Friday, January 31, 2003

Solution to Blogger archive problem

(possibly anyway)

If you are having problems with your archive, please consult the following directions below. I can't garuantee anything but there is a good chance this will work, it worked for me:

1)Log onto blogger

2)click onto your blog page

3)Your posting board should have a tool bar above the posting box/page/whatever-you-call-it (address should read http://www.blogger.com/blog.pyra?blogID=and a number unique to your blog)and most probably below your address box. It should have icons read "posts", "template", etc. One of those icons is labled "archives". Click the icon that says "archives"

4)In the grey area where the tool bar was there should be three lines of text separated by vertical lines - Click the one labeled "archive template".

5)You should have on your screen a large white box with text; This is your archive template, it separate from your weblog template. Manipulating this will do no harm to your blog (to my knowledge anyway. Just in case your problem is not what I think it is, when you perform this little surgical web procedure, (a) highlight and cut all of the existing code that's in this text box (on the archive template page) (b)paste it elsewhere, and (c)save it (preferably in notepad) at least temporarily. If I'm wrong and you delete it completely I won't know how to help you! Blowtorch Monkey Armada or Palmer Haas cannot be held liable for a meltdown or something else like that!

However if the code that's in there now says something about "java" and "error", dollars to donuts you have the same problem I had a month ago. I have my archive back so hopefully you will too.

6)First highlight, copy and the code below, and then paste it into the same text box on "archive template" - it should do the trick (it worked for me anyway).

Code for Blogger archive:



<Blogger>
document.write ("<a href='<$BlogArchiveLink$>' > <$BlogArchiveName$> </a><br>")
</Blogger>
if (location.href.indexOf("archive") != -1) {
document.write("< a href=\"./\"> current </a>")
}




It's all the code you'll need, you don't need to know what order it's in because that's everything (if it doesn't work let me know because it's conceivable I missed something small like a colon or something)

The archive template is different from the blogger template. Also for good measure republish your archives, (that control is accessable somewhere after you click the aforementioned archive icon in the blogger toolbar.) Then do a standard republish on the posting page. Cross fingers and pray.

Good luck, hope it works. And please drop a line here if it does or doesn't. Thanks.

Thursday, January 30, 2003

Does Vegas give odds on presidential promises?



If there is, let me know cause I'll head straight for Sin City and bet everything I have and the some that Bush's vision of hydrogen future is 100% bullshit. It'll never happen, just like his pre election pledge to lower carbon dioxide emmissions and the subsequent breaking of that promise.

Sometimes I really want to believe this President. I really want to have some faith in him. Then the FDA approved mind altering doctor prescribed drugs wear off and I remember he's not just an horribly unqualified incompetent fool, he's a bullshit artist too. He's made hundreds of promises, and has yet to make good on any of them. Most of all I'm confused by Bush even bothering to give the fuel cell issue an ounce of lip service.

First and foremost it is important to remember that the GOP had a field day back when Al Gore was running for President. Gore mentioned in his book Earth in the Balance, printed in 1992, that we should do away with the Internal Combustion Engine;

The moronic Jim Nicholson, then chairman of the Republican National Committee, used to stand at the fax machine all day, sending out messages that attacked Gore for wanting to do away with the internal "combustible" engine, which were duly repeated by all the right-wing hacks. They used Gore's farsighted ideas against him in places like Michigan and Tennessee, where lots of cars are built.
- taken from this entry on Joe Conason's Journal via Salon


When Gore suggested that we phase out the internal combustion engine conservatives pointed the finger and laughed. Now Bush sticks it in his State of the Union Address and not much of a peep from the idealouges on the right (there are exceptions). Is it because the conservatives pundits of the world;

(a)don't believe Bush either?

(b)are all in on the farce too?

(c)they're okay with it and always have been. They just bashed Gore because of thekneejerk reaction they have to anything of Clinton/Gore (or even Democratic) origin?

(d)they know this is a delaying tactic, so they wont have to pass any meaningful legislation raising fuel efficiency standards?

(e)they have honestly changed their minds now?

Some conservatives have tried to hold up this claim that the President is doing something positive for the environment in an attempt to woo those educated suburban soccer moms. The Wall Street Journal on the other hand has already weighed in, actually criticizing the President on this mention in the Stae of the Union about hydrogen technology and fuel cells.

Again with the free market bullshit. Every time the alternative energy issue comes up the whole right wing goes into automatic pilot and start blathering about FREE MARKETS. Here's an interesting question - When does the Oil industry finally get cut off and forced to start trying to make their profits without Governement handouts?

I might favor FREE MARKETS if they really existed, but they're more of a myth (see post down on Jan 25th). As long as other fuel sources have to compete against the federally subsidized Oil Industry, alternative fuels may never be able to compete. All I ask is for a level playing field, either cut off the oil industry or give alternative fuels at least as much funding as the oil indutry if not more. It's in our national interests, it affects our international policy, it affects our immigration poicy, it affects the environment, our military. Oil manages to alter just about everything in this country, and directs too much of our resources, our time, our efforts, etc.

Unfortunately no one in Washington tells the oil industry to "pick themselves up by their own bootstraps". Instead they hold their hands out and the FREE MARKET Republicans dole out billions of your tax dollars to support corporate welfare. It's even more repulsing considering how much mileage the right wing has gotten out of 9.11 and calling out lefties/liberals/Democrats for immigration policies and not being tough enough for whatever their reasoning is, and yet Bush Co. gets away with stuff like this.

See for yourself on this article VITAL STATISTICS: 15 Largest US Government Subsidies to the Oil Industry

Even the very conservative Cato Institute articles are confusing, just take a look at these older articles; here the lambaste the oil industry for getting corporate handouts -

However, the Bush budget proposal also increases some of the largest corporate welfare programs, such as federal aid to oil companies through the fossil energy research


and then turn around by trying to get you to cry a tear Barbar Walters style by writing this article

In "'Big Oil' at the Public Trough? An Examination of Petroleum Subsidies," Washington, D.C.-based energy economist Ronald J. Sutherland argues that contrary to the claims of oil industry critics, "the evidence indicates that, on balance, the oil industry is not a net beneficiary of government subsidies. The facts point in the opposite direction. The oil industry is more harmed than helped by government intervention in energy markets."


Money from the government makes it more difficult for the Oil companies to do business? Let's all cry a collective tear for Big Oil executives everywhere, shall we?

