OK, I messed with the colors.

I am open to suggestion. It is pretty easy to change, so if you have a favorite, I am willing to adjust.

Call Me Paranoid...but then, this is the Bush Administration.

I think one of the big reasons that the November elections went the way they did, is that the people in power got so cocky. They started breaking too many laws and started getting caught, a lot.

Who prosecutes those cases? Often it is the U.S. attorney's office. So, if Bush wants to send a message, to U.S. Attorneys, to "back off", or stop some prosecutions entirely, what does he do?

Read this, it could be nothing, but it could be something.


Here is Senator Feinstein's letter.

Actions speak

A few months ago, before the elections in November, the President came out and said that winning in Iraq was critical to the safety and future of America. I wish I could find the quote, and I will, but I do not have time right now.

I looked at my wife, upon hearing this, and said: “if winning in Iraq is that important, then we need to get serious right now. Why have we been wasting time for four years? We need to institute a draft, put 500,000 troops on the ground, and begin to kick ass. We need to raise taxes to pay for a sustained all-out war. If the long term safety of our country is at risk than let’s get deadly serious.”

Why has the President been fiddling around with only 140,000 troops, for the past four years, if he truly believes that the viability of our nation is at risk? Give every person, under 50, a rifle and lets get it on.

The fact is that he does not truly believe that the Nation is at risk. The fact that he has not gone deep, while in control of both the executive and legislative branches of government, means he does not really believe what he says. His words shrivel under the light of rationality. Let me say it this way, If Bush really believes that the lives of three hundred million people in the United States are at risk, then we need to find more than one hundred and forty thousand people to work on saving us. We don’t even have 1/1000th of us working on a problem that Bush is saying threatens to bring our country down.

If you believe the President’s words, then you should be at the front of the line screaming for his impeachment. It is like being on the Titanic:

Captain: “Everyone...everyone, listen up for a moment. We have hit an iceberg and the ship is filling with water. We take this water threat very seriously, and so should you. It is so serious that it could jeopardize the ability of our ship to survive. I have assigned a ship’s officer to go down and bail furiously. The rest of you should continue to shop.”

Guest: “would you like me to help him bail?”

Captain: “I checked with the purser and he says that one person is plenty.”

This conversation, and the furious bailing, by one person, go on for four brutal hours and the ship continues to fill with water…

Captain: “I have an announcement. The ship is still sinking and it is very obviously going to sink if we do not succeed soon. I have fired the purser, for sending only one person to bail. It was very clear, to everyone, that one person was not enough, after about fifteen minutes of bailing, but we made a commitment to the strategy and so let the water rise for anther three hours and fort-five minutes. We are now in deeper tapioca than we were before, and will be assigning another person to help bail. I have consulted everyone I can think of and, despite what I heard, I am going to assign another bailer. We do not, however, need another full time bailer though, and it is just a temporary surge in bailing. We think that if another person helps the first person bail for a few minutes an hour, we can get ahead of the situation and the first person can then finish it off without help.

OK, you get my point.

The fact that everyone in the country is having this conversation without saying something like, “holy shit, if this is really a problem then let’s send a million or two troops and get it done,” means that all of us do not believe the President. The people that support him don’t even believe him. We all know that he has made a terrible mess. We know that we will pay a terrible price for some time to come. We know that the Iraqi people will continue to pay the biggest price. And, we know that the biggest benefactor of this policy is Iran. But, most importantly everyone, and I do mean everyone, believes that our Nation is not in Clear and Present Danger and it has not been from the beginning.
Let the impeachment begin.

Another page from the annuls of “Big Government Doesn’t Work”

I can see why Republicans don’t trust Big Government. They assume that all people will run it as poorly as they do. Hell, if I thought that everyone would run government this poorly, I would not trust it either. The Bush administration, and the people they have appointed, have lost another 22 billion. Just great! We can’t afford these guys for another two years.

Read More Here.

Tips for being productive while down with flu.

I had the flu for four long days this week. I realize that many of you have not yet had the chance to get this particular strain, and even when you do it will only incapacitate you for 24 hours. On the off chance you did not get your flu shot, and are therefore scheduled for the full impact of the virus, I have the following tips:

Set some goals. Yes, I know, you believe that surviving until tomorrow is the only goal you can handle. Having been through this before you, I can assure you that there are other things you can accomplish with your “down” time. Here are some goals to consider.

