Not sure whether to laugh or cry....

George W. Bush, taking the oath of office:

"I, George Walker Bush, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

George W. Bush, 43rd US President, White House Cabinet meeting to discuss the renewal of the Patriot Act, in response to GOP leaders presenting the case that the Patriot Act undermined the Constitution:

"I don't give a goddamn. I'm the President and Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way ... Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!

Preserve Internet Freedom!

Internet Freedom, commonly knows as “Net Neutrality” is about the preservation of access to all public internet content, access that is today in peril.

The large internet service providers want to control what you see and how fast you see it, by slowing down or even completely blocking access to many websites. They want to control traffic in such a way as to maximize profit, to the detriment of the free flow of information, opinion and ideas.

There’s new federal legislation, introduced on Feb 2, 2008 by Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.): the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act” (HR 5353).

From Rep. Markey’s web site:

The goal of this bipartisan legislation is to assure consumers, content providers, and high tech innovators that the historic, open architecture nature of the Internet will be preserved and fostered. H.R. 5353 is designed to assess and promote Internet freedom for consumers and content providers. Internet freedom generally embodies the notion that consumers and content providers should be free to send, receive, access and use the lawful applications, content, and services of their choice on broadband networks, possess the effective right to attach and use non-harmful devices to use in conjunction with their broadband services, and that content providers not be subjected to unreasonably discriminatory practices by broadband network providers.

http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3268&Itemid=141

Write your Congressman and tell them to support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act!

Update: What evangelicals want

Update of an earlier post:


980 respondents self-identified as "evangelical born again," conducted online from January 17 to January 23, 2008.:











Click chart for a larger version




These numbers may reflect a change in attitudes among evangelicals - still conservative about moral issues and the islamic threat, but becoming more progressive concerning poverty, heath care, the war and the environment.

Here's the whole survey:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/evengelres.html

Chris Wallace interviews Bush

Of course it’s hard not to shake your head whenever the idiot President opens his mouth, but this really stood out:

Bush said that the Democrats’ desire to raise taxes on the rich is a waste of time, since the rich can afford good accountants who will figure out how to avoid paying those taxes, and that the middle class will end up getting stuck with the bill (as usual). Which begs the question: why then was it necessary to cut taxes on the rich in 2001 if they’d already figured out how not to pay them? And what does that say about the opaque system of loopholes and deductions that is designed primarily to benefit the rich? It becomes cruelly ironic when you consider that some of these loopholes involve incentives for moving jobs and operations overseas; so not only do the rich get to avoid paying their fair share - a bill the middle class gets stuck with - but they do it partly by being rewarded for eliminating more and more good-paying middle class jobs.

Wake up, Middle Class!! You’re getting simultaneously screwed and stabbed in the back!

Jack Cafferty distorts McCain position on stimulus package

I sent this email today to Jack Cafferty of CNN:

This comment is in reference to one of yesterdays topics:

Jack, I like you. I really do. I agree with many, if not most, of your opinions. But based on what I just read on the Cafferty File (I missed yesterday’s broadcast) you were unfair in your characterization of McCain vis-a-vis the economic stimulus package.

While it's true he missed the vote on Wednesday's amendment, he did publicly state he would have voted against it. Now while you can argue (rightfully so, IMO) against that position, he did not deliberately miss the vote in a cowardly attempt to avoid taking a side on the issue. And on Thursday he did vote to pass the stimulus package, breaking with the party’s conservative bloc.

Give ‘em hell, Jack, but please be fair about it.

Greg

Update:

Here’s the article...

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/02/07/mccain-chooses-not-to-make-tough-vote/#comments

How about a little Truth for a change?

It seems the DNC is already gearing up for more of the same old campaign tactics: distortion, deception and fear-mongering.

Not that the RNC has been much better, of course.

There are very clear differences between Clinton/Obama and McCain. Differences that are obvious and clear and that will both appeal to the left-wing base and sway many undecided and independent voters. There is absolutely no need to exaggerate and distort. It insults the electorate and demeans the process.

