In a Handbasket

Defenseless

United States President George Walker Bush has been widely blamed for his lack of response to Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the Gulf Coast not too awfully long ago. Part of his reasoning was that our nation's resources have been drained by the war in Iraq, which is dragging out longer than expected. Why is the war in Iraq taking so long? Well, it's because we didn't send quite enough troops because we were committed to the War on Terrorism and we needed to have people in Afghanistan. Why do we have people in Afghanistan? Because terrorists killed thousands of American citizens in the September 11, 2001 attacks, that's why we need troops in Afghanistan. Why were we attacked in the first place? Many have said it's because Mr. Bush was caught unprepared and wasn't ready. The continuing trend here being "we didn't have enough people to do the job right."

Mr. Bush's response to all this? He's cut spending for the National Guard. source Makes sense to me. He's already crippled the regular military through budget cuts. (There's a good article in the Army Times about this subject - you can read it here.) In a time when we're seeing massive amounts of money flowing out of our pockets to feed the military machine it seems odd that our soldiers don't have adequate equipment (body armor, for example), military benefits are being cut, soldiers' pay is woefully inadequate, hazard pay is being cut, even funeral pay is being slashed. We need to take care of our troops.

I've said it before - I was against the war in Iraq simply because of the timing and the reasons given. (Had Mr. Bush simply come out and said, "Hussein's a bad guy - he's violating international law, we're gonna go get him, as soon as we get this bin Laden fella," I would have been okay with it. But instead we shifted our focus from the people who actually hurt us [al Qaeda] to Iraq, and went to war under false pretenses.) But we're there now. Our troops have been there for years. They're tired. They're doing their job. We need to take care of them. Our current leadership is creating an environment where Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay can happen. We need to stop abusing the Geneva Conventions, we need to start listening to the United Nations, and we need to start helping our soldiers. Sadly, I don't think it's going to happen under the current administration.

In an odd twist of events, and a slight change of subject, our President pushed through his infamous "No Child Left Behind" act, and simultaneously cut educational benefits for the children of our servicemembers (Impact Aid). source Aye, that Mr. Bush, he's got brass 'uns, I tell ya.


Iowa Politics

Sioux City has a lot to be proud of - but we've sent several embarrassing politicians off to the state level lately. (Notably embarrassing Representative Chris Rants. As I commented on Who's Makin' Bacon [a good blog], it's my studied opinion that Sioux City elected Mr. Rants to the state legislature simply to get him out of town for a while. I can't think of any other reason he could possibly have been elected.) Steve Warnstadt's doing a great job, by the way, near as I can tell.

But the politician that currently worries me is republican Sioux City businessman Bob Vander Plaats. He's running as Jim Nussle's second for the Iowa Governorship. I hope he doesn't embarrass us. It worries me a bit that he's always referred to as a "Sioux City businessman," but from what I can learn on the Interweb, Mr. Vander Plaats is actually from Sheldon. I can't figger out how long he's been in Sioux City, nor can I pin down quite what business he's into. I've been in town long enough now that I've met, seen, ran into, or recognized from afar most of the politicians around - Mr. Warnstadt, Wes Whitead, etc. But not only have I never seen Mr. Vander Plaats, I've never even heard of anyone around here talk about him. Eerie.

At this early stage in the game I'm personally leaning toward Mike Blouin for governor. This is strictly by hearsay at this point - I've heard some bad things about Chet Culver, good things about Mr. Blouin, and from what I've heard of Mr. Nussle (the republican) I would never consider voting for him, regardless of party affiliation. Again, it's all hearsay. I did notice, though, that Mr. Blouin went outside Iowa to find a web design firm. That disappointed me; there are a LOT of talented designers in the state that would have done just as good a job. Why not keep the money local, eh? Oh well.

If I were king...

Here's a list of things I'd change, do, legislate, whatever if I were king... (Not Steve King, by the way -- just your run-of-the-mill "king of the kingdom" type of king.) None of these are particularly well-thought-out, it's just things that ran through my mind today when I was supposed to be working.


1. No honking. I keep odd hours. It never fails to irritate me when someone pulls up in the street and immediately starts honking. If you're supposed to pick someone up, for Pete's sake, please get your lazy butt out of your car and go knock on their door. Or at the very minimum, wait for thirty seconds before you start blaring away with the horn. Don't sit in front of my house honking at ten o'clock at night. Or at ten o'clock in the morning. Or ever.

2. Don't park in my driveway. It's my driveway. Go park in your own.

3. Politicians should get paid the annual salary of their constituents. (I know, I keep harping on this one, but I really think it's a good idea.) That's one sure incentive for them to keep the economy moving... And I'm not talking about "we'll just pay them the median salary," I 'm talking about "everything they earn above the median salary gets donated to charity." No fancy speaking engagements for lots of money, no accepted donations... You gets what you gets. Around these parts, you gets about $37, 429 - IF your spouse works too. That's the median household income for Sioux City, and I don't know of anyone who has a single-income household.

4. If you catch someone dealing drugs, their banker goes to jail with them. That'd stop the major dealers, anyway. If they're banking overseas, well then, we go overseas and get the bankers.

5. Nicorette, the patch, hypnotism - they should all be government-subsidized so they cost the same as a pack of cigarettes. A few years ago I tried Zyban to quit smoking - it cost several hundred dollars. That's criminal. I remember back a few years thinking, "Gee, I wish I could afford Nicorette, I'd really like to quit smoking." It's easy to fund this program, just tax tobacco a bit more.

