5.24.2007
It's hard to say it...
...but sometimes, if the wind is blowing just right off of the lake, he almost sounds reasonable. Either that, or Charlie's ghost-writer is playing tricks on us.
Bush for lunch?
Will it be Bush the Decider, just trucking along the Crusade highway? Or Bush the Gloater, with that smirk every time he thinks of Nancy Pelosi? Maybe Bush the Empathizer, trying to convince us that he, too, feels the pain of the public at the gas pump...
It continues to be an excercise in irritation every time I have to listen to the man speak. Even the unintentional comedy factor is worn too thin to make it easier.
Calling for a tougher stance on Iran just makes me cringe. For a country that's already supposedly helping the insurgency, has already said that they don't care if we know they're making nuclear weapons, and doesn't give a rat's ass about what the UN or our government think, are sanctions really going to do anything?
And once that idea is swallowed, how much of a step is it for Bush to give a little nod and say "9/11, WMD's, War on Terror...Iran is now the enemy."
And for the new bill, voting through the House this morning, he says it "reflects a consensus that the Iraqi government needs to show real progress in return for America's continued support and sacrifice." No, frankly, it doesn't. It did before, but Bush said no timetables. Now, it's money, and American lives and morale. Even though there is a threat inherent if Iraq isn't making suitable progress, Bush has the authority to waive that little tidbit at any point.
Fundamentally, they will spend just under $120 billion, with $100 of that going to the war fund. The "fat" domestic spending that had Republicans up in arms? $6.4 billion in hurricane relief. $3 billion in agricultural assistance. How can they have issue with something like that, but be perfectly okay with throwing the other $100 down the drain in a useless conflict?
"We cannot and will not abandon the Iraqis to be butchered by these terrorists in their midst. And we cannot and will not abandon our mission just as real progress is starting to be made." - Rep. David Dreier, R-CA.
Thanks Mr. Dreier, for reminding us that every day is progress, and every day we learn something new. It is a good thing that we're there, since we're keeping all of those Iraqis from being killed in conflict. Like this time, and this time, and this time, and even this time. We sure saved a lot of lives in the past couple weeks. And it's been nearly bloodless for us, thankfully.
Some other nice lines from our Prez...
"By voting for this bill, members of both parties can show our troops and the Iraqis and the enemy that our country will support our service men and women in harm's way." (While forcing them to stay in harm's way)
"We are going to expect heavy fighting in the next weeks and months and we can expect American and Iraqi casualties. We will stay on the offense. It's better to fight them there than to fight them here." (Nothing changing there, it's what we've been seeing for the last 5 years)
"The question is, will members of Congress rise above politics?" (I think Bush stole this line from someone in the Dem party, and then turned it around for a bit of ironic use. Cynical bastard, isn't he?)
moving backwards...
All morning, as I've read articles about gas prices closing gas stations, the lead-in to the House vote on the new bill, sans timetable, Russ's criticism of his peers, yet more of the Alberto Gonzalez epic: I've had to wonder: where did November '06 go?
What happened to the changes that they were supposed to be enacting with our majority? When did they turn in their teeth and bow their heads to Bush? We'll see how Hil-dog (I love that name) and Obama end up voting, but Biden jumped right in to "support the troops." DK said that he'd vote against it, because he won't issue the blank check to Bush. I have to admire that. The same way I have to admire Feingold for his thought that "the desire for political comfort won out over real action" when his co-Dems caved.
Why are these people allowing the President to hold our troops hostage? How is it that he is allowed to do this? In this unwinnable occupation that slowly bleeds American lives and dollars, destroying the lives of thousands of people and families, on both sides of the world, why are we shutting down the voices of the majority who want us out? If we're going to fight a "War on Terror" shouldn't we take a good look at the terrorist in the highest seat of power? Rather than give him carte blanche, we should be tightening his leash.
It's my hope that Feingold and Kucinich, despite the fact that one isn't running and the other won't get an actual party nomination, will somehow cast enough of a shadow that the frontrunners have to answer some of these questions. Maybe the ethical value of Feingold will rub off somehow, somewhere. For every effort he makes, whether it's the Clean Water Act, Campaign finance reform, or health care, he makes me wonder why we can't see this sort of Senator everywhere, and why we can't get a candidate of the same fiber for Presidency.
What happened to the changes that they were supposed to be enacting with our majority? When did they turn in their teeth and bow their heads to Bush? We'll see how Hil-dog (I love that name) and Obama end up voting, but Biden jumped right in to "support the troops." DK said that he'd vote against it, because he won't issue the blank check to Bush. I have to admire that. The same way I have to admire Feingold for his thought that "the desire for political comfort won out over real action" when his co-Dems caved.
Why are these people allowing the President to hold our troops hostage? How is it that he is allowed to do this? In this unwinnable occupation that slowly bleeds American lives and dollars, destroying the lives of thousands of people and families, on both sides of the world, why are we shutting down the voices of the majority who want us out? If we're going to fight a "War on Terror" shouldn't we take a good look at the terrorist in the highest seat of power? Rather than give him carte blanche, we should be tightening his leash.
