"Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, “Why did they beat me?”

And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.

They will tell you, every single day.

The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.

As victims we can’t stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can’t seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.

Listen to George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen, as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once, admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us (it won’t; we will never be worthy).

And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the attention and affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm. Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where, worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.

How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.

First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don’t do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don’t do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less is you don’t resist and fight back. Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you’ve learned, and that you aren’t going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it’s better than the abuse.

We have a mandate to be as radical and liberal and steadfast as we need to be. The progressive beliefs and social justice we stand for, our core, must not be altered. We are 56 million strong. We are building from the bottom up. We are meeting, on the net, in church basements, at work, in small groups, and right now, we are crying, because we are trying to break free and we don’t know how.

Any battered woman in America, any oppressed person around the globe who has defied her oppressor will tell you this: There is nothing wrong with you. You are in good company. You are safe. You are not alone. You are strong. You must change only one thing: stop responding to the abuser. Don’t let him dictate the terms or frame the debate (he’ll win, not because he’s right, but because force works). Sure, we can build a better grassroots campaign, cultivate and raise up better leaders, reform the election system to make it failproof, stick to our message, learn from the strategy of the other side. But we absolutely must dispense with the notion that we are weak, godless, cowardly, disorganized, crazy, too liberal, naive, amoral, “loose”, irrelevant, outmoded, stupid and soon to be extinct. We have the mandate of the world to back us, and the legacy of oppressed people throughout history.

Even if you do everything right, they’ll hit you anyway. Look at the poor souls who voted for this nonsense. They are working for six dollars an hour if they are working at all, their children are dying overseas and suffering from lack of health care and a depleted environment and a shoddy education. And they don’t even know they are being hit."

11/28/2004 12:35:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Washington Post has a fascinating article on the results of the 2004 election and its impact on the political nature of the United States. It explores the debate of those in the political world as to whether or not an ideological realignment happened in this nation on the night of November 2, 2004. Ken Mehlman, soon-to-be chair of the RNC and the man who ran President Bush's campaing, is quoted as saying "Something fundamental and significant happened in this election that creates an opportunity for" the Republicans to remake national politics over the long term. He also went on to say, "The Republican Party is in a stronger position today than at any time since the Great Depression." I agree and disagree with what Mehlman said. On his first statement, that something "fundamental and significant" happened on election night, I disagree. Nothing fundamental or significant happened. American's flipped a coin, and as per the usual, an incumbent President during war-time won. It was indeed, however, quite a feat, considering the items the opposition had to run against him on. However, I agree with Mehlman's second point--that the Republicans are stronger than they've ever been in 70 years. The problem is maintaining a cohesive party to maintain that strenth. As I've pointed out previously, that doesn't seem to be happening right away. But they do have 2 or 4 more years to solidify that power, depending on how you look at election cycles. I have only one qualm with the article. When they quote Ruy Texeira, they state:

"Liberal political analyst Ruy Teixeira"

Now, I don't have a problem with being coined a liberal. I am a liberal, and I'm damned proud of it. But I think this is a clear indication that the modern media equates being a democrat with being a liberal. That, in many cases is true. The problem with this equation, however, is the demonization that conservative and radical Republicans have done to the word. Folks like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and the "Douchebag for Liberty" himself, Bob Novak, have taken it and turned it into a four-letter word. And it is not. Jesus Christ himself (for all you Christian Conservatives reading this...which I imagine is close to zero) was a liberal. If you don't believe me, read the New Testament (in something other than the KJV) and read the chapter in Al Franken's Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. I don't think we should stand up for the demonization of the word any longer. All you liberals out there, come out of the "liberal closet" and profess your liberal-ness. I hope no one was offended by that pun. |W|P|110162498349625620|W|P|2004 Election: Realignment or Tilt?|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/27/2004 11:57:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Associated Press has a fascinating piece on new CIA Director Porter Goss, the former member of the US House of Representatives (R-FL). As I've commented earlier, I haven't exactly been thrilled with Goss' appointment or the changes he's been making in the CIA. However, the AP article does produce some intriguing comparisons to previous newcomers to the position of DCI (Director of Central Intelligence). In the past, the "purges" that are taking place today, haven't been all that uncommon. I agree with the 9/11 Commission and others within the government who say that the CIA needs changes and internal reform. However, where I differ with them is when it comes to partisan issues, such as what Porter Goss is doing. He's forcing out career CIA officials. And I really believe that this is partially because of partisan issues. Goss is indeed a fierce Republican, and he will remain quite loyal to President Bush. That is the dangerous part. The Commission recommended reform--but I don't think it recommended partisan reform or reform without advice or consideration from senior members who know the innerworkings of the CIA. |W|P|110162192832529347|W|P|The CIA in transition|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/27/2004 08:54:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The New York Times will report tomorrow morning that Congressional Republicans and the Bush Administration will look to massive borrowing in an effor to pay for his plan to privatize part of Social Security. From the Times article:

"The White House and Republicans in Congress are all but certain to embrace large-scale government borrowing to help finance President Bush's plan to create personal investment accounts in Social Security, according to administration officials, members of Congress and independent analysts.

The White House says it has made no decisions about how to pay for establishing the accounts, and among Republicans on Capitol Hill there are divergent opinions about how much borrowing would be prudent at a time when the government is running large budget deficits. Many Democrats say that the costs associated with setting up personal accounts just make Social Security's financial problems worse, and that the United States can scarcely afford to add to its rapidly growing national debt."

