Sunday, June 29, 2003

As the Cowboy says I'm going on vacation to Northwest for nearly two weeks. I hope to post while I'm out there and even before I leave, but it may not happen. It'll just be nice to have some time off.

Well the rash of layoffs in the nation one has hit one of the better bloggers I've linked to. If you live in the Houston area, or anywhere in Texas for that matter, and are in need of someone with his skills (quantitative analyst with experience in health care, commodities and market research, with skills in SPSS and SQL) please drop him a line.

Thursday, June 26, 2003

Well, if the Center for Individual Rights were reconsidering their stance on the Texas anti sodomy law in Texas after my scathing post by lending their legal muscle and expertise to this case, it's too late now. They probably never would have anyway, in fear of offending the bible beating conservatives that make up the majority of their contributors.

I hadn't heard much about this case recently, and then I mention it in a post this week and lo and behold - the Supreme Court hands down their ruling. Funny how these things work out, isn't it? Don't even bother with trying to interpret Scalia's leagl babbling. I love how sacred individual rights and states rights are to these bozos until somoeone the GOP doesn't like does something they don't approve of, and then the constitution and all that legal precedent goes out the door.

More depressing article and updates about the gap between the poor and the rich. It just keeps getting worse.

The Rich Do Get Richer - How the decline in income mobility undercuts one argument for the Bush tax cut. By Daniel Gross, Posted Tuesday, June 24, 2003, at 3:12 PM PT.

Rich get richer - IRS says growing wealth for 400 top taxpayers outstripped increases in their tax burdens.
June 26, 2003: 12:43 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The rich got richer in 2000, according to a study by the Internal Revenue Service released Wednesday night.

Wednesday, June 25, 2003

I guess I'm not alone in my logic.....

O'Connor voices hope for day affirmative action not needed
In a rare interview the day after issuing a landmark University of Michigan ruling, a key justice reflects on racial preferences, her groundbreaking career and life on the high court.

By Jan Crawford Greenburg, Washington Bureau
Published June 25, 2003

WASHINGTON -- A day after announcing the Supreme Court's most significant decision on race in a generation, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in a rare interview Tuesday that if America provided adequate educational opportunities for young people, it could someday achieve the goal of ending affirmative action in college admissions.

Looking 25 years into the future, O'Connor said: "I hope it looks as though we don't need artificial help to fill our classrooms with highly qualified students at the graduate level."

"And if we do our job on educating young people, we can reach that goal," (empahsis mine) she said, leaving no doubt that the secrecy-shrouded court is aware of the dramatic impact its rulings can have on American life. O'Connor made the comments in a wide-ranging, 40-minute interview with the Tribune to discuss her new book.

O'Connor, who wrote Monday's landmark affirmative action opinion for a 5-4 court, also acknowledged that the decision went beyond the court's previous statements on the use of racial preferences in education.

For the first time, a majority of the court said colleges and universities could consider the race of an applicant to get a diverse student body. It upheld an admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School, where officials used race as a "plus factor" when evaluating applicants.......

for more read the article.......

Maybe I'm reading too much into that statement, but I still think it's relevant. I too truly hope one day we don't need Affirmative Action. That day is not today.

It's now not just "Da Chicago Bears"anymore. Now it's "Da Bears football presented by Bank One". What the fuck is this world coming too?

Actually I hear this is a bit of an exaggeration, but it's still very odd and a little disturbing.

Monday, June 23, 2003

Well the thinner than a bulimic supermodel of a margin in the Supreme Court maintained Affirmative Action with some minor changes.

Even thought I'm in favor of Affirmative Action, I understand some of the trouble it presents legally, socially and otherwise. What really gets me though is the people who brought the lawsuit, and even more so those who supported it from the sidelines - those conservatives who dub themselves as civil rights groups claiming the unconstitutionality of race playing a factor in admissions for gaining entrance into an institution of higher learning.

