There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along.'and ask yourself: Is that the voice of a reformer, or someone who has given up?|W|P|111126995567260813|W|P|The Reformist's Case Against John Bolton|W|P|
|W|P|Nice Blog! How'd you get the boxes around your links?I am new to this blogging stuff...here is my blog...
http://revolutionaryparadigm.blogspot.com/
Take care
RBSP
Out of all the issues facing Iowa, our state representatives took time out of their busy 3 1/2 day work week to do a little gay and lesbian bashing. At a time when we're trying to make Iowa an appealing place to live in order to attract new workers and keep young people in the state, lawmakers have time to send another hostile, unwelcoming signal. (If you aren't heterosexual, House Republicans don't seem to want you in Iowa. Some of them don't want you here if you can't speak English, either.)So much for the Republican talk about less government in our lives. So much for the Republican notion of defending freedom and leaving people alone. When it comes to the American bedroom, many GOPers seem determined to set up a video camera to make sure everyone is making love only to their adult spouse of the opposite sex in the missionary position.Worth reading even by non-Iowans, if only for the entertainment.|W|P|111116212245378155|W|P|Somedays, even David Yepsen is right...|W|P|
Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary.Now, regardless of the legitimacy of the point, can we all agree not to call it a super vote? And not to say the phrase "super important position?" Can the Democrats ever learn from fellow democrat JFK, the greatest orator to ever hold federal office?|W|P|111111510727217875|W|P|The Senate gets bit with a radioactive spider...|W|P|
|W|P|I think you might like this link. It compares old Germany to the United States if it falls asleep, content that its leaders can do no wrong.www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Good_German_Syndrome.html
ABC's "This Week" - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; former baseball player Jose Canseco; Jeffrey Sachs, director of The Earth Institute. CBS' "Face the Nation" - Rice; Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Joseph Biden, D-Del. NBC's "Meet the Press" - Rice; Reps. Tom Davis, R-Va., and Henry Waxman, D-Calif.; Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I. CNN's "Late Edition" - National security adviser Stephen Hadley; Sens. Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.; Middle East analyst Adib Farha and Syrian Cabinet Minister Bouthaina Shaaban; former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former United Nations Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. "Fox News Sunday" - Hadley; Mark Malloch Brown, chief of staff to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.|W|P|111073685747697543|W|P|Sunday talk|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"An overwhelming majority of Democratic senators said they will oppose, under any circumstances, Bush's plan to allow younger workers to divert a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into individual investment accounts that would follow them into retirement. A few others said they will not support such accounts if they require substantial government borrowing. Even many Republicans say that is inevitable because the alternative involves unacceptably large cuts in benefits and/or tax increases to replace the diverted taxes. Combined, these Democrats form a coalition large enough -- more than 41 members -- to use delaying tactics to keep the proposal from reaching a vote in the 100-member chamber. The Post survey of the Senate's 44 Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent indicates there are at least 42 -- and perhaps 44 -- who firmly oppose personal investment accounts, particularly if they are financed with borrowed money."This is really good news. It means we can basically stop any legislation from ever coming to the floor by filibustering the legislation--obstructing a terrible idea that NEEDS to be obstructed. Of course, there is always a downside to this news, even if it is a minor one. As much trouble as Democrats have had with Joe Lieberman and other Democrats when it comes to privatization, Ben Nelson of Nebraska is the worst. And the Post points that out:
"That leaves Nelson, who faces a potentially tough reelection race next year, as the only Senate Democrat who did not sign the letter and who told The Post this week that he is open to considering Bush's proposals."So, in an effort to stay in office, Ben Nelson is selling himself out ideologically for some kind of political and temporary gain. Face it Senator Nelson, no matter what you do (even support Bush's efforts), you're still not going to be Republican enough to get re-elected in Nebraska. It is an unfortunate set of circumstances, and I know winning is important, but don't compromise yourself ideologically for a minimal political gain. The title "Democrat" is enough for the Right to attack you and beat you in your home state. Stand up for the good fight, and let's save Social Security from the Republican threat.|W|P|111051597714210278|W|P|Good news on the Social Security front|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|Sure, Americans should pay their bills. But over 75% of American bankruptcies come after major medical crises in which their insurance won't cover it or they can't even affor the procedure after the insurance company has already paid.Moreover, the credit card companies are a business and should have the ability to collect the loans they give out. However, just make they are a multibillion dollar industry doesn't give them the right to secretly and privately negotiate with Congress to make legislation that helps them the most in the long-run and screws over the majority of Americans. It is just horrific what they did to screw over so many Americans.
On the left sidebar, there's a graphic that says "It's a bankrupt law." I recommend checking the site out and learning some stuff about this bill. It is pretty bad.
It looks like the Bush Regime and State Department are fearful of the types of criticism they might receive because of the nomination of John Bolton to be the new Ambassador to the United Nations. Review this post if you're not familiar with the situation. Now, according to insider Steve Clemmons, the State Department and the Bush Regime are looking to fast-track his nomination and confirmation hearing to allow as little criticism or debate as possible.
