S.'s military spending.

2006-02-26T13:56:00.000-05:00

Some things in the news, since I’ve been slow to update:

Abortion may be brought before the Supreme Court, with the opportunity to overturn Roe v Wade. This comes from South Dakota’s new law putting harsh fines and jail time on doctors who practice abortions.

The Montana Governor is going to be on 60 minutes tonight, discussing turning coal into diesel fuel. This is an expensive process made possible by high oil prices, that has the chance of reducing our dependence on oil (and hopefully our reliance on coal power plants).

More soon folks, I promise

2006-02-22T12:22:00.000-05:00

With Dubai set to gain access to large US ports, it’s important to give information about this latest sale. Democrats have been against a deal that sells UK based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to United Arab Emigrates Royal Family owned Dubai Ports World. The problem does not lie in the fact that this is an Arab nation. But once I heard this, I had reservations. Apparently, Bin Laden was not targeted in 1999 because he was meeting with the UEA royal family. I’m not sure this is a company that should be operating our ports anymore. But Republicans seem hell-bent on getting this deal through. In fact, the president has threatened to veto any legislation to block the deal. Why is he so set against creating security problems? As an excuse to use the Patriot Act, NSA Spying, the War in Iraq, and almost doubling the military budget? I think that’s a good theory.

What I think should happen is that Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. should be bought. By the US Government. Why would we outsource our port security? We monitor our aircraft and airports, police with public police officers…why not protect our own ports? I think terror can be fought with some common sense moves, not by sending out sacrificial lambs to divert fire from America to Iraq.

In a move to distance himself from President Bush, Lieberman put his support behind....President Bush.

2006-02-22T12:09:00.000-05:00

Democrats send a letter to the president, asking what specific policies he was going to put in place to curb our “addiction to oil.” This echoes the thoughts of many consumer groups, calling Bush’s recent obsession with our oil problem as merely a cosmetic campaign, not real policy. And sure enough, our imports from the Middle East are set to rise by 50% over the next two decades.

Democrats in the letter refused to detail how they would do it, or offer any advice on the subject. They could have pointed to Hillary Clinton’s initiative to become energy independent by 2020 (That’s 5 years before bush wants to reduce from only the Middle East, a small supplier to the US), or the Apollo Initiative, which creates 3 million jobs in the process. Lets step up Democrats, we’re clearly the only party that can put out plans to really help cut back on our oil use, just let everyone out there know.

2006-02-21T13:48:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court will rule on later term abortions soon, the first time an abortion case will come before the recently changed court. There is little doubt how they will vote also. The case comes from the “partial-birth abortion ban act” in 2003. “Partial-Birth” abortions are not aborting a part of the fetus, or aborting a fetus when it is halfway out of the mother, as the name would suggest. Instead, it refers to dilation abortion methods. These are rarely used, almost always to preserve the health or life of the mother. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban in 2003 was never enforced, because the Supreme Court struck it down because it didn’t leave an exception for a woman’s health. The Supreme Court also said, 9-0, that the entire law wasn’t unconstitutional, only the lack of an exception for woman’s health made the law unacceptable. I assume this will be changed and the law will be enacted. The concern is that this will also ban second trimester abortions that are on less developed fetuses.

I personally have no problem banning 3^rd trimester abortions with an exception of woman’s health matters. I’d love to have no abortions, but there is not an infrastructure in place for everyone to get the proper assistance in raising a child. It’s not easy to find an adoptive family. Orphanages were recently found to be much less helpful to a child’s growth than foster parents are. Also, we have pharmacists who decline to distribute birth control and contention over the morning-after pill. If birth control and education of it were readily available, and funding was in place to help a poor mother raise a child herself (fully funding head start, child care funding), then abortions will decrease. Abortion will never stop, like prohibition didn’t work – it’ll only become less safe if made illegal.

2006-02-17T16:31:00.000-05:00

Propaganda Wars

Well Rumsfeld brought up a failure of the administration today. Apperently, we lag in a propaganda war with al Qaeda. We need to modernize, and build this up.

The Pentagon chief said today's weapons of war included e-mail, Blackberries, instant messaging, digital cameras and Web logs, or blogs.

"Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but ... our country has not adapted," Rumsfeld said.

But Ted Kennedy highlighted the actual problem.

"Clearly, we need to improve our public diplomacy and information age communication in the Muslim world," Kennedy said in a statement. "But nothing has done more to encourage increased Al Qaeda recruitment and made America less safe than the war in Iraq and the incompetent way it's been managed. Our greatest failure is our policy."

I think I agree more with Ted. Now put something forward so we actually can get out and clean up our image a little in the process. The first step to recovery is admitting there is a problem.

2006-02-16T18:31:00.000-05:00

Warrently spying ending?

The warrantless domestic spying scandal may be coming to a close shortly, but not particularly well. A deal is being worked out in congress and the justice department that will end the investigation into the program, and modify FISA to include wiretapping. This is good, because it gets official regulations and records on the program, but bad because it should be illegal. Getting it on the books means that it can stay longer than just the Bush administration. Also, ending the investigation gets Bush and Gonzalez off the hook for illegal actions. Then again, if it is defined that only suspected terrorists may be looked at, and they start spying on anti-war groups again, they can be busted. I still think impeachment is the way to go. I’d rather have Cheney ineffectively lead a demoralized Republican Party, than Bush be lead like a puppet by a high and mighty Republican Party.

Note: 100th post!

2006-02-16T14:31:00.000-05:00

Iranian Propaganda

Apparently, Condi Rice hopes to turn Iranian citizens against their government through radio and TV ads, for which she requested $75 million. This was in protest to the practices of their government. The money is officially labeled under “spreading democracy in Iran,” but it’s also called propaganda. And we all know what happen to the last nation we tried to “spread democracy” to. This is the beginning of America crumbling its relations in another critical area. We could embrace the alienated nations in the world, and bring them to a controllable distance. By this I mean one where the president would not be compelled to run on a “Death to America” platform, and would instead be grateful for the services we provide them (assuming we use the money for a benevolent cause). Unfortunately, we yield no authority for democracy in the world anymore, when we have domestic spying and indefinite holding in Guantanamo Bay, and worldwide torture.

Even Republicans are speaking out against the terrible policies of this administration in the Middle East: "I don't see, Madame Secretary, how things are getting better. I think things are getting worse. I think they're getting worse in Iraq. I think they're getting worse in Iran," Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., told Rice as she appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

2006-02-16T13:35:00.000-05:00

A surprising victory in the warrantless domestic spying scandal. A judge ruled that the government must produce within 20 days documents about the program, demanded from civil rights groups. Hopefully, some new and good information will come out from this investigation. I’m being pessimistic, but I can always be surprised.

