Follow up on tax policy

A beautiful quote, via the howler:

No one could believe, as a general matter, that lowering tax rates brings higher revenues. For example, did George Bush believe this during Campaign 2000? Obviously, no—he did not. During that campaign, Bush proposed lowering the marginal tax rate from 39.6 percent down to 33 percent. But if lowering the tax rate brings higher revenues, why would Bush have drawn the line there? Why not lower the tax rate to thirty-two percent? No, to thirty-one! No, to 30! Obviously, no politician seriously thinks that lowering the tax rate brings higher revenues. But the claim has lived as a staple of talk-show discourse over the course of the past several decades.

It's so staggeringly simple. If lowering tax rates actually increased government revenues, no one in the world would be against it. If we can only lower the tax rate enough, we'd have more than enough money to cover the deficit, pay for the Iraq war, universal health coverage, you name it.

Rrrrrright!

Some fascinating evolution facts

Get Busy Livin', Or Get Busy Bloggin': The Sternberg Saga Continues

Nice follow up to the Sternberg saga, the guy who went on O'Reilly to complain about the horrible treatment he received from scientists when he allowed an ID paper to be published in the journal he edited.

All tax cuts are not good for the economy!

Andrew Tobias points out an argument that isn't heard nearly enough.

We've heard it argued countless times that when the government cuts, it's revenues always go up, which is absurd on it's face. Of course, as Andrew argues, that is clearly true when the top tax bracket is preposterously high, as they were during, Ike, Kennedy, and even Reagan's terms.

However, there is an obvious limit to this argument. If you cut taxes to 0%, your tax revenues will not go up. Therefore the trick is to find the threshold at which the reduced revenues in taxes caused by the rate reduction are made up by the increase in the size and growth of the overall economy, creating a net revenue gain. A simple example is, if a cut from 15% to 10% causes a double of the overall income generated, that is a net gain. 15% of 100,000 is 15,000. 10% of 200,000 = 20,000.

Many would argue as Andrew does that the Clinton top rate of 39.6% was about right, and the Bush cuts overshot the mark. There is a fair amount of evidence to support this position.

Any honest assessment of tax policy has to start with the position that all tax cuts are not a good idea. If you can't admit that, you shouldn't be allowed to talk about taxes.

The war on Christmas

Brought to you by fox news. O'Reilly, Gibson, and the entire network are pushing this thing, and I have to say that I completely don't get it. Among all the "secular progressives" I know, I don't know anyone who is against "Merry Christmas". Lots of non-religious people enjoy christmas as a secular event, myself included.

I'm sure there are a handful of crackpots out there, but I fail to see the giant conspiracy. And I don't understand what the heinous threat this poses. Is there even the slightest bit of evidence that the ACLU and George Soros are trying to get private companies to stop saying Merry Christmas?

Isn't the simpler explanation that retail companies simply choose to generify their holiday message, largely out of a risk-averse corporate strategy to appeal to as wide a base of shoppers as possible -jews, muslims, wiccans, et. al.? Is that such an offensive idea?

Yet, on fox news, it is an indisputable fact. Now, they are just breaking down the horrible consequences. Best bizarre recent quote (hat tip sadly, no!):

FOX News Financial analyst Tobin Smith says that the War on Christmas could lead to a world economic collapse:

The War on Christmas: Could the left win its crusade against Christmas and does that threaten our stock market and entire economy?

Tobin Smith: The War on Christmas is real and taken to the extreme turning Christmas into a second-class holiday would kill much of the retail specialty stores. The next target would be Easter. This definitely does hurt the economy. Retailers have fallen under the pixie dust spell of consultants and this idea of being politically correct becomes this insidious little disease.


A world economic collapse?? I don't quite know what to add to that.

The Booming Economy (?)

The Howler helps the media break down the disconnect between the booming economy, and the reality of most people.

Just because the GDP is growing nicely and corporate profits are high doesn't mean most people are better off, as Krugman and Reich explain. As with the Bush tax cuts, the economic boom mostly only helps those at the top of the income scale. As Andrew Tobias says, "It's a grand time to be rich in America."

