The Bachmann Watch (http://www.dccc.org/page/content/bachmannwatch) is officially my favorite new web site. The site focuses on the statements Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), who is clearly one of the dumbest and most irresponsible politicians in the history of the United States. (Plus I love the fact that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee decided to play a little dirty pool and actually develop the site.)
If you are unfamiliar with Bachmann, this brainiac has described global warming as "voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax"; warned the American public that the gay community is "specifically targeting our children" and voiced her concerns that President Obama and other U.S. politicians "may have anti-American views". With that being said, her comments from Tuesday regarding the swine flu epidemic truly emphasize how stupid Bachmann truly is: "I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence." Actually, you lunatic, the last time that there was an outbreak of swine flu was in 1976, when Republican Gerald Ford was President. After a soldier at Fort Dix in New Jersey died of the illness in February of that year, alarmed public health officials urged President Ford that every American should be vaccinated. However, the National Influenza Immunization Program, which did not begin until October, was marked by controversy, delays, administrative issues, legal complications, unforeseen side effects and a progressive loss of credibility for public health authorities. By the time the program was halted in December, less than thirty-three percent of the population had been immunized. And by the way, if you aren't blaming President Obama for the swine flu epidemic, then why are you even mentioning his name?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Fair and Balanced Once Again
Not surprisingly, FOX became the first broadcast network to decline a request by President Obama for air time, deciding to show the drama "Lie to Me" tomorrow instead of President Obama's primetime news conference. At the same time, the news conference marking President Obama's 100th day in office will be aired by ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, CNBC and MSNBC.
A news conference does cost the four broadcast networks an estimated $10+ million in lost advertising revenue. And this particular news conference comes at the start of a ratings sweeps months. Therefore, aside from the network being able to maintain its advertising for the hour, FOX will offer the only broadcast entertainment program with "Lie to Me". On the other hand, with the economy in distress, our operations in the Middle East and now the growing swine flu epidemic, the duty for all of the networks to air President Obama's news conference has become enormous. However, FOX has decided to take the coward's way out.
A news conference does cost the four broadcast networks an estimated $10+ million in lost advertising revenue. And this particular news conference comes at the start of a ratings sweeps months. Therefore, aside from the network being able to maintain its advertising for the hour, FOX will offer the only broadcast entertainment program with "Lie to Me". On the other hand, with the economy in distress, our operations in the Middle East and now the growing swine flu epidemic, the duty for all of the networks to air President Obama's news conference has become enormous. However, FOX has decided to take the coward's way out.
About Face of the Week
Earlier today, Texas Gov. Rick Perry requested that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provide more than 37,000 courses of antiviral medications from the Strategic National Stockpile to Texas in order to prevent the spread of swine flu. At the moment, three cases of the virus have been confirmed in Texas.
How quickly things change? As I mentioned in a recent posting, Perry addressed a group of tea baggers (still funny) at a Tax Day Tea Party and discussed the possibility of secession: "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot." And on April 9th, Perry joined sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. During that press conference, Perry stated that "I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens and its interference with the affairs of our state. That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential Tenth Amendment will free our state from undue regulations and ultimately strengthen our Union." How about this? Since (1) Perry has already hinted at Texas seceding from the United States and (2) cases of swine flu have been reported in both Texas and Mexico, why don't we just be proactive and trade Mexico to Latin America now for a country to be named later?
How quickly things change? As I mentioned in a recent posting, Perry addressed a group of tea baggers (still funny) at a Tax Day Tea Party and discussed the possibility of secession: "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot." And on April 9th, Perry joined sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. During that press conference, Perry stated that "I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens and its interference with the affairs of our state. That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential Tenth Amendment will free our state from undue regulations and ultimately strengthen our Union." How about this? Since (1) Perry has already hinted at Texas seceding from the United States and (2) cases of swine flu have been reported in both Texas and Mexico, why don't we just be proactive and trade Mexico to Latin America now for a country to be named later?
