Absolute Power...

House to Consider Relaxing Its Rules

GOP Leaders Seek Ethics Changes

By Mike Allen and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 31, 2004; Page A01

House Republican leaders are urging members to alter one of the chamber's fundamental ethics rules, which would make it harder for lawmakers to discipline a colleague.

The proposed change would essentially negate a general rule of conduct that the ethics committee has often cited in admonishing lawmakers -- including Majority Leader Tom DeLay -- for bringing discredit on the House even if their behavior was not covered by a specific regulation. Backers of the rule, adopted three decades ago, say it is important because the House's conduct code cannot anticipate every instance of questionable behavior that might reflect poorly on the chamber.

-----

Exactly WHAT values are being represented here? Is this the party of accountability?

Read & Pass Along

Ignorance is not the same thing as stupidity.

------

Peddling a Crisis (The Wrong One)

The shortfall in Bush's prescription-drug program is a far bigger problem than Social Security

By Alan Sloan
MSNBC

"Bush talked about Social Security's being a $10.4 trillion problem. That's how much you'd have to give Social Security today for it to continue paying benefits indefinitely under its current formula. But the shortfall in Bush's Medicare drug program is $17 trillion. In other words, the problem that Bush himself created a year ago is two thirds again as large as Social Security's problem. What's more, the drug plan starts costing taxpayers big bucks just a year from now, in 2006. We'll borrow it, of course. "

What Our President Values...Himself

Deaths shooting towards 100,000 with hundreds of Americans missing and we have pledged the following:

$35 Million

And, that is after being called out for being "stingy" and Bush decided to take a break from his vacation and pay attention.

Oh, and just for comparison, the cost of the inauguration...so far:

"The estimated budget for the event is $30-40 million, but that will not cover security costs."

There you have it. Bush claims actions speak louder than words...I suppose he's right.

A Response To: The Weapon of Martyrdom

By Jim Hoagland
Sunday, December 26, 2004; Page B07

Editorial Link: Here

My Response:

Ask any expert what is the most stable Islamic country in the region and the one most ripe for democracy and you will most likely get the answer...Iran.

I suggest you read a little history as to how they got there. You can start with their overthrow of a corrupt "western" government and the implementation of a theocracy based on their religion; the ONLY thing that cut across the various tribal cultures and groups. They had grown tired of having one form of "enlightened" government after another thrust upon them by outside forces that inevitably ended up in totalitarian control or corruption or both. The installed governments rarely addressed their religion and culture and certainly did not help to reduce the divide between tribes or corruption.

Mohammed and Islam have always been the ONLY thing in the region to do just that and when he did it with the religion of Islam, he succeeded in spades and gave them a feeling of self-control and a belief in something larger than themselves.

Iran used the unifying nature of religion, through force, to stabilize a country. We may not like the method used, but we cannot discount the effectiveness. I again refer you to history to provide a reference to how the west went through the exact same process...over hundreds of years as opposed to tens. Christian domination, enlightenment and the renaissance was the path used to end tribal affiliations and create the modern democratic nation state.

I'm not sure how we can expect cultures that have not EARNED democracy to both understand it or embrace it. It is our own arrogance and hubris that allows us to think that we present such a great example of how one should live (and many in the world think THAT is up for discussion) that we think they will just drop THOUSANDS of years of history and culture and embrace something completely alien to their way of life.

Contrary to what you seem to be writing about we are not fighting evil, we are fighting an insurgent enemy that is willing to employ the most effective tactic and weapon it has in its arsenal to defeat us. This weapon and tactic runs counter to our belief in the sanctity of life (maybe) and so we get wrapped around the axle about HOW they fight instead of WHY. And, as for our belief in the sanctity of life, I suggest you ask yourself what the difference is between dying from a plane hitting a building or a smart bomb. Violent death at the hands of something you cannot control is just that - death at the hands of another, no matter the delivery system.

You are misleading your readers and perpetuating a stereotype that only contributes to our collective ignorance of our enemy and the challenges we face. Until we know and understand our enemy, we will continue to win the battles while losing the war. Please read some history on the rise of Islam, the rise of modern Iran and then try to actually listen to what Osama Bin Laden is saying. We may not like his tactics, but ignoring his reasoning is no way to defeat him. You all to casually dismiss the fact that many, if not most, of the suicide bombers are men and women who do it for what they believe in and because they feel they have nothing to lose.

I ask you, how many Americans would be willing to do the same for two cars, reality television, and good stock options?

A Response To: Fighting the real enemy (Joe Scarborough)

Editorial Link: Here

The answer is without George Bush we wouldn't be in this war in Iraq. Damn you can be simple.

Where is the moral clarity in the invasion of Iraq?

What planet are you living on?

You cannot confuse the moral clarity of our soldiers defending themselves with the complete lack of clarity with respect to the reasoning behind why they are in Iraq in the first place. You cannot set the fire and then be indignant when others don't see the clarity in sacrificing fire fighters for the fire you set.

