Michelle Malkin on Peace...

(from the Daily News Record editorial page, December 29, 2007)

“But by year's end, with Shiites and Sunnis marching and praying together for peace, even anti-war Democrats and adversarial media outlets alike were forced to acknowledge that undeniable military progress and security improvements had been made.”

So Michelle, you are trumpeting the resounding success of the military campaign in Iraq? Sunni's and Shiites are marching together for peace? ahem... A glorious triumph? Is it just bloodlust or are you truly proud of the death, destruction, and corruption in your Glorious War against Terrorists? Are you really proud of the TRILLION+ dollars being spent? Are you rejoicing at the machismo displayed by the gallant Blackwater murdering mercenaries? You are proud of this? "Bull!" Your only point seems to be, "Since we bombed the place into rubble, and killed or chased away a large number of the populace, see how great the place is?" Are you a Glory hound? Is your machismo fake? "Hell Yes!"

“Good news in the war on terror is bad news for those rooting for failure. Far easier to play up casualties and sectarian strife, sensationalize accusations of atrocities, and demonize the men and women in uniform to indulge Bush Derangement Syndrome,…”

So Michelle, it's ok to just ignore the bloodshed, the displaced population, the atrocities, the casualties, the veterans who suffer ill effects from the war? In fact anyone who acknowledges these realities is DERANGED? There would be no Bush Derangement Syndrome without your truly "deranged" attitude about the Glorious War on Terror.

In the ensuing 12 months, Democrats tried and failed repeatedly to undermine this military strategy and starve the war of funding. Their poisonously partisan allies at MoveOn.org attempted to smear surge architect and patriot Gen. David Petraeus as a traitor. The New York Times and Associated Press fought tooth and nail to obscure the successes of the surge with their relentless "grim milestone" drumbeat.

Through it all, Gen. Petraeus and the troops serving under him have remained stalwart, candid and courageous. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Jan. 23: "The way ahead will be neither quick nor easy."

So this is what we are fighting for? Glory for the military? War heroes everywhere? Anyone who opposes the Dear Leader and his Neoconservative foreign policy advisers is “poisonously partisan?” Only War Leaders are “patriots?”

Michelle, I would rather admire our political and military leaders for their leadership qualities, intellect, and ability to govern, than the size of their testicles. What is the opposite of the Bush Derangement Syndrome? I’m very sure I don’t want to be in that radical camp of Deranged Bush Worshipers!

Hillary and Hardball

Hillary is starting to sound like President Bush. She's using the same scaremongering, political hardball tactics we’ve heard so much for seven years. This summary of Hillary’s new campaign speech comes from the commentary of Mike Madden in Salon magazine:

The fun is over, and now it's time to get serious. The world is a scary place; the economy feels as though it's ready to collapse, healthcare bills keep going up and up, the country is mired in wars, and the government just doesn't seem to work right. And that's only the trouble we knew about Wednesday -- as Benazir Bhutto's assassination on Thursday made starkly clear, unexpected crises cross the president's desk every day.

Evidently Hillary has chosen the well trod path of the Republican Party to try and get elected. She has often stated that only she is tough enough to withstand the Republican smear machine, and has unwittingly or deliberately chosen the same path. The gutter politics being played out by her campaign remind me very much of “business as usual” the way the Clinton and Bush dynasties have played if for 15 years! Hillary plays the experience card as though she was a co-president with her husband. She accuses her opponents of “politicizing” world crises for their own political gain.

Friends, I know Hillary is a Democrat, and a lot of her policies are favorable to progressives and we are at least on the same page politically. These tactics and the nature of her campaign statements raise a very important issue for us however. She is showing us an authoritarian style that is eerily similar to what we’ve grown used to for seven years. We know the political climate has been dramatically altered by the rise and success of the right-wing media. We know that the bloody partisanship of the current administration has played into the hands of of the religious right, the Neoconservatives, and the loyal subjects of the Republican rulers. We know that any Republican-run campaign will be filled with fear-mongering, xenophobic policy, and authoritarian machismo. Hillary’s choosing to fight fire with fire, dragging the political process to a new, even lower level of muckraking and partisanship.

The more I read about the campaign and the tactics and the methods used by various candidates, I’m not surprised by the surges of Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrats Barack Obama and John Edwards. These guys are talking to us like politicians that actually respect the process and view government as a part of the solution to the problems we face. The issues we hold dear (this week’s editorial from The Nation, subscription required) are coming to the fore:

The leading candidates share positions that were considered political suicide as recently as 2004, and topics once shunted aside, like global warming, are of central importance. Withdrawal from Iraq, which John Kerry couldn't bring himself to call for, is embraced by all the current candidates, albeit on varying timetables. Unfettered free trade, a hallmark of the Clinton Administration, is now viewed by most Democrats as an untenable position. Healthcare for all, an idea that many thought would doom Hillary Clinton's candidacy, is a mainstream proposition. And it is not just these issues that have taken center stage but the core progressive values they represent: diplomacy over militarism, workers' rights, the responsibility of government to see that social needs are met.

These issues will win the day without the scaremongering from the Clinton Camp. With the Republicans all marching around spitting and cussing and showing us what “Men” they are why do we need our own candidates to join that game? Again from The Nation:

Meanwhile, the Republican campaign has seemingly taken place in an alternate reality, with GOP candidates competing to win the title of Most Likely to Nuke Iran and Most Xenophobic.

We don’t need Hillary Clinton to simply scare us into voting for her and we don’t need another four years of this type of authoritarianism. She’s showing us that she can play political hardball with the “big boys” but this approach will cost her my vote. I’d rather be talked to than talked down to, I’d rather have my candidate for President tell me how they will correct the course of this ship of state and convince me that their ideas and policies are the best. Give it a rest Hillary and just talk to us!

Rep. Goodlatte and the "Free Enterprise System"

I was breezing through the cable channels last night looking for something to watch and happened across the last 10 seconds of a show about the Civil War on the History Channel. The commentator, who looked like a very intelligent and respected member of the academic community was giving the final word, “Remember the North won the Civil War, but the South won the war of reconstruction.”

I promptly filed those words away in the recesses of my memory thinking, “hmm… that sounds oddly familiar. This morning I rise to read in the Daily News Record that, yes indeedy, the South is still on the Rise! Squire Duncan once again praises the culture of “the pre-Civil War Southern economy - based as it was on ’cotton, slaves, and arrogance.’"

It certainly is clear that this pre-Civil War Southern mentality is alive and well here in the Shenandoah Valley. As the editor kindly points out, low taxes, no labor unions, low regulation, and a cheap labor force are all powerful incentives to the unchecked Pursuit of Profit.

Locally our friendly politicians have actively supported this plantation mentality. As Rep. Goodlatte said several times in a telephone town meeting a week or so ago, "It's the Free Enterprise System and we don’t want to mess with that!" (A nod to kestrel9000 on Daily Kos and Blue Country Magic.)

Some highlights from the town meeting: (thanks again to Blue Country Magic)

From Fincastle: How about the federal government mandating a Living Wage (as opposed to a minimum wage) so people can actually afford to live?

Goodlatte's answer: Oh, it's a Free Enterprise System (he mentioned "Free Enterprise System" several times) and we don't want to interfere with *that*. It's bad enough we have a minimum wage. It's "damaging to our economy" (i.e., it makes the corporate profits smaller), so of course we don't want to do that. He also, using logic that eluded me, tied this to illegal immigration. I guess he was implying that if we were all working third or fourth jobs as apple pickers things would be so much better.

Let's not forget the wonderful benefits of unchecked Capitalism.. or "Free Enterprise!" Low taxes, cheap labor, a strong, vibrant (but very poor) working class, a strong (aristocratic and very rich) corporate culture, a hard-working but frustrated middle class, high profits, few government services, privatized education, health care if you can afford it, and a crumbling but “serviceable” transportation infrastructure.

