In one of his comments threads, our favorite specter, the Dark Wraith, noted the seeming impossibility of deterring the neocons from their current path of tyranny and destruction (which I’m not going to blockquote, since it’s longish, but please note it was authored by the Wraith):
The Rove & Co. strategy is winner-take-all, scorch-the-Earth, and leave the remains for the buzzards. Look at the descriptions of the behavior of men like Bolton, who has been described by multiple, first-hand witnesses as literally violent when things don't go his way. That's not leadership; and it's not really madness, either. It is, instead, a style of control that has no use for consensus, pooling of knowledge, and reason among the reasonable.
I speak as one of the most independent and least team-oriented folks around, and this is not some shade of strong, independent-minded vision. What these neo-cons do is world-class tyranny. Although every fiber of my being wants to say that the solution lies in a good round of old-fashioned ass-beating for these kinds, that would do no good. No matter how hard they are knocked back, they'll keep coming at you.
They are, in that regard, relentless; and finding a strategy that is successful against them is really, really difficult. Just about everyone reading this comment knows just how hard it is to permanently ignore a relentless, whiney person. Sooner or later, that person gets his or her way, if for no other reason than that people just want peace, and they'll eventually do just about anything to shut the whiner up.
We've all seen it; and many of us—whether or not we want to admit it—have accommodated the pestilent little people who hound us to death.
Rove, Bolton, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Libby, and scores more of their ilk are of this breed, except that they can turn vicious on those rare occasions when things don't go their way. The damage they do in that regard is not worth it for most people. I am not certain that there are many who would be willing to risk the damage the neo-cons could cause if they were to be refused for very long.
In that regard, I cannot be too harsh on the Democrats who seem to appease them. Neither can I be too harsh on the moderate Republicans who, despite their much better judgments to the contrary, are going along with this awful, spiraling descent into tyranny.
How do you stop men like Rove, Frist, Bolton, and the others? Perhaps shine a bright light on them? Ask Joseph Wilson or Sibel Edmunds about that plan.
Be just as nasty and mean to people around you as they are? Ask Howard Dean about that plan.
Be optimistic, hopeful, and darned-near visionary in the good way you see America, its people, and its future? Ask John Edwards about that plan.
The rhetorical attack above certainly doesn't mean they cannot be stopped. What it means is that we need to go beyond seeing them for what they are. And we need to see them not as ignorant beasts, even if that really is their nature.
One solution is rather obvious... Unfortunately, it is a self-administering solution, the one used by any organism when an aggressive, destructive, and unrelenting cancer has metastasized within it.
May God help us if we can't think of something before the organic being called the United States solves the problem that way.
The Dark Wraith reaches deep for an alternative.
-----------------
Sadly, my best notion is this blog, into which I pour my heart and soul and hope it makes a difference even as fear it never will. I described the concurrence of these notions to Mr. Shakes recently as feeling like a hobbit tasked with saving Middle Earth, but I haven’t even got the ring.
So, ye wise and astute Shakers…got any ideas?
Question of the Day: Averting Doomsday Edition
Interesting
Ariana Huffington is starting a blog. Kind of a "celebrity voices" thing, but still. I'm excited to read it, once it launches.
(Registration required, but you can always skip it with Bug Me Not.)
The Value of Choice
Abortion itself is a difficult subject. Parental notification for minors seeking abortions can add another layer of difficulty, even for the most strident pro-choice advocates. In a perfect world, teens wrestling with an unwanted pregnancy would be able to discuss the situation with their parents, who would have their child’s best interests (whatever decision that means) at heart. But, of course, we don’t live in a perfect world, and so we need to deal with the messiness that accompanies imperfection.
Unfortunately, the new legislation which is to be taken up today in the House of Representatives, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would impose new restrictions on minors’ access to abortion including requiring doctors to notify a minor’s parent before performing and abortion and making it a federal offense to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion to circumvent parental notification laws, doesn’t do very well in taking reality into consideration. Parental notification could be avoided in some cases with a judicial waiver. (As a side note: the legislation is likely to pass both the House and the Senate.)