Friday, April 24, 2009
This Day in History
Fifty-five years ago today, a great American named Michael Moore was born in Flint, MI. The Academy Award winning filmmaker has been the director and producer of three of the top five highest grossing documentaries of all time. If you have not seen at least one of his amazing films, then I am not too sure what in the hell is wrong with you. With that being said, aside from his most popular documentaries ("Bowling for Columbine", "Fahrenheit 9/11" and, most recently, "SiCKO"), I would also highly recommend "Roger & Me". Released in 1989, the film focuses on how his hometown of Flint was drastically affected after General Motors closed its factories and opened new operations in Mexico.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Observe Wisely
Earth Day is celebrated annually on April 22 by the United States, as well as numerous countries throughout the world. This day was designed in 1970 to inspire an awareness and appreciation for the Earth's environment and the issues it faces. If you wish to learn more information on ways in which you can assist the environment (and not just once a year), please go the U.S. government's official Earth Day web site: http://www.earthday.gov/.
Monday, April 20, 2009
This Unfortunate Day in History
On April 20, 1999, two students of Columbine High School in Littleton, CO embarked on a shooting spree which turned out to be the deadliest massacre at an American high school. Armed with bombs, shotguns and semi-automatic weapons, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed twelve fellow students and one teacher and wounded twenty-four other individuals. The shooting began at 11:19AM MST and continued for forty-nine minutes until both Harris and Klebold thankfully turned their guns on themselves.
There isn't much that I can say about this horrible event in the history of our country. However, I will state that, if you have not yet seen "Bowling for Columbine", the Academy Award winning documentary by Michael Moore, I would highly recommend it. Released in 2002, the film obviously discusses the massacre in Columbine, as well as other violence and gun control issues. With that being said, the following clip from the film shows school camera and news footage from that fateful day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DRSK1uTY1A&feature=related. Needless to say, the video from the school cameras is chilling.
There isn't much that I can say about this horrible event in the history of our country. However, I will state that, if you have not yet seen "Bowling for Columbine", the Academy Award winning documentary by Michael Moore, I would highly recommend it. Released in 2002, the film obviously discusses the massacre in Columbine, as well as other violence and gun control issues. With that being said, the following clip from the film shows school camera and news footage from that fateful day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DRSK1uTY1A&feature=related. Needless to say, the video from the school cameras is chilling.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
This Unfortunate Day in History
In the annals of late 20th century history, April 19th leaves a very ominous cloud over the United States. On that day in 1995, a Ryder truck, containing more than 6,200 pounds of an ammonium nitrate fertilizer, nitromethane and diesel fuel mixture, was detonated at 9:02AM CST by Timothy McVeigh in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, OK. The cowardly and heartless attack on the government office complex claimed 168 lives and left over 800 people injured. The bombing still remains the deadliest act of domestic terrorism in American history.
In seventy-five hours of prison interviews with Dan Herbeck and Lou Michel, reporters for "The Buffalo News", McVeigh became emotional while talking about killing a gopher in a field but never expressed any remorse for the Oklahoma City bombing. In fact, McVeigh remarked that "I understand what they felt in Oklahoma City. I have no sympathy for them." during the interviews, which started in May 1999. To make matters worse, McVeigh was actually disappointed that a portion of the building was still standing following the bombing: "Damn, I didn't knock the building down. I didn't take it down."
What many people forget is that McVeigh and his co-conspirators planned the bombing in Oklahoma City to coincide with the two-year anniversary of the end of the fifty-one day siege between the federal government and the Branch Dividians in Waco, TX. McVeigh stated that "What the U.S. government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge was dirty. And I gave dirty back to them at Oklahoma City.". Yes, because the individuals inside the Mount Carmel Center on the Branch Dividian ranch were completely innocent. Aside from the accusations of polygamy and sexual and physical abuse, some of the cult members shot at and killed multiple agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Therefore, you will have to excuse me if I don't weep for any of the Branch Dividians, male or female, young or old. As French revolutionist Maximilien Robespierre once said, "Omelettes are not made without breaking eggs".
