There has been endless chatter about the Iraqi Study Group's report, but no one has analysis as...ah, let's say, as, oh...insane nuanced as that of Daily Kos diarist kanaan. No need for me to explain beforehand because I think you'll need to see it to believe it anyway:
"ISG's proposals are studiously designed to isolate Bush, to highlight and tweak his mental illness. Surrounded by a diverse alignment of extremists and centrists, icons of the Reagan-Bush and Clinton 'Wonder Years', the President is put to the test: is he irrational? If he rejects even these lukewarm, unanimous, bipartisan proposals--plans so generic/neutered that even Ed Meese and Vernon Jordan can agree--he proves that he is not just wrong, but mentally ill. And yet the proposals are aimed right at the President's 'issues'--particularly Iran. ISG is almost begging Bush to flip out and reject their report, to show to the country that he is unfit for office.
The next step: consensus among the establishment--in the Congress, among business leaders, in the Pentagon, the White House Staff (yes, even Rove) and in the Bush family--that the President is ill and must be removed from power. We may be witnessing a coup d'etat.
I don't think impeachment is in the winds, rather a quiet in-house understanding where Bush gets the word: You're not really President anymore. Bush would serve out his term as a null object."
That's right, folks! The ISG report is actually part of a coup attempt because anyone who wouldn't follow the advice of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Clinton adviser Vernon Jordan, Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and the rest of the ISG striped pants gang must be stone cold crazy!
Then, once Bush refuses to roll over on Israel and negotiate with the people who want to kill us in Iran, there will just be some sort of understanding that Bush isn't, "really President anymore," and he will be left playing Gameboy in the Oval Office while presumably some group of staffers who worship the ISG will be running the show.
This is the analysis from one of the writers at the biggest, most successful, most influential liberal blog on the planet -- and Bush is supposed to be the guy with the "mental illness."
Take these numbers with a grain of salt because they're from the Associated Press, which isn't necessarily the most honest or trustworthy news outlet out there:
At the same time, dissatisfaction with President Bush's handling of Iraq has climbed to an alltime high of 71 percent. The latest AP-Ipsos poll, taken as a bipartisan commission was releasing its recommendations for a new course in Iraq, found that just 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, down from his previous low of 31 percent in November.
...Even so, Americans are not necessarily intent on getting all U.S. troops out right away, the poll indicated. The survey found strong support for a two-year timetable if that's what it took to get U.S. troops out. Seventy-one percent said they would favor a two-year timeline from now until sometime in 2008, but when people are asked instead about a six-month timeline for withdrawal that number drops to 60 percent.
You know, Bush really is taking a political hit to do the right thing in Iraq because I'd bet you that support for the war would go up 20 points over night if he laid down an actual timetable. Of course, if Bush were a more eloquent speaker, the support for the war would probably be significantly higher, too.
For example, how many people understand that "victory" is having a democratic Iraqi government that can handle its own internal security? How many people understand that, cross your fingers, we'll probably have a large number of troops coming home before 2008?
Since the liberal media is opposed to the war and wants to be see Bush fail, they won't explain these things to the American people. That means only Bush has a megaphone big enough to get the message out and he doesn't seem to be capable of doing so.
Moreover, if we give the Iraqi government enough time to train and equip their troops and take the militias apart before we go, I'm far from convinced that Iraq will collapse into a real civil war the moment we leave. Sure the terrorist attacks will probably continue, but nations like India and Israel have been able to continue to function despite terrorist attacks. If the Iraqi government has a military force superior to any other within their country, there's no reason they can't hold it all together. Sure, it may not be Sweden, but what country is over there?
On the other hand, if we were to leave Iraq in the lurch before they could defend themselves, we could see a real civil war break out in Iraq with all the neighboring nations playing a role, an invasion of Iraq by its neighbors, or a Shia led pogrom against the Sunnis.
