The Arizona Republic really needs to make sure Robert Robb gets out more. So many of his columns refer to reports from the Goldwater Institute you’d think he works for them in marketing.
As usual he and Goldwater are going off the deep end in suggesting the state should invest in post-secondary education much like someone invests in a stock. This is interesting in light of Goldwater’s persistent claims that government doesn’t invest in anything, but that’s another red herring. I’m questioning Goldwater’s investment strategy because wise investors look at other firms and compare what they do, how they attract customers, examine return on investment, etc. If you do that comparison, you’ll be very hard-pressed to find a single, highly respected institution or other state that has made these draconian changes and made it work much less identifying one that has even attempted it.
The Goldwater report makes interesting projections by comparing public to private (including for-profit and non-profit, which is an important distinction) institutions, assumes 2% inflation, ignores new construction and expansion costs due to growth needs, excludes grants and aid to private school students, and winds up proclaiming private school and state-university costs "are comparable." They also pull out research by their favorite "professor-for-hire" Richard Vedder who "finds a primary reason for the rising cost of financing universities is the growth of non-instructional activities such as research."
Aren't colleges and universities supposed to do research? Conducting research doesn't teach anything? Wow. So, where do our new products come from? Where do our new drugs come from? Apparently not from colleges and universities. So Goldwater thinks colleges and universities in Arizona should not conduct research and only teach about research done at other universities because research is "non-instructional."
Based on this, they come away with this idea that if you just give students boatloads of money for astronomical tuition fees it will all net out with $768M is "savings" and provide all of the funding the universities need. Maybe that's true if you don't have those pesky research facilities to develop and maintain. That may be true if you can control where students go to college. That may be true in teenagers comply with certain economic assumptions of economists. And it may be true if you only want to train ideologues (remember Goldwater argued that politicians should be allowed to chose the books and curriculum taught at state colleges and universities), that will reduce educational expenses.
Sure, Arizona can get weird and base university funding on the theories of economists who clearly have too much time on their hands. But while there may be some inefficiency in post-secondary funding, tossing out the baby with the bathwater on an untried theory hardly seems responsible from a market or educational needs perspective.
Goldwater used to be useful in the past. But now they are so theoretically ideological, they do nothing but cloud the debate and create solutions in search of a problem.
Friday, March 31, 2006
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Be careful at whom you throw stones
The East Valley Tribune editorial board should be careful where they throw stones. They argue the Governor’s allowing the ELL bill to become law without her signature leaves “her vulnerable to Republican charges that she isn’t faithfully executing the duties of her office” because she sent along a four-page letter describing her dislikes about the bill and that letter could influence the court. Odd, what the Governor did sounds similar to President Bush’s strategy of attaching signing statements to Congressional Bills.
The President’s signing statements tells Congress how he will interpret the law, which more often than not is different from what Congress meant. Why couldn’t that signing statement be interpreted as a message to the conservative judges on the federal courts who may hear lawsuits on those bills how to interpret them? So if you’re going to criticize the Governor for not “faithfully executing the duties of her office” for doing something the President does all time seems a little, well, hypocritical.
Of course, the E.V. Tribune could write an editorial criticizing the President for not faithfully executing the duties of his office for the same reasons. But we’ll be waiting a long time for that one to appear.
The President’s signing statements tells Congress how he will interpret the law, which more often than not is different from what Congress meant. Why couldn’t that signing statement be interpreted as a message to the conservative judges on the federal courts who may hear lawsuits on those bills how to interpret them? So if you’re going to criticize the Governor for not “faithfully executing the duties of her office” for doing something the President does all time seems a little, well, hypocritical.
Of course, the E.V. Tribune could write an editorial criticizing the President for not faithfully executing the duties of his office for the same reasons. But we’ll be waiting a long time for that one to appear.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Munsil Goes Negative
I don’t know which is worse, Len Munsil’s going negative (in Sunday's East Valley Tribune OpEd Letters Section) on the Governor using debatable assumptions from a Republican-leaning special interest tax group, claiming she is committed to higher taxes when no legitimate proof exists, or that as Governor he would forgo investment in the very things the voters have just indicated they want and are willing to pay for.
Arizona remains the second-fastest growing state in the country with some of the lowest tax rates. But we have poor performing schools, bad roads, lousy tasting water, and increased congestion, clearly indicating specific and immediate needs. Ignoring those needs for the sake of ideological tax cuts isn’t my idea of a fiscally responsible or forward-looking Governor.
Munsil’s criticism of the Governor’s budget submission indicates either questionable knowledge of how budgets are developed or his own desire to mislead. No governor expects they’ll get everything in their budget passed and it’s wrong for Munsil to suggest otherwise. There’s give and take on both sides. That he doesn’t seem to know this indicates a Munsil government would be no more fiscally responsible than the Republican-controlled government in Washington.
One thing’s certain, however. The Munsil campaign will be negative, misleading and fiscally irresponsible.
Arizona remains the second-fastest growing state in the country with some of the lowest tax rates. But we have poor performing schools, bad roads, lousy tasting water, and increased congestion, clearly indicating specific and immediate needs. Ignoring those needs for the sake of ideological tax cuts isn’t my idea of a fiscally responsible or forward-looking Governor.
Munsil’s criticism of the Governor’s budget submission indicates either questionable knowledge of how budgets are developed or his own desire to mislead. No governor expects they’ll get everything in their budget passed and it’s wrong for Munsil to suggest otherwise. There’s give and take on both sides. That he doesn’t seem to know this indicates a Munsil government would be no more fiscally responsible than the Republican-controlled government in Washington.
One thing’s certain, however. The Munsil campaign will be negative, misleading and fiscally irresponsible.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
Family Research Council Convoluted Assessment of Embryo Ruling in Europe
Every once in a while you come across some statement where to read it and you say to yourself "How the hell did they reach that conclusion?" In a March 7, 2006 email to its supporters, the Family Research Council (FRC) makes the following statement:
Here's the actual issue. A married couple decides, that due to a cancer diagnosis of the wife that required removal of her ovaries, that six embryos get fertilized and stored. The wife requested at the time that some of the embryos be fertizied anonymously in case their marriage ended. The husband said that wouldn't happen and they had six embryos fertilized and stored. The marriage ended six months later and the now ex-husband removed his consent to allow the embryos to be implanted, meaning the ex-wife can have no genetically-related children. The clinic that stores the embryos wants to destroy them, so the ex-wife went to court to have that stopped so she could argue for having them implanted.