The democrats and pundits simply don't explain this. Capitalism is the best economic system there is, but there is a difference between capitalism that helps hard working people get ahead and live the American dream, and "robber baron" capitalism. And that critical difference is largely a product of government economic and tax policy.

Inside the Mind of the Intelligent Designer

by Adam Felber.

Cheers to Krauthammer

I strongly believe that science and religion need not, should not, and must not be at odds. Those trying to convince people of faith that science is at odds with their faith does them and this country a great disservice. It's insane to be discouraging anyone from pursuing science for such absurd reasons.

Senate Says No to Torture, 90-9

Nice work, Senators McCain, Graham, and Warner, for forcing this issue to the floor. Not to mention heroes like Ian Fishback for risking their careers to tell the truth.

And the shame award goes to the Torture is OK! Senate delegation from Oklahoma.

More Psychic / Allison Dubois Thrashing

From the fine folks at The Two Percent Company.

I especially love it when psychics make supernatural claims that would be trivial to prove beyond any doubt, "Yes, when I'm playing poker I can hear other people's thoughts".

But of course, they never actually do. Gee, I wonder why.

Michelle Malkin is making sense

...at least some of the time. And no one is more surprised than me, but good for her.

Today she's going after the obscene Alaskan "pork" in the highway bill.

Previously she's been beating on the administration's dangerous cronyism hiring practices.

Here's hoping we can all agree that professionalism, competence, and responsibility are bipartisan values. The absence of such must be called to account, whether democrat or republican.

Crackpot of the Day

Don Feder. He used to infuriate me several times a week when I read his column in the Boston Herald 10 or 15 years ago.

He makes the unassailable case that Katrina is god's punishment for, well, you know, the usual stuff.

Wingnuts to the left

Meet Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.


So, Haley Barbour caused the hurricane by writing an anti-global warming memo in 2001. I think we've set a new high water-mark (sorry, couldn't resist) for the phrase "poison pen".

Wingnuts to the right

Meet John J. Tierney Jr.

The author said he has "grave, grave problems with the conduct of the operation in Iraq" and wouldn't want to see his 20-year-old son go there. But he said it is "automatic" that anybody who joins a protest by one of the offending groups is supporting communists.

The war may have grave, grave problems, and I wouldn't send my son, but anyone who protests is a commie. Nice!

Richard Sternberg & ID

Caught this guy on O'Reilly tonight. He was the editor of a biological journal that published a paper by Stephen Meyer on "Intelligent Design". Sternberg was claiming he's been subject to tremendous harassment by the scientific community for publishing this supposedly peer reviewed paper. O'Reilly was only too happy to jump in and claim the usual claptrap about the secularist scientific community being intolerant of any dissent.

Or maybe, it's just really, really bad science! Real scientists tend to be against that, too. The always reliable Panda's Thumb has the full dissection of the merits of Meyer's paper.

They also point out that Sternberg has a creationist background, and the topic of the paper itself is well outside the normal area of study and review of this particular publication. That in itself lends suspicion to the idea that this paper was seriously peer reviewed, as Sternberg claimed. O'Reilly didn't mention either of these facts.

The thing is, if you want to compete in the real science world, you have to actually do real science - serious peer review, testing of hypothesis that can be independently verified, that sort of thing. If the IDers actually had some real science, maybe they'd be taken seriously by real scientists, and not have to play their cards via politicians, and on "the factor".

The conclusion of the article says it best:

"There is nothing wrong with challenging conventional wisdom - continuing challenge is a core feature of science. But challengers should at least be aware of, read, cite, and specifically rebut the actual data that supports conventional wisdom, not merely construct a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts, selective quoting, bad analogies, knocking down strawmen, and tendentious interpretations. Unless and until the "?intelligent design"? movement does this, they are not seriously in the game. They'?re not even playing the same sport."


UPDATE: Excellent Analysis of the O'Reilly segment over at evolutionblog.

