Recently in politics Category
That being said, they do seem to have a backbone and have written article spelling out Dubya's dismal record vis-a-vis Constitutional rights. As they say, it is ironic that a President who insists on strict Constitutionalist judges should have such a cavalier attitude towards the same document himself.
It has always stuck me as strange how Dubya is held in such high esteem by the very core group that he seems to have the most disdain for. That the far right wing, espousing "values" like a hands-off government and no taxes, should still fall for the empty rhetoric of a group of power-mad politicos whose very core ideals are at such odds with this, is hard for me to comprehend. These supporters, who feared the sky falling in if a Democrat should get elected, just can't seem to see it is far worse under the current Republican regime. I can't see how the Democrats could have been worse as far as an intrusive government than Dubya's minions.
And don't get me started on the tax thing. The current cynics in office crow about an effective tax break, but of course it only applies to the very rich and is only been documented to have hurt the economy. But in typical fashion, this regime and its blind, deaf and dumb supporters figure if they just keep saying the economy is getting better, and keep saying it louder, we're not only going to believe the lie, it will almost seem like the truth.
Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush
Technorati Tags: george+bush cato+institute
Oh man, this is a classic quote! Follow the link for more:
"Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."Here's a way to frame the conflict
" God: A Make Believe Friend For Grown Ups "
" Evolution is a FACT God is just a theory "
" MILITANT AGNOSTIC I Don't Know And You Don't Either "
" Don't Pray In My School And I Won't Think In Your Church "
Check'em out! Religion (Anti) Bumper Stickers
Anti-rape is for wussies
The latest Bush joke that is making the email rounds:
FOUR GHOSTS OF THE WHITE HOUSE
One night, George W. Bush is tossing restlessly in his White House bed. He awakens to see George Washington standing right by him. Bush asks, "Hey Georgie, what's the best thing I can do to help the country?" "Set an honest and honorable example, just as I did," Washington advises, and then fades away
The next night, Bush is astir again, and sees the ghost of Thomas Jefferson moving through the darkened bedroom. Bush calls out, "Yo Tom, please, what is the best thing I can do to help the country?" "Respect the Constitution, as I did," Jefferson advises, and dims from sight.
The third night sleep still does not come for Bush. He awakens to see the ghost of FDR hovering over his bed. Bush whispers, "Hey Franky Baby, what is the best thing I can do to help the country?" "Help the less fortunate, just as I did," FDR replies and fades into the mist.
Bush isn't sleeping well the fourth night when he sees another figure moving in the shadows. It is the ghost of Abraham Lincoln. Bush pleads, "Hey Abe my man, what's the best thing I can do right now to help the country?"
Lincoln replies, "Go see a play."
I'm sure most of you already read Pharyngula (if you don't you should!), but there's an excellent post on a column by Charlies Pierce, who writes a pretty mean column in the Sunday Boston Globe magazine too. This one is from Esquire, so you need to pay to read it, but PZ does a good job of extracting the essence of the dumbing down of America. We need to push back the borders of Enlightened America, taking all the lost territory back from Idiot America, where soundbites rule and facts only count if you have faith.
Very funny blog post about David Brooks' neo-con whining about how his very own right wingnutters can't seem to smell the crap they've gotten us into:
Donald Rumsfeld is giving the President his daily briefing.
He concludes by saying, "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers died in Iraq"
"Oh no" exclaimed the President. "That's terrible."
His staff are stunned by his display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits with his head in his hands.
Finally, Bush looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"
For some reason, the Senate committee looking into global warming decided that a lunatic writer (Michael Crichton) would make a good witness to talk to. The great climate science site Real Climate does a great job of debunking his crazy claims in his latest trashy paperback, State of Fear. In their latest post, they take apart, yet again, his bizarre "scientific" claims, although this time it happens to be in front of a Senate panel. It's a good article to combat anti-global warming deniers:
There's a stealth effort to gut the landmark, and incredibly important, Endangered Species Act. Begun by a typical California Republican, and couched in typically politico-speak terms, this modification of the Endangered Species Act threatens its very nature, to the point of making it a mere nuisance to be waved off by greedy developers and other corporate interests.
With "Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005", a promise the conservatives have been making for awhile seems to be coming true. The Endangered Species Act has been an important straw man for these right wing fanatics, and now they have enough power to truly bow to their corporate handlers and reduce this important environmental safeguard to the dustbin of history.
That's the thing that really frosts me most about these rightwingnuts - they can't use rational and objective arguments, so they are reduced to using wishy-washy terms that can mean anything to anyone. They quote ridiculous "experts" who spout off in fields they know nothing about. They have an incestuous relationship, quoting each other's fabrications as if they are proven fact. Personally, I'd have alot more respect for them if they just came out and said "I want to pay back my corporate owners and reduce the ESA to ashes so they can pave over more wetlands" - if you really believe in something, then just say. Show some backbone and stand up for the corporate interests. "Recovery Act" indeed!
I feel isolated from alot of this political discussion. I'm sure none of my representatives would vote for something like this. Living in an overwhelming Democratic state like Massachusetts leaves me comfortable at the House and Senate level that my ideals are protected. So I'm not really sure what I can do to get rid of "Democrats" like Cardoza of California, who says this about the "Recovery Act":
"I am co-sponsoring the Endangered Species Recovery Act because I believe the ESA should be enhanced and refocused on its original goal - species recovery. Since the passage of the ESA over 30 years ago, it has been diverted from that goal, and is increasingly driven by litigation, not science. I am confident that this bill will strengthen the ability of ESA to recover species, while reducing the burden on local economies and landowners."
Give me a break! This act does nothing of the kind. It removes all backbone from the act and forces a snap judgment to happen. With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans?
For more info on issue, be sure to see Orcinus. He gives more background and plenty of links. We need to stop this madness now!
My first real foray into the reading blogosphere, especially using RSS, was when Michelle Malkin published her book, In Defense of Internment, wherein she tries to make the case that the vicious attack on Japanese-Americans during World War II, putting them into concentration camps, was somehow justified on national security grounds. I have no idea how I came upon this tempest that blew through the blogosphere, but it seemed to me to be a far-fetched and lame-brained idea and luckily there were many, far better informed, people who took up the cause.
The best analysis of Malkin's shoddy piece of work was done by the internment experts Eric Muller and Greg Robinson. It can be found here, at Eric Muller's IsThatLegal.org. It pretty much shreds any thread of correctness from Malkin's polemic, and she's been retreating ever since. Of course, right-wing nut jobs still quote it, and I'm sure there are plenty more books out there that use it as a primary source. Ann Coulter would be proud. Say anything, no matter how wrong or badly researched it might be, and someone, somewhere, will quote it as an authoritative source.
I also began reading Orcinus, David Neiwert's blog. Neiwert is a free-lance reporter who's written extensively on the right-wing conspiracy and is one of the few blogs I've ever actually donated money too. He also does a pretty good job on Malkin in many spots. Malkin is probably second only to the despicable Coulter as far as "right-wing female pundits" go, and is equally shoddy in her journalism. I refuse to put a link to Malkin's site here, but I will link to Malkin(s)Watch, which keeps an eye on her more outrageous pronouncements. I wonder if there is something similar for that blowhard Coulter?