6. Make meals smaller. I don't really need a two-pound hamburger. The fries at McDonalds are great - but do you know how many calories are in a super-jumbo extra-large bucket of fries? Ye cats! We have salary caps - why not a calorie cap? No fast food joint shall be allowed to serve a customer more than 800 calories per meal... If society holds bars and bartenders responsible when people drink too much, doesn't it follow that we should hold restaurants responsible for people who eat too much? Generally I'm a staunch advocate of taking responsibility for your OWN actions, but I might make an exception in this case and make the grease-slingers quit handing out five-pound sandwiches.

7. Tax gas. A lot. Like, two bucks a gallon. This sounds goofy, but as was pointed out by West Cork elsewhere in this blog, it'd do us wonders. Figger your average family would spend an extra $4,000 a year on gas with this tax. We simply give it back to the family by cutting their payroll tax by $4,000. So, the family comes out even in the end. But suppose that the family should happen to switch from a huge gas-guzzling SUV to a nifty little hybrid, suddenly they'd be money ahead in the deal - and as a bonus, the environment is happy and we're not as vulnerable to overseas oil prices. It's all been worked out by people much brighter than I about thirty years ago, but the politicians will never go for it.

8. No family shall have more working cars than they have drivers. If you want to have an extra car or truck, fine, but you're gonna pay an extra tax for it. The tax money will go towards developing a hydrogen economy and supplying inner cities with bikes.

9. Term limits. A politician can be re-elected twice (making a total of three terms). After his three terms, he has to step aside for at least two years.

10. Policemen should live in the neighborhoods they patrol.

11. Politicians should, by law, go to two randomly-selected bars in their constituency every month, and announce that they're a congressman (or whatever). They then must sit there and listen to the people for a minimum of three hours with no news media hanging around.

12. Everyone who gets paid by the government should, by law, go work in the factory or packing plant or whatever one day a month so they know how the rest of us poor schmucks live and how hard we work. Maybe that'll make the grouchy lady at the driver's license place show a bit of respect. The point being that our lawmakers are horribly out-of-touch with the rest of us.

13. Churches are subject to the same financial laws as everyone else.

14. Separation of church and state means just what it says. If your faith in God is so thin that you need to see His name on a dollar bill, you need more help than you realize. (If you think about it, and stretch the logic a bit, isn't putting God's name on our money against God's will anyway? Doesn't that lead to us worshipping money? What about that whole "Thou shall not have any idols before me" thing?) The state should be completely neutral as far as religion goes - open and accepting of all.

15. Religious leaders shall not have political opinions in front of their people. They can spout their opinions all they want on their own time. Separation of church and state runs both ways.

16. "The Daily Show" and "Boondocks" should be mandatory viewing.

17. Lawsuits should be limited to damages and repairs only. No million-dollar settlements. If your lawsuit is judged to be frivolous, you shall be held up to the ridicule of your peers, and you shall pay all court costs.

18. It should be illegal to get more than one Visa (or MasterCard or American Express) application in the mail per month. (Illegal for them to send it, I mean.)

19. It should be illegal for anyone to charge more than 10% interest on anything, ever.

20. If you get money from the government, you should do the government some good. If you get food stamps, you should have to spend ten hours a week cleaning garbage out of the parks, or participating in a government works project, or something.

21. Courtesy, politeness, and manners should be the norm, not the exception. It should be taught in school. And at home.

22. "Oh, you're anti-choice? How cute. How many children have you adopted?"

23. All factories shall have their water intake pipes located downstream from whatever it is they're dumping in the river.

24. No one in the company, including the owner, should make more than five times the amount of the lowest-paid employee. If the boss wants to get paid more, well then, give the janitor a raise.


I know, there are good arguments against everything I've said. But this isn't meant to be a rational, well-though-out list, but rather a list of things that flit through my mind from time to time.

Whatever Happened to Molly?

Whatever Happened to Molly?

I know I shouldn’t, and it’s probably just a nasty coincidence, but I’m feeling somewhat guilty about the disappearance from the Sioux City Journal of the one political columnist whose work I most admired: Molly Ivins. You’ve probably noticed, as I have, that Ivins’ column has mysteriously gone AWOL. I say “mysteriously” as no warning or explanation has been forthcoming from the esteemed Journal. Even worse, Ivins has been replaced by such right-wing political troglodytes as Bill O’Reilly and Charles Krauthammer.

And why do I blame myself? Well, you may recall the following Letter to the Editor of 11/6/05 critiquing former Journal publisher (and current cranky old fart) Dean Krenz after he unfairly and irrationally took potshots at Ivins. In case you didn’t clip the piece, I’ll reprint it here in all its glory:

[“Kudos to Sunday’s letter writer for a pointed critique of last Friday’s Dean Krenz column. I’d like to add my own observations.

Apparently, having been a publisher entitles one to think one’s disjointed ramblings are worth seeing in print. I use the term “ramblings” advisedly, as Krenz flits from topic to topic, giving voice to his “feelings” while rarely pausing to develop a cogent argument backed by factual evidence.

