Personal Made Public

Republicans preach tax reductions and spending reductions, but what we've been seeing is tax reductions (predominantly for the wealthy) with spending increases, all funded via additional debt which will eventually mean higher taxes plus interest for us all.

See for yourself.

I'm not saying you should expect great fiscal responsibility from the Democrats, either, but the Republicans need to put up or shut up. Controlling spending? Who? Where? All I've seen in the past few years is a government grown bloated and corrupt with massive diversions of public funds into the pockets of private contractors and perks for politicians while one bill after another is introduced to protect the profits of large corporate benefactors at the expense of the pocketbooks and rights of American citizens.

Posted by Kevin at 07:40 PM | Permalink

Expanding upon a slashdot sig:

In Soviet Russia, the government owned the corporations. In modern America, the reverse is true.

As I watch our intellectual property laws become more and more regressive in hopes of protecting corporate profits for companies that can't figure out how to compete in a changing world, I realize that our patent and copyright law has become exactly the failure Thomas Jefferson warned it might.

Our democracy has been undermined by two dreadful rulings in our courts:

1 - That corporations are people in the eyes of the law and enjoy all the rights thereof.
2 - That the spending of money is free speech.

Bull on both counts.

Corporations are legal entities whose right to exist stops when they act contrary to the public good. They have the right to try to make a profit, but not if they do so in a way that makes our undermines our common best interests.

Money is not speech. That ruling is nothing but a clever tactic to quiet our voices by letting those with wealth control our elections by controlling campaign finance.

Kevin's simple guide to election reform:

1 - If you can't vote, you can't fund campaigns, parties, or PAC's. Donations from citizens only.
2 - You can't provide funds to candidates for whom you can't vote (i.e.: if you live in NC, you can't donate to a California senate candidate). That's their election for their representation, not yours.
3 - No corporation or individual can fund perks for politicians: no junkets, no fancy meals, no "educational travel".
4 - No politician can become a paid lobbyist upon leaving office. Serving our country is a privilege, not a cash cow.

We seriously need to get the corporations out of the process of running our country. I'm not a consumer, I'm a citizen.

Posted by Kevin at 07:08 AM | Permalink

The problem, if there is a problem (and it may not be a problem) will likely go away by itself... or something like that. According to the Associated Press:

"New technologies will change how we live and how we drive our cars which all will have the beneficial effect of improving the environment," Bush said. "And in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the enviroment."

Dear Mr. President:

1 - Not all technological changes lead to an ever-improving environment. In fact, it takes a lot of active effort to make sure that new technologies do as little harm as possible. It doesn't just happen.

2 - We know the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations in the Earth's atmosphere are caused by human activity. I think you must have been trying to discuss global warming and not greenhouse gas concentrations. However, that has also been a dead-and-buried debate except for a few folks such as yourself as the scientific consensus is wide and deep. You are also wrong as to whether or not it matters. It matters because the most effective and cost-effective method of protecting our environment is dependent on understanding the causes of global climate change.

3 - "focus on technologies" What does that mean? Does that mean you now support higher CAFE standards and requiring the installation of technology to reduce the generation of greenhouse gases during manufacturing? What about requiring higher energy efficiency in homes and home appliances to decrease electricity consumption? What about better mass transit? These are technologies that do exactly what you describe: they improve our lives while reducing pollution. Unfortunately, these are steps that you have never shown interest in taking.

It's nice to see you addressing the issue, but you need to address with more than simple platitudes devoid of any vision or strategy. Some leadership of some form, perhaps?

Posted by Kevin at 06:15 PM | Permalink

Today Michelle Malkin links to Brian Maloney's coverage of the NY Times cover-up of Patrick Kennedy's car crash.

Does anyone ever fact check anymore?

The Times is running a story on it on the front page of the website in the top news. From the article:

A minor traffic accident involving Representative Patrick J. Kennedy caused a major stir today as questions arose about the congressman's condition at the time of the mishap and the treatment accorded him by the Capitol police afterward.

But CNN reported today that a police report said Mr. Kennedy had been drinking, and that his ability was impaired. The police report attributed the accident to speed and alcohol influence, driving on the wrong side of the street and inattention by the driver, according to CNN.

It goes on to cover the burgeoning scandal in detail. Where's the frigg'n cover-up?

Of course, blogging from the left of the spectrum isn't much better: Raw Story has a story that spins a principal's refusal to allow an elementary school student to perform "Dear Mr. President" by Pink at the school talent show as being an infringement of rights to political free speech. Of course, the lyrics contain words inappropriate for elementary school performances, drug and alcohol references, and address issues that many parents would rather not have their kindergarten children dealing with at school.

Considering how many real issues we face, is it really necessary for bloggers left or right to be beating war drums for silly or imaginary reasons? The level of discourse in this country is low enough already.

Posted by Kevin at 06:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Republican CongressCritters have been outraged on Capitol Hill about a translation of the Star-Spangled Banner into Spanish. I mean it's never been done before (which means it shouldn't be done now, right?)! What kind of UnPatriotic UnAmerican would be willing to stand up for a rendition of it with hand to heart?!?! If we don't stop this now, where would it end?!?!

Glad our CongressCritters have all our more pressing problems solved...

Posted by Kevin at 08:24 PM | Permalink

Via the Associate Press:

"The lessons of Katrina are important,'' Bush said. "We've learned a lot here at the federal level. We're much more ready this time than we were the last time.''

"Let's, first of all, pray there's no hurricanes,'' Bush said. "That would be, like, step one.''

I feel safer already...

Posted by Kevin at 07:14 AM | Permalink

Gas prices, with some fluctuations, continue trending upward as global demand comes up against a tight global supply. Suddenly everyone in Washington (who have been warned by experts for years that this was coming) wants to be seen as dedicated to solving the problem that they should have been working on a decade or more ago through the development of alternative energy sources (like biofuels, safer nuclear reactors and nuclear fusion research), higher CAFE standards, better public transit and urban planning, and so on.