More from the town meeting:

From Troutville: This poor man is a Veteran who has found that increased surcharges on his medicines and the payments he must make to the specialists he needs for heart and lung conditions are too much for him. He cannot afford his medicine anymore. I had no idea that the VA system was so broken, but apparently it's been as mismanaged as the rest of the government in the last seven years.

Goodlatte's answer: Check out the new low prices for drugs at Walmart.

Remember folks, Rep. Goodlatte doesn’t care about taking care of YOU, he cares about WalMart taking care of you!

Another highlight, (this is a hot button issue for me):

Goodlatte segued here into a one-way conversation about the Child Health Insurance program and how terrible the Democrats are for wanting to essentially raise the poverty line from barely able to eat to possibly making the house payment.

I guess it’s okay to ignore the needs of children and poor families since they left the cheap labor pool. Illegal immigrants fill the bill nicely. (wink wink) After all as the President (Goodlatte’s President, not mine…) said just this morning as he announced another veto of the SCHIP bill, “We should be moving these children into private insurance programs, not federal insurance programs.” In other words, the President also doesn’t care about taking care of children, he cares about corporations who (are supposed) to take care of children (if they can make a profit doing so). (I won’t even mention the article on the same page of the DNR reporting that Congress caved and gave the President all the billions of dollars he asked for to continue his War of Conquest and Profit in Iraq. Another blog another day...)

My favorite comment of the whole session was this discussion about organ donors and life insurance benefits. It’s a great commentary on how ridiculous the rigid adherence to the radical ideology of Corporate Profit can be.

From Goshen: A former nurse who is now on dialysis wondered if there was any way the government could create a death benefit for the families of folks who donate organs. She's on the waiting list for a kidney and there aren't enough going around. Medicare would save a lot of money if transplant operations could actually take place because dialysis is expensive.

Goodlatte: Hospitals and insurance companies should look into that. And also we don't want people killing themselves to get the money.

Holy Smoke! Can we get some indignation here please? How about some outrage? The irony is rich! I’ll use this quote on Goodlatte forever! He doesn’t want people “killing themselves for the the money?” Rich! Go Unchecked Capitalism!

Finally,

Goodlatte also took a survey. The question was what should Congress focus on - making your energy costs less, lowering your taxes, or cutting government spending.

The responses (keyed in on the telephone) were 18 percent wanted lower taxes, 30 percent wanted something done about energy costs, and 52 percent wanted the government to stop spending.

Note, of course, that there wasn't any suggestion as to what the government should stop spending money on, and I believe the government is currently working hard to stop spending money on the people who need it most - that would be the folks above who are desperate for health care, the elderly who need nursing homes, the fellow who is out of a job in Covington. No, it's far better to give the money to Microsoft and Exxon.

Yes the South is winning. The Plantation mentality is alive and well here in Rockingham County. The Old Money in this Small Town has had it’s way for a long time. How long will we accept “the way we do things here?”

Republicans and Building Walls

Mark Obenshain, Steve Landes, and Chris Saxman recently gathered at Massanetta Springs to talk about legistlation that rebuilds "the walls of religion and morality that protect families" with the folks from the Valley Family Forum. Fittingly called "The Unveiling" this Republican Party pander-fest was filled with moral stances, perfect solutions, glad-hand clapping, and mutual adulation.

Building walls of religion and morality? What is that all about? Why is the Virginia Republican POLITICAL Party pandering to this blatantly religious, supposedly family-friendly, conservative, fundamentalist club of moralists? What has governance to do with building walls? What are they trying to protect us from? Just exactly WHO is outside the walls and why are they so dangerous?

Here's an example: Sen. Obenshain and the Valley Forum think that comprehensive sex education in public schools is "highly offensive" especially because his and the Valley Forum's preferred "abstinence-only" don't-teach-kids-about-sex education programs were recently cut from the state budget.

So they build a wall. Don’t teach kids about safe sex, or contraception. Teach them only that sometimes contraceptives don’t work and that having an abortion can kill you. Build the wall high and strong and call it “abstinence-only.” Now take a psuedo-moralistic stance and pronounce endlessly and loudly that if kids just don’t have sex, there won’t be any unplanned pregnancies, STD’s, and there won’t be any need for abortions! The PERFECT solution. Duh. How’s it working so far?

“Tobe Goldberg, a parent and member of the Human Sexuality Curriculum Advisory Committee in Maple Grove, Minn.., refutes this belief with the following fictional example of what she regards as short-sighted thinking: ''My son and I were walking along the street. He began crossing against the light. Since I know that what he doesn't know can't hurt him, I didn't say anything. I wish I could have him back now.''

On the other side of the wall are the hundreds of thousands of teens who get pregnant, or get an STD, or have an unwanted child because of their ignorance of effective birth control. In fact, recent declines in the sexual activity of teenagers closely follows the INCREASED use of effective contraception.

Outside the wall are all the teenagers who pledged abstinence in middle school or high school, but “slipped” and had sex anyway.

Outside the wall are half the kids who had an unplanned pregnancy because they failed to use birth control and the other half who tried to use a contraceptive but didn’t know how to use it effectively.

''There is nothing in any peer-reviewed scientific journal to suggest that teaching abstinence-only is effective in getting teens to delay sexual activity,'' said one expert, Cynthia Dailard, a lawyer and senior public policy associate at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization devoted to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Ms. Dailard cited a recent study by the American Psychological Association, which found that more than 60 percent of college students who had pledged virginity during their middle or high school years had broken their vow to remain abstinent until marriage.

''Researchers have never measured the typical use-effectiveness of abstinence,'' she wrote. ''Therefore, it is not known how frequently abstinence fails in the real world or how effective it is compared with other contraceptive methods.''

So the Republicans build walls…. And moralize….. And the state gets governed how?

Bush's Deception is his Legacy

In the news on December 6, President Bush tried to tell us once again to be afraid, very afraid of Iran's potential nuclear capability. He's saying "no, believe what I'm telling you," not what was actually written in the latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). The new assessment states that Iran had pretty much halted it’s nuclear weapons program in 2003 under pressure from world economic sanctions.

The latest NIE

"presents a far more nuanced picture of both the nuclear program and the Iranian government's intentions than previous estimates, directly contradicting the one-dimensional portrait painted by arch conservatives, including many in the White House," concluded Joseph Cirinicione and Andrew Grotto of the Center for American Progress

.

It turns out that the President has known about this assessment for months, yet has still engaged in a rhetorical onslaught warning against "World War III." Dan Froomkin has a great summary of the President's rhetoric over the past six months as he has led the charge for possible military action against Iran, noting that,

..while not saying anything that could later prove to be demonstrably false, Bush left his listeners with what he likely knew was a fundamentally false impression. And he did so in the pursuit of a more muscular and possibly even military approach to a Middle Eastern country.

It's an oddly familiar pattern of deception.

The President and his Neocon foreign policy advisors firmly believe in the now debunked 2005 NIE estimate that warned of Iran's imminent nuclear capability. It of course was written by the same folks that gave us the faulty news of WMD's in '02. The latest NIE reflects views from the universe of spy agencies that aren't in the pocket of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Of course the Neocons are in full attack mode because it doesn't support their world view of conquest and imperialism. To them it simply is not in America's interests (of conquest, and military domination) to admit that Iran is not the threat that they would like us to believe it is.

Meanwhile, right under our noses, The war has been WON! The surge has succeeded. The conquest is complete. The troops WILL NOT be coming home. Our victory means that we will HAVE to keep a substantial force in Iraq pretty much forever. We've agreed to provide security from threats both inside and outside of Iraq and we have been granted favored trade status and an inside track on oil revenues.