Krenz’ latest column “bashing” Molly Ivins typifies this approach. In his narcissistic style, Krenz on Friday informed us that he “really, deeply” hates columnist Molly Ivins. Why we readers need to know this is not clear. Nor is the reason for his hatred, innuendo, and petty name-calling, other than Krenz’ unsubstantiated dismissal of Ivins as a veteran Bush basher. “I hate you,” though, is the cry of a petulant child, not the mark of a mature, reasoned argument. Hatred is ultimately irrational, and hence unanswerable. Better Krenz should treat us like adults and argue the merits of Ivins’ critiques of Bush and administration policies, rather than simply giving vent to his emotions.

Ivins, to her credit, does usually develop an argument and provide supporting evidence. That cannot be said of a great number of today’s so-called political pundits who, like Krenz, think the world amiss if it doesn’t conform to their personal prejudices. Instead, I welcome any columnist of any political stripe who follows the traditional and accepted rules of argumentation, and I hope the Journal would do the same.”]

Krenz dodged the specific charges against him (big surprise!), and instead responded shortly thereafter with the following sarcastic defense: “My column writing style is conversational rather than that used in legal briefs by learned barristers” (Journal 12/2/05). Gosh, Mr. Krenz, in desiring to “[stir] up the kettle, “as you so quaintly put it, could you perhaps also bring yourself ONCE IN A WHILE to compose a logical argument backed up with factual evidence? Apparently not, judging by Krenz’ more recent columns suggesting that protecting endangered wildlife species in the U.S. sends the wrong “touchy-feely” message to would-be anti-American terrorists, or the oddly inconsequential list of “Seven Things that Tick Me Off” of February 17, in which Krenz (at his undisciplined best) hides behind ambiguous pronouns and gross stereotypes without ever citing a specific example of someone actually committing the offenses he decries. Really, how do we bridge that great disjunction between the world according to Dean Krenz, and the world as it actually is?

Anyway, as the saying goes, “you can’t fight City Hall” (though Lord knows I’ve tried!). Apparently, you also can’t take on a local hack ex-publisher, whose columns haven’t improved in quality one whit since the abovementioned rant against Ivins. Now Ivins is gone, yet Krenz remains…

But hey, writing well is hard work! And by adding additional intellectual light-weights like Bill O’Reilly to the Journal’s Opinion Page, Krenz’ own frequently pointless musings can’t help but look better by comparison.

Honestly, I do not mind a conservative political columnist … so long as they write responsibly and well.

Anybody out there interested in organizing a petition to bring back Ivins?

Peace!
Historian

What It Means To Be A Republican

From BUZZFLASH:

by Larry Beinhart

The vice president shoots you in the heart and in the face. Then you apologize for all the trouble it’s caused him. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

Despite almost hysterical warnings the president stays asleep at the wheel. He does nothing about terrorism and 9/11 happens. He responds by running away to Nebraska. Three days later he makes a supposedly impromptu speech with a bull horn on the rubble of the World Trade Center. He is universally cheered as a hero. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

The president puts together false claims to go to war with the wrong country. His party universally supports him. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

The administration mismanages the war in Iraq so that it creates chaos, a breeding ground for terrorists and political opportunities for Islamic fundamentalists. Along the way, the reasons for going to war are exposed as false. The president runs on national security as his main issue. He is re-elected. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

The president cheerfully gives away the surplus to the richest people in the country. Then he runs up record debts, just to throw more money their way. He claims it has helped America’s economy. People act like they believe him. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

The administration continues it’s magnificent tradition of going to sleep when it is warned of disaster. It does nothing when Katrina is coming. It continues its record of doing nothing when disaster arrives. As New Orleans was lost, just as when the World Trade Center was lost, the president got as far away as possible. But he can’t be blamed for what nature did. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

The president orders wiretaps without warrants, a straightforward violation of the constitution. When the Attorney General is called to testify, the head of the Judiciary Committee insists that his testimony not be under oath. The head of the intelligence committee suggests that the law be changed, now, to make it legal after the fact. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

Alberto Gonzales helped come up with the program that rejected the Geneva Conventions, that permits torture, that says that the president is above the law and that “I was only following orders” should be a defense against a charge of war crimes. Ah, if only the Nazi war criminals who were hung at Nuremberg had Gonzales there to defend them. The president nominates Gonzales to be his new Attorney General. He is confirmed with little debate and no outrage. That’s what it means to be a Republican.

This needs to be understood.

What it implies is that Republicans can’t be dealt with as if reason and facts will sway them. Because it won't. It’s hard for reality-based people, regular Democrats and Liberals, to understand that.

What it lets us know is that reality-based people -- Democrats, Liberals, real Conservatives, old-fashioned Republicans and non-profit Christians -- have to take more vigorous and rigorous stands. Or reality and real American values and the American landscape will disappear, not just temporarily, but forever.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Larry Beinhart is the author of Wag the Dog, The Librarian, and Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin. All available at nationbooks.org.

When is a Cartoon Not Just a Cartoon?

When is a Cartoon Not Just a Cartoon?

When is a cartoon not just a cartoon? When it’s thoughtfully analyzed within its socio-political context.

Currently, much of the Islamic world is literally up in arms over the publication by a small Danish newspaper of a series of a dozen cartoons dealing with Islam. Apparently, driven by some perverse sense of wanting to stick up for “freedom of speech,” the newspaper’s publisher solicited professional cartoonists for their take on Islam today. The result was the now infamous dozen cartoons, several of which are pretty innocuous, several of which are difficult to decipher, and several of which are blatantly offensive.