Instead, the Democrats propose a 60-day suspension of the federal gas tax (just stick the cost of all the lost revenue on the debt, please). There's a sound bit of genius thinking, eh? Of course, it just makes a temporary change in the cost as the underlying price continues up (and just think of the jump when the tax kicked back in!).

Just when I thought you couldn't have a dumber idea than that, the Republicans step up to the plate to suggest that the government just send everyone checks for $100. Again, are we just going to stick that on the debt? It's a cash advance to be paid back with interest when oil prices may be even higher. Another great solution!

Yeesh. Doesn't anyone in Washington have a brain?

Posted by Kevin at 06:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Is there a difference between our political parties with regard to energy policy, the environment, and the big oil companies. Big oil companies seem to think so...

Posted by Kevin at 07:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I remember a time when Republicans were all about protecting the U.S. from outside threats.

These days the Department of Homeland Security is being used to protect multinational pharmaceutical companies from elderly Americans. Hey, guys! Point the guns away from our own Grannies! Go fight a bad guy instead of being the bad guy, okay?

If we had a decent prescription drug plan available here, maybe our seniors wouldn't be buying drugs from Canada (the drug companies DO make a profit off drugs sold in Canada, by the way). Medicare Part D just ensures that seniors pay the maximum possible price since the law prevents Medicare from negotiating lower prices on the drugs. Seniors become captive to the program while the drug companies charge them (and us) the highest rates on the drugs worldwide. What a bargain! No wonder "Homeland Security" has to be called in to protect the drug companies.

What ever happened to the idea of free and open markets? Not under this administration! Now we get Homeland Security enforcing profit-protection for Big Pharma. Are there ANY conservatives left out there or are they all Bushies?

Posted by Kevin at 12:44 PM | Permalink

"For the sake of justice and for the sake of border security, I firmly oppose amnesty," Bush said.

It is estimated that there are 11,000,000 illegal aliens living in working in the United States. What happens if you send 11,000,000 construction workers, maids, groundskeepers, and assembly line workers away? Do we suddenly have a labor shortage? Would our companies be scrambling to raise wages in order to get workers from the shrunken pool? Could they compete globally in that case? What about the American-born children of illegal workers? Do you send these American citizens "home" to a country where they've never been? Do you keep them here and send their parents away?

There's a big battle shaping up over "immigration reform". I can't answer the questions, but I can see that we're looking at another opportunity for politicians to show they are "tough" in order to gain politically while once again hurting all Americans. This needs to be a serious debate, but I don't see much hope in Congress or the White House for intelligent discussion -- especially not in an election year.

If I had to guess, I'd look for a really poorly crafted piece of legislation that either creates a "semi-slave" status for immigrants (you can work here, but you have no rights) or something that cuts off our nose to spite our face (throw them out and build a wall). I guess when the politicians have screwed up this badly (National Debt, global warming, Iraq, torture, domestic spying, drug benefits for big corporations...) you have to change the subject and find something NEW to screw up.

Posted by Kevin at 12:09 PM | Permalink

All signs point to a presidential election bid by Hillary Clinton in 2008.

I can't say I definitely won't vote for her in the election because I don't know how bad wacko her opponent might be, but they would have to be really wacko for her to get my vote. I know I'll be opposing her in the primary. I know she has a lot of popularity on the left, but I'm going to have to step forward right now to say that I won't be joining them on this. Let's go over some reasons...

1) "Decency". Yes, in quotes. Clinton is one of the "your government must protect your children" crowd. She supports stricter regulation of movies, television, music and video games. I prefer candidates that protect Free Speech and let parents do the parenting. I don't want the Feds raising my daughter.

2) Iraq. Hillary's position on Iraq: ??? Excuse me, but the mess in the Middle East needs attention. Hillary knows it's a morass and doesn't want to alienate a single potential supporter by offering any direction. Leaders need to lead. Hillary is just playing politics by sniping at Bush while never offering alternatives.

3) Dubai Ports Deal: She was one of the most vocal critics, stoking xenophobia for political gain. Bill Clinton, by comparison, actually worked with the Emirates in an attempt to help them negotiate the uproar over the deal. The UAE, by the way, contributed $100,000,000 towards Hurricane Katrina relief.

4) "Flip-flop": Again and again I see Hillary Clinton shifting stands based on political advantage. Where does she really stand? I think I know, and I actually approve in some cases, but if she won't play straight with us, I don't want her running.

5) Too far left: I'm a liberal. No doubt about it. However, that doesn't mean I'm an extremist. I'm an environmentalist. I favor ample funding for basic science via the government. I see a need for the government to overhaul healthcare (sorry, but our economy needs mobility in its workforce, and if your health insurance isn't portable, you're stuck!). I feel there is too much corporate welfare. I believe in progressive taxation. I don't think more guns make us safer. I don't like our current global militarism. I'm very liberal on social issues: everyone's rights to freedom of speech and religion need protecting, not just the mainstream. However, I also realize that respecting everyone's rights means creating laws we can all live with. Just like the far-right pushes extremist laws that enshrine their religion, morality and prejudices, I fear that Hillary would push ideas that are just too far out of the mainstream on the other end. I still believe that most Americans just want to live and let live as long as no one is in their face over differences (though the evangelical nuts are showing alarming growth). I think Hillary Clinton would push a social agenda that would further polarize our society. We need more tolerance, not greater polarization. Hillary Clinton would divide us further in a time when we need to find middle ground.

Hillary Clinton is smart, savvy, and cunning. She also honestly believes some of the same things I do. However, she is first and foremost a politician, and her quest for political power comes first. I don't need another politician who will say one thing to please the masses while pursuing another. We need a statesman.