"[T]his is tough legislation to argue against on its face," says Helena Silverstein, a political scientist at Lafayette College in Easton, Pa., and author of a forthcoming book on judicial bypasses. "The appeal of parental-involvement mandates is so strong, and this legislation appears to bolster that."Judges who are unwilling to grant waivers, or in some cases get involved at all, and minors who are having abortions later than they might otherwise as a direct result of parental notification—that’s the messiness of imperfection.
What troubles Ms. Silverstein about the legislation is that it rests on the presumption that the judicial-bypass process works.
"The world is not anywhere close to ideal," she says. "There are instances where minors try to secure the right to a judicial bypass and fail. Some judges are not willing to grant a bypass, some refuse to preside. Sometimes court personnel are not aware there's a process and will turn a young woman away."
In all, 32 states require some form of parental involvement in a minor's abortion, with most defining "minor" as someone under age 18. (In a few states, 17 is the age.) Abortion-clinic operators have noted that since the advent of parental-involvement laws in the late 1980s, minors are often having abortions later in pregnancy than they used to, though statistics are difficult to come by. For some teens, the delays have pushed them beyond 14 weeks of pregnancy, the point at which some states require a hospital abortion and other restrictions.
Lawmaking on this issue should wait until legislation can be proposed which effectively (and compassionately) addresses the abovementioned realities, but it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. Instead, this legislation will create further pain, anxiety, and hardship for minors already in a dreadful situation—girls who are elsewhere concurrently being defined as woman when it’s convenient, though being treated as children without rights over their own bodies for this legislation. The inconsistency is illustrative of the unifying theme of all the abortion-related legislation currently being undertaken in Congress: controlling pregnant bodies.
That reality is not always easy, or tidy, should inform a desire in our legislators to be more sensitive, but instead, they are becoming less so, to our collective detriment. When women are allowed to make their own choices, they choose wisely.
To wit, I recently read an incredibly interesting book called Freakonomics, in which an economist by the name of Steven Levitt examines an array of unconnected topics, often unearthing hidden correlations and causations using economic principles. When he set to figuring out why crime rates had fallen so dramatically in the 1990s, even though the horrific crime wave of the ’80s was almost unanimously predicted by criminologists to worsen, he discovered that
crime began falling nationwide just 18 years after the Supreme Court effectively legalized abortion. He was struck harder by the fact that in five states crime began falling three years earlier than it did everywhere else. These were exactly the five states that had legalized abortion three years before Roe v. Wade.(Please note, the book goes into far greater detail in support of this conclusion than do I or does the review from which I quoted. In fact, it was my dubiousness at the claim in that very review that caused me to buy the book. That I now excerpt it should assure you of my belief in Levitt’s exploration after reading it in its entirety.)
[…]
The bottom line? Legalized abortion was the single biggest factor in bringing the crime wave of the 1980s to a screeching halt.
Criminals aren’t born, but created by circumstance—lack of opportunity, lack of resources, lack of stability, and a myriad of other issues. Children born into poverty, to young, single mothers, are at greater risk to become criminals than their cohorts. So, at the heart of Levitt’s revelation of the connection between legalized abortion and decreasing crime is this: women who choose abortion make the right decision. They assess, perhaps, their ability to provide, the father’s ability to provide, the child’s chance for a good life, and they make their decision accordingly. It turns out, as Levitt has discerned, those decisions may well benefit us all.
Just another reason, messy and uncomfortable as it may be, that leaving such decisions to women, even (and perhaps especially) young women, is in our collective best interest. And, most importantly, theirs.
Unbelievable
Ballooning deficits…the war in Iraq…unsecure borders…the ever-weakening separation between church and state…rampant ethics violations by congresscritters…the attack on civil rights…struggling social programs…Social Security…the healthcare crisis…unemployment…environmental concerns…dependency on foreign oil…
The list goes on and on.
And on what is Congress choosing to focus?
Steroid use in the NFL.
If McCain, Davis and the Government Reform Committee's ranking Democrat -- Henry Waxman of California -- do produce a bill, it wouldn't be the first on the topic. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., introduced the Drug Free Sports Act on Tuesday, and his House Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection subcommittee scheduled a May 5 hearing.Get with the program, you plonkers. We’ve got bigger fish to fry at the moment.
''There is every reason to believe that most major sports have athletes using illegal steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs,'' Stearns said.
Hey Gays - Wake Up!
Activist Wayne Besen has a few sobering thoughts we ought to ponder.