Of course, the most controversial one depicts the prophet Muhammad, whose turban consists of a bomb with lit fuse. This cartoon is offensive on several levels at once. First, there’s the obvious direct link made in the cartoon between the religion of Islam and Islamic terrorism. This is not a link that most Muslims would accept. Second, and perhaps most important, however, is the fact that Islamic tradition generally prohibits depiction of the human form. To do otherwise is to commit a form of idolatry. Muhammad is no exception to this rule. In fact, depictions of Muhammad can be considered especially sensitive because of his central role as the Prophet of Islam, for to even suggest that the prophet is equal to God is tantamount to extreme blasphemy. This point is stressed when Muslims are called upon to pray five times each day: “I bear witness that there is no god but God [Allah]; He has no partner; and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and messenger.”

But there’s another element to the raging controversy that is often overlooked, and that is the fact that the protests are also about relationships of power. I have tried to explain the protests to some of my students, who typically comment along the lines of: “But I wouldn’t riot over a stupid cartoon!” No, we Americans probably wouldn’t (and for that we should be thankful). Then again, we generally wouldn’t have to riot. We Americans live in a reasonably well-functioning democratic system with checks and balances, as well as a mature civil society that provides less dramatic outlets through which to let off steam. Upset with City Hall? Well, no one’s preventing you from attending a City Council meeting to air your complaint. Angry at the City Manager over an apparent abuse of power? You could always express yourself in a Letter to the Editor in the local newspaper. And why go to the trouble of rioting when a petition can be drawn up and circulated, or a permit requested for a peaceful demonstration? If all else fails, you can run for office yourself, or vote out the politicians you dislike.

Sadly, there are still countries in the world where even a simple Letter to the Editor (assuming a newspaper would even print anything critical of the government) could land you in prison, or worse. In the Islamic Middle East and North Africa, unfortunately, political rights we Americans take for granted are still largely notable for their basic absence. The United Nations, for example, includes in its annual “Human Development Report” a country-by-country assessment of political rights. The overall scale ranges from -10 to 10 (from least democratic to most democratic).

Of the 17 countries the U.N. groups into the category “Arab States,” for example, only ONE scored in positive territory (at a “2”) according to its 2002 study. That would be the tiny North African state of Djibouti with a population of less than half a million, which in January 2003 held its first free multiparty elections since gaining independence from France in 1977. Far more representative of the sorry state of democratization in that area would be those Islamic countries where rioting and violence was at its worst, such as Syria (“-7”), Pakistan (“-6”), and Lebanon (no ranking at all due to its being occupied until recently by Syrian troops). Five members of the group do not even yet recognize the right of women to vote. Saudi Arabia scored at the very bottom of the rankings, with a miserable “-10.” Where peaceful avenues of protest do not exist, and frustrations are therefore left to fester and grow over time, it should come as no surprise that a reaction, when it does come, can often take dramatic and even violent form.

Moreover, attacking the “West” can often be a convenient surrogate in such countries for venting popular frustrations that have as much to do with anger over their own ineffective and repressive national governments.

I do not mean here to excuse the violence that has recently wracked the Middle East and much of the rest of the Islamic world. Violence is violence, no matter the cause, and hence unacceptable. But it would do us good as a nation to try and put such violence into its proper context, and stop mindlessly assessing what goes on elsewhere in the world as if everybody were basically “just like us.”

The Islamic world was already an obvious tinder box. Publishing the cartoons simply threw fuel on a long-simmering fire. And while such right-wing blowhards as Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are falling all over themselves in their sudden haste to defend “free speech" rights (except where criticism of the Bush administration or its policies is concerned, of course), the violent response to the Danish cartoons should give us pause, and remind us that the permissible is not necessarily also ethical.

Peace!
Historian

Just Suppose

SUPPOSE a politician promised to reveal the details of a simple proposal that would, if adopted, produce hundreds of billions of dollars in savings for American consumers, significant reductions in traffic congestion, major improvements in urban air quality, large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and substantially reduced dependence on Middle East oil. The politician also promised that the plan would require no net cash outlays from American families, no additional regulations and no expansion of the bureaucracy.

...(The) proposal enjoys extremely broad support. Liberals favor it. Environmentalists favor it. The conservative Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker has endorsed it, as has the antitax crusader Grover Norquist. President Bush's former chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, has advanced it repeatedly.

Read Here for details on this simple proposal.

US Constitution Rips

From Juan Cole:

Further Abu Ghraib Photos
US Constitution RIP

Salon.com has gotten hold of a complete set of images of torture from Abu Ghraib. This is the material that the US government has been declining to release. The pictures are not of new abuse, though it is clear that many of the same sorts of torture as were pictured in 2003 have continued-- including stress positions, hooding, etc.

Meanwhile, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has called on the United States to try the detainees at Guantanamo or release them, rejecting the notion that they can simply be held extrajudicially forever.

Sort of sad that the rest of the world has to lecture us about things that at least used to be in our own constitution.


'Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. '

He's the Veep we Need

It's been all over the news. Republican United States Vice President Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney, 65, shot millionaire republican lawyer Harry Whittington in the face with a shotgun, sending Mr. Whittington to the hospital. The two men had been hunting tame quail at a ranch in Texas. Mr. Cheney, a Yale dropout, neglected to inform President George Walker Bush for quite some time that he'd shot a man in the face with a shotgun. In spite of Mr. Cheney's two drunk-driving arrests and the fact that beer was involved in the incident, the official line is that alcohol was not a factor in the shooting. Evidently, aim was not a factor, either... Mr. Cheney may have had more control over his firearm had he any military service. (In the 1960s the Selective Service declared that married men with no children were eligible for the draft. Nine months and two days later, Mr. Cheney became a father. Hmmm... In fact, he actually applied for the "fatherhood deferment" when his wife, Lynn, was only ten weeks pregnant.) source

Should Mr. Cheney be asked to resign his position as Vice President of the United States of America? No. Absolutely not.