This is a bad, bad idea. The fact is that it would just increase that national debt and destroy Social Securtiy. I admit, Social Security is a major problem. There is no easy way to reform it. However, private accounts is not the answer. Maintaining a budget surplus and not going to war in Iraq would've been a great start to reforming Social Security. It still might not have worked, but it might've been more prudent than destroying US diplomacy and any positive image America may have had in the world.

Here is some information on how much money we might have to borrow (emphasis mine):

"Proponents say the necessary amount of borrowing could vary widely, from hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars over a decade, depending on how much money people are permitted to contribute to the accounts and whether the changes to Social Security include benefit cuts and tax increases.

Borrowing by the government could be necessary to establish the personal accounts because of the way Social Security pays for benefits. Under the current system, the payroll tax levied on workers goes to benefits for people who are already retired. Personal accounts would be paid for out of the same pool of money; they would allow workers to divert a portion of their payroll taxes into accounts invested in mutual funds or other investments.

The money going into the accounts would therefore no longer be available to pay benefits to current retirees. The shortfall would have to be made up somehow to preserve benefits for people who are already retired during the transition from one system to the other, and by nearly all estimates there is no way to make it up without relying at least in part on government borrowing."

The bolded parts are the biggest reasons why we shouldn't privatize social security--at least right now. During the end of the Clinton years, we had budget surpluses. We should've commissioned study upon study upon study to see what could be done with the future of entitlement programs with a national budget surplus. My guess is that it would've shown that it if privatization was to be considered, it would be dreadfully expensive. However, with a budget surplus, we could counteract the expenses and make a system that works AND lasts.

And one final question concerning social security: WHY IS NO ONE HOPPING ON THE STORY THAT, TOWARDS THE END OF THE CAMPAIGN RON SUSKIND REPORTED THAT BUSH WAS GOING TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY AS ONE OF HIS FIRST ACTS IF RE-ELECTED AND HE DENIED IT, AND NOW HE IS DOING IT?

Kerry brought this up numerous types on the campaign trail, and the Bush camp continuously denied it. And look what they're doing. Its the first major act of his second term.

So much for following through with campaign promises.

|W|P|110161183397094720|W|P|Republicans look to deepen the US debt|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/26/2004 03:08:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The New York Times has a fascinating report on bigotry--I mean conservativism. Ok, so it's not fascinating, just disgusting. The report features a man in Ohio who helped lead the ballot initiative to ban gay marriage in Ohio. It angered me a lot. Here are some certain exceprts that got my blood boiling.

• ". . . here was something he saw as a potentially greater threat to his fundamentalist Christian beliefs and traditional family values: something he called the "gay agenda.""--What the hell is a 'gay agenda'? I've never been able to figure this out. Is there a heterosexual agenda? If so, what is it?
• ""In 21 years of organizing, I've never seen anything like this," Mr. Burress, 62, said in an interview. "It's a forest fire with a 100 mile-per-hour wind behind it.""--Why would someone want to call bigotry a forest fire? Oh, wait. I know. It's because their efforts are just as damaging and destructive as any forest fire.
• "Kelly J. Shackelford . . . calls Mr. Burress one of the movement's heroes because he went up against some of Ohio's most powerful Republicans, including Gov. Bob Taft, who opposed the amendment."--This man is NOT a hero. Biggots are not heroes. No one in their right mind would call someone who tries to stomp out these folks' Christian beliefs a hero, and it works the opposite way as well.

Why do bigots get so much attention in America? They do not deserve it. These guys say they are attempting to protect culture. But they are not. Culture does not stagnate and remain the same over time. Culture changes and evolves over time. And if I ever hear the words 'gay agenda' uttered again, I'm going to go ballistic. |W|P|110150418802422007|W|P|Conservative bigotry highlighted|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/27/2004 12:52:00 AM|W|P| Robert Schumacher|W|P|"Gay agenda"...

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I had a discussion with a lady recently (about 2 weeks before the election), the topic of gays came up. She was a self-professed conservative, but claimed to "have gay friends". But on the issue of acceptance in general, she showed her true feelings in a remark that frankly shocked me. She said she had no problem with gays, but didn't think it should be so out in the open, because she "gets nervous with them around my children".

I was speechless. When it fully hit me, I had to ask if she was afraid it was contagious (homosexuality). Her response..."well, you know, they are more likely to do stuff to kids...be pedophiles and such."

Back to the 1950's...11/25/2004 10:55:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Today, I hope that most of us were able to spend time with our loved ones and reflect on the many things we are thankful for here in America. I know many of us are wishing our family members serving in the armed forces could come home, and celebrate like the old times. But they can't. Today is not a day to place blame on a particular man, adminstration, or political party. I will abstain from name-calling and trying to anger those Americans who think differently than I do. That is what I am thankful for today. That we have this day, this day of Thanksgiving, to move beyond the petty differences in points of view and come together as family and friends to be a cohesive unit, thankful to our Creator, our family's, and so on and so forth. I am thankful that for as many radicals there are on both sides of the aisle, there are those moderates who play the voice of reason and rationality in a nation and a world that is so incomprehensible at so many times. If you want, leave comments expressing what you are thankful for. And finally, read Tom Friedman's column over at The New York Times. It deviates from his usual commentary. Some have called it somewhat egotistical. I think its good work. And maybe we all should be Tom Friedman's today. If not--at least be thankful to live in America. From Friedman:

". . . I want to be just a simple blue-state red-state American. I want to take time on this Thanksgiving to thank God I live in a country where, despite so much rampant selfishness, the public schools still manage to produce young men and women ready to voluntarily risk their lives in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to spread the opportunity of freedom and to protect my own. And I want to thank them for doing this, even though on so many days in so many ways we really don't deserve them."

|W|P|110144536510827097|W|P|Happy Thanksgiving|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/24/2004 09:26:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|I was outraged when I first read this article from the AP on Yahoo! News. Then I read the article the story came from, the Tribune Review of Greensburg, PA. Apparently, the Army National Guard is calling up a 53-year-old Vietnam veteran to serve as a telecommunications specialist with an amored divison that will be deployed to Kuwait. From the Tribune Review article:

"Paul Dunlap served 11 months in Vietnam. He knows what it's like to be in a war, not sure who the enemy is.

It's something he didn't think he would face again. But it appears he will.

Dunlap, 53, is a first sergeant in the Army National Guard Company C 28th Signal Battalion, based in Torrance, Derry Township. The thought of going to war was in the back of his mind, but he hadn't been in combat since he was a 19-year-old Marine in the Vietnam War.

The Pleasant Unity man has been called to active duty for Operation Dragoon, part of Operation Iraqi Freedom."

Wow, I'm glad to know our armed forces are picking up the best and the brightest. And the oldest. Who needs a draft when we can start taking everyone's fathers, mothers, grandfathers, and grandmothers, ahd ship them over to Iraq for us? Maybe that's how Bush plans on being able to privatize social security without it going bankrupt. |W|P|110135406325096853|W|P|US military calls up 53-year-old veteran|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/25/2004 11:15:00 PM|W|P| Robert Schumacher|W|P|Did you also hear about David Miyasato of Kauai, Hawaii? Called up 13 years after leaving active duty and 8 years after leaving the reserves (he served 9 years combined active and reserve time). The committment ends at 8 years.

He was let off the hook, the Army called it a "clerical error"...but only after he contacted his senator (Sen. Dan Inouye D-HI)...when he contacted the Army itself, they generally blew him off.11/25/2004 11:19:00 PM|W|P| Chris Woods|W|P|I hadn't heard that, but thanks for pointing it out. It's insane what this administration is doing. I cannot wait for 2008.11/24/2004 03:02:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Hill, a daily newspaper on the happenings at Capitol Hill, published an interesting article today explaining why they believe John Kerry is highly considering another bid for President in 2008. Their hypothesis rests on Kerry's active involvement in helping to determine the new chair of the Democratic National Committee. Kerry had been in support of Iowa governor Tom Vilsack for the position. However, on Monday, Vilsack stated that he would not be seeking the chairmanship. Most Democrats now believe that former Democratic candidate and Vermont governor Howard Dean will most likely be elected by the party members as Chair. The Hill reports:

"Many Democratic lawmakers are interpreting Sen. John Kerry’s active participation in selecting the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as the strongest signal yet that the defeated presidential candidate is keeping his options open for a bid in 2008. Last week, Kerry contacted nearly every elected member of the House Democratic leadership, and other powerful lawmakers, on behalf of Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa. On Monday, Vilsack issued a statement that he was no longer pursuing the chairmanship. But Kerry’s aggressive support of Vilsack has convinced many key House Democrats that Kerry wants to install a chairman who would be in Kerry’s debt and would not attempt to dissuade the Massachusetts senator from seeking the highest office again. Lawmakers and top House aides say that Kerry’s involvement in the DNC race is the latest of several clear signals that he does not plan to fade into the political horizon. They speculated that Kerry could depend on Vilsack’s loyalty, noting that he was on Kerry’s short list as a potential vice-presidential running mate and that Vilsack’s wife publicly campaigned for Kerry in the Iowa caucuses."

I don't know why, but I don't think it would be a good idea for Kerry to run again in 2008. But I hate making predictions on who should run if he doesn't. The election campaign is still three years away. I can't help but think of this dialogue between Josh Lyman and Leo McGarry from an episode of "The West Wing."

JOSH: Leo, the-the Democrats aren't gonna nominate another liberal academic former governor from New England. I mean, we're dumb, but we're not that dumb. LEO: [pause] Nah. I think we're exactly that dumb.

|W|P|110133116396697936|W|P|Kerry in 2008?|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/24/2004 02:35:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times wrote a great piece today entitled "Apocalypse (Almost) Now." In it, Kristof talks about the works of Jerry Jenkins and Tim LaHaye, the evangelical writers of the best-selling "Left Behind" books series. He points out the graphic destruction Jesus plans on bringing to the world, as well as the possibly hypocracies that the writers have committed.

"If America's secular liberals think they have it rough now, just wait till the Second Coming.

The "Left Behind" series, the best-selling novels for adults in the U.S., enthusiastically depict Jesus returning to slaughter everyone who is not a born-again Christian. The world's Hindus, Muslims, Jews and agnostics, along with many Catholics and Unitarians, are heaved into everlasting fire: "Jesus merely raised one hand a few inches and . . . they tumbled in, howling and screeching."

Gosh, what an uplifting scene!

If Saudi Arabians wrote an Islamic version of this series, we would furiously demand that sensible Muslims repudiate such hatemongering. We should hold ourselves to the same standard."