If we bring home all the troops it would mean a "loss" of our empire. Of course we can't leave! We'd be giving up on our hard won conquest, the spoils of our labor, the oil fields, and military dominance in the Middle East.

Remember.... Victory equals Conquest. Victory equals permanent military bases and a large commitment of money and material FOREVER. Victory equals guaranteed oil revenue feeding our "addiction." Victory equals a HUGE debt cast on to our children and grandchildren. Congratulations.

Remember also that this administration is all about "creating new realities." Here they've done it! Deliberately, systematically, and without regard to the will of the people, they are going about setting up our new Middle East empire so that the next President can't do anything about it! This basic deception is truly the "legacy" that President Bush is depending on to establish his "greatness."

Update

What's been missing from the Debate.

A good read you don't want to miss!

Consequences of Genius

President’s Bush’s dreams of empire although implemented very adroitly will leave behind some very dramatic consequences. Not only are the Iraqi’s in Parliament beginning to rebel and denounce the Iraq/US alliance, putting pressure on Maliki to modify the agreement but the entire Arab world is on edge waiting for its outcome. Bush’s dabbling in the Middle East simply reinforces his newly declared intent, conquest of Iraq. He largely stayed away. Peace is not on his agenda. Thank Goodness! According to Joseph L. Galloway in his McClatchy opinion column, if Bush had really cared about the peace process it would only lead to an even deeper disaster there:

Beyond a couple of photo-ops with Israeli President Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas — whose names Bush couldn't even pronounce — and an opening address that contained no new ideas, no commitment and no way forward, the president stayed away from the talks. Good thing, too. Had the president applied his diplomatic skills ("You're either with us or you're against us") and his keen character judgment (think Vladimir Putin and Pervez Musharraf), the Middle East might now be in flames.

Galloway seems to follow the conventional wisdom that Iraq is failure for Bush.

The elephant in the room in Annapolis was Iraq and the grotesque American failure — only real foreign policy legacy of the Bush presidency — that it represents. The consequences of that invasion and nearly five years of war have been to strengthen and hearten the wrong side in a vital and volatile region.

This is simply how conquest works. Slash, burn, conquer and move on. More from Galloway:

Buoyed by an illusory slam-dunk victory in Afghanistan, the president ordered a poorly planned and unnecessary charge into Iraq to plant democracy in infertile soil and an American flag in hostile territory. The result, setting intentions aside, has been the resurgence of Iran and Syria, as well as violent actors Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Not to mention a big boost in recruiting and reality-based training for Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorists. None of those outcomes adds anything to the prospects for peace in the Middle East or for America's standing as an honest broker of that scarce commodity. The gathering in Annapolis reminded me of an old Texas saying that the president ought to appreciate: A day late and a dollar short.

Galloway is correct in his assessment. The consequences of Bush’s brilliantly planned and executed plan for the conquest of Iraq will be dramatic and catastrophic to peace in the region. Of course Bush’s policy is, to him, a complete success. Galloway has pointed out the consequences of this “success.” Bush won’t change, indeed he is totally unable to change. He can’t compromise and he’s doing everything he can to insure his “legacy.” He is a conquerer and doesn’t want his conquest given away by his successors. He has his ultimate goal within reach and isn’t about to waver now. Impeachment is fast becoming the only deterrent that might put a dent in the President’s plan. What are we waiting for?

Bush the "Genius"

Everyone who ever accused Bush of incompetence or ignorance needs to take another look, quickly. He's just proved his real genius with his unilateral hijacking of the foreign policy of the United States. He not only has engaged preemptive war, has preemptively occupied a nation, but will now seek preempt Congress and his successor! His legacy will be the long term occupation of Iraq, and the unilateral dismemberment of the separation of powers with the complete disembowelment of Congress.

Harold Meyerson in the WAPO:

The president who waged a preemptive war now wants to lock in place a preemptive occupation. Only this time, instead of preempting a foreign nation, he is seeking to preempt Congress and his successor. It's the logical conclusion for his misshapen and miserable presidency, and I doubt the American people -- if they have any say in the matter -- will stand for it.

More indication of his “genius” came in the local newspaper today when Bush announced that in order to “support the troops,” Congress should pass the new funding bill “clean” with no limits on his conduct of the war. President Bush will undoubtedly veto any measure that doesn’t give him exactly what he wants. He knows that by continually repeating the mantra of troop support, he keeps the public from reflecting on the real reasons of his occupation. The real curious part is that he’s now announced his grand dream of conquest! He wants to conquer Iraq and milk it for it’s resources. He wants a large (and expensive) military presence to dominate the Middle East.

The tragedy is that it works. Bush has purposefully followed this course, deliberately choosing to rule as a tyrant, willfully manipulating an electorate with clever but sinister half-truths, conventional wisdom, and deliberate obfuscation and defiance of Congress. Consider the idea that a President with a 30% popularity rating can unilaterally go to war, occupy a nation, snub Congress, spy on private citizens, and dictate terms on nearly all legislation that passes his desk. Consider the idea that the Bush legacy can be pretty much guaranteed, no matter what the opposition thinks they can do about it. Bush has declared through his “War Czar” that he doesn’t consider the agreement between the US and Iraq negotiable. He’s said that Congress doesn’t need to see it! Military bases, oil profits, security guarantees involving military support, all declared unilaterally without the consent of Congress.

Speaking of Congress, consider the co-conspirators in the Bush legacy, the Republican members of Congress who still blindly follow his lead. They continue to provide veto insurance for the President. Throw the bums out! Defeat as many of them as possible in the ’08 election. And by the way, just a reminder…. Representative Goodlatte has supported President Bush 98% of the time in the past 7 years. Sam Rasoul for Congress!

We've Conquered Iraq!

Today in American Progress, Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, and Ali Frick, report on the conquest of Iraq.  We finally learn why we went into Iraq and why we are "winning."  On Monday President Bush and Prime Minister Maliki declared their everlasting devotion by signing a non-binding "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship"

Wow!  All it says is that the US will guarantee the safety and security of Iraq forever, both from internal and external enemies.  In return Iraq will graciously let the US have four huge military bases (already constructed or nearly finished) and a sweetheart deal for the Big Oil Companies. America has CONQUERED IRAQ. Plain and Simple

The debate is now much clearer.  President Bush has finally confirmed what we've been guessing for a long time. The purpose of going into Iraq WAS the oil AND to have a big military presence in the Middle East to protect it.  Pure Imperialism.  These rich guys understand unbridled Capitalism better than anyone! You spend money to make money, period.  Bush got his hands on government money, saw the opportunity to make a LOT of money and away he went. 

Support the troops if you will, but be sure to count the cost!  We’ve spent a lot of time, money, and military might on this conquest.  The President made this choice for us.  By not giving us the real reason for going to war and playing cutthroat political games to make it happen, the large majority of the American people were left out of the loop. He made war for conquest and now he’s finally declared his true intent. 

Let the debate include accountability.  Was this the proper use of America's wealth and military?  Should unbridled Capitalism and Imperialism be the lynchpin of American culture, politics and foreign policy?  Are there better ways to insure the security and welfare of the citizens of THE UNITED STATES?  Should the leader of the free world be allowed to invade and conquer nations WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF “WE THE PEOPLE?”

READY? GO!

The Truth about the "Do Nothing Congress"

Obstructionism as a strategy is working for the Republicans.  They are making it look like the Congress is doing nothing.  Of course Congress is getting an approval rating in the teens!  Republicans are putting up walls, blocking legislation, and threatening to filibuster anything that moves and President Bush does his part by vetoing any bill that gets through the Senate's gauntlet. 