Here are lots more links I came across while doing research for this post;

Billions Spend in Oil Subsidies
Industry profits receive preferential tax treatment SAN FRANCISCO -- The oil industry is soaking up billions of dollars in tax breaks, government funding, and indirect subsidies that pay for oil related environmental damage

Grrenpeace says this - Subsidies to Oil are Billions of Dollars Per Year
The U.S. government provided net subsidies of between $5.2 and $11.9 billion to the oil sector during 1995, excluding the cost of defending Persian Gulf oil supplies. We estimate defense of oil supplies to be worth an additional $10.5 to $23.3 billion, demonstrating the magnitude of this specific subsidy element. Thus, our estimate for net federal subsidies to oil, including defense, is $15.7 to $35.2 billion for 1995. Because of the sensitivity of our totals to the defense subsidy, we present our results both with and without this item.

Daviesand.com - Perspectives/Forest_Products/Oil_Subsidies

Colorado.edu site

http://ecolu-info.unige.ch/archives/envcee99/0036.html

http://iwhome.com/ComicNews/rants/rant32.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/health_and_environment/page.cfm?pageID=817

http://www.globalwarming.org/econup/econ7-5.html

An interesting chart explaining the oil industry and subsidies entitled Endgame

An Ethanol site says this (albeit from the summer of 2000, may be outdates info and predictions.

Daily Howler posts about knocking Al Gore and his proposal to phase out the internal combustion engine;
Our current howler (episode I): Building a world-class muffler - Synopsis: Our favorite, Bill Press, sat mutely by while Bob Novak engaged in some car talk. Commentary by Robert Novak, Bill Press - Crossfire, CNN, 5/19/99

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h020900_1.shtml

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

Rich of Suburban Limbo is finally posting again!

Okay, you have embarrassed me enough to start blogging again. I even gave the damn thing a facelift last night. Spread the word, the Limbo of Love is on the air again. - Rich


Woo hoo... all that guilt my Grandmother laid out on me has taught me something - how to lay it out on others. He's got a funny ass post about MCDONNELL DOUGLAS's New WARRANTY CARD. Warning - you will laugh so don't drink milk while reading this one

Also a great entry by Sam Coppersmith(as always) - this one is about a provision in the Bush administration's economic stimulus plan that will subsidize SUV purchases for business, but not hybrid or alternative/flexible fuel vehicles. And those darn lib'ruls keep sayin that the President doesn't care about the environment... I can't imagine why? Not to mention that he's 'workin hhhoard fightin terrorism' - he hasn't had a vacation in what, three weeks now? And doing all this will help all those good nations 'that share our values' (they like money, they have oil) like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and all those other countries that stand with us against terrorism. God bless you Mr. President!

Monday, January 27, 2003

Here's a post by Kausfiles, a blog I often have problems with but it's still worth reading. It's about the new leadership position given to Rep Matsui by Minority Leader Pelosi, and a quinessential example of why the Democrats have yet figure out how to pull their heads out of their asses. All of the Dem's success has come generally from the GOP slip ups. Can't we get anybody competent to lead the Dems?

Matsui may be the man (along with former Speaker Tom Foley) most responsible for losing the House for the Democrats in the first place. How? Remember the situation back in 1994, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency. There were two major domestic issues: Health care reform and welfare reform. President Clinton had promised to do both, but had given Hillary's ambitious health plan priority. By the summer of 1994, it was clear the health initiative was in trouble. True, Clinton had belatedly unveiled a tough, radical welfare plan, but it wasn't moving through the Democratic Congress. Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich was running around the country denouncing the "liberal welfare state" for subsidizing a culture which featured "12-year-olds having babies, 15-year-olds killing each other."

It was pretty clear, in this situation, what a smart politician would do. A smart politician would move a welfare bill to satisfy the public demand for some action on at least one crucial campaign promise -- the one that meant the most to angry swing voters. But Rep. Matsui was having none of it. He made sure Clinton's welfare plan stayed bottled up in the House Ways & Means committee (on which he served). The Clinton "two-years-and-go-to-work" plan was too conservative, he explained to me at the time. It would have to pass with Republican votes, in a center-right coalition, which would mean the "Democratic constituency gets very unhappy."

[snip]

When smart liberals, sensing a potential voter revolt, approached Matsui privately in mid-1994 and suggested that it might be politically wise for the Democrats to pass some bill to reform the despised welfare system -- even if it was a bill far more liberal than Clinton's -- Matsui got righteously angry with them, too. The result: no welfare bill.

Truly monumental miscalculations are rare in Congressional politics, but Matsui's was one of them. Democrats went before disgruntled voters in November of 1994 with no health care reform and no welfare reform. They lost control of the House and they've never gotten it back.


This blackout may never end of the Democrat continue to screw up this bad on a regular basis.

Sunday, January 26, 2003

I've already posted this article one before, but I could not help but want to post it again since it's so relevant to my post righteous recent post.

Income Redistribution, GOP-Style - The House takes money from the poor and spends it on the rich. By Timothy Noah, August 6, 2002

[snip]

After six years of GOP control, the average Republican district in 2000 was getting $612 million more in federal money than the average Democratic district, the computer analysis found. In 1995, the last year Democrats controlled the budget process in the House, the average Democratic district got $35 million more.

[snip]

What the AP is describing, then, appears to represent not only a spending shift from Democratic congressional districts to Republican ones, but also, and more significant, a spending shift from low-income people to middle- and upper-income people. The GOP, it seems, is every bit as bent as the Democrats on redistributing income; the only difference is that while Democrats want to redistribute income downward, to the poor, Republicans want to redistribute it upward, to the rich. This impulse is particularly offensive when you consider that even before the Republicans recaptured the House, entitlement spending tended (improbable as it sounds) to favor the wealthy.Here is how Neil Howe and Phillip Longman put it in a 1992 article for the Atlantic Monthly (their source was the Congressional Budget Office):


[T]he most affluent Americans actually collect slightly more from the welfare state than do the poorest Americans. … [In 1991,] U.S. households with incomes over $100,000 received, on average, $5,690 worth of federal cash and in-kind benefits, while the corresponding figure for U.S. households with incomes under $10,000 was $5,560. Quite simply, if the federal government wanted to flatten the nation's income distribution, it would do better to mail all its checks to random addresses. The problem is not that poverty programs don't target the poor. More than 85 percent of the benefits from AFDC, SSI, and food stamps do indeed go to households with incomes under $20,000. But their impact is neutralized by all the other programs, which tilt the other way and are, of course, much greater in size.


Whenever I read this article I can't help but think of Bush in a blue dress and ruby red slippers, with the entire religious right, Dick Cheney, Gingrich and every noteable GOPer of the last ten years behind him. A Fairy that looks like Pat Robertson hoovers over Dubya, who is squeezing his eyes and clicking his heels, pleading with the American public on television to believe what he has to say by saying it over and over again....

"There is no class warfare, there is no class warfare, there is no class warfare...."