I am soldier who served proudly in Afghanistan and spend every day hoping the next letter in my mailbox isn't one sending me to Iraq. Something I'm sure you will never experience. And, I can tell you that virtually all of Clinton's wars and strikes were fought at every step by the non-nation-building types who now cannot find an instance of cognitive dissonance that they won't use to try and justify this massive cluster-fuck of nation-building. (How pathetic is it that after 4 years of Bush and Republican control, you still reach back to Clinton to assign blame?)

It never ceases to amaze and sadden me how easily you chicken-hawks send others to their peril for YOUR moral righteousness. Besides putting a magnet on your car and telling everyone who will listen just how much you support the troops, what have you sacrificed for this war on terror? (Not that Iraq has ANYTHING to do with it; except for the fact that its a recruiting poster for our enemies.)

Democracy must EVOLVE, it cannot be forced upon anyone unless you commit overwhelming force and completely subjugate them - consequently, in the process, throwing all moral authority out of the window. Can you say hypocrite? And, even if you buy into this dubious manifest destiny BS...guess what we DIDN'T do? Oh, that's right, they fired the General who told them they needed troops to secure the peace and ignored the Secretary of State, the only one in the cabinet with any combat experience.

Your endless support of the continuous lapses in judgment by our President and his staff lead me to only one conclusion: your judgment is piss poor too.

-----

I find it even more interesting that editorials of similar tone and subject are making appearances on other "conservative" blogs and websites. From where do these people get their marching orders? Seriously. Either they are incapable of an original thought, or someone is egging them on. Simple is as simple does I suppose. They remind of the monks from Monty Python's Holy Grail that chant and beat themselves over the head with boards.

They Don't Like Us, And Don't Care If We Care

Blog Link: Here

Last night I had an interesting conversation with a friend who works on Capitol Hill. He was recently part of a Congressional delegation that went to India. The delegation was mainly Republicans.

They spoke to a lot of Indian government people and the message from them was very clear, and in a nutshell it was this: We don't much care about America. He said they were very polite but almost indifferent. Maybe matter-of-fact is a better description. The conversation went something like this:

We consider ourselves as in competition with China for leadership in the new century. That's our focus and frankly, you have made it very difficult for us to deal with you. We find your approach to international affairs ridiculous. The invasion of Iraq was insane. You've encouraged the very things you say you were trying to fix - terrorism and instability. Your attitude to Iran is ridiculous. You need to engage with Iran. We are. We are bemused by your hypocrisy. You lecture the world about dealing with dictators and you deal with Pakistan. We are very sorry for your losses from the 9/11 terror attacks. Welcome to our world. You threaten us with sanctions for not signing the non-proliferation treaty, but you continue to be nuclear armed and to investigate new weapons. You expect us to neglect our own security because you want us to. We don't care about sanctions.

-----

So I guess the Neo-Con technique of shouting and repeating doesn't work with foreign types. No matter how many times we tell them that we're the greatest and they all depend on us just doesn't translate outside our borders. Good work Mr. President!

Step One...Create The Crisis

Story Link: Here

Kerry Opponent Taking Aim at New Target: Iran

Swift Boat author wants to prepare the public for what he sees as a likely war with the nation.

By Sonni Efron, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — Jerome R. Corsi, a leader of the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth campaign against former Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry, is hard at work on his next political project: preparing American public opinion for what he sees as a likely war with Iran."The world cannot tolerate the potential that these mad mullahs would have a deliverable nuclear weapon, even one, secretly developed," Corsi said in a recent interview.

"They might just launch on Tel Aviv. The moment the world intelligence community becomes convinced that could happen, either the U.S. alone or the U.S. plus Israel or Israel alone will seriously contemplate a preemptive strike, and I'd be in favor of it."

-----

The Neo-Con process for framing the debate is as follows:

Step 1: Create a false crisis to whip up emotions and leave reason at the door.

Step 2: Draw clear, black and white distinctions between what has to be done NOW to avert catastrophe.

Step 3: Choose side, create policy that favors friends and business, and shout as loud and as many times as possible that this is the ONLY way to save us from sure destruction.

Step 4: Develop counter strategy of denegrating any and all who would challenge such a clear and simple choice - usually by labeling it a "liberal" response.

Step 5: Cultivate emotion (usually fear) in order to bring false crisis to a head and then call for a vote or resolution.

Step 6: Go off half-cocked and ill-prepared for unintended consequences resulting from policy and action based on ideology and emotion as opposed to reason and critical thinking.

Step 7: Take no responsibility for failures of forethought due to "crisis" nature of problem and need for immediate fix. (Conveniently forget that you created the crisis in the first place.)

I suggest you take this process and apply it to virtually every policy initiative implemented or contemplated by this administration and the Neo-Cons et al. Iraq, Social Security, Estate Tax, Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind, etc.

Am I the only one disturbed by how casually this man commits the lives of our soldiers to his cause? I have an idea. Let's attack and kick his ass out of the airplane first!

Oops! Viacom Shows Its Stripes

Story Link: Here

WASHINGTON, DC — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) today called for both an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Congressional investigation into Viacom International Inc.'s hiring practices.