1. Quit smoking and/or drinking. What the heck, you are going to feel like absolute shit for the next three or four days, why not make “feeling like shit” productive. Give up the cigs and beers. You will not notice the shaking and the headaches. You will be sweating anyway and, with any luck, you will sleep through most of those cravings. This is your chance to get clean.
   
2. The same thing goes with that unhealthy addiction to processed sugar. Did you know that alcohol is just a processed sugar? If you are going to do it with the fermented sugars you may as well do it with the mocha-coco-chip kind also.
   
3. This leads to the third goal, losing weight. This one is a gimme. You are going to have nothing to do with food for a few days. Think of it as a fast. You remember fasting from the late 70s, where you purge yourself of all those toxins and see things more clearly. It is always better to fast when it does not create those debilitating hunger pains. Those of you that tend Republican can say “I know what it is like to go without food for three days.” You can even say that it was not that bad. After all, you went without food, and you were sick on top of it! It is like a Tony Snow, repositioning fest, news-conference. "What is it with all that whining in the third world? We have starving people here too, and they even have the flu."
   
4. Check your spouse’s compassion quotient. How is he/she reacting to your "lounging" around for the past two days? Is he/she giving you a lower back-rub because you are cramping from being prone for so long? Or, is he/she tossing heavy objects onto the bed and saying "sorry dear, I thought you were in the basement." Are you getting mint tea and eucalyptus rubs? Or, did you wake up from your last fever dream to hear him/her backing out of the driveway knowing someone was "watching" the kids. We will all get old and sick. You may want to take this opportunity to note how you are being treated while you are only "temporarily disabled." That is, how does your partner treat the broken pump when he/she knows there is still water in the well. What will happen to the poor old pump when the well runs dry? Food for thought.
   
5. Begin that “dream diary” your therapist told you about. They say your dreams are a window onto something or other. I never paid much attention. Anyway, if the dreams I have had over the past few days mean anything, then be afraid, be very afraid. I know I am.
   
   

Think of all this wonderful stuff you can accomplish while laying around in a fever sweat.

Now we get to see where they really stand.

For the last four years Senators, like Norm Colman, have been able to pretend to be moderate and yet support the Republican hard right. The Senate leadership would allow senators in moderate states to cast votes against a bills pushed by the White House only if they knew that the vote would not matter. They would then rotate this "privilege" among the moderate senators. The Republican leadership knew that they only needed to win by one vote. They would allow Senators like Colman to appear to "hold the line" on the National Wildlife Refuge and still maintain power when he gets re-elected as a moderate.

The problem is that this makes our Senator from Minnesota, as well as a number of others, a lap-dog. When they say jump, he jumps, when they say sit, he sits. I do not elect anyone to be a lap dog. Much less a lap dog for an "all hat, no cattle" bully from Texas.

Norm will have some new found freedom being in the minority. He will work the center hard, hoping to get re-elected. I wonder if it will work? I actually don't think it will. I think Norm's days are numbered. Let's just say, his first four years were a "defining moment" for him.

Here is some more on the issue.

Out sick.

I have been down for the count for the last couple of days, actually since Monday. I am returning to the land of the living today. Sorry for the light spot.

Russ Finegold is a good man.

Russ Finegold is a very good representative. The people of Wisconsin should be congratulated for electing someone like this to represent them. How he survives inside the beltway is a mystery to me. He does not seem to play the Washington game. I wish he would run for President. He has been asked to run but has declined.

Here is an interesting story on him.

We Can

Have a wonderful week. We can.

The U.S. Constitution

Have you ever read it?

Here it is.

It actually does not take too long to read. I would suggest that all Americans should at least skim it.

Some of the articles will jump out at you. I am struck by how it is such a breathing document. We use it, we are bound by it, and people, just like us, wrote it. I think they did a pretty good job.

New Year's Resolutions

My New Year's Resolutions rarely last more thant two weeks so I gave up doing them at 42. Were I to do some, I would look to this list as a great start.

NewYear's Resolutions

With Friends Like This...