Here's an article that amounts to a short history lesson about the Argentinian invasion of the Falklan Islands by just recently passed from this world to the next General Leopoldo Galtieri, and the subsequent bitch slapping the General received from The UK (The Falkan Islands were British territory) I love stuff like this, we rarely hear about this stuff in history. Rarely are the details of another cultural and political landscape discussed in detail like this, especially when it has nothing to do with the US.

The author Mark Steyn of the Canadian National Post wrote this article and tied it into our current conflict in Iraq with Saddam all while backhanding Sheryl Crow in the process. I like Sheryl and all, and considering the pretentious snot nose music critic / college radio DJ I am I have never turned her off when one of her songs appear on the radio, and that's saying something! It's just that I'm a little tired of the whole "War is never the answer" rhetoric. War sucks, okay, but there are times when the options of not fighting are worse.

Before anyone goes apeshit, please don't misunderstand me. I don't think that war is the answer here and in many cases where we've used it in the past, and it may seem even a little inapproriate for me to argue for the possibility of war while simultaneously insulting our President on why he's wrong.

But if Middle America sees nothing but Pacifists saying "War is Never the Answer" on television then surely an awful lot of people are just going to get disgusted and dismiss the current anti-war position and movement. That's what worries me, people with relatives will fought in World War II or Korea and just think "stupid hippies, all of ya" and not listen to what they have to say at all. Instead the anti war crowd should be harping on the Bushies connections to selling WMD to Iraq and how this administration is completely unqualified to be calling for war against a nation that we essentially armed, the disingenuous arguments about concern for Democracy and the Kurds and blah blah blah, I'm just repeating myself.

Just read the article, alright? Make up your own mind, cause I can't verify any of this, I just liked it.

Saturday, January 25, 2003

It was a while ago that I get into a length debate on Sand in the Gears about a post Tony put up almost two weeks ago. It took me a long while cause I was short on time (I still am, but my own priorities are a bit fucked up as well right now), but I finally got some and here's what I posted. I've meaning to write something along these lines, of how FREE MARKETS aren't really all that free, but since I put all this time into this post, and it is sooooooo damn long I just thought I'd put the whole thing up. Can't wait for some commentary.

It took me a while but since this is still on the page and not in the archive here it is - although I doubt anyone is paying attention at this point now. I don't have the time to address everything but here goes nothing.....

Tony - As far as the political spectrum (or horseshoe) if fascist or racists are not at the other end of communism, then what is? I read this in a book recently, that showed the political spectrum with the commies on one side and fascists on the other (don't know the name of the book, I'll get it for you if you want it).

To be totally honest, despite my bleeding heart liberal tendencies and views and my contrarian viewpoint, my biggest fault with conservatives (and many of their viewpoints) are by and large is not, I repeat not, conservative idealogy. There are exceptions of course, but I digress, let's save it for another day. My biggest is problem is the execution and follow thru on those principles.

It may very well true Tony be that free markets are the answer to racism/fascism. Please note I don't really believe that, but I'll play along. My aggravation stems from all the things that go on in this country under the guise of "Free Markets".

Example - recently our beloved President was granted that whole fast-track-free-trade agreement thing in order to negotiate deals with other nations. One of the major Reps that was on the fence about it but eventually voted for it was a Republican from NC (his name escapes me).
I find it intriuging that when structuring these "FREE TRADE" deals, certain industries are given different treatment, leading me to believe it aint all that free. Some industries are more susceptable to the competition of FREE TRADE than others.

In one of these deals our new best friend Pakistan, the domestic textile industry got some protectionist trade policy when Bush negociated it. It should be noted that Pakistan is a big textile producer, probably their biggest export industry. I find it awfully convienent that a huge portion of the US porton of the textile industry is located in North Carolina, a state that also just so happens to have gone to Bush.

There are many more examples of this kinda stuff, and I guess this is to be expected in the heaping pile of bs that is politics, and I am aware that Dems pull this stuff off too. But my gripe is the dishonesty and hypocrisy; I think that when you look at a situation like this (and others like it), most of the ordinary people who vote GOP, the "regular folk" that Bush does so well with, don't necessarily want FREE MARKETS so much as they'd rather KEEP THEIR JOBS. And if those jobs come at the expense of other manufacturing jobs in states that voted against Bush, no GOP or conservative will spout some lecture on how FREE MARKETS need to be for everybody.

My problem is not the FREE MARKET argument, again it's just that it ain't really that free. I find it more than bothersome that this kinda thing is so rapant and that so many conservatives bash the lib'ruls on the free market issue but when it comes to having a "free market" that applies to everyone equally, the actual application or enforcement is pretty damn lax if not all together non existant. And funny thing is FREE MARKETS are generally not as free in GOP territory as it is in Democratic territory.

Free Markets is not, or wasn't until recently, part of the Democratic mantra, so I find it far less hypocritical. I think it's disingenuous, even an outright lie on the part of those GOPers & conservatives to keep talking about FREE MARKETS when the states that vote conservatively don't have to be exposed to open competition, but the states that vote Dem are told that they aren't up to the task to compete in a freer world marketplace.

One only need look at a recent news report on the growing number foreign owned manufacturers in the Auto Industry in Alabama, prime GOP country. In a Mercedes Benz factory, the employees in Alabama make about half as much as say their fellow auto workers assembling comparable cars, i.e. Cadillacs, in Michigan and elsewhere. There is no union in AL either, and we all know that those unions are such a pain in the ass for business always mucking things up. Nothing makes a GOPer happer than an opportunity to wag their finger saying that these auto manufacturers can't compete because of those darn unions!

You know, this might be true 'cept for one thing - Alabama gave Mercedes Benz a $250,000,000.00 tax break (that would be a quarter of a billion dollars) to move their new manufacturing facilities to the state! How's that for a free market!

I looked for the link but could not find it (hell maybe you can help me) I remeber about a year ago seeing a map in Time or Newsweek, that showed how much each state contributed in federal taxes and how much they got in return in spending per capita. States like Illinois, Michigan, New York and all those traditionally Democratic/Liberal/Union member states pay way more in Federal Taxes than what they get in return. Just to be fair, Texas contributes more than it gets back too. On the other hand it is the reverse for states like Alabama (and Arizona, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, among others--representing the political bedrock of the Republican Party). I guess this is to be expected considering a state like Arizona and Wyoming have huge national parks and small populations relative to the other aforementioned states, but the disparity is really out of hand, especially for a place like NC with the research triangle and all those other business that have moved down their into the Sun Belt.


Update - By the way, I searched the web high and low but couldn't find the map that was shown in either Time or Newsweek (I forget, please forgive me) but you can view the report put together by former Senator of New York Patrick Moynihan, or you can just find an old issue of The New Yorker, April 19, 1999, and look for the article entitled "Tea and Sympathy" by Malcom Gladwell. But do it later, this post gets better....