According to today's Washington Post ("You Can Tell a Republican by His Stripes," 12/17/04) Viacom's Gail McKinnon sent an e-mail this week to offices in the U.S. House of Representatives regarding a job opening in Viacom's government relations department. The e-mail calls for a male, Republican to fill the open position and reads as follows: "Importance: High We need to hire a junior lobbyist/PAC manager. Attached is a job description. Salary is $85-90K. Must be a male with Republican stripes."

"This is a blatant violation of federal law prohibiting discrimination against women in hiring," Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW said today.
-----

Yeah, give me more of that "liberal" bias in the media! And could you slap a little sexism and criminal conduct on the side!

I made my second online citation!

Link to editorial: Here

-----

Democrats MUST be willing to engage the enemy!

We cannot allow the right to continue to frame the debate on every subject. We, as democrats, must be PREPARED to go into the proverbial lion's den and assertively and articulately make our case.

Now, that also means we better know just what is our "case".

If what the person above says is true, it's disgraceful. We should have a cadre of people prepared and ready to respond to EVERY request to speak on EVERY conservative radio and television talk show to which we are invited no matter the issue.

The ONLY way we can begin to "reframe" the debate on the subjects important to us is to prepare to engage and then engage. This means that if they try to frame a question using a false assertion or premise, we need to call them on it.

For example, if they ask for a fix or advice on privitization, we need to make the case that A) Social security is NOT a crisis, B) The issues that do exist are not remedied by privitization, and C) Our plan to fix those looming issues that do exists is "X". Then we need to make it clear that privitization is attempt to change social security in toto, not fix it; AND if that is the subject they want to talk about, then that is a different subject and then we need to be able to articulate a stand on that as well.

We have to engage and we have to be willing to call bullshit when they try to lead us down their path to destruction. We cannot send people who can only spout ideology alone. We must have INFORMED people who can articulate the choices and the ramifications of each. Most importantly...WE MUST ENGAGE!

Please encourage your Senators and Representatives to engage the right wing media whenever possible.

How about that curb on domestic spending?

U.S. Forgives $4.1B of Iraq's Debt

Friday, December 17, 2004

WASHINGTON — The United States on Friday completely forgave $4.1 billion in debt Iraq owed it and urged other nations not part of an international debt relief agreement to follow suit.

-----

Just put it on our Master of the World Card please. Hey, what's another 4.1B dollars when your current account deficit is at a record level.

Maybe we're hoping the world will do the same for us one day.

What's Next?

Nearly Half in U.S. Want Curb on Muslim-Americans' Rights

Friday, December 17, 2004

ITHACA, N.Y. — Nearly half of all Americans believe the U.S. government should restrict the civil liberties of Muslim-Americans, according to a nationwide poll.

-----

So, what's next, gold swords on their clothing and businesses?

Please, please, please, please...read this editorial.

Link to Editorial: Here

-----

When the media that has protected us from the abuses of our government becomes a tool of the government, a political party or the bottom line of profit, we are doomed by our own ignorance. Infotainment does not inform, it entertains and asserts ideological opinions. Bloggers are becoming popular because they are quickly becoming the only source of independent news and opinion.

Cultural differences and ignorance of the facts were the catalyst for the Civil War in this country. It should be no surprise that the Red State-Blue State divide is coincidently similar to the divide between the South and the North.

I ask you this, which party stands to gain more from promoting and fueling this cultural divide?

CDC UPDATE

The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of sexually transmitted disease. This disease is contracted through dangerous and high-risk behavior. The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim (pronounced “gonna re-elect him").

Many victims have contracted it after having been screwed for the past 4 years, in spite of having taken measures to protect themselves from this especially troublesome disease. Cognitive sequellae of those infected with Gonorrhea Lectim include, but are not limited to:

Traits of Anti-social personality disorder; delusions of grandeur with a distinct messianic caste; disquiloquia; insensitivity to cognitive dissonance; inability to assimilate new information;pronounced xenophobia;severely diminished ability to accept responsibility; loss of the ability to recognize consequences; cowardice masked by acts of bravado; uncontrollable facial tics (smirks); ignorance of geography and history; preternatural regression to simplistic belief systems; and a strong propensity for categorical behavior.

The disease is sweeping Washington. Naturalists and epidemiologists are amazed and baffled that this malignant disease originated only a few years ago in a Texas bush.

ENRON Accounting...Government Style

Link to Editorial: Here

-----

If you are too lazy to read the above or to do research on the deficit or Social Security reform, then you are destined to allow others to control your fate. Learn it, know it, speak out!

Knowledge is power, ignorance is tyranny.

Iraq Predictions Revisited

I told you to seal my prediction in an envelope; it looks like someone opened it early.

My Prediction

How Iran Is Winning Iraq

By David Ignatius
Friday, December 17, 2004; Page A33

Take For Granted, Add A Little Pandering, Sprinkle Ideology...Simmer At Low Boil

The pattern of discontent in US ranks

By Brad Knickerbocker

Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Griping among the troops is as old as armed conflict, illustrated most memorably by cartoonist Bill Mauldin's "Willie and Joe" characters during World War II. But something more than that is happening now in Iraq with what appears to be growing resistance from the troops.