"The time line just got pushed up. This just in from a very well-placed source: FYI, I'm hearing that they are trying to move this nomination very quickly because the longer it hangs out there, the more time opponents have to mobilize. The State Department's material for the confirmation hearing (Q&A, etc) is due by COB today; they hope to schedule his hearing for next week. This person also said that at State, you can feel the "nervousness in the air" about Bolton's nomination. The powers-that-be there want to push this fast next week and catch the opposition off guard."As Steve points out, it is time to take this issue seriously. I'll take the time to mention this to Senator Reid and Senate Democrats right now: Don't give up on this issue. It is time to take the caucus of Democrats and make them unite behind this terrible selection. By doing this, we might even be able to pull a couple of moderate Republicans to our side and make sure that this man does not get confirmed. If we're going to be called obstructionists, then let us deserve the title and really obstruct this nomination. I don't think we are obstructionists, by the way, but we've got to fight this one. Steve Clemmons and "The Washington Note" will be sure to keep us up to date on all of the important details. Stick with them and The Political Forecast for updates.|W|P|111049381618198292|W|P|Bolton nomination to be fast-tracked by Bush Regime|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
My kids often tease me about the time I pre-heated a toaster before putting some bread in to toast it. I deny it. I still maintain to this day that I DO know how to use a toaster, but I also admit to some not-so-brilliant moments with technology, if you can consider a toaster technology. But, today, even my kids would have to pause to give me a pat on the back for this first ever "Russ Feingold Blog Post." I am enjoying reading many blogs, and am fascinated by their immediate reporting that is covering the important issues of the day. Many of the positive comments I have been lucky enough to read about my work relate to the fact that I was the only member of the U.S. Senate to oppose the USA PATRIOT Act. That experience taught me a lot, but one thing I learned for certain is that millions of ordinary citizens support efforts to make sure the government doesn't try to take more power than it needs. Resisting overreaching by the federal government is appropriate and, yes, even patriotic. I feel very strongly about this, and have made constitutional issues in general, and First Amendment issues in particular, one of the central focuses of my work in the U.S. Senate. While the days of campus protests are not the same today as when I was in college, many people don't realize that campus protests are going on every day, all over the country, when thinking people, from all different states, generations, and ethnicities are drawn more and more to participate and exercise their First Amendment rights in an exciting venue: the Internet in general and blogs in particular. As one of the main authors of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, also known as BCRA, it is particularly difficult to hear the mistaken belief that the law was somehow an attack on our cherished First Amendment rights. It is not. The law was found to be constitutional and it accomplished what we wanted it to do without infringing on First Amendment rights: stopping Members of Congress from soliciting enormous campaign contributions from monied interests; and reducing the corrupting influence of big money donations. Despite the naysayers, and despite shamefully poor and often deliberately harmful interpretations of this law by the agency charged with enforcing campaign finance law, the Federal Election Commission, McCain-Feingold worked in the 2004 election. McCain-Feingold and the blogs both had a positive impact on the 2004 election and many people don't realize how similar their impact truly was. Both the blogs and BCRA empowered average citizens. By channeling the power of average citizens to speak out on the Internet, the blogs revitalized the political process last year. In the same way, the power of small contributions was greatly increased by BCRA, and someone who could only send $5 or $50 to a political party has become a sought-after donor. Many parts of BCRA were handled irresponsibly by the FEC, and bloggers are understandably concerned that some members of the FEC may again try to cause trouble by overreaching in the area of free speech on the Internet. So while I generally agree with the recent decision from Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly requiring the FEC to redo its rules relating to political communication on the Internet, I am also concerned that the FEC will again create unnecessary concern and confusion. Judge Kollar-Kotelly's decision was not a result of problems with BCRA. It was a result of poorly drafted FEC regulations that were challenged in court. The FEC must tread carefully in the area of political communications on the Internet. Political news and commentary on the Internet are important, even vital, to our democracy, and becoming more so. For starters, the FEC should provide adequate protection for legitimate online journalists. Online journalists should be treated the same as other legitimate broadcast media, newspapers, etc. and, at this point, I don't see any reason why the FEC shouldn't include legitimate online journalists and bloggers in the "media exemption" rule. The definitions and rules relating to "coordinated activity" should be clarified, so legitimate bloggers and journalists alike don't have to worry about vague rules for legitimate activity. Certainly linking to campaign websites, quoting from or republishing campaign materials and even providing a link for donations to a candidate, if done without compensation, should not cause a blogger to be deemed to have made a contribution to a campaign or trigger reporting requirements. Also, the FEC should generally exempt independent, unpaid political activity by bloggers on the Internet. We must let this town square, which has added a significant dimension to our political process, continue to flourish. When the FEC issues a proposal on this issue later this month, rest assured that I will be reviewing it carefully and offering detailed comments. At a time in the country when we need free and open discourse, when the Senate is rubber stamping a bankruptcy bill which hurts those who have no power, when the country is involved in a war with no timetable for an exit strategy, we must be able to speak our minds without fear of recrimination from the government.|W|P|111049272788019026|W|P|A post from Senator Russ Feingold|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
W.C. Varones|W|P|I love fatwas. I put a fatwa on the bus driver who was a bit surly this morning. I put a fatwa on Barbara Boxer for her attempt to help greedy executives defeat honest accounting.I can't help wonder, though, if this is a publicity ploy for Osama. As I've pointed out before, he's increasingly crying out for attention.