Republicans want to tear down the temple in the hope that both parties will be equally discredited in the rubble. This is akin to someone mugging the postman and then complaining that the mail isn’t delivered on time.

 

and from Robert Borosage in Campaign for America's Future 

Their strategy is clear – and very likely to work. The public expects the party in charge to get things done. Excuses are largely dismissed as political bickering. The Republican minority blocks popular reforms and then charges Democrats with running a “do-nothing Congress.” For scandal-stained Republican legislators yoked to an unpopular president pursing an unpopular debacle in Iraq, this may be their best hope for survival.

It works, of course, only if the public doesn’t learn of it.

The second half of the strategy is to then blame Democrats for not getting anything done! Bush will veto a bill (See SCHIP, or the supplementary funding bill for the Iraq war) because it doesn't suit his rigid ideology and then blame Congress for not passing a bill that he can sign.

Shine a light on this behavior!  Help point out every obstructionist policy that is being used to thwart the actions of Congress and the American people.  Trent Lott said it best, "Sometimes the obstructionist strategy can work for us or it can work against us." If we learn about this behavior and report it when it occurs, the strategy will fail.  Evidence of the success of pointing out the egregious behavior of our radical republican obstructionists can be found in Australia  where Conservative Prime Minister, John Howard, was defeated handily. Not only was he defeated but he was denied even a seat in the Aussie parliament, the first such ignominy suffered by a party leader in 78 YEARS!    

Mr. Howard has now joined the

COALITION OF THE DEFEATED: Like Britain's Tony Blair, Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, and Spain's Jose Maria Aznar before him, John Howard suffered greatly from his decision to participate in Bush's "coalition of the willing." His full-throated support for the Iraq war hurt him domestically. More than 60 percent of Australians want forces out of Iraq within a year, and Rudd pledged that Australian troops would leave by mid-2008 after consultations with the United States and the United Kingdom. Analysts noted that Bush "was a little more isolated in the world Sunday" after the loss of his close Australian ally.

Be vigilant.  Point out the failing strategy of the radical republicans wherever it occurs. Here's a start: Republican filibusters have been used to

block efforts to bring the troops home from Iraq, to frustrate passage of clean energy legislation, to block giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs, and much more.

and just recently,

the resolution offered by Sen. James Webb, D-Va., and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., to guarantee the soldiers fighting in Iraq adequate home rotations.

Keep watch. Keep close watch.

Don't mess with the Kids

Here's one more go 'round with and issue that, according to polls, is supported strongly by 61 % of Republican voters and 86% of ALL voters.  Both President Bush and Congressman Goodlatte are spinning and spinning to avoid our recognition of their ideological rigidity on health care.  They've use the "straw man" of "socialized medicine." They have tried to scare us using some examples of the failures of  some of the European models, always presented in the worst case trying to scare us into accepting their radical position.

Fear mongering, false choices, fallacious arguments sounds like lying, but is simply the sound of radical politician trying to spin an otherwise unpopular ideology.  Folks, DON'T FALL FOR IT!  Peer through the smoke and the muck and try and figure out what the real choices are.  

I've read Jane Quinn Bryant for years and I admire her straight-forward pragmatism regarding economics.  In a recent article she does an excellent analysis of the whole SCHIP debate. 

From Jane Bryant Quinn in Newsweek on October 29, 2007:

Is SCHIP "government run"? No. Like Medicare, it's government funded but privately run. The states contract with insurance companies (usually HMOs). Many patients have a choice of plans, and pay premiums and co-pays.

Does it cover illegal aliens? No, although this is the wing nuts' nastiest slur. SCHIP doesn't even cover legal immigrants until they've been here for at least five years.

Did the bill squander taxpayers' money on the undeserving middle class? No again. It financed coverage for 3.2 million lower-income kids, including 2.5 million who are eligible but haven't been included yet. It could have paid for 600,000 more kids from families earning up to triple the poverty level ($61,950, for four). That's the income group losing health insurance today, mainly because fewer companies offer the benefit or the premiums cost too much.

Is SCHIP funding more adults than kids? No way. Adults make up fewer than 10 percent of the SCHIP population. They're insured under waivers approved by the Bush administration, back when the president supported the program. Eleven states cover pregnant women. Eleven cover low-income parents (family coverage gets more kids signed up). The bill that Bush vetoed prohibits new waivers for parents and phases single adults out of the program.

Are parents dropping private coverage to go on the government program? Some parents switch, but that can't be helped. "It's like fishing for tuna," says MIT economist Jonathan Gruber. "When you let down the tuna nets, you catch some dolphin, too."

Bush's offer on SCHIP is $4.77 billion—not enough to maintain the program as is. Monthly enrollment of children and some pregnant women would have to drop by 840,000 over five years, the Congressional Budget Office says—that is, unless the president ups his bid.

Bush favors a different program entirely—tax deductions for people, at all income levels, who buy their own group or individual coverage. An analysis of his proposal by the Lewin Group, a health-care consulting firm, found that 80 percent of the money would go to people already insured. Seventy percent would benefit families earning more than $50,000, with most of the gains in the highest brackets. Call me a wing nut, but that's really squandering money on people who can afford to pay.

It's a simple ideological principle upon which President Bush and Representative Goodlatte will not budge.  They both feel that there should be NO government funding of health care.  This ideological rigidity will deny health coverage to over a million kids. 

Ultimately all economic decisions come down to "guns or butter."  Please know that President Bush and Congressman Goodlatte support another 48 billion in war funding over and above the original budget request, yet they steadfastly veto 35 billion for children's health care. They would rather kick a million kids off the health care program than cut spending for war.  This choice is not "either, or." There will be Guns AND Butter. The choice is simply regarding what is most important to most of us? What is more in our national interest?  Supporting our citizens including our children or supporting our war-making machine?  Choose well.

Sam Rasoul for Congress in 2008

Anyone else for President!

Musing today...

Why does the President insist on only speaking in front of carefully selected audiences if he truly is the President of the United States and not the President of the Republican Party?


Why does the President insist on fiscal responsibility only from Democrats in Congress?  When will the President decry his OWN earmarks? or criticize just ONE Republican sponsored earmark?


Why does President Bush continue to believe that his sole constituency is the "haves and the have mores?"


When the INTEREST ALONE on the war in Iraq is now over 28 BILLION DOLLARS per year, why is 8 BILLION dollars for Children's Health Care such a hard sell?  


Why does our representative in Congress support this President virtually ALL the time?


Why does it make the President very happy to be able to unilaterally circumvent Congress through executive orders, signing statements, and administrative actions?


Thanks to Dan Froomkin for inspiring these questions.

Can a Good Christian be a Good American?

BlueRage welcomes guest blogger Shannon Dove who adapted this blog entry from an excellent, provocative essay from Dennis Diehl. The question is, "Can a Christian be a good American?" The original, for those who didn't go read it, was "If a good Muslim can't be a Good American, Neither can a Good Christian." Read on:

Theologically- NO Because his allegiance is to God, the Sun God of Egypt. This is why God is Most High (At Noon), Jesus can be seen as an archetype Son of the Sun God and the Gospels are the account of a one year trip of the Sun Jesus through the signs of the Zodiac, and I ain't kiddn! The origin all gods in the human psyche is the SUN and all that it does for humans. This is why in the Old Testament it says in Malachi that the "sun will rise with healing in his wings," which is statement about the messiah to come. In Revelation, Jesus is also called the "son of the morning star," which of course is the SUN, or the Planet Venus depending. Long story.

Religiously- NO Because "there is no other name under heaven, (Jesus) by which a man can be saved. There is one true Christian Church and whoever believes on the name of the Lord..Jesus Christ, shall be saved, while others are condemned. Christians do NOT accept any other religious beliefs as valid to theirs, so no difference here.