Evidence includes numbers of deserters (reportedly in the thousands), resignations of reserve officers, lawsuits by those whose duty period has been involuntarily extended, and a refusal to go on dangerous missions without proper equipment. There's also been a willingness at grunt level to publicly challenge the Pentagon - as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld found out recently in a trip to the war zone, where he got an earful about unarmored humvees.

While some don't see much defiance - and, in fact, have been surprised by the depth of solidarity - others see an unusual amount of tension surfacing for an all-volunteer military force.

Story Link: Here

-----

No comment necessary.

"...look at all the pretty storm clouds on the horizon."

The SecDef You Wish You Had

"Unfortunately you go to war with the Defense Secretary you have, not the Defense Secretary you might wish you had."

- Anonymous Quote

Cooking The Books

The administration, concerned about the soaring deficit, may not include borrowed costs in the new budget. That's because officials view such costs as a prepayment on long-term Social Security obligations, much like paying off a 30-year mortgage early.

"By taking that off the books of the country for the longer term we're going to put U.S. fiscal policy in a much stronger position," said Treasury Secretary John Snow.

Story Link: Here

-----

Sticking your head in the sand and placing 2 TRILLION DOLLARS of debt in a "different" pile, does not change the fact that it A) has to be borrowed, and B) will incur interest penalties, and C) will have to be paid off by our children.

ENRON accounting doesn't work any better in the government.

Oh, and this small fact...IT DOESN'T FIX THE PROBLEM!!!!!

Just what is the future value (FV) of 2 Trillion dollars over 30 years at an interest rate equal to what is currently paid on US debt? Anyone, anyone...Bueller...anyone?

Is this what passes for conservatism now?

Maybe he just SOUNDS dumb?

Bush noted that in addition to the budget deficit, America suffers from a huge trade deficit.

"That's easy to resolve," Bush said. "People can buy more United States products if they're worried about the trade deficit."

-----

Karl, Karl, Karl...do NOT let this man speak off-script.

Simple is as simple does.

The Buck Gets A Little Higher...

The Defense Secretary We Have

By William Kristol
Wednesday, December 15, 2004; Page A33

----

...but not high enough.

It's nice to see a conservative, a founding neo-con at that, point out the obvious, especially when it's counter to their ideology, but it doesn't really go far enough...can't expect an epiphany overnight I guess.

Who has kept him on and who has endorsed his efforts? You can delegate authority, you CANNOT delegate responsibility. Who is the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces and who is utlimately responsible for how they are employed?

Open Mouth, Prepare Foot...

Straight from the horses mouth:

President Bush pledged Wednesday to work with Congress to reduce the United States' huge budget deficit to assure markets that his administration supports a strong dollar.

"The policy of my government is a strong-dollar policy," Bush said during an Oval Office meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

"We're going to take this issue on seriously with the Congress," the president said.

-----

Let us forget for the moment that we have no idea what a "Strong Dollar Policy" is or what "serious" means with respect to actions to be taken by the President or the Congress and try to figure out what this statement, one that will have to pass for definitive in this administration, means. We don't know WHAT the policy is because, unlike most policies in the real world, it's not formal or written down because like MOST of this administration's policies, it's really more of a concept as opposed to a policy. And, we don't know what serious means since the only really "serious" actions taken by this President towards Congress are when he first tells them what he wants, because after that, he's off to the Ranch.

However, economists will tell you what a "Strong Dollar Policy" means; it means fiscal responsibility at home.

Dare I say...fiscal conservatism?

In order for the dollar to regain its strength in the world, the world must regain its confidence in the solvency and productivity of America. In order for that to happen, we must pay down our domestic debt, work to reduce our trade deficit (signalling an increase in productivity), and pay for the things our government does without borrowing more money.

There are two ways to achieve this, bring more money into the government coffers or spend less. The only other way is to introduce creative accounting that moves piles of debt around so that it doesn't show up on the books. Sort of like Enron and others. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that this administration would take accounting tips from its buddies, but hey, I would hope we wouldn't be THAT stupid....hmmmm. (HINT: I suggest you look at the proposal to shift the tranisition costs off the GAO books for Social Security reform)

So, in order to bring in more money we can HOPE that the economy suddenly skyrockets a la the 90's or we can raise taxes. HOPE is NOT a planning tool. The 90's boom followed a rise in taxes and a budget surplus, so methinks there is a bit of a chicken/egg problem here AND some of it was artificial due to the aforementioned creative accounting. And, since the economy seems to be happy chugging along at the 2 to 4 GNP rate, I see no reason to think a "boom" of the size needed to fill the coffers to the level necessary is just around the corner.

That leaves us with raising taxes. Yeah, right, whatever. Forget that your state and local taxes have more than covered your "savings" from the federal government tax cut and realize that this would go against every ideological bone in W's body. Notice that it has nothing to do with his brain.

The other avenue would be to cut spending. Of course this would mean less federal investment, less federal income to states, less social stability and higher state and local taxes to cover the unfunded mandates placed upon states by the Federal Government. Robbing Peter to pay Paul. Life goes on and we have a war to fight and infrastructure to protect. From just where would cuts come that would be large enough to even put a dent in current deficits, much less the overall deficit?