"Yesterday, Congresswoman Slaughter and I released a report, "Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy," meticulously documenting the alarming assault on our democracy as framed in the Constitution. The report is a 47-page indictment of the unprecedented lengths to which the Republicans have abused their power and manipulated the rules in efforts to squelch dissent, to protect their Members from voting on popular measures that their special interests opposed, and to shut down any and all input from the minority side representing half of this great country. Democrats are not second-class citizens, and we will not stand by quietly as Republicans manipulate our very democracy to cram through Congress a partisan agenda that only rewards their campaign donors. Yesterday we exposed them to the world, but in order to bring it all to a screeching halt, we must have the majority. Congress was intended to be the primary check on the Executive Branch, a responsibility that the Republicans have not only abdicated themselves, but have done everything in their power to prevent us from fulfilling either. For Republicans, democracy and the Constitution are valuable only to the extent they can be used to ensure Republican power, and are to be shunted aside the moment they might get in the way. This is the single most important reason we need to have a Democratic majority in the House - to set the agenda, and restore a government where President Bush and Tom DeLay are not free to run rampant without fear of repercussions. As we show in our report, in 10 short years House Republicans have become the most arrogant, unethical and corrupt majority in modern Congressional history. Stifling deliberation and quashing dissent in the House of Representatives has become the standard operating procedure. Democrats MUST attain the majority in House to bring all of this to an abrupt end. No longer will Republicans be able to marginalize dissent, cover up President Bush's scandals and their own ethical abuses, or manipulate the process to kill legislation that the American people desperately want."The report is in-depth and quite scary. The 108th Congress was by far the worst in American history when it came to democratic procedure. Take the time and read the report (PDF format). I know I will.|W|P|111040837339219638|W|P|Lies and broken promises|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"I'm reporting tonight that the former Vice President and 2000 Democratic Presidential nominee will not run for President."Interesting development. Chris seems to think it leaves the race between Kerry and Clinton. I'm not so sure about that. 2008 carries the possibility of being quite a bustling race, just like 2004 was. However, I just hope that a coherent Democratic unity emerges overall from the race.|W|P|111024972890807943|W|P|No Gore in 2008|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Why are so many of the major conservative bloggers already from folks long inside the conservative movement?"Go read the article.|W|P|111023507477033366|W|P|Oliver Willis: Astroturf blogging|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Is he kidding? That's the only possible reaction to Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan's conclusion last week that the massive federal budget deficit accumulated under President Bush was unsustainable." Declared Greenspan: "The principle that I think is involved here ... [is] that you cannot continuously introduce legislation which tends to expand the budget deficit." That would be an entirely reasonable -- even urgent -- warning from someone who didn't bear so much responsibility for the problem he's describing. Greenspan lamenting higher deficits is like New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner complaining about inflated baseball salaries. . . .Greenspan last week described this slow-motion crisis as if he were some concerned bystander. But in the federal government's financial crackup, Greenspan's more like the guy at the party who handed the car keys to a drunk. Now, after the wreckage, he's sad. But we'd all be better off if he had spoken up when it could have done some good."Harsh.|W|P|111023440105706678|W|P|Brownstein: Greenspan the hack|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|I don't consider Greenspan a hack simply because I disagree with him on political views. If you look at previous posts I've made about Greenspan (here and here) I discuss or link to discussions that occurred that show Greenspan's hypocrisy and contradictory monetary policy. As Chairman of the Federal Reserve, his position is absolutely and completely nonpartisan. It was designed to be that way and must remain that way.However, if you look at the rhetoric and the situation of the time when Clinton was President and now when Bush is President, Greenspan is giving a double standard on monetary policy.
When you're a shill for an administration, or you compromise your own positions integrity for the sake of political gains or because you fear retribution, you're nothing more than a hack. And that is what Greenspan is.