There is so much focus in the inequality for admissions to a University - How about some of these groups waging a lawsuit between the inequality of funding between grade schools and high schools in poorer urban (and generally Black and/or Hispanic, although not as a rule) areas versus the same types of schools in suburban middle to upper class (and primarily white)? The supporters of the lawsuit might have a leg to stand on if they stood as strong for equality in education at the lower levels. Bring up the issue of education in our public schools and the only thing you'll hear from this very same crowd is something about the teachers union being at fault for our lousy educational system. Of course this doesn't explain the phenominal education I got while growing up in a upper middle predominantly white suburb in New York State. The teachers union there has the same pull as the ones in the city. These people can't be bothered with unequal funding for actual education, they're throwing hissy fits over admissions into grad school.

While perusing a newspaper this morning I had a flashback - I think it was caused by what I saw in the photo in the daily, supporters of the lawsuit in DC holding up poster claiming the Supreme Court is upholding racism (sorry, couldn't get the photos from the paper online so you'll have to trust me). Most of them looked pretty much identical to the same assholes I used to debate with in high school and college about this kinda stuff. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they probably hold the same beliefs as well. They're typically blind, selfish, have no real interest in equality unless it affects them, and to top it all off very very loud about their not always all that well informed opinions. Generally these guys are anal retentive sticklers for the law when it comes to the notion of equality that may affect them negatively, but when they benefit from that inequality they pretty much keep their mouth shut. Hell, it's not just in cases regarding equality, but any ruling from the courts that they don't like, the law be damned.

Its these very same pricks that every single time they hear a minority group cry foul about anything, no matter what the complaint is they respond with the same prefab response. In my experience most of the time they can't be bothed to find out the facts about whatever that group has taken umbrage with. These same assholes are always bitching and moaning about how groups are always "using their minority status" to complain about everything, and then they log the complaint that minorities expect things to be "handed over to them with no work involved." I can almost hear them say "Whites are such an oppressed minority" - boo fucking hoo. Really, it ain't that bad being white male.

Affirmative Action, at least in this particular case anyway, only gets your foot thru the door. It doesn't give the degree away - you still need to have a father who is a sitting Vice President to pull that one off. You still have to work towards the degree to get the degree. The only reason why these groups bring these suits is their own narrowminded self interest. If there was actual concern on the parts of these people for equality then they would be working on multiple fronts. Instead they waste their time and money on this. And of course their not going to waste their time with the Affirmative Action in place in the military. If it were removed, minority enrollment might drop and that means the very same people who complain about equality will be forced to enlist, and we can't have that now, can we?

Here's the group that brought the lawsuit - The Center for Individual Rights. You can check out a list of all their ground breaking lawsuits too - like seeing to it that minorities dont have better access to low income housing. I'd agree that defending a 100 Watt primarily gay radio station against the FCC is a good thing, so maybe they aren't all bad. But most of them are, just check out their list of court cases. The list entails victories like defending the boy scout's right to exclude gays, and the very legitimate defense of the first amendment rights of protestors who opposed low income housing in their neighborhood, better known as NIMBY's, Not in My Backyard.

Understand all these court cases have legal validity, and absolutely no one should have their first amendment rights suppressed whether they are protesting the war or someone building a homeless shelter in their neighborhood. It's just that their client list is filled with people I'd rather not spend my free time with, almost without exception. At least the ACLU doesn't just defend people like the KKK. I don't always agree with what they spend their time on, i.e. campaign finance reform (money is not free speech), but their principles I respect. Something tells me that the guy that was arrested in NY for sporting an anti war t-shirt in a mall got any aid from the Center for Individual Rights (he's not fighting anything anymore, charges were dropped). They'd probably cite something like a private property statute that every conservative would under these circumstances. I just don't get a good vibe from a group whose greatest priority is seeing that minorities have access to higher education. I am guessing that the CIR can't be bothered with discrimination going in the other direction.