More Anti-Evolutionists

Yes, it's true, you can be a moonbat anti-evolutionist without being a christian fundamentalist! I give you new age whackjob Deepak Chopra, and an appropriate fisking by pharyngula.

Why Cindy Sheehan Matters

I don't know why it isn't obvious that it isn't actually about her. Ultimately, it doesn’t actually matter whether the president meets with her or not. And no reasonable person thinks Cindy Sheehan should set US foreign policy. She’s not running for any office. So, it’s irrelevant whether or not she’s a crackpot or a partisan or anything else. The Ad Hominem attacks upon her are senseless. The death of her son simply gives her standing to ask the questions many are asking.

The point is that the president must explain to Cindy Sheehan and all Americans why our continued expenditure of American blood and treasure makes sense, and when it will end. She is a symbol for the majority of Americans who no longer think the war was worth it, and don’t think the current Iraq policy is succeeding.

And there are many questions.

Why does it not make sense to set a deadline to pull out troops?
If it takes 5 or 10 or 20 years for Iraq to have a military that can defend itself, does that mean Americans will be there, in force, taking casualties day after day, for decades? No one believes that will happen. So clearly there is a limit to what we as a nation are willing to invest in this war. At some point, we have to get out. That’s no secret to the insurgency, either. It’s silly to pretend that setting a deadline will somehow help the insurgents "wait it out". And it’s a reasonable argument that our continued occupation creates more insurgents than we are killing.

More questions:
What evidence is there that this war has made us safer?

What evidence is there that conditions are improving in Iraq?

What are the real numbers of trained Iraqi troops who can replace US soldiers?

I think Senator Russ Feingold has it exactly right, calling for a removal of US troops from Iraq by December, 2006. If the new Iraqi government can’t stand up and defend itself by then, it’s hard to imagine that they ever will.

I want to believe that we still can succeed, and at least leave behind a stable Iraqi government that is no threat to (1) us, and (2) it’s neighbors. If it is a theocracy, so be it, as long as we can achieve the other two goals. It doesn’t matter if they don’t support same sex civil unions. At this point, we can’t even be concerned if women have the right to vote. Unfortunately, that falls in the category of “nice to have”, but not necessary to stop us from getting out of there.

But I fear that we’ve bungled this war beyond hope of saving Iraq from an inevitable civil war 10 minutes after the last US soldier leaves. I truly hope I’m wrong.

President Roosevelt had weekly fireside chats throughout WWII explaining in detail what was happening in the war, and what it meant to our security. President Bush needs to tell us what is happening, and when we are exiting. He should sell this war as hard as he tried to sell Social Security reform. “It’s hard work” and “We’re making progress” just don’t cut it.

Republican War on Science

Today brings us the news that Senator Frist agrees with President Bush that we should teach intelligent Design alongside of evolution in science classes.

This issue is nothing less than a threat to the future economic leadership of this country. The Chinese sure aren't teaching their kids that evolution is "just a theory, not a fact". They're studying hard to become the new generation of top scientists developing the technological breakthroughs that will define the 21st century, while we squabble over the absurd politization of what makes scientific theory.

This false ideological war is insane on many levels. It's simply completely unnecessary for there to be any conflict between religion and evolution. The mysteries of the origins of the universe will probably never be addressed by science. It's a topic that science is ill-equipped to test, and can easily be left to philosophers and religious scholars.

Meanwhile, this so-called conflict between science and religion sets up a situation where bright people who happen to be christians will be dissuaded from studying biology and science, fearing it is somehow against their religious teachings. We have too few scientists already, and cannot afford to fall behind in the global marketplace of scientific innovation.

I'm looking forward to reading the new book, the Republican War on Science for more depressing details, on this, the most ideologically anti-science administration ever.

My New Favorite Rush Limbaugh quote

"Wouldn't it be great if anybody who speaks out against this country, to kick them out of the country? Anybody that threatens this country, kick 'em out. We'd get rid of Michael Moore, we'd get rid of half the Democratic Party if we would just import that law. That would be fabulous. The Supreme Court ought to look into this. Absolutely brilliant idea out there."