Read the Court's ruling press release.
Read the Court's hearing announcement.
This is a very sad case it just pains me that the FRC paints this as a "choice" and court issue, but it has zero to do with "choice" as typically used in the context we Americans discuss it. "Choice" in America has to do with terminating a pregnancy in the womb. That isn't this case at all. It's about a mother wanting a baby with her genes in it and an ex-husband who apparently isn't interested in working something out to give his consent to using the embryos. I have people in my life with cancer and I have to say that I feel for Ms. Evans. If I were the ex-husband, I'd be willing to work something out. But for the FRC to paint this as a "choice" and "courts" issue is simply disingenuous and dishonest.
This case has more to do with an ex-husband (somewhat selfishly) denying his ex-wife to her own embryos to conceive their child. My guess is he doesn't want a legal obligation on his part to pay for the child's rearing, which is the selfish part. But again, why not work out an agreement to address whatever concerns he has and allow the poor woman to have her baby? I don't get that.
On the other hand, the FRC would be all over the ex-husband if he decided not to cover his share of the costs for raising the child. The FRC says nothing about their usual morality argument of an unwed mother having a child out of wedlock. They say nothing about their normal morality argument of a child not living in a loving mother/father family environment. That's the disingenuous part of their argument and that just annoys me no end.
This is simply another case of the FRC using a sad situation to feather their own nest by using false arguments to further their cause. Sorry, but that is simply wrong.
Let's review what the FRC says. A couple is married in the U.K. and for whatever reason they have some embryos fertilized and stored. The couple splits up and later the ex-wife decides she wants a baby and gets the tubes out of storage and wants to have them implanted. The ex-husband disapproves and goes to court to stop the implantation and the court sides with him. The FRC says the man create the baby before and shouldn't get to stop the ex-wife from using their embryos to conceive their child even though they aren't married. For this, the FRC says, we can blame those dumb courts in Europe (actually it's only the U.K.) and we should all be fearful of our courts referencing European courts.A Woman's Right to Choose?
Chalk up another victory for "choice." But this ruling, from the European Court of Human Rights meeting in Strasbourg, France, has observers scratching their heads. Natalie Evans of Great Britain appealed to the court for permission to implant one of the six embryos she and Howard Johnston conceived in vitro in 2001. Evans and Johnston have since split up. She wanted to implant an embryo so she could bear a child. But Johnston said no. Johnston was happy when the court ruled in his favor and against Miss Evans: "The key thing for me was just to be able to decide when, and if, I would start a family." Some of us thought he did that when he and his then-mistress brought forth new human lives. So, in this landmark case on human rights, we see the woman has no right to carry the children she conceived, the embryonic children have no right to life, and the father can decide whether or not anyone else in the relationship has any rights at all. Now, what if Miss Evans had won the right to implant but had then decided to have an abortion? Does anyone think the court would have supported Mr. Johnston if he wanted his unborn children to live? Such is the absurdity of the current state of human rights in Europe is employed, all the more reason Americans should be concerned about the U.S. Courts referencing European law.
Here's the actual issue. A married couple decides, that due to a cancer diagnosis of the wife that required removal of her ovaries, that six embryos get fertilized and stored. The wife requested at the time that some of the embryos be fertizied anonymously in case their marriage ended. The husband said that wouldn't happen and they had six embryos fertilized and stored. The marriage ended six months later and the now ex-husband removed his consent to allow the embryos to be implanted, meaning the ex-wife can have no genetically-related children. The clinic that stores the embryos wants to destroy them, so the ex-wife went to court to have that stopped so she could argue for having them implanted.
Read the Court's ruling press release.
Read the Court's hearing announcement.
This is a very sad case it just pains me that the FRC paints this as a "choice" and court issue, but it has zero to do with "choice" as typically used in the context we Americans discuss it. "Choice" in America has to do with terminating a pregnancy in the womb. That isn't this case at all. It's about a mother wanting a baby with her genes in it and an ex-husband who apparently isn't interested in working something out to give his consent to using the embryos. I have people in my life with cancer and I have to say that I feel for Ms. Evans. If I were the ex-husband, I'd be willing to work something out. But for the FRC to paint this as a "choice" and "courts" issue is simply disingenuous and dishonest.
This case has more to do with an ex-husband (somewhat selfishly) denying his ex-wife to her own embryos to conceive their child. My guess is he doesn't want a legal obligation on his part to pay for the child's rearing, which is the selfish part. But again, why not work out an agreement to address whatever concerns he has and allow the poor woman to have her baby? I don't get that.
On the other hand, the FRC would be all over the ex-husband if he decided not to cover his share of the costs for raising the child. The FRC says nothing about their usual morality argument of an unwed mother having a child out of wedlock. They say nothing about their normal morality argument of a child not living in a loving mother/father family environment. That's the disingenuous part of their argument and that just annoys me no end.
This is simply another case of the FRC using a sad situation to feather their own nest by using false arguments to further their cause. Sorry, but that is simply wrong.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Marriage Amendment is a Waste
From the letters printed in the Arizona Republic you would never know same-sex marriage is already illegal in Arizona. Arizona's "Defense of Marriage Act" (ARS § 25-101) became law in 1996 and was upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court in 2003. No one has challenged it since. Not the ACLU. Not gay couples or groups. Nobody. In short, the Marriage Amendment is completely unnecessary as a law banning same-sex marriage is already on the books.
If people need a reason to get worked up about the Marriage Amendment it would be their realization that the proposal does away with rights straight couples have to things like health insurance and other employment benefits. Unmarried couples where one works and gets medical care for kids who would otherwise not be able to obtain insurance can kiss that benefit goodbye. People in long-term common law marriage can watch their rights vanish, too.
So we’re debating the need for a Constitutional amendment to ban something that’s already illegal and harm good people who only want to share their lives or protect their children. Sorry, but I don’t see the point.
If people need a reason to get worked up about the Marriage Amendment it would be their realization that the proposal does away with rights straight couples have to things like health insurance and other employment benefits. Unmarried couples where one works and gets medical care for kids who would otherwise not be able to obtain insurance can kiss that benefit goodbye. People in long-term common law marriage can watch their rights vanish, too.