Ultimately, whether Iraq becomes a stable, democratic state will depend upon the Iraqis, not the United States. However, we should at least be willing to hang in there long enough to give them a fighting chance to make things work after our troops head home.
Excerpt Of The Day: The "Kick Me" Sign On America's Back
"When a secretary of defense gets confirmed 95-2 apparently because he says we are not winning a war, you know Uncle Sam must have a sign on his back that says "kick me."
We've come a long way from that day in April 1986 when President Ronald Reagan ordered Operation El Dorado Canyon, an air strike on Libya by two dozen F-111F fighter bombers in retaliation for a terrorist blast at a West Berlin disco that injured 200 people, including 63 U.S. soldiers, killing two.
Back then we took the fight to our enemies.
Now not even the prospect of a nuclear Iran gets our dander up. Back then we didn't wait for the U.N to pass a resolution. America was feared.
Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, who held Americans hostage for 444 days, released them 20 minutes after Reagan's inaugural address.
We bled the Soviet empire dry, supporting communism's opponents around the globe from Afghanistan to Nicaragua.
Occasionally we would take matters into our own hands, as when we thwarted the attempt to turn Grenada into a communist beachhead.
The enemies of our enemies were our friends, and our enemies were just that. We didn't depend on the advice of a former secretary of state who channels Joan Rivers and says to those who would gladly see us disappear, "Can we talk?"
We didn't fear an arms race, we planned on winning it. When we talked to our enemies, it was to tell them things like, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall."
When a runt with delusions of grandeur kicked sand on our feet, we would tell our pilots to kick the tires and light the fires.
Now we find ourselves sitting impotently while Iran's maniacal little smurf, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, builds nukes to wipe Israel off the map while he writes love letters to the American people telling us why we must change our policies.
We wait while the U.N. thinks about talking about imposing sanctions, instead of making a list of targets.
A nation that defeated Nazism, Fascism and Communism sees its generals testifying before Congress on why we can't handle the likes of Muqtada al-Sadr." -- Investor's Business Daily
The GOP Is Strong In The South, But It's Not Just A Southern Party
Harold Meyerson has a column out that harps on an idea that seems to have been gaining some traction on the left -- that the GOP is now just a Southern Party:
"In case you haven't noticed, a fundamental axiom of modern American politics has been altered in recent weeks. For four decades, it's been the Democrats who've had a Southern problem. Couldn't get any votes for their presidential candidates there; couldn't elect any senators, then any House members, then any dogcatchers. They still can't, but the Southern problem, it turns out, is really the Republicans'. They've become too Southern -- too suffused with the knee-jerk militaristic, anti-scientific, dogmatically religious, and culturally, sexually and racially phobic attitudes of Dixie -- to win friends and influence elections outside the South. Worse yet, they became more Southern still on Election Day last month, when the Democrats decimated the GOP in the North and West. Twenty-seven of the Democrats' 30 House pickups came outside the South.
The Democrats won control of five state legislatures, all outside the South, and took more than 300 state legislative seats away from Republicans, 93 percent of them outside the South. As for the new Senate Republican caucus that chose Mississippi's Lott over Tennessee's Lamar Alexander to be deputy to Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, 17 of its 49 members come from the Confederacy proper, with another three from the old border states of Kentucky and Missouri, and two more from Oklahoma, which is Southern but with more dust. In all, 45 percent of Republican senators come from the Greater South.
More problematic, so does most of the Republican message. Following the gospel according to Rove (fear not swing voters but pander to and mobilize thy base), George W. Bush and the Republican Congress, together or separately, had already blocked stem cell research, disparaged nonmilitary statecraft, exalted executive wartime power over constitutional niceties, campaigned repeatedly against gay rights, thrown public money at conservative churches and investigated the tax status of liberal ones. In the process, they alienated not just moderates but Western-state libertarians.