I ran across this at Hulabaloo. I gather from the advertising, on her website, that people must watch her. Then again, all of us slow down a little for a traffic accident, don't we.

Here is the video

Where do I start? If she thinks the middle class got a tax cut she should read my post "Those Tas and Spend Democrats..." of 1-6-07.

I kept thinking, "where do I start with someone like this?" I think I will start with lower hanging fruit. This woman is in another semi-parallel unreality. To quote my wife, "she is counter intuitively gifted."

Actions Speak Louder Than Words.

I know, you have told me over and over, Iraq is not about oil. It is about freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people. So let me ask just one question. Why is the Iraqi Government voting to give American oil companies 30 year leases on Iraqi oil reserves? Why will the Iraqi government not control the oil? They don't have the capital and technology, you say. Well my guess is that they could get that capital and expertise for a pretty penny less than a 30year obligation and 75% of the profit from the sale of the oil. Who negotiated for them? Whoever it is should be fired.

Why is it that, so far, we have seen no winners in the debacle in Iraq? The Iraqi people have suffered horribly. The American people are out half a trillion dollars and 3000 soldiers. Even the contractors in Iraq are taking a brutal financial beating. What, you say, I am mistaken on the third point? The contractors are making a killing? No, really? Who would have guessed that contractors are making bundles of American money to serve our interests in Iraq? Who are the major contractors in Iraq? Halliburton, you say? So, let me get this straight, Iraq has turned into a total debacle for everyone but Halliburton. Wow, I bet no one could have guessed that, least of all Vice President Cheney.

Here is more on the leases being voted on.

A Keith Ellison Post

Click here.

I am happy to have voted for this man.

A

Very Good Opinion Piece.

Click here.

I agree with this author. I believe that in order for us to move forward as a country we need to address some of the wrongs of the past six years. Our Constitution has been dealt a grave blow. The arrogance of the Executive Branch has not been addressed in a manner that would establish a reasonable precedent for future generations. Many issues need to be examined and clarified. Congress needs to decide who must follow the laws they write for this country. Does the President? How do we move on until we know the answer to this? If the answer is "no," we might as well just get out the crown for George the 43rd and be done with it.

Rahm Immanual is a creep

Read this first.

I am sure this is how politics works for both parties and it stinks. I have never trusted Rep. Rahm Emanuel. He tried to take a lot of credit for the sea-change in Washington, even though his hand-selected Democratic candidates were often trounced by progressive candidates in the primary. The Progressive candidates then went on to win in the general election by being, well, progressive. Emanuel has a history of trying to have conservative Democrats run against Republican conservatives thus giving the voter no real choice. In the past the voters have overwhelmingly voted for the Republican. The talking points put out by the Republicans were not really challenged by the Democrats, if anything they were reinforced. True discussion was not introduced into campaigns.

Once the progressives had progressive blogs to get their word out, and raise money, they became more viable. I believe this was one big difference in the last election.

On the other side of the isle, where are the fiscal conservatives? Where are the Goldwater conservatives? They have experienced the same thing as the progressive Democrats. They cannot add their views to the public discourse because the party says they have to repeat a dumbed down message that can be pounded over and over again by the political machine. Both parties know that voters respond to simple messages. Voters then don't pay attention after election day. The winning party can do as it pleases. The American people are back to watching NASCAR.

Things may have changed this time. You had two factions of the Democratic Party fighting for power, the "inside the beltway crowd" and the "progressive crowd." The progressive crowd won this election The 'inside the beltway crowd" took some notice.

Now it is up the the Republican fiscal conservatives and Goldwater conservatives to do the same thing in their party They need to bring true political, and policy, discourse back to America. I think America has had enough of meaningless, obtuse talking points from both parties. Life is complex. Politicians need to get to work and deal with it.

Those tax and spend Democrats are at it again.

The New York Times has an interesting article this morning titled “House Tightens Disclosure Rules For Pet Projects.” Here is the crux: “The House voted Friday to pull the shadowy tradition of Congressional earmarking into the daylight, requiring lawmakers to attach their names to the pet items they slip into spending or tax bills and certify that they have no financial interest in the provisions.”