"Then CBS' John Roberts got into a little tiff with McClellan about private accounts and Social Security, where Roberts kept trying to get McClellan to answer a yes-no question with either a "yes" or a "no." The exchange finished with McClellan saying in a gentle snap, "I don't know what part you're not hearing," and Roberts saying, "It's the N-O portion I'm not hearing.""Way to go John Roberts.|W|P|111023402143506229|W|P|Bloggers in the briefing|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"The war in Iraq was hardly a month old in April 2003 when an Army general in charge of equipping soldiers with protective gear threw the brakes on buying bulletproof vests. The general, Richard A. Cody, who led a Pentagon group called the Army Strategic Planning Board, had been told by supply chiefs that the combat troops already had all the armor they needed, according to Army officials and records from the board's meetings. Some 50,000 other American soldiers, who were not on the front lines of battle, could do without. In the following weeks, as Iraqi snipers and suicide bombers stepped up deadly attacks, often directed at those very soldiers behind the front lines, General Cody realized the Army's mistake and did an about-face. On May 15, 2003, he ordered the budget office to buy all the bulletproof vests it could, according to an Army report. He would give one to every soldier, "regardless of duty position." But the delays were only beginning. The initial misstep, as well as other previously undisclosed problems, show that the Pentagon's difficulties in shielding troops and their vehicles with armor have been far more extensive and intractable than officials have acknowledged, according to government officials, contractors and Defense Department records. In the case of body armor, the Pentagon gave a contract for thousands of the ceramic plate inserts that make the vests bulletproof to a former Army researcher who had never mass-produced anything. He struggled for a year, then gave up entirely. At the same time, in shipping plates from other companies, the Army's equipment manager effectively reduced the armor's priority to the status of socks, a confidential report by the Army's inspector general shows. Some 10,000 plates were lost along the way, and the rest arrived late. In all, with additional paperwork delays, the Defense Department took 167 days just to start getting the bulletproof vests to soldiers in Iraq once General Cody placed the order. But for thousands of soldiers, it took weeks and even months more, records show, at a time when the Iraqi insurgency was intensifying and American casualties were mounting."So much for supporting our troops. The DoD sounds like a high school yearbook office. To all of those red-staters with the yellow ribbons all over your cars: If you really supported our troops, you would've voted for somebody else. ThinkProgress has more.|W|P|111022266292791722|W|P|Resign Rumsfeld|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"At a 1994 panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association Bolton claimed "there's no such thing as the United Nations," and stated "if the UN secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."And here's another from the Washington Times, 10/24/98:
"Moreover, many Republicans in Congress - and perhaps a majority - not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote but actually see it as a "make my day" outcome. Indeed, once the vote is lost, and the adverse consequences predicted by the U.N.'s supporters begin to occur, this will simply provide further evidence to many why nothing more should be paid to the U.N. system."How much longer will we be a member under the Bush Regime? My guess--not long.|W|P|111021386127684777|W|P|New UN Ambassador|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Two Democratic political consultants are preparing to launch a weekly online political talk show that will showcase the party's message, lambaste Republicans and, they hope, open a new front in the ongoing media wars. It's called DemsTV.com, and each Tuesday, beginning tomorrow, the Web site will feature 20 minutes or so of talking-head chatter from a rotating cast of young Democratic operatives. "The primary focus is on politics, and, frankly, a heavy focus is on pointing out the foibles and scandals and dirty little secrets of Republicans that we think don't receive as much coverage in the mainstream media as they might," said Dan Manatt, one of the producers."What a brilliant idea! This could have monumental impact, especially if other blogs pick this up and run with it right away. Hell, it practically takes podcasting to a whole other (and much more expensive) level. Tomorrow is their first show, and it sounds pretty good. Their panelists will discuss possible GOP contenders in 2008. What is more fun is the feature "Blogger of the Week" where they will highlight a certain weblog. I pray that The Political Forecast makes it on there someday. I think this just shows how much Democrats in and out of office realize the impact of the internet on their political movements. The power of the blogosphere is growing, and by producing online media, fast-thinking Democrats can take (responsible) partisan politics to a whole new level. As long as the show is good (which I'm betting on), the blogosphere will pick up and run far with this.|W|P|111021129941433007|W|P|Online talk show|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"In any case, Jay Rosen, a journalism professor at New York University and specialist in blogging, said Mr. Graff's odyssey was significant for two reasons. First, he showed that it was harder to get a pass than the White House said it was after the Guckert case. Secondly, he said, Mr. Graff was expanding the definition of what constitutes the press, just as radio and television once pushed those boundaries."It will be interesting to see how their day goes at the White House. You can follow along with their exploits and adventures here.|W|P|111021051503452507|W|P|Blogging from the White House|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