Which reminds me - a libertarian group would be all over an opportunity to challenge the FCC, so I can see some justification there, even if it does force the CIR to defend a gay focused radio station in Cleveland. What I'd like to know is what's the C for I R's stand on that court case involving two gay men from Texas arrested for having sex? For goodness sakes, if that isn't an easy slam dunk and right up the CIR's idealogical alley then I don't know what wpould be.

However if it isn't really so much prinicple as much as what I really think it is, then I'm gonna take a wild stab and say they aren't touching this case because everybody knows that right wingers hate fags. Lord knows all that money that they are receiving in the form of contributions, from bible thumpers and right wingers due to the publicity of this case, will dry up pretty fast if those contributors found out that they were defedning *faggots! But hey, it's just a theory, I could be wrong - but I seriously doubt it.

*Note - no offense to the gay readership BMA may have, just dramatizing the awful mindset many of these people have.

Here's an article about the ruling in

And the Chicago Trib too - Supreme Court narrowly upholds affirmative action - By Jan Crawford Greenburg
Washington Bureau, Published June 24, 2003

Here's an article I need to read more of - Reasons why "percent plans" won't work for college admissions nationwide. It's an article on the website the U of Michigan set up just for info regarding the admissions lawsuit. It's woth checking out if your interested in that kinda stuff.

And one more thing, this is a keeper! It's a link with a web video that calls a spade a spade. Actually it's mostly photos in sequence with music, so it's not too hi-res. Don't click this around anybody that is a fan of the current President though. This was found thanks to Rich of Suburban Limbo. No day is complete without a funny snub against the dumbass in the White House.

Sunday, June 22, 2003

well, after much trouble you now have the ability to tell me off again, which is nice. Lookng forward to some nasty commentary on BMA.

Thursday, June 19, 2003

As you can see I'm remodeling BMA. I really don't know all that much about HTML so I'm monkeying around with the hexadecimal numbers to see what color changes thru trial and error. I'm also doing my best to learn from Webmonkey HTML tutorial on line. I was up late last night (11:30pm) trying to make BMA look how I wanted but it's still not quite working out.

For some odd reason the links are now at the bottom, despite the fact that the template I chose with the new blogger format shows the links on the side. This all happened because of blogger's new format and publishing platform, Dano. I suspect it's in reference to the line "book em ...", used in dragnet (I think). I'm not really sure how this whole thing happened. All I know is that my page has been giving me trouble for months now, and then Blogger got bought by Google, and now they are doing some revamping to make blogger better, and so on and so forth. The commenting tool went away, but I'm working on it.

A friend of mine is putting together a much nicer looking format, but this will have to do - much easier on the eyes without the silly rusty geodesica, even if it is a little plain.

Wednesday, June 18, 2003

Un-fucking-believable. We're running a record deficit and we're cutting a tax that as of now only 2% of Americans pay a dime of now. I didn't think this administration could do anything that could shock me anymore, but alas I was wrong.

I've said this before, but today it holds more true now than ever - Everyday I wonder how can it possibly get worse, and everyday it actually gets does. It's stunning, really.

House Votes to End Estate Tax

(AP) - The House voted Wednesday to permanently end taxes on inherited estates, rejecting a Democratic effort to retain the tax for the country's wealthiest families. "What we're talking about here is fairness to families," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "They ought to have the comfort and relief to pass that business on to the next generation, to their children and to their grandchildren." The bill, passed 264-163, would permanently abolish taxes on estates and reduce revenue $162 billion through 2013. (emphasis mine)

Speaker Hastert neglected to inform all of America that before this atrocious law was passed most people who passed anything down to their children paid nothing. The only families that Denny is referring to are the ones who are worth anything in the seven digit plus territory.

In 2003, those inheriting estates can exempt $1 million from tax and will pay up to 50 percent tax on the remainder. A 2001 law gradually increased the amount that can be exempted from tax, while also gradually decreasing the top tax rate.

Here's a useful tidbit of info on this link from the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities.