It's my hope that Feingold and Kucinich, despite the fact that one isn't running and the other won't get an actual party nomination, will somehow cast enough of a shadow that the frontrunners have to answer some of these questions. Maybe the ethical value of Feingold will rub off somehow, somewhere. For every effort he makes, whether it's the Clean Water Act, Campaign finance reform, or health care, he makes me wonder why we can't see this sort of Senator everywhere, and why we can't get a candidate of the same fiber for Presidency.
5.22.2007
sorry jessica..
how can anyone not be a fan of jessica mcbride? the symbolizes all that's great and good with people who will take any tack necessary to keep themselves relevant and visible in any spotlight possible.
whether it's repeatedly saying that she's "sick of her own story," yet continuing to harp on it for all that it's worth...
or all the back and forth b.s. that we had to hear over the katie crabb commercial. it was a nauseating level of self-high-fiving that seems to be rampant whenever she's connected to anything that gets attention.
The Hippie Perspective has a great list from last year going too...
jessica mcbride is nothing new to the conservative world. she's tucker carlson without a bowtie. she got caught in a stupid position, and rather than take responsibility and apologize, she blames the "liberal media, in concert with the partisan attack blogs" who "are attempting to silence conservative voices these days, especially those critical of... well, the liberal media."
i'm still trying to figure out where the media hit the point when it became officially liberal. i still seem to see a large amount of conservative backwash being tossed from show to show on television and the radio, and for all of the blogs that she names supporting her, there are at least five times as many righties that she didn't name.
instead of blaming an imbalance in the media for your mistakes, blame the imbalance that actually exists...the more telling one between pride (refusal to admit a mistake) and worth (something clearly lacking for TMJ to boot you so quickly).
whether it's repeatedly saying that she's "sick of her own story," yet continuing to harp on it for all that it's worth...
or all the back and forth b.s. that we had to hear over the katie crabb commercial. it was a nauseating level of self-high-fiving that seems to be rampant whenever she's connected to anything that gets attention.
The Hippie Perspective has a great list from last year going too...
jessica mcbride is nothing new to the conservative world. she's tucker carlson without a bowtie. she got caught in a stupid position, and rather than take responsibility and apologize, she blames the "liberal media, in concert with the partisan attack blogs" who "are attempting to silence conservative voices these days, especially those critical of... well, the liberal media."
i'm still trying to figure out where the media hit the point when it became officially liberal. i still seem to see a large amount of conservative backwash being tossed from show to show on television and the radio, and for all of the blogs that she names supporting her, there are at least five times as many righties that she didn't name.
instead of blaming an imbalance in the media for your mistakes, blame the imbalance that actually exists...the more telling one between pride (refusal to admit a mistake) and worth (something clearly lacking for TMJ to boot you so quickly).
5.11.2007
old dogs are learning...
Well, some of them are. McCain is still supporting the war and the hunt for Osama, regardless of what anyone thinks. He's still questioning the patriotism of those who support an end to the war, specifically House and Senate members backing the first, and now, the second bill limiting Bush's war chest.
Guiliani is still riding 9/11 into the dirt, talking tough on terrorism and trying to sound like a younger, softer, less cowboy, more Navy village person version of Bush.
As for Romney, he's a Mormon who likes L. Ron Hubbard writings, toes the party line with most major ideas (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc), but has been working towards flip-flop status with his changed opinions on abortion and domestic partner's rights.
It's like choosing between Cheney, Bush-Lite and a younger-looking John Kerry who's all about the wrong things.
The GOP infighting is going to be purely wonderful over the next several months, as McCain rails against GOP hopefuls who support abortion, Guiliani says he's personally against it but it should be everyone's right to choose, and Romney is dangling on both sides of the fence.
Throw in the balance of religion, opinions on the war, opinions on immigration, employment and education processes....you've got a very diverse GOP for at least a few more months.
Guiliani is still riding 9/11 into the dirt, talking tough on terrorism and trying to sound like a younger, softer, less cowboy, more Navy village person version of Bush.
As for Romney, he's a Mormon who likes L. Ron Hubbard writings, toes the party line with most major ideas (abortion, same-sex marriage, etc), but has been working towards flip-flop status with his changed opinions on abortion and domestic partner's rights.
It's like choosing between Cheney, Bush-Lite and a younger-looking John Kerry who's all about the wrong things.
The GOP infighting is going to be purely wonderful over the next several months, as McCain rails against GOP hopefuls who support abortion, Guiliani says he's personally against it but it should be everyone's right to choose, and Romney is dangling on both sides of the fence.
Throw in the balance of religion, opinions on the war, opinions on immigration, employment and education processes....you've got a very diverse GOP for at least a few more months.
news flash?
McCain says Bush's numbers hurt GOP...
"I don't think there's any doubt that when the president's polling numbers are low that it harms the Republican Party in general, but I think that when it comes election time that the overwhelming majority of Americans will choose their candidate on the basis of that individual candidate's qualifications, vision and record," McCain said.