FOX NEWS SUNDAY, 9 a.m.: Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), presidential counselor Dan Bartlett and developer Donald Trump. THIS WEEK (ABC), 9 a.m.: Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Treasury Secretary John W. Snow and Charles W. Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries. FACE THE NATION (CBS), 10:30 a.m.: Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) MEET THE PRESS (NBC), 10:30 a.m.: Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) LATE EDITION (CNN), noon: Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), Saudi foreign policy adviser Adel Al-Jubeir, Jordanian Ambassador Karim Kawar, Egyptian Ambassador Nabil Fahmy, Israeli Ambassador Daniel Ayalon and Mithal Alusi of Iraq's Democratic Party.|W|P|111015966147537921|W|P|Document the atrocities|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"I should add my sense that, while the government may make life quite dificult for bloggers for a time, its attempts at regulation ultimately will prove futile. And, to the extent that they continue to lead the charge, the Democrats will probably suffer. This is a party that has steadily moved to the losing side of the key issues of our time -- from solid cold warriors to semi-pacifists; from upholders of equal opportunity to proponents of racial preferences; from upholders of free speech to proponents of speech codes; etc. Now, the Democrats seem intent on losing whatever edge they may have with young, sophisticated voters by moving to the losing side of the censorship debate and taking on the internet."Wow, this Deacon fellow really is incendiary, isn't he? Oh, and he makes sure to point out the terrific work of his pals, the Thune Bloggers:
"Bloggers, for example, played a major role in the extraordinary defeat of Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle. Daschle had relied on the leading state newspaper not to report facts showing the extent to which he had become a liberal "creature" of Washington."Yes, because those bloggers were completely independent of the Thune campaign and weren't using the site for campaign advertising purposes in the regulated 60 day period before the election. When a website is in direct communication with a political campaign (i.e. the bloggers of this "independent" blog were hired and paid for by the Thune campaign), without a complete disclosure and regulation of their methods in the important period of 60 days prior to the election, that is entirely unethical and illegal. It is the horrible folks like the Thune bloggers, and other liars and cheats on both sides of the aisle, while minimal at best, who spoil the good work of the rest of us.|W|P|110995739105365670|W|P|Imbalanced|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Four years ago, Alan Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, asserting that the federal government was in imminent danger of paying off too much debt. On Wednesday the Fed chairman warned Congress of the opposite fiscal danger: he asserted that there would be large budget deficits for the foreseeable future, leading to an unsustainable rise in federal debt. But he counseled against reversing the tax cuts, calling instead for cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Does anyone still take Mr. Greenspan's pose as a nonpartisan font of wisdom seriously? When Mr. Greenspan made his contorted argument for tax cuts back in 2001, his reputation made it hard for many observers to admit the obvious: he was mainly looking for some way to do the Bush administration a political favor. But there's no reason to be taken in by his equally weak, contorted argument against reversing those cuts today. To put Mr. Greenspan's game of fiscal three-card monte in perspective, remember that the push for Social Security privatization is only part of the right's strategy for dismantling the New Deal and the Great Society. The other big piece of that strategy is the use of tax cuts to "starve the beast."The act is up Greenspan, you're just a partisan hack. And here is the evidence to prove it, via There Is No Crisis and the Financial Times on March 4, 1999.
"Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, clashed again with senior officials of the Clinton administration yesterday when he intensified his one-man campaign against their plan to invest a portion of public pension funds in the stock market. Mr Greenspan said shifting part of the accumulated surplus of Social Security, the state pension scheme, into equities from the Treasury bonds it now holds exclusively would not produce the big financial gains claimed for it. Nor would it raise the overall returns on the economy's assets needed to meet the long-term goal of raising pension incomes. "Investing Social Security assets in equities is. .. largely a zero-sum game," he told the House of Representatives' ways and means committee. The Fed chairman's remarks went further than his previous expressions of scepticism about the plan, which had been based largely on his concern that the new funds would be subject to too much political interference. Yesterday he challenged the economic assumptions of higher returns on which the proposal was based."Busted. Call your Senators today and tell them you are opposed to President Bush's plan for privatization and the politicization of the office of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.|W|P|110991960547554284|W|P|Greenspan the hack|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"I'm not a big Greenspan fan. ... I voted against him two times. I think he's one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington."And it is true. Greespan complained left and right about budget deficits during the Clinton administration. He bitched and moaned so much that Clinton worked to balance the budget and made it a politically acceptable strategy. Now, in an era of major budget deficits and the most ridiculous and destructive economic policies since the Hoover Administration, Greenspan is allowing Bush and his Regime to get away with screwing up our economy even more, especially by practically endorsing the failure of plan that is Social Security privatization. Here is the full transcript from today's episode. I love a Democrat who has the ability to make his words land like punches.