Scripturally NO because his allegiance is to the Ten Pillars of Christianity, which they tend to modify according to the need, and the Bible, which is neither always historically accurate nor inerrant, no matter what they say! There is nothing in America that says you have to be a Bible believing Christian to be a true American. It is freedom of religion here...all religions. If Fundamentalists have their way, we might all want to amend the Bill of Rights to say "freedom FROM religion."

Geographically No because his mental allegiance is to Jerusalem, Israel and the Holy Land at least twice a week, about which they talk all the time as if they have ever been there, know the real history of, or think they would be welcome. Millions of Christian Americans have a soft spot for Rome too

Socially NO because his allegiance to Christianity forbids him to make friends with "the world" (love not the world, neither the things that are in the world, whoever loves the world, the love of the father is not in him.") Paul cursed the Jews in the New Testament, and hoped they'd cut their private parts if they wanted to be circumcised. Martin Luther , a Christian, taught they should be killed like pigs. Lots of places in NT tell the church to have no relationships outside the church. including not being "unequally yoked with unbelievers."

Politically No because he must submit to the ministry, ( "obey those that have the rule over you, {ministers}, for they watch out for your souls"). Many Fundamentalist Christians teach and hope for the annihilation of everyone outside of Israel. Christians often attribute anything against them as of the Great Satan Christian fundamentalists call Roman Catholicism, the Great Whore, so don't sweat someone calling America or Washington the Great Satan. Paul cursed anyone who did not believe his true gospel and called the people of Crete, liars. Jesus is said to have said the Pharisees were "of your Father the Devil." Name calling invoking the name of Satan to define the enemy is a fundamentalist art form. It's what you do when you are afraid of the unknown.

Domestically no because a fundamentalist Christian is instructed to marry only one which is his property, but cannot talk in church and can only ask her husband bible questions at home. A christian believes if you "beat (spank)a child with a rod, it won't kill him." Fundamentalist Christian women are to keep silence in the church, obey their husbands as unto the Lord, and call him "Lord" as did Sarah (all in NT). They are to give him sex as a part of her duty and submit. The Koran and the Bible sprang from the same culture, which few Fundamentalist Christians realize or think about. In many respects the Taliban are to the Koran what the Fundamentalist Christians are to the Bible. PS...Lots of Christian men abuse their wives with the word.

Intellectually no, because he can't accept that the American Constitution was NOT predicated on founding fundamentalist, Old Covenant believing Fathers. I would not use the word "intellectual" with Christians either, as critical thinking or the examining of evidence that runs contrary to their established belief system is not encouraged. This was called the Dark Ages in the European past.

Philosophically no because Christianity, Jesus and the Bible do not allow freedom of religion if you take the Old and New Testaments as the only way to be or literally enforceable in our culture today. Some Christians look to the commands of "God" in the Old Testament, to kill unbelievers, just as much as they think Islamics do in reading the Koran. Fundamentalist would only tolerate Christian values, which can be atrocious at times, and morality, which can be appalling. True Democracy and Biblical Christianity cannot co exist either. Someone would insist on someone else losing their rights to free thought. "My Kingdom is not of this world, if my kingdom was of this world, then would my servants fight," said Jesus in Matthew. No military solutions were encouraged by Jesus unless there was only one sword per 12 disciples allowed. Turn the other cheek, Love your enemies, don't slay them. Christian Fundamentalism is a good example of the mess you get when you mix Old Testament politics with New Testament sentiments, thinking it takes both to make up a proper Christian text. It's old wine in new wine skins.

Every Christian Fundamentalist government is either dictatorial or autocratic too. This statement shows the ignorance of whoever made it up. The Christian Kings of Europe didn't do to badly in the dictatorial or autocratic department, and might we mention the Popes?

Spiritually no because the God and Jesus of the Book of Revelation drowns the world in blood, plagues, signs, trumpets, vials and slaughter. The Christian Jesus is loving but no one does what he really says as it really is too hard. The Christian God the father is absent mostly, but is angry, jealous, and is patterned after the war gods of paganism every bit as much. I suggest a good read of Karen Armstrong's. History of God. The Fundamentalist Christian God is 'loving" only to the degree you obey and fall in line. If not, you are toast just as with any other "god" The Jesus of the Gospels is NOT the same being in the book of Revelation. Jesus comes back with a Rod of Iron to threaten and beat the poop out of those that don't obey and love God #1 the father and God # 2 himself...we won't get into God #3. Monotheism is basically divisive by nature, even if the one God is three, co-this and co-that.

Therefore after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should all be very suspicious of ALL, and I Mean ALLLLLLLL Christians in this country. They obviously can't be both good Christians and Good Americans. Call it what you will, it's still the truth.

Republican Values..

This is the silliest letter I've seen in the DNR in a long time. (Better stop and read it HERE.) Who decided that it is "Our Conservative Community?" What about "Our Liberal Community?" Thanks Chuck, Love you too! Logic? "Rockingham County is predominantly Republican" and so everyone has the same values? How big is that brush you are trying to paint us all with? What is it that makes you think that it is actually a benefit to be IN LINE, following orders...? FROM YOU! Dude! I can think for myself thanks very much!

How about that limited Constitutional Government? Are you concerned at all about the "unitary executive?" Does the word "Tory" come to mind? How about "King George?"

Does lower taxes mean lower prices too? Privatizing those "non-critical" government functions means that those private companies can raise prices, deny benefits, go out of business, fire workers, pay minimum wage, and maximize profits... WITH NO OVERSIGHT OR PENALTY! Prices go up benefits go down and THAT'S GOOD?? I'll listen when your concern about my money extends to the boondoggles of health care and national security too! These two "non-critical" government functions aren't going so well in the private sector are they? (You might say that national security would be a "critical function," but what about Blackwater? and Haliburton? and Bechtel? and the myriad private defense contractors.. How are they working out?)

How about that strong national defense? How about that 500 BILLION DOLLAR WAR that's soon to be a TRILLION dollar war? Are we safer? Where's that concern about fiscal responsibilty and sound monetary policy? Why do your values give a blank check for anything in the defense budget, but nothing (literally... remember the transportation bill? or the famous "underwear" bill? or the rebuilding of New Orleans?) for the citizens. Support the troops? Sure, but do you also support "We the People?"

Show me some righteous concern about the phenomenal waste and fraud in the defense budget. Show me some concern about butter and not so much macho posturing about guns. Show me some concern about making the government work, including the clerk's office, instead of simply assuming that "He's Republican, He's one of us, 'nuf said."

Your values sir, are admirable. It's when you pull back the screen and see what's really going on that your letter just sounds silly! I'm a Liberal, I live in the valley, I get to vote for the clerk, and WE HAVE TO ALL GET ALONG! I think we'd all do better if we remembered that we are Americans, NOT Republicans.

The Cult of Mediocrity

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the ...CULT OF MEDIOCRITY... Presented by that icon of purity, that promoter of 'real' Americans and American values, the protector of all Decency.... Michelle Malkin!

Here we go.. According to Ms. Malkin, America would be better off without: educrats, secular humanists, multiculturalists, yoga classes, public schools, immigrants, Muslims, non-Christians, public school teachers, acupuncture, hypnotism, deep breathing, stress relief, Oprah, Deepak Chapra, Richard Simmons, edu-babble, homework-free weekends, Tantric chanting, Kabalah, Madonna, hot stone messages, Bonsai tree clipping, any and all relaxation techniques, Yoga Education in public schools, and YouTube.

In Michelle Malkin's perfect world there WOULD be: concentration on the basics, schools that emphasize drilling and tests, international math competitions, Honor Rolls published in the media, family time management training, a strong ethos of super-achievement at affluent suburban high schools, and extreme competition over college admission.