2006-02-16T13:01:00.000-05:00

A UN report calls for the closing of Guantanamo Bay torture facility, citing UN violations including ban of “torture, arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial.” The response from Scott McClellan was great.

It "appears to be a rehash of some of the allegations that have been made by lawyers for some of the detainees and we know that al Qaeda detainees are trained in trying to disseminate false allegations," said spokesman Scott McClellan.

So, al Qaeda members are liars, and we’re accusing them of being terrorists, so they must be liars! Good logic. Ironically, Republicans that bitched about needing an “up or down vote” on radical judicial nominees see no problem in not giving any due process to these detainees, who have been charged with no crimes and given no sign they will be released.

Torture at the prison included force feeding inmates on a hunger strike, stripping them, subjection to harsh temperatures, and excessive solitary confinement. There are around 500 detainees in Guantanamo Bay.

2006-02-15T22:00:00.000-05:00

Bush’s bad policies cost more than they seem to. $1.4 Billion in tax dollars were wasted on government spin. Equally incompetent compared to the rest of the administration I suppose, when you consider it didn’t quite convince us that destroying social security is a good thing. Hopefully Bush looks to cut this part of the budget next year, and advertise for the Republicans on his own money.

2006-02-15T21:23:00.000-05:00

So I went to the Daily Show yesterday, plus it was V Day, so there were no updates. I assure you we’ll be putting up more content at the pace you’ve come to expect.

Let me tell you about The Daily Show. You get there, and after a long wait in the cold, are seated in a nice, but small studio. Carol thought she saw Michael Moore sitting in the corner, but I said it’s probably just a fat guy. Turns out it was Michael Moore and his film crew. He didn’t talk though, but a comedian came out to teach us how to laugh on camera. I hope we did a good job, for all of you that caught the Tuesday February 14^th episode. We all got a copy of the guest’s book: “A Thousand Barrels a Second” by Peter Terzakian. Jon Stewart then comes out and takes a few questions. Then it’s right down to business. Unfortunately Jon doesn’t interact with the audience after that, but it’s a very cool experience. Apply on Comedy Central’s site and get some tickets for yourself. Just make sure you invite me!

2006-02-13T16:52:00.000-05:00

Well, if the 06 or 08 debates focus on national security, here’s more proof that Republicans are incompetent in this field. A national report on Katrina response found huge failures at all levels of government. There were millions of dollars of waste, and what the was not reported in the article, many people remain displaced or in bad conditions. How can such a huge problem go on without a huge national response? We’ve seen money pledged, but not action. Bottom line: Republicans, in the administration, Michael Chertoff (secretary of Homeland Security), FEMA, all failed to protect our country. True; you can’t defend us from a hurricane. But you can warn, evacuate, and respond quickly and efficiently. Check out this weeks Top Ten Conservative Idiots at Democratic Underground for a little more on the response from Bush (Pictures included).

2006-02-13T14:14:00.000-05:00

More in the news about Iran. An independent think tank, the Oxford Research Group, has said that a war between the US and Iran would result in “thousands” of US military deaths. This would appear obvious, and really vague. What I found most telling was this: "I think there is at least a 50:50 risk of some sort of real crisis, probably with military action, before the end of next year," said the report's author, Professor Paul Rogers of the University of Bradford.

Well that’s encouraging. My big problem with the Iran conflict is the hypocrisy. Sure, it would be bad if Iran had a nuclear weapon. But any nation that threatened to use one would be completely isolated from the world, without getting a chance to use it. The only way we can forcefully make Iran disarm would be if we had no weapons ourselves. Who are we to say who can and can’t have nuclear weapons? Without offering any motivation to disarm, except self preservation, we’re actually pushing them to support terrorists and want a nuclear weapon for a bargaining chip. Another good point in this report that Bush will clearly disregard: Any attack on Iran will unite the Iranian people behind the radical government. If we want a more benign government there, we need to make us a helper, not an enemy. Unfortunately, I fear we’ll never go for a peaceful resolution in this standoff.

2006-02-13T14:10:00.000-05:00

Here are some encouraging senate poll numbers. Santorum, the ultra-conservative, ultra-corrupt senator from Pennsylvania is falling further in the polls. The Democratic challenger, Bob Casey, is leading the race 51% - 36%, from 50% to 38%. Also, Conrad Burns, deeply covered in shit from the Abramoff scandal, is finally behind in the polls. John Morrison is ahead 50% - 43%, and Jon Tester is tied with Burns at 46%. Kos attributes this rise in Democratic poll numbers to advertising the scandal early and often. The press in Montana is aggressively covering the story. A hard working media? Good job.

2006-02-11T20:30:00.000-05:00

So I helped out future congresswoman Diane Farrell today. Just some mundane date entry, but she has good prospects to make more money, and a busy dedicated staff. I really agree with Chris Bowers from Mydd.com, this is a district we can win with work. And work we're doing. I'll be over there more, and give more updates. I must say, after meeting her, shes a very smart and instantly appealing person. The more she gets out there, the more votes she'll get. Only problem is phoning for money, which she complained about too. One more onboard for public financing of elections?

Side note: No more ads, because I was cheating the system to make extra cash. Oh well, easy money doesn't always work out.

2006-02-10T16:23:00.000-05:00

I haven’t really covered the gubernatorial races yet, due to my complete ignorance of most of them (as you can tell I know national politics much more than states). This article gives some good info. Dems hold 22 seats, and Republicans 28. Democrats expect to gain 5 or 6 seats, making it 27 – 23 or 28 – 22. This is made possible by the open seats this year:

Republicans must defend 22 of the 36 governors' offices on the ballot in November, including eight states where the incumbent retired or is barred from running again. Democrats defend 14 governorships but only one in which the incumbent is not running.

New York is of course a district that most likely will turn over. Eliot Spitzer, current NY attorney general, will be running as the Democratic challenger. It was recently rumored that Donald Trump would run against him, until he came out and endorsed Spitzer. It seems to be a futile race for Republicans in NY, but I can’t say Pataki was a bad guy. Then again, I can’t say I follow state politics.