So we’re debating the need for a Constitutional amendment to ban something that’s already illegal and harm good people who only want to share their lives or protect their children. Sorry, but I don’t see the point.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Robert Robb Hates Arizona
I am so sick and tired of reading short-sighted, narrow-minded, agenda-tainted arguments coming out of Robert Robb. So sick in tired, in fact, that I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.
In today's Arizona Republic, he, for the second or third time, makes a dishonest argument for "tax relief" because a single economist studied tax rates and compared that to growth. There are so many problems with this hypothesis that it's nutty to use just it to base statewide policy or tax cuts. For one, it presumes that tax rates alone are the main reason for stimulating economic growth. That's not the problem in Arizona because, as the second fastest growing state in the country, we're growing anyway. Secondly, I have yet to speak with a single person who thinks they're being burdened by taxes, and I ask.
Someone should ask Robert Robb to find more than one economist to support his arguments for a change in Arizona's tax structure. It's interesting that when Arizona falls around the median, Robb paints the state as having high taxes, yet when it comes to educational achievement being at the bottom of the rankings, Robb refuses to advocate for increased financial support for schools.
It seems to me that Robb wants not only to rob our state the resources it needs to handle growth, he also wants to make sure our students are too dumb to be able to figure out what Republicans are doing to them.
In today's Arizona Republic, he, for the second or third time, makes a dishonest argument for "tax relief" because a single economist studied tax rates and compared that to growth. There are so many problems with this hypothesis that it's nutty to use just it to base statewide policy or tax cuts. For one, it presumes that tax rates alone are the main reason for stimulating economic growth. That's not the problem in Arizona because, as the second fastest growing state in the country, we're growing anyway. Secondly, I have yet to speak with a single person who thinks they're being burdened by taxes, and I ask.
Someone should ask Robert Robb to find more than one economist to support his arguments for a change in Arizona's tax structure. It's interesting that when Arizona falls around the median, Robb paints the state as having high taxes, yet when it comes to educational achievement being at the bottom of the rankings, Robb refuses to advocate for increased financial support for schools.
It seems to me that Robb wants not only to rob our state the resources it needs to handle growth, he also wants to make sure our students are too dumb to be able to figure out what Republicans are doing to them.
Friday, March 10, 2006
Political Gotcha
Reading the opinion section in our two morning papers today it struck me again that there is no discourse in this country anymore. It's nothing but a persistent and annoying game of gotcha. From the editorials to the letters to the editors, we are no longer a people where discussing the issues and reaching a reasonable conclusion is encouraged. We are no longer the type of people who can have honest disagreements. No, we are a people that goes for the jugular and our only mission is to minimize, patronize, and simonize.
Newspapers no longer refuse to print letters that are obviously out of touch with reality. For example, one letter in today's Arizona Republic calls "Democratic talking points (lies)." That's just false on its face. Another Howl(er) states "global warming is a myth." I guess those scientists have no clue, but a guy sitting at a computer in his den does. Another attempts to paint a bond issue as a tax increase, which is like saying a car loan means an increase in income.
This "gotcha" game is everywhere in city, state and federal legislatures. There is political infighting everywhere and on every issue. Whether is the state legislature and the governor arguing over immigration or funding English education for kids, everything is done not with the best interests of the people in mind, but the next election cycle. It's only March and the senatorial race between Jim Pederson and Jon Kyl is already negative.
The bottom line is I don't think too many people these days could sit down in a room, discuss a problem and reach a decision without name-calling or insulting someone's mother or heritage. The result of this the creation of animosity, distrust and division. So much for the pledge of "One nation..."
Newspapers no longer refuse to print letters that are obviously out of touch with reality. For example, one letter in today's Arizona Republic calls "Democratic talking points (lies)." That's just false on its face. Another Howl(er) states "global warming is a myth." I guess those scientists have no clue, but a guy sitting at a computer in his den does. Another attempts to paint a bond issue as a tax increase, which is like saying a car loan means an increase in income.
This "gotcha" game is everywhere in city, state and federal legislatures. There is political infighting everywhere and on every issue. Whether is the state legislature and the governor arguing over immigration or funding English education for kids, everything is done not with the best interests of the people in mind, but the next election cycle. It's only March and the senatorial race between Jim Pederson and Jon Kyl is already negative.
The bottom line is I don't think too many people these days could sit down in a room, discuss a problem and reach a decision without name-calling or insulting someone's mother or heritage. The result of this the creation of animosity, distrust and division. So much for the pledge of "One nation..."
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Extremism is not a virtue - redux
Curtice Mang's response to my letter in the Arizona Republic highlights the problem with rhetoric nowadays. The issue is not what Goldwater meant regarding liberty, but the use of the words and who uses them. Like too many people, Mang expects the world to accept and use his definition and context of “liberty” regardless of anyone else’s circumstances or beliefs. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.
There is nothing keeping anyone from using the phrase “in the defense of liberty” as justification for terrorist acts regardless of anyone’s opinion. Iraqi extremists have clearly stated their mission is to “liberate” their country from American “occupation.” Pushing the U.S. out or Iraq and Afghanistan would be their liberation. It may not be Goldwater-defined “liberty,” but that isn’t the point.
It doesn’t matter what we think. What matters is the ability of extremists to convince Iraqis and Afghanis their liberty depends on killing Americans. We do our cause serious harm by arguing for extreme measures because whenever we do, we play right into their hands. It makes their claims after Abu Ghraib more believable to the Iraqi people. Extremism may be the macho response, but it’s the wrong response to a serious situation.
There is nothing keeping anyone from using the phrase “in the defense of liberty” as justification for terrorist acts regardless of anyone’s opinion. Iraqi extremists have clearly stated their mission is to “liberate” their country from American “occupation.” Pushing the U.S. out or Iraq and Afghanistan would be their liberation. It may not be Goldwater-defined “liberty,” but that isn’t the point.
It doesn’t matter what we think. What matters is the ability of extremists to convince Iraqis and Afghanis their liberty depends on killing Americans. We do our cause serious harm by arguing for extreme measures because whenever we do, we play right into their hands. It makes their claims after Abu Ghraib more believable to the Iraqi people. Extremism may be the macho response, but it’s the wrong response to a serious situation.
Monday, March 06, 2006
It's Not Us, It's the Goldwater Institute That's Stupid
I used to think that the Goldwater Institute believes we're stupid, but with Noah Clarke's latest diatribe on bonds (for God's sake) proves they are the stupid ones. Where they come up with the ideas they espouse is anyone's guess, but the inanity with which they makes their points has gotten to where they are a risk to sound economic policy.