Why not spend the time, effort, and money to explain to the voters why their candidates have better ideas and why their positions make more sense?

For example, they don’t need to distort McCain’s statements about staying in Iraq for dozens of years. The DNC knows damn well he didn’t mean he wanted to fight a war for dozens of years, but was instead referring to a stabilizing presence - just like we’ve had in Korea, Germany and the Balkans. Now there are perfectly good arguments against such a presence (frankly I think we should withdraw most of our troops from Germany and Korea), and there should be such a debate. But let’s be honest about what was said and what was meant.

Another example is the lie that McCain’s immigration position reflects the extreme right wing. What’s so extreme about this?

“As president, I will secure the border. I will restore the trust Americans should have in the basic competency of their government. A secure border is an essential element of our national security. Tight border security includes not just the entry and exit of people, but also the effective screening of cargo at our ports and other points of entry.”

         [ ... ]

“Recognize the importance of a flexible labor market to keep employers in business and our economy on top. It should provide skilled Americans and immigrants with opportunity. Our education system should ensure skills for our younger workers, and our retraining and assistance programs for displaced workers must be modernized so they can pursue those opportunities“

Doesn’t exactly sound like Ann Coulter, does it? This is from Hillary’s issue statement on her website:

”Hillary has consistently called for comprehensive immigration reform that respects our immigrant heritage and honors the rule of law. She believes comprehensive reform must have as essential ingredients a strengthening of our borders, greater cross-cooperation with our neighbors, strict but fair enforcement of our laws, federal assistance to our state and local governments, strict penalties for those who exploit undocumented workers, and a path to earned legal status for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar.

Hillary strongly believes we need to do more to know who is in our country by securing our borders and ensuring that employers comply with the law against hiring and exploiting undocumented workers. She supports deploying new technology that can help stop the flow of undocumented immigrants into the country and an employer verification system that is universal, accurate, timely, and does not lead to discrimination and abuse by employers.“

Sounds to me like they’re not that terribly far from each other, frankly. I’d like to hear an intelligent arguments about the subtleties of their positions. But if people just listen to the national committees, moveon.org, Rush Limbaugh, et. al., then they’ll have the impression that the candidates are shrieking left/right wing radicals bent on the destruction of our democracy.

Note to the DNC/RNC: if you really believe in your candidates, if you really believe that they have better ideas, why do you feel that it’s necessary to distort and lie? Isn’t the truth enough?

Read the whole story:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/smear_or_be_smeared.html

Billionaire Schwartzmann doesn't consider himself wealthy

Ah, the Wall Street Journal. Seems that they feel there's some resentment out there that all of America's increase in wealth (and then some) over the last quite a few years has gone to the richest few while the majority have been steadily losing financial ground. They perceive this feeling as jealousy when in fact it's anger over the inequity and unfairness of forced wealth redistribution.



Click for larger version

The above graph is quite interesting when you consider that for the bottom three groups over those 35 years hours worked per person increased significantly, the number of 2-earner households increased dramatically, and the relative cost of basic necessities increased (especially health care), yet the income lines are nearly flat. This means that in from 1967 to 2003 the middle and lower classes have effectively become poorer while the top bar graph illustrates how much filthier the filthy rich have become.

And if that's not depressing enough, consider that the trend has accelerated since 2003.

Ponder all of this the next time you hear the far-right argument that lowering taxes on the rich is good for you.

The U.S. has 432 billionaires at last count, a bit less than half of the world's 946, who have a combined net worth of $3.5 trillion. In 1982 there were 13 billionaires in the U.S. of A.

------------------------
A billionaire fun fact: the greatest concentration is in New York, no surprise, followed by Los Angeles, not too surprising, with Moscow (!!!) in third place. I would have guessed London or Tokyo or even Dubai.
------------------------

Anyway, back to the WSJ article....

Don't read this if you have a blood pressure problem:

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/02/05/billionaire-schwarzman-im-not-wealthy/