Posted by Kevin at 07:00 AM | Permalink

It's a rare occasion that agree with George W. Bush, but this is one of those times: the Dubai Ports Deal should have gone through.

The bottom line is that Dubai would not have been responsible for security at our ports -- and even if they were we really don't do much port security anyway. However, inspections and security would remain in U.S. hands and we aren't even talking about replacing American workers with foreign ones. We're just talking about a change of ownership and management for running the docks.

Republicans and Democrats both made a big deal over this. Everyone saw political gains to be made. My first reaction was like most until I read more about it and found just how little was involved. This is just another case of foreign investment. We need foreign investment.

Xenophobia is not going to win us any friends, especially while we aggressively pursue opportunities abroad for American multinationals. What, we can have multinationals buy no one else can?

Thanks to this debacle, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are talking about moving currency reserves from dollars to Euros. That's bad news for us. Oil is currently demoninated in dollars. Oil is the foundation that, more than any other commodity, backs currency. The country whose currency is that in which oil is traded gets a big advantage economically and enjoys the position of "gold standard" for all others. A switch from dollars to Euros is not a good thing for us.

Bush was right. The Congressional Democrats and Republicans played up the "threat" in order to get some publicity, but traded away important international standing for the United States. They benefited from the uproar, and we'll get to pay for it.

Agreeing with Bush? I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Posted by Kevin at 07:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

We're going to drill in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. It's going to happen, like it or not. As oil costs skyrocket, the political pressure will mount. Sooner or later the cries to drill will override concerns for the refuge: we're going to drill.

Okay, so how much will it help? I'm writing this as an analysis for my own sake. My dad fervently believes that we should drill. I would rather we didn't, both for environmental reasons and to save the oil for a time when it may really be needed instead of simply as a price-reducing lever.

First, how much oil is there? The best estimate of recoverable reserves is 10.3 bbl (billion barrels). That's the estimate of the Energy Information Administration which answers to the President. I have to admit I have suspicions about the accuracy of data from the Executive Branch under the current administration, but let's go with those numbers.

Now the life of an oil field follows a predictable bell curve of production: after discovery it ramps up, eventually peaks, and then goes into a long, slow decline. Let's assume that 90% of the field is exploited over the first 40 years of the field's life. If so, ANWR will provide us with 0.9 x 10.3 bbl / 40 yrs = 0.23 bbl/yr or 230 mbl/yr (millions barrels per year) on average during the first forty years of it's life.

What kind of dent does 230 mbl/yr make for us?

According to the CIA World Factbook, the US uses a hair over 20 mbl/day (7.3 bbl/yr) as of 2003. Assuming that there is no increase in the use of oil in the US during the life of the field (very unlikely, but let's just go with it for the sake of argument), this means that ANWR will provide enough oil to cover 3% of US consumption. Of course no one expects consumption to remain steady over the coming years, so how much breathing room will ANWR buy us? At a 2% annual growth rate ANWR will cover our growth for under 18 months.

Hmm.... that's it? 18 months (if our economy grows only 2% a year)???

Well, we're going to do it. Doesn't seem to make sense to me environmentally or strategically, but we'll delay some of the rise in oil prices for 18 months. Considering that we are giving up an important reserve, I sure hope that we use that 18 months wisely. Unfortunately, I don't hear any such push.

Posted by Kevin at 07:04 PM | Permalink

I was just reading about a conference held by the conservative Cato Insitute. They put Bush's feet to the fire, and rightly so: the Neocons are NOT conservatives.

How do they feel about Bush?

"unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept."

"reckless" and "a socialist," and accused him of betraying "almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for."

"a 48 percent increase in spending in just six years," a "federalization of public schools" and "the biggest entitlement since LBJ."

complete contempt for democratic processes, torture of detainees, ignoring habeas corpus and a "vast expansion of the federal government."

people in this administration have no principles

The list went on and on.

I have often disagreed with conservatives over tax policy, foreign policy and environmental issues, but I respect their thinking because it is often intelligent and mature. I confess that on many of the issues I could be wrong and they could be right.

This administration is NOT conservative. They ignore the facts or twist them to suit their needs: real conservatives use the facts to shape policy, not policy to shape "facts". Real conservatives are typically people of character, and therefore believe in working within the law. Starting wars with bogus intelligence, torturing detainees, spying without warrants: these are not conservative values. Tax cuts with spending increases (while keeping the AMT -- a stealth tax about to envelope the middle-class) is not conservative. Liberals might raise taxes and spending, but no one but a neocon would cut taxes AND increase spending: the worst of both worlds! The whole K-Street project, pay-for-access politics, and lack of transparency and accountability: Neocon, not conservative.

It strikes me as sad that there are still conservatives backing the Neocons. They aren't conservatives, and they are doing long-term damage to real conservatives by getting people to associate conservative values with their corruption and irresponsibility.

I hope for the day when conservatives can one again shed themselves of the neocons. The debate between conservative and liberal is healthy. The neocons, however, aren't liberal and aren't conservative, but they ARE running America into the ground with corruption, militarism, unfunded spending sprees, cronyism and their belief that the Constitution and rule of law don't apply to them. Power corrupts. With the neocons running Congress and the White House it is clear that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Posted by Kevin at 03:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The President's call for more energy independence is important, but it is going to take a lot more than a 22% increase in spending in clean energy research (which is what he called for).

That 22% is supposed to go to develop zero-emission coal-plants (actually a misnomer: these are normal coal plants with a carbon dioxide containment system), solar energy advances, wind energy research, next generation nuclear reactors, new battery technologies for energy storage, fuel cell research, and new technologies for the production of ethanol. That's a big list to which just a little money is going to be applied.

His stated goal is the replacement of 75% of our imports from the Middle East with alternatives by 2025. That's a noble goal, but a 22% increase in clean-energy research isn't going to reach it.