In seventy-five hours of prison interviews with Dan Herbeck and Lou Michel, reporters for "The Buffalo News", McVeigh became emotional while talking about killing a gopher in a field but never expressed any remorse for the Oklahoma City bombing. In fact, McVeigh remarked that "I understand what they felt in Oklahoma City. I have no sympathy for them." during the interviews, which started in May 1999. To make matters worse, McVeigh was actually disappointed that a portion of the building was still standing following the bombing: "Damn, I didn't knock the building down. I didn't take it down."
What many people forget is that McVeigh and his co-conspirators planned the bombing in Oklahoma City to coincide with the two-year anniversary of the end of the fifty-one day siege between the federal government and the Branch Dividians in Waco, TX. McVeigh stated that "What the U.S. government did at Waco and Ruby Ridge was dirty. And I gave dirty back to them at Oklahoma City.". Yes, because the individuals inside the Mount Carmel Center on the Branch Dividian ranch were completely innocent. Aside from the accusations of polygamy and sexual and physical abuse, some of the cult members shot at and killed multiple agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Therefore, you will have to excuse me if I don't weep for any of the Branch Dividians, male or female, young or old. As French revolutionist Maximilien Robespierre once said, "Omelettes are not made without breaking eggs".
Friday, April 17, 2009
Idle Threat of the Week
Speaking on Wednesday to a crowd of tea baggers (yeah, that's still funny) at a Tax Day Tea Party in Austin, Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggested the possibility that the state may eventually secede from the nation if the Obama administration does not alter its economic policies. (Perry obviously suffers from short term memory loss and has forgotten that some of those policies, such as the bailout plan, are from Mr. Bush's time in the White House.)
While addressing the audience, Perry stated that "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot." Let's take a closer look at Perry's brilliant comments:
1. So Perry feels that Washington is thumbing their nose at the American people, huh? The same Washington which designated $555 million from the federal economic stimulus plan in order to expand the state's unemployment benefits. (By the way, Perry rejected every last penny of that $555 million.)
2. And Texas is supposed to be "a pretty independent lot"? Does that explain why, even though Perry did reject those funds, the Texas Senate recently voted to accept the stimulus money. Wow, that's really sticking to your guns, Texas.
Perry is also so cute for thinking that a state is just allowed to secede whenever it wants. As I pointed out in a previous posting, the U.S. Constitution does not permit unilateral secession but instead only a mutually agreed upon withdrawal.
While addressing the audience, Perry stated that "We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot." Let's take a closer look at Perry's brilliant comments:
1. So Perry feels that Washington is thumbing their nose at the American people, huh? The same Washington which designated $555 million from the federal economic stimulus plan in order to expand the state's unemployment benefits. (By the way, Perry rejected every last penny of that $555 million.)
2. And Texas is supposed to be "a pretty independent lot"? Does that explain why, even though Perry did reject those funds, the Texas Senate recently voted to accept the stimulus money. Wow, that's really sticking to your guns, Texas.
Perry is also so cute for thinking that a state is just allowed to secede whenever it wants. As I pointed out in a previous posting, the U.S. Constitution does not permit unilateral secession but instead only a mutually agreed upon withdrawal.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tea Bagging (But Not the Good Kind)
For those of you living under a rock, there were Tax Day Tea Parties being conducted today throughout the United States in protest of the economic stimulus plan and the recently passed budget. The Tea Party protests in their current form started earlier this year after CNBC's Rick Santelli provided a ridiculous rant on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange regarding those economic packages. On February 27th, an estimated thirty thousand Americans took to the streets in more than forty cities in the first nationwide Tea Party protest. (Wow, thirty thousand in forty or so cities. That sure is impressive. That's an average of approximately 750 attendees per city. Did you get a chance to see the amount of people outside in Chicago on Election Night or in Washington, D.C. on Inauguration Day? Now that was impressive.)
"Inspired" by the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, these new Tea Parties have been coordinated by various conservative organizations to supposedly attract disgruntled taxpayers.