Such a great idea, I can't believe the founding fathers blew that one.

Washington Post Slams President's Support of "Intelligent Design"

Choice excerpts:


"FOR MORE THAN 30 years, the conservative movement in America has been doing battle with the forces of relativism, the Â?do your own thingÂ? philosophy that eschews objective truth and instead sees all beliefs and all personal choices as equally valid. Instead, philosophically minded American conservatives have argued that there is such a thing as objectivity and that some beliefs really are better, truer or more accurate than others. Given this history, it seems appropriate to ask: Is President Bush really a conservative?"


"But the proponents of intelligent design are not content with participating in a philosophical or religious debate. They want their theory to be accepted as science and to be taught in ninth-grade biology classes, alongside the theory of evolution. For that, there is no basis whatsoever: The nature of the "evidence"? for the theory of evolution is so overwhelming, and so powerful, that it informs all of modern biology. To pretend that the existence of evolution is somehow still an open question, or that it is one of several equally valid theories, is to misunderstand the intellectual and scientific history of the past century."

Disturbing Account of Iraqi Security Forces

This article/editorial suggests the thoroughly depressing idea that the security forces being trained to take over in Iraq are largely loyal to the religious leaders, and are eager to enforce religious law over any emerging secular/national/constitutional government.

The epilogue to the story is that the reporter was killed days after the article appeared.

Rove

I'd say there is a fairly good chance that Karl Rove didn't do anything technically illegal when he revealed to reporters that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. I do hope we learn how he knew such classified information himself. I don't see how anyone can claim that the CIA would put an operative in a front company if it wasn't a secret that she worked for them. But the criminal outing statute is very narrow, so the intent may be the issue.

However, the rush by the right to defend Rove as somehow heroic by revealing this, is absurd. Even if Wilson was 100% wrong in his public statements, that wouldn't come close to justifying the leaking of classified information. If Wilson was wrong, wouldn't there be plenty of non-classified info & spin that could supposedly discredit him?


As Andrew Sullivan so clearly put it, "Just a thought experiment: can you imagine the WSJ calling to give, say, Sid Blumenthal a medal for outing a CIA operative to counter misinformation in the Bosnia campaign?"

I'd say that's exactly the right parallel.

John Bolton

A nomination vote was blocked again today by failing to reach the 60 votes needed to force cloture.

I'm on record as not caring about the Bolton nomination to be UN ambassador, but I think the issue holding up the vote does have merit. Senators Biden and Dodd are being denied access to certain documents they'd like to see before a final vote.

No Democrat has said that they wish to filibuster this vote indefinitely. However, the White House and many Republican Senators are accusing the Dems of simply stalling because they don't want to vote.

It's always dangerous to ascribe motives to others that are contrary to what they may state, so I think this issue comes down to the simple issue of "Do Senators Biden and Dodd have a legitimate right to these documents?". The answer by every account is yes.

RFK Jr, Autism & The Anti-Science Crowd

It's truly sad to see a strong environmental advocate like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. get swept up by junk science. His recent article in Salon and Rolling Stone about the supposed link between autism and vaccines w/thimerosal, a preservative which contains mercury seems to show that he doesn't understand the difference between causation and correlation.

A few points:

(Almost) no thimerosal has been used in vaccines Canada or the Netherlands in 10 years, yet the rate of autism has not dropped in those countries, as you would clearly expect if that were the cause.

He speaks about the conflict of interest with the pharmaceuticals industry research and vaccine makers, which is a fair point to consider. However, his expert researchers, the Geiers, make their living as expert witnesses in torts against the vaccine manufacturers. Clearly they are no less the disinterested research scientists.

This is all extremely well analyzed over at Orac Knows.

UPDATE: Even more excellent analysis over at Skeptico.

More Facts on Malpractice Costs

Actual Malpractice costs (both legal judgments and out of court settlements) continue to grow at about the same rate at medical costs. The data shows little increase in the past 10 years. There have been slightly higher settlements, and slightly fewer cases.