Kristof presents a great point. If any kind of Islamic writer wrote this same type of story from a Muslim point of view, Christians and other religious groups across the country would demand that they be burned at the stake. Americans no longer have a sense of cultural decency and understanding. Just as Saudi Arabia and Iran have been and are continuing to be taken over by radical religious fundamentalists, so is the United States. The recent elections of many radical conservative Senators, as well as the re-election of President Bush, have show the true colors of some of the people of America. They demand a fundamentalist Christian approach to governance. They want religion involved in state affairs. They want foreign policy to be dictated to President Bush via Pat Robertson and his constant communication and blessing from God.

America suffers from the same kind of radical fundamentalism as do Muslim nations in the Middle East. The only difference is that we've yet to become violent. But I suspect that may only be a matter of time.

Kristof also points out a few other interesting things in his piece. I sure hope Jenkins and LaHaye take him up on his offer.

"Silly me. I'd forgotten the passage in the Bible about how Jesus intends to roast everyone from the good Samaritan to Gandhi in everlasting fire, simply because they weren't born-again Christians.

I accept that Mr. Jenkins and Mr. LaHaye are sincere. (They base their conclusions on John 3.) But I've sat down in Pakistani and Iraqi mosques with Muslim fundamentalists, and they offered the same defense: they're just applying God's word.

Now, I've often written that blue staters should be less snooty toward fundamentalist Christians, and I realize that this column will seem pretty snooty. But if I praise the good work of evangelicals - like their superb relief efforts in Darfur - I'll also condemn what I perceive as bigotry. A dialogue about faith must move past taboos and discuss differences bluntly. That's what blue staters and red staters need to do about religion and the "Left Behind" books. . . . Now we have the hugely profitable "Left Behind" financial empire, whose Web site flatly says that the authors "think this generation will witness the end of history." The site sells every "Left Behind" spinoff imaginable, including screen savers, regular prophecies sent to your mobile phone, children's versions of the books, audiobooks, graphic novels, videos, calendars, music and a $6.50-a-month prophesy club. This isn't religion, this is brand management.

If Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins honestly believe that the end of the world may be imminent, why not waive royalties? Why don't they use the millions of dollars in profits to help the poor - and increase their own chances of getting into heaven?

Mr. Jenkins told me that he gives 20 to 40 percent of his income to charity, and that's commendable. But there are millions more where that came from. Mr. LaHaye and Mr. Jenkins might spend less time puzzling over obscure passages in the Book of Revelation and more time with the straightforward language of Matthew 6:19, "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth." Or Matthew 19:21, where Jesus advises a rich man: "Sell your possessions and give the money to the poor. . . . It will be hard for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

So I challenge the authors to a bet: if the events of the Apocalypse arrive in the next 10 years, then I'll donate $500 to the battle against the Antichrist; if it doesn't, you donate $500 to a charity of my choosing that fights poverty - and bigotry.

Gentlemen, do we have a deal?"

|W|P|110132862851635907|W|P|Is the second-coming coming?|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/23/2004 06:31:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The New York Times is reporting that the first deputy of the Russian central bank is saying that Russia is seriously considering increasing its holding of euros, rather than US dollars. From the Times:

"The euro rose to another record high against the dollar today after the Russian central bank said it might increase its euro holdings in an effort to insulate itself against further weakness in the American currency.

Like the United States Federal Reserve and its other counterparts, the Russian central bank holds huge reserves of dollars, euros and other currencies as a means of defending its own currency, the ruble, and smoothing out foreign-exchange market movements whenever necessary. Nearly two-thirds of its $113 billion in foreign-exchange and gold reserves are denominated in the dollar, which has reigned for decades as the premier global reserve currency.

Alexei Ulyukayev, first deputy chairman of the Russian central bank, said today that the institution was considering altering the mix of its holdings, a move that the Russian bank and others have been hinting at for some time.

"Most of our reserves are in dollars and that's a cause for concern," Bloomberg News quoted him as saying in Moscow. "Looking at the dynamics of the euro-dollar rate, we are discussing the possibility to change the reserve structure.""

This just pretty much spells bad news for the US, and even worse news for our economy. I'd like to see Bush try and do something about this, through an economic development package of some sort. However, I definitely am not going to place all of the blame on Bush. The Federal Reserve is going to have some tough work ahead of them. Godspeed. |W|P|110125675301291141|W|P|Russia weighing more investment in Euros--not dollars|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/23/2004 06:06:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Fairbanks News-Miner (a local paper) is reporting that Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) showed reporters today a handwritten letter from the IRS proving that they had asked for the tax provision to be inserted into the Lame Appropriations Act of 2005. From the article:

"Sen. Ted Stevens on Monday showed reporters a handwritten legislative proposal from an IRS employee that slipped into and nearly stopped the massive appropriations bill passed by Congress this weekend.

Stevens said the note proves that neither he nor any other Republican had crafted the potentially privacy-invading language. ... Stevens said the IRS provision had been cleared by senior Democratic staff members, along with Republican staff. He has the e-mails to prove it, he said. So when other senators criticized him for sneaking it into the bill, even after he explained what happened, he blew up, he said.

"God that made me mad," Stevens said Monday."

Well, the story that the IRS wanted the language and not Rep. Ernie Istook seems more plausible now. It also explains why Sen. Stevens became so enraged during debate over the language when Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) accused Republicans of inserting the language. Sen. Stevens got so upset at one point in time that he pounded his lectern quite forcefully, seeming to break his microphone that was attached to the lectern. The part about the story that irks me the most is that Sen. Stevens still says that the intent of the language was commendable:

"The language's intent is worthy, Stevens said. It provides authority for agents designated by Appropriations Committee members to enter IRS facilities and check up on the agency as part of Congress' oversight responsibility, Stevens said. The language inadvertently went too far and allowed the congressional investigators to look at actual tax returns instead of just IRS records related to those returns, he said."