However, there a few things that you should keep in mind when trying to compare the two movements:
1. Labeling these new events as "tea parties" is erroneous by name alone. The Boston Tea Party wasn't a protest against big government. It was actually a protest against Great Britain's refusal to allow the U.S. to govern itself at all. And since the U.S. obviously has sovereignty and the ability to govern itself, a tea party protest at this point in time is logically incorrect.
NOTE: If they are so intent on associating their protests with the Boston Tea Party, I wonder if conservatives will be calling for President Obama to react the same way that Great Britain did with the passing of the Intolerable Acts. Will the right be prepared to, as those acts dictated, personally house military troops and quietly watch all ports of entry being closed?
2. The "no taxation without representation" argument was at the basis of the colonists' protest. The Republicans had representation on Election Day and they lost. Get over it!
3. Even though the movement is supposedly against the budget and economic stimulus plan, this year's protests also oddly demonstrate an approval of Mr. Bush's tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest five percent of Americans. (They also exhibit an opposition towards President Obama signing the largest middle class tax cut in history into law.) Because of the name they selected for their protests, Republicans have apparently forgotten that the Boston Tea Party was ultimately precipitated by a massive corporate tax cut. The only major multinational corporation at the time, the East India Company, was on the verge of bankruptcy. As a result, the British government passed the Tea Act in May 1773; this legislation almost entirely eliminated the tax on British tea exported by the East India Company to the American colonies.
The back story of this whole subject may be even more ludicrous than the actual Tea Parties themselves. On the day after Santelli's embarrassing outburst on national television, Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary had this to say: "Now every day when I come out here, I spend a little time reading, studying on the issues, asking people who are smarter than I am questions about those issues. I would encourage [Santelli] to read the President's plan and understand that it will help millions of people, many of whom he knows. I'd be more than happy to have him come here and read it. I'd be happy to buy him a cup of coffee -- decaf." The next week on "The G. Gordon Liddy Show", Santelli astonishingly claimed that the White House was threatening him and that his kids were "nervous to go to school". Three days later on NBC's "The Today Show", Matt Lauer confronted Santelli about his remarks:
Lauer: "After you heard [Gibbs's] comments, you said that he was threatening you. Are you serious about that?"
Santelli: "Listen, let's put it this way. Matt, you're married, are you not?"
Lauer: "Yeah, I am."
Santelli: "OK. This is more about the feelings my wife had when she watched the body language and listened to what he was saying and I think you understand."
Actually, I don't. But new rule #1: Santelli's wife is not allowed to watch television from this point forward.
"Inspired" by the Boston Tea Party in December 1773, these new Tea Parties have been coordinated by various conservative organizations to supposedly attract disgruntled taxpayers.
However, there a few things that you should keep in mind when trying to compare the two movements:
1. Labeling these new events as "tea parties" is erroneous by name alone. The Boston Tea Party wasn't a protest against big government. It was actually a protest against Great Britain's refusal to allow the U.S. to govern itself at all. And since the U.S. obviously has sovereignty and the ability to govern itself, a tea party protest at this point in time is logically incorrect.
NOTE: If they are so intent on associating their protests with the Boston Tea Party, I wonder if conservatives will be calling for President Obama to react the same way that Great Britain did with the passing of the Intolerable Acts. Will the right be prepared to, as those acts dictated, personally house military troops and quietly watch all ports of entry being closed?
2. The "no taxation without representation" argument was at the basis of the colonists' protest. The Republicans had representation on Election Day and they lost. Get over it!
3. Even though the movement is supposedly against the budget and economic stimulus plan, this year's protests also oddly demonstrate an approval of Mr. Bush's tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest five percent of Americans. (They also exhibit an opposition towards President Obama signing the largest middle class tax cut in history into law.) Because of the name they selected for their protests, Republicans have apparently forgotten that the Boston Tea Party was ultimately precipitated by a massive corporate tax cut. The only major multinational corporation at the time, the East India Company, was on the verge of bankruptcy. As a result, the British government passed the Tea Act in May 1773; this legislation almost entirely eliminated the tax on British tea exported by the East India Company to the American colonies.