The one strategist who fundamentally predicted the new geography of partisan American politics is Tom Schaller, a University of Maryland political scientist whose book "Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South" appeared several months before November's elections. Schaller argued that the Democrats' growth would occur in the Northeast, the industrial Midwest, the Mountain West and the Southwest -- areas where professionals, appalled by Republican Bible Beltery, were trending Democratic and where working-class whites voted their pocketbooks in a way that their Southern counterparts did not. Al Gore carried white voters outside the South, Schaller reminded us; even hapless John Kerry came close."
When you combine the Democrats' frustration that they can't seem to make headway in the South any more, the strong dislike that so many Northern liberals seem to have for Southerners, and the Dems' giddiness over having won an election, you get this sort of drivel.
Here's the reality: politics is cyclical and it's not unusual in off-year elections, particularly in the 2nd off year election, for the President's party to lose seats. In fact,
"Since WWII, the party of the incumbent President has typically lost more than 30 seats in the House of Representatives and six seats in the Senate during the second midterm. In addition, in the five wartime congressional elections since 1860, the President’s party has lost an average of 32 House seats and five Senate seats."
And keep in mind that even after this "crushing" Democratic victory, they only managed to pull off a 51-49 lead in the Senate and they will undoubtedly lose a significant number of the House seats that they gained this year in Republican districts next time around in 2008.
Moreover, the Democratic victory in 2006 had a lot to do with people being sick and tired of Bush and the way that Republicans in Congress were behaving and very little to do with any great love for the Democrats who, as per usual, ran as "unRepublicans," not on the ideological agenda that's near and dear to their hearts.
That's because the Dems are in basically the same situation that Republicans were in when Dwight Eisenhower took over after the FDR and Truman years: the success of the opposing Party was so great that the GOP had to, at least to a certain extent, act like Democrats to win. Fast forward to the modern era. Over the last 30 years the only two Democrats to win the presidency have been Southerners who were perceived as moderates. Moreover, the Democrats have been forced to promise tax cuts and a balanced budget in order to appeal to the American people. Heck, the liberals in the Democratic Party don't even dare to call themselves liberals or talk openly about pursuing a liberal agenda, because so many of the policies associated with liberalism have been discredited.
Last but not least, if you look at a map that shows the counties that went for Bush in 2004, which I'd argue is a lot more representative of the LONG-TERM political sentiment in this country than the 2006 elections, you'll notice a whole lot of red outside of the South:
The Democrats may have won this time around, but it was just a blip on the Dems' downward slide that started back in 1972. Over the long haul, despite all the problems it has, the GOP still has better prospects than the Democrats.
60) Robert Leckie: "A Few Acres of Snow": The Saga of the French and Indian Wars (A: This is a typical Leckie book. In other words, it's superbly written and covers what happened in great detail although fortunately, this one was a little shorter than many of his other books.)
59) Dwight Eisenhower: In Review, Pictures I've Kept (B: It was fascinating to read about WW2 and Eisenhower's time in the White House and little details jumped out at you. The UN seemed to actually function back then. Eisenhower said he had opposed using nukes against Japan, but let it be known that he was willing to use nuclear weapons against China if there was a conflict. It's good historical perspective.)
58) Scott Williams: Hardcore History: The Extremely Unauthorized Story of the ECW (B: I can't fully explain why I read this book so soon after reading the other except that perhaps I thought it might have some better stories. It did -- a little better anyway, although it covered a lot of the same ground.)
55) Victor Davis Hanson: Why the West Has Won (A-: VDH describes how and why some of the greatest Western military victories -- and defeats -- took place.)
54) Maddox: The Alphabet Of Manliness (C: Maddox is about the funniest writer you'll ever run across on the net, but the book is really uneven. Some chapters (where Maddox sticks to what he does better than anyone else, biting sarcasm) are laugh out loud funny and others are very ho-hum.)
53) David Maraniss: When Pride Still Mattered: A Life Of Vince Lombardi (B: This was a well written and detailed book about Lombardi, but I may not be enough of a football fan these days to fully appreciate it.)