So for Ms. Malkin, if you aren't elite, rich, pissed off about something, and willing to stomp over anyone who gets in your way, then you aren't a real American. This ladies and gentlemen from media pundit, commentator, writer, generator of all that ad revenue.... Michelle Malkin, "All Mad, All the time."

Update #1

I'm still waiting for Ms. Malkin's condemnation of those troops in treatment centers around the country for PTSD who are receiving treatment that includes meditation, yoga, message therapy, and counselling. Does Ms. Malkin support THESE troops too?

Squire Duncan on Diversity

Once again from the Plantation, the honorable George Duncan, esquire, today shares his views about "Rigid Diversity"

 

Folks, I just can't help myself.  Railing against Yankees is what the good squire does... Mired in the past? Certainly!  Unapologetic?  Most certainly! Unfailingly antique in his views about minorities, education, and economics? Sadly yes.  I therefore take up the pen and offer this response.

 

Not too long ago, author Thomas Frank penned a non-fiction critical success entitled, "What's the Matter With Kansas?" in which he pondered why Kansans and others in the Midwest voted "against their own economic and social interests," (meaning they voted Republican).

 

 

and therefore against their own economic and social interests... duh....

 

Apparently it never occurred to Mr. Frank that he might be wrong and the people of Kansas right. (But a book titled, "What's the Matter With Thomas Frank?"  wouldn't have sold many copies.)

 

Very true, but Mr. Frank actually did some research, some fact checking, and some cogent analysis.

 

Now the nation can ask, "What's the matter with Iowa?'

 

..now that they've left the plantation behind and are trying to ensure the welfare of ALL their citizens.

 

... Iowa Gov. Chet Culver has issued an executive order demanding "diversity"

 

...a  term is so distasteful that you'll just have to wash it down with another mint julip...

 

...in the state's workforce. The four-page statement includes such gems as:
 

- Agencies must submit a written summary of their hiring practices to the director of the Department of Administrative Services for approval.  (But don't states already have a written summary - it states "We hire the best, most qualified person for the job, which is of course a local member of the Republican Party.)

 

Seems that some of the local good ole white boys didn't get the jobs they were certainly entitled to on account of being the best and obviously most qualified, bein' white and all...

 

- Each agency shall develop a recruitment and retention plan that includes a timetable and achievement milestones. ("Achievement milestones" sounds like a diplomatic name for quotas. Quotas are not only repulsive to most Americans (at least all the good Republicans I know), but unconstitutional as well (given my considerable legal background, knowing that of course there are still pending court cases allowing that affirmative action may not be dead as a doornail just yet.)

 

or maybe "goals" which are constitutional and legal and definitely NOT repulsive to soccer fans...

 

Of course, in order to achieve these goals the state will need a new "Diversity Council." One is being created by the governor, although the state already has an Iowa Civil Rights Commission. Now there will be two commissions/councils wasting taxpayers' money.

 

... because any act of governance like forming a committee is a waste of taxpayers money...  In fact you just wish there wasn't ANY tax money to waste...

 

The state wants to "celebrate diversity." So if an employee is  less than cheerful about this order, perhaps he  will be sent to the Diversity Council for appropriate punishment.

 

Gee... I'm sorry they all aren't white!  Do you think we should just send them back where they came from, (except for all the folks you need to keep the plantation runnin')?

 

Not to be overlooked, there will be "diversity training" for all employees. (Diversity training, by the way, costs a great deal of money. The diversity snakeoil salesmen - er, teachers - often make five and six-figure sums for brief diversity sessions.)

 

Eat your heart out donut!  If you had a little of that despised education you're always railing about you might have been able to rake in a little of this "easy money."  Teachers are the only thing that KEEPS US OFF the Plantation! Thank God for Teachers!!

 

But was the Iowa state government, before this mandate, in a full rampage mode to stamp out diversity?

 

Yup.  Seems the white boys got pretty much all the jobs...  Anybody know if there are any minorities in Iowa?  Wait a minute, let's do the research!  Do a little background....  Here you go. Seems that Iowa is having a little immigration controversy that's being dealt with sanely and progressively!  They are actually trying to anticipate the arrival of the new folks by putting policies in place that might help the state economically and socially.  Way not cool to Plantation folks....

 

If this order just applied to Iowa, folks in other states could shrug it off as random governmental lunacy

 

...meaning the actual use of government FOR the citizens' welfare

 

from officials who had been drinking the main Iowa agricultural product in moonshine.

 

No,no!  Franklin County, Virginia is the moonshine capital of the world!  Hush yo' mouth sir!

 

But such orders are becoming a staple of American life at the state, academic and federal level, and will do untold damage to the nation.

 

Yes indeedy.  The demise of the good life on the Plantation is in danger.  Why doesn't everyone just know their place?  Look... on the Plantation, you'd get taken care of, you'd have a nice place to live, some clothes and some food.  Just try not to remember that they'd OWN you!

 

President John Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson issued several executive orders proclaiming affirmative action in the federal government. But their orders were vastly different from the mutated version that has now morphed into the Iowa monstrosity.

 

Seems they did a great job getting the ball rolling.... Doin' your best to stop it?  Go back to school... learn something.

 

Their orders stated "applicants are employed and employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin."  (Emphasis added.)

 

Emphasis indeed...  Like you had to spit it out through your teeth...

 

But, as Dorothy said, "I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto." There was nothing, and is nothing, wrong with Kansas. But this new Iowa-land is fraught with racial politics, bitterness, strife and danger.

 

Listen to you sir!  Get down with your bad self! You're telling us about "racial politics, bitterness, strife and danger?" Sir, they are actually trying to solve the problems they are facing!  In the real world sir, there ARE minorities striving for economic and social equality.  Get off the Plantation.  The South lost.  We live in a diverse world.  We can't turn the clock back and just send everybody home.  There's room for everyone.  Go back in the house and get another mint julip...

 

Bye.

The South will Rise!

Hail the Confederacy!

From the honorable George Duncan, gentleman and scholar, an honest citizen and defender of the Confederate States of America.

Mr. Duncan:

"After needless delays..

Also called Congressional hearings and debate

and a few obligatory smears from liberal senators,

Also called the voice of the loyal opposition fulfilling their constitutional duty.

the Senate confirmed Leslie Southwick to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the fifth circuit, which includes Texas, Louisiana and the judge’s home state of Mississippi.

Another small victory for the Confederacy, where n****r is just another name for "good ole' boy."

The 59-38 vote is a victory for common sense and the Constitution.

A great example of horse trading and compromise that is necessary in legislative government to get the business done.

Judge Southwick’s nomination was opposed by the usual leftwing interest groups

Like the NEA, ACLU, Democrats, 

who  complained he was “insensitive” to civil rights, gay rights and, one assumes, transgender and multi-gender rights as well.

who are correct not that it really matters, 'cause you see that's the way we like it in the South.

The anti-Southwick arguments were nonsensical,

to any good Confederate,

but such verbal attacks are typically used when any conservative judge is nominated for the federal bench.

What would any good Confederate do if a liberal Yankee judge was nominated?

Nine Democrats and Independent Sen. Joe Lieberman voted to confirm the nominee.

Blue Dog Democrats and good Senator Lieberman...  Democrats in name only,

Unfortunately, Virginia Sen. James Webb was not among the nine.

Unfortunately for this Rebel Writer.

This is sad because Mr. Southwick is not only a brilliant judge,

both in Mr. Duncan's mind and brilliant in spewing forth his outdated, conservative, pointless ideology.

but he is also a veteran, as is Sen. Webb. Judge Southwick joined the Army reserve when he was 42 and served on active duty in Iraq from August 2004 to January 2006, returning home just in time for his 56th birthday.