He says this as some of the GOP is shifting into recovery mode, distancing themselves from Bush just like last fall when the Dems capitalized on increasingly bad public opinion of the GOP majority. At least this time, the GOP isn't waiting until 6 weeks before the election to start treating Bush like a leper. Now that some of the House GOP are talking back to Bush, what will that mean?
The president "listened very carefully," Representative Ray LaHood (R-Illinois) said. "I don't know if surprised was the right word. I think maybe sobered. I don't know if he's gotten that kind of opinion before in such a frank and no holds barred way. He listened intently."
Are you telling me that Bush has never seen the Daily Show? Read the Onion? Possibly listened to someone outside of his immediate staff or rolled down the window on a drive through DC? How long was Cindy Sheehan camping in his driveway?
At the same time, a tidbit comes from Rep. Peter King out in Long Island.
"Members of Congress, whether in my party or the other party, who supported the war and are now turning against it because it's unpopular, that to me is disgraceful," said King. "If you can't take a political hit, then you can't send soldiers into war to take real bullets."
While lambasting the group of GOPers who sat with LaHood, he pointed out something that I hope truly sticks with him, and maybe some others: the concept of voting as you see fit, regardless of the "political hit." How often do you see that in this day of guarding your seat in the House or Senate where everyone wants to vote the popular way?
"I don't think there's any doubt that when the president's polling numbers are low that it harms the Republican Party in general, but I think that when it comes election time that the overwhelming majority of Americans will choose their candidate on the basis of that individual candidate's qualifications, vision and record," McCain said.
He says this as some of the GOP is shifting into recovery mode, distancing themselves from Bush just like last fall when the Dems capitalized on increasingly bad public opinion of the GOP majority. At least this time, the GOP isn't waiting until 6 weeks before the election to start treating Bush like a leper. Now that some of the House GOP are talking back to Bush, what will that mean?
The president "listened very carefully," Representative Ray LaHood (R-Illinois) said. "I don't know if surprised was the right word. I think maybe sobered. I don't know if he's gotten that kind of opinion before in such a frank and no holds barred way. He listened intently."
Are you telling me that Bush has never seen the Daily Show? Read the Onion? Possibly listened to someone outside of his immediate staff or rolled down the window on a drive through DC? How long was Cindy Sheehan camping in his driveway?
At the same time, a tidbit comes from Rep. Peter King out in Long Island.
"Members of Congress, whether in my party or the other party, who supported the war and are now turning against it because it's unpopular, that to me is disgraceful," said King. "If you can't take a political hit, then you can't send soldiers into war to take real bullets."
While lambasting the group of GOPers who sat with LaHood, he pointed out something that I hope truly sticks with him, and maybe some others: the concept of voting as you see fit, regardless of the "political hit." How often do you see that in this day of guarding your seat in the House or Senate where everyone wants to vote the popular way?
5.09.2007
i'm confused...
Is Eugene condoning him or wagging a finger at him?
"While it can't be denied his remarks crossed the line, it also must be acknowledged that McGee aimed his vitriol at a popular media figure who has made plenty of mean-spirited remarks about McGee and his son on his radio show and in the blogosphere in the past."
That sounds to me like he's making an excuse for McGee, saying that it's simply overstepping his boundaries in a response aimed at a nemesis.
He also uses McGee's immediate suspension as a basis "against the allegations of a double standard in society that allows black people to escape punishment for hateful speech when whites are vilified for the same thing."
As I understand it, this wasn't a racially wrong remark, so much as it was just tasteless, crude and morally corrupted. As much as Sykes may be a tool, the commentary offered by McGee was just ridiculous, and would be whether made by black, white, or decrepit men in cowboy hats.
And, if you're going to argue that there's no real parallel between the Imus remark and McGee's commentary, don't make the double standard arguement using the two. It's got to be one or the other. There's too many people saying something just to say something, without actually taking a stance.
"While it can't be denied his remarks crossed the line, it also must be acknowledged that McGee aimed his vitriol at a popular media figure who has made plenty of mean-spirited remarks about McGee and his son on his radio show and in the blogosphere in the past."
That sounds to me like he's making an excuse for McGee, saying that it's simply overstepping his boundaries in a response aimed at a nemesis.
He also uses McGee's immediate suspension as a basis "against the allegations of a double standard in society that allows black people to escape punishment for hateful speech when whites are vilified for the same thing."
As I understand it, this wasn't a racially wrong remark, so much as it was just tasteless, crude and morally corrupted. As much as Sykes may be a tool, the commentary offered by McGee was just ridiculous, and would be whether made by black, white, or decrepit men in cowboy hats.
And, if you're going to argue that there's no real parallel between the Imus remark and McGee's commentary, don't make the double standard arguement using the two. It's got to be one or the other. There's too many people saying something just to say something, without actually taking a stance.
5.04.2007
food stamps...
A new measure is being put forward to allow wider access to food stamps. The previous set of rules blocked deadbeat parents and unemployed who didn't attend job-training classes from receiving them. The Reps are mad again...
"This make no sense to me whatsoever," said Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, when discussing allowing parents who owe child support to be allowed to get food stamps. "Deadbeat parents will be laughing all the way to the grocery store on this one."