According to him, "If you are gay, now is time to waltz into your walk-in closet and make a choice. You can dust off your boxing gloves and prepare to fight for your rights or, you can stay silent and redecorate your closet because this is the lonely, miserable space you may inhabit in the near future. I've been fighting for equality since 1988, and this is the first time I believe we are going backwards and actually losing the battle."
Whether you are in the doom and gloom camp of people like Besen and Larry Kramer, it's important to look at the facts surrounding us right now. And they ain't pretty.
Question of the Day (Fun)
Because we all need a little fun...
This morning on the way to work, I was listening to the guys at WGN making fun of the names of the bands performing at Lollapalooza this year. (I happen to think Death Cab for Cutie is a great name--and a kickass band--but what the hell do I know?)
So here's the fun question of the day: when you become the lead singer (or guitarist, or keyboardist, or drummer, or whatever your fancy) of the greatest band that's ever lived, what will its name be?
Not a Laughing Matter, Never Was
The search for WMDs in Iraq is over…um, again.
Am I the only person who thinks of this every time yet another report is released with the exact same conclusion?
While millions of people marked the first anniversary of the invasion of Iraq this week by protesting against war on Saturday, President Bush marked the event in a different way: joking about how no weapons of mass destruction were found.Fucking hilarious, eh? Now that half of Americans polled think the president lied about WMDs, as Paul pointed out below, I think it would be a good idea for some savvy techie to stream the video from that Correspondents’ Dinner (it exists; I remember seeing it...and throwing my shoe at the TV), so we can turn it into the most popular yet stomach-turning viral video since the hot naked guy who fills transparent rubber pants with a dose of the shits.
At a black-tie dinner for Radio and Television Correspondents' Association on Wednesday, Bush poked fun at himself and his administration for among other things not finding weapons in Iraq.
At one point Bush showed a photo of himself looking for something out a window in the Oval Office. He said: "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere."
After a few more slides, there was a shot of Bush looking under furniture in the Oval Office. Bush said "Nope. No weapons over there." Then another picture of Bush searching in his office. He said "Maybe under here."
According to the Nation's David Corn many of the journalists at the dinner laughed throughout the skit.
But the Daily News is reporting that the families of soldiers killed in Iraq are not laughing.
George Medina who lost his son in Iraq said, "This is disgraceful. He doesn't think of all the families that are suffering. It's unbelievable, how this guy runs the country."
Medina's son, Special Irving Medina died at the age of 22 in Baghdad on November 14.
(Don’t act you like never saw it. Everyone saw that stinkin’ video!)
Buyer's Remorse
NEW YORK Half of all Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Organization reported this morning.
"This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003," the pollsters observed. "At that time, 31% said the administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004."
Also, according to the latest poll, more than half of Americans, 54%, disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 43% approve. In early February, Americans were more evenly divided on the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, with 50% approving and 48% disapproving.
Last week Gallup reported that 53% now believe that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was "not worth it." But Frank Newport, editor in chief at Gallup, recalled today that although a majority of the public began to think the Vietnam war was a mistake in the summer of 1968, the United States did not pull out of Vietnam for more than five years, after thousands of more American lives were lost.
Apparently, some people just have a very difficult time grasping the obvious.
Too bad they couldn't have figured this out, oh, before election day.
Remember those cool java "countdown to a Bush-free white house" clocks? I wonder how difficult it would be to create one that keeps track of how low Bush's approval rate is dropping.
Especially when news like this keeps cropping up.
UPDATE: The Green Knight has more.
(Tip 'o the Energy Dome to Oliver.)
The Countdown Continues
Rove has rejected the Dems’ deal:
Karl Rove rejected a compromise with Senate Democrats Monday on long-stalled nominations for the federal judiciary…Always a nice reminder that a diabolical political strategist, who can’t be contained by term limits, is running the country.
In an hour-long interview with USA TODAY and Gannett News Service reporters and editors, Rove, deputy White House chief of staff, dismissed suggestions from Democrats that they might drop threats to use filibusters to prevent votes on Bush's judicial nominees if the president would withdraw a few of the most controversial names.
As an added bonus, here’s an oldie but a goodie from Trent Lott on the nuclear option:
“I'm for the nuclear option, absolutely," Lott has said. "The filibuster of federal district and circuit judges cannot stand. ... It's bad for the institution. It's wrong. It's not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I'm perfectly prepared to blow the place up. No problem."Charming.