"WOODRUFF: But even Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, in testimony yesterday, and again this morning, is talking about how Social Security does have long-term fiscal -- or rather fiscal issues that he says need to be addressed urgently. REID: Judy, you understand, I hope, that I'm not a big Greenspan fan -- Alan Greenspan fan. I voted against him the last two times. I think he's one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington. The fact of the matter is, he told us when we were in power and Clinton was president the biggest problem facing the American people was the deficit. And we did something about it. We, during the Clinton years, paid down the debt by about a half a trillion dollars. Why doesn't he respond to the Republicans and tell them the big problem here is the debt that this administration is created? We had a $7 trillion surplus when Bush took office, now we have a $3 or $4 trillion deficit. That's, in fact, what Greenspan should be telling people. WOODRUFF: Well, he has mentioned the deficit, I know, but I guess the question is, is it responsible? Is it responsible for Democrats to say we're not going to deal with this long-term solvency question? REID: Democrats are saying as long as privatization is on the table, which is a word for destroying Social Security, we are not going to take the bait that the president has shown to us. The president wants to run up the debt, he's already acknowledged that privatization will not help the stability of Social Security. He's indicated he's willing to make benefit cuts, he's willing to run up the debt. We're not willing to do that. WOODRUFF; So, when House Speaker Dennis Hastert says -- he looks at what the Democrats are doing right now and he says the Democrats have become the party of no. Just, you know, obstructionists. REID: This is interesting. The president has never seen a crisis he hasn't created. Social Security, judges. So the next thing I assume I'll be hearing from Republicans, they want to change rules some way, as they do on the House when you get a problem with ethics, they just change the rules. That's what they're threatening to do here on judges, maybe that's what they should try to do on Social Security. Change the rules. That's what they seem to be wanting to do, rather than face the situation we have before us. The situation is Social Security is not in crisis. Social Security is not in crisis. The president understands that and that's why he wants to privatize it, to destroy it."|W|P|110990395284183819|W|P|I <3 Harry Reid|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Atrios has the details. Evidentally, this congressman thinks Liberals should be out of the country:
"I say we tell those liberal, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, hippie, tie-dyed liberals to go make their movies and their music and whine somewhere else."Well, I'm a liberal, I like trees, and I like movies and music. But since I don't own Birkenstocks or anything tie-dyed, and I'm not a hippie (too young), does that mean I get to stay and help get you knocked out of office?|W|P|110989167102050511|W|P|A Congressman and a plagiarist|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"So why are the Democrats filibustering Pryor? My guess -- because he is a man of principle and because they hate Alabama."Fuck you, Deacon. Besides being an arrogant, right-wing fascist, you're also a moron. Democrats have a lot of reasons to filibuster Pryor's nomination. First, let's look at this CounterPunch article written after Pryor's first nomination in 2003.
"When Bill Pryor was running for re-election as Attorney General for the state of Alabama in 2002, he demanded that the execution dates of 8 prisoners be moved up so that they could be put to death prior to the fall vote. . . .Pryor also tartly dismisses allegations of racial bias in the administration of the death penalty as a diversionary tactic by out of state. . .defense lawyers. At gatherings of the Federalist Society, he gripes endlessly about the appeals process available to the condemned and has vowed to do everything in his power to truncate appeals and accelerate executions. . . .From his perch in Montgomery, Pryor ridiculed the Supreme Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, which ruled that only juries can impose the death penalty. He contends that juries are too susceptible to emotional appeals for leniency from crafty defense lawyers, thus he backs Alabama's arcane and vicious law allowing judge's to impose the death penalty even when a jury has recommended life in prison. President Bush claims that Pryor is squarely in the tradition of his two favorite Supremes, Scalia and Thomas. But even Scalia, God's willing executioner, voted to defend the right of juries in the Ring case. Pryor, a pious father of two, even thinks that children should be sentenced to death and he has done so in record fashion: Alabama has now sentenced more juveniles to death on a per capita basis than any other states."So, let's see. A lot of liberals and Democrats are against the death penalty. That should be a legitimate point of view for the right to accept, wouldn't you think? Now we have at least one principled reason to oppose his nomination. Oh, and don't forget that Power Line supports juvenile execution. Second, he doesn't think there is, or even acknowledge, the fact that there is a clear and blatant racial bias in the imposition of the death penalty. Democrats have worked hard to prove this point, and thus we must oppose a judge who even differs in thought from the Radical Supremes we already have. Finally, with the decision two days ago making the execution of minors unconstitutional, we see that Pryor will most definitely conflict with the majority on the Court right now, posing a significant threat to some level of judicial stability in America. That is our third principled reason to oppose this so-called "principled" man. But beyond these issues, there is one power and principled reason why Democrats must oppose Pryor--his lack of willingness to protect fundamental women's rights. As ThinkProgress points out for us, Pryor calls Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our nation’s history." Democrats strongly believe in the decision in Roe v. Wade and we believe we must do everything to protect it. When this "principled" man denies the inherent constitutionality in a decision by the nation's highest court, there is legitimate and just cause to deny and thwart the nomination of this man. Oh, and we don't hate Alabama, we just really dislike bad discourse and debate from folks like you on the Right, and religious ideologues like former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore.|W|P|110989423428652885|W|P|A response to Power Line on "Why We Filibuster"|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"For the record: Yes, I am a card-carrying member of the A.C.L.U. But the more important question is why aren't you, Bob? This is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, so it naturally begs the questions. Why would a senator, his party's most powerful spokesman and a candidate for president, choose to reject upholding the Constitution?"Well, want to give us an answer, Bill and friends? (From my main-man and pal, Aaron Sorkin in the amazing film The American President)|W|P|110988204489287061|W|P|ACLU = terrorists?|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"I'd guess that most blog readers are too young to remember the days when virtually all Democrats berated the U.S. for not being more like Germany and Japan, which were held up as exemplars of "modern," liberal economies. Liberals muttered darkly about the grim futures faced by Ronald Reagan's America and Margaret Thatcher's Great Britain. One nice thing about politics, I guess, is that there are so many "do overs." You can be wrong time after time and still make a nice living, courtesy of the Sulzbergers, or whoever."So, essentially, because of Germany's bad economic news today, the welfare state is done and proven wrong and it is time to adopt completely free markets and make sweet, sweet love to capitalism. Not so fast. This is another logical fallacy. Here, I'll illustrate:
- Germany has high unemployment and little economic growth.
