Saturday, January 21, 2006

Sunday Editorial

Loaves For The Poor

In New Mexico there is a proposal to raise the minimum wage to 7.50. Of course this will raise all the normal questions and debate. It already has. We had an interesting debate about midweek on it. It brought up a number of others also.
I found it interesting that the caller seemed to be making the argument that raising the minimum wage was tantamount to welfare and that they really weren't "earning" it. He said they should "go work for it". In some respects I understand his argument. I think he felt that you should strive to "move up" in the world and not just accept whatever you could get. I understand and accept that. My question is move up from what!? To have any respectable chance to "move up" you are likely to need a car, a home with running water and food and some clothes. Not at 5.15 an hour.
I am fine with debating questionable points. Should we have a different minimum for under 18? ..With additional income comes additional tax revenues. Should we offset some of the cost to small business with some of this additional income? I am amenable to both of those possibilities. The idea that we leave the least among us as far down as possible does not fit in my "moral" compass. For someone to think that raising the minimum wage is tantamount to welfare means someone just hates the poor. Hates em when they aren't working, hates them when they are.

We also discussed the bill out of Maryland that effectively forced Wal-mart to use 8% of their profits to provide health care for their employees. This is where the man had obviously not thought past the doctrine. He of course uttered government interferce in private business and government control. Let's think through this. People here basically making 6-10 dollars an hour. They can't afford health insurance. They may be on medicade/medicare. That means tax payers are paying for their health insurance. They may have none at all. That means any big hospital bill will be borne by the other insurees with 5 dollar aspirin etc. Either that or Wal-mart provides for it's employees like other companies do. Do you want Wal-mart to pay for it or do you want to pay for it? I think Wal-mart has far better resources to do that than you or I.
Hell they could start clinics inside their stores and let the employees go for free with low priced medications etc. That would mean they would only need catastrophic coverage. Big savings. But no one wants to think like a progressive. They just want to spew doctrine.
I honestly think that burdening the business sector with the responsibility for health care is wrong. It costs way to much and inhibits the free enterprise system to a significant degree. The answer is universal health care. As socialist/commie as it may sound it still seems the most common sensical move to make. It would assure that everyone pays something. The additional tax just needs to be kept below your monthly premiums to have a positive effect on the economy. We have systems in many other countries to study before we come out with our own brand. That gives us a huge leg up. We can do this! Do we need to make it a federal program administered by the states? I'm up for creating whatever will work the best for Americans.

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Those Democrats Are SOOO Tacky!

The Conways

Unclaimed Territory

As it turns out, some of the most serious damage to Bill Clinton's Presidency came not from his high-profile political enemies but from a small secret clique of lawyers in their 30's who share a deep antipathy toward the President, according to nearly two dozen interviews and recently filed court documents.While cloaking their roles, the lawyers were deeply involved--to an extent not previously known--for nearly five years in the Paula Jones sexual misconduct lawsuit. They then helped push the case into the criminal arena and into the office of the independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr. . . .

George T. Conway 3d, a New York lawyer educated at Yale, shared Marcus's low view of President Clinton. When the Jones case led to Ms. Lewinsky, Marcus and Conway searched for a new lawyer for Mrs. Tripp. . . .Conway wanted his role kept hidden as well, because his New York law firm, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, included influential Democrats like Bernard W. Nussbaum, a former White House counsel. Conway's name does not appear on any billing records.And as Salon reported:

[Firm spokeswoman Liesl] Noll confirmed that Conway, a 34-year-old conservative activist, had recently informed the firm's stunned partners that he had worked for free and without their knowledge on the Jones case, writing the crucial Supreme Court brief that successfully argued Jones' suit should proceed despite the fact that Clinton was still in office.And, as set forth below, he was also the individual responsible for the dissemination to Matt Drudge of the story about the spots on Bill Clinton's penis. So that’s George Conway. Isn't it about time to hear some more lectures from him about the need for dignity in our political discourse and about the shame of lawyers who act unethically?

Kellyanne - who spent the 1990s along with her husband propagating the filthiest and most scurrilous gossip about the President – actually went on Fox and condemned protest songs against the war in Iraq by saying this:

" is never proper to be so critical of an administration or a President that you look like some anti-American zealot."

It looks like the Conways’ love of the political sewer is matched only by their love of irony.