The best news with this is it shows the political climate in the country. Democrats in positions of power can fund raise and endorse fellow Democrats running in the future. Also, policies that are going on at the state level can set the agenda for the national level. For example, the transit workers union strike brought labor unions to the forefront of national news for a few days. If Democrats bring forward a liberal agenda embraced by the state, it can transfer to the federal level. Lets hope the wheels keep turning for the Dems. [link]

2006-02-10T16:08:00.000-05:00

Only 18% of Americans, in a new American Bar Association poll, believe that the President should be able to suspend constitutional rights in an emergency situation. 52% say that the President could never do this, and 25% say he can only with a warrant. Interesting numbers: you can see that when you ask the question if the president can "suspend constitutional freedoms," you get much less approval than if you asked "should the president spy on terrorists." Look for Republicans to continue calling this the "terrorist surveillance projects," and Democrats to call it "domestic spying." I'll be calling it illegal spying, because I call them like they are. [Link]

2006-02-09T22:39:00.000-05:00

Well, the claim that the world is “better off without Saddam” is being challenged in Israel. The head of Israel's domestic security agency, Shin Bet, has claimed Israel is less secure with a chaotic Iraq. Who would have thunk it? A stable regime removed without cause leads to no public or international support.

2006-02-09T11:12:00.000-05:00

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama has just admited he is philisophically against entitlements, but approved the budget with pell grants. He has actually claimed to be against pell grants. wow.

Anyway, I find it funny that he is promoting giving school materials and curriculum advice given to teachers on a 6 week basis. Aren't conservatives for state rights, giving them the ability to control education.

2006-02-09T09:37:00.000-05:00

Funny Story: Due to a typographical error, the $39 billion dollar spending cut may be voided. This is the one that cut Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, and other things compassionate conservatives hate (note the sarcasm). The question comes from a typographical error was pertaining to the amount of months that Medicare would pay for oxygen tanks, which were different in the House and Senate versions. The bill passed 51-50 in the Senate (Cheney broke the tie), and 216-214 in the House. As we’re now closer to the election, the chances of one voter switching is that much greater. Reuters reported though that there was a “chance” the bill would be voided, but it would appear that the House and Senate bills were different, and therefore what the president signed wasn’t a joint bill, therefore not law. Hopefully it comes up for a revote, just to put it back in the news and get the discussion going again. This highlights the moral values party – the Democrats of course. [Link]

2006-02-09T09:29:00.000-05:00

As if the torture in Iraqi prisons weren’t enough, there is more torture occurring in Guantanamo Bay. A hunger strike was underway by prisons, protesting their situation of being held indefinitely without charges. To counter this, Americans strapped down the strikers and fed them through tubes. This is actually what happened during the women’s suffrage movement in the early 1900’s. Good to see the progress. To top it off, the prisoners were then isolated in cold cells for hours. I agree with Angela Merkel, current German Chancellor (they couldn’t change it to PM or President after Hitler?) when she calls for the US closing the prison. Its clearly only used for torture, as 90 miles away there are American facilities. Hopefully we have a brave president, Republican or Democrat, who puts forward a responsible military budget (in other words, less than $560 billion). I’d vote for anyone promising to cut the budget in half, except someone like Bush who has no credibility.

2006-02-08T17:30:00.000-05:00

Bush shooting Republicans in the foot

The Bush budget is of course horrible, as we've described. It is top heavy - giving money to privatize social security (thanks to the heads up by TPM), fight our useless war, spend 440 billion on the military - while denying basic human needs. For example, cutting Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, all on top of the $39 billion he's about to sign off on.

Politically though, this is a weapon for liberals. This galvanizes them, and offers a clear divide on where Republicans stand and where Democrats stand. And of course, it hurts the Republican party when moderates like Arlen Specter and Olympia Snowe come out and attack the budget. All students and their parents will find fault with the Republicans on this budget. Seniors will be against his Medicare/Medicaid and social security plans. It is set up to anger most Americans. And this all comes before the midterm elections. It is terrible that millions will have to suffer through ever worsening conditions brought on by Bush's budgets, but the worse it gets, the closer we are to the turning point.

Already, Republicans have made it very public that they will not pursue any very public radical actions this year. They want to move to the center a little to protect Republicans up for reelection. This represents a victory. We even have Republican Heather Wilson calling for a full investigation into the illegal spying scandal. I love to watch the Republicans crumble, but we also need to get a strong force pushing Democrats into office. In state elections in Missouri, this is exactly what happened. In typically very conservative counties, Democrats are gaining seats. These counties are needed for Republicans to get reelected to the Senate, to offset highly Democratic areas. The tides are turning, hopefully they'll push us to where we want to be this November. And Bush is only stirring more trouble for his party.

2006-02-08T14:14:00.000-05:00

The other nuclear debate

There is a negotiation going on between India and the US to change India’s nuclear program. Currently, India’s civilian and military programs are combined, which Bush wants immediately separated in the next three weeks. India has offered to do this gradually, but that doesn’t appear to be supported. Also, Bush wants more international oversight of India’s nuclear programs. Specifically, the new “fast-breeder” nuclear reactors. These reactors have failed in Japan, and are dangerous because they run off of spent nuclear fuel. India says that oversight would impede on their scientific progress. I happen to agree with the president on the issue of oversight, but I write this to highlight a decline in American influence overseas. This is a glaring example of America losing its ability to negotiate with foreign nations due to our lack of progressive policy at home. America is subject to no oversight, and runs the second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world (according to wikipedia). I hope that a regime change allows America greater worldwide respect, and that this won’t be a very long process to regain our diplomatic power in the world. Don’t get me wrong; America wields tremendous diplomatic authority in the world, but we surely are not viewed as a benevolent super-power that can achieve what we used to diplomatically.

2006-02-08T12:27:00.000-05:00

In an attempt to restore our place in the world as an accepting refuge for the oppressed, Condi Rice voted today to ban two gay rights groups from the UN under consultative status. This allows groups to give documents to member nations, and occasionally speak before them. Denying these groups entry put us among other nations whom we wish to be comparable to on human rights issues. This includes Iran, China, Cuba, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Luckily, some Democrats in the House signed a petition, calling on Rice to consider three gay/lesbian groups pending consultative status. Surely this will put us back in a position to lead the world by example, instead of force. [link]

2006-02-07T18:49:00.000-05:00

The military budget was defended today in a press conference by Donald Rumsfeld. He argued that it would take decades to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, despite previous targets. Just another thing we didn’t fully consider before going to war. Decades seem like a huge amount of time. So at least we’ll be paying for the reconstruction, right? Of course not, we don’t want them to become “dependant.” If our military money should be going anywhere, it’s to reconstruction. And we haven’t heard much about troop cuts, despite a successful election. I’ll hand it to the interim government; they did achieve a seemingly fair election. We should be leaving, like everyone wants us to. April 29^th is the march against the war in NYC (and elsewhere I believe). I’ll be there, I hope everyone can be there too!