You may also have heard that since the phrase “nuclear option” isn’t polling well (shocking, that), the GOP is now referring to it as the “Constitutional option.” In a lovely fit of snark, Harry Reid said yesterday:
They’re great with names… On Social Security, they’ve been trying to call private accounts “personal accounts.” They can talk about the constitutional option all they want. It’s privatization, and it’s the nuclear option. They created those terms, and they’re going to wear them around their necks from now till Doomsday.Heh.
“The Disappearing Wall”
From a NY Times editorial on the ever-weakening separation between church and state in America:
Apart from confirming an unwholesome disrespect for traditional American values like checks and balances, the assault on judges is part of a wide-ranging and successful Republican campaign to breach the wall between church and state to advance a particular brand of religion. No theoretical exercise, the program is having a corrosive effect on policymaking and the lives of Americans.Read the rest. It’s good.
Hooray for the Bankruptcy Bill. Here come the credit card companies!
RULE #1. Never wake up thinking "What am I going to write in my blog today?"
So I received a letter from a collection agency yesterday. Apparently, I owe $191.42 that is "delinquent," and they wanted to be paid (although, interestingly enough, they're willing to let me just pay $155). Now, the husband and I are buying a condo, and we've both been working very hard to fix our credit reports and get everything nice and sunny bright. I just paid off a credit card and my computer loan payment last month. So needless to say, I was concerned. I called the agency.
I supposedly owed the money to Gap, Inc. "The Gap?" I thought, "I don't shop at the Gap!"
Well, here's how these wonderful things work.
I had a Banana Republic credit card; like Old Navy, they're owned by the Gap. Thirteen months ago, I made my last payment, called the BR credit card company (they still didn't have online payment, address change, or anything internet-related at that time... welcome to the year 2004!), and closed the account.
Well, apparently one of their employees didn't cross a "t" or dot an "i," because it looks like that payment was never registered.
And over the last 13 months, I've accumulated $165 in late fees. My account has been "delinquent" for just over a year.
I never got a phone call. I never received a letter.
Of course, the collection agency can't help you with that. You have to call the credit card company. *BIG SIGH* (I will say that, for the record, the woman I spoke to at the collection agency [I was given a REAL NAME and a DIRECT LINE for her in the letter. amazing] was very nice and helpful. I wish I could say the same for BR.) So, I call BR.
Well, they still have my New York address in their files. I haven't lived there since 2003.
The phone number they had for me was my parent's number. I haven't had that number since I left for COLLEGE.
In fact, BR didn't have my account listed in their computers anymore. I had to call their "financial agency." *BIGGER SIGH* "Can I get your name?" "Dolores." "Last name and direct line?" "We can't give that out, but anyone here can help you."
Yeah, I'm sure they can.
Now we call the financial agency. Okay, they see that I owed $30, and that I have $165 in fees and late charges. But we can't fix this over the phone, oh no. I can't SPEAK to anyone. I have to WRITE A LETTER and dispute this. "Is there anyone I can speak to about this?" "No." "Can I get your name?" "Miss Smith." "First name? Employee number?" "I'm the only Miss Smith here, sir."
Suuuuure you are.
Jesus Fucking Christ. So I call the collection agency back, speak to the very nice lady, and tell her what's going on. I have to send them a copy of the letter so they have proof that I'm doing something about this, and not just ignoring them.
I am trying to BUY A HOME. I've been frantically trying to make my credit perfect for years now, and although I didn't know it, this charge has been fucking me up every step of the way. And since it shows on my credit report that I've been "delinquent," anyone else that I'm in debt to can raise my interest rates sky high.
For thirty dollars.
Folks, get your ducks in a line. Now that these companies have nothing holding them back, they can go completely crazy. If you have any hopes of home ownership in the future, don't let them do anything like this to you. No matter how small the amount, they *will* find it, and they *will* come after you. Of course, they might not have any of your correct information... apparently, no one ever thought to get on fucking google and check my current address. My mail must have been bouncing back to them... wouldn't they CHECK? Oh no, they'll just send you to a collection agency, fuck your credit, and let them do the work.
Don't let them do these things to you. If you have credit cards, pay them off and get rid of them.