According to a highly revealing (and highly revolting) expose in Salon, George’s involvement with the Paula Jones circle came as a result of his romantic interlude with Laura Ingraham (before he ended up marrying Ingraham-clone Kellyanne). It was Ingraham, according to the article, who "connected Conway with Matt Drudge during the summer of 1997." This all happened because Conway, who even back then earned well in excess of $1 million each year at Wachtell, Lipton, was:

Short, dark, slightly overweight, and painfully shy, he was also, at the age of thirty-three, unmarried and without a regular girlfriend at the time. He aspired to date tall blondes, preferably of the conservative persuasion.

And during this time, it wasn’t only his own private parts that Conway was obsessing over:

On October 8, 1997, Conway sent a long E-mail message via America Online to Matt Drudge. "Subject: Your Next Exclusive" is the caption on that message. "Remember me?" it begins. "I'm Laura's friend. We talked once about Kathleen Willey ... This is being given to you, of course, subject to your not disclosing the source." (Conway forwarded the same message to Ingraham the following day.)

The main topic of the October 8 message was not Willey but the "distinguishing characteristic," a matter nearly as sensitive as the Willey allegations. Like Coulter, Conway must have realized that with the leak of its details to Drudge, any further settlement negotiations could again be disrupted.

Davis certainly thought so. "Conway's leaking of this stuff certainly jeopardized a settlement," said Davis after examining the Drudge E-mail in 1999. "I had no concept, no idea that they did or would do such a thing [as to leak Willey's name]."

Somehow, in a way I can’t quite put my finger on, this photograph of the Conways tells one everything there is to know about them.

Examining filth-peddling relics of the 1990s like the Conways is not merely an exercise in masochistic nostalgia. As their new National Review blog demonstrates, lowly character smears are a quite current and integral weapon in the Republican arsenal. These gutter tactics and their vile purveyors haven’t gone anywhere. And it is beyond doubt that all of the Clinton smears which lowered our political discourse to the primordial level, along with many new ones, are being kept warming in the oven just in case Hillary gets anywhere near a Presidential election.

But the real reason to remember this despicable filth-peddling is because these same Republicans are being permitted by an amnesic and manipulated media to parade themselves around as the Paragons of Civility and Dignity. That Republicans can deliver dignity lectures to the media, which then dutifully reports them with a concerned face while repeatedly showing video of Sam Alito’s wife crying, is quite compelling evidence of just how wretchedly dishonest Republican moralizing is and, worse, how utterly dysfunctional our media has become.

Coffeeth Tableth

Thomas Jefferson once observed, the democratic ideal elevates popular government as in and of itself, not merely a cover for the wishes of the supposedly smarter and superior "elite".

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Bush Across America

And Survey USA Says......

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

Gore Stands Firm

I am becoming more happy I voted for this guy all the time. At the time it was an uninspired vote but oh for the days of leadership!!! Gores' response to Gonzales:

In response to White House comments that Gore exhibited "hypocrisy" in calling for a Special Prosecutor, saying that the Clinton administration had wiretapped some Americans, Gore will make this statement shortly. It was leaked to RAW STORY in advance:

Former Vice President Al Gore: "The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.
The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.

There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.

Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs - even though factually wrong - ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.

The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.
The country needs a full and independent investigation into the facts and legality of the present Administration's program."

I can't say that it is him but the man or woman who can stand up and provide the force of will to save our country and unite the concerned behind them will go down in history books a great president. I just hope there is one out there somewhere.

Sunday, January 15, 2006

Mandatory Smear

Brent Bozell and friends have decided to play smear merchants this time. Seems Murtha didn't deserve his metals.

Bailey said during the time Murtha was being investigated for his role in the Abscam FBI sting in 1980, Murtha made a confession on the House floor.... you admitted, back in our corner, that you didn't earn your purple hearts (sic) (you indicated you had small scratch on your cheek that wasn't even directly related to an APC [Armored Personnel Carrier] that ran over a small antipersonnel mine that was behind you). The other purple heart [sic] you even declined to explain," wrote Bailey in an open letter dated May 5, 2002.

You really have to read the whole thing to realize how full of holes and "familiar" this is.

Maybe it would be good to hear him in his own words.

Murtha or Kerry individually has more medals than the current entire administration combined. They went, they served, they risked their lives. More than the entire administration put together! Unless you include the Texas great american award. If that is an issue, I don't think this is one they want to bring up. Each individually make the blabbering idiots blabbering idiots.