I can see you out there, scratching your heads... "Did he just say that a Republican should be allowed to stay in power? That's odd..."

Reason it through with me.

First off, no one in the Bush Administration has taken any personal responsibility for anything, ever. Mr. Cheney admitted in an interview with Fox News (the unofficial propaganda outlet for the Bush Administration) that he did indeed shoot Mr. Whittington in the face with a shotgun, and that he "takes full responsibility." It's easy to say, "I take full responsibility for shooting a man in the face with a shotgun," when the only ramifications for that action are saying you're sorry and paying a seven-dollar fine for having the wrong hunting license. Had Mr. Cheney been faced with a prison term, arrest, etc., I doubt he would have stepped up to the plate. It's not in his nature. His first reaction, actually, to shooting Mr. Whittington in the face with a shotgun, was to blame Mr. Whittington for being in the wrong place. So, asking him step down from his post as vice president isn't going to get us anywhere, nor is asking the President to replace Mr. Cheney going to get any results.

Secondly, and this is the big reason, Mr. Cheney is unelectable. He's an elderly gent who's had four, possibly five heart attacks and one bypass operation already. He's shown the wonderful judgment to shoot a man in the face with a shotgun. His approval ratings have always been in the cellar. He has experience now as vice president, but no one trusts him. Why would we want him to step aside so the Republicans can put a more effective person in his place, grooming him or her for the presidency? Dr. Condoleeza Rice (who has an oil tanker named after her) has already held two top spots in the baffled and befuddled Bush administration - why give her a chance to add "Vice President" to her list of titles? That would only bolster her chances of giving the democrats a hard time when the elections roll around in a few years. No, we should leave the Mr. Cheney where he is - he has no credibility and is therefore no longer a threat to America.

The only time we should ask for Mr. Cheney to resign would be if President Bush were to be impeached. Mr. Cheney should under no circumstances be allowed to govern.

Should we replace Mr. Bush? Absolutely. He must be impeached. He has lied, cheated, manipulated, spied, misled... The litany goes on and on. The government he has in place condones torture. We have secret prisons hidden around the world. We're being spied upon by our own government. The economy is in trouble. The country owes massive amounts of money. This is a very dangerous situation. Mr. Bush must be removed from power. The elections are coming up in a few years, though. If we start impeachment hearings now, would they be finished by election time? Do you see where I'm going with this? I think that the best strategy for the democrats, libertarians, and greens would be to mount a simultaneous attack - bog down the administration with impeachment hearings so they can do no more damage for the next few years, and at the same time position candidates to take advantage of the confusion in both the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Them's just my thoughts.

Mike Blouin for Governor

Note: This is the personal opinion of the blogger, not the position of the Woodbury County Democrats!

This November’s election for Governor of Iowa will come down to republican Jim Nussle vs. the best Democrat we can nominate, and that man is Mike Blouin.

When you compare the major candidates in the Iowa primary, only Blouin has the experience and proven ability to serve as our governor. As a teacher, Iowa legislator, US Congressman and head of the Iowa Department of Economic Development, Blouin has demonstrated time and again that he has the ability to lead and to accomplish some rather impressive goals.

While other candidates might have better name recognition right now, Blouin has the strongest record in real-world accomplishments. In the United States Congress, he helped lead the fight for better wages and safer conditions for working people everywhere. And during his three years as Director of the Iowa Department of Economic Development, Iowa passed the largest jobs program in its history—the Iowa Values Fund. As point person in job creation for the state Mike was responsible for the creation or retention of 30,000 good-paying jobs. The Iowa Values Fund is commonly referred to as the most successful economic development effort in the state’s history.

Blouin has some fairly progressive ideas on extending health care to more Iowans, and strengthening education – especially for very young children. As he continually points out, it is far cheaper to invest needed dollars in early education than to continue to pay vast costs to society years later for people who can’t make it on their own. And he is committed to having a cabinet-level position on his staff for a director of women’s and children’s health, and doubling the amount the state spends on anti-smoking programs.

Iowans deserve to have a strong governor who can accomplish his progressive goals. Iowans need a man with the proven ability to work with legislators, teachers, labor and businesses to make Iowa stronger and better. Mike Blouin is the man who will make that happen.

What if VP Gore Had Shot Someone?

For comparison's sake, let's just imagine what Republican reaction would be if this were, say, 1998, and Vice President Gore, while on a secret weekend trip with a friend and two women not their wives, had gotten liquored up, shotgunned that friend in the chest, and then waited a day before reporting the offense. Let's extend the same kindness, courtesy, and benefit of the doubt to Cheney that Gore would have gotten from the Republicans if the situations were reversed....

From the blog "Political Animal"

Cheney Shooting: The Perfect Metaphor for This Administration

From the blog 'Daily Kos'

The Cheney shooting story isn't about to die down. I predict that the press is going to run with this story for days, if not weeks--and it has very little to do with the possibility of Cheney's being drunk, or with the 18 hour delay, or anything else. And this story is going to be much bigger than what we've seen so far in the White House Press Briefings.