The back story of this whole subject may be even more ludicrous than the actual Tea Parties themselves. On the day after Santelli's embarrassing outburst on national television, Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary had this to say: "Now every day when I come out here, I spend a little time reading, studying on the issues, asking people who are smarter than I am questions about those issues. I would encourage [Santelli] to read the President's plan and understand that it will help millions of people, many of whom he knows. I'd be more than happy to have him come here and read it. I'd be happy to buy him a cup of coffee -- decaf." The next week on "The G. Gordon Liddy Show", Santelli astonishingly claimed that the White House was threatening him and that his kids were "nervous to go to school". Three days later on NBC's "The Today Show", Matt Lauer confronted Santelli about his remarks:
Lauer: "After you heard [Gibbs's] comments, you said that he was threatening you. Are you serious about that?"
Santelli: "Listen, let's put it this way. Matt, you're married, are you not?"
Lauer: "Yeah, I am."
Santelli: "OK. This is more about the feelings my wife had when she watched the body language and listened to what he was saying and I think you understand."
Actually, I don't. But new rule #1: Santelli's wife is not allowed to watch television from this point forward.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
He Must Now Learn to Fly
With President Obama scheduled to deliver the commencement address at Arizona State University (ASU) on May 13, the school received strong criticism for its decision to not award President Obama with an honorary degree. ASU has instead decided to recognize President Obama by expanding its most important scholarship program and changing its name to the President Barack Obama Scholars Program. According to Emily Dalton, the Director of Communication for the Office of the Provost at ASU, "We will be delighted to consider [President Obama] for an honorary degree once he leaves office at the end of his presidency".
Providing the reason for the school's decision regarding the honorary degree, ASU President Michael Crow stated that "We’re looking for people who have made great accomplishments. It’s a recognition to true contribution to society." (Yes, because African-American presidents are a dime a dozen. At the same time, Douglas Wilder, the nation's first African-American governor, received an honorary degree from ASU in May 2004.) At the same time, this action should not be a huge surprise since Crow has been criticized for his alleged treatment of female and minority students and faculty members. He has been accused of terminating 1/3 of the minority faculty at ASU's West campus without justifiable cause, including a tenured African-American professor despite the fact that a faculty committee recommended the individual be retained. Crow has also refused to answer any questions concerning the amount of African-American professors that the school has granted tenure to during his term.
With that being said, since ASU does not wish to present an honorary degree to President Obama, let's take a look at some of the other recipients who have provided a "true contribution to society".
Providing the reason for the school's decision regarding the honorary degree, ASU President Michael Crow stated that "We’re looking for people who have made great accomplishments. It’s a recognition to true contribution to society." (Yes, because African-American presidents are a dime a dozen. At the same time, Douglas Wilder, the nation's first African-American governor, received an honorary degree from ASU in May 2004.) At the same time, this action should not be a huge surprise since Crow has been criticized for his alleged treatment of female and minority students and faculty members. He has been accused of terminating 1/3 of the minority faculty at ASU's West campus without justifiable cause, including a tenured African-American professor despite the fact that a faculty committee recommended the individual be retained. Crow has also refused to answer any questions concerning the amount of African-American professors that the school has granted tenure to during his term.
With that being said, since ASU does not wish to present an honorary degree to President Obama, let's take a look at some of the other recipients who have provided a "true contribution to society".
- May 2006: Wu Qidi, the Vice Minister of Education of the People's Republic of China
- December 2005: Kim Campbell, the former Prime Minister of Canada
- December 2005: Lord John Browne, the President of the Royal Academy of Engineering and the former Chief Executive of British Petroleum. (Although this occurred after he received his honorary degree, it is important to point out that Browne resigned from BP in May 2007 amidst allegations that he inappropriately used company assets and resources to support his homosexual partner.)