Is he out of his mind? I know elderly people begin to lose memory and thinking capacity as they get older, but this guy must be senile. I don't think anyone, besides the current committee chairs who already have the power, should be able to look at any tax returns of Americans or IRS records related to those returns unless through due process in the American legal system.

And I'm sure that if Sen. Stevens was a member of the minority party in America, he'd agree with me too.

|W|P|110125531268547102|W|P|Sen. Stevens proves IRS responsible for tax provision|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/23/2004 04:56:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Eric Alterman, over at Slate.com, posted a very interesting article today. In it he compared the emerging new Bush Adminstration to Leonid Brezhnev's extremely loyal politburo in the Soviet Union. From the article:

"What does the new Bush team remind you of? Funny you should ask. To me, the closest historical parallel would be the Soviet politburo under Brezhnev, where loyalty to the faultless was placed above competence and ideological fealty to a discredited belief system held trump over reality. Think about it. John D’iulio, Anthony Zinni, Eric Shinseki, Paul O’Neil, Christy Whitman, George Tenet, Colin Powell, etc. What do the people—all of whom have been forced out of the administration in one way or another--share with one another? Each has, whether you agree with them or not, a certain degree of competence; a willingness to examine the realities of a problem before arriving at the solution; the respect of some of the professionals with whom they work; and a commitment to working with those around them who share their goals, regardless of party or ideology. Sure some of them screwed up, Tenet being the most obvious example, but even his screw-ups pale besides those who have been promoted or asked to stay, including, particularly Ms. Rice and Messrs. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Hadley, and of course, Cheney. The new rules for Mr. DeLay are another symbol of Soviet-style governance, as is the apparently immaculately conceived law to allow apparatchiks to examine our tax records whenever the spirit moves them."

It seems to be a pretty compelling comparison. However, we can make judgment now, but it will be interesting to see how things pan out over the next two to four years. I'm guessing it'll be a lot of flaws and follies and not a whole lot of successes. Like David Brooks of the NY Times points out, it is gonna be tough work to keep the party unified. Especially if they are already having problems. |W|P|110125096947674379|W|P|Bush Adminstration = Soviet Politburo?|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/23/2004 03:35:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Democratic field for the next governor of Iowa has gotten a bit smaller. In 2006, the next election for Iowa governor is set to occur. Current governor Tom Vilsack, currently in his second term, has promised that he would not seek a third term. Sally Pederson, Lt. Governor, announced today that she wishes to return to private life and will not run in 2006. That leaves current Secretary of State Chet Culver as the only Democrat in Iowa who has expressed interest in running for governor. |W|P|110124609424388451|W|P|Iowa Political Report--UPDATE #2|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/23/2004 03:29:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) issued a public apology today to House member Ernest Istook (R-OK) for stating that he inserted the tax provision in the Lame Appropriations Act of 2005. The apology reads:

"I have spoken with Congressman Istook and he assures me that his office is not responsible for inclusion of the IRS provision into the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, the so-called omnibus bill. I regret any confusion my earlier remarks may have created."

Hmm...I wonder how long it took them to work that out. Istook must've kissed some serious butt to get that apology. |W|P|110124561334906761|W|P|Frist apologizes for accusing Istook|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/23/2004 10:01:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Ronnie Earle, the Democratic District Attorney in Travis County, Texas, who is prosecuting friends of Tom DeLay's, as well as investigating him and possibly indicting DeLay, has written a good op-ed piece in this mornings times. Earle, who has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans in his time as prosecutor, explains how the Republican's are acting guilty (or at least DeLay is) even though he has not been indicted yet. From the piece:

"It is a rare day when members of the United States Congress try to read the minds of the members of a grand jury in Travis County, Tex. Apparently Tom DeLay's colleagues expect him to be indicted.

Last week Congressional Republicans voted to change their rule that required an indicted leader to relinquish his post. They were responding to an investigation by the Travis County grand jury into political contributions by corporations that has already resulted in the indictments of three associates of Mr. DeLay, the House majority leader.

Yet no member of Congress has been indicted in the investigation, and none is a target unless he or she has committed a crime. The grand jury will continue its work, abiding by the rule of law. That law requires a grand jury of citizens, not the prosecutor, to determine whether probable cause exists to hold an accused person to answer for the accusation against him or her.

Politicians in Congress are responsible for the leaders they choose. Their choices reflect their moral values."

I particularly like how he uses moral values in this sense. At least one fifth of the people who voted for DeLay, other House and Senate Republicans, and President Bush all cited 'moral values' as one reason why. But now look at what DeLay and House Republicans are doing. When things aren't going their way, they change the rules to fix the problems. Is that moral in anyway? I don't think it is.

But it is not the first time Republicans have changed the rules for their benefit during this adminstration.

Look at what President Bush and the White House Counsel has done. They couldn't figure out a way to hold Jose Padilla, a US citizen, without giving him his consititutional rights, so they declared him an enemy combatatant and locked him up. We haven't heard from him since. Moreover, check out what we've done to the Geneva Conventions. Do they even apply to any Americans any more? I doubt it. It is gonna suck for the US so bad when we actually have to fight a nation that follows them and decides to say they don't apply to them either.