2006-02-07T14:02:00.000-05:00

Daily Kos has a great piece on the budget. It includes increased expectations of revenue, from things like ANWR, which failed repeatedly. Also, he assumes it will bring in triple the revenue than expected last year. It also doesn't take into account war costs, reconstruction in New Orleans. And also, it assumes entitlement programs, a huge battle to pass recently, will take larger cuts this year. It’s a lengthy piece, with lots of Republican opposition quotes. Quite a story, really. Hopefully someone has the balls to stand up to the wasteful military spending. Hell, even the military contractors are against our wars now!

2006-02-06T20:27:00.000-05:00

The Bush Administration views the collective intelligence of America's citizenry with contempt, resulting in a White House that lies with impunity.

In his State of the Union address, Bush called to replace 75 percent of Middle East oil imports by 2025 with alternative energy sources. It turns out Bush's emphatic declaration wasn't so emphatic at all. In fact, one day later, Bush's energy secretary and national economic advisor said he didn't mean it 'literally.'

Apparently, Bush's use of 'The Middle East' was 'purely an example' of what he was alluding to. There will be no shift away from Bush family supporters in Saudi Arabia's oil-producing regions, or the rest of the Middle East. The region was evoked to 'dramatize the issue' in a way resonating with voters. So, the centerpiece of Bush's talking points bears no resemblance to reality, and our nation's dependency on Middle East oil continues.

This should come as no surprise to those who've followed Bush rhetoric in comparison to actuality. The two are never the same: there weren't any WMD, insurgents aren't actually in their 'last throes,' and we're not trying to escape OPEC's grasp.

2006-02-06T19:30:00.000-05:00

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all of the cows. The government gives you as much milk as you need.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and put them in a barn with everyone else's cows. They are cared for by ex-chicken farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you need.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them and sells you the milk.

PURE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. Your neighbors help you take care of them, and you all share the milk.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both of them and shoots you.

DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain. Then it requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors try to take the cows and kill you.

LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

2006-02-06T11:20:00.000-05:00

It has become clear that these hearings will accomplish nothing. Although Gonzalez is doing a horrible job defending the program, as Orwell says, if you lie enough, it starts to become like the truth. What a sham hearing - this is so clearly against the constitution. I hope that Gonzalez and others in the Department of Justice are arrested in a later administration or congress.

A complaint was made by Republican Chuck Grassley about private information about the spying program being made available to congress. He is baffled that congress was informed on a limited basis, but only after the NY Times released it did they outrage. He should know though that this is illegal for congress to release this information. The debate goes back and forth to terrorism, but only a few (Specter, Kennedy) will ask why not use the FISA court. Its really offensive to a New Yorker like myself that 9/11 is so exploited by Republican. Its really sick to use 3000 deaths for political gain.

2006-02-06T11:14:00.000-05:00

A great comment was made by Ted Kennedy today in the hearings. “Wouldn’t national security be strengthened if we were positive of the legality of this program?” (Rough quote) This is certainly true, but Gonzalez believes that this is clearly constitutional under war powers. Apparently wiretapping is a “force,” as in “any necessary force.” Kennedy catalogued the past, when the FISA court was made. A republican president and attorney general went to congress to make sure that the law would be followed, and the government could obtain necessary information. Any information illegal obtained will not be useable in court, which gravely weakens our security.

2006-02-06T10:26:00.000-05:00

Arlen Specter is absolutely Grilling attorney general Alberto Gonzalez. Gozolez is dancing around every question. He has failed to answer any question directly. Senator Lehey failed to get a response on many issues. None the less, Gonzolez is under the impression that use of force means unlimited powers if it helps the "war" on terror. Also, he thinks that only al queda members are on one side of the transmitions. This seems contrary to the Washington Post, and others, in calling this a dragnet. Its on C-Span right now, check it out.

2006-02-05T13:26:00.000-05:00

A quickie for you

I found this funny ad on the site. This is for a keychain that counts down the days until Bush is out of office. Found it funny, link is here.

2006-02-05T12:09:00.000-05:00

More on Spying

On Talking Points Memo, there was another article about the illegal spying scandal. Apparently, we got a real number on the amount of terrorists we catch each year with this resource-draining program. Good to know it was worth it though - there are ten people who "aroused enough suspicion." That’s right, 10 people who possibly could be terrorists. Saying potential terrorists I think gives the program too much credit. Meanwhile, tomorrow the attorney General will testify before congress. According to Daily Kos, Gonzalez will be lying, saying it is a small program, not a dragnet out to find patterns. Well according to the Washington Post, that’s exactly what it is.

This program seems like one ripe for picking from the "budget tree." Mydd.com highlights some of the programs cut instead.

Along with the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, a $107 million program the USDA website says is meant to "improve the health of low-income pregnant and breastfeeding women, other new mothers up to one year postpartum, infants, children up to age six, and elderly people at least 60 years of age."

This of course taken instead of the easy budget cut target - Military. As explained, we're paying out our asses for guns - $560 billion. Didn't this destroy the Soviet Union? Well, I emailed Tim Bishop, Senator Clinton, and Senator Schumer. Hopefully they'll fight the good fight. This budget goes too far.

2006-02-04T15:13:00.000-05:00

With the 2007 budget being released Monday, more bits are being revealed to the press. This one concerns Bush’s latest attempts to hurt Medicare. They involve cutting $30 – $35 billion from the program. So cuts, which are achieved through higher premiums, are morally acceptable. They include raising rates on Medicare beneficiaries with income above $80,000 a year. My only concern is for those with massive medical expenses, as some people will see rates double in 2007.

These concerns are nothing compared to part of this plan. The plan involves cutting payments to doctors and hospitals, not raising rates. Raising rates would hurt millions of people directly, causing a public outcry. By hurting the doctors and hospitals, care goes down, and the system itself is hurt. If payments are frozen or reduced, doctors and hospitals will complain about the system to the government. This outcry can than be used against the system, which takes the blame instead of the administration. Also, there will be a freeze in payments to nursing homes, resulting in worse care or higher rates, which some simply cannot afford.