- September 2005: Film director Blake Edwards
- May 2004: Rafael Sostmann, the President of Tecnológico de Monterrey in Mexico
So ever since Crow's term as president at ASU started in July 2002, the school has decided to bestow honorary degrees upon four non-U.S. citizens and the director of seven Pink Panther movies. However, the first African-American president is invited by ASU to serve as the school's commencement speaker but he gets nada. By the way, over the years, the school has also awarded honorary degrees to a sports team owner and various celebrities. But President Obama? Zilch.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
This Unfortunate Day in History
On April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was fatally shot while standing on the balcony outside his second story room at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, TN. The highly respected civil rights leader was in Memphis to support a sanitation workers' strike and was preparing to leave for dinner when a bullet struck him in the jaw and severed his spinal cord. Dr. King was pronounced dead shortly after his arrival at St. Joseph's Hospital. Dr. King was thirty-nine years old, leaving behind a wife and four small children. According to biographer Taylor Branch, the autopsy revealed that Dr. King had the heart of a sixty-year-old, quite possibly resulting from the stress of the thirteen years of the Civil Rights Movement.
In the months prior to his assassination, Dr. King became increasingly concerned with the issue of economic inequality in the United States. He organized the Poor People's Campaign to focus on this issue, including an interracial march of poor Americans on Washington, D.C. And then in March, he traveled to Memphis in support of poorly treated African-American sanitation employees. Dr. King left the city but vowed to return in early April in order to lead another demonstration. On April 3 in Memphis, Dr. King delivered his final sermon, prophetically declaring:
"Well, I don't know what will happen now.
We've got some difficult days ahead.
But it really doesn't matter with me now
Because I've been to the mountaintop
And I don't mind.
Like anybody, I would like to live a long life.
Longevity has its place.
But I'm not concerned about that now.
I just want to do God's will
And he's allowed me to go up to the mountain.
And I've looked over
And I've seen the Promised Land.
I may not get there with you.
But I want you to know tonight
That we, as a people, will get to the promised land.
And so, I'm happy tonight.
I'm not worried about anything.
I'm not fearing any man.
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."
Dr. King was killed the next day. Captured more than two months later, James Earl Ray, a habitual offender and escaped criminal, eventually pleaded guilty to murdering Dr. King and was sentenced to ninety-nine years in prison. (Although evidence exists which casts some doubt on Ray's guilt, it is certainly not along the same lines of Lee Harvey Oswald, where there is absolutely no way that he could have killed President John F. Kennedy.) However, the actual gunman is not even of importance here. It is that the irony of Dr. King's murder is almost to the point of immeasurability: A man who consistently preached and lived non-violence was felled by an assassin's bullet.
In the months prior to his assassination, Dr. King became increasingly concerned with the issue of economic inequality in the United States. He organized the Poor People's Campaign to focus on this issue, including an interracial march of poor Americans on Washington, D.C. And then in March, he traveled to Memphis in support of poorly treated African-American sanitation employees. Dr. King left the city but vowed to return in early April in order to lead another demonstration. On April 3 in Memphis, Dr. King delivered his final sermon, prophetically declaring:
"Well, I don't know what will happen now.
We've got some difficult days ahead.
But it really doesn't matter with me now
Because I've been to the mountaintop
And I don't mind.
Like anybody, I would like to live a long life.
Longevity has its place.
But I'm not concerned about that now.
I just want to do God's will
And he's allowed me to go up to the mountain.
And I've looked over
And I've seen the Promised Land.
I may not get there with you.
But I want you to know tonight
That we, as a people, will get to the promised land.
And so, I'm happy tonight.
I'm not worried about anything.
I'm not fearing any man.
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."
Dr. King was killed the next day. Captured more than two months later, James Earl Ray, a habitual offender and escaped criminal, eventually pleaded guilty to murdering Dr. King and was sentenced to ninety-nine years in prison. (Although evidence exists which casts some doubt on Ray's guilt, it is certainly not along the same lines of Lee Harvey Oswald, where there is absolutely no way that he could have killed President John F. Kennedy.) However, the actual gunman is not even of importance here. It is that the irony of Dr. King's murder is almost to the point of immeasurability: A man who consistently preached and lived non-violence was felled by an assassin's bullet.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Bullshit Attack of the Week
President Obama is being strongly (but wrongly) criticized by Republicans for his $3.55 trillion budget, which was recently passed by the United States Congress. This 2010 budget is based on the catastrophic mess (from an economic, military, health care and foreign policy standpoint) that he inherited from Mr. Bush and his administration.