But finally, the Republicans are even thinking about changing the rules in the Senate so they can benefit. Those nasty filibusters...right? Majority Leader Bill Frist has been considering an effort to elminate the filibuster when considering certain pieces of legislation.

All of these acts are outrageous. But at least they give Democrats some big things to run on in 2006. If we can stay unified to then.

|W|P|110122646899206351|W|P|Ronnie Earle writes op-ed piece|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/22/2004 10:54:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|New York Times op-ed columnist David Brooks profiles the troubles the Republican party may face in the next coming years. Definitely worth a read.

"Three weeks ago the Republicans won an impressive victory. So what have they been doing since?

First, they had an intraparty argument over whether to keep Arlen Specter as Senate Judiciary chairman. Then they had an anguished intraparty dispute over whether to bend their rules to protect Tom DeLay. Then on Saturday, they had a long, heated debate about intelligence reform, which ended with 80 to 100 House Republicans defeating or at least stalling a bill that was strongly supported by President Bush and the Congressional leaders.

Forget the Democrats. Bush's biggest problem over the next few years will be keeping his Republican majority together."

|W|P|110118638097742433|W|P|Brooks predicts problems for the Republicans|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/25/2004 11:24:00 PM|W|P| Robert Schumacher|W|P|And I wish 'em all the joys of division. Maybe if they are busy infighting they will fail to get together and do real harm.

One can always hope.11/25/2004 11:30:00 PM|W|P| Chris Woods|W|P|Oh yes, indeed. Like John Edwards said, "Hope is on the way."

I guess he was talking about Republican infighting.11/22/2004 10:18:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Washington Post plans on reporting tomorrow morning about the tax provision that held up the Lame Appropriations Act of 2005, at least in the House. The story will be above the fold, on page A01. Talk about some big time coverage. From the lede:

"A $388 billion government-wide spending bill, passed by Congress on Saturday, was stranded on Capitol Hill yesterday, its trip to the White House on hold as embarrassed Republicans prepared to repeal a provision that could give the Appropriations committees the right to examine the tax returns of Americans.

Top GOP lawmakers disavowed the provision, expressed surprise that it was in the bill, and blamed both the Internal Revenue Service and congressional staffs for incorporating it into the omnibus spending package funding domestic departments in 2005."

Wow, I'm glad things are becoming embarassing for the Republicans. I really hope this bad news streak continuing. The Democrats could get a big boost out of it. Essentially, we still don't know if it was the IRS or Istook who put the provision in. My money is on Istook, but we'll see. I would guess that if the majority leader in the Senate would single Istook specifically out, especially since he's a member of his own party, that Istook is our guy.

We'll just have to wait and see.

|W|P|110118425701913903|W|P|Tax provision story hits the front page|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/22/2004 07:42:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The New York Times has an interesting report today. In an article entitled "Many Who Vote for 'Values' Still Like Their Television Sin," reporter Bill Carter tries to explain the popularity of racy, sexual shows in a nation that loves to hype and vote on their "moral values." From the report:

"The results of the presidential election are still being parsed for what they say about the electorate's supposed closer embrace of traditional cultural values, but for the network television executives charged with finding programs that speak to tastes across the nation, one lesson is clear.

The supposed cultural divide is more like a cultural mind meld.

In interviews, representatives of the four big broadcast networks as well as Hollywood production studios said the nightly television ratings bore little relation to the message apparently sent by a significant percentage of voters.

The choices of viewers, whether in Los Angeles or Salt Lake City, New York or Birmingham, Ala., are remarkably similar. And that means the election will have little impact on which shows they decide to put on television, these executives say."

It is interesting to see that all of these voters who voted for Bush because of his moral fortitude, excellent values, honesty, and compassion still love to tune into to sex and murder shows like "Desperate Housewives" and "CSI." I just don't understand these voters. You would think that if there is such a large outpouring of support for these angry "family" groups or the radical religious right that there would be a bigger movement for reform and regulation in television and movies. But the only actions we see being taken are towards one-time broadcasts, like "Saving Private Ryan" un-cut on Veteran's Day and Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction during the Super Bowl.

Why are so many American's hypocrtical? Someone answer me that.

|W|P|110117501395425094|W|P|"Moral values" folks like sinful TV|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/22/2004 03:51:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The Associated Press is reporting that Iowa governor (my gov.) Tom Vilsack will not seek the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. From the AP via Yahoo! News:

"Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack said Monday that he will not seek the chairmanship of the Democratic Party. Citing his responsibilities as governor, Vilsack said "these challenges and opportunities require more time than I felt I could share. As a result I will not be a candidate for DNC chairman."