It's because this story is a perfect metaphor for this administration's foreign and domestic policy. It says everything you need to know about Dick Cheney personally, and the way this entire administration operates.

And the press does this all the time: they run with little things that display flaws in character: Al Gore's "Internet" quote to highlight his weakness for exaggeration; Kerry's "Voted for it before I voted against it" to highlight his weakness for equivocation.

In this case, we have Cheney and the entire Bush Administration foreign and domestic policy in a nutshell. Especially in Iraq and Katrina.

In this case, Cheney and friends were killing innocent creatures who were trapped in a pen with no hope of escape.

Overeager, Cheney hunted with a shoot first, ask questions later mentality, and managed to strike his own partner, and send his friend to intensive care.

It later appears that Bush and his situation room (or so they said) had no idea what was going on on the ground there. They waited an entire day to even report the story, even though they obviously knew what happened. Hell, someone else had to force them to report the story, because they sure weren't going to unless they had to.

The official story then has Cheney blaming the victim, saying it was the victim's fault he got in Cheney's way.

It starts to become clear there was a pretty big hush-hush coverup job about it, but that the truth couldn't help but get leaked, despite the Administration's best wishes. There is even speculation that Cheney was possibly intoxicated, and not using his best intelligence before he started shooting.

And, of course, they couldn't afford to admit the truth, because the truth would probably be an impeachable offense.

---------------------------------------------------------

It's a perfect analogy for the way they have conducted their entire administration--and all the biggest flaws of this presidency are on display in one little vividly portrayed story.

A little story that has tremendous sway because, let's face it: THE VICE PRESIDENT JUST ACTUALLY SHOT ANOTHER HUMAN BEING. The imagery is clear and potent--and not subject to the typical political "he said, she said."

There is no way to play the usual equivocating politics with a story about the vice-president ACTUALLY SHOOTING SOMEONE.

And that's why I guarantee you this story isn't going away: It's a perfect way for the press to indict the entire Administration through the perfect metaphor.

And they'll be able to do it without retribution, or accusations that both sides aren't being fairly presented.

And it's going to haunt these assholes for a long, long time, if my hunch is correct.

A Few Not-Particularly Original Thoughts

The Wakeup Call

Usually I wake up with a big smile on my face, which is quickly replaced by a scream of horror as I realize that I have to go to work. Yesterday was Sunday, though, so I woke up gently, sans scream. Until I remembered that Mr. Al Gore lost the election in 2000, even though he won. Then I screamed.

After all this time it still doesn't seem real.

Mr. Gore has probably written more books than the man who assumed office in his stead, Mr. G. Walker Bush, has read. We should all be happily working on solar-powered Macs and riding around sunlit avenues on Segways, not wondering why we're paying the Saudis record prices for oil and wondering if our money is being used against us.


Whups - sorry about that...

I just heard that U.S. Vice President Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney shot and wounded one of his buddies this weekend with a shotgun. Apparently 78-year-old Harry Whittington must look a lot like a quail, as that's what they were hunting at the time. Whittington is in the hospital, from what I've read on the 'net, and is doing fine after being "peppered" with shot on his right side.

I'm not sure what to think about our Vice President playing with guns in the first place - here in Iowa we don't let people handle firearms unless they're responsible enough to handle it, and, quite frankly, I'm not sure Mr. Cheney is up to snuff. Thankfully for Mr. Whittington, the limit on shooting millionaire lawyers is one per hunter...

All kidding aside, I hope Mr. Whittington is okay. And, against all odds, I hope that Mr. Cheney is responsible enough to take the consequences of his actions. When my neighbors start shooting at each other, someone's going to jail, and it usually isn't the person who got shot. Unfortunately, Mr. Cheney has never held himself responsible for much of anything, other than lining his pockets with our money through Haliburton's government contracts.

So, we've got a Majority Leader that's in legal problems, a gaggle of legislators caught with their hands in Jack Abramoff's cookie jar, a president that's illegally spying on his own citizens, and a vice president that's taking potshots at his buddies with a shotgun. Hooray for us.


Eggzactly!

I was pondering the vagaries of politics this afternoon and ran across an interesting article by a guy named Charlie Reese. The following three paragraphs, in particular, stood out.

That every tyrant who ever lived rationalized his abuse of power by claiming to be protecting the people or the empire or the country is kindergarten basic civics. We should know better at this point in our history. We are a nation of laws, not an empire and not a monarchy. Our Constitution deliberately created a weak chief executive.

The president, for example, is not our commander in chief. He's the commander in chief of the armed forces. As far as we civilians are concerned, he is just the administrator of laws passed by Congress. He cannot make laws. He cannot assume powers not given to him by the Constitution or by Congress. He must obey all the laws just the same as you and me.

A problem for many Americans is that they have never lived in the free republic created by our forefathers. We became a war state during World War II, and the Cold War was used as an excuse to maintain a war state and to expand it. We are spending more on defense than most of the rest of the world combined at a time when the only threats we face are isolated attacks by a loosely organized band of criminals. The government in Washington has become as secretive as the old Soviet Union.

That our president is, in theory, following the same laws as the rest of us is nothing new - I've been hollering about that for years. (Our current president, Mr. George Walker Bush, simply ignores the nation's laws and does what he wants. He's done it time and again, most recently with spying on United States citizens.) The fact that we've been in a "war state" for the past 65 years or so is a fact that I've forgotten. It's been pointed out to me before, but I didn't really understand the implications. I'm not sure I do now, to be honest.