This plan is horrible for doctors, nursing homes, hospitals, and in the end, for patients. The political effects can play out one of two ways. As described above, the system can come under attack, causing it to be scaled back even further, or even more privatized. Or, it could work to the Democrats advantage. If people get into hard times with healthcare, Democrats can have increased attention when outlining a public healthcare system. I hope it works out in the Democrats favor, so the negative effects of this budget proposal at least lead to good.

Note: Internet isn't working right, so for now, heres the address. Hope to fix this later
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-02-04T064854Z_01_N04329785_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-MEDICARE.xml&archived=False

2006-02-02T22:37:00.000-05:00

Big Bucks

The military budget, one of the main reasons I dislike Republicans, is set for another huge increase in the 2007 budget. It will increase 5% to $439.3 billion. This does not include costs for war, which in 2006 will cost $120 billion. I’d expect similar figures for 2007, but probably/hopefully lower. Reason I say probably is that we recently replaced something like 3000 troops in Afghanistan with European troops, and there have been persistent calls for lowering troop levels in Iraq. There should at least be a decrease able to bring down the total. If we’re spending $560 Billion in 2007 on military and war, that’s an average of $1931 per person on military. And surely you have better uses for $1100 of that, which is what you’d get back if we were at the Clinton military budget. I should point out, we were doing just fine during that time, and could have brought it down further.

Despite all this money, Rumsfeld admits that terror threats are on the rise. Either that means Bush’s poll numbers are down, or the Bush administration policy is failing. How could bully people into our lifestyle not create more friends?

2006-02-02T18:40:00.000-05:00

Climate Change

Heeding the President's call, a bipartisan climate change bill will be introduced this spring in congress. No details have been revealed, but pessimism already exists. Regardless, at least some Republicans will be involved here. The article mentions a large group in the House that is opposed.

The bill, from what is known, appears to target businesses. It will set credit systems based on emissions. As pointed out, no one industry really emits a disproportionate amount, so there are no easy targets. Personally, I like the system employed in the Northeastern states, one of Gov. Pataki's best moments in my opinion. There is a deal to cut utilities emissions by 10% over the course of 10 years, starting in 2009. I'm hoping this can be employed on a national scale, combined with higher CAFE standards, which increase gas mileage requirements. Also, the president pushes the hydrogen car idea. Hopefully, we'll increase funding to reasonable levels and get some uses of the technology, starting with public buses, taxis, police, and fire vehicles. This will all be possible, if not now, in the next 5-10 years, at my guess. I base this on a quote I heard, saying that if car companies knew they could sell 500,000 hydrogen cars a year, they would cost the same as regular cars do now. While I can't find the quote,

2006-02-02T11:41:00.000-05:00

He already lied

With the headline worthy "America is addicted to oil" line of the State of the Union address, Bush gave hope to those who still manage to trust him. Personally, I don't believe he'll do anything, but it is advanced in the public spotlight. Democratic Underground points out that only 20% of our imports come from the Middle East, where Bush wants to cut 75% of our imports by 2025. Hillary Clinton on the other hand wants oil independence by 2020.

Apparently, the administration is backing off of their goals already. We will hope to do that, it is a possible target, but we'll leave it to the market to see how much oil they will buy. Because the market will do this only is they run out of 75% of capacity, without any government intervention. It was a good try. Two things good can come from this. People lose even more trust in Bush and the Republicans, and as mentioned, it pushed oil dependency to the spotlight.

Update: No, I didn't read the article I originally posted. I read one at Democratic Underground, which did not yet have its own page (the article only appeared on the main page, which would then be pushed down as newer articles come). In my haste I put up a related article. Heres the article my post came from.

2006-02-02T11:27:00.000-05:00

Spying Scandal

In another blow to my concerns over the Democratic Party and Sam Alito, Daily Kos reports that Democrats are going to grill administration officials over the NSA illegal spying scandal. Because this charge is grounds for impeachment, and could, if spun correctly, push many away from the Republican party. If this fails to happen though, then this just clouds over more incriminating news, such as the Republican corruption scandal. Do they put all their terrible news at once on purpose? Oh well, we’ll have the stories as they come in next week.

2006-02-02T11:13:00.000-05:00

Alito Saves Lives

Well, one life really. A late night decision last night blocked Missouri’s last minute request to execute a prisoner. He sided with a 6-3 majority. The 3 that pushed for the execution were ultra-conservative Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts. Perhaps Alito is capable of parting with his conservative philosophy; a very good sign. Despite what may come, Alito is off to a good start.

2006-02-01T00:24:00.000-05:00

State of the Union

After watching the State of the Union, I left very happy with the speech. The President pushed bi-partisanship. While he doesn't have too much credibility, he backed up this initiative by not pushing any extreme measures in his speech. What he did push were health savings accounts, which are a baby step in healthcare improvement. They don't give anything to the uninsured, but what I liked about it was that health care is brought to the front of debate. Afterwards, on one of the networks, Senator Obama spoke of Illinois' own healthcare program (although fought from the administration), which gave health insurance to all kids. With HSAs coming to congress, public debate for further legislation can come.

Another surprising aspect of the speech was an educational initiative. The president outlined a plan for more math and science teachers, including 70,000 new AP teachers. This is a great idea that will, if implemented correctly, improve our education.

What I didn't like was the president's "stay the course" rhetoric on the war. It's realism to see that there are problems in Iraq, and helps to reform our effort, lay out clear goals, and eventually end this destructive war. Dampening criticism is not a way to improve our situation, but only gives an arrogant image that creates terrorism. Also, out of the blue it would seem, he mentioned free trade vs. isolationism. I agree with this move to keep our trade open. The jobs leaving the country are not because American jobs are more expensive than Chinese jobs, but because Chinese jobs are cheaper than mechanized jobs. The machinery that replaces autoworkers, for example, is more expensive than hiring a Chinese worker. This is the thinking of Robert Reich, in his book Reason, which I found very convincing.

The worst part of the speech was the defense of warrantless spying on Americans. He claimed constitutional authorities, and mentioned previous president's doing this. Unless they haven't been disclosed, this is a pure lie. All of the things he said about the scandal were lies. No other president has done this without a warrant. Also, there are not tens of thousands of Al Qaeda operatives in America, representing those we've spied on. Most of our spying has been "dead ends", as reported in the NY Times.