Now, of course, any budget that size is staggering, even for a country as large as the United States. At the same time, it is important to remember that Mr. Bush was the first U.S. President to propose a $3 trillion budget, when his budget for 2009 totaled $3.1 trillion. However, Mr. Bush's budget did not include spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand, the $3.55 trillion from President Obama's budget includes $10 billion a month for the combat operations in both countries. This whole situation is pretty ironic if you consider the subject of my posting from yesterday. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Budget, provided this comment in February 2008 after Mr. Bush proposed his record breaking budget: "[The Bush administration has] obviously played an inordinate number of games to try to make it look better."
Now, of course, any budget that size is staggering, even for a country as large as the United States. At the same time, it is important to remember that Mr. Bush was the first U.S. President to propose a $3 trillion budget, when his budget for 2009 totaled $3.1 trillion. However, Mr. Bush's budget did not include spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On the other hand, the $3.55 trillion from President Obama's budget includes $10 billion a month for the combat operations in both countries. This whole situation is pretty ironic if you consider the subject of my posting from yesterday. Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Budget, provided this comment in February 2008 after Mr. Bush proposed his record breaking budget: "[The Bush administration has] obviously played an inordinate number of games to try to make it look better."
Thursday, April 2, 2009
In Typical Fashion From the Right
Reconciliation is defined as a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster by the party in the minority (which, at the moment, is obviously the Republican Party). Although the reconciliation procedure is obviously not ideal for the minority party, it is certainly legal and being considered by Senate Democrats in order to pass President Obama's budget plan without any opposition from the Republicans.
Recently on the floor of Capital Hill, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Budget, expressed his displeasure in the possibility of the Democrats rightfully utilizing the reconciliation procedure available to them: "If you're going to talk about reconciliation, you're talking about something that has nothing to do with bipartisanship. You're talking about the exact opposite of bipartisan. You're talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River. Basically, it takes the minority completely out of the process of having a right to have any discussion, say, or even the right to amend something so fundamental as a piece of legislation of this significance...So using reconciliation in this manner on this type of an issue would do fundamental harm, fundamental harm, to the institution of the Senate. I mean, why have a Senate if you're going to do reconciliation on something this significant?" (You remember Mr. Gregg, don't you? He is the honorable individual who, although he initially contacted President Obama to offer his name for the role of Secretary of Commerce, he then withdrew his name from consideration ten days after President Obama nominated him for the post.) Now let's get back to this whole reconciliation thing. During the Bush administration, the reconciliation process was used for the following legislation:
Recently on the floor of Capital Hill, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Budget, expressed his displeasure in the possibility of the Democrats rightfully utilizing the reconciliation procedure available to them: "If you're going to talk about reconciliation, you're talking about something that has nothing to do with bipartisanship. You're talking about the exact opposite of bipartisan. You're talking about running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River. Basically, it takes the minority completely out of the process of having a right to have any discussion, say, or even the right to amend something so fundamental as a piece of legislation of this significance...So using reconciliation in this manner on this type of an issue would do fundamental harm, fundamental harm, to the institution of the Senate. I mean, why have a Senate if you're going to do reconciliation on something this significant?" (You remember Mr. Gregg, don't you? He is the honorable individual who, although he initially contacted President Obama to offer his name for the role of Secretary of Commerce, he then withdrew his name from consideration ten days after President Obama nominated him for the post.) Now let's get back to this whole reconciliation thing. During the Bush administration, the reconciliation process was used for the following legislation:
- Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005
- Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
- Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
- Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
And guess who voted in favor of all of these bills? Yes, that's right. Mr. Hypocrisy himself, Judd Gregg. In fact, while debating the passing of Mr. Bush's tax cuts in 2005 with the help of reconciliation, Gregg had this to say: "Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so." and "If you have fifty-one votes for your position, you win."