I do know that we keep giving our government more and more power, more and more control. Do I want the government to provide me with policemen and firemen and sewers that work and make sure my food is safe to eat? Of course! Do I want the government to be a big bully about it, spying on people and starting wars over personal vendettas? Of course not! We need to let our government know that they've gone over the line. In fact, we may need to re-draw the lines altogether.

The article concluded thusly:

I would like to see all Americans send the president a simple message: "With all due respect, sir, obey the damned laws or resign. Both the law and the Constitution require warrants for domestic spying. Get them. Both the law and the Constitution require that Congress exercise oversight. Cooperate with Congress. You are a public servant, not a God-anointed ruler of a kingdom."

You can read the entire article by clicking here.

Orwell's Nightmare: Imagine a Country Where. . .

Orwell's Nightmare: Imagine a Country Where. . .

The government was always right and never apologized;

Any dissent was suppressed, ridiculed, banned or worse;

Secret prisons were denied and never acknowledged or spoken about;

The torture of captives was condoned;

State incarceration was not subject to the checks and balances of a legal system;

Economic plans, like for oil, were established/determined in closed sessions between politicos, commissars and production managers, far outside public view, and where government claimed privilege in so doing;

Wages were set at the lowest common denominator, no matter what Bloc country you were in;

Government agents had access to your medical records, your library records, your telephone, and your e-mail.

A place where judicial power and judicial review were proclaimed concepts, but simply ignored in application;

Where criminal records of young adults were closed to all but the military;

Where a Constitution was a mere facade and ignored by state actors.

Any dissent, debate and protest were deemed unpatriotic;

The public media was bought, paid for, and provided by the state;

The military clandestinely and shamelessly influenced the national media and public opinion;

A place where wrong was declared right;

Where tapping a phone was like tapping a pencil;

Where lying was considered a patriotic skill;

The extraction of natural resources was paramount to any concern for the environment and the impact on the health of its people;

Where the use of “state secrets,” (those things embarrassing to the government) were confused with legitimate issues of “national security”;

A place where "secrecy" and "national security" were used to control debate;

Where legitimate secrecy, was subject to political use and abuse;

Where "legislators" were mere mouthpieces for and rubberstamps of whoever was in power;

Where you lived and died with the permission of the government;

A place where foreign policy was more important than domestic concerns;

Where fear was used as a political weapon and an acceptable means of control;

Where the best medical care was reserved for the influential;

Where wealth was concentrated in the top 5%;

A place where there was no middle class -- just a small economic and political elite, and the working poor.

This is from a speech by former CIA officer Jim Marcinkowski, now running for Congress in Michigan's 8th District.

These remarks were delivered in Washtenaw County, Michigan on February 8, 2006

He was referring to the now dissolved Soviet Union, against which America presented itself as a vibrant and inspiring contrast -- well, most of the time.

We have become a nation led by those contriving fear, selling fear, validating fear, legitimated by fear -- and we run the risk of becoming what we fought for decades.

-- Steve Clemons

VP Shoots Senior Citizen in Face

Bad News: Dick Cheney "accidentally" shot a man Saturday.
Good News: The man was a lawyer.

I wonder if Bush will go hunting with Cheney again.

Seems he values gun safety much as he values mine safety.

Think how many soldiers are now glad that Cheney got his draft deferments.

And to think that people used to be afraid of playing golf with Gerry Ford.

Cheney was just upset that the quails weren't greeting him as a liberator....

None of this would have happened if Bush had only read that PDB titled "Cheney determined to strike in Texas"....

This was merely pre-emptive. Cheney struck Whittington before Whittington could pose a threat to America. After all, you can't wait until the smoking gun is, well, a smoking gun....

Just goes to show you, Guns, don't shoot people, vice-presidents shoot people.

So finally, finally, after five draft deferments and a lifetime spent avoiding combat and getting other people to fight his battles for him -- finally, Cheney has actually shot someone, and it turns out to be someone on his own side.

Although we do our best to target only enemy, some collateral damage is regrettably unavoidable.

Cheney Shoots 78-Year Old Man;
Bin Laden Still At Large
Following the incident, Cheney reportedly claimed that Whittington's ties to the quail were "pretty well established". Despite hitting only Mr. Whittington with his shotgun blast, Cheney was heard to be insisting hours later that the quail, since flown away, was in its "last throes".

He was merely exercising his Second Amendment rights on a 78 year old man. Why do you hate the Bill of Rights?

Cheney claims he is authorized to shoot whoever he wants under the Use of Force resolution.

Bet Cheney is happy that Texas passed tort reform.

Just imagine what the news media would have done if Al Gore had "accidentally" shot a man?

Now we know where the 'undisclosed bunker' is.

It must've been an accident. If it had been intentional the man would've been knifed in the back.

Did Karl Rove tell Cheney this would improve his public approval rating?

Cheney: I don't think Medicare Part D was killing off the old people fast enough, so I decided to help.

Look, you go hunting with the vice president you have, not the vice president you wish you had....

Cheney is now the second Vice President to shoot someone while in office. (Aaron Burr was the first.)

You know what they say, if Dick Cheney comes out of his hole and shoots an old man in the face, 6 more weeks of winter.

I for one will never complain about Cheney duck hunting with Justice Scalia again.