It certainly will be interesting to see how W will play his loyalty for his ideology against his STATED loyalty to his policy. Orwell could never have imagined the double-speak we will soon be getting from this administration on this subject.

Good leadership and management is about the ability to effectively and efficiently apply limited resources to competing demands within the constraints imposed by the current environment. How well one does this and achieves the goals set forth by the leadership is the measure by which we should judge one's leadership and management capabilities.

We now have his stated goal on record. We know the current constraints. We know the current competing demands. Now we must observe how well our leader effectively and efficiently applies our resources.

Please pay attention so that you can judge our leader's abilities on something other than religious pandering.

Who Is Responsible?

What Went Wrong in Iraq

By Larry Diamond
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2004

Many of the original miscalculations made by the Bush administration are well known. But the early blunders have had diffuse, profound, and lasting consequences-some of which are only now becoming clear. The first and foremost of these errors concerned security: the Bush administration was never willing to commit anything like the forces necessary to ensure order in postwar Iraq. From the beginning, military experts warned Washington that the task would require, as Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Congress in February 2003, "hundreds of thousands" of troops. For the United States to deploy forces in Iraq at the same ratio to population as NATO had in Bosnia would have required half a million troops. Yet the coalition force level never reached even a third of that figure. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his senior civilian deputies rejected every call for a much larger commitment and made it very clear, despite their disingenuous promises to give the military "everything" it asked for, that such requests would not be welcome. No officer missed the lesson of General Shinseki, whom the Pentagon rewarded for his public candor by announcing his replacement a year early, making him a lame-duck leader long before his term expired. Officers and soldiers in Iraq were forced to keep their complaints about insufficient manpower and equipment private, even as top political officials in the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) insisted publicly that greater military action was necessary to secure the country.

-----

If you want to hold them accountable, then you must know for what you are holding them accountable. In order for you to know, you must be informed. Avoid the links if you cannot tolerate more than a bumper sticker's worth of information, but then do not expect to be able to intelligently describe WHY this administration must be held accountable.

US Mercenary Inc.

So, you think the only place where we are fighting is where we have soldiers deployed. Think again.

Hint: Buy stock in Soldier of Fortune magazine.

Protecting people or profit?

By Max Jourdan Reporter, Private War

America's privatised military machine is at the heart of the war on drugs in Colombia. Defence corporations hired by the US government enjoy extremely lucrative contracts, but who is responsible when something goes wrong?

Pandering to the Radical Right?

Stuffing the Court with Far Right Ideology: Here

"White House officials are willing to say little about their Supreme Court strategy and brush off questions by saying simply that Bush will choose the most qualified candidate. But several lawyers and former administration officials who have discussed the issue with West Wing aides said they see indications that Bush is headed toward nominating what one called a "strong ideological conservative" rather than accommodating Democrats with a choice who would be confirmed with little controversy."

Pursuing Funding of Far Right Ideology: Here

"Bush said he plans to implement the first prescription drug benefit for seniors and has called for expanding the services provided by faith-based groups and continuing medical research "always ensuring that the work is carried out with vigor and moral integrity."

-----

For those of you who voted for "W" thinking that he was a centrist conservative who only pandered to the radical right to get elected, you better start thinking again. It looks more like he was radically right and pandering to the conservative centrists. He may keep us safe from Muslim extremist, but who is going to keep us safe from our own?

Looks like a duck...

...walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...tis a duck, no?

Perhaps we cannot see the forrest for the trees. But hey, it gives you a reason to see all the cultural landmarks in America for your next vacation. You know, Graceland, Disneyworld, Largest Ball of Twine, etc.

Europeans take dim view of Bush re-election

Germans, French also have negative opinion of Americans, poll finds
The Associated Press

Missing the Point on Social Security

A Response To: Flaws of Private Accounts

By Sebastian Mallaby
Monday, December 13, 2004; Page A21

-----
My Response:

While I found your editorial interesting, I think you are missing the point.

You are buying into the premise that Private Accounts are equitable in spirit to the Social Security Program as well as the dubious premise that the problem with the Social Security Program is an acute problem in need of an immediate fix. By jumping over more fundamental questions, you are inadvertently promoting the need for such a fix when, in fact, such a fix may neither be warranted or necessary...much less wise.

Slow down.

The idea of Social Security was NEVER to be a retirement account as we know them today. It's a last resort, a safety net. In order for it to maintain its ability to be a safety net, it must be free of the swings and vagaries of the free market. Remember, it was the crash of the market in the 1920's that was at least partially the reason it was developed in the first place. By placing the money in a market-driven account, the protection afforded to the "annuity" of social security is gone. If the government were to guarantee the funds to ensure this safety, then we are back at square one as the funds to ensure such a guarantee would have to be set aside at some level. If they choose to NOT back up the money, than its nothing more than a forced investment, which is definitely NOT the spirit of the program.

Lastly, virtually every expert is in agreement that the program will be completely solvent for at least the next 25 years. This give us a lot of time to research and come up with a sensible plan that is not ideologically driven. Again, let's slow down and define the problem FIRST, and then we can appropriately address the solution possibilities.