And here is a depressing report from NPR's ATC regarding the same subject. The poll in the report shows how effective all that talk on right wing radio has been on the ideological minds of Americans everywhere in their overwhelming confusion regarding the estate tax - or as Rush has effectively branded it the "Death Tax".

Tuesday, June 17, 2003

Sorry it's been a while - I started a post and it got too long and I didn't finish it so I'm taking it off and will post it another time.

It doesn't take much to make me pissed - a lot of people in this country are turning into cold hearted bastards. Either that or cold hearted bastards are over represented in Washington DC. Here's what I posted most recently on this site in regards to this post. It's real good.....

From this blog:

"People in the bracket under discussion -- roughly $10,000 to $25,000 a year wage earners -- pay plenty of taxes. But they pay it in payroll taxes, which typically swipe about 8 percent of income. The Republican tax-cut architects have always done a deceptive shuffle with the language here: Payroll taxes count as taxes when these legislators want to tally up the onerousness of the tax burden on American citizens. But the same taxes magically disappear when they want to keep low-income people off the gravy train that they are loading up for their high-income constituents and campaign contributors."

From this article online at the New Republic -

"Bush signed the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002"...."boosted agricultural subsidies by an astonishing 80 percent."

"To understand why, consider just one provision of the legislation: the subsidy on cotton, which the 2002 law more than doubled, from 35 to 72 cents per pound. The United States is a highly inefficient cotton producer; in fact, America's production costs are roughly three times those in the West African nation of Burkina Faso. Yet Burkina Faso is losing market share because the United States subsidizes its cotton industry by roughly $2 billion per year."

"According to Oxfam, the United States actually spends more subsidizing the production of cotton than it earns selling it—making the industry a net loss to the U.S. economy. Those subsidies go to America's 25,000 cotton farmers, who boast an average net worth of $800,000."

Let's see - we're increasing fed. spending on all things that protect all things material (as in property, financial institutions, etc.) in the form of increased spending for things like the military, etc. We've jacked up subsidies for millionaires, better knows as welfare for the rich. We're not cutting spending on programs that secure our financial systems, those things that ensure the value of the dollar, the bank accounts that hold the finances of this country, etc. All these things benefit the rich disproportionately - because they are able to take advantage of them far more so than the poor and they have far more to lose were our current government and financial systems to collapse.

-Just a reminder - for all your bitching and moaning, so many conservatives do benefit in regards to our tax dollars being wasted. You always fail to account for the systems and institutions your tax dollars support that make the green slips in your wallet worth more than the paper it's printed on.

And yet we're cutting all kinds of social programs, and god knows what for "economic stimulus", which is to say we're giving tax dollars back to those with large amounts of money to begin with in hope that when the people who are suffering the very least during these hard economic times have that cash they will take that tax relief and hopefully spend it or invest it therefore somehow someway make it’s way to help those who are suffering the most during these trying times. I suppose it's to make the economy better by creating thousands of minimum wage jobs for those who are unemployed.

Pull your head out of your ass - You have no idea what you're talking about, and the analogy you just used has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. The rich were already getting a pretty good deal as is, and this just makes it that much better.

When Warren Buffet starts saying that he pays less perecentage wise in taxes than his secretary something is seriously fucked up. Yes consertative America - Keep babbling your stupid goddamn "free markets" hypocrisy and "liberals are declaring class warfare bullshit." Last time I heard Karl Rove and George Bush were looking to re-establish the dominance the GOP had over American politics starting in 1894 and maintained for 30 plus years. With those facts, would anyone like to roughly calculate the time that the GOP reign ended, and what little incident that may have contributed to ending that reign of glory maybe? Anybody?

Alright, I'll tell you (just in case you can't do the math or don't know any history);

1894 + 35 years of GOP dominance equals 1929.

And in case you don't know jack about history, 1929 was the year of the market crash and the begining of the Great Depression. Can't wait Karl!!!!! Another GD!!! It's gonna be fantabulous!