Our dependence on Middle Eastern oil props up and empowers authoritarian extremist regimes throughout the region. It also funds the terrorists which we spend so much money fighting. It is in our strategic interest and is the responsible course of action to wean ourselves from this addiction as quickly as possible.

What it will take is more than a 22% gesture. If we are serious about securing American energy independence, we need an Apollo or Manhattan Project initiative to tackle it.

The good news is that we can harness the power of the private sector to do this, but it would mean offending some of the powers that be, especially Big Oil. Exxon just declared a profit which set a record as the largest profit ever by any corporation. They also reported a decline in the amount of taxes they paid.

Maybe we need to consider taxing oil more heavily. We pay a heavy price for oil in terms of our national security and environment that we don't see at the pump. A national oil tax could be phased in to lessen the economic impact, and the proceeds would be used to fund additional research and development for alternatives, especially in the transportation sector. The proceeds could also be used to pay for incentives for Americans who switch to high-effiency gasoline vehicles or alternative fuel vehicles, as well as to subsidize upgrades to public transit where feasible.

A 22% increase in grants to pay energy companies to research alternatives at a time when energy companies are showing record profitability is not going to get us energy independence in the time frame we need. It's going to take a much bigger vision and much more work than that to meet our energy needs, and those needs are only getting bigger.

UPDATED 2/5/2006: Someone recently clued me in to the fact that the portions of the Department of Energy that research the areas in which Bush expressed interest are set to launch layoffs this coming week. The 2006 budget for this department was reduced by 18% over 2005. A 22% increase would therefore actually be a 4% increase in research dollars.

Posted by Kevin at 07:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

President Bush touted economic growth as an accomplishment of his administration and credits tax cuts as responsible for the growth.

I don't see it.

According to the US Treasury, the national debt at the end of September 2000 was 5.7 trillion dollars. As of 1/30/2006 the debt stands at 8.2 trillion dollars. That's a 44% growth in debt under the Bush Administration and 2.5 trillion additional dollars taxpayers must pay back. Yes, taxes fell, but the theory that the economic stimulus provided by those cuts would generate enough additional revenue to cover the cuts clearly proved dramatically incorrect. Driving economic growth by dramatically spending more than you take in will guarantee problems down the line.

So how much better off are we? The President claimed that millions of jobs have been created during his years in office. That's true, but millions were also lost. Are the new jobs better than the old or are we replacing manufacturing jobs with waiters and sales clerks? It makes all the difference in the world. The place to look is median household income. In 2004 dollars (i.e. inflation adjusted), the median family income in 2004 was $44,389. In 2000 it was $46,058.

From 2000 to 2004 the buying power of the average American family DROPPED by something over three and half percent. In spite of claims of prosperity, the average American household has seen a significant decline in standard of living since 2000.

The economy is growing, but the wealth is not trickling down. Instead, income disparity is widening and most Americans are actually poorer. At the same time, our debt has skyrocketed. It seems to me that the American economy, while being successful for the wealthy, has been a big disappointment for everyone else, and the big bills are yet to come due.

Posted by Kevin at 06:55 AM | Permalink

Last night President Bush defended warrantless wiretapping within the United States as necessary to protect us from terrorists.

What I don't understand, and what I haven't heard the President address, is why these wiretaps would have to avoid ALL judicial review. The special, secret court (FISA) can approve wiretaps retroactively, so Bush is free to tap ANY line he wishes IMMEDIATELY when the need arises as long as the tap later receives judicial review to make certain the powers of the President are not being abused. What circumstance could President Bush possibly be considering where FISA would reject wiretapping of a person in communication with Al Qaeda? Considering the fact that FISA almost never rejects wiretap requests, what is the situation that requires the President to go around the law, especially when the law was carefully crafted to allow him immediate access to wiretaps with only the most limited of review to insure that a president doesn't abuse this sweeping power?

Adding insult to injury, of course, is the fact that evidence collected via wiretaps that do not receive a warrant (either ahead of time or retroactively) will be inadmissable is court and could cost us the ability to lock up those that would harm us. Why pursue a course that allows terror suspects to walk free when all you have to do is let FISA review the tap AFTER THE FACT?

Something smells fishy in this argument.

Posted by Kevin at 06:28 AM | Permalink

After the Long Day
Originally uploaded by fotoshootme.
Check out her work: she's has some gorgeous photos!
The presence of this pic is NO indication
that she agrees with my blog entry.
However, it DOES indicate that I really like her work!

Opinion polls show wide public support for an increase in the federal minimum wage, which falls far short of the income needed to place a family at the federal poverty level. Even the chairman of Wal-Mart has endorsed an increase, saying that a worker earning the minimum wage cannot afford to shop at his stores.

Posted by Kevin at 07:12 AM | Permalink

a wiretap requires a court order. ...When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

George W. Bush, promoting the Patriot Act in April 2004

Posted by Kevin at 09:29 AM | Permalink

From the Associated Press:

Bush defended Vice President Dick Cheney's pre-war assertion that the United States would be welcomed in Iraq as liberators.

''I think we are welcomed,'' he said. ''But it was not a peaceful welcome.''

Say again?

Posted by Kevin at 09:24 PM | Permalink

Q Mr. President, you presided over the largest increase in the size, the power and the cost of the federal government since Lyndon Baines Johnson. A lot of your supporters are wondering what's so conservative about that? And can you answer them, and tell the American people, given the budget deficit, the cost of the war, the cost of Katrina, specifically -- by naming a specific program or revenue measure -- how you're going to pay for all this?

THE PRESIDENT: First, let me remind people that we are at war. And I have pledged to the American people -- and, more importantly, the troops and their families -- we'll make sure they have what it takes to succeed.

What the heck did Bush's answer have to do with the question? Conservative? No, that's NEOconservative. I respect Conservatives even when I disagree with them, but these neocons... bread and circuses for the masses. We'll be paying this off for generations to come.