49) Donald Kagan: The Peloponnesian War (A: As you read about this epic 25 year long war between Greek States that happened 2500 years ago, you will, believe it or not, see parallels very applicable to the war on terror pop-up.)
47: Desmond Stewart: Early Islam (Great Ages of Man) (B+: It was interesting to read a book about Islam that was done pre-9/11. Lots of details about Muhammad and the power struggles after his death)
44) Fletcher Pratt: The Battles That Changed History (B: This was a good read overall and Pratt is a skilled writer, but a little more detail at times would have been helpful)
Another Missed Opportunity For The GOP By Betsy Newmark
The Democrats are at it again - doing something so politically smart that it demonstrates how politically stupid the GOP was in their control of Congress. If the Democrats keep making clever moves like this, it's going to be a long time before the Republicans ever regain control. First, the Democrats announce that they're actually going to make members meet in Congress from Monday evening to Friday afternoon and they're going to cut out long weekends. Now, they're going to vote against giving themselves raises.
Members of Congress are in line for a $3,300 pay raise effective Jan. 1 unless they block it, and Democrats said Thursday they intend to try.
Officials said Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the party's leaders, had notified Republicans they will try to add the anti-pay-raise provision to a bill that provides funds for most government agencies through Feb. 15.
Congress must pass the funding bill before it adjourns for the year, and the target for that is Friday.
Sure it's a gimmick, but it's a smart gimmick and the Republicans seem to lack such smart gimmicks in their repertoire.
This content was used with the permission of Betsy Newmark.
And we did finish the job. That's why we call the "Greatest Generation," the "Greatest Generation."
Under far more difficult circumstances than we face today, against a much tougher enemy, with well more than a hundred times the lives lost, they persevered, preserved this nation's freedom, destroyed our enemies, and paid the Japanese back in blood more than a hundred fold for what was done to our nation at Pearl Harbor. For that, even a thousand years from now, Americans will still be thanking them for their sacrifices, courage, wisdom, and determination.
It has been more than 3 months since the last time I ranked my favorite 40 blogs, so I thought it was about time to do it again, for the last time in 2006.
Do keep in mind that as the quarter has progressed, some blogs have, of course, moved up and others have dropped, based on how often I visit them, how much I like what I see when I get there, how often the blogs are updated, etc., etc. Also, as per usual, do keep in mind that this sort of list changes frequently over time based on a variety of factors. So if a blog didn't get included, it's no big deal -- it could be on the list next time.
Furthermore, if there are any other bloggers out there who rank at least 10 favorite blogs or more in order today and then link back to the post & let me know about it, I'll add a link to your post right here later tonight.
PS: I decided to leave pages that compile "the best of the blogosphere" out of the mix because I wasn't sure if they'd count as blogs or not. Also, since I now write a column for Human Events, they're not eligible to make the list.
Hollywood has been complaining about sinking revenues and a public that's growing less interested in what they have to offer. Of course, there is no one single cause of Hollywood's woes. The blame could certainly be cast on horrible sequels (The Legend of Zorro, anyone?), terrible remakes of old classics (The Manchurian Candidate, The Stepford Wives), and poor judgement (Did anyone besides Oliver Stone think that Alexander, perhaps the greatest conqueror in history, should have been portrayed as an effeminate prattler with mother issues?)
However, may I suggest an alternative theory? Hollywood has become enamored with a number of stereotypical characters that are not only trite, as if that wasn't bad enough, but actually patronizing to the movie-going public.
For example, there are...
Evil Businessmen: Do almost all businessmen who appear on the Silver Screen have to be greedy, ruthless, polluting Robber Barrons who'd be thrilled to sell poisoned bubble gum to orphans if they could make a couple of bucks on it? Big corporations provide jobs, pay huge tax bills, chip in countless millions of dollars to charities, and usually bend over backwards to make sure their products don't hurt anyone and comply with the law (out of fear of lawyers and government regulators, if for no other reason). Yet, if you formed an opinion of businessmen from watching films, you'd think the average corporate CEO had the same ethical standards as a Mafia Don. Isn't it time for that to change?