Is it Doom and Gloom liberal forecasting and predictions on the part of this bleeding heart lefty blogger? Maybe so - but right now it ain't looking good.

Tuesday, June 10, 2003

I've always spent a lot of time in my own head, trying to figure things out. Sometimes it's trying to figure out really deep and serious things like the nature of God and Religion. Others it's how I could not see just how bad the dialog was on those old Star Wars movies, and why George Lucas didn't have the brains to let someone else direct the recent SW prequels.

Since this President took office, and even more so since 9.11.2001, the nature of the serious soul searching I've been doing has been mostly political. Why does the world seem so fucked up now more than ever? How can so many people not just like but love this President.

Am I seeing everything? What am I missing - Is it just because of where I'm sitting? We all have a tendency to view things myopically - skewed by our own biases. I've always tried my best to get out of myself to make sure there isn't something I'm missing.

After much thinking I've come up with some answers, but the answers I've been coming up with seem to be adding, not releaving the feeling of depression that spurred me to look in the first place.

For instance I heard this segment on NPR this morning, regarding the upcoming election. It's just polls which are generally inaccurate and skewed, and its really too early to jump to the conclusion I'm seeing, but I'm finding it distressing.

The press keeps harping on the 'scandal' regarding the White House and the manipulation of Intelligence in order to convince the country to go to war. Is it just me, or is it just the press and my fellow liberals that are furious and rip shit about this.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pissed about the issue, and more of this country should be pissed. It just seems like not that many are. I don't get it, Americans should be seriously pissed that we spent billions to invade and will spend billions more to rebuild a country we went to war with over an issue that now seems like a lie.

According to this poll 1/3 of Americans believe we've already found WMD - even though this administration is depererately trying to defend itself against a press, but why should the White House even bother - no one is paying attention. I guess all that bullshit Ari spewed for his tenure behind the podium paid off. No wonder the world community thinks we're a bunch of morons, we're so easily fooled. We're a nation filled with angry and totally misguided ignoramuses who don't know their elbows from their assholes.

Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001. But most of the Sept. 11 terrorists were Saudis; none was an Iraqi.

The right wingers are still demanding their pound of flesh with their boycott of France, and yet none of these dumbasses have called for anything similar against Saudia Arabia. You want to boycott Loreal and Yoplait? Go right ahead, but if you don't do anything against the Saudis then I can only say this to you - You are a complete moron, pull your head out of your ass before it's too late.

And none of the Democrats have the balls to challenge the President head on about the issue, the supposed speil about Saudi Arabia being our allies. All of them are going about it in a round about way. They should be taking huge swipes at this guy. Every righty from the National Review to the Weekly Standard would love to see the House of Saud crumble, but none of them will call this administration's on it's business ties to the nation that produced Osama and 15 of the 19 9.11 hijackers.

The most common answer I hear from Bush supporters is that Bush is a God fearing man and he fought those terrorists and he blah blah blah... you get the picture.

Thursday, June 05, 2003

Yet another really poignant and well written Slate article. The distribution of wealth in our society just keeps getting worse - I have a major blog entry in me about this, but it's gonna have to wait.

The Return of Class War - Bush and the new tyranny of the rich.
By Michael Kinsley. Posted Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 7:14 AM PT

Wednesday, June 04, 2003

This is not so current news, but it's still kinda stunning just how low some people in Washington DC are willing to go. I haven't seen too many bloggers linking the little tidbit either. It's just so childish that it's almost hard to believe. Almost......

The Arctic Wildlife News Website has a link to a Detroit Free Pres article about the whole fiasco here. The press snipet below was initially swiped from Yahoo, but apparently the article now leads to nowhere.

Democrats: Smithsonian Hid Refuge Exhibit.
Wed May 21, 8:49 AM ET Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo!

By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Democratic senators criticized the Smithsonian Institution (news - web sites) Tuesday for moving a photo exhibit of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (news - web sites) to a basement hallway, calling it self-censorship.