The case could be made that all those auto union laborers who make more because they are in the union and therefore pay more in federal taxes are in a way helping to foot the bill for Alabama to give subsides on the aforementioned jobs. This in turn hurts the union, themselves and could lead to job loss or put themselves out of business completely.

To bring this full circle I'm saying that I find this way of governance to be more Economic Darwinism rather an actual FREE MARKETS, and from what I know Fascism is roughly said the political philosophy of "to the winner goes the spoils." I'd say that applies here pretty well. You can call it what you want, but I say it's bullshit, not FREE MARKETS.

I trust you get my point. I can't respond to eveyone, cuz this is already too long but since Deoxy seems to find me where I mark my territory -

You're right, multi-culti sympathies, etc, did not give rise to terrorism, but they DID (and DO) SUUPORT and DEFEND them. Multi-cultis regularyl condemn the US for "crimes" that are so far down the ladder of evil that they are hard to even prove their existance while making no mention or outright defending the complete oppression of women (and gays and Christians and ....) and the targetted killing of civilians by Muslim groups. You want RACISM?!? See HAMAS, et al - "drive the Jews into the sea". THAT is racism - and intentional genocide if successful. US "racism" gets a lot more attention for a much lesser problem. - by Deoxy


Well Deoxy, I won't interfere with your right to hate Noam Chomsky and Susan Sontag, but I ask you... Support the terrorists? Those airline tickets that those terrorists bought so they could hijack the Boeings and use them to destroy the WTC, did Chomsky put those tickets on his credit card?

And all that training that Al Queada got, all those training camps they built in third world nations, did Susan Sontag give them money for those things?

Did Jello Biafra or Howard Zinn or Michael Moore give money to Al Quaeda or any of the other terrorist groups? I think not.

You can't say the same for our President and all his cohorts and cronies. They all have multiple business connections to the Middle East and especially Saudi Arabia. All of them have been overlooking the crazy crap that has been going on in the nations of the leaders they do business with.

I'll admit that I find it annoying that some of these groups seem to give greater priority to the problems we have here and Israel, as opposed to the repressive nations elsewhere with far more egreggious sins. But that doesn't undermine their work or their facts, it just shows that some of those people have their priorities a little wacked.

And the fact that you guys get so annoyed with the Chomskys and Sontags of the world and yet you don't say a damn thing when something like this or this or this happens, well it's hard for me not to think that your priorities are a little wacked too.

I have no time to touch on fuel density ratios and such. I'll have to save it for another time.

However I'm gonna post everything I just wrote here on my site (eventually anyway) and I just got commenting ability so you can tell me to go to hell in your own sweet way! It would mean a lot to me, and I can't even edit profanity (yet). Can't wait for my flaming response!!!!!

I came across this blog today, and it inspired me to put what I posted on the site in an entry for BMA. It makes me feel a bit out of place considering the fact that I really think the war is a bad idea, not to mention the fact that this administration is full of shit and giving any credit whatsoever to the current President makes my skin crawl. Well, here's what I posted...

I wound up here by accident and read your post. I could not help but think of an article I recently reread, written post 9.11.01. I consider myself a bleeding heart lib but feel this quote is quite applicable to some of the confusion currently afflicting an awful lot of Liberals who are torn between two tendencies - the desire to avoid violent conflict in hopes of a better outcome vs. the desire to see those who are oppressed freed from their oppressors.

And what of the confusions and contradictions of the left wing in the first world? In the two or three years preceding the attacks of Sept. 11, I received a string of e-mail petitions from alarmed feminists and leftists protesting the atrocities committed by the Taliban and calling for its brutal regime to be brought down. I signed and passed on every one without ever believing the petitions would literally achieve that end. It seems that others, though adult and educated, did believe in the power of these petitions to cause the Taliban to review in full the practices of its government. This is the only sense I can make of the turnaround of many of these same people, who are now on the front lines of the current antiwar movement. Some who were aware of conditions in Afghanistan under the Taliban's rule and who rallied against the world's complacency became, once America set out to topple the Taliban, its most ardent defenders, calling for peace at any cost, and casting America as the brute.

I understand these people are not really defending the Taliban; rather they are expressing concern for the innocent, already long-suffering Afghan people, and rightly so. But why the political backpedaling? Why oppose the forcible removal of the Taliban when they are clearly far too determined and well established to be removed by other means? This confusion, born of a demand that the sufferings of others be rectified coupled with a refusal to tolerate the realities of what is required to achieve that change, results in an impossible demand that the U.S. is accused of failing to meet again and again.

I came across an explicit example of this when reading an article in which a prominent member of a women's rights organization publicly retracted a previous statement to the effect that she wished someone would forcibly take the Taliban out. Sounding somewhat like a small and frightened child, she explained that she "didn't really mean it," that it had merely been an expression of frustration and not of a real and concrete desire for military intervention. That the U.S. military action in Afghanistan and its resulting refugee crisis and civilian causalities are painful, even tragic, goes without saying. But to believe in a world where dangerous people and tyrannical governments miraculously disappear seems infantile.



In truth I don't know how applicable this is to the current situation in Iraq (not nearly as much) but the fact remains that as much as I hate this president, as much as I dislike of the idea of war, as much as I think that this war is a very bad idea, the current arms inspections would not be going on right now had this administration not slapped some sense into the UN, demand it stop acting like a legion of Neville Chamberlains and demand there be some real consequences for Iraq not meeting to what it agreed to in their surrender in the Gulf War. Before they were a bunhc of idiots voting on resolutions and condemnations and when they would be defied by Iraq, they'd just have another meeting to set up no resolutions. They were making themselves irrelevant.

I can't nor won't say that Iraq is as big and as bad as the Bush administration so deperately wants it to be, but for so many on the liberal side to refute that there is no real threat whatsoever I think this is a fallacy or an excuse not to do anything.

This is not to say that many of the justifications that the administration uses for war are right, in fact many of them are disingenuous. If the Bush Administration cared so much about Democracy in Iraq (remember Democracy represents the people, all the people equally) then why is the Bush adiministration only talking to the ruling Sunni, and not the Shiite majority? Why are we only talking to individuals who used to be part of the Ba'ath party, individuals who executed the will of Saddam, who practiced his brutality, and are now opposing him now that they are exiled by the same muderous lunatic. Why aren't we talking to Kurds and all the other individuals who've been maligned by Saddam that are still in Iraq? Why is it that the people who are exiled are already cutting up Iraqi oil fields for themselves and bypassing the rights of the people of Iraq at large. My favorite justification by this administration about Saddam is his use of WMD against the Kurds. They just love showing that photo of those 5,000 people in the streets, the Kurds, lying dead from a gas attack, especially that baby with blue lips in her mother's arms. It almost makes you forget who financed those weapons (take a guess who did!)