What in the world does Mr. Webb's military service for THE UNION have to do with his vote AGAINST a white, southern, Confederate judge?  Oh I get it!  The fawning conservative Mr. Duncan has FINALLY found a veteran of the Armed Services who was put in a job of importance!  RIGHT!

As both a veteran and an author, Sen. Webb has written about the military, and about such virtues as courage and honor.

Excellent point!

He should have recognized those traits in Judge Southwick

but he didn't, 

and stood against the low, dishonest campaign

Also known as democratic debate between party loyalists and the loyal opposition.  

waged against a fellow veteran.

Non-Sequitor...

The editor wants to return to the idyllic days of the deep South and the Plantation where life was gentle and everyone knew their place.  Gentlemen settled their disputes with honor and went off to fight for the Glory of the Confederacy.....  The South will rise again????

Taking Credit

Here’s another interesting take on the response to the California wildfires. President Bush and his administration as stated through press secretary Dana Perino, have taken credit for the fantastic disaster response to this natural disaster.

“Lessons were learned, communications have improved and state and federal agencies are now able to work more closely together.”

In addition, President Bush states,

“because of the declaration I signed yesterday, there will be help for the people of California.”

Sounds like taking credit to me.

Let’s see…. Disaster response in liberal Southern California, bastion of the upper middle class, largely white communities is very effective. Lots of services, places to go, and helpers for the evacuees. 500,000 have been evacuated and most will return to scarred but intact communities. A large stadium all set up with cots, blankets, food, sun screen, yoga instructors, exersize classes, bottled water and entertainment for all. President Bush wants to visit and get involved… He must feel real comfortable in that environment. Not surprising that the emergency services worked like they were supposed to.

The good folks in California are also doing this emergency work without the help of the National Guard which is off keeping us safe in Iraq. The President’s war has taken most of the Guard and it’s equipment and has forced these local officials to forage and fight for funding and materials. This makes the success of the coordinated emergency effort a story to tell proudly.

Here’s what I remember: 1.1 MILLION evacuees from New Orleans and vicinity during Katrina; 500,000 STILL displaced. Folks with NO services at a large stadium for DAYS. President Bush famously absent and unwilling to get involved with the folks from the lower 9^th ward. Hmm… didn’t feel comfortable? Hmm….

Credit where credit is due you say? Well, according to the USA Today, Mimi Hall writes that

"experts said credit for the good response goes to California's officials, emergency workers and residents, most of whom followed instructions to leave their homes for safer ground."

The whole emergency effort was staged by LOCAL officials. The best news evidently was that FEMA stayed away and the Federal government didn’t respond! Thank goodness, fighting wildfires is not in their job description.

Credit? Get back Mr. Bush! Stay away. We know who’s doing the job in California.

What's the Best Response?

Today we hear and read about more “reality making” by our right wing friends and pundits. The whole process goes like this:(my emphasis and paraphrase) “We have an agenda and we are pursuing it relentlessly. We are right! We have the answers. We are creating the new reality. Any variation from our new reality is the fault of our enemies, the liberal left.”

The liberal left meanwhile looks up from its meanderings through life and tries to find a response to what is actually happening in their daily lives, culture, and politics. Figuring out the reality consumes them, what to do about it befuddles them, working together to find a way binds them together. They hear the right wing blustering about how everything is the fault of the left and if things followed the new “correct” reality all would be well… so…

In the Center for American Progress newsletter today we get a humorous example of this phenomenon. We have a natural disaster in California. Let’s see what has happened so far. On the right from the newsletter: “Fox News pointed the finger at al Qaeda terrorists. Glenn Beck said the fires were hitting some "people who hate America" and later blamed the fires on the "damn environmentalists" and their "bad environmental policies." Michelle Malkin, a leading conservative blogger, echoed the complaint, pointing to "litigious environmentalists" for "standing in the way" of Bush's Healthy Forests Initiative.” and “Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Exxon-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute, derided the supposition that global warming has played a role in the wildfires, mocking it as something "alarmists are talking about."

On the left: only a few responses are to be found from liberal pundits mostly to point out that the “Healthy Forest Initiative was more concerned with giving logging companies free reign over forests than enacting sensible forest-fire prevention.” Not to mention the fact that warmer and dryer summers make conditions for ground fires much more prone to ever larger wildfires. duh....

Meanwhile all the liberals and “enemies of America” concentrated on taking care of each other like this:

“Thousands of Californians who took refuge at San Diego's Qualcomm Stadium had an experience far different from refugees who fled to New Orleans' Superdome in the wake of Katrina. Californians were greeted there by clean cots, tents, pillows, and blankets. "Volunteers offered massage therapy, yoga, kosher food, and art projects for kids," and others arrived in clown suits to entertain the children. "We have the luxury of being able to count on our neighbors," San Diego Mayor Gerald Robert Sanders said. "The folks in New Orleans didn't have that luxury, because everybody was impacted."”

Whose response was best in this emergency? Think about it!

Throw the Bums out!

So let me get this straight..President Bush is “not going to allow” Iran to develop nuclear weapons, but WHEN THEY GET THEM and get the capability to fire them in rockets capable of reaching the United States we’ll need a trillion dollar anti-missile defense against them that

"doesn't work, it's expensive and it's intended for a threat that doesn't exist..”

-Dan Froomkin

Ok, I exaggerated. So the Iranians get missiles and put conventional warhead on them….. Let’s see at last count, If they fire one missile at us, we could fire 100,000 back at them! I feel safer already and that’s without the cool “Star Wars” thing!

Check Salon today and read about Bush and folks just “winging it” They don’t know what to do except follow whatever ideological policy comes out of the American Enterprise Institute. Remember these folks make their own reality. They put their neocon ideals out there and expect the world to conform… When it doesn’t they are totally clueless!

Ok so, we’ll have to live with Iranian nukes so we can have our cool “Star Wars” missile defense. So now how will we get to go to war with Iran? Let’s switch our rhetoric to IED’s! Those awful Iranians are killing American boys! Sounds like invasion talk to me! But wait, no one is buying! It appears that everyone already knows that most of the damage is being done by Saudi’s! Can’t touch them, they’ve got all the oil. Hmm, back to the drawing board.

Hold the presses! We could bomb the Kurds! I know they’d find a way to be at war somewhere ALL the time! Now we’re going to help the Syrians! Actually we’re doing this to keep THEM from invading Iraq…. To fight terrorism…. To fight them there, so they won’t come here…. To protect the homeland….. What a web we weave… War is Hell.. Thanks for taking us there, keeping us there, and wishing we would stay there.
Throw the bums out!

Rep. Goodlatte is still digging the Health Care hole..

I just got a thoughtful response from Rep. Goodlatte to my concern about the SCHIP program that was recently voted down in Congress.  He voted against the bill AND voted to support the Presidents veto. His talking points are the standard Republican Party responses that are being repeated verbatim by every Conservative pundit and politician that still support what Tony Blankley of the Washington Times says is “political suicide.”  

Point one is made in the first sentence of the first paragraph (also by the way in the Daily News Record Forum on October 23).

“I have several concerns with this legislation, which takes the first steps towards pushing all Americans into government-run health care.”

This point only underlines Rep. Goodlatte’s complete allegiance to corporate profit and the privatizing of government services.  The term “government-run health care” is the new user friendly term that Republicans use instead of “socialized medicine.”  It’s pretty arrogant to simply assume that the words “socialized medicine”  can be the only debate.  Two words….  No discussion… Stop the presses, no need to go further.  Hmmm..

Point two was somewhat of a surprise to me.  It revealed a little more of the conservative ideology that frankly, surprised me.