- Germany implements economic policies that create a welfare state.
- Welfare states are bad because they create high unemployment and little economic growth.
"Seasonal variations, which occur in areas like farming and construction that lay off workers in the winter, could bring Mr. Schröder's government some relief, said Andreas Rees, an economist with the HVB Group in Munich. "We see a lot of signs that the worst is behind us," Mr. Rees said. In past years, seasonal unemployment has peaked in February, so by March an additional 150,000 people could be on the payrolls. If the trend continued, April's figures, which would be reported only a few weeks before the election, could bring unemployment well below five million, Mr. Rees noted. The coming months will give some indication on another aspect of Mr. Schröder's changes, economists said. As a complement to greatly reduced unemployment benefits, able-bodied Germans who have been unemployed for more than a year will have to participate in municipal work programs. Once they take these jobs, which could be cleaning up a park or working in a nursing home, they would be removed from the unemployment statistics - brightening the picture considerably."So, we see that in certain seasons, Germany's unemployment almost always increases. And with the unusually frigid winter Germany is facing, unemployment is bound to get pretty high. It is also important to keep in mind that as Chancellor Schroder's new policies come into full effect, unemployment will most likely drastically decrease. It is just that these things take time. Now, I'm not saying that a Socialist economy will work or that Germany isn't facing some dire economic circumstances. But to take a bad economic report and turn it into hinting at the end of the welfare state seems like the wrong thing to do. The Right needs to get its act together and start making some logically reasoned arguments. Without them, they will eventually run out of supporters. American's are pretty bright when it comes to basic policies. When you start stretching the truth make making illogical arguments on the most basic of things, you're gonna get your ass kicked by the American people.|W|P|110973452613315462|W|P|The welfare state: Is it done?|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
|W|P|There is often an apples-to-oranges problem with unemployment figures as well. The US uses a restrictive unemployment criterion, while other countries often use a less restrictive criterion. Robert Schumacher|W|P|Say it isn't so...Republicans using single-data-point examples for their own view-pushing. Kinda like "WMD's" :)"The Bush administration believed that if the door to democracy and reform were opened in Iraq, much of the Arab world might follow. This was always a big gamble--one that we supported in part because, as we've often said, no one has proposed a competing plan to deal, long-term, with the problem of Islamic terrorism. Right now, President Bush's gamble is looking very good indeed. Something like 50 million people have been liberated in Afghanistan and Iraq. Positive developments are occurring before our eyes in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere."What the Right is doing is called a logical fallacy; specifically an ad hoc ergo propter hoc, or "after it, therefore because of it." They claim that President Bush's doctrine of pre-emption and democratization is successful because look at the recent events in Lebanon and Egypt. Because democracy is seeming to arise there, as well as the fact that it has now been created in Afghanistan and Iraq, it means that the Bush Doctrine is working. That's just wrong and doesn't make logical sense. But then again, the Right was never that logical to begin with. Granted, Power Line does also say:
"It's way too soon to proclaim the administration's strategy a success; indeed, we may not be sure in our lifetimes whether the strategy that underlay the Iraq war was a sound one. But right now, it sure is fun to read the headlines."Fun to read the headlines? Maybe for the last couple of days, one or two headlines might've been good. But what about just yesterday when over 100 Iraqis were killed in a suicide attack? Or the headlines of more and more soldiers being killed in Iraq. Or the headlines on Iran and North Korea's nuclear desires. Are those fun to read? Probably not. And a lot of them can be linked to or have resulted from the Bush Doctrine this regime has so readily employed. I'm not going to make any logical fallacies here, I'm going to leave it up to you to make your own decisions on the Bush Doctrine. And while I'm happy about the democratic movements in the Middle East, I'm also a pragmatist. In the Middle East, as it has been for decades, two steps forward usually results in one step back. Someday this will change, but this rapid move towards democracy can lead to large amounts of instability. While I have some qualms with the reporting in this Times story, overall it does point out that things aren't going that smoothly in the rest of the Middle East. With all of these uprisings and elections and attacks occurring, the entire area is probably the most unstable it has been in a long damn time. I don't know right now where credit should be placed for these events, but I'm sure the United States did play somewhat of a role. And so did the international community and the ideologies of democracy and capitalism on their own. Time will tell when credit can be taken, but for now, the only credit the Right should be claiming is fairly winning an election in 2004 (contrary to 2000).|W|P|110972182998201026|W|P|Taking credit where credit ISN'T due|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