This is probably good news for the Democratic Party. Someone with greater political skills, a better unifier, and with a greater gift for organizing and motivating Democrats is needed. Now I just hope he isn't planning on running for a third term. He's a great guy and all, but his wife and lieutenant governor are much better Democrats.

|W|P|110116051890296765|W|P|Iowa Political Report--UPDATE|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/22/2004 03:28:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Representative Ernest Istook, Jr., issued a statement on his website today denying the charges that he purposely inserted the tax provision language, and said that it was blatantly added in confereence committee meetings. From his website:

“I want to reiterate what I said on Sunday, namely that this was not my language. I then spent most of the day tracking down what happened. I had nothing to do with inserting this language. I never knew what was happening until it was done. Had I known, I would have intervened to omit or to fix this provision. I didn't write it; I didn't approve it; I wasn't even consulted. My name shouldn't be associated with it, because I had nothing to do with it, and didn't even know about it until after the bill was done and was filed. We have a problem with how bills like this are put together. On occasions, appropriations staff will take the initiative to insert language they believe will be non-controversial. They do this with the approval of full committee staff, but without the knowledge or approval of subcommittee chairman like me. That is what happened in this case. We have a chain of command problem over whether the subcommittee staff are ultimately accountable to the full committee staff—who represent the full committee chairman—or to the subcommittee chairman. The subcommittee chairman should never be bypassed like I was in this case. I will work to fix this as part of the reorganization of the appropriations committee that will take place during the next several weeks. I’m satisfied that nobody intended to breach or to weaken the privacy laws that protect people’s tax returns. But good intentions are no guarantee of good results. Our committee has responsibility for the IRS budget. That includes its personnel, facilities and equipment. This language wasn’t sufficiently reviewed because it was drafted by the IRS, so our staff presumed that it was okay. The IRS drafted this language at staff request, in an effort to make it clear that our oversight duties include visiting and inspecting the huge IRS processing centers—but NOT inspecting tax returns. That was also made clear on the House floor when the omnibus bill was brought up. Nobody’s privacy was ever jeopardized. Honest mistakes were made, but there’s no conspiracy.”

Hmm...then why did Senate Majority Leader Frist, and numerous others say something different? And why is it similar to the language that you tried attaching to numerous pieces of legislation in the 1990s? There are still too many unanswered questions lingering. |W|P|110115930641724487|W|P|Istook denies putting in the tax provision|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/21/2004 09:59:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|The New York Times is reporting the GOP said that the tax provision inserted by Representative Ernie Istook was misread by the Congress. According to the Times:

"Republican leaders said that their motives had been misread and that there was never any intention to invade the privacy of taxpayers. They promised that the provision would be deleted from the bill in a special session on Wednesday before the spending measure, which cleared Congress on Saturday night, was sent to President Bush for his signature.

Representative Ernest Istook, Republican of Oklahoma, who was responsible for the insertion of the tax provision in the 3,000-page, $388 billion legislation that provides financing for most of the government, issued a statement on Sunday saying that the language had actually been drafted by the Internal Revenue Service and that "nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized." Mr. Istook is chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that has authority over the I.R.S. budget.

John D. Scofield, the spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said that the purpose of the provision was to allow investigators for the top lawmakers responsible for financing the I.R.S. to have access to that agency's offices around the country and tax records so they could examine how the money was being spent. There was never any desire to look at anyone's tax returns, he said.

Mr. Scofield said the only purpose of the provision was to allow investigators to have access to revenue service offices. He said the authority would be similar to that allowed senior members and staff assistants of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee, the panels with primary jurisdiction over the activities of the revenue service."

This doesn't make any sense to me. Look at the language of the provision:

"Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein."

Sure seems like its intentional to me. I don't understand how it could be construed as unintentional. Here is what Istook said (via the AP in The Guardian, emphasis mine):

"Istook, chairman of the House Appropriations transportation subcommittee, said in a statement Sunday that the Internal Revenue Service drafted the language, which would not have allowed any inspections of tax returns. "Nobody's privacy was ever jeopardized," the statement said."

That is just a blatant lie. We need to pressure Ernie Istook. What did he want with American's tax information? |W|P|110109646679574060|W|P|GOP says tax clause was misread|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/21/2004 05:06:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|CNN is headlining its website currently with the tax provision story that I began telling you about last night. The headline of the their story is "Anger at Tax Returns Measure." While we all know that the provision was put in by Rep. Ernie Istook (R-OK), there is no mention of his name in the piece. That's odd, considering that Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) specifically mentioned his name when addressing the Senate with Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) last night. He called it the "Istook Amendment." Calling it an amendment, however, is factually incorrect. It was not attached to the legislation, but actually was a provision entered into the original language and never attached. Questions are still lingering as to why the provision was added in the first place. Most political geeks have discovered that Istook proposed many such amendments and provisions after the 1994 Republican Revolution with the Contract to America involved. He specifically wanted the tax returns of liberal advocacy groups in order to stifle their dissent. More information as it becomes available. |W|P|110107867777376902|W|P|Mainstream media picks up tax provision story|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/21/2004 02:57:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Today on the Sunday talk shows, numerous members of Congress came out accusing the Pentagon of being a major factor in the defeat of compromises on the new intelligence bill, which was spurred by the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. According to an International Herald Tribune article via the New York Times:

"Lawmakers of both parties said today that the Pentagon played a clear role in the defeat of compromise legislation aimed at remaking United States intelligence agencies. ... Some legislators said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had made clear his opposition to the proposed overhaul, which would have stripped the Pentagon of some budgetary control over its vast intelligence operations. A Defense Department spokesman denied any such Pentagon involvement.

The Senate intelligence committee chairman, Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, was asked why the Republican-controlled House had been unable to pass a measure sought by President Bush and endorsed by the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and many relatives of victims of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"Some of it is turf, quite frankly," Mr. Roberts said on CNN, "some of it is from the Pentagon.""

Essentially, Sec. of Def. Donald Rumsfeld and his goons, jealous and frustrated because they were losing too much power, held up important legislation that would protect all Americans. This isn't a partisan issue, this is a bastard in the DoD issue. He doesn't care about American or human lives, as shown in the events occurring over in Iraq currently. Rumsfeld just wants to wage war and be powerful. According to some Democrats in the House, there are many members who simply never wanted a bill, and still don't. They'll keep tying things up as long as they have to.