I'm trying to figure out where the laughing comes in.
Personally, I don't much like deadbeat parents. Seeing how some states deal with them, I'd like to see a more focused effort to get to them. Withholding food, however, is a bit on the drastic side. According to Chippewa.com, the actual value works out to $80 a month, less than $1000 a year. Given the choice between a desperate and hungry parent not caring enough to even contemplate child support, or a fed and possibly working parent...I'd choose to give out the stamps. And for that minor value, does Suder realize that they aren't eating nearly as well as he is on his $45,000+ yearly salary, including $88 per day whenever in Madison on state business?
I find it a bit funny that he gets a bigger daily food stamp than the homeless are granted in a month, although he does deserve credit for refusing to accept his yearly pay raise since 2000. And when he's making efforts to include our farmers in state health care, I find this reaction a bit over the top. As a guy who seems to be looking out for the little guy, with his heart in the right place, what's so off the wall about feeding deadbeats?
My suggestion would be to let them eat, but enforce a stricter regimen of support. In Mississippi, for example, you cannot apply for a job without signing a consent form that allows the state to review your records to see if you owe child support. The garnishing of your pay is automatic. It's a sad thing that societal issues have forced that in Mississippi, but it's still an effective and honorable law. Why not nationwide?
"This make no sense to me whatsoever," said Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, when discussing allowing parents who owe child support to be allowed to get food stamps. "Deadbeat parents will be laughing all the way to the grocery store on this one."
I'm trying to figure out where the laughing comes in.
Personally, I don't much like deadbeat parents. Seeing how some states deal with them, I'd like to see a more focused effort to get to them. Withholding food, however, is a bit on the drastic side. According to Chippewa.com, the actual value works out to $80 a month, less than $1000 a year. Given the choice between a desperate and hungry parent not caring enough to even contemplate child support, or a fed and possibly working parent...I'd choose to give out the stamps. And for that minor value, does Suder realize that they aren't eating nearly as well as he is on his $45,000+ yearly salary, including $88 per day whenever in Madison on state business?
I find it a bit funny that he gets a bigger daily food stamp than the homeless are granted in a month, although he does deserve credit for refusing to accept his yearly pay raise since 2000. And when he's making efforts to include our farmers in state health care, I find this reaction a bit over the top. As a guy who seems to be looking out for the little guy, with his heart in the right place, what's so off the wall about feeding deadbeats?
My suggestion would be to let them eat, but enforce a stricter regimen of support. In Mississippi, for example, you cannot apply for a job without signing a consent form that allows the state to review your records to see if you owe child support. The garnishing of your pay is automatic. It's a sad thing that societal issues have forced that in Mississippi, but it's still an effective and honorable law. Why not nationwide?
5.02.2007
Oustanding!
Hooray for the Supreme Court!
Here's hoping it's not an empty move and that the Ethics Board is really geared up to follow through on the complaint...
Here's hoping it's not an empty move and that the Ethics Board is really geared up to follow through on the complaint...
5.01.2007
The veto response to Congress?
"This is a prescription for chaos and confusion and we must not impose it on our troops," Bush.
Riiiiight. That chore is reserved to the executive branch.
"Our troops and their families deserve better, and their elected leaders can do better," Bush said.
They do, and our elected president still isn't delivering.
"House Republicans will oppose any bill that includes provisions that undermine our troops and their mission, whether it's benchmarks for failure, arbitrary readiness standards or a timetable for American surrender," said Minority Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio.
There is a constant trend in the GOP to refer to leaving Iraq as surrender and/or failure. It's as if they truly think that this is a winnable effort.
I've commented before that this entire conflict has the same concept of our actions in the late 1700's. The Continental Army was facing a well-provisioned, tactically sound, superior force. Luckily, our leaders used our land and a new plan to help us succeed. Essentially, the original patriots, fighting against the British, used the same tactics we're seeing in Iraq. Never stand and fight toe-to-toe. Take your shots and back away. Make them chase you. Attack when and where they least expect it.
These are tactics that are sound, and historically, they are successful. They are being used by people who want us and our influence out of their land.
Now, we're playing the part of the Redcoats. We've got the best weapons money can buy for the best troops active in the world. And they're fighting an organized campaign against guerrilla warfare. Fighting against men, women and children who do not care if they live or die while fighting Americans. One man with one bomb will give his life to kill any number of others, soldier or fellow Iraqi, innocent bystander or not.
I support these men and women. I truly believe that we all do.
But they cannot win.
We cannot possibly know who is and is not a terrorist. We cannot possibly track them all, at any time, wherever they may go. That said, how can you fight a war against terrorists? How can you believe that capturing or killing the leaders is a stoppage to their efforts? How long can this go on until these groups unify and take the battle to our soil again?
We should be using the best troops and the best weapons to defend our own borders. They should be home protecting us and ensuring there is no repeat of 9/11, not losing their lives in a vain battle that can never be won. The longer this continues, the less likely we are to see an end. Am I the only one who sees it this way? Why doesn't anyone ever bring this up?