You can see the Salon article entitled, America The Scapegoat, for yourself if you just click here on the link. It's quite worth the reading, even now more than a year after it was written.

Friday, January 24, 2003

The epitome of what is wrong with our government, our economy and our President -

President Bush stands in front of boxes which had "Made in China" labels obscured. (image found on CNN.com)

Thursday, January 23, 2003

I'm working on an entry that is going to be very long, but it's not ready for posting, so you're gonna have to wait. Meanwhile look at the stuff I've been reading;

GetDonkey's news blotter on Right Wing Weenies and Bush, advocating Abstinence as the only birth control. God help us all.

Sand in the Gears blog entry on abortion and the subsequent commentary. It's gotten ugly, and I've been wanting to write something but it almost feels too old now that the 30th anniversary has come and gone. Thank you Public Citizen for your commentary - might I recommend you get an email address for your PC psuedonym...

Two really interesting editorials in Time magazine, one by the musician Brian Eno and the other by the editor for the conservative periodical The Weekly Standard Chris Caldwell. Both have a lot of merit, although being the liberal that I am I would tend to agree with much more of what Eno is saying, as opposed to Caldwells. But both have merit and both deserve to be read.

PS (for Public Citizen or really anyone else out there who's really that curious) - if you want to see what I'm writing, I'm using the Link Farm, my other blog for mainly news stories as sort of a sketch pad for the next major entry on BMA. It's not much yet, and it's gonna get a lot longer, but it might make for some interesting reading.

Wednesday, January 22, 2003

So here we are on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It may be obvious from my previous rant about Bush's anti-women intiatives that I support this landmark decision and I just can't resist saying something about it.

I am actually horrified that this even had to be decided. After all, women have controlled their own birth rate, one way or another, for all of history. Now, because of contraceptives, we're much better at it and hopefully don't need too many abortions but I'd say abortion beats the older methods of infanticide. I also find it interesting that there was no need to regulate reproductive choice before gynocology became a medical specialty. Before that, women and their midwifes took care of their "women's business" and kept that all to themselves. When men entered into gynocology as doctors, they were apparently shocked to learn that women had been doing this (although women were left with little choice being not allowed to refuse sex to their husbands at the time) and immediately enacted laws regulating women's bodies for them. I guess the women were too morally and mentally weak to do this themselves. Thank god we have men looking out for our best interest.

Anyway, this reminds me of another issue that has to do with making decisions about our own bodies but Uncle Sam finds us incapable and has to help us out: drug use. I'll start with pot but I'll warn you, I'm going to go right over the deep end and apply the same principles to other drugs but hear me out. You can always tell me to go to hell. (Hurray to comment power!) So I have always wondered, why does the government give a shit if I smoke a little pot? Or a lot of pot? They don't care if I drink myself to death or smoke myself to death, even though both of those create an enormouse expense for taxpayers and HMO members alike. Who does smoking pot hurt? No one. Not even me, as it turns out. So, why is it illegal? One idea is that it became illegal as a way to put Mexicans in jail in the southwest because the racist yokels living there couldn't find any other way to get rid of them. Another argument is that it's a gateway drug to other drugs. I know a lot of people that either do smoke a little happy weed, or have in the past (Bill Clinton). But these people weren't somehow amorphized into hardcore cocaine users (Bush II). They aren't the ones becoming crack and pill users (Jenna Bush). They went to college, smoked a little ganja, and then became successful, productive people who are probably more likely to drink too much or smoke cigarettes to death rather than tumble down this downward spiral that officials like to deem inevitable. If anything is going to make pot into a gateway drug, it's the lies that government officials tell about it. A kid says, "Wow, my parents/school/police told me that pot will make me into a homicidal maniac who has no future because it will turn me into a drug addict criminal from the first puff. But I tried it and they lied! I can still get good grades and conform sufficiently to society. What else have they lied about? Cocaine? Heroin? Unprotected sex?" (Ok, a little stretch there.) Anyway, look at all these kids that died from heroin overdoses in Texas a few years ago that didn't even know they were doing heroin. It's dangerous to lump pot with others and it's dangerous to misinform people of the effects and consequences of its use.

Now for the deep end. Why are any drugs illegal? Isn't it possible that creating laws that criminalize the use of drugs (victimless crime, by the way) just make more criminals and support organized crime? If someone is an alcoholic (a legal drug) and they seek treatment and help, people are supportive and congratulative. If a crackhead or a junkie seeks treatment and help, they are stigmatized for being a crackhead or a junkie. What is their motivation for seeking help? Our job should be to attempt to prevent people from becoming drug addicts in the first place through honest education, after school programs, etc. and to help those that want help to get off it. The only thing that the illegalization of drugs accomplishes is making drug dealers extremely wealthy through untaxed revenue, encouraging violence by these same people in order to maintain such a lucrative black market, and preventing people from changing their situation because of the stigma attached to their state-created criminality. What does this accomplish?

If you say, well drug users commit robberies and other crimes. Robbery is already illegal, prosecute that. "Drug users don't take care of their kids." That's what social services is for and it certainly isn't limited to drug using parents. Child abuse and neglect is already illegal. Drug abuse is a health problem, as is all addiction. If they weren't addicted to drugs, it would probably be something else. Jail isn't the answer, a fact that a staunch pro-drug war Jeb Bush realizes since he pulled strings to get his daughter into treatment instead of jail.

Legislating the way we choose to treat our own bodies isn't the answer in any case. And if it is, if we determine that it's the business of the state to legislate the health of our bodies, then in order to not be hypocritical, fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, Krispy Kremes, smog and bacon should all be illegal. Hey, the great thing about this new system is that it'll save an enormous amount of money currently spent on health care just in time to give it all via tax breaks to the wealthy!

By the way, support the continued right of women to control their own reproduction through a legislative act so Roe v. Wade becomes permanent and guaranteed.

Tuesday, January 21, 2003

Well, lo and behold, you can finally tell me to go to hell.... (in best Mr. Burns Impression) Excellent....

I finally have a commenting tool courtesy of Blogout via the Klink family!

Monday, January 20, 2003

Slate has a good article on how the Bush administration is shuting out the Kurds in discussion of what seems like more and more the inevitable war that is coming up against Iraq.

The Kurds, Saddam, and Washington - By Patrick Cockburn, January 17, 2003

BMA News Blotter:

Read this article from The Weekly Standard. There are unquestionable flaws, and do keep in mind the fact that it was published in The Weekly Standard, a conservative periodical.... but there is an awful lot of truth to it as well. What does really unite the Democrats these days?