A lot of President Bush's cabinet is resigning--6 of 15 currently. Let's make it 7 and kick Rumsfeld's sorry ass out of there. All he is doing is slowing down efforts to protect America. Hell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Richard B. Myers endorsed the House version. Why is Rummy so hell-bent on opposing these reforms?

|W|P|110107112328114374|W|P|Pentagon helps to defeat intelligence reform compromises|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/21/2004 12:56:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Today, the Iraqi Electoral Commission set the final date for Iraqi elections: January 30, 2005. The New York Times has the story, with some interesting analysis. I don't think the elections will mean anything. Currently, there are about 120-130 different political parties signed up to run in the elections. Any student of politics, especially comparative politics, knows that a strong opposition is essential to make strides towards democracy. However, 120 different parties is not a strong opposition. Its a mess. A CNN reporter in Iraq explained that insurgents (you remember, the ones the US can't control) have threatened poll workers and destroyed voter registrations and such. For democratic government to really emerge, you need to have a large population of people actually making it to the polls and voting. But this is not going to happen in Iraq. Democratic tradtitions are few and far between in this nation that has been under colonial and dictatorial rule for decades. Those tradtions that are democratic and free need to be nurtured before we turn the reigns of a country over to a "democratic" government that is elected by 25% of the people. And understand, I'm not arguing that the US must continue to occupy Iraq until democracy has entirely fomented. What I'm saying is, that in the interest of Iraqis, Americans, and other Middle Easterners, we have to stay there. However, we need more help. We need Germany, France, Japan, Russia, and our other allies. We need international organizations like NATO, the UN, and the EU. Elections are not going to work on January 30. If there is a clear winner, it will definitely be with no mandate, at least in most of Iraq. Expect the Kurdish region in the northwestern part of Iraq to have strong turnout, since Kurdish authorities are in full control of that region. However, prepare for some big changes within the Kurdistan region, as I believe they will begin moving forward with a succesion or independence movement that would impact Iraq, as well as Turkey and Syria. They could become Iraq's version of Chechnya. |W|P|110106331881289771|W|P|Iraq elections set for January 30|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/21/2004 11:54:00 AM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|That, ladies and gentleman, is the title of Maureen Dowd's column today. I think it is a pretty good piece, she describes how moderate Republicans are being pushed aside and grouped into subservience with all of us sad Democrats. Essentially, as the power is given to the Radical Right it is blossoming everywhere in Washington. Loyal cabinet members who will eliminate dissent in their respective departments; folks who do not believe in international law at the highest levels of our government. From Dowd's column:

"The Republican Visigoths are crushing checks and balances and driving Democrats (and moderate Republicans) into subservient, obedient roles, sticking antiabortion provisions into major spending bills. Even the suggestion that Congress has an advise-and-consent role on judges caused the Visigoths to slap Arlen Specter into stocks, until he whimpered he would do their bidding.

The party of moral values deemed that crime pays, shielding Tom DeLay with a rule that someone facing a felony charge can still be a leader.

The ultracreepy Mr. DeLay de-pantsed Democrats on Friday, sneering: "I understand the Democrat Party's adjustment to their national minority status is frustrating, but their crushing defeat ... should show them that the American people are tired of the politics of personal destruction."

Well, yeah. Watching Bush supporters shred a war hero into a war criminal was tiring.

This most secretive administration wants to stop the public from getting any facts that might challenge its story line.

The Department of Homeland Security is making employees and contractors sign pledges barring them from telling the public about sensitive but unclassified information.

Porter Goss has warned C.I.A. employees that they should support the administration and "scrupulously honor our secrecy oath" by letting only the agency's public affairs office and Congressional relations branch talk to the media and Congress.

Senate Republicans have voted to allow Bill Frist, the majority leader, to fill vacancies on powerful committees, rather than abiding by the seniority system - a sword over moderates and mavericks.

The White House says it wants greater harmony, but it's acting like the thought police. Having run into resistance in their bid for global domination, the president and vice president are going for federal domination, pushing out anyone with independent judgment who puts democracy above ideology.

It's a paradoxical game plan: imposing democracy abroad while impeding it here."

|W|P|110106002448952157|W|P|"Absolute Power Erupts"|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com11/20/2004 11:15:00 PM|W|P|Chris Woods|W|P|Thanks to Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo for providing the full text of the income tax provision that will be removed on Wednesday by the House if everything goes as planned.

"Hereinafter, notwithstanding any other provision of law governing the disclosure of income tax returns or return information, upon written request of the Chairman of the House or Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service shall allow agents designated by such Chairman access to Internal Revenue Service facilities and any tax returns or return information contained therein."

What a crock of shit. Evidentally Representative Ernest Istook (R-OK) asked for the special provision to be added to the omnibus spending bill. So, do we believe Senate Finance Committed Chairman Ted Stevens (R-AK) that it was a mistake by a staffer? Or should we believe Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and his congressional aides who said it was at the behest of Istook? I'm hearing things that say we should believe that it was Istook. He's been interested in certain tax returns for a long time. We'll see if this leads anywhere. Members from his district say they weren't surprised by this. Maybe we can uncover another Republican ethics violation. Maybe they won't be able to change the rules for their benefit this time. |W|P|110101445529207932|W|P|Exact language of provision|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com