Anyone who is even thinking about privatizing Social Security should ask themselves and seek answers to these questions:

1. What is the intended purpose of the Social Security program?

2. Is the program in immediate trouble?

3. How will the transition to private accounts, expected to cost 2 Trillion Dollars, be funded? I'm looking for a DEFINITE plan, not some pie-in-the-sky sound bite or guess that a rising stock market will cover the costs. Given the fact that the President PLANS to cut the deficit in half and make tax cuts permanent, from where is the money going to come? Hope is NOT a planning tool.

4. What is the expected fee for management of these funds by private companies and will it be limited and who will pay it? I don't think that I should have to pay the usual fees for management of a fund to which I am forced to contribute. Who is supposed to gain from this, me or the fund management companies?

5. Social Security was never meant to replace a pension or a retirement fund, what happens if the stock market dips or even crashes? Is the government going to cover the losses and if so, how? Will there be a minimum return imposed? The idea of social security was that it was a fall-back that was kept safe from the vagaries of the business cycle and free market. It was a safety net, not a retirement income or investment.

6. How does privatized social security solve the original problem of a shortfall in paying for what is owed in the coming years? Isn't this SUPPOSED to be the goal or objective of social security reform?

These are just the most basic questions you should be asking and I suggest it would be more informative to write about these questions first and then about the proposed solution's merits.

Fox Reporter About to Lose Job?

Man, honesty and investigative reporting supporting Michael Moore!!!!????? This reporter must have already updated his resume.

What Michael Moore Didn't Know About Disney

Monday, December 13, 2004
By Roger Friedman
Fox News

"In "Fahrenheit 9/11," Moore is merciless about Halliburton. But he also lambastes another group right at the start of the film — the private-equity firm the Carlyle Group.
Moore points out that on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, the Carlyle Group was holding its annual investors' conference, with former President George Bush in attendance. According to Newsweek, "[Carlyle] buys and sells whole companies the way some firms trade shares of stock."

What Moore didn't know was that the Carlyle Group's senior adviser since May 2001 has been Arthur Levitt, Jr., the former head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. There's certainly nothing wrong with that; Levitt is welcome to do whatever he wants.

But Moore perhaps did not understand that Levitt's son, Art Levitt III, was for many years a key Disney executive and a confidante of Eisner, the chief opponent of "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

Project Blue Christmas - Support Companies That Support Democrats

Choose The Blue

Open Secrets

State of Denial

Rummy tells soldiers to go pound sand: Here

More are saved, but that means more are severely injured: Here

-----

The maxim for the military is this: Mission, Men, Me. Therefore, its not surprising that men are sent into battle without what may be considered the best equipment. However, to dismiss their concerns so casually and to consistently state that things are fine as is, simply presents soldiers and the American public with a slap in the face.

"We know better so butt out!"

"Doctors? We don't need no stinking doctors!"

Can anyone tell us what the goals and objectives are of our campaign in the world and can they give us ANY parameters that must be met by which we can measure success?

The bitterness of the soldiers is only going to increase as progress, if any, is measured in minute increments and Americans as a whole are asked to sacrifice NOTHING for the war effort. No war bonds, no victory gardens, no draft, not even the sacrifice of a half an hour of reality television. Hell, we cut taxes so now we can't even pay for the war. And yet, we continue to extend the tours of all military personnel and continue to put them in harms way without the best we have in our inventories; all for an ideological theory that has yet to even come close to showing any positive results.

Our military system will NOT be able to handle the OPTEMPO of the prevailing ideology without contributions of sacrifice from the American public. Putting nice yellow magnets on your car and telling anyone who will listen how thankful you are is not enough. It's simply too easy to allow others to go off to fight in war while you go to work and earn good money, have drinks with your friends, go to a movie, play with your kids, and sit in your living room and watch sports. Add to that the fact that you certainly won't see any images of dead soldiers or funerals and you are effectively cut off from the horrors that you, YES YOU, by defacto decree send others to go face so you can continue to do all of the above.

You are not being asked to make sacrifices by this administration because if you were to be made to sacrifice, you would start to pay attention. And, this administration simply cannot allow you to do that.

I ask you this, if the draft we instituted tomorrow, and you were called upon for duty, or your son, or your daughter, would you still be so sure about the current state of affairs?

Must Reads

Okay, first, I am NOT disparaging people of faith. Faith is an essential part of our culture and of the modern world. It allows us to think beyond ourselves and serve a greater good. However, I am commenting on organized religion and the intolerance of fundamentalist views. If the rising tide of fundamentalism in the world, and more importantly, the United States has you at least curious if not downright frightened, then you should read the following:

A good executive summary and discussion: Here (Also a good beginning to countering the growing political influence.)

The Fundamentalism Project (Books): Here

Paper on fundamentalism: Here

Excerpt:

The most famous definition of fundamentalism is H. L. Mencken's: a terrible, pervasive fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun. There's something to this. Fundamentalism is too fearful, too restrictive, too lacking in faith to provide a home for the human spirit to soar or for human societies to blossom.