Chris Woods|W|P|I'm not placing the blame on Bush at all. What I was trying to say (and it probably didn't come out too clearly) was that the approach he's taken in foreign policy after 9/11 could (or some scholars will argue has) be[en] linked to decisions those countries have made. And then again, that all depends on your theoretical perspectives on foreign policy and other ideological grounds as well."The age of 18 is the point where society draws the line for many purposes between childhood and adulthood. It is, we conclude, the age at which the line for death eligibility ought to rest."That makes sense to me. The age of 18 for governmental regulations has been a coherent and manageable standard for decades. So even if you don't buy the international standards claim the majority makes, at least you can support adherence to judicial precedence and the upholding of manageable standards. Unless you belong to the Radical Right and only favor activist judges when they help you. And then there is John Hinderaker's addition on to the original Power Line post which makes no sense:
"This is very bad. It's also quite odd: The Supreme Court is disdainful of public opinion in the U.S. as expressed by the laws passed by Congress and the state legislatures, but respectful of public opinion in Europe. I can understand the Washington social structure within which this world-view makes sense, but can anyone articulate a philosophy of jurisprudence in which European opinion, however manifested, is given priority over American opinion, as expressed in laws passed by legislators?"In a Supreme Courts and Elections class I just had a few weeks ago, we watched a video of Kennedy and Scalia talking about international standards and other decisions on the issues facing the Supreme Court. It was shown on C-Span, so I am sure there is video of it somewhere on the web (I'll look for it and post a link). In that video, Scalia expressly said that it is ok in some cases to use European precedent, particularly when looking at British common law and its impact of jurisprudence under the colonies. If we can make a link to the past, why not make a contemporary link as well? Our law systems are quite similar in many ways (except for codification) but stare decisis still plays a big role. When will the right admit that sometimes it is just MORALLY RIGHT to condemn horrendous practices like juvenile death sentences and torture, and say "fuck the process, it is the outcome that counts." They did it with the 2000 election, why not in this situation?|W|P|110971184909422292|W|P|Standing up for juvenile execution|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"Sure, no one should misunderestimate the ability of the White House to push this thing right up to the gates of delerium, but let's also remember Bush's M.O.--he'll act like he's headed for victory right up to the minute he suddenly decides tax reform or the budget or some other element of the "ownership society" is suddenly more urgent. He's going to lose this fight, folks, whether or not one or two Democrats in the House or the Senate give him "cover" by offering some sort of deal that neither party will accept."Both Yglesias and Atrios seem to think that Kilgore is basically giving cover to Lieberman and any other Democrat who sides with him. That's what I seem to get from the original post. Today, however, Ed clears things up, and does a good job doing it. He makes a lot of good points. The biggest issue that Ed draws out and what I think is the most important to remember is that now isn't the time for Democratic infighting and purges. Sure, if Lieberman decides to pony-up to Bush and get his lips all over his ass, then Democrats need to pound the fact into the media that Lieberman isn't representative of Democrats in general. And they tend to do that. The problem I have is when Kilgore seems to go looking for a fight with his opposition:
"Look, I've tried to be a Party Unity Eagle Scout since starting my own blog, despite a lot of provocation to get into fights over stereotypes about the DLC held by people who aren't much interested in reading what I have to say unless it reinforces those stereotypes. So I understand the need for unity on Social Security and other topics right now. But unity is a means to an end--beating Bush on the dangerous things he's trying to do to our country, and working towards a strong, alternative progressive message for Democrats that expands our base. It shouldn't become a complete end in itself. Right now the blogosphere is full of talk about litmus tests and purges, whether or not they contribute to either of those goals. And if the email I'm getting about Lieberman is any indication, we're getting close to litmus tests and purges about litmus tests and purges ("Are you now, or have you ever been, opposed to kicking Joe Lieberman out of the party?")."Sure, point out the situation exists, but don't talk about it with some incendiary feelings like that. At this pivotal time, push hard feelings aside and move towards unity, like Ed is talking about. Unity can be used as ends in this debate, and we need it. So, no cover, no nothing. After we succeed in accomplishing some Democratic goals, then some self-reflection can occur. Now isn't the time for purges, as Ed said. We need to remember that soon, quite soon, the GOP will be in this same type of public position. Major internal rivalries are already occurring between traditional conservatives and neoconservatives. With no heir to the party in 2008, the GOP is gonna face some major problems. We need to have our internal issues dealt with soon, but let's unify and win this battle right now. Then, it is time to reclaim our position of power. The progressive cause is the right one.|W|P|110971044926595529|W|P|On winning|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com
"It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty, resting in large part on the understanding that the instability and emotional imbalance of young people may often be a factor in the crime."The United States should probably get some accolades from the international community for this decisions, seeing as we were one of only a few countries left in the world that executed children. Others included Iran, Pakistan, China, and Saudi Arabia. That is definitely a list you usually don't want to be included in. I only hope that someday we'll finally remove the death penalty once and for all, and become a truly civilized state.|W|P|110970905021461041|W|P|Finally becoming civilized|W|P|christopherdwoods@gmail.com