So here's Mr. Clarke's argument: Bonds are bad because they are used to pay for stuff that we can't afford to pay for now and that bonds are a hidden tax on the population. "Phoenix is addicted to bonds because they hide spending increases and the money needed to pay for them." "Although libraries and senior centers are great, bonding to pay for them is not. Bonds are just a hidden tax that grows over time and encourages the city to increase spending, extending its largesse to more and more special-interest groups."
Clarke mixes metaphors that somehow city bonds used to build infrastructure is like a family that cuts expenses to buy a home. They're not even close. The home families build cost about $200,000. The buildings and infrastructure cities build costs tens of millions. Families can get or change jobs. Cities cannot and even if they could it would likely take a referendum to make it happen. The only similarity is that these are a big-ticket expenses that must be paid for with future income. Just as families plan for it in their budgets, cities plan for bond payments in much the same way.
Bonds have been used by cities across the country everywhere to build needed facilities and state law and accounting practices set reasonable limits to the amount of debt cities can take on. Bonds aren't used for current expenses, business trips or salaries. They're used to build stuff like "libraries and senior centers." They are legal tools that allow municipalities to support a growing population. As an economist, Mr. Clarke should know better, but it's pretty clear he doesn't.
Where's Goldwater's complaining about Federal bonds? You know, those little savings bonds we want kids and families to buy? Those things we have China buying in boat loads to keep our economy afloat? Where's their outrage? Nowhere, that's where. What complete hypocrisy.
So here's Mr. Clarke's argument: Bonds are bad because they are used to pay for stuff that we can't afford to pay for now and that bonds are a hidden tax on the population. "Phoenix is addicted to bonds because they hide spending increases and the money needed to pay for them." "Although libraries and senior centers are great, bonding to pay for them is not. Bonds are just a hidden tax that grows over time and encourages the city to increase spending, extending its largesse to more and more special-interest groups."
Clarke mixes metaphors that somehow city bonds used to build infrastructure is like a family that cuts expenses to buy a home. They're not even close. The home families build cost about $200,000. The buildings and infrastructure cities build costs tens of millions. Families can get or change jobs. Cities cannot and even if they could it would likely take a referendum to make it happen. The only similarity is that these are a big-ticket expenses that must be paid for with future income. Just as families plan for it in their budgets, cities plan for bond payments in much the same way.
Bonds have been used by cities across the country everywhere to build needed facilities and state law and accounting practices set reasonable limits to the amount of debt cities can take on. Bonds aren't used for current expenses, business trips or salaries. They're used to build stuff like "libraries and senior centers." They are legal tools that allow municipalities to support a growing population. As an economist, Mr. Clarke should know better, but it's pretty clear he doesn't.
Where's Goldwater's complaining about Federal bonds? You know, those little savings bonds we want kids and families to buy? Those things we have China buying in boat loads to keep our economy afloat? Where's their outrage? Nowhere, that's where. What complete hypocrisy.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Jeff Flake's Pederson Deception
Jeff Flake criticizes Jim Pederson in Saturday's Arizona Republic Letters section by trying to link Pederson's support for transportation funds for Arizona to blanket support for pork-barrel projects. Even a quick read of Pederson's comments shows his only interest is in providing for legitimate Arizona transportation needs. That's not pork, that's bringing home the tax dollars Arizonans have sent to Washington to solve real Arizona problems.
It's one thing to use money for bridges to nowhere that only 50 people might use. It's another thing altogether to bring our own money back home to maintain, develop and improve roadways in the second fastest-growing state in the country.
We paid the taxes Congressman. Why not bring those dollars back home? Better here than the Alaska wilderness, don’t you think? Jon Kyl and the Republicans have wasted enough of our tax dollars. If Jim Pederson wants to bring Arizona tax dollars home for legitimate purposes like roads and securing our border, he’s got my vote.
It's one thing to use money for bridges to nowhere that only 50 people might use. It's another thing altogether to bring our own money back home to maintain, develop and improve roadways in the second fastest-growing state in the country.
We paid the taxes Congressman. Why not bring those dollars back home? Better here than the Alaska wilderness, don’t you think? Jon Kyl and the Republicans have wasted enough of our tax dollars. If Jim Pederson wants to bring Arizona tax dollars home for legitimate purposes like roads and securing our border, he’s got my vote.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Jon Kyl and the Republican Purveyors of Fear
Over the past several months I've the conservatives attempt to set the stage for the coming fall elections. It doesn't take a genius to figure out they will steer people away from the scandals and lack of competency running rampant throughout government, but I hit my limit with an email from Senator Jon Kyl. It is one of the most non-senatorial messages I have ever read and it tries to instill in the reader one core emotion: fear.
Quoting Newt congress's new book, Kyl lays out why we should do nothing but be afraid:
1. That Islamist terrorists and rogue dictatorships will acquire and launch nuclear or biological weapons.
2. That God will be driven from American public life and reduce us to the civilizational ennui that now characterizes a declining Europe.
3. That America will lose the patriotic sense of itself as a unique civilization.
4. That America's economic supremacy will yield to China and India because of failing schools and weakening scientific and technological leadership.
5. That an aging America's demands on Social Security, Medicare, and related government programs will collapse the systems.
What a total and complete pile of bullshit. There are just too many things wrong with thesbeliefsfs, the least of which Republicans want every single one of us to be completely afraid and cower to any and all possible things that could go wrong. But in true Republican fashion, Kyl takes zero responsibility for the scope of the problems. Talk aboucowardicese.
So what are Kyl's (via Gingrich) proposals:
1. We must commit to a long war to defeat the terrorists and tyrants who would destroy America.
2. We must reestablish that our rights come from our Creator and that an America that has driven God out of the public arena is an America on the way to decay and defeat.
3. We must insist on patriotic immigration and patriotic education based on classic American history and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln.
4. We must transform our domestic institutions in order to harness modern science and technology to create jobs, wealth, and lead the world economy into the 21st century.
5. We must establish the opportunities for a personal Social Security account, a portable personal pension account, and a personal health savings account, so the wealth we create during our working lives is wealth we control.
I live near dairy farms and I have to say this smells more than the cows ever have. Why? Because it's pandering at its lowest.
"Commit to a long war on terrorism?" I have an idea. How about a short war that ends well, with fewer dead people? I can come up with likely dozens of simple ways to solve this problem and not one of them includes the word "fear" or "war."