My favorite part of the speech was his line about social security. Although it is one of the best funded programs in government, with a huge surplus, he mentioned the problem 25 years away when we spend more money than we receive. Then again, we have a regressive tax that only taxes the first $87,000 of income. If expanded to $120,000-we've got another 50 years. If we lower the rate from 6.2% of income, and eliminate the cap, it'll truly be social security. As it stands, it is mostly forced savings. People get essentially what they give. But, to get to the great part, the President acknowledged that congress didn't pass his social security reforms. This created an eruption of applause from the Democrats, and a standing ovation. That’s the Democratic unity I expect on all major choices.

2006-01-31T23:14:00.000-05:00

Clarifying

I just want to quickly clarify what I meant in my last two posts. I was angry, and a little rash. But my anger was more in the Democrats than Alito. Republicans are always going to propose conservative laws, nominate conservative judges, etc. I was upset that the Democrats didn't put a defense up against this. In the past, like with Alaska drilling and budget cuts, the Democrats have banded together and blocked or reformed conservative legislation. I hoped that the same could happen here. It could have either ended the nomination, or sent a message that the Democrats are a viable force in congress. The lack of this show was very disheartening.

I love to read the comments you've left; they've been the most gratifying part of the blogs short life. Thanks, and keep them up. Hope this has cleared up where I stand.

2006-01-31T15:26:00.000-05:00

Alito Confirmed

Alito was confirmed as the 110th member of the Supreme Court. My frustration yesterday stems from the lack of any effort to block Alito. Everyone knew that if a vote came on Alito, 50 were needed to confirm him (Cheney would break a tie), and the only way to block him was a filibuster.

Despite this, more people voted against Alito than voted against cloture yesterday. This is surprising. Did those Democrats who voted for cloture, but against Alito, not understand the situation as fully as everyone else in the world? Or do they want Alito to serve, but are trying to appeal to their right wing constituency? Either way, it shows the Democrats are either clueless about politics, or did not care if Alito was confirmed. We had John Kerry and Ted Kennedy calling for a filibuster, while the Democratic leader of the Senate- Harry Reid, publicly said it had no chance. We had 41 Democrats vote against Alito, precisely the amount needed to maintain a filibuster. If 4 members of the caucus defect, that is alright. But there was a possibility for a filibuster.

This shakes my confidence in the party. If Democrats are in a majority, does it mean they will work together to pass liberal bills? I'm not so sure. The only way I'll be alright with the party is if I can get a response from Chuck Schumer (as chairman of the DSCC), Harry Reid, and/or Howard Dean. I'll be calling tomorrow, hoping to get a press secretary or something, who can explain what happened. It’s either bad leadership, or we only have 25 liberal democrats. If it’s bad leadership, then in the long term I'll be with the Democrats, helping to get new ones elected to reshape the party. If the Democrats just don't care about liberal values, then I no longer have a party that represents me and is capable of liberal change. Hence the anger and talk of emigration yesterday; if I'm not accurately represented in congress, there is very little reason to stay, since the problem is deep rooted and will be long lasting.

PS: When you comment, I'd appreciate a name given, or at least age or location, just to give me an idea where you're coming from.

2006-01-30T18:20:00.000-05:00

We lost the Judiciary

Well, Alito is to be confirmed, as Democrats failed to maintain a filibuster. It amazes me that 45 Democrats can't get 41 votes to keep a filibuster open. Regardless, the judiciary was impartial prior to Alito joining. Congress is radically to the Right, so is the Presidency. Now, the Judiciary will be 5-4 right wing. That takes away the last protection of our civil liberties and livelihoods. I lost a lot of faith in this country to do what’s best. It'll push me to disregard government, emigrate, or increase my passion to join congress and fight to move our country forward, not backward. It’s really discouraging to know that this man will serve for 20 to 30 years. What a sad day for America.

Here are the votes for cloture. I don't understand how only 25 Dems can get together to oppose Alito. They know that if cloture happens, Alito gets confirmed. I have serious doubts in the Democratic Party, which has undermined my determination for action in politics. This leaves me to petition the Democratic party to the left (a theme in "Crashing the Gate," coming soon), or give up on politics because no party represents me. The book and my studies in England will help me decide.

2006-01-30T10:39:00.000-05:00

Top Ten Conservative Idiots

Another weekly installment is in at Democratic Underground-check it out. If my site is too much info to read, this is a great rundown of the news, all delivered with humor. #1 on their list is the Bush Administration, that was warned about Katrina, and then displayed dismay/inaction after it happened. Just like 9/11. Check it out, there’s plenty more.

2006-01-30T07:44:00.000-05:00

NSA Illegal Searches

Georgia10 at Daily Kos wrote a great peace about debating the NSA spying scandal. According to polls, over 50% of people have no problem giving up their civil liberties for terror hunts. So, change the debate:

Every time a Democrat speaks of this program, let them speak of how it weakens the War on Terror. Every time the phrase "domestic spying" is uttered, let it be followed by "and this program is a grave danger to our national security." Why? Why does Bush's order hinder the War on Terrorism?

It's simple, really. First and foremost, any terror conviction can now be challenged under a "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine (See Andrew C. White's diary here). Bush acting outside the law has actually made it easier for those charged with terrorism to suppress evidence against them.

Second, the program is a distraction which wastes critical manpower. FBI agents who are supposed to be chasing down terrorists are, because of this far-reaching scope of this program, investigating ordinary Americans. Under Bush's program, thousands of FBI officers are chasing calls to Pizza Hut rather than chasing sleeper cells who may be planning to attack us.

Finally--and this is the point the Democrats need to hit, hard--Bush's spying program has not resulted in a single terror lead in the four years it has been implemented. Not one single lead.

Thus, we have changed the debate from "would you give up civil liberties to be more secure" to "would you give up your civil liberties to be less secure"? The answer to that question, I assure you, will be a resounding "no".
Ineffectiveness. That is the key to winning this debate and getting the truth to the American people.

So, remember your talking points: wasted agents, no leads, and they know if you like pepperoni or not, but haven't ordered you a pizza yet. And you like pizza.

2006-01-29T15:49:00.000-05:00

I came across this hilarious quote from Senator Bill Frist today, said on "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

"The United States Congress will not be giving money to a government that supports terrorism, that refuses to disarm its militias, that has as its goal in its charter the destruction of Israel," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on NBC television's "Meet the Press."

This is quite a turnaround from our 20th century foreign policy. Just thought I'd post this for when something like the Iraqi National Congress we supported becomes a terrorist group. We probably have supported, directly or indirectly, more terrorist activity than any other entity; and surely more war and military action that any other group. It’s funny to see that our past is the complete opposite of our supposedly current stance.