So why the giant spikes in malpractice insurance rates, and fearmongering about doctors being driven out of business? Ask the insurance companies.

The Wisdom of Dick Cheney

Maybe this will be the time he's right. Let's hope so.

"I think we may well have some kind of presence there over a period of time. The level of activity that we see today from a military standpoint, I think, will clearly decline. I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency." - vice-president Dick Cheney, May 31, 2005.

"They will do everything they can to disrupt the process up to those elections in January because they know that once you've got a democratically elected government in place that has legitimacy in the eyes of the people of Iraq, they're out of business. That will be the end of the insurgency." - vice president Dick Cheney, October 28, 2004.

(cribbed from Andrew Sullivan)

Judge: Parents can't teach pagan beliefs

Theocracy watch! I'm sure praying optimistic(?) this one will easily get kicked on appeal.

The Panda's Thumb: Creationist Fears, Creationist Behaviors

One of the best articles I've read on Inteligent Design/Creationist ideas.

Kansas and the Tylosaurus

Fun article.

The Teaching of Evolution on Trial

Hard to believe I haven't blogged on this topic yet. I've been watching it closely for the last few weeks, and the good news is that I believe claiming that "darwinism" is scientific dogma, and not well established and non-controversial, were largely exposed as fraudulent and biased. It may not actually make a difference in what the Kansas Science Curriculum Standards Committee decides, since the outcome was likely predetermined, but light was shined on the process.

Culture of Life?

The news from Darfur seems to keep getting worse. More people have died and been left homeless in the Sudan than from the December tsunami, yet the US and the world have done virtually nothing about it. It's time for the president and the country to give this problem some attention if we really believe in a culture of life.

Interesting Judicial Vacancy Fact

"[Bush has] nominated persons to fill barely one-third of the vacancies, including 10 of 16 vacancies in the appeals courts, 6 of 29 vacancies in the federal district courts, and nobody to fill the single vacancy at the US Court of International Trade."

It's interesting that the president is apparently itching for a fight on his 10 or so Judicial nominees that have been stalled, when so many other slots remain open with no presidential nominee at all.

The L Word

To call someone a liar is almost universally unhelpful in a debate, and is unable to persuade anyone about your position... unless of course it is demonstrably and indisputably true that the person is lying.

I'm afraid the president has clearly crossed that line. His statements on social securities solvency are a lie. In his so-called town meetings, he has repeatedly said that in 2041, the social security system is "flat broke", "it's out", "bankrupt", and there will be "nothing left". He has also advanced and repeated the view "People say, 'Well, I'm more likely to see a UFO than I am a Social Security check if I'm 35 and under.'" He is trying to give the clear impression, if not stating outright, that if nothing is done americans will receive no social security benefits in the future.

These statements are demonstrably false. The president is deliberately obfuscating the difference between the trust fund and the system as a whole, which will continue to take in revenue from workers and pay out benefits. By the most conservative estimates of the social security trustees, if absolutely nothing is done the system will continue to pay out benefits at 70% of that which have been promised after 2041. The CBO puts the figure at closer to 80%, and not until after 2052. Both these payout figures are payout levels higher than today's after inflation.

I'm sure if you polled people leaving these events, and asked them will social security be 100% dead in the future if we do nothing, the vast majority would agree. That is more than just misleading, it's a lie.

When is a Science not Actually Science?

Chinese medical practitioners some thousands of years ago determined that the body has 12 meridians and some 400 points through which one's qi (chi) flows. Regulating/correcting the flow of qi with needles on the appropriate points counteracts these imbalances, and thus restoring health and curing a wide variety of ailments is the practice of acupuncture.

Let's put aside the fact that this medical treatment predates knowledge of a circulatory system, germs, and virtually everything we know about the human body. Let's also put aside the fact that the mysterious energy force known as qi has never been detected, not has any evidence of its existence ever been found by modern technology.