"Reestablish that our rights come from our Creator?" No one has driven God out of the public arena. It's that old "N of 1" claim that if one person does it, them everyone does it. Kinda like Congress needed to change bankruptcy laws because people were gaming the system, only for a study of the first 65,000 cases filed shown no one was "gaming" the system.
"Patriotic education?" Sounds like political indoctrination for the "long war" to me. Patriotism isn't something you're taught by teachers. It's something that's demonstrated by family and earned bpoliticiansns.
"Transform our domestic institutions to harness modern science?" How can they propose that when they ignore the science that tells us the planet is overheating, natural resources are declining, and telling us when and why we can see a doctor?
It just seems to me that the Republicans have truly gone off the deep end. They believe their own bullshit. They believe every conspiracy theory there is. They see enemies under every rock and in every home. They see terrorists attacking us in every which way. But they can't envision a world where none of these problems exist. They see only more of the same. They have no business being in power. They need to be retired, starting with Jon Kyl.
Quoting Newt congress's new book, Kyl lays out why we should do nothing but be afraid:
1. That Islamist terrorists and rogue dictatorships will acquire and launch nuclear or biological weapons.
2. That God will be driven from American public life and reduce us to the civilizational ennui that now characterizes a declining Europe.
3. That America will lose the patriotic sense of itself as a unique civilization.
4. That America's economic supremacy will yield to China and India because of failing schools and weakening scientific and technological leadership.
5. That an aging America's demands on Social Security, Medicare, and related government programs will collapse the systems.
What a total and complete pile of bullshit. There are just too many things wrong with thesbeliefsfs, the least of which Republicans want every single one of us to be completely afraid and cower to any and all possible things that could go wrong. But in true Republican fashion, Kyl takes zero responsibility for the scope of the problems. Talk aboucowardicese.
So what are Kyl's (via Gingrich) proposals:
1. We must commit to a long war to defeat the terrorists and tyrants who would destroy America.
2. We must reestablish that our rights come from our Creator and that an America that has driven God out of the public arena is an America on the way to decay and defeat.
3. We must insist on patriotic immigration and patriotic education based on classic American history and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and Abraham Lincoln.
4. We must transform our domestic institutions in order to harness modern science and technology to create jobs, wealth, and lead the world economy into the 21st century.
5. We must establish the opportunities for a personal Social Security account, a portable personal pension account, and a personal health savings account, so the wealth we create during our working lives is wealth we control.
I live near dairy farms and I have to say this smells more than the cows ever have. Why? Because it's pandering at its lowest.
"Commit to a long war on terrorism?" I have an idea. How about a short war that ends well, with fewer dead people? I can come up with likely dozens of simple ways to solve this problem and not one of them includes the word "fear" or "war."
"Reestablish that our rights come from our Creator?" No one has driven God out of the public arena. It's that old "N of 1" claim that if one person does it, them everyone does it. Kinda like Congress needed to change bankruptcy laws because people were gaming the system, only for a study of the first 65,000 cases filed shown no one was "gaming" the system.
"Patriotic education?" Sounds like political indoctrination for the "long war" to me. Patriotism isn't something you're taught by teachers. It's something that's demonstrated by family and earned bpoliticiansns.
"Transform our domestic institutions to harness modern science?" How can they propose that when they ignore the science that tells us the planet is overheating, natural resources are declining, and telling us when and why we can see a doctor?
It just seems to me that the Republicans have truly gone off the deep end. They believe their own bullshit. They believe every conspiracy theory there is. They see enemies under every rock and in every home. They see terrorists attacking us in every which way. But they can't envision a world where none of these problems exist. They see only more of the same. They have no business being in power. They need to be retired, starting with Jon Kyl.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Extremism is not a virtue
According to Andrew Schellhammer in the 26 Feb 2006 Arizona Republic letters section (who quotes the famous Barry Goldwater RNC speech) when arguing that when battling the terrorists "…extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice" and “that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” Nice, but those words are just as wrong now as much as they were in 1964.
How would Mr. Schellhammer feel if Mr. Goldwater’s words were used to justify extremist actions by Osama bin Laden? How would he feel if Goldwater’s words were used by extremists bent on the destruction of Israel to justify their actions? How would he feel if those words were used to justify attacks on American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? What Mr. Schellhammer fails to see is that those who wish us harm can use those exact same words to justify their actions and attacks. To turn the use of a common conservative argument, arguing for extremist views helps and encourages the terrorists. It always has and it always will. Go look at history.
Extremism and extremists are the reasons we have the problems we have today. The world would a safer place without them—on all sides and on all subjects.
How would Mr. Schellhammer feel if Mr. Goldwater’s words were used to justify extremist actions by Osama bin Laden? How would he feel if Goldwater’s words were used by extremists bent on the destruction of Israel to justify their actions? How would he feel if those words were used to justify attacks on American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan? What Mr. Schellhammer fails to see is that those who wish us harm can use those exact same words to justify their actions and attacks. To turn the use of a common conservative argument, arguing for extremist views helps and encourages the terrorists. It always has and it always will. Go look at history.
Extremism and extremists are the reasons we have the problems we have today. The world would a safer place without them—on all sides and on all subjects.
Friday, February 24, 2006
What do GWB and Nero Have In Common?
What do the Bush administration and Rome’s Nero have in common? Plenty. Let’s review.
Religious violence is at an all-time high since the Holocaust. More “religions of peace” are doing and saying things that I am sure are making their prophets look down and think “Don’t make me come down there.” Churches are burned to the ground, mosques are blown up, religious service attendees are killed and almost all of them are in response to some other religious slight on someone else’s point of view. Who do those in the Middle East blame? The United States.
The percentage of seniors and families living at the poverty line is higher than ever, even controlling for population growth. A recent study shows an alarming number of people with single incomes qualify for public-supported meals. We also have proof of Walmart employees on government healthcare programs.
The efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as noble as they may be, have been politically bungled to the point most Americans have no confidence in the Bush Administration’s ability to manage either campaign. The president makes comparisons between Japan and Iraq and says that's proof democracy can take hold in the Middle East, forgetting the minor point that Japan attacked us first.
Republican scandals seem to appear almost daily. The White House official in charge of government procurement is indicted. The Majority Leader of the House is indicted. The vice president’s Chief of Staff is indicted. Congressman Randall “Duke” Cunnigham was indicted and resigned. After the screw-ups following Katrina, someone should be indicted.