Deranged, Trigger Happy Soldiers: Almost every American has family and friends who've served in the military, which is why it's more than a bit annoying to see our soldiers so often portrayed as kill-crazy thugs with mental problems who'd happily kick their own grandmothers down the stairs if they got an order to do so. If anything, soldiers tend to be some of the best of us, which is what makes the way they're so often treated on film such a shame.
European Terrorists: We're in the middle of a world wide war against Islamic terrorists and yet, what do we see at the theaters again and again? European terrorists. That makes about as much sense as making movies about British redcoats threatening America during WW2. Come on, Hollywood, don't let political correctness keep you from doing movies featuring the least sympathetic villains since the Nazis. What better enemy could there be for a hero to fight?
White People Who Want To Be Black: Back in 1975, the Jeffersons popularized the idea of mocking the middle-aged white guy, Tom Willis, who wanted to be black -- and it was funny. Thirty years later, the joke is just tired and stale. Show me a movie featuring some 50 year old white guy posing like he's on the cover of a rap album or a bunch of old white people trying to dance like they're on Soul Train, and I'll show you a movie that most people will avoid the same way Ted Kennedy avoids liquor stores...wait, that wasn't such a good example. But, you get the idea.
Evil Priests: For most Americans, the worst sin they've ever known their preacher to commit is to deliver sermons that are overly long and a bit too dull. Yet, how often has Hollywood featured a lecherous, murderous priest behind the scenes orchestrating some evil plot? If this only happened a few times, it might make for an interesting plot twist, but when you see it over and over and over again, you have to wonder if there's an issue with religion there.
Smooth Super-Hackers: Hackers are usually portrayed as these suave wizards who can break into banks and credit card companies by hitting a key or two on the computer. But, having talked to a few hackers in my time, I can tell you that they're computer geeks who spend hours every night listening to techno music, eating Cheetos, drinking Mountain Dew and looking through pages of code so they can break into a website and write "l33t haxors rool!" on the front page. The movies make it look so exciting, but for most people what hackers do on a day to day basis would be about as thrilling as doing algebra homework. So, maybe a little less glamorization of hacking might be in order.
Genius Kids: Judging by the number of really smart kids in movies, Hollywood seems to think we have a lot to learn from the children. Newsflash: kids don't have any magical insights about life because kids are dumb! Your kid? He's dumb! You and I when we were kids? We were dumb! It's part of being a kid. You start out dumb and if you're lucky or inquisitive and the adults around you are sharp enough, you get smart over time. That's how it works in real life and movies would be better if they were more like that as well.
Ignorant And/Or Dangerous Country Folks/Southerners: As someone who has actually lived in the country, let me tell you the difference between country folks and city folks: country folks are nicer, friendlier, and considerably more polite. On the other hand, country folks do tend to have a low level of tolerance for snobby Yankees who think they use outhouses and secretly have KKK robes in their closet, which probably encompasses an inordinate number of people who work in Hollywood. Maybe that explains the way Southerners/Country folks are so portrayed in the movies. Some big shot Hollywood script writer stops at a diner in Tennessee, makes some joke about inbreeding, gets told to go take a flying leap, and then he gets them back by writing a movie that features a bunch of ignorant, buck-toothed Southern hicks. Then, he's puzzled about why the movie bombs in the South. It's not a mystery to everyone, bub.
Of course, there are plenty of other stereotypes out there, but you get the idea. Come on, Hollywood, get some fresh ideas!
Forget the minimum wage. Or outsourcing jobs overseas. The labor issue most on the minds of members of Congress yesterday was their own: They will have to work five days a week starting in January.