Riiiiight. That chore is reserved to the executive branch.
"Our troops and their families deserve better, and their elected leaders can do better," Bush said.
They do, and our elected president still isn't delivering.
"House Republicans will oppose any bill that includes provisions that undermine our troops and their mission, whether it's benchmarks for failure, arbitrary readiness standards or a timetable for American surrender," said Minority Leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio.
There is a constant trend in the GOP to refer to leaving Iraq as surrender and/or failure. It's as if they truly think that this is a winnable effort.
I've commented before that this entire conflict has the same concept of our actions in the late 1700's. The Continental Army was facing a well-provisioned, tactically sound, superior force. Luckily, our leaders used our land and a new plan to help us succeed. Essentially, the original patriots, fighting against the British, used the same tactics we're seeing in Iraq. Never stand and fight toe-to-toe. Take your shots and back away. Make them chase you. Attack when and where they least expect it.
These are tactics that are sound, and historically, they are successful. They are being used by people who want us and our influence out of their land.
Now, we're playing the part of the Redcoats. We've got the best weapons money can buy for the best troops active in the world. And they're fighting an organized campaign against guerrilla warfare. Fighting against men, women and children who do not care if they live or die while fighting Americans. One man with one bomb will give his life to kill any number of others, soldier or fellow Iraqi, innocent bystander or not.
I support these men and women. I truly believe that we all do.
But they cannot win.
We cannot possibly know who is and is not a terrorist. We cannot possibly track them all, at any time, wherever they may go. That said, how can you fight a war against terrorists? How can you believe that capturing or killing the leaders is a stoppage to their efforts? How long can this go on until these groups unify and take the battle to our soil again?
We should be using the best troops and the best weapons to defend our own borders. They should be home protecting us and ensuring there is no repeat of 9/11, not losing their lives in a vain battle that can never be won. The longer this continues, the less likely we are to see an end. Am I the only one who sees it this way? Why doesn't anyone ever bring this up?
4.30.2007
Elder and lack-of Sensenbrenner...
Larry and Jim...it's like Tucker Carlson has friends...
Writing for the Jewish World Review, Larry Elder goes on to yammer about the topic of global warming, supposely in answer to fan mail of some sort.
Beginning first by pointing out, correctly, that the scientific community as a whole is still not completely sold on global warming, he then goes on to provide every possible excuse not to do anything about it anyway.
Starting with the general expense, based off of the reader's thought that "if the scientists are wrong, the worst case comes down to a few lost bucks," Elder points out that we would be courting economic collapse: "lots of lost bucks, retarded economic growth, lost jobs and weakened worker pensions, all while making nations, especially Third World countries, less prosperous."
This goes further to include a widening of the gap between rich and poor, countries becoming less financially stable, all leading to a breakdown in political stability. This assertion, of course, ties directly to a bump in Islamofacists, one of Elder's favorite phrases. I'm now starting to see that this whole global warming thing is tied to an increase in terrorist activities.
Additionally, according to Elder, the Kyoto Accords are worthless. Since India and China, with their advanced population and addition to CO2 production, are not on board, any benefits gained by the efforts of the signees are lost. So, why bother to make an effort ourselves?
In another piece, Global Warming Makes People Gay (which is tongue-in-cheek, thankfully), he follows the same tack: there's not enough proof, it costs too much, China and India aren't doing it, so ignore it and move on.
Sadly, it's even questioned in our own neighborhood by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner on The Hill, taken from the AP:
"I will have many questions about why global warming has suddenly become an issue of national defense," Sensenbrenner said. Later in the hearing he complained that alarmism over climate change is unnecessarily frightening America's children.
Alarmism... Unnecessary panic... Would this be like showing a heat index next to the terror alert level?
Admittedly, here in Wisconsin, where we have the possibility of snowfall on 9 months of the year, global waming could be a novel concept. Imagine what it'd be like at a Packers game in late December where it's only 40 degrees... Or a January with negligible snowfall, a record number of days above 30 degrees, and never hitting a lower temp than 19 degrees... (Thanks to NOAA)
Too bad that happened this past winter. Not to say that it's evidence of global warming, but it's an idea of what a global warming trend will bring. Expound that around the globe, run it along for several years, and you can end up with a hell of a mess. Elder's idea of a breakdown in financial stability degrading into chaos would be a reality. We're looking at a worse-case scenario, but it's one that can potentialy be avoided.
Inaction? That's a threat to national security if there ever was one...
Writing for the Jewish World Review, Larry Elder goes on to yammer about the topic of global warming, supposely in answer to fan mail of some sort.
Beginning first by pointing out, correctly, that the scientific community as a whole is still not completely sold on global warming, he then goes on to provide every possible excuse not to do anything about it anyway.
Starting with the general expense, based off of the reader's thought that "if the scientists are wrong, the worst case comes down to a few lost bucks," Elder points out that we would be courting economic collapse: "lots of lost bucks, retarded economic growth, lost jobs and weakened worker pensions, all while making nations, especially Third World countries, less prosperous."