The federal debt approaches $8.3 trillion dollars, thanks to the Republican borrow-and-spend fiscal policies, providing every man, woman and child in this country a personal bill of almost $30,000 each.
Menial job growth, paced well below job losses, continue to cause more and more Americans to work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. Bankruptcy filings, even with the new law, are still running at a record pace.
To all of the above, the Bush Administration and the Republicans running the House and Senate all tell us “things are good.” Like Nero, who famously fiddled while Rome burned, GWB and the Republicans live at such a level of denial that the comparison to Nero is more than valid. We are seeing history repeat itself and the only people who can change things are the voters.
Religious violence is at an all-time high since the Holocaust. More “religions of peace” are doing and saying things that I am sure are making their prophets look down and think “Don’t make me come down there.” Churches are burned to the ground, mosques are blown up, religious service attendees are killed and almost all of them are in response to some other religious slight on someone else’s point of view. Who do those in the Middle East blame? The United States.
The percentage of seniors and families living at the poverty line is higher than ever, even controlling for population growth. A recent study shows an alarming number of people with single incomes qualify for public-supported meals. We also have proof of Walmart employees on government healthcare programs.
The efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, as noble as they may be, have been politically bungled to the point most Americans have no confidence in the Bush Administration’s ability to manage either campaign. The president makes comparisons between Japan and Iraq and says that's proof democracy can take hold in the Middle East, forgetting the minor point that Japan attacked us first.
Republican scandals seem to appear almost daily. The White House official in charge of government procurement is indicted. The Majority Leader of the House is indicted. The vice president’s Chief of Staff is indicted. Congressman Randall “Duke” Cunnigham was indicted and resigned. After the screw-ups following Katrina, someone should be indicted.
The federal debt approaches $8.3 trillion dollars, thanks to the Republican borrow-and-spend fiscal policies, providing every man, woman and child in this country a personal bill of almost $30,000 each.
Menial job growth, paced well below job losses, continue to cause more and more Americans to work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. Bankruptcy filings, even with the new law, are still running at a record pace.
To all of the above, the Bush Administration and the Republicans running the House and Senate all tell us “things are good.” Like Nero, who famously fiddled while Rome burned, GWB and the Republicans live at such a level of denial that the comparison to Nero is more than valid. We are seeing history repeat itself and the only people who can change things are the voters.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Republicans Don't Support Veterans
The Republican Three-Card Monty trick is in play again, this time they're about to reward those who fought for our freedoms by jacking up their insurance rates by over 300%. This is not a typo, I really said three-hundred percent.
The justification is the Pentagon wants to slow it's medical expenses. So instead of buying less bombers, jets or ships, the Bush Administration will raise the insurance premiums on veterans.
This plan was hidden away in the 2006 Budget request of the President. That would be George W. Bush. The commander-in-chief. The "Mission Accomplished" guy.
Isn't it interesting that during election campaigns and any opportunity to wave the flag, Republicans trapse out the "we support the military" line and now they're raising insurance premiums on veterans so they can fund more Pentagon programs.
Now we see what the president and his administration really think about veterans. They're just another entitlement group sucking money out of the Pentagon's pockets that must be stopped.
The justification is the Pentagon wants to slow it's medical expenses. So instead of buying less bombers, jets or ships, the Bush Administration will raise the insurance premiums on veterans.
"The proposed increases would mean that the annual health insurance premium for a retired office under age 65 with family coverage would triple--rising from $460 to $1,400--by 2008. Premiums in the next two years foa retired office with single coverage would jump from $230 to $700."Isn't that special.
This plan was hidden away in the 2006 Budget request of the President. That would be George W. Bush. The commander-in-chief. The "Mission Accomplished" guy.
Isn't it interesting that during election campaigns and any opportunity to wave the flag, Republicans trapse out the "we support the military" line and now they're raising insurance premiums on veterans so they can fund more Pentagon programs.
Now we see what the president and his administration really think about veterans. They're just another entitlement group sucking money out of the Pentagon's pockets that must be stopped.
Parental abuse
Apparently there are some parents who take the Bible so literally they will take their kids to museums on "Bible Tours" and teach them that man walked the earth at the same time as dinosaurs and that the people who run museums "worship the creature and not the creator.' Here's a sample of their reasoning: God created man on the 6th day and God created animals on the sixth day. Therefore man and dinosaurs were on the earth at the same time. They also argue, the Eat Valley Tribune (18 Feb 2006, p. F2) story reports, that the people who run these tours claim "evolutionist thinking supports racism and abortion."
If man were on the earth at the same time, man would be one thing: prey, or put another way: dinner.
Now, I'm a fairly faithful person but I have to tell you that anyone who teaches this stuff to their kids should be charged with child abuse. It is unconscionable to me that anyone parent would indoctrinate their children with such an outrageous lack of scientific knowledge and ignore two thousand years worth of science to keep their interpretation of the Bible such that they cannot question their faith or realize it on their own.
Can you imagine the ridicule these kids will have to go through once they encounter the real world and people tell them their beliefs are false? What will that do to the kid's faith at that point? What will that do to these kid's views of adults? What will this do with these kids belief in all other things they have been taught? Do these adults who have apparently lost track of reality really think they can isolate their kids from the rest of the world? They must, but here's the abuse part: they don't care. They are purposefully teaching their children things they know are false, but because of THEIR beliefs, have convinced themselves is false despite two thousand years of learning, discovery and science.
I know a lot of grown-up kids from evangelical families who have had kids out of wedlock, turned out to be gay, and drug and alcohol abusers simply because they learned their parents were lying to the or indoctrinating them and they rebelled against it.
This is madness. This is fraud and abuse. Society needs put a stop to the spread of ignorance. It is as real a threat to our society as anything else threatening our country.
If man were on the earth at the same time, man would be one thing: prey, or put another way: dinner.
Now, I'm a fairly faithful person but I have to tell you that anyone who teaches this stuff to their kids should be charged with child abuse. It is unconscionable to me that anyone parent would indoctrinate their children with such an outrageous lack of scientific knowledge and ignore two thousand years worth of science to keep their interpretation of the Bible such that they cannot question their faith or realize it on their own.