The horror.
...Hoyer and other Democratic leaders say they are trying to repair the image of Congress, which was so anemic this year it could not meet a basic duty: to approve spending bills that fund government. By the time the gavel comes down on the 109th Congress on Friday, members will have worked a total of 103 days. That's seven days fewer than the infamous "Do-Nothing Congress" of 1948.
Hoyer said members can bid farewell to extended holidays, the kind that awarded them six weekdays to relax around Memorial Day, when most Americans get a single day off. He didn't mention the month-long August recess, the two-week April recess or the weeks off in February, March and July.
On the one hand, it's great to know that these lazy stuffed shirts in Washington are going to have to work a more normal schedule instead of getting so much time off. On the other hand, the longer Congress is in session, the better chance there is that they'll get things done and the more that they "get done," the worse off Americans will be.
Glenn Beck Isn't Threatening Muslims, He's Giving Them A Pertinent Warning
There are some libs out there attempting to deliberately misconstrue things that Glenn Beck has said about what could happen to Muslims in the wake of a terrorist attack. Here's a representative quote from Beck:
"All you Muslims who have sat on your frickin' hands the whole time and have not been marching in the streets and have not been saying, 'Hey, you know what? There are good Muslims and bad Muslims. We need to be the first ones in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head.' I'm telling you, with God as my witness... human beings are not strong enough, unfortunately, to restrain themselves from putting up razor wire and putting you on one side of it. When things—when people become hungry, when people see that their way of life is on the edge of being over, they will put razor wire up and just based on the way you look or just based on your religion, they will round you up. Is that wrong? Oh my gosh, it is Nazi, World War II wrong, but society has proved it time and time again: It will happen."
Now here's the reaction of Fair, a liberal media group, "Flirting With Fascism on CNN Headline News Host Glenn Beck threatens Muslims with concentration camps."
Beck is not calling for Muslims to be put in concentration camps. To the contrary, he's warning Muslims about something terrible that he thinks could happen to them in the future.
Is he right?
Well, I would say before 9/11, the level of hostility towards Muslims in this country was practically nil. But, today? There are a lot of Americans who are very distrustful of Muslims in general. That comes from not being able to make it through the day without hearing about Muslims somewhere in the world committing an atrocity in the name of Allah while the "moderate" Muslims in the US seldom seem to get all that worked up about terrorist attacks on "infidels." This has led to a deep seated fear in a lot of Americans that a large percentage of Muslims in the US secretly sympathize with the terrorists.
Because of that, if there was, say, another massive terrorist attack, perhaps in multiple cities, that killed a lot of people, and there were American Muslims who played a role in the attack (which is not exactly a fanciful scenario in these days and times), I don't like to think about the consequences of that for Muslims and the rest of us given a couple of quotes that come to mind:
"There are only two things that Congress does well: nothing and over-react," and "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Do I think we'd start putting Muslims in camps, like we did with the Japanese back in World War 2? I tend to doubt it, but could we see curbs on free speech, new domestic intelligence programs, and a level of hostility and suspicion towards Muslims amongst the general population in this country that would have been unthinkable pre-9/11? Yes, that seems possible. Pointing that out isn't a wish for it to happen. To the contrary, it's a warning about human nature and a situation that could plausibly happen in the future.
In fact, the scenario Beck is warning about is one of the reasons that moderate Muslims should speak up loudly against the terrorists, something that they unfortunately just don't seem inclined to do very often at present, because if there is a nightmarish terrorist attack down the road, the Muslims who speak up today will have the credibility they need to assure that people pay attention to them when it matters.
Disregard this warning if you like, but when even the audiences of mamby pamby liberal talk show hosts like Jerry Klein want to put Muslims in camps or make them identify themselves TODAY, just imagine what the sentiment might be in the aftermath of an attack worse than 9/11 if it were to turn out that some of the terrorists were American Muslims.