This goes further to include a widening of the gap between rich and poor, countries becoming less financially stable, all leading to a breakdown in political stability. This assertion, of course, ties directly to a bump in Islamofacists, one of Elder's favorite phrases. I'm now starting to see that this whole global warming thing is tied to an increase in terrorist activities.
Additionally, according to Elder, the Kyoto Accords are worthless. Since India and China, with their advanced population and addition to CO2 production, are not on board, any benefits gained by the efforts of the signees are lost. So, why bother to make an effort ourselves?
In another piece, Global Warming Makes People Gay (which is tongue-in-cheek, thankfully), he follows the same tack: there's not enough proof, it costs too much, China and India aren't doing it, so ignore it and move on.
Sadly, it's even questioned in our own neighborhood by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner on The Hill, taken from the AP:
"I will have many questions about why global warming has suddenly become an issue of national defense," Sensenbrenner said. Later in the hearing he complained that alarmism over climate change is unnecessarily frightening America's children.
Alarmism... Unnecessary panic... Would this be like showing a heat index next to the terror alert level?
Admittedly, here in Wisconsin, where we have the possibility of snowfall on 9 months of the year, global waming could be a novel concept. Imagine what it'd be like at a Packers game in late December where it's only 40 degrees... Or a January with negligible snowfall, a record number of days above 30 degrees, and never hitting a lower temp than 19 degrees... (Thanks to NOAA)
Too bad that happened this past winter. Not to say that it's evidence of global warming, but it's an idea of what a global warming trend will bring. Expound that around the globe, run it along for several years, and you can end up with a hell of a mess. Elder's idea of a breakdown in financial stability degrading into chaos would be a reality. We're looking at a worse-case scenario, but it's one that can potentialy be avoided.
Inaction? That's a threat to national security if there ever was one...
4.27.2007
A little shout-out to John Hawkins...
...over at townhall.com. I read his piece on the 10 differences between conservatives and liberals. I'd like to avoid saying that it was biased and more than a little hypocritical, so I won't.
It definitely makes for an interesting primer on why some people, like the Hannity's and O'Reilly's of the world, can irritate people so well. Self-serving fodder would be one description. Conservative propaganda would be another. Pompous rhetoric has a nice feel though.
First to last?
-Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they're pragmatic and because they work.
-Such as the Patriot Act? Or No Child Left Behind? Maybe you were referring to any semblance of a foreign policy?
-Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper.
-Why do they always play the Christian card? Insisting upon equal representation of religion is a Constitutionally given right. If you want to pray in school, then everyone should be allowed to pray in their own way. And the concept of separation of church and state is important. Keep that in mind should we elect a non-Christian president, because you'll be hounding that point later.
-Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country.
-We question the greatness of our nation, and the policies of our nation because we are patriotic. We question the response of the world to our actions because we are interested in maintaining the goodwill and respect of other nations. Having our troops home and safe, protecting our borders, will do more for the good of our country than spending years fighting an unwinnable war against a constantly growing terrorist threat that we are further nurturing with each day we occupy Iraq.
-Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry.
-Having seen the last six years of the Bush Administration, I fully agree. Time for change...
-Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it's vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt.
-I'm not sure how much of the government was reduced with the Bush Admin, but my taxes aren't exactly low, I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Clinton had us working on a surplus, and we were heading out of debt. At least until 2000, anyway.
-Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens.
-I'm fairly sure Liberals feel the same, but I think we ultimately prefer to not have our troops dying overseas in a futile attempt to confront enemies that stay hidden the majority of the time. Talking of arresting them in the act is just foolish. The abject failure of the Patriot Act proved that.
-Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion.
-Sanctity of life is a great argument. Defend the embryo, kill the Arab, force a rape victim to bear an unwanted child, and send another soldier to die overseas for this Administration's vanity. How very Christian of you...
And before you say that the soldiers are dying there so that we may live here, what's wrong with stem cell research?
-Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn't be punished for being successful.
-Socialists? Really? Because we think someone with ridiculous excess should pay a fair and proportionate amount? We don't respect high achievers? If they got as far as they did by working hard and being protected by the rights established by our nation, there's no reason for them to be excepted from the system simply for having more money. Saying we look at them as "piggy banks for (our) programs" is like saying you don't look at them as donors and special interests for your elections. Besides, it's not hard work making a profit when you're charging well over $3 at the pump.
-Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. On the other hand, liberals believe that it's ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.
-Right. Conservatives are color blind, accepting of all white people. As far as character and merits of ones actions... Ted Haggard was pretty well thought of...is his character back out of the closet yet?
-Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose. Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren't going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.
-Sure, give the handguns to law enforcement. Everyone else can make due with long-barrel weapons. Hawkins already commented that the Va Tech shootings are an argument against gun control, "a perfect example of how gun control puts decent people at the mercy of criminals," which is a fair take on the situation, especially after hearing some VA Tech kid talk on CNN about how it might have been different if other kids had guns to defend themselves.
-Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires instead of legislating from the bench. That means that judges should determine whether laws are permissible under the Constitution and settle debates about the meaning of laws, not impose their will based on their ideological leanings.