Can you imagine the ridicule these kids will have to go through once they encounter the real world and people tell them their beliefs are false? What will that do to the kid's faith at that point? What will that do to these kid's views of adults? What will this do with these kids belief in all other things they have been taught? Do these adults who have apparently lost track of reality really think they can isolate their kids from the rest of the world? They must, but here's the abuse part: they don't care. They are purposefully teaching their children things they know are false, but because of THEIR beliefs, have convinced themselves is false despite two thousand years of learning, discovery and science.
I know a lot of grown-up kids from evangelical families who have had kids out of wedlock, turned out to be gay, and drug and alcohol abusers simply because they learned their parents were lying to the or indoctrinating them and they rebelled against it.
This is madness. This is fraud and abuse. Society needs put a stop to the spread of ignorance. It is as real a threat to our society as anything else threatening our country.
Friday, February 17, 2006
Goldwater Hypocrisy
I am convinced the Goldwater Institute thinks we’re stupid. Why else would they complain about the Governor’s reasonable tax proposals that do exactly what tax policy is supposed to do: encourage development and behavior change? How disingenuous it is for them to complain about any tax cut program when they have championed tax cuts for people and corporations who don’t need them as recently as, oh, last week?
How are we to square Goldwater’s argument for their tax cuts that give a family with an annual income of $50,000 nothing while those make a few hundred thousand dollars get $20,000 or more with their opposition of the Governor’s proposal? Goldwater expects parents to reject a program where they can buy books, computers and school supplies for their own kids tax free while, under Goldwater’s proposals, corporations would pay little or no taxes at all while taking advantage of our schools, police and fire protection and roads.
The Goldwater Institute’s levels of chutzpah and hypocrisy continue to astound. Noah Clarke argues in a 16 February East Valley Tribune/Tucson Citizen OpEd ("Tax relief misses the target") “Targeted tax cuts may be good politics, but they are poor policy.” If that’s true Goldwater Institute, then explain to us why your proposals are “good policy?”
How are we to square Goldwater’s argument for their tax cuts that give a family with an annual income of $50,000 nothing while those make a few hundred thousand dollars get $20,000 or more with their opposition of the Governor’s proposal? Goldwater expects parents to reject a program where they can buy books, computers and school supplies for their own kids tax free while, under Goldwater’s proposals, corporations would pay little or no taxes at all while taking advantage of our schools, police and fire protection and roads.
The Goldwater Institute’s levels of chutzpah and hypocrisy continue to astound. Noah Clarke argues in a 16 February East Valley Tribune/Tucson Citizen OpEd ("Tax relief misses the target") “Targeted tax cuts may be good politics, but they are poor policy.” If that’s true Goldwater Institute, then explain to us why your proposals are “good policy?”
Thursday, February 16, 2006
TABOR - Another Bad Idea
What do you do when the Republican legislature spends its time and resources on promoting dumb things like tax credits for private school donations? What do you do when Arizona, for the first year in several, has a budget surplus? What do you do in a state with a growing population where new schools, roads and police and fire protection services are needed? What do you do when you really don’t have a spending problem in the first place?
Why, you propose an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to limit spending!
That's what those who control the legislature and the Goldwater Institute want to do and they're selling us the false idea that Arizona needs a Taxpayer’s Bill Of Rights (TABOR). Goldwater has a policy paper on it and in it they make a questionable claim that Arizona’s 2005 deficit would have been smaller had a TABOR been in place. Their source? A press release. Wow. How convincing.
I have a better idea. Lets vote out office those politicians who don't have the willpower to control themselves. Let’s vote out politicians who create fake problems using false pretenses and want to amend the Constitution to solve them. That's a vote I'm more than willing to cast.
Why, you propose an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to limit spending!
That's what those who control the legislature and the Goldwater Institute want to do and they're selling us the false idea that Arizona needs a Taxpayer’s Bill Of Rights (TABOR). Goldwater has a policy paper on it and in it they make a questionable claim that Arizona’s 2005 deficit would have been smaller had a TABOR been in place. Their source? A press release. Wow. How convincing.
I have a better idea. Lets vote out office those politicians who don't have the willpower to control themselves. Let’s vote out politicians who create fake problems using false pretenses and want to amend the Constitution to solve them. That's a vote I'm more than willing to cast.
Pathological
In a speech on February 9th, President Bush informed the world that the U.S. has thwarted an attack on the U.S. Bank building in Los Angeles. Proof it was, said the President, that Homeland Security is hard at work. One problem, though...it isn't true.
Again.
According to the Washington Post, people directly involved in the effort, said this:
I don't know about you, but I've had just about enough of this. I've said before that this is a pattern for people with a past of addiction. They get caught in a lie (or a fib) and cannot bring themselves to accept they've done it, take responsibility and not do it again. But this gang just can't fess up.
The list seems endless. Books have been written on it. Web sites are devoted to them. The truly sad thing is there are people who are so caught up in the cult of Bush personality they cannot accept they're being purposely mislead.
I can't tell which is scarier: a government who can't tell us the truth or a voting public who blindly follows leaders. Unfortunately, neither is good.
Again.
According to the Washington Post, people directly involved in the effort, said this:
But a foreign official with detailed knowledge of the intelligence scoffed at Bush's account, saying that the information obtained from Khalid Sheik Mohammed and an Indonesian operative known as Hambali was not an operational plan so much as an aspiration to destroy the tallest building on the West Coast. When I asked a former high-level U.S. intelligence official about Bush's comment, he agreed that Bush had overstated the intelligence.
I don't know about you, but I've had just about enough of this. I've said before that this is a pattern for people with a past of addiction. They get caught in a lie (or a fib) and cannot bring themselves to accept they've done it, take responsibility and not do it again. But this gang just can't fess up.
The list seems endless. Books have been written on it. Web sites are devoted to them. The truly sad thing is there are people who are so caught up in the cult of Bush personality they cannot accept they're being purposely mislead.
I can't tell which is scarier: a government who can't tell us the truth or a voting public who blindly follows leaders. Unfortunately, neither is good.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Duck and Cover (your ass)
Let's all hope that Harry Whittington recovers quickly, but the extent conservatives are going to cover Dick Cheney's ass with is astounding.
John Dickerson, on Slate, says he received emails from Cheney supporters "arguing that it was no big deal because Whittington might already have had a heart condition."