And never shop at Banana Republic, The Gap, or Old Navy.
Jesus, I have a major headache now.
(Cross posted from my blog)
Let’s Make a Deal
Senate Minority Leader Monty Hall Harry Reid is meeting with Bill Frist to try to hammer out a compromise over Bush’s judicial nominees, thereby avoiding the nuclear option:
Reid is quietly talking to the Senate's chief Republican about confirming at least two of President Bush's blocked judicial nominees but only as part of a compromise that would require the GOP to end its threat to eliminate judicial filibusters, officials say.Pardon me, but after confirming 95% of Bush’s nominees, why should the Democrats even be considering a compromise with an abusive group of bullies who are creating this entire debacle out of a ridiculous notion that they somehow deserve 100% complicity on anything and everything they want? I’m extremely disappointed with the suggestion that the Dems would even entertain the notion of compromise at this point; such capitulation will not be remembered as a gallant move to the moral high ground as potential disaster was thwarted, but instead will likely not be remembered at all by the people who count—the American voters—even as the GOP will continue to push around their impotent opposition, emboldened with the knowledge that lunatic and shrill threats get them what they want.
Reid also wants a concession from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, officials said speaking on condition of anonymity: the replacement of a third Michigan nominee with one approved by that state's two Democratic senators.
[…]
Senators would not confirm details Monday, but Reid said that he has had had numerous conversations with senators in both parties in hopes of avoiding a showdown. "As part of any resolution, the nuclear option must be off the table," Reid said in a statement referring to the GOP threat to change filibuster rules.
I wouldn’t even be surprised if, in the end, the conventional wisdom ends up being that it was the GOP’s decision to not invoke the nuclear option which really won the day. The GOP will walk out of this as gracious heroes, and the Dems will carry the blame for forcing it to the brink in the first place.
Ezra also notes:
So why compromise? … Neither the principled Republicans nor the opportunists are going to feel safe on the nuclear option bandwagon. So let him go ahead and try to force the issue. Let's say, hypothetically, he got the votes. Is this a fight he can win? The Senate comes to a screeching halt, the talk shows focus on the protection/dissolution of minority rights, and folks don't understand why Republicans have broken with years of tradition over 10 nutball judges. Public opinion, already against the GOP solidifies, and Senate Republicans begin to defect, handing the right a HUGE loss and effectively ending Frist's presidential aspirations.I think it’s worth the risk, too. It’s really too bad the Dems don’t feel the same way. It's not just that they don't know how to play hardball...they don't even know how to get in the game.
Now, it's certainly true that the outcome isn't as preordained as all that, nothing's ever immutable in politics. But it seems that Reid and Co. could gamble, with reasonable certainty, on killing the nuclear option. And serving Republicans with a defeat on that, right after Social Security and Schiavo, would really solidify perceptions -- and thus the media storyline -- of the right as disorganized and on a downward trajectory, while adding significantly to Democratic momentum. So while I recognize that there's more risk in pushing forward, it seems that the potential rewards are much greater. It codifies GOP overreach, it'll empower Republican moderates, and it'll solidify the power and unity of the Democratic caucus. And I think that's worth the risk.
Ralph Reed on Microsoft's Payroll
John Aravosis (aka Woodward and Bernstein) is reporting that Microsoft is currently paying a $20,000 a month retainer to former Christian Coalition head Ralph Reed's consulting firm Century Strategies.
Interestingly, Microsoft had Reed on retainer during the presidential election of 2000 to apparently help lobby then-candidate Bush on their anti-trust suit (he was actually first hired in the fall of 1998). The contract was terminated after Reed was criticized for a conflict of interest - Reed was working on Bush's campaign. The question arises when Microsoft and Reed revived their work relationship (most observers I've spoken to thought the contract ended five years ago), and what exactly Reed is working on now that the anti-trust issue is over.John lists some pretty piercing questions that Microsoft ought to be answering. (Check out his post, linked above.) I personally think it’s unconscionable that a company purporting to be socially progressive, and using its support of the LGBT community as a marketing platform, was concurrently paying $20k a month to the consulting firm of one of the most prominent faces of the dominionist movement, and has rehired him for unexplained reasons. Truly appalling.
Nomination Abomination
John Howard tells it like it is:
Outlook for Bolton nomination grimSo funny. So true. So sad.