My question is, how did it's discoverers determine where these points and meridians lie on the body? What research methods and analysis were used to document these findings? And why is it that this basic research apparently cannot be duplicated?

That's the thing about real science - you have to "show your work". Other scientists must be able to duplicate your research and analysis, or no one will take your work seriously. I don't have to just accept that the speed of light is 186,000 m/s squared, I can choose to get a telescope, measure the time it takes for moons to go around Jupiter, and do the math myself. You can't base an entire science around central facts that may simply be "made up".

There is plenty that we don't know. It's also true that we don't even have to understand how or why something works to prove that it actually does work. If you can measure and document an effect in a proper scientific double-blind, randomized study, then you can prove that the effect exists. And, oh, by the way, acupuncture doesn't work.

Republicans Vote Against Additional Money for Armored Humvees

I honestly don't understand this vote, but I would like to. The GAO reports that armored humvees have not been produced at full capacity. Bayh & Kennedy sponsor an ammendment to the Iraq appropriations bill for extra $$ to maximize their productions, which passes in a 60-40 vote.

Seriously, what is the story with the senators (39 Republicans) who voted against it?

High Tech Copyright Infringement

President Bush signed a bill into law (interestingly, with no public signing ceremony) that allows a specific software company to "edit" movies by skipping sections of a DVD that they deem to contain objectionable material. It is unquestionably a huge victory for one company, Clearplay, based it Utah (Thanks, Orrin!) that sells this add-on service to your DVD player at $5/month. The movie studios believe that a 3rd party has no right to edit/alter their copyrighted work without permission.

I don't understand why can't there be a free market solution to this problem that doesn't infringe on the copyright of the artist. Movies are willingly altered all the time, to be shown on airplanes and broadcast TV. Of course, if the producers choose not to do this, that should also be their right.

No doubt this will end up playing out in the courts. The Clearplay technology may technically not violate existing copyright statues, since it doesn't physically alter the media itself, but that's only because the law hasn't caught up. And it is true that the content owners don't lose any money, since the original product must be used. However, the copyrights protect more than income, it protects the rights of artistic presentation. I don't see how Clearplay can argue that their product has any purpose other than to alter the original work for their own profit. There is no "fair use" argument.

I also think it's bad politics to legislate the business model of one specific company. If this kind of thing becomes commonplace, the influence of money and political connections may just start to have an impact on what laws end up being passed. That could lead to a corrupting influence on our elected representatives.

No One Can Prove I Can't Fly

Interesting comments from anti-skeptics about the Two Percent Company's recent fine piece on the claims/ravings of self-proclaimed psychic/medium Allison Dubois. Some are upset that they were unable to completely prove that everything she said is untrue.

No one can prove that I am unable to magically elevate off the ground and fly away, either. My claim is no less valid (or likely to be true, given the impressive lack of evidence of either) than Ms. Dubois'.

More Senseless Administration Secrecy

U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism

"The State Department announced last week that it was breaking with tradition in withholding the statistics on terrorist attacks from its congressionally mandated annual report."

It's hard to conceive how not reporting the statistics is helpful to any claim of success, or even denial of blame for failure.

Lies, Damn Lies, and the Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial with statistics purported to show that the wealthiest americans are paying a larger share of the tax burden then they did 20 years ago. (There is no free link, but excerpts of it are here.) For example, the chart shows that the top .1% paid 5% of all taxes in 1979, and 11% in 1999.

Sounds pretty cut and dried, right? Well, except for a few pesky facts that they left out. During that same period while their percentage of the tax burden more than doubled from 5% to 11%, their percentage of the total income more than tripled, from 3% to 9%! When you make most of the money, you pay most of the taxes. As the gap between the wealthiest and the average american has grown, the tax burden has in fact clearly become more regressive. A more eloquent breakdown is here and here.

Who's betting the Journal will bother to correct their glaring (and frankly embarrassing) omission?

More GOP hypocrisy

Who can it be?!?