Gates was asked about Iran's nuclear program and President Ahamdinejad's threats to wipe Israel off the map.
Gates replied that the Iranian president's threats were serious, but that there were greater forces in Iran than Ahmadinejad who are interested in nuclear ability as a power of deterrence against nuclear countries surrounding them – Pakistan in the east, Russia in the north, Israel in the west and the United States in the Persian Gulf.
The senators asked Gates whether he could guarantee that if Iran possesses nuclear weapons it would not put its threats against Israel into action.
Gates answered that he did not believe anyone could guarantee such a thing.
During the hearing, however, Gates stated that he would not recommend to the president to attack Iran, but only as an "absolute last resort" and if crucial American interests were being threatened.
...As for Syria , Gates said a US attack on that country would unleash a wave of anti-Americanism in the Middle East.
It would have "dramatic consequences for us in Middle East," Gates said. "It would give rise to greater anti-Americanism than we have seen to date. It would immediately complicate our relations with every country in the region."
...He admitted that in the current situation, the US was not winning the war in Iraq, but made it clear that it was not fleeing Iraq and would withdraw in an organized manner after the Iraqi government and its security forces are able to control the situation and defend themselves.
Let's see: Gates thinks Iran should be allowed to build nuclear weapons, despite their hatred for the United States, their terrorist ties, and the fact that it's entirely possible that they'll nuke Israel. He's also afraid to take on Iran and even Syria, despite the fact that their actions are destabilizing Iraq and getting American soldiers killed. And, he thinks we're losing in Iraq. They might as well have made Jimmy Carter or Dennis Kucinich the new Secretary of Defense as this guy.
Moreover, let me add that his approach may not sound so great in let's say 5-10 years, if Iran has gotten nukes, gotten into a nuclear war with Israel, provided nuclear weapons to terrorists, and another half dozen Middle-Eastern nations have also acquired nukes to defend themselves from Iran.
PS: If this is the mushpile that Bush wants as Secretary of Defense, you've got to wonder if it's an indication that he has lost the will to keep fighting the war on terrorism.
RWN reader Paul Nixon told me that I just had to check out this diary post over at the Daily Kos. He was right!
The post was a wacky, Kosian version of the future called, "2012 In the Holy Amerikan Empire." Check out what Ian MacLeod over at the DK presumably thinks the future in America will be like -- but, be forewarned, there's apparently a whole lot of crazy going on 6 years from now -- at least in Ian's fevered imagination:
"When anyone can be arrested at any time for any reason or no reason at all, when they are not permitted to question their arrest and incarceration or to communicate with anyone; when everyone but the very wealthy, who are totally sheltered from contact with the peons save for servants who dare not speak unless spoken to if they want to keep their ‘good’ jobs; when ‘religion is added to the law giving it the unquestionability of being ‘the Word of God’, the government is as secure in robbing the treasury and natural assets of the country (including the populace, of course) as possible, and in using war for various reasons given to an ignorant citizenry in order to rob other countries – after bombing them into moonscapes and making them radioactive if necessary first. After a time, countries who have something we want won’t dare fight or even question. Not if they prefer to survive; the dead are, after all, easier to rob than the occasionally protest-prone living, as well as being an excellent object lesson. Best, then, to cooperate.
....They’re essentially told, "If there’s a problem, point the gun, pull the trigger, and it will go away; if someone next to the problem goes away too, don’t worry about it." They are good at following simple instructions. And with the "Collective Responsibility" law now in effect, being willing to die isn’t enough: You have to be ready to allow your entire family and probably your friends and neighbors to be tortured to death on TV for your ‘crimes’. There is nothing at all in the way now – except the occasional tread-filler civilian; those are for running over, target practice and a good object lesson, which are becoming few and far between.
Assassins, successful or not, are NOT popular. Successful ones can get entire TOWNS destroyed as examples, and entire townships have been known to murder everyone in any way close to such people