“The authors of the CHAMP Act intend to pay for this massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by making substantial cuts to Medicare Advantage, a program that accounts for 20 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries.. Specifically, this legislation cuts funding for Medicare Advantage by $200 billion over the next ten years.”

Rep. Goodlatte’s support of the Medicare Advantage plan simply points AGAIN to his worship of corporate welfare.   Will Parry and Pat Scott in the Seattlepi.com Opinion page weigh in on this typical conservative ideological dogma. 

“Like all privatization schemes, so-called Medicare Advantage was developed under the false promise that private insurers could provide the same services as Medicare at lower cost. The reverse has been true. Costs have gone up, and, in many cases, available services have disappeared.

According to an analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, private Medicare Advantage plans cost taxpayers an average of 12 percent more than normal Medicare. In Washington, the average overpayment is 21.5 percent.

That overpayment isn't surprising -- it's exactly the kind of expensive waste that comes from funneling valuable public resources into the pockets of insurance industry CEOs -- but its scale is a cause for serious concern. The CBO report estimated that overpayments will total $54 billion over five years, and $160 billion over the next decade.

And the extra cost doesn't even necessarily mean extra benefits. The higher prices in the private plans come with promises of improved flexibility and benefits, but some beneficiaries discover after signing up that they're actually getting less than traditional Medicare offers.

Everyone agrees that Medicare Advantage is more boondoggle than benefit.”

Next Rep. Goodlatte stands up strong for that conservative ideology that that is most dear... 

“Furthermore, the "CHAMP" Act, which includes large tax increases..”

This must refer to the “repressive” tax on cigarettes.  Since when does Rep. Goodlatte show concern about the lower income folks?  Isn’t corporate welfare all about “screw the middle class?”  This just sounds fishy because according to the good Congressman, it encourages folks to smoke, smoke, smoke, those cigarettes in the name of the children.  Sigh…  Friends, remember?  Virginia?  John Rolfe? Tobacco?  Goodlatte and corporate tobacco?  ‘Nuf said.

“... and even includes a new tax on private health plan policies, creates incentives for families to drop their private insurance coverage and force the taxpayers to foot the bill.”

Never mind that the proposed SCHIP legislation requires eligible families to PAY A PREMIUM to a PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANY. From Dan Froomkin in the Washington Post: But as the New York Times editorial board writes today:

"nobody who enrolls in S-chip would be living on government handouts. The families would all be paying appropriate premiums and co-payments. It is also highly unlikely that a lot of people would drop private coverage to enroll in S-chip."

“The legislation expands the original SCHIP program in some states by providing coverage to children whose families have an annual income up to $82,000.”

Conservatives everywhere are using this $82,000 threshold as the demarcation line for the “needy.”  Some others throw around percentages like 200% or 400% of the poverty line…  Anybody want to guess how much a catastrophic injury with associated surgeries and after-care costs?  How big of a bite would that take out of that 82 grand?  I make a little more than that and if that type of health disaster happened to me, my nest egg is gone.  Rep. Goodlatte is for reducing human need to cold cash and arbitrary ideology. 

“ The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over 2 million children currently covered by private insurance plans would now rely on an inefficient government-run health care system.”

Rep. Goodlatte leaves out the unfortunate fact that if the current Bush version of the SCHIP is passed, more than 5 million FEWER children will be covered than under the present legislation WITHOUT the increase. Again from Dan Froomkin in the Washington Post:

"The president's own budget proposal for maintaining the current S-chip program is so stingy that it would not even cover the number of children currently enrolled -- and would probably increase the number of children forced to go without health coverage by hundreds of thousands."

  And of course, go back and check the above quote from Seattlepi.com to find out more about those “inefficient government-run health care systems.”  Remember Point 2, Rep. Goodlatte is FOR this one…..

Rep. Goodlatte is very much for squeezing the illegal immigration issue for every ounce of political gain.  Never misses a chance to play on prejudice. 

“..but the "CHAMP" Act removes previously enacted reforms which require states to verify lawful presence in the U.S. before approving a benefit under Medicaid. This important provision has done much to decrease taxpayer dollars funding health care for illegal immigrants but its repeal paves the way for illegal immigrants to access government benefits.”

I always question the sincerity of this particular conservative talking point.  In reality, they are for privatization, corporate profits, and corporate welfare, yet they rail against one of the economic engines that drives the agribusiness in the Shenandoah Valley!  Over and over Rep. Goodlatte’s voting record supports big Agribusiness, the very industry that relies on this cheap and sometimes illegal labor pool.  Here again, Rep. Goodlatte is advocating conservative ideology over pragmatic legislative policy.

Rep. Goodlatte’s conclusion:

“When Congress first created SCHIP there was no question that this new program was intended to help low-income, uninsured children. Unfortunately, those same principles are not evident in the "CHAMP" Act. By pitting children against seniors, the "CHAMP" Act will jeopardize seniors' access to the high-quality care that they expect from Medicare and force individuals who already have private health insurance into a one-size-fits-all government-run health care program.”

So the whole objection is “pitting children against seniors?”  Folks this is what is called, “shoot it full of shit and kill it for stinkin’.”  First let’s create a boondoggle for a Medicare program that is so bad it stinks.  Make sure the private insurance companies get to rake in profits by making it very difficult for seniors to get benefits.  Now let’s point out in every debate that in order to expand coverage for children, these so-called benefits for seniors need to be cut??  Amazing!  

Amazingly, the Shenandoah Valley is a staunchly conservative stronghold and yet….

Scoreboard:  For expansion of the SCHIP and against Rep. Goodlatte: 78.9%;  for Rep. Goodlatte and cuts to the SCHIP 22%.  This poll is borrowed from Cobalt6 and was taken at the Staunton News Leader.  

And finally, from the opinion pages of the same Staunton News Leader, Mike Radiou: 

“The president's (and Rep. Goodlatte’s) claim that this program was too expensive rings hollow in the face of the massive deficit spending resulting from a war in Iraq — now in its fifth year and costing between $6 billion and $9 billion each month to prosecute, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It is profoundly hypocritical to have government employees, who enjoy federally controlled health care, deny the same to their constituents on the grounds that it will lead us down a slippery socialist slope. Finally, claiming that SCHIP's expansion will benefit too many "wealthy" kids neglects the fact that many of those kids belong to the long beleaguered middle class whose families find it increasingly difficult to carry on the American dream in light of skyrocketing medical bills through no fault of theirs.”

We Don't Torture

From the Rolling Stone this month I read that John McCain actually spoke out against torture in the South Carolina Debate several weeks ago,  He made two points.  First, he was concerned that our POW's would now be tortured.  The second point was simply that waterboarding was invented as a torture device during the Spanish Inquisition.  He went on record in defiance of the Bush Administration by REFUSING to support the torture methods of the Spanish Inquision!  Good work Senator McCain! 


In the "I couldn't say it better myself" catagory, take a look at this:

Sidney Blumenthal writes in his Salon opinion column:

"Torture is state-sanctioned deviant behavior. It is degrading, arbitrary, cruel and illegal. As all responsible intelligence officers know, torture is the least productive technique of all, and torture yields inherently tainted information. Torture destroys the humanity of more than those tortured. It destroys the souls of those performing the torture. When Americans torture, Americans are shattered. Torture feeds secrecy. It undermines democracy. And it is shameful. Even the Gestapo and the KGB tried to hide their torture. Torture is considered uncivilized by most of the world's nations. At the Nuremberg war crimes tribunals, the U.S. tried, convicted and executed Nazi leaders for engaging in torture. Those that do not adhere to international treaties against torture are rightly branded rogue nations. Torture is the mark of tyrannies.”

I can only say AMEN!