Sunday, January 19, 2003

Food for Thought, this is by Jenny Holzer
(image may not appear if website it was referenced from is having problems)

Tuesday, January 14, 2003

First, you're not beating a dead horse

Second, I think people just want to hear everything is okay. Most don't want to know the gory details, etc. I don't want to go out on a limb, but I'm afraid the friends in your anecdotes are the exception - take that as a compliment PC, because you are an unusual stand out person.

I also think we like crap - no, we love crap - as a nation. Commercial network television give about the same time to world news as it does to what I like to refer to as "novelty news".

This is a paraphrased excerpt from last night's news (from memory) -"Tonight, on the north side of Chicago, firemen worked in the frigid cold to loosen a manhole. Apparently a cat had got it's head stuck in the finger hole...ha ha ha. Whaddya think of that Kathy (Kathy being the co-anchor) The cat's alright and doing swell. Now for the weather (for the second time tonight mind you) with Tom....blah blah blah" I am not kidding.

Our Nightly News Broadcasts on the big three have 30 minutes minus commercials. So does Hollywood Insider, Entertainment Tonight, Extra, etc. Plus you now have the weekend edition of the aforementioned shows, and Living Large (syndicated) a sort of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous for the "urban" (code word for black) set. The local news always makes time for celebrity court cases, rumors, etc.

I think an awful lot of people in this country would prefer not to know about the hard hiting news stuff , or maybe the network suits have decided that in depth reporting doesn't bring in the advertising dollars. Even 60 Minutes and 20/20 now have the prerequisite fluff story, maybe even two, per episode. Don't even get me started on the crap that Dateline stuffs their program with. Nightline however on ABC might be the only national broadcast news program worth watching.

Maybe it's because people are disgusted and feel it's hopeless to fret about, people who are fed up with politics and think they have only their own self interest in mind when they vote in Congress. Maybe they it's too much of a distraction on more important things, be it material or otherwise. Or they prefer to hear about sex and violence rather than the details of a Supreme Court case or the results of finagling with economic policy. I'm not sure which one.

Speak of cats and under reported stories, did you know that our Senate Majority Leader is an admitted cat torturer? I bet you didn't. I heard about it on Getdonkey and did a google search. This isn't some rumor, it's something he wrote about in his own book. Just click here and see page 2 of this article on the Senator Frist in the Boston Globe. Talk about stories flying under the radar. It's kinda dissappointing considering that Slate did some flattering press on his volunteer work as a Doctor in Africa and Aids, etc.

Here's the article's address: http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/2002/1027/coverstory.htm, page 2 includes the admission of the "impropriety".

Third - the story about your friend who bought you the beer and siad "there was no surplus... blah, blah, blah," I think is indicative of an awful lot of people everywhere, be it in this country or abroad that see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe, facts, news & reality be damned. There are too many avenues and boutique news outlets that are willing to serve up to people exactly what they want. That goes for liberals and conservatives, Dems and Repubs, etc. It's like if their was a nationwide cheer, it would be "Tell me what I want to hear!".

The Bush administration is routinely denying requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act


I was really curious about this especially when it happened. NOW will Bill Moyers covered it, but I'm so distracted by work, grad school, girlfriend, radio show, and all the really awful things that are going on out in the world right now that I don't have time to raise a ruckus about this. Maybe it's our own fault that this stuff continues to go relatively unchallenged....

As far as FAIR is concerned, we run it on WZRD here in Chicago. I used to appreciate it more and still listen to it when it's on, but I've come across a few, how shall we call them, "inconsistencies." Bleeding heart liberal that I am, even I get a little tired of lefty slanted news, especially self righteous lefty news.

Anyway sometimes it's more fun to refer to the right wing media. I got this interesting email from this guy calling himself the scarlet pimpernell. He makes mention of stuff I am pretty familiar with, like the Reagan and the first Bush administration's connection to Saddam, selling WMD (like bio and chemical provisions) etc. But I did not know about accusations against the Cheynster.

Check out this site called NewsMax. It's obviously a right wing slanted site with it's headline news stories about Michael Savage's new book, Senator Robert Byrd's connections to the KKK (well documented, very old, and renounced by the Senator), yet more dirt on Clinton, San Fransisco "Educrat's Propaganda" etc. It also has Limbaugh commentary, advertising for the NRA and hair replacement, yadda yadda, yadda. You would have thought that they would have gotten this article off their site. It's like it was an oversight or an accident that they haven't pulled this off their site, in fear that our national hero Vice President Chenney might be accused be the "liberal American hating left" that Cheney is a crook.

UNITED NATIONS, June 23 (UPI) -- Halliburton Co., the oil company that was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, signed contracts with Iraq worth $73 million through two subsidiaries while he was at its helm, the Washington Post reported.


This is an old article no less, pre 9.11, pre "regime change" mode Bush. I have no idea how this stuff slips by. Oh well, just close your eyes, click your heels and say to yourself "there's no place like home" ten times. Then get loaded on Vodka... that should help... till your sober again.

PS - Public Citizen, you should tell your friends about this link start inserting it into your emails to friends. Let's see how fast it''l take for them to pull the article.....
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml

I hope I'm not beating a dead horse here but I can't resist a little more griping about the media. I doubt that they are giving us what we want. After the Patriot Act (which was largely ignored before-the-fact in the media) I was arguing with some people that wanted to do whatever it took to bomb everyone and I brought the Patriot Act up. I found out about it in The Nation, although only after-the-fact. They were shocked and amazed and several really didn't believe me. They wanted that information. Besides that, people in this country need that information. If not the media, who is supposed to educate the public about policies and the activities of government? I think we've forgotten that government officials are our employees. I've worked in several different jobs and there is one thing in common with all of them: I did not have privacy in the work place. My employers were always permitted to monitor my activities, my email, my web usage, and my productivity. They had access to my computer files and my phone records. There was no expectation of privacy for anything I did at work (besides crapping on the company dime but some things they don't want to know). Why aren't we applying this to the government? The Bush administration is routinely denying requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act. Cheney won't even release the names of the people that attended the energy meeting, much less what they discussed. And people's lives are being determined in secret courts without the benefit of communication with a lawyer. Why aren't we demanding to know the activities of our employees, the politicians? A few months ago a judge said that democracies die behind closed doors.