The new location, between a loading dock and a freight elevator, is a high traffic area where workers moving large boxes and equipment occasionally block a clear view of the photos. At a hearing Tuesday, Democratic senators displayed photos of visitors peering over boxes to see the exhibit.

Just try to imagine the riot that would happen if there was a photo display of say fetuses at different stages of growth at the Smithsonian and a Pro Choice administration was in the White House. If it were moved while the administration was trying to put a bill forward guaranteeing women the right to an abortion, Pat Robertson, Anne Coulter and every pro-life fanatic would be screaming "liberals are hypocrites about the first amendment, freedom of expression, and artisitc... blah blah blah". You get the idea.

Here's Senator Stevens (R-Alaska) press release denying involvement. Yet another news item spotted on the always informative This Is Hell site.

Monday, June 02, 2003

It's been a while since I last blogged - I spent this past weekend on the road;

The old 91 Honda Civic (with 102K+ miles on it no less) took the girlfriend and I from homebase in Chicago to Columbus, Ohio and then to Louisville, KY, and back to home in Rogers Park. I love road trips, and I have to confess I am a bit envious of my friends and former band mates Knife Of Simpson, who are on tour right now. What is one of the greatest experiences I've ever had was while touring in a band - touring parts of the country I've never seen before, meeting new people, being taken in by (the kindness of ) strangers, living out of a van (well not every detail of that experience was great, but overall...). It was a real eye opener and an incredible learning experience. I think it was Mark Twain who said (and I'm paraphrasing here) that "the antidote for ignorance is travel". I would have to agree, there is a lot of truth in that nugget.

I was in Ohio on Friday to see my sister, who is a dance major. She performed in one dance and choreographed another at her first public performance while attending Ohio State. I know she’s my sister and I’m biased but I was really impressed, especially by her choreography. I know I wasn’t the only one because I heard members of the audience muttering in agreement. And I have to say Columbus is a very hip town, I really enjoyed it. This was my second time there, but I saw more of it this time around and had a good time.

Then it was off to Louisville for a wedding. This was also my second time to Louisville, but the last time I was there was in 1997, and the majority of that time span that I spent in Louisville was in a recording studio, or partying at someone's house, drinking Maker's Mark. Louisville is also a pretty neat town, even if you can't help but start humming the melody to "Dueling Banjos" as soon as you enter the state. FYI - just in case you didn't know - that's the song that everyone hums when they think of a backwoods area in the US, mainly because of the movie "Deliverance". I've never seen the flick myself and it has to be the most re-enacted movie scene for a flick that not that many folks have actually seen.

As sad as this sounds, one of the things I look forward to when I'm on a road trip is getting to watch cable at the hotel. I don't have cable sat home pecifically because I know how much I'd watch it if I did. With cable you have an excuse to flip thru the channels endlessly, because by the time you get all of them at least once or twice, a half hour has elapsed and you can start all over again in hopes of finding something that wasn't on 30 minutes ago. Without cable, when there's nothing on (most of the time) and you've passed every channel at least four or five time over (because you only get about 12 in Chicago and 3 of them are in Spanish) only about 5 minutes have gone by. After that the little voice in the back of your head, the one that is calling you a lazy bastard and intellectual idiotic for watching so much boob tube, can finally be heard over the din of infomercials, reruns and gobbledy-gook. I'm afraid my will power in this department is so weak that I'll never leave the house if I did have cable.

However when in a hotel room it is a novelty for me. Since the only time I'm in the room is when I'm about to turn in for the evening it doesn't feel so bad. One of the things I really wish I could get without footing an entire monthly cable bills is C-Span, being the info junkie that I am. For some reason I don't feel so guilty watching it, and sometimes it's pretty damn entertaining, like what I saw this past weekend: Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly going at it on live TV at a book expo fair meet and greet with an audience. The whole thing was so entertaining because this gathering was apparently the first time that O'Reilly had seen the cover of Al's hilariously titled book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them". The book has a picture of Bill on TV doing his Factor show, along with some other right wing talking heads on the cover. Bill mistook the press conference for his own show and forgot that you can't just shut someone up by talking over them. Al was hysterical, and I definitely will have to read his book. Unfortunately you'll have to wait till October to get it.