The first thing that went through my mind was not “good for them.” It was, “you mean to tell me those rules were not in existence already!” I am in the financial industry and no off the books financial transaction can happen under any circumstances. Even if you want to give your client a Christmas basket, it can be no more than $100. In my experience American business works in a pretty stand up and non-corrupt world, except when it comes to politics.

Let me get back to the article. “The vote on the new earmark measure was linked to a rule known as “pay as you go” that would prohibit the House from increasing the deficit by passing any new tax cuts or entitlement spending programs without offsetting them with spending cuts or tax increases.”

This rule is so logical. How could anyone not agree with it? Sure enough, “Republicans denounced the ‘pay as you go” rule as an excuse for Democrats to increase taxes.”

Let me get this straight. The ‘pay as you go” rule, in my understanding says this: if you are going to cut taxes or set up a program of entitlement (like welfare) you have to figure out how you are going to pay for it. You cannot just put it on the credit card forever, seems logical to me.

This brings up a point that has stuck in my craw for a long time. We gave the highest income brackets tax cuts four years ago. We did this even though we did not have the money in the budget to do it. That is, we borrowed money to reduce people’s taxes.

I understand this may be justifiable in some circumstances but let’s look a little deeper. If you are very wealthy you do not get your income from a pay check, you get it from investments. Investments pay income in two ways, capital gains and dividends. If you own a company you have the option to pay yourself a stock dividend rather than a salary.

So when you cut the tax rate on dividends from 33% to 15% you have cut the taxes of a wealthy person by more than half. Yes, wealthy people are paying half the taxes they were paying four years ago.

Why did they not cut my taxes in half? As long as we are borrowing money from China and Japan to give 50% tax cuts, why not give it to everyone? I can hear it now, that would be fiscally irresponsible, and the middle class does not donate to my campaign.

I think pay as you go makes a lot of sense. And, by the way, the next time I hear the phrase “tax and spend Democrat” I am going to either laugh or cry with incredulity.

digby

We are all better when we celebrate our differences and work for what we believe is right. We are better when we listen to each other. We are better when we say "but for the grace of God..." People just want to have a bit of joy in their lives. Here is Digby. Digby

Health Care, Part Deux

Here is a good article on health care here, compared to other countries: Think Progress.

One must ask the inevitable question: why is health care so expensive here? Why do we pay so much and get less than many other countries? The Republicans tried to blame it on lawyers. If you look at the facts, only two percent of health care costs are created by litigation and malpractice insurance. Don’t get me wrong, 2% of our health care budget is a very large number. It is not the problem though. I am sure we could all add to this list but here are some other problems I can think of.

1. Administration: If some things are covered and some things are not then someone has to decide who pays and then collect. That is expensive.
2. Marketing: It costs a lot to advertise in our country. It costs a lot for drug companies to have drug reps run around buying lunch for everyone at a clinic in the hope that they will be allowed to see the doctor and give their spiel.
3. Royalties: The Government gives our tax dollars to universities to do research. The drug companies get the rights to the research from the universities by paying them royalties. We pay the drug companies for the drugs that our tax dollars helped fund the research to develop. Sounds like a good system to me.
4. Actual drug company research: The drug companies do have their own research departments. They do come up with useful innovations, and that is very expensive. Unfortunately, they come up with drugs that may not be useful, but are quite marketable. For example, drugs that help hair to grow back for bald men. Or drugs that replace a healthy lifestyle, like weight loss medication, or some cholesterol and sleep medications. Go ahead eat what you want, don’t exercise, no problem, we can give you drugs to help reduce the consequences of an unhealthy life. All this research needs to be paid for by someone.
5. A “for profit” medical system: Forget structural inefficiencies, a “for profit” system has two problems. First, profit is simply extra cost paid to shareholders and executives. Second, there is a conflict of interest between medicine and profit. That is, it is often cheaper to let someone die than treat them. Unless you can resolve this conflict, we will have an unhealthy tension in our medical system.

I am sure there are others. These are just the ones that popped into my head in the first ten minutes.

Minority bill of rights?