-There is no way that you can tell me that any of Bush's Supreme Court choices were in no way motivated by his or their ideological leanings. If Conservatives do not wish to impose their will from the bench and not legislate, then Roe v. Wade stays on the books. And Texas v. Johnson.
And W. Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett.
For someone with such a resume who puts together one article a week for townhall, it’s sad that he has to resort to regurgitating Ann Coulter and the rest of the posse to keep the checks coming in. A little originality? Too much to ask?
It definitely makes for an interesting primer on why some people, like the Hannity's and O'Reilly's of the world, can irritate people so well. Self-serving fodder would be one description. Conservative propaganda would be another. Pompous rhetoric has a nice feel though.
First to last?
-Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they're pragmatic and because they work.
-Such as the Patriot Act? Or No Child Left Behind? Maybe you were referring to any semblance of a foreign policy?
-Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper.
-Why do they always play the Christian card? Insisting upon equal representation of religion is a Constitutionally given right. If you want to pray in school, then everyone should be allowed to pray in their own way. And the concept of separation of church and state is important. Keep that in mind should we elect a non-Christian president, because you'll be hounding that point later.
-Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country.
-We question the greatness of our nation, and the policies of our nation because we are patriotic. We question the response of the world to our actions because we are interested in maintaining the goodwill and respect of other nations. Having our troops home and safe, protecting our borders, will do more for the good of our country than spending years fighting an unwinnable war against a constantly growing terrorist threat that we are further nurturing with each day we occupy Iraq.
-Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry.
-Having seen the last six years of the Bush Administration, I fully agree. Time for change...
-Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it's vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt.
-I'm not sure how much of the government was reduced with the Bush Admin, but my taxes aren't exactly low, I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Clinton had us working on a surplus, and we were heading out of debt. At least until 2000, anyway.
-Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens.
-I'm fairly sure Liberals feel the same, but I think we ultimately prefer to not have our troops dying overseas in a futile attempt to confront enemies that stay hidden the majority of the time. Talking of arresting them in the act is just foolish. The abject failure of the Patriot Act proved that.
-Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion.
-Sanctity of life is a great argument. Defend the embryo, kill the Arab, force a rape victim to bear an unwanted child, and send another soldier to die overseas for this Administration's vanity. How very Christian of you...
And before you say that the soldiers are dying there so that we may live here, what's wrong with stem cell research?
-Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn't be punished for being successful.
-Socialists? Really? Because we think someone with ridiculous excess should pay a fair and proportionate amount? We don't respect high achievers? If they got as far as they did by working hard and being protected by the rights established by our nation, there's no reason for them to be excepted from the system simply for having more money. Saying we look at them as "piggy banks for (our) programs" is like saying you don't look at them as donors and special interests for your elections. Besides, it's not hard work making a profit when you're charging well over $3 at the pump.
-Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. On the other hand, liberals believe that it's ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.
-Right. Conservatives are color blind, accepting of all white people. As far as character and merits of ones actions... Ted Haggard was pretty well thought of...is his character back out of the closet yet?
-Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose. Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren't going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.
-Sure, give the handguns to law enforcement. Everyone else can make due with long-barrel weapons. Hawkins already commented that the Va Tech shootings are an argument against gun control, "a perfect example of how gun control puts decent people at the mercy of criminals," which is a fair take on the situation, especially after hearing some VA Tech kid talk on CNN about how it might have been different if other kids had guns to defend themselves.
-Conservatives believe that judges should act like umpires instead of legislating from the bench. That means that judges should determine whether laws are permissible under the Constitution and settle debates about the meaning of laws, not impose their will based on their ideological leanings.
-There is no way that you can tell me that any of Bush's Supreme Court choices were in no way motivated by his or their ideological leanings. If Conservatives do not wish to impose their will from the bench and not legislate, then Roe v. Wade stays on the books. And Texas v. Johnson.
And W. Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett.
For someone with such a resume who puts together one article a week for townhall, it’s sad that he has to resort to regurgitating Ann Coulter and the rest of the posse to keep the checks coming in. A little originality? Too much to ask?
4.26.2007
Hiding Something Annette?
State Supreme Court Elect Annette Ziegler is looking to bury some more skeletons...
Wispolitics.com posted a copy of a petition by Ziegler's legal representation that asks her potential peers to bar the State Ethics Board from looking into her somewhat shady dealings in cases involving West Bend Savings Bank, a company for which her husband is a member of the Board of Directors.
The petition tries to point out that the actual sums involved in each instance are minor, as well as the compensation that her husband is given for serving on the Board. Beyond that, there is also the claim that neither Ziegler nor any other member of her family benefitted financially from the decisions. Understandable as that may be, the Ethics Board rules on moral substance, and Ziegler's decision not to recuse herself from these cases reeks of flawed judgement.
"Questionable" would be a soft description of this action, as she seems to have the need to hide herself from moral scrutiny while the Judicial Commission investigates the techinical and tangible aspects of her actions.
Whether or not she will be allowed to actually assume the seat that she won (by outbidding her opponent an estimated $5.25 mil to $750k thanks to WMC and other 3rd parties) remains to be seen.