Posted by Kevin at 07:34 PM | Permalink

This is a stupid, anti-American idea. No president should ever suggest turning the American military on the citizens of his own nation.

Posted by Kevin at 06:08 PM | Permalink

Courtesy of http://intellectualize.org/

Posted by Kevin at 05:26 PM | Permalink

I'm spitting mad!

Republicans talk at length about "responsibility" and "accountability" and about "trust" and "integrity".

Today, a vote in the Senate was called to form an independent, bipartisan commission to look into what went wrong in our government's response to Hurricane Katrina. The Republicans, instead, are seeking a "bipartisan" commission with a strong majority of the members being Republican.

EVERY REPUBLICAN SENATOR (except for La, who did not vote) VOTED AGAINST AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY.

Whitewash! Cover-up! Playing politics while an American city lies in ruins and hundreds to thousands of citizens have died. UNBELIEVABLE!

Both my Republican senators have received angry emails from me. I hope the whole wretched bunch gets swamped with such messages. This is a horrible disgrace.

Posted by Kevin at 06:16 PM | Permalink

The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.

Alexis de Tocqueville

I think it fair to say the Republicans should put away their rhetoric that the Republican party is the party of fiscal restraint. We've seen taxes cut (particularly for the wealthy) while spending has soared during these recent years of Republican majority in Congress and Republican control of the White House. Now, some may justify the tax cuts as stimulus for the economy and the spending as necessary for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but no one can possibly claim anything but a pure disdain for fiscal constraint if they examine the 1,752-page transportation bill that just passed the House and Senate. President Bush plans to sign the bill into law on Wednesday.

On a per capita basis, Alaska fared the best with $1,501 allocated per person (the other 49 states averaged $83 per capita). Alaska representative Dan Young (R-AK) is the chairman of the House Trasportation and Infrastructure Committee. He was quoted by the media as commenting on his efforts to bring money to Alaska via the bill:

I stuffed it like a turkey.

Well, at least he's honest about his pork! The Knik Arm Bridge (to be named "Dan Young's Way" in his honor is a $231 million dollar undertaking which will link Anchorage to, well, nothing. Empty land. Another $223 million dollars has been allocated to for a bridge connecting Ketchikan, Alaska to Gravina Island, population 50. That's an astounding expenditure of 4.5 million dollars PER PERSON. It would be cheaper to buy everyone on the island their own amphibious vehicle!

Now I am not saying that Democrats wouldn't contribute their share to pork if they were in charge (although the books do usually balance better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents), but I am saying that Republicans can't really keep saying they are the party of fiscal responsibility while generating these levels of pork spending.

In other words: if you claim to be the party of smaller government either PUT UP or SHUT UP!

Posted by Kevin at 07:26 PM | Permalink

According to multiple sites including the Washington Post:

President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of - nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time.

The president departed Tuesday for his longest stretch yet away from the White House, arriving at his Crawford ranch in time for weeks of clearing brush, visiting with family and friends, and tending to some outside-the-Beltway politics. By historical standards, it is the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years.

The August getaway is Bush's 49th trip to his cherished ranch since taking office and the 319th day that Bush has spent, entirely or partially, in Crawford - nearly 20 percent of his presidency to date, according to Mark Knoller, a CBS Radio reporter known for keeping better records of the president's travel than the White House itself. Weekends and holidays at Camp David or at his parents' compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, bump up the proportion of Bush's time away from Washington even more.

Meanwhile Al Qaeda issued more threats against Western targets and our military personnel in Iraq. Bush responded

"The comments by the number two man of al Qaeda make it clear Iraq is a part of this war on terror, and we're at war," he told reporters at his Texas ranch.

How can any president justify FIVE WEEKS off?
How can he POSSIBLY justify a FIVE WEEK VACATION while Iraq threatens to unravel and are troops continue to die? It seems to me that someone doesn't have an appropriate sense of duty.

Posted by Kevin at 08:16 PM | Permalink

Back in May I blogged on British MP George Galloway's comments to the Senate about Iraq and heaped much praise on him. Well, his comments may have been courageous, insightful and accurate, but it turns out he's a loose cannon with some poor judgement.

Here's what the BBC is saying today:

In one speech, the MP said: "These poor Iraqis - ragged people, with their sandals, with their Kalashnikovs, with the lightest and most basic of weapons - are writing the names of their cities and towns in the stars, with 145 military operations every day, which has made the country ungovernable.

"We don't know who they are, we don't know their names, we never saw their faces, they don't put up photographs of their martyrs, we don't know the names of their leaders."

Mr Galloway was expelled from the Labour Party over his outspoken remarks about the Iraq war.

He told Syrian Television: "Two of your beautiful daughters are in the hands of foreigners - Jerusalem and Baghdad.

"The foreigners are doing to your daughters as they will.

"The daughters are crying for help and the Arab world is silent. And some of them are collaborating with the rape of these two beautiful Arab daughters."

Are there no statesmen left in world today?

Posted by Kevin at 06:56 PM | Permalink

and be thought a fool than to open it and remove any doubt.

Bush: Schools should teach Intelligent Design

The question in my mind is where to put it in the curriculum. It certainly isn't a scientific theory, so where should we stick it?

(No Ron, I KNOW where you would suggest we stick it, so don't even say it!)

Posted by Kevin at 08:32 PM | Permalink

What does John Bolton (just interim-appointed to be our UN Ambassador by Bush) think? In his own words:

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/UNbelievable.mov

Posted by Kevin at 08:29 PM | Permalink

Based off my limited knowledge of Bush's Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts, I think that if I was in the Senate I would vote to confirm.

I'm not saying that I agree with Robert's conservative leanings, but the man is smart and appears to think through the consequences of his actions. He isn't an evangelical (he's Catholic), and his decisions to date don't look like those of an ideologue. He has the credentials and experience relevant to this position.