I believe that America benefits when both parties govern as if their stay in power is temporary. I believe that this same principal can be used for good international policy. I even remember a smart guy saying this around 30AD. He said something like treat others as you would want to be treated.
This golden rule has been explicitly ignored in the past four years. The Republican controlled congress has been down-right awful to the Democrats. I say this not because I lean Democrat but because, under any standard of objectivity, it is true. Let me give you one small example of the Republican over-reach.

When the Republicans held the Senate through the 90s, and President Clinton was in office, the Judiciary Committee routinely held up nominated judges as a way to get leverage on other items. At the time there were an astounding number of openings on the Federal Bench and judges had to work long hours because many positions remained unfilled. The judges had been nominated, but were held up in committee.

I am sure that there were some judges that were not qualified, but the vast majority were well qualified, and not political ideologues. Republicans just wanted the leverage and they used judges, and many other tricks, to get it. I do not believe this is good government. The backlog of cases in our judicial system was unjustified.

When the senate turned over to the Democrats, by a one vote margin, from 2002-2004 the Senate approved all but six Federal Judges. The Republicans screamed like there was no tomorrow. It turns out that all six of these judges were of dubious quality and certainly could be counted as ideologues.

What did the President do? He made a recess appointment of a number of these judges. At the time I felt this was despicable and would have felt that way if the President had been a Democrat.

So let’s look at the actual numbers, because I think this is important. The people responsible for this bullying sort of government need to be held accountable. During 1994 through 2000 (the years that Republicans controlled the Judiciary Committee, while Clinton was in office) the Republicans blocked sixty judicial nominations. Here is an excerpt from Commondreams.org:

"Myth 3: Republicans have the moral high ground. According to Republicans, their opposition to judicial filibusters is motivated by a nonpartisan commitment to law and decorum. Frist said Republicans in the Senate "are the stewards of rich Senate traditions and constitutional principles that must be respected." Frist talks a good game. In reality, Republicans aren't motivated by a desire to protect the hallowed pages of the Constitution. Rather, right-wing zealots have shown themselves ready to do anything--and everything--to force through their judicial nominees while blocking those of their opponents. One of the more egregious examples of dirty tricks occurred in 2002-03, when Republican staffers from the Judiciary Committee hacked into Democratic computers and stole hundreds of files. Fifteen of those confidential memos, which detailed Democratic strategies for fighting the most extreme Bush judicial nominees, were then leaked to friendly conservative media outlets like the Washington Times, columnist Bob Novak and the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
That wasn't the first time Republicans contaminated the judicial nomination process. During the Clinton years, they used a slew of questionable legislative ploys to smother judicial nominations quietly while in committee. One favorite tactic: In 1994 Senator Hatch added language to the Senate rules for confirming nominees. His objective: to allow a single senator to easily--and secretly--block nominations from leaving committee. It worked. Judge Marsha Berzon's nomination was secretly stymied for more than two years. (Senator Bob Smith finally admitted his role.) The nomination of Judge Ronnie White, who had bipartisan support in the Senate, languished in committee for almost two and a half years. Judge Helen White waited four years for a hearing; she never got one. This behind-the-scenes scheming proved to be so popular, Republicans were able to block more than sixty of Clinton's nominations. (To no one's surprise, as soon as Bush took office, Hatch abandoned this procedure, allowing nominees to sail through.) The bottom line: While a filibuster requires at least forty-one Senators on board to block a nominee, under Republican leadership, it took only a single dissent. "

That is an average of ten per year. Over the two years, that the Democrats held the committee, they held up six, less than 6% of the total nominated. More importantly the dirty tricks, practiced by the Republicans, went away.

Despite this admirable record by the Democratic Judiciary Committee, there was a hew and cry over the last six blocked nominations. As far as I’m concerned any Judiciary committee should probably throw out a few nominations just so we know they are doing their job. To only block six percent sounds quite reasonable. As I mentioned above, President Bush then went on to appoint a number of these judges on recess appointments.

Why am I beating this point to death? Now the Republicans are asking for a "minority party bill of rights"; the same bill of rights that was rejected out of hand by the Republicans while they were in power. I feel confident that the Democrats will give it to them. I just find it interesting how this “bill of rights” is now such a good idea when in was irrelevant two years ago. Perhaps all Parties should realize that they govern for the People and their stay is only temporary.

Here is a 2004 article on the “bill of rights” issue at The Washington Post