Blogging has taken a back seat to a lot of things, although there is clearly no shortage of news;

I'm not surprised that the FCC ruled the way it did. Getting worked up about it seemed kinda silly since the outcome was so obvious - you could see the result coming a mile away. It's not like anyone in this administration gives a shit about what anyone thinks except the big conglomerates and CEO's that carve up more and more of this country for themselves. The White House will continue to kowtow to corporate America so much so that it will actually ignore the pleas of supposed key allies crucial to their own election, like the NRA who sent protest letters to Powell but to no avail. Of the complaints sent to the the FCC and Powell, over 97% plus were angry over the deregulation proposal (there's that word again) Until there are actual consequences I dont see much changing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Until then just expect more of the same, and getting worked up into a tizzy is wasteful. While I have yet to take my own advice, I still think this is a good idea - don't waste another second doing anything related to any legislation or otherwise while this president is in office, except for one thing and one thing only - see to it that Dubya isn't re-elected. Everything else is a complete waste of time, really.

Here's what I don't get though - what is going to happen between now and re-election time for Dubya in November 2004 is there is going to be a surge of consolidation, followed by a slew of layoffs within the merging corporations. This will no doubt have a negative effect in the economy. Are the people in the administration so incredibly dumb and inept that they don't realize this? The only persistently serious threat to Dubya's chances of re-election is the state of the economy. Why wouldn't they wait for after the election? Are they counting on the ensuing mergers completely squashing dissent against the president? Does Rupert Murdoch intend to buy everything possible? Do they have a deal worked out with the CEO's to not lay off anyone until after Nov. 2004 Election day. Or is the entire administration including Karl Rove completely stupid and devoid of foresight and basic economic sense? I can't figure it out.

Believe me, if the mergers cause the economy to take a down turn and in effect hurt the President (as long as it doesn't hurt my job – selfish I know) let them do it. I'll be happy if this administration shoots itself in the foot by trying to bite off more than it can chew for corporate America. But I can't decide if there is something really insidious at work here, or just plain stupidity. I know our Commander in Chief is a boob, but he does have some intelligent people working for him, it's just that they never use that intellect for meanigful things. They'd be able to boast of their acheivement of liberating Iraq if the used half of the intelligence and effort they expended in planning the war and protection of Iraq's Oil Ministry and Oil fields. I guess there isn't enough IQ points to go around for things like trying to build an effective plan to bring peace to Iraq. I hate that bastard, but I'd like to think that Rove's re-election focused one track mind would be sharp enough to recognize the potential pitfall of big media mergers and subsequent layoffs. Any ideas out there in blog-ville why I'm the only one who's thought of these consequences now? Am I the only one who thinks thje deregulation of the communication industry isn’t just bad for our society, but also for Dubya’s reelection prospects as well?

Here's some related links;

FCC chairman Michael Powell is likely to get media ownership deregulated -- even though public comment is running 97 percent against it.

C-SPAN and how they came to be.

How this administration doesn't really believe in Free Markets unless it effects liberal states. Texas is the nations largest producer of Cotton. The article is about the doubling of farm subsidies for Cotton under this administration -

From the The New Republic / TRB FROM WASHINGTON: Grain of Salt - by Peter Beinart

I don't mind that this administration preaches to the world. Some liberals think the Bush team's moralizing breeds anti-Americanism, but I suspect that's not right. After all, moralizing in service of a just cause can win the United States admiration—as liberals understood when they demanded that the United States publicly moralize about apartheid. What alienates the world isn't moralism; it's hypocrisy. When you lecture others, you must be able to withstand scrutiny yourself.

I spotted the link on Andrew Sullivan's page. Yeah he's annoying & whiny Right Wing Queen, but he's still worth something.