If it comes back to the Supreme Court, would he overturn Roe v. Wade? Maybe, but I think it would be for legitimate reasons. I am VERY pro-choice, but I have never been happy that the right to choose ruling was based on the Fourth Amendment (privacy). I think the real decision that we have not made as a society is the determination of when a fetus gains the same legal rights as a person. It's a grey area. I think Roe v. Wade's argument that the right to an abortion is protected by the Fourth Amendment requires a big stretch to the original intent.

So far, Roberts seems to me to be the kind of judge that believes in limiting the power of government, but who doesn't overturn laws lightly. He also seems to be one for whom the meaning of the Constitution is rooted in history rather than the mood of the country. I think this is actually a good thing. If the country wishes to change the Constitution we should do so -- there are processes in place to allow amending it -- we should not simply reinterpret it to suit the current issue of the day.

I think Roberts could be a judge that everyone can respect. If I am right in my initial impressions of him he will make decisions which are unpopular with both conservatives and liberals. The neo-cons may find him to be a mixed blessing: while they normally like to avoid any stretching of the Constitution's meaning, the also tend to grab power and authority for themselves - activities that Roberts might well rule against. They might when a Roe v. Wade rematch only to find the PATRIOT Act tossed on its ear.

It may be that some dark skeletons or extremist views will emerge, but so far I see Roberts as a good choice. I say hold the hearings, skip the filibuster, and (if all goes well) give him a thumbs up.

He's definitely not the worst we could do and may actually be an excellent choice and one of the high points of the Bush presidency (which, admittedly, isn't saying much).

Posted by Kevin at 07:01 PM | Permalink

From the Wikipedia entry on Karl Rove, I bring you a few choice glimpses of the man often called "Bush's Brain". The President also has been known to refer to Rove by several nicknames such as "The Boy Genius", "Turd Blossom", and "The Architect". I'm not kidding about that second one -- look it up!

In 1970, at the age of nineteen and while a protege of Donald Segretti (later convicted as a Watergate conspirator), Rove snuck into the campaign office of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon and stole some letterhead, which he used to print fake campaign rally fliers promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing," and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters. Admitting to the incident much later, Rove said, "I was nineteen and I got involved in a political prank."

In 1986, just before a crucial debate in the election for governor of Texas, Karl Rove announced that his office had been bugged by the Democrats. There was no evidence for this, and it was later discovered that he had bugged his own phone to garner media coverage.

In 1992, Rove was fired from the Bush presidential re-election campaign for leaking information to journalist Robert Novak.

Another example of why Bush, Sr. was a respectable president while Jr. is not. Meanwhile, Rove has some serious conflict of interest issues:

In March 2001, Rove met with executives from Intel, successfully advocating a merger between a Dutch company and an Intel company supplier. Rove owned $100,000 in Intel stock at the time. In June 2001, Rove met with two pharmaceutical industry lobbyists. At the time, Rove held almost $250,000 in drug industry stocks. On 30 June 2001, Rove divested his stocks in 23 companies, which included more than $100,000 in each Enron, Boeing, General Electric, and Pfizer. On 30 June 2001, the White House admitted that Rove was involved in administration energy policy meetings, while at the same time holding stock in energy companies including Enron.

In short, the above biography of Rove casts serious doubts on an any claim that Rove might be the "leak" that Bush promised to fire. Clearly, Rove is just too honorable, respectable and forthright to have a hand in anything this "Rovian". Besides, doesn't the fact that he leaked material to Robert Novak in 1992 prove that he is innocent? I mean, he already did that once, so he would never do it again, right? [ed update: yes, Novak is also involved in the Plame leak]

Right? Anybody?

Posted by Kevin at 07:58 PM | Permalink

From the July 1 Washington Times:

The average U.S. household has already spent almost $1600 on the war in Iraq, according to a report presented in Washington Wednesday. The final bill will be an estimated $3,415, based on the U.S. military's prediction of a three-year military occupation, says the report, citing calculations by economist Doug Henwood.

Bush put it all on CREDIT! You'll need to include interest payments as well.

Of course, if Bush hadn't pushed through big tax cuts which primarily went to the wealthy, you might not have to worry about the big bill coming your way, but that's not how it played out. Bigger and bigger spending combined with tax cuts have led to a staggering debt. That debt looks like it will be the lasting legacy of the Bush Administration.

Posted by Kevin at 06:03 PM | Permalink

George Bush has finally admitted that Global Warming is real and that human activities are at least partly to blame. He suggests that the problem can be addressed by developing new technologies that reduce emissions or sequester carbon. The end result of such technologies would be a reduction in the amounts of greenhouse gas emissions. However, he rejected the idea of setting any emission quotas. To me, that seems contradictory. How can he say he believes we can deploy technologies to reduce emissions while at the same time saying that setting goals wouldn't work because they would kill our economy? If the controls work the quotas would be met. Of course, not taking action is already hurting our economy. Sounds like more double-talk designed to say "we'll fix it, but later".

I thought this made the following pic from Project for the Old American Century Timely:

Posted by Kevin at 07:51 PM | Permalink

Bush has invited just about anyone to have a look at "Gitmo" for themselves. CNN accepted the offer, but had this to say about their visit:

But military ground rules -- including censoring video shot at the facility -- made it nearly impossible for a CNN crew that visited the prison the same day to get a full picture of the prison.

A lawyer for some of the detainees called press tours of the camp "one big charade."

Well, I guess that settles that, eh? Turns out that there must be nothing to hide at Guantanomo. In fact it was all just such boring sameness that there was just no need to waste anyone's time by letting CNN see the rest of it.

I feel so much better now...

Posted by Kevin at 07:45 PM | Permalink

Oliver Willis has a blog of which I am quite fond and visit daily. Of course, any site that has a tagline of "Like Kryptonite to Stupid" has to have some good content.

