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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)