As Ziegler still cannot seem to grasp the idea that she should be just as vulnerable as anyone else to investigation of wrong-doing, there is a definite flaw inherent in the Justice-Elect. How on Earth could anyone have any faith or trust in a lawmaker who would work so hard so keep the laws from applying to herself?
Wispolitics.com posted a copy of a petition by Ziegler's legal representation that asks her potential peers to bar the State Ethics Board from looking into her somewhat shady dealings in cases involving West Bend Savings Bank, a company for which her husband is a member of the Board of Directors.
The petition tries to point out that the actual sums involved in each instance are minor, as well as the compensation that her husband is given for serving on the Board. Beyond that, there is also the claim that neither Ziegler nor any other member of her family benefitted financially from the decisions. Understandable as that may be, the Ethics Board rules on moral substance, and Ziegler's decision not to recuse herself from these cases reeks of flawed judgement.
"Questionable" would be a soft description of this action, as she seems to have the need to hide herself from moral scrutiny while the Judicial Commission investigates the techinical and tangible aspects of her actions.
Whether or not she will be allowed to actually assume the seat that she won (by outbidding her opponent an estimated $5.25 mil to $750k thanks to WMC and other 3rd parties) remains to be seen.
As Ziegler still cannot seem to grasp the idea that she should be just as vulnerable as anyone else to investigation of wrong-doing, there is a definite flaw inherent in the Justice-Elect. How on Earth could anyone have any faith or trust in a lawmaker who would work so hard so keep the laws from applying to herself?
4.25.2007
Darwinism in Wisconsin?
Reading through our daily supplement of blogs and news articles, Cory Liebmann at onewisconsinnow.org caught my eye. At a forum hosted by the Institute for One Wisconsin, a health care plan, Smart Medicine, was presented by Jon Rauser. This plan is co-sponsored by Senators Alberta Darling (R-River Hills) and Carol Roessler (R-Oshkosh), with Darling present at the forum.
After Rauser spent some time railing against other plans, he brought up the time-honored stand-by, Health Savings Accounts. From his perspective, which is also that of his employer, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, HSA's "are a rising star in healthcare reform. Over 3 million Americans are currently enrolled in HSAs, which represents a tripling of enrollees since March 2005, and 40% of those enrollees were previously uninsured." I'm still looking for the numbers, but I don't believe that all 3 million ran out to sign up for the HSA's, mostly due to the fact that these tend to be offered by companies as an alternative to a comprehensive healthcare plan that they do not want to foot the bill for.
By alternative, I mean that given a choice between trying to set money aside on your own, or paying perhaps 50% of the monthly premium on what Walmart may be paying you, the sound decision is having enough money for groceries and heat, with money for the HSA when it might be possible.
The Americans for Prosperity Foundation claims to be "advancing every individuals right to economic freedom and opportunity," and they may be billing their HSA drive as "providing more choice for less cost," but who is getting the benefit of less cost, and who, exactly, gets economic freedom when they run into something more than the flu?
And this all brings it down to the best point that Rauser made: "The only way to control health care costs is to withhold care. Think about that."
Ah, we withhold care. That saves money...usually for those in the CEO set who make the decision to embrace HSA's rather than HMO's for less cost. And that would tackle the economic freedom question as well. If you can't afford to set money aside on a high enough plateau, you're free to not receive treatment that you cannot afford. Survival of the fittest...
And, just as a little icing on the cake, at no point in the forum, even when the podium was hers, did Alberta Darling once try to correct or alter the statements made by Jon Rauser.
After Rauser spent some time railing against other plans, he brought up the time-honored stand-by, Health Savings Accounts. From his perspective, which is also that of his employer, the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, HSA's "are a rising star in healthcare reform. Over 3 million Americans are currently enrolled in HSAs, which represents a tripling of enrollees since March 2005, and 40% of those enrollees were previously uninsured." I'm still looking for the numbers, but I don't believe that all 3 million ran out to sign up for the HSA's, mostly due to the fact that these tend to be offered by companies as an alternative to a comprehensive healthcare plan that they do not want to foot the bill for.
By alternative, I mean that given a choice between trying to set money aside on your own, or paying perhaps 50% of the monthly premium on what Walmart may be paying you, the sound decision is having enough money for groceries and heat, with money for the HSA when it might be possible.
The Americans for Prosperity Foundation claims to be "advancing every individuals right to economic freedom and opportunity," and they may be billing their HSA drive as "providing more choice for less cost," but who is getting the benefit of less cost, and who, exactly, gets economic freedom when they run into something more than the flu?
And this all brings it down to the best point that Rauser made: "The only way to control health care costs is to withhold care. Think about that."
Ah, we withhold care. That saves money...usually for those in the CEO set who make the decision to embrace HSA's rather than HMO's for less cost. And that would tackle the economic freedom question as well. If you can't afford to set money aside on a high enough plateau, you're free to not receive treatment that you cannot afford. Survival of the fittest...
And, just as a little icing on the cake, at no point in the forum, even when the podium was hers, did Alberta Darling once try to correct or alter the statements made by Jon Rauser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)