Conservative "blogger" Michelle Malkin said "The Dems will exploit this accident to smear Cheney as incapable of being trusted, weak of mind, etc. The resignation rumors will fly again. And the biography of a man who has served this country so well and so honorably for so many years will be overshadowed by a single, ill-fated hunting mishap." The overhyped Ms. Malkin takes great pains to say Whittington is "doing fine." As an aside, Ms. Malkin obviously has no sense of humor as she whines about the Washington Post's Dana Milbank appearing on MSN's Countdown with Keith Olberman wearing bright orange hunting hat and safety vest.
Someone named "Dan" who is a "Gay Patriot" says "it is only a minor misdeed."
Want to see the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department report? The Smoking Gun has it.
What the Cheney apologists forget is that it is the shooter who is responsible for knowing what is around them. It is the person who pulls the trigger to know whether it is safe to fire the weapon. Even the people who work with Whittington are very skeptical about Cheney's story, as reported by Paul Burka.
What they forget is this now gives thousands of people an excuse to "accidentally" shoot people on hunting trips and claim the "Cheney Defense" that "it was their fault they got shot."
But let's not forget that the press didn't talk about the photo of President Bush with Jack Abramoff over the weekend. The press didn't talk about the video of the British troops beating up Iraqis. So from the Republican standpoint, it probably all worked out for them in that distractions are what they're so good at using to keep the focus off other things. It's their "three-card Monty" of political strategies.
John Dickerson, on Slate, says he received emails from Cheney supporters "arguing that it was no big deal because Whittington might already have had a heart condition."
Conservative "blogger" Michelle Malkin said "The Dems will exploit this accident to smear Cheney as incapable of being trusted, weak of mind, etc. The resignation rumors will fly again. And the biography of a man who has served this country so well and so honorably for so many years will be overshadowed by a single, ill-fated hunting mishap." The overhyped Ms. Malkin takes great pains to say Whittington is "doing fine." As an aside, Ms. Malkin obviously has no sense of humor as she whines about the Washington Post's Dana Milbank appearing on MSN's Countdown with Keith Olberman wearing bright orange hunting hat and safety vest.
Someone named "Dan" who is a "Gay Patriot" says "it is only a minor misdeed."
Want to see the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department report? The Smoking Gun has it.
What the Cheney apologists forget is that it is the shooter who is responsible for knowing what is around them. It is the person who pulls the trigger to know whether it is safe to fire the weapon. Even the people who work with Whittington are very skeptical about Cheney's story, as reported by Paul Burka.
What they forget is this now gives thousands of people an excuse to "accidentally" shoot people on hunting trips and claim the "Cheney Defense" that "it was their fault they got shot."
But let's not forget that the press didn't talk about the photo of President Bush with Jack Abramoff over the weekend. The press didn't talk about the video of the British troops beating up Iraqis. So from the Republican standpoint, it probably all worked out for them in that distractions are what they're so good at using to keep the focus off other things. It's their "three-card Monty" of political strategies.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
The Gang that Can't Shoot Straight
Jon Stewart, of Comedy Central's "Daily Show" looked up to the heavens and said "Thank you, Jesus."
Jon Stewart is Jewish so you know it has to be good.
What followed was 30 minutes of this statement: "The Vice President of the United States shot a 78-year-old man in the face."
David Letterman's "Top Ten List" says Cheney's "Heart palpitation caused trigger finger to spasm."
Arizona Republic Cartoonist Steve Benson's cartoon points out that Cheney isn't licensed to hunt in Texas.
Tom Toles, cartoonist for the Washington Post drew Dick Cheney in front of the head and hands of a hunter mounted on his wall.
Cheney spokesperson Mary Matlin said Cheney "..didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do."
Wait, didn't he just shoot somebody?
ABC News reports that the vice president's "Secret Service contingent had notified the local sheriff an hour after the vice president accidentally shot prominent Texas lawyer Harry Whittington with a pellet gun while hunting for quail."
Now THERE'S spin: a shotgun is really a "pellet gun."
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan is "peppered" by the White House press corps and does an amazingly good imitation of Porky Pig trying to explain away why the world was left uninformed that the Vice President of the United States shot a 78-year-old man in the face with a shotgun.
Isn't it interesting the spin in the use of the word "peppered" instead of "shot?" I've never heard a hunter describe going hunting and killing game by "peppering" them with a shotgun. "Well Earl, I sure peppered that deer, didn't I?"
This morning, the White House is blaming the guy who got shot. Hmm, I guess he forgot to duck.
I wonder if this is what you call "friendly fire?"
Texas law says any doctor that treats a gunshot wound must immediately report it to law enforcement. So how come Cheney wanted to wait for the landowner to report the incident?
This is another example of a group of people that no matter how bad things get at their own hand, they cannot accept any responsibility. They are incapable of admitting any mistake. These people are simply incorrigible.
Jon Stewart is Jewish so you know it has to be good.
What followed was 30 minutes of this statement: "The Vice President of the United States shot a 78-year-old man in the face."
David Letterman's "Top Ten List" says Cheney's "Heart palpitation caused trigger finger to spasm."
Arizona Republic Cartoonist Steve Benson's cartoon points out that Cheney isn't licensed to hunt in Texas.
Tom Toles, cartoonist for the Washington Post drew Dick Cheney in front of the head and hands of a hunter mounted on his wall.
Cheney spokesperson Mary Matlin said Cheney "..didn't do anything he wasn't supposed to do."
Wait, didn't he just shoot somebody?
ABC News reports that the vice president's "Secret Service contingent had notified the local sheriff an hour after the vice president accidentally shot prominent Texas lawyer Harry Whittington with a pellet gun while hunting for quail."
Now THERE'S spin: a shotgun is really a "pellet gun."
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan is "peppered" by the White House press corps and does an amazingly good imitation of Porky Pig trying to explain away why the world was left uninformed that the Vice President of the United States shot a 78-year-old man in the face with a shotgun.
Isn't it interesting the spin in the use of the word "peppered" instead of "shot?" I've never heard a hunter describe going hunting and killing game by "peppering" them with a shotgun. "Well Earl, I sure peppered that deer, didn't I?"
This morning, the White House is blaming the guy who got shot. Hmm, I guess he forgot to duck.
I wonder if this is what you call "friendly fire?"
Texas law says any doctor that treats a gunshot wound must immediately report it to law enforcement. So how come Cheney wanted to wait for the landowner to report the incident?
This is another example of a group of people that no matter how bad things get at their own hand, they cannot accept any responsibility. They are incapable of admitting any mistake. These people are simply incorrigible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)