Well, I would hope so. It's about time that someone realized that George Bush's nominations for just about any position that opens up are done just to amuse himself and see if he can actually get people who are ridiculously unqualified confirmed to positions of power. He seems to carefully pick the person least qualified for a particular position from his loyal followers. Need a new Secretary of State? Here's someone who helped us to alienate all our allies while lying us into a war. Attorney General? How about one that considers laws quaint and is concerned with how the President can find ways around them. Ambassador to the UN? Oh look, here's a guy who thinks the UN is useless, he'd be a good choice.
The sad part of this Bolton story is that it took this long for people to wake up to this nonsense. How many incompetent people do we need in positions of power? It's nice that Bolton probably won't get the job, but most of Bush's appointees shouldn't have been confirmed. I think the whole Kerik fiasco should have made people look at these guys a little closer, but it seems like it had the opposite effect. Like someone told them that there would be one guy who didn't belong, and once they flushed him out, then everyone else would be fine. The other ridiculous thing is that if Bolton doesn't get confirmed, the next guy won't be much better, but even if he's a serial killer, no one will have the balls to vote against two nominations for the same office.
I wonder what BTK is up to these days. I remember reading that he was a good Christian.
Dems Speak
Via Harry Reid’s war room:
As a matter of comity, the Minority in the Senate traditionally defer to the Majority in the setting of the agenda. If Bill Frist pulls the nuclear trigger, Democrats will show deference no longer.
Invoking a little-known Senate procedure called Rule XIV, last week Democrats put nine bills on the Senate calendar that seek to help America fulfill its promise.
If Republican's break the rules Democrats will use the rule to bring to the Senate floor an agenda that meets the needs of average Americans, such as lowering gas prices, reducing the cost of health care and helping veterans.
“Across the country, people are worried about things that matter to their families the health of their loved ones, their child’s performance in schools, and those sky high gas prices,” said Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. “But what is the number one priority for Senate Republicans? Doing away with the last check on one-party rule in Washington to allow President Bush, Senator Frist and Tom Delay to stack the courts with radical judges. If Republicans proceed to pull the trigger on the nuclear option, Democrats will respond by employing existing Senate rules to push forward our agenda for America.”
Democrats have introduced bills that address America’s real challenges.
1. Women’s Health Care (S. 844). “The Prevention First Act of 2005” will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions by increasing funding for family planning and ending health insurance discrimination against women.
2. Veterans’ Benefits (S. 845). “The Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2005” will assist disabled veterans who, under current law, must choose to either receive their retirement pay or disability compensation.
3. Fiscal Responsibility (S. 851). Democrats will move to restore fiscal discipline to government spending and extend the pay-as-you-go requirement.
4. Relief at the Pump (S. 847). Democrats plan to halt the diversion of oil from the markets to the strategic petroleum reserve. By releasing oil from the reserve through a swap program, the plan will bring down prices at the pump.
5. Education (S. 848). Democrats have a bill that will: strengthen head start and child care programs, improve elementary and secondary education, provide a roadmap for first generation and low-income college students, provide college tuition relief for students and their families, address the need for math, science and special education teachers, and make college affordable for all students.
6. Jobs (S. 846). Democrats will work in support of legislation that guarantees overtime pay for workers and sets a fair minimum wage.
7. Energy Markets (S. 870). Democrats work to prevent Enron-style market manipulation of electricity.
8. Corporate Taxation (S. 872). Democrats make sure companies pay their fair share of taxes to the U.S. government instead of keeping profits overseas.
9. Standing with our troops (S. 11). Democrats believe that putting America’s security first means standing up for our troops and their families
“Abusing power is not what the American people sent us to Washington to do. We need to address real priorities instead -- fight for relief at the gas pump, stronger schools and lower health care costs for America’s families,” said Senator Reid.
Question of the Day (Semi-Rhetorical)
Can someone explain to me why on earth churches who hosted viewings of Justice Sunday should continue to receive tax exempt status?
Monday Blogwhorin’
Your chance to promote your blog, other blogs, and things of interest.
What’s going on?
Caution: Eyes may bug out of head
Okay, it's humorous, but it's still very creepy.
(via Tbogg who asks what I'm thinking, "I wonder how many people have ordered this because it accurately reflected their views?")