2006-01-29T14:06:00.000-05:00

More calls for Abramoff records

We've seen recent calls by Democrats for Bush to release information about his meetings with Jack Abramoff. Now, Republicans believe this is the best course of action. They believe that by putting it out in the open, it will take the steam out of media coverage and leave the Republican corruption scandals in the past. Republicans have given great compliment to Bush, including recent remarks by Mike Pence of Indiana: "I think this president is a man of unimpeachable integrity. The American people have profound confidence in him, Pence said." That’s about as complimentary as a professor calling me an "un-expellable student." Also notable is Howard Dean's comments today, "People really don't believe him (Bush) any more and that's a real problem for him." I love pushing this saying, I think it really empowers Democrats and puts Bush on the defensive. Plus, this statement can be made without explanation, as his war in Iraq has put his lies into unquestionable certainty.

Personally, I think the release of this information will hurt Republicans. It'll add another major headline to the papers, especially notable if it includes one of the many pictures of Abramoff and Bush together. Also notable; this is an ongoing investigation, and plenty more dirt on Republican corruption is coming out. Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, and Conrad Burns are going to be the first to go under. All of them are up for reelection this year, and all will lose. The only hope for Republicans is that they're arrested before they can run, allowing a challenger of integrity to go against a Democrat. But, as I said, these are two guaranteed Democratic senate seats in 06, and also kick out former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Justice will be served in November.

2006-01-29T12:20:00.000-05:00

It's going to be a long war

The other day I reported that ex-army and defense department officials claimed the army to be overstretched. Well, today the government told 50,000 people they need to stay up to an extra 18 months past their expected leave. I hope this is a start to an expansion of the anti-war movement. A lot of the Vietnam War resistance came from soldiers who refused to go or return. This situation could arise today.

There’s more than just bad news today though. Apparently, nationwide, people would vote for a Democrats over a Republicans by 54% to 38%, one of the largest margins in the last two decades. Thank Kos for this lovely news.

2006-01-28T19:56:00.000-05:00

"We don't steal wives"

Perhaps this is the next quotable lie from the president? Apparently, not only do we torture in Iraq, but we steal wives as a means of pressuring suspected insurgents to turn themselves in.

Think about this. You have a supposedly militant person, who is armed. You take something they care for a lot away. Will they turn themselves in? This will still keep them separated from her, and break the family unit so central to their culture. Doesn't this create more erratic behavior? Just like the war, which creates more terrorists. Guy missing his wife = new terrorist.

2006-01-28T13:46:00.000-05:00

More aboard for universal healthcare

"Free-market" magazine, the Economist, has called for the US to adopt a European-style Healthcare system. More of a catalyst for Dems to take up the good fight?

2006-01-27T18:41:00.000-05:00

Abramoff still a Republican scandal

Backing up what we've been saying all along, another study shows Abramoff is a Republican scandal. Apparently, since higher Abramoff, Tribal clients decreased contributions to Democrats by 9%, while increasing contributions to Republicans by 135%. [Link]

2006-01-27T18:31:00.000-05:00

Medicare Debacle

As you may have heard, the recent Medicare drug changes that began on Jan 1st have been a disaster. I have never known much about Medicare or Medicaid, or health care in general. As I learn more, I see some good and more bad.

In this case, 6 million people on Medicaid were switched to Medicare. The bad is that prices are higher for Medicare patients (Medicare covers seniors 65 and above, Medicaid is for low income citizens). Medicaid can barter for lower prices; Medicare cannot.

By combining much of Medicare and Medicaid (I get the idea that Medicaid isn't abolished, but reduced) , it opens the door to expanding Medicare further. For example, Medicare could provide coverage for all minors. If it is no longer just for seniors, that opens the flood gates for more national care. A long term goal could be Medicare for all, as a universal health care program. Of course, Medicare, to be financially responsible, must barter with companies on prices. This costs the program $100 Billion dollars, according to Hillary Clinton. This is a clear give-away to Pharmaceutical companies, who fund Republicans much more than Democrats.

So while Medicare laws have been terrible this year, denying coverage to many, and confusing many Medicaid users, and raising prices, there is some good. We can use this as a launching point for national health care. Also, this puts health care back to the forefront of national problems. Open the debate, and push hard for health care for everyone!

2006-01-27T16:38:00.000-05:00

News Bits 1/27

President Bush promised son of assassinated Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri that the killers will be held accountable. This is interesting. It could play out like the vow to fire anyone involved in Plamegate....unless its Dick Cheney and Carl Rove. Or it could play out like how we account for Iraqi civilian deaths: "We don't do body counts." And that’s why majority of the nation thinks we're on the wrong track.

Prospects are grim for a Democratic filibuster on Alito. Kerry is trying hard, but Harry Reid isn't. Just after I complimented him.

Our economy is growing at the slowest pace in three years. Don't fret though, I'm confidant something will be found wrong with these numbers, because taxes are at a low point for the last three years. Everyone knows that as taxes go down, the economy explodes! Or was it implodes...

Mayor Bloomberg rallied for the Federal government to provide universal healthcare today. Not directly, but he complained of the future $50 billion that healthcare will cost the city. He gave no stats as to how many years that would be spent over, but a staggering number indeed. But if the cost is spread among the entire population, and for-profit hospitals are closed, and the government can barter with drug companies on prices- we may have a cheaper system like the rest of the civilized world, as discussed by Dom.

Palestinian terror-linked group Hamas won the election yesterday, creating an international stir. One thing on the bright side, yet to be discussed, is the benefits to democracy. Much has been said to President Bush spreading democracy, and then pointing out this election as a bad effect. At least, around the middle east, fringe groups will feel confident that whoever receives the most votes wins. No one has asked for a revote to oust Hamas. We need to embrace, and hopefully tame Hamas if there is hope for peace. Removing them would remove faith in democracy.

And I always like to point out something good that George Bush does. He increased funding for development of hydrogen powered vehicles to $119 million (from $88 million one or two years ago). What bothers me about his plan though, is that car companies have said they can make hydrogen cars at close to the cost of today’s cars-if they could sell 500,000 a year. This requires an infrastructure, including refueling and hydrogen production. This would cost $18 billion to give 50% of Americans access to hydrogen refueling (we're giving a total of $1.7 billion over the next few years, for all hydrogen research). We have a long way to go, but the President is starting. I'm sure we'll hear more during the State of the Union address next week.