But there are far more fundamental things to understand about fundamentalism, especially in this age of terrorism. An adequate understanding also includes some inescapable and uncomfortable critiques of America's cultural liberalism of the last four decades. The attacks on September 11, 2001, provided us a rare revelation about fundamentalism that arrived in two installments.

First, we became vividly aware of the things some Muslim fundamentalists hate about our culture:

They hate liberated women and all that symbolizes them. They hate it when women compete with men in the workplace, when they decide when or whether they will bear children, when they show the independence of getting abortions.

They hate changes in laws that previously gave men more power over women.

They hate the wide range of sexual orientations and lifestyles that have always characterized human societies.

They hate homosexuality.

They hate individual freedoms that allow people to stray from the rigid sort of truth they want to constrain all people.

They hate individual rights that let others slough off their simple certainties.

Not much was really new in this installment of the revelation. We had seen all this before, when Khomeini's Muslim fundamentalists wreaked such havoc in Iran starting in 1979. We have long known that Muslim fundamentalism is a mortal enemy of freedom and democracy.

The surprise second installment came just a few days after 9 / 11 in that remarkably unguarded interview on The 700 Club when the Rev. Jerry Falwell told Pat Robertson, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way all of them who have tried to secularize America I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'

These men are so media-savvy it's amazing they would say such things on the air. But it's also remarkable because in their list of causes of the 9 / 11 attacks, we heard almost exactly the same hate list:

They hate liberated women who don't follow orders, who get abortions when they want them, who threaten or laugh at some men's arrogant pretensions to rule them.

They hate the wide range of sexual orientations that have always characterized human societies. They would force the country to conform to a fantasy image of two married heterosexual parents where the husband works and the wife stays home with the children even when that describes fewer than 25 percent of current American families.

They hate individual freedoms that let people stray from the one simple set of truths they want imposed on all in our country. Robertson has been on record for a long time saying that democracy isn't a fit form of government unless it is run by his kind of fundamentalist Christians.

Together, the two installments make vivid the fact that our Christian fundamentalists have the same hate list as their Muslim fundamentalists.

-----

One must know the enemy to counter the enemy. Ignorance of what is slowly affecting your life and your future will not keep it from eventually causing real harm. Learn it, know it and work to counter it.

Clueless

How bad is it when you get pitched softball questions and can't even make a convincing case for past, present and future actions?

Rumsfeld in the 2000's = McNamara in the 1960's

Read it as is, it stands on its own.

O'Reilly's Interview with Rumsfeld

Power Corrupts & Reporters Are Wimps

Think Again: ‘Chilling’ the Press

by Eric Alterman and Paul McLeary
December 2, 2004

The story is one as old as the political arena itself. When one side feels it wields all the power, it loses a sense of proportion and limits on its behavior. We’ve seen countless hints of such likely abuses from the conservatives who rule the roost today, from a purge of those who offered sensible advice before our current misadventure in Iraq took place to an ill-fated attempt to give certain congressional staffers the police-state like power to examine the tax records of Americans at will. Together with this tendency to believe in one’s political invulnerability is the notion that power is no longer accountable in the old-fashioned way; that the media are no longer to be treated as a necessary protection of the people’s right to know, but rather as a nuisance to be neutered so that power may roll along merrily and unhindered by too many uncomfortable questions.

Story Link Here

Let Us Count the Ways: The Costs of Social Security Privatization are in the Details

Click Here for Executive Summary

by Christian Weller and Jeffrey B. Wenger
Center for American Progress
November 18, 2004

Social Security privatization is once again on the front burner of the public policy discussion. President Bush has indicated that he wants to make it a top priority of his second term to replace part of the existing social insurance with a system of individual accounts.

Privatization not only exposes workers to additional risks, it also substantially raises the costs of saving for retirement. A number of these costs have been well-documented. Workers would have to pay management fees for their accounts. In addition, they would have to pay insurance premiums to private insurance companies if they want the same level of protection that Social Security offers for themselves and their families. Further, they would have to bear an enormous burden to pay for the transition from one system to the other.

Another cost of individual accounts – so-called labor market risks – has often been ignored in the public debate. Typically, workers’ earnings are below average in a recession, when it would be most opportune to purchase stocks because of a concurrent stock market decline. This risk affects all workers to some degree.

The exposure to labor market risks is greater for women and minorities than for others. In essence, they accumulate fewer savings for each dollar they invest in their individual accounts compared to men and whites. This is especially pronounced for women, who consequently face costs that are comparable to the costs of turning their savings into lifetime monthly benefits – annuities.

The link between the labor market and individual accounts essentially punishes women and minorities twice. For one, they have lower lifetime earnings than men and whites and thus proportionately lower savings. Second, they accumulate fewer savings for each dollar they put away because of greater fluctuations in employment and wages.

Social Security is the only way to reduce the labor market risks. In the current setup, benefits do not depend on the performance of the stock market. Furthermore, Social Security pays proportionately higher benefits to low lifetime earners than to high lifetime ones.

Liberal Media?

Clear Channel Billboard

-----

Yeah...right.