In any case, Oliver has the following posted:

I wasn’t just talking for talking’s sake here. How many more people have to die until we get it? America was struck in the heart of it’s biggest city, and its capital. Bali was bombed, an attack on Australia. Madrid’s subway was bombed. And now, London, one of the oldest and most pivotal cities on the globe has been bombed.

Al Qaeda and their affiliated groups have declared war on our civilization, and we’ve responded by being feckless and distracted. Why, 4 years after 9/11, and just hours after 7/7, are we continuing to allow Pakistan’s borders to likely harbor Bin Laden - we allow the Saudis to finance terror.

How many more innocent human beings have to die because our leaders refuse to hunt down these killers and end them?

While we are tied down in Iraq, extremists in Saudi Arabia are still sending part of the money we spend on oil over to Al Qaeda to fund terrorist attacks elsewhere. Clearly the efforts in Iraq have not, to date, made the world ANY safer and in fact have likely done exactly the opposite. At the very least it has distracted us while Al Qaeda continues operating.

So, I'll have to stand up with Oliver and make the same request to our leaders:

Can we PLEASE go get Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda now?

Posted by Kevin at 07:00 PM | Permalink

Pat Buchanan's column speaks about the battle for the Supreme Court:

If conservatives can recapture the court, social and moral issues can be returned to where they belong: elected legislatures and executives. The Left will lose its power to advance its social agenda and see a rollback of a revolution imposed undemocratically upon America over 50 years.

Many decisions of the last fifty years will be overturned. The right to choose, restrictions on police powers and domestic spying, protections for the disabled, civil rights protections, worker safety... the list goes on and on.

Of course, the Supreme Court was MEANT to be an "undemocratic" body. It is meant to prevent the Constitution from being subverted by temporary whims of the majority. It defends due process, the procedural framework of our democracy, and the Bill of Rights.

Pat Buchanan HATES the fact that the Constitution and Bill of Rights cannot be ignored in order to pursue One Nation Under The American Taliban's Hateful Version of God. The Far Right is currently holding the reins of power in DC, but it doesn't represent a majority of Americans, and it CERTAINLY doesn't represent the supermajority required to overrule the the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Far Right sees this as a chance to seat extremists on the court that will agree with their ideology. In doing so, they hope to get the court to rule in their favor even when their laws conflict with the Constitution. If they succeed, it will be a dark day for the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Posted by Kevin at 07:40 PM | Permalink

Dear Mr. President:

How about nominating a moderate? Be a "uniter, not a divider" like you promised. Nominate someone I can respect and with whom I will sometimes respectfully disagree with.

Your predecessor, Bill Clinton, consulted heavily with the Republican minority leader when he needed to make a nomination. The Democrats got someone less liberal than they wanted, the Republicans got someone they could stomach, and our country got to keep a functioning government.

Think about it. A little compromise would be good for everyone.

Posted by Kevin at 07:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It's getting to be pretty obvious that the situation in Iraq is Not Good even to those that have been big cheerleaders for the war since the beginning. The violence is escalating, basic infrastructure is still a shambles, and we still haven't managed to secure the road from the "Green Zone" fortifications to the airport!

But what about Afghanistan? That's the "easy" war, right? That's over and done, right?

The Associated Press is painting a very different picture when they write Afghan progress in danger of unraveling

If we can't win in Afghanistan, do we have any hope of winning in Iraq?

Personally, I think we had a *chance* in the beginning, but only if we through the kind of massive manpower and money at the problem that it requires. Once you let the situation get desperate, once you let a homegrown insurgency take root, you may be out of luck.

We basically quit before the job was done in Afghanistan so Bush could pursue his dreams of invading Iraq. Once in Iraq, we did the war "on the cheap" since the administration did not want anyone at home to make sacrifices -- that would be unpopular.

Adding insult to the injury of losing a pre-emptive war based on accusations that proved unfounded, Bush financed this war through deficit spending. The bill for American households is currently about $1800 plus interest. Oh, and let's not forget how much damage the trumped-up justifications for war and the use of torture in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo have done to the image and integrity of our nation.

Worst of all may be the fact that Iraq has become the breeding ground for terrorists that Bush claimed it to be when it wasn't.

Now we may have to talk a failed state in Afghanistan as well. Not a happy turn of events.

Posted by Kevin at 07:07 PM | Permalink

George W. Bush, April 9, 1999:

Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.

George W. Bush, June 5, 1999:

I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.

George W. Bush, June 24, 2005:

It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re — you’re conceding too much to the enemy.

Thanks to ThinkProgress for pulling those quotes together!

Posted by Kevin at 07:05 AM | Permalink

Tom Delay would like to assure everyone that things are NOT going so badly in Iraq as the press would have you believe. Apparently the press are emphasizing the negative -- and if they covered Houston the same way they report on Baghdad then Houston would be a really scary place as well. This Modern World has Delay's comments and a nice description of life in Baghdad from an Iraqi blogger that actually lives there in a piece titled Compare and Contrast.

Posted by Kevin at 07:39 PM | Permalink

According to MSNBC, at least one sector of our economy has DOUBLED in size and has seen prices for their services rise by up to 100% since 2000.

The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent. Only a few other businesses have enjoyed greater prosperity in an otherwise fitful economy.

Wow! That's just GREAT! Way to go! Mr. President, how did you do it?

The lobbying boom has been caused by three factors, experts say: rapid growth in government, Republican control of both the White House and Congress, and wide acceptance among corporations that they need to hire professional lobbyists to secure their share of federal benefits.

So, BIGGER government, a lack of checks on the power of one-party rule, and access to the political powers limited to paid professionals. What a great system! Too bad that 22nd Amendment that the Republicans demanded keeps Bush from seeking a third term.

Posted by Kevin at 06:19 PM | Permalink

In light of Dick Durbin being forced to retract his statement that torture at American prisons for "enemy combatants" is more in line with a totalitarian state rather than the United States, this picture seems to be a timely reminder of which Free Speech is most important: freedom to disagree with the policies of our government without fear of retaliation. That's an American Value which needs to be better respected by the current administration.