"The time has come that the American people know exactly what their Representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups? Or are they working hard to represent their constituents? The people, the American people, have a right to know...I say the best disinfectant is full disclosure, not isolation."
U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, 11/16/95

About this blog (and me)

Just to clarify a few things here, I am absolutely not interested in perpetuating any democratic/liberal orthodoxy. As I read my site, I noticed a rail against the Ann Coulter article, and a filibuster snippet cut from dailykos. Both are worthy of note, and things that I think are important, but one might get the impression from that small sample that I am a 100% leftist demagogue, which is not the case.

Here are a few things I'm not against:

John Bolton - He may be an ass, but he's the president's ass. I'll take the Russ Feingold view here.
Two-Sided Ethics Investigations - I think that there is plenty to dig into with the Delay/Abramoff travel, but I also suspect that such practices are rampant on both sides of the aisle. If there are similar tales about Reid & Pelosi as I've heard suggested, then I want to hear them and see them on the front page.
Lawrence Summers - Those who wanted this guy out would seek to destroy academic freedom and inquiry. Can you really be a bad guy for asking a question?
Iraq Optimism - I may have been against the war, but we still need to do everything we can to make this work. There is a decent opportunity to genuinely remake this part of the world, and if it is successful it will be a huge victory, and a vast legacy for George W. Bush.


I will continue to post about government for and by the rich power interests, other abuses of power, religion influencing politics, rejection of rational analysis and science, and other topics. Undoubtedly many of these positions will be against the republican power structure, but that's how things are when one party has dominant control. I'll be more than happy to criticize democrats anytime that they are in a position to say and do things that I think hurts the country.
-dave

Embarrassing

..that this kind of thing passes for journalism. Per usual, the howler has the best breakdown and analysis.

GOP Filibuster Hypocrisy

Senator Smith (R-NH) onthe floor of the senate, 3/7/2000:

"That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States."

Senator Frist voted with him.

Via dailykos.

The Scalia Dustup

There is an interesting point to consider from a recent Antonin Scalia talk at NYU, where he was assailed by a student on the judges dissent in Lawrence. The student asked the Scalia - "Do you sodomize your wife?". Scalia's reply was "the question is unworthy of an answer".

Scalia does not believe there is a constitutional right to privacy, and therefore the government has a legitimate authority to legislate consentual adult sexual behavior. Therefore, I humbly suggest that this same question should be asked in an appropriate forum - in every senate judicial nomination hearing where the nominee does not believe in such a right.

(notes cribbed from The Two Percent Company.)

More Bankruptcy

By the way, I'm certainly in favor of reasonable measures to reduce backruptcy fraud, such as the disallowing of excessive excemptions available only to the wealthy. For example, the exemption for assets placed in an Asset Protection Trust, or the unlimited homestead exceptions like they have in Texas and Florida, where your "primary residence" can't be taking from you if you declare bankrupcy, even if it is a $25 million dollar home.

But of course, both those loopholes remain untouched in this law. No, no, the corporate overlords behind this monsterous bill wouldn't go for anything that might prevent them from avoiding paying their bills.

Bankruptcy Bill

The bill who's only constituency is the lobbyists for the banking and credit card industry passed today. Republicans bravely voted down amendments that would have exempted families who can't pay their bills because they've been called up to military service, families with catastrophic medical bills, people who've been the victims of fraud, and many other varieties of deadbeats.

Today's news story quotes David Drier of California claiming that this law will save the average family $400/yr in reduced fees and interest due to the credit card companies having to carry all this bad debt. I'll be keeping my eye out for the notice that my fees and interest rates are going down, as the credit card companies pass the savings on to me. And waiting, and waiting....

Alternative Medicine

A simple, yet astute post from the always worthwhile Skeptico, on so-called "alternative" medicine.

Alive?

I'm thinking about reviving this blog. Perhaps I'll have something to say of interest to you. Perhaps not. Perhaps I'll get bored in a month and go on a three year hiatus. Life is a mystery.

I'm going to be experimenting with blog titles until I find one I like. At this moment, I'm fond of the trans-Wisconsin Yogurt Pipeline.