Everything You Need To Know About...

David Horowitz

Ann Coulter

-----

Hmmm...no hate there. Exactly WHAT values are we to take from these two?

Misleading Children for Ideology...It's A Value Now

Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 2, 2004; Page A01

Many American youngsters participating in federally funded abstinence-only programs have been taught over the past three years that abortion can lead to sterility and suicide, that half the gay male teenagers in the United States have tested positive for the AIDS virus, and that touching a person's genitals "can result in pregnancy," a congressional staff analysis has found.

Those and other assertions are examples of the "false, misleading, or distorted information" in the programs' teaching materials, said the analysis, released yesterday, which reviewed the curricula of more than a dozen projects aimed at preventing teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.

The report concluded that two of the curricula were accurate but the 11 others, used by 69 organizations in 25 states, contain unproved claims, subjective conclusions or outright falsehoods regarding reproductive health, gender traits and when life begins. In some cases, Waxman said in an interview, the factual issues were limited to occasional misinterpretations of publicly available data; in others, the materials pervasively presented subjective opinions as scientific fact.

Among the misconceptions cited by Waxman's investigators:

• A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person."
• HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, can be spread via sweat and tears.
• Condoms fail to prevent HIV transmission as often as 31 percent of the time in heterosexual intercourse.

One curriculum, called "Me, My World, My Future," teaches that women who have an abortion "are more prone to suicide" and that as many as 10 percent of them become sterile. This contradicts the 2001 edition of a standard obstetrics textbook that says fertility is not affected by elective abortion, the Waxman report said.

Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for "admiration" and "sexual fulfillment" compared with a woman's need for "financial support." One book in the "Choosing Best" series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. "Moral of the story," notes the popular text: "Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess."

Nonpartisan researchers have been unable to document measurable benefits of the abstinence-only model. Columbia University researchers found that although teenagers who take "virginity pledges" may wait longer to initiate sexual activity, 88 percent eventually have premarital sex.

President Bush has enthusiastically backed the movement, proposing to spend $270 million on abstinence projects in 2005. Congress reduced that to about $168 million, bringing total abstinence funding to nearly $900 million over five years.

Story Link Here

------

If you think that W's pandering to the religious right won't affect you or your family, think again. We are now replacing fact with fiction in our educational institutions because they believe the end justifies the means. The fish stinks from the head down.

It's your choice America. We can choose to let our education systems become purveyors of religious propaganda (Abstinence, Creationism, etc...) or we can fight to ensure that our children are given the facts and allowed to make choices for themselves. Life is based on facts and one's success in life is based on the ability to apply critical thinking utilizing said facts. All the wishful thinking and lies will not change that.

A Response To: The Revenge of the Homosexual Lobby

Wednesday, December 01, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly

Editorial Link Here

Excellent Response Here

My Response:

Bill (or the staffer who reads this),

Gay soldiers don't get sent home from combat zones for getting females pregnant in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gay soldiers don't get sent home for stalking females at firebases. Gay soldiers don't get punished for fraternization with enlisted or officers.

If you want to keep sex out of the barracks, then turn soldiers into eunuchs.

If you had ever served in the military you would know that sexual abuse and harassment are already current in the military and are man/woman issues, not homosexual issues. It’s the hypocrisy of the rule of "don't ask, don't tell" that is the problem. Sexual harassment laws are already on the books and it doesn't matter if it comes from a man or a woman. Therefore, merely keeping one from being open about their sexual orientation is not relevant to the issue, especially since men tend to make theirs known to anyone who will listen.

A man being approached by another man in an unwanted advance is no different than a woman being approached in the same manner. Funny how the double standard comes into play when it’s a man who is the focus of the unwanted advance. Furthermore, it’s a common joke in the gay community that its an exercise in egotistical self-delusion to think that a gay person would even be interested in any of the people who think they would somehow face gay sexual harassment.

The REAL issue is the fact that the military is full of bigots that hate homosexuals because of their sexual orientation and nothing else. The sad part is that most people know homosexuals in the military (if you know more than 4 females in the military it's likely you at least know a bisexual) and most know that they serve with pride and distinction. In a time where getting anyone to volunteer is becoming increasingly difficult, I would think that we would want to take anyone who is capable of serving with honor and serving with pride, regardless of their sexual orientation.

It comes down to an issue of being comfortable. The reasoning you use for justifying the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is the same reasoning that was used for years to keep blacks from serving and then integrating into regular units. That's just sad. People become comfortable with those things they are familiar with. If one works alongside someone who is gay, than it usually isn't even an issue after a while. But, if we keep artificial barriers up to allow for our bigotry to remain protected, than we will never get comfortable. Of course, that's really what you and others who think like you want. But, that's also what every racist ever wanted when it came to the integration of blacks into American society.

Bill, I hope you don't see yourself as a racist, that would be very disappointing.

Lastly, I received my commission from Georgetown University's ROTC program and your blanket statement about a rampant anti-military presence is just plain stupid. They might be anti-WAR, but certainly not anti-MILITARY. Please stop with the over-generalizations, it just makes you look like a simpleton.