Posted by Kevin at 05:49 PM | Permalink

From the president's discussion of Iraq in his weekly radio address earlier today:

We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens.

DID YOU NOT GET THE MEMO, MR. PRESIDENT? Iraq was NOT involved in 9/11, Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq did NOT ATTACK THE UNITED STATES.

Now we're stuck there. We can't leave without flushing Iraq down the toilet, but staying there may not fix it either. You made this mess. You and your staff made up the intelligence. You fired anyone that said they couldn't agree with you about WMD's or how many troops we'd need or what plans needed to be made for after the invasion. You have created a breeding ground for extremism. Your decisions have left over 1700 members of our armed forces dead and over 12,000 injured while you've cut funding for the VA hospitals that give the maimed survivors of your neo-imperialism the care they need and deserve.

YOU broke it. YOU bought it. NOW OWN IT! Stop peddling the same old song and dance about "they attacked us first". It isn't true, it wasn't true, and we all know better. Now PLEASE own up to your mistakes and get serious about fixing them!

You still have time to save some shred of your presidential legacy. Don't squander it.

Posted by Kevin at 02:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Kudos to Republican North Carolina congressman Walter Jones.

Mr. Jones made international headlines at the start of the Iraq War for his suggestion that the Congressional Cafeteria rename "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries" because the French felt the war did not agree with the Bush administration over the justification for war.

Mr. Jones originally said the idea was a combination of a constituent's request and "God's Hand". Mr. Jones now says, "I wish it had never happened."

Mr. Jones also now admits to agreeing with the original French position that the war was unjustified and is now calling for a timeline on bringing our troops home. Mr. Jones has lined the wall outside his office with pictures of the troops that have been killed and was quoted by the Guardian as telling the NC News and Observer:

If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong," he told the newspaper. "Congress must be told the truth.

In these days of a president that refuses to ever admit to error, it is refreshing to see that not all politicians are so insecure. I may not agree with Walter Jones in his position on many issues, but I applaud his ability to concede and error and his ability to roll up his sleeves to fix any mistake he may have made. This is the kind of honest, pragmatic attitude we need in these dishonest, dogmatic days.

Posted by Kevin at 06:05 PM | Permalink

After that poster from MARC I thought this pic (which thankfully IS a parody) appropriate for today.

Posted by Kevin at 05:36 PM | Permalink

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

Kudos to CapitolBuzz for spotting that.

Posted by Kevin at 05:22 PM | Permalink

Just a very quick lunchtime post:
When will people wake up to how far we are straying from our democratic ideals? This security-state propoganda poster has been placed along the Baltimore to DC rail corridor by MARC (this picture is currently available on their website), the rail authority in Maryland:

Posted by Kevin at 12:31 PM | Permalink

This is NOT a comment on the use of marijuana for medical reasons. Is it useful? Is it safe enough under normal FDA guidelines for drug treatments? I don't follow the issues, so I can't speak to them.

This is about the Supreme Court's ruling that Federal laws regarding marijuana trump California's law permitting its growth and consumption by individuals for medical reasons.

To me, the basis of the ruling is a big stretch.

From CNN:

A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of "economic enterprise."

Okay, sounds reasonable enough to me. The Justice Deparment took it to the Supreme Court to fight the ruling. They argued:

homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden patch weed would affect "overall production" of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.

I have two big problems with this:

1 - As noted by California, nothing was bought or sold, so how was this interstate commerce?

2 - The existence of the violent drug gangs and cartels requires the War on Drugs in order for them to exist.

So, the fight against the drug cartels and gangs which depend on the War of Drugs to make the drugs valuable enough for the syndicates to get involved would be wrecked by a woman in California raising 6 pot plants in her backyard under a physician's advice for personal use in treating her chronic pain? THAT was the justification given by the court for ruling for the Justice Department.

To me it sounds just plain silly...

Posted by Kevin at 07:11 PM | Permalink

The Project for the OLD American Century has several galleries of great pictures. I'll post some occasionally that I like. Here's my pic[k] for today:

Posted by Kevin at 06:20 PM | Permalink

British MP George Galloway finally said out loud that which has been pretty much buried in reports and underreported by our media: the war in Iraq was started on completely false pretenses. Note that EVERYTHING he said (up to his comment on "crimes that you supported") are substantiated by U.S. reports from the Weapons Inspectors (appointed by the White House), US Intelligence findings and the 9-11 Commission Report.

I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims, did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11, 2001. Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong. And 100,000 people have paid with their lives — 1,600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies, 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever, on a pack of lies. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported.

I assume that by "crimes" he is referring to our invasion of Iraq in light of the fact that a condition of our joining the UN was that we would (like all member states) never invade another sovereign state preemptively.

I'll repeat the facts for anyone that missed it:
NO WMD in Iraq prior to our invasion (the justification for the war)
NO involvement in 9-11 (the people and funding were almost all Saudi)
NO connection to Al Qaeda (bin Laden called for Hussein's removal since Iraq was secular)

Folks, Emperor W has no clothes!

Posted by Kevin at 08:11 PM | Permalink

Are the Democrats blocking an abnormal number of Bush court appointments?

According the New York Times, the Bush and Clinton rates of success in winning appointments breaks down as follows:

So basically Bill Frist wants to go "nuclear" in the Senate and destroy the long-standing parlimentary procedures that let the Senate function in spite of the fact that there is no significant difference in the rate of success appointing judges no matter which side is in power. All this just to get a handful of religious extremists on the bench?

This has got to be one of the most short-sighted, stupid political moves that a senator has managed to make in a long time -- and when you look at the people we have in the Senate that's no small feat!

Posted by Kevin at 06:49 PM | Permalink

There's an