I've completely gone off my original topic but I guess this was as good a way as any to get off the media topic. Oh wait! I know how it's relevant. If not the media, who is it that is supposed to monitor the activities of the government so they are accountable to their employers? We, the public, are too busy buying shit to do it (or to even read too much). You know, I was recently amazed by a guy in a bar that told me that Clinton did not have a surplus, that we don't actually have a national debt because we don't owe that money to anyone, and that because of our genetic similarity to mice, there must not be any such thing as evolution. What the fuck? I tried arguing but then just drank the beer he bought me and shut up. Arguing was clearly useless. He must listen to Limbaugh, the same guy that lamented that the liberal NY Times didn't include a story by its own journalist because it seemed favorable to conservatives. The story was on the front page of the NY Times in the upper right hand corner, the featured story of the day. I'm so happy that millions of people get their news from him and TV news doesn't even bother to actually inform anyone about anything important.

For anyone who is interested in this topic. The media watchgroup, FAIR, does a weekly radio show called CounterSpin. They talk about all the important stories that the media ignores, takes out of context, or just plain fucks up. I listen to it on a local public radio station but you can also hear it online at http://www.fair.org/counterspin/index.html.

Friday, January 10, 2003

Ah Public Citizen, you bring up a good point to which I have often wondered about but have no answer;
I've also thought a lot about how there is really over-participation by a few people and almost none by most people. Most people get their news from their local tv station. It's basically the local police blotter and the most recent fires but lacks any real substance. I hate falling back into the whole complaint that everything is the media's fault, but what exactly is their role? What happened to true investigative reporting and attempts to keep government honest through good journalism? I don't know what the true answer is to this. What really bothers me about it is that those that have the most to lose (usually the poor and undereducated) are the least likely to pay attention and participate. - Public Citizen


My issue I often wonder about is this - Is it Big Media's laziness or cost cutting measures that makes our news so pathetic, or is that Big Media give us exactly what we want? Is that why our news sucks as bad as it does?

It's sort of a chicken and egg quandry I have thought about but have yet to come to any conclusions. I too have become an information junkie getting my fix from NPR, Salon.com, Slate.com, and Frontline on PBS, among other news sources. I am so chock full of information that I often refer to myself as some sort of twisted variation of Cliff Claven, (FYI Cliff being the character on the TV show Cheers, the US Postal worker who was always spouting uselss info about everything) I consider myself somewhat more interesting, but not by all that much.

My point being is there are good sources for information, (even if the best sources occasionally lower the Lowest Common Denominator on occasion, as did NPR's All Things Considered when they mention the Winona Ryder case) but just because they are available doesn't mean people are going to be interested in it, or have the patience for it. Last time it was mentioned I thought I heard the listenership for NPR was (don't quote me on this, I could be wrong) about 2.5 millions. That's less than 1% of this country, although it is about 2.5% of the voting electorate. While many people consider NPR to be one of the more intelligent, in-depth and reliable news sources out there, there are many who would disagree with them. Quite a few people out there who are knowledgable of politics (i.e. conservatives) find NPR to be a regular commiter of that ever present dread, the so called "liberal bias". The rest have given up on politics completely, people like my Grandmother.

I cannot help but think of the recent lawsuit against McDonalds, how they are responsible for making a couple of youngsters fat. One of the charges levied agains the Big Micky Dees is that they don't have enough healthy choices in their restaraunts. Let's say they did have those choices available. Who's to say those same overweight kids leveling the lawsuit would have ordered those "healthier" food items while eating at Mc'D's? At what point is someone responsible for what they put in their body (junk food like Big Macs), or their mind (junk news like Winona Ryder). The stuff is out there, the question how much is the population at large interested in that type of news?

It's a ripe subject for discussion, but as usual I am short on time and must get going. More on this during the weekend.

Wednesday, January 08, 2003

So I was listening to NPR last night like a good news junkie and the commentator was lamenting that while the 108th Congress reconvened with the usual promises of bipartisan cooperation, they'd already dissolved into partisan squabbling regarding the economic stimulus (tax cut for the rich) package. It was followed by one of my personal favorite senators, Rick Santorum, crying about how the Dems were making the tax cut package into a political fight, they were 'playing politics' apparently. I'm a little confused about this rather popular complaint about politicians. I mean, if a politician isn't supposed to play politics, what exactly is their job? Don't lawyers practice law and teachers teach? There are ideological fights in Congress for a very good reason--to protect the rights of all citizens. The system is set up to protect the rights of minorities lest the majority seek to strip their rights, not so that everything changes when a different party gains majority power. Anyway, that's just a pet peeve of mine. I'd like to go on the record and say that if Congressmen don't act in an ideological partisan way on important issues, I will fire their asses! Well, ok, I'll just vote against them and hope that fires them and have to settle with that until I find a big pile of money on my way home in the near future since everyone knows money is the only real way to affect political decision making.

At any rate, I've also thought a lot about how there is really over-participation by a few people and almost none by most people. Most people get their news from their local tv station. It's basically the local police blotter and the most recent fires but lacks any real substance. I hate falling back into the whole complaint that everything is the media's fault, but what exactly is their role? What happened to true investigative reporting and attempts to keep government honest through good journalism? I don't know what the true answer is to this. What really bothers me about it is that those that have the most to lose (usually the poor and undereducated) are the least likely to pay attention and participate. Hence, corporations are still buying representation and tax cuts still favor the wealthy that end up being represented. Some people feel that part of the problem with the liberal message is that it comes from over-educated people that use too many fifty cent words resulting in the lost ability to get a coherent message across to the ordinary people that would most benefit from it. I wonder what it will take to re-energize people into politics and the possibilities are nothing short of terrifying: continuous war, complete loss of civil liberties, women dying in back alley abortions, massive illness due to pollution... What will it take? Poverty itself doesn't have any effect any more because unions are about dead so there are few massive strikes to raise awareness and throwing all the poor people in jail helps the economy so poverty must actually be good. As a matter of fact, aren't poor people only poor because of their own stupidity and laziness anyway?

Good point about the labelling. It's all over the place and is probably as old as politics itself. Apparently, contraceptives are no longer "prevention" but rather "abortificants" instead. That doesn't sound very good, we better make them illegal!

Tuesday, January 07, 2003

Thank you Public Citizen for contributing, you have certainly made BMA more readworthy in your post. Some food for thought;

Yeah, Compassionate Conservativism is a just a marketing thing. Instead of ridiculing or making fun of the homeless the way Reagan did, Bush II the Sequel says the right things (Remember his speech at Notre Dame in May 2001 about giving the poor more opportunity or take a look at the most statement he made in the latest issue of US News & World Report) but it does pretty much the same thing as previous GOP administrations have done. One need only look at Slate's article by William Saletan on the Bush II's most recent attempt to rename something in order to change it's appeal (estate tax good - death tax bad). He's even trying to use the elderly as a reason to cut taxes on divideds paid by stock. What, now all the elderly are the ones who need help? Of course not, but the cut in divideds taxes will give money back to people who need it the least. Reminds me of my whole patagonian toothfish vs. chilean sea bass blog entry back on November. Sometimes a good name is all you need to fool the masses.