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Bastard of the Week
The White House recently rejected a request from South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford to utilize a portion of the state's allotted funds from the federal stimulus plan to reduce the state debt instead of spending those funds on government services and programs. Congress designated $2.9 billion for South Carolina to use for, among other things, highway improvements, Head Start preschool classes and additional compensation for unemployed workers. Sanford requested a waiver which would have allowed South Carolina to use a quarter of the funds (approximately $700 million) to decrease "our very sizable state debt and contingent liabilities". Sanford's office drafted a second response to modify the state's request, which was also declined by the Obama administration.
In a recent interview with CNN, Sanford voiced his opposition to the overall stimulus package, stating that "Spending money that you don't have, I think, is a horrible idea". Sanford has declared that, if President Obama does not grant the waiver request, he will actually reject the funds altogether. So let me get this straight: You believe that the stimulus plan is a horrible idea and you plan on rejecting the funds unless President Obama will allow you to allocate the funds in how you see you fit and then you will happily accept it. Brilliant logic. The amazing thing about all of this is that the funds could increase to an estimated $8 billion if South Carolina takes full advantage of the funds available for tax cuts, college grants, weather improvements to older houses, etc. Sanford's stance regarding the stimulus package has produced negative responses from Republican leaders of the South Carolina General Assembly. Aides to South Carolina Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell noted that Sanford's proposed fiscal 2009-10 budget does not contain any payments towards the state debt. Harrell remarked that "Since the governor's budget was $254 million higher than existing revenues and he didn't pay down the debt, this is obviously about something other than the state budget". Harrell was certainly referring to Sanford's national political ambitions; with his public criticism of the economic stimulus plan, Sanford has raised his profile among conservatives and increased the speculation for a presidential run in 2012.
At 10.4 percent, South Carolina has the nation's second highest unemployment rate behind Michigan and revenue shortfalls have forced more than $1 billion in state budget cuts this year. However, despite the state's financial issues, Sanford continues to huff and puff, cross his arms and stomp his feet when it comes to his use of the funds designated for South Carolina from the stimulus package. As members of the proverbial Black Belt, Sanford and the governors of Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina have expressed opposition to accepting the funds. Therefore, you have to pay attention to Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) when he points out that those governors lead states where the vast majority of unemployed and impoverished individuals are African American.
In a recent interview with CNN, Sanford voiced his opposition to the overall stimulus package, stating that "Spending money that you don't have, I think, is a horrible idea". Sanford has declared that, if President Obama does not grant the waiver request, he will actually reject the funds altogether. So let me get this straight: You believe that the stimulus plan is a horrible idea and you plan on rejecting the funds unless President Obama will allow you to allocate the funds in how you see you fit and then you will happily accept it. Brilliant logic. The amazing thing about all of this is that the funds could increase to an estimated $8 billion if South Carolina takes full advantage of the funds available for tax cuts, college grants, weather improvements to older houses, etc. Sanford's stance regarding the stimulus package has produced negative responses from Republican leaders of the South Carolina General Assembly. Aides to South Carolina Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell noted that Sanford's proposed fiscal 2009-10 budget does not contain any payments towards the state debt. Harrell remarked that "Since the governor's budget was $254 million higher than existing revenues and he didn't pay down the debt, this is obviously about something other than the state budget". Harrell was certainly referring to Sanford's national political ambitions; with his public criticism of the economic stimulus plan, Sanford has raised his profile among conservatives and increased the speculation for a presidential run in 2012.
At 10.4 percent, South Carolina has the nation's second highest unemployment rate behind Michigan and revenue shortfalls have forced more than $1 billion in state budget cuts this year. However, despite the state's financial issues, Sanford continues to huff and puff, cross his arms and stomp his feet when it comes to his use of the funds designated for South Carolina from the stimulus package. As members of the proverbial Black Belt, Sanford and the governors of Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina have expressed opposition to accepting the funds. Therefore, you have to pay attention to Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) when he points out that those governors lead states where the vast majority of unemployed and impoverished individuals are African American.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