Peas In a Pod: Radical Muslims & American Conservatives

From the Blog Huffington Post:

It's striking, isn't it? American conservatives are so like the radical Muslims taking to the streets this week. Both claim moral superiority based on religion. Both use the language of hatred as political speech. Both advocate violence against those with whom they disagree. And they both despise the concept of a free press.

Lest we forget, here are a few choice quotes to remind the Bill Bennetts of this world just what they and their friends really stand for:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Ann Coulter

"And if Al-Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it ... You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." Bill O'Reilly

"I have to say I'm all for public flogging." Ann Coulter

"(On torture at Abu Ghraib): I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You [ever] heard of need to blow some steam off?" Rush Limbaugh

"If [Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it." Pat Robertson

"(on the kidnapping of peace activists in Iraq): "I'm telling you, folks, there's a part of me that likes this." Rush Limbaugh

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself." Glenn Beck

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote." Ann Coulter

"[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." Bill Bennett

President Bush said of the Muslim cartoon riots, ""We reject violence as a way to express discontent with what may be printed in a free press." If he means it, he can finally call Ann Coulter to task for saying "my only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."

Until then, let all these fanatics (and the politicians like Cheney who appear on their programs) be branded as the hypocrites they are. Muslim extremists and American conservatives: they're soul mates.

Christopher Addicted to Tobbacco Money

Des Moines Register, 2/8/2006
Cigarette tax supporters berate Rants
A group points out the speaker's acceptance of money from tobacco firms.

By TIM HIGGINS
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

February 8, 2006

Supporters of an increase in the cigarette tax Tuesday accused House Speaker Christopher Rants of blocking the measure because of his campaign contributions from big tobacco firms.

"Speaker Rants should kick the habit of taking big bucks from big tobacco and help provide health care instead," said Sarah Swisher of Iowa for Health Care, a part of the Service Employees International Union.

The group held a news conference on the steps of the Capitol and had a man dressed in a cigarette costume hand out fake dollar bills representing all of the money Rants has accepted from tobacco companies over the past three years.

It included mention of the $60,000 received by a conservative political action group aimed at helping Republicans win legislative seats and the governor's office in this year's elections. Rants loaned the group money to help it get started.

Rants, a Republican from Sioux City, defended himself, saying he's long opposed tax increases. He said a tax hike would send consumers over state lines and hurt small businesses in border communities.

"I've been pretty consistent," he said. "I haven't supported raising taxes. That's not new this year. The only new thing is that somebody contributed to me."

He also noted that Gov. Tom Vilsack, a Democrat, has received $100,000 for his political action committee, Heartland PAC, from Service Employees International Union.

Swisher said Rants received more than 76 percent of tobacco-related contributions to Iowa House members in 2004. Swisher's group also handed out fliers, printed to resemble toy money, noting that Rants received about $5,000 in contributions from R.J. Reynolds and Altria Corp. during 2003 and 2004.

His 2005 records show that he accepted $500 from Altria in October.

Vilsack has proposed raising the tax on a pack of cigarettes by 80 cents and reserving the extra $130 million in new tobacco money for health care programs.

A tobacco tax increase passed the Iowa Senate last year.

Vilsack has had similar proposals in recent years that have been opposed by Rants and other House Republicans.

Bush Hypocrisy On Alternative Fuel

President Bush reached a new low, or high, of hypocrisy in his State of the Union Address. Mr. Texas Oilman wants the country to develop alternative fuels and get over our addiction to oil. Riiight.

This is the president who let Big Oil write his energy plan, which Congress recently approved. It wasn't a big shock then that the bill included bundles of cash for oil companies.

As Andrew Sullivan wrote: "Yes, the guy from Texas whose energy bill gave oodles to big oil made a feint to the green caucus. No one should be too alarmed. This president has never asked Americans to make any sacrifices in the war on terror; he has never vetoed a spending bill; he has never raised a tax; he has added more than $20 trillion to America’s long-term debt in a mere five years. He isn’t actually going to ask people to use less oil, let alone adopt what was, one should sheepishly recall, a central plank of John Kerry’s election manifesto."

And why don't we believe his words were sincere Tuesday night? Because a month earlier the Administration cut $28 million from the budget of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, according to the Colorado Springs Gazette. Last year, the lab's budget was only $202 million.

The Gazette adds: "The International Renewable Energy Laboratory is the lead alternative energy research lab for the Energy Department. It oversees the National Wind Technology Center and many other projects, including research into solar energy." The lab also leads our nation's research into ethanol. So Bush says we must turn to ethanol but cuts the federal agency conducting the research. Nice.

Reportedly, the Bush Administration flaks were telling reporters last week that the President would focus on health care in the State of the Union. But that obviously shifted in the final days. Why? What's going on? Is this administration really this big of a mess? Apparently. Some people believe the White House shifted away from health care because their proposals aren't very popular. The conservative Republican answer to spiraling health care costs is to shift them to consumers, since we are all apparently using health care too much. If we didn't overuse it, these whacko right-wingers argue, the costs would come down. I guess Rove is smart enough to realize that's going to be a tough sell.

And, of course, raising health care's profile would also raise the profile of the prescription drug benefit disaster. If you want to see a pharmacist go mad, ask about this bungled government program delivered to your store by Bush and the Republicans. So, Rove changed gears and had Bush embrace alternative fuel. It's an obvious goal. But I won't hold my breath waiting for Bush to actually provide funding to make it happen.