2006-01-27T00:16:00.000-05:00

Phy Ops

Today, Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged that Physiological Operations, including trying to influence popular opinion overseas, and putting money into Iraqi newspapers, have backfired. Here’s a hint on foreign policy: STOP FUCKING WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTS!

For a man who believes in the free market, let the consumers decide what to buy, spread democracy to the people at any cost (More specifically, almost $300 Billion and 2236 Americans), you'd think that the President would be against this kind of interference. It didn't work in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq take one, Iraq take two....just STOP! Its wasted American lives, money, and reputation. Why do you think the people of the world hate us? Why do you think the children in Arrested Development hate their mom? Because they're controlling!

I liked John Kerry's platform of using alliances, and worrying about international opinion. He really did have an agenda out there, even if he was confident the "I can't be worse than this guy" arguments would work. Hopefully we'll move toward international relations, not our sanctioning crap for Iran. A new age in foreign policy is desperately needed. Everyone, Democrat and Republican, since World War II has had a horrible foreign policy of interference. I'm not saying don't interfere. Afghanistan overthrew a terrorist government. Helping out in Rwanda would have been nice. There are areas we can help, and build our reputation. We desperately need to pull back on the offensive military, and use them for aid. Build schools abroad, secure elections, help governments who ask, not people Chalabi says we should. I hope the next administration is a Democrat unlike the past ones. But I'd vote for any Republican who says he'll half the military budget and only hope where necessary. That is, if I can actually trust them.

2006-01-27T00:06:00.000-05:00

Good Leadership

Harry Reid, who has surprised me over the last month or so for his bold speeches, has challenged President Bush’s new health care system. The new Medicare program has left most seniors confused, and left some with difficulty or inability to receive their prescriptions. Harry Reid, who has been Senate Minority leader for just over a year, has really taken the role on very well in the last month. Now, he calls on President Bush to “to come clean and join Democrats in offering a real solution to this disastrous program.” This aggressive approach is a great fix for the Democrats. Instead of seeing what the Democrats stand for as the opposite of the Republicans, this shows Democrats plans for reform as clear and their own. Keep spreading the good word Senator!

2006-01-26T20:33:00.000-05:00

News Bits: January 26th

First off, I finally found more of a reason to visit this blog. Sure, we have a unique perspective and compile news faster than most popular blogs, but our news comes from others. But on Feb 14th, I will be attending the filming of the Daily Show. I will report all about the set, guest, Jon Stewart, and any other cool details I can. You won't find that on any famous blog!

Secondly, there are some poll numbers for all Senators. Daily Kos has a section of important Republicans listed who are up for reelection. The numbers are promising, the full list is here.

Talking Points Memo has an interesting story. Apparently, the Bush Administration has systematically removed pictures of Jack Abramoff from a website where it has been since 2003. The story has played out much more since this post, so go to the main page for more updates.

And finally, two books I'm directing you towards. One is Crashing the Gates, from founders of Mydd and Daily Kos. It'll be here in 2 weeks, I'll have my copy then. Also, I just put in the order for Lets Get This Party Started. This is contributed to by Matthew Kerbel of MyDD. I'll put up a short review of these sometime in February, in what I hope will be an increased number of Book reviews. I've been devouring politics books lately in the absence of serious class work, so look forward to some soon.

2006-01-26T17:41:00.000-05:00

Budget Problems

You know that sickening feeling you get when you look at a terrible financial situation? Your student loans piling up, or some other money problems? Well add one more to the list. Estimations for the budget deficit for this year are on the rise. President Bush expects us to have a $400 Billion deficit this year. I thought conservatives were supposed to be good with money? Well, we’ll all have to pay the 8 Trillion+ deficit that bush is mounting (I think its $8.18 trillion, either way, ridiculous).

There isn’t anything left to cut, after years of cutting back. Like when we cut funding for the levees in New Orleans. Or when we cut funding from the Mine Health and Safety Organization, leaving them unable to enforce regulations. Or when we cut student loans, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps (as discussed before).

But I’m sure we’ll find something besides the military to cut from. I mean, when you aren’t making enough money to pay the bills, you do things like drop out of college, don’t get healthcare and prescriptions, stop eating, and stop protecting yourself. No one would do anything like try to make more income (raise taxes on the rich!), or sell your guns!

There are only two more budgets for Bush to fuck up until there’s a new President in town, so don’t get too upset over your future. We may even be able to make a responsible budget for '07 with the Democratic House this November.

2006-01-26T17:10:00.000-05:00

Filibuster

Senator Kerry, joined by Senator Kennedy, has called for a filibuster of Samuel Alito. It appears that they are taking Steve Almond's advice from "What We Do Now," describing what the Democrats need to do to win: "Step One: Grow some balls."

This is joined by news that Democratic Senators Byrd and Johnson will be supporting Alito. Combined with 55 Republicans, they are at 58 known votes. It will take 60 to break a filibuster. My only concern is that the President will make Democrats out to be "obstructionists" during the State of the Union address. That’s a price worth paying to fight the good fight. Thank you Senators! Daily Kos has the story.

2006-01-26T17:01:00.000-05:00

The Terrorist Surveillance Project

This is what President Bush wants us to call domestic spying, reminding us that one end of the spying is overseas. Perhaps a lawyer should remind him that it is illegal to spy on any American, or even anyone on American soil, without a warrant from the FISA court. That includes Osama Bin Laden. The law is so loose, that you can spy on someone for 72 hours before receiving the warrant. [Link]

"It wasn't designed in the White House. It was designed where you expect it to be designed, in the NSA," Bush said. Maybe Bush is trying to prevent himself from being impeached? I hope he doesn't expect there to be any less pressure. Even if there are no repercussions now, I hope the next Democratic House of Representatives (coming in '06) will try for impeachment, even if it doesn't pass the Senate.

2006-01-26T07:40:00.000-05:00

More corruption

This corruption is in Iraq though, not the Republicans in congress. Apparently, the US-led interim government spent $9 billion in cash that can't be accounted for out of Iraqi oil money. Keep in mind, Al Franken talks about Paul Bremer, in charge for a year, most likely pocketing a billion dollars (in The Truth: with jokes). That’s $9 in just over one year. Good thing we run a tight ship on our budget over here, cutting $12.7 billion from student loans, around $12 billion in Medicare/Medicaid, some from food stamps, welfare, child support enforcement, and other unnecessary things. [Link]