My expectations are less than zero with this administration, and yet they still manage to underwhelm me. What do you expect from the "Mayberry Michiavellis"?

As far as funding for family planning all I can say is that despite your disgust, Rove knows what he's doing. He knows that by cutting funding for World Family Planning he appeases the Religious Right, being that they are the GOP's solid base, while ruffling as few feathers at home, preventing an all out galvanizination of even the most casual NOW empathiser. As far as your "only consolation" of losing the "all important white suburban woman voter goodbye in the next election", I hate to say it but for all the women that belong in this category probably won't change their vote based on this information. As for the population at large, most people who know about this issue probably care greatly about it too - those who voted against Bush in 2000 will vote against Bush in 2004 - those who voted in favor of Bush 2000 will continue to do the same for 2004. As for the rest of the casual voter at large, they won't be affected by this because they either don't know about what you're talking about, don't care or both.

All of this brings up a good point that I have frequently thought about but have yet to come to any kind of real conclusion about. You realize that all the people that blog and discuss politics as passionately as you, myself and others (political spectrum they come from being irrelevant) are not the average citizen. My mom, the people I work with, those are the majority of voters out there. The average American is easliy agravated by US politics and looks at the big picture, not if women in Mozambique are able to get birth control. If we were the typical voter, the conflict in Florida would have been between Gore and Nader, not Gore and Bush. I do my best not to be too egocentric, but don't always do a very good job.

Argh! There's not enough time to say everything I wanted to damnit! It's too late, and my girlfriend will be pissed I'm not home yet. I'll continue this later. But again I am so glad you posted, please continue to rant and rave here. Your post has generated more food for thought than I had hoped for. Hasta la Manana.

Friday, January 03, 2003

I find it very interesting, although unfortunately not surprising, that Mr. Compassionate Conservative Bush ran on a platform swearing to uphold Roe v. Wade and promising that he would not try to overturn it - presumably despite his personal views against it. I remember that Ashcroft promised before becoming Attorney General that he would uphold the law of the land, including Roe v. Wade. What amazes me is that anyone took either of these men at their word. Bush's claim certainly earned him the votes of many middle to upper class suburban women and probably earned him the election - albeit with help from roadblocks in Florida, the Jews for Buchanan voters, and Nader (well, I won't beat that one to death again).

Since then, the US has removed World Health Organization funding used for family planning for extremely poor women around the world despite Colin Powell's own discovery that none was being used for abortions. At the
recent meeting in Asia for reproductive health and slowing the spread of AIDS, the US held up the entire talks (and almost derailed the whole thing) because they didn't like wording that implied women would use birth control to plan pregnancies. Bush actually said all that these women needed to prevent pregnancy was a thermometer. Apparently, women only need thermometers, not birth control, public health facilities, or condoms. What a relief! That’s going to save us a shitload of money! So basically they've been getting away with pushing their conservative reproductive agenda on poor people all over the world since it would never pass over here. Not anymore, it appears.

The new plan is ending the requirement that insurance companies cover birth control for federal workers, appointments of pro-life people (Ashcroft, Tommy Thompson, Priscilla Owens, etc.), and a constant attempt to call
fetuses people. There is more but I assume this is all common knowledge at this point. (There have been several good articles in Salon, if you're interested.)

All I can say is: What the fuck? How do they think they can get away with this? The only consolation that I have is that they might as well kiss the white suburban woman voter goodbye in the next election. Are the betting that they can change their tune once again before the election and hope for the ever-shorter American memory?

I propose that all unwanted babies be given to pro-lifers who then pay all the medical costs of the women who gave birth to them because they weren't able to get abortions or, if conservatives get their way, even contraception. They should also go ahead and pay for her loss of income associated with the birth. So the impression isn't given that women should be barefoot and pregnant all the time (surely even conservatives aren't going back to that), there will have to be a taxpayer funded program that allows women to take the necessary leave and still advance on track in their jobs after going back to giving birth 10 or more times in their lives. They will need raises and taxpayer funded nannies to help them pay for and care for all these new babies. Since I'm sure this will not help medical costs go down, there will have to be subsidation for medical insurance for women since I'm sure giving birth isn't cheap and more hospital beds and health care workers will be needed.

Perhaps the conservatives are on to something after all, how else will we combat this horrible problem of global depopulation? And don't we still have the national forest system still available to sprawl into?

Thanks, Palmer Haas, for inviting me to blog. After all, there aren’t nearly enough pissed off liberals ranting up a storm on the airwaves. They still have Rush Limbaugh and Faux News, after all.

Thursday, January 02, 2003

Earlier this week I felt that my inner bitter, foulmouthed, sarcastic, angry bile filled political pundit wannabe was losing steam. I was just getting tired of ripping off long, somewhat incoherent rants. It just felt like the only people who were reading them were a few (appreciative) fellow bloggers, and the stragglers that were looking for Saudi porn and somehow wound up here at BMA.

Then I read the latest Kaus files entry on slate (scroll down to "Food Stamps and the English Language"). This is what happens when work is slow around the office - I posted the following in response on the message board on Slate;

You're right Micky! Food stamp recipients have been living off the fat of the land way too long! Here's what we can do -

First we punish those lazy ass non-working food stamp whore parents by cutting off their food stamps, in effect starving their children.

THEN we add millions more cases to our underfunded social welfare departments throughout the country, and they can send overworked/underpaid social workers into their homes, and demand that these same kids be taken away from their parents for child neglect because they're not feeding them!

THEN we send these children into our overburdended and ineffective (not to mention tax payer funded) foster care system. Their cases can then be sent to our courts, clogging up our already overburdened justice system (not to mention costing tax payers even more money)! Absolutely brilliant! That'll really shore up the social fabric of this country and help restore the American family.

Let's just hope that with all the stability and heaping dose of loving care each of these kids will get from the 14 different sets of foster parents they'll have over the course of their lives, that they are suicidal and drug addicts, or at least have them neutured, so we don't have them breeding, forcing us to go thru this process all over again. (That's pretty much what your utterly brilliant, flawless and unquestionably insinuated suggestion is, isn't it?)

God bless you Mickey, you know how to solve everything! We'll save millions of taxpayer dollars by spending billions of taxpayer dollars on all those aforementioned services, Reagan would be so proud were he not senile! Unless you have uh...(whisper) something else in mind, nudge nudge wink wink?

This country wouldn't be the slumming hellhole those dumbass liberals have made it with you in charge! When are you declaring yourself a presidential candidate Mickey?


So much for losing my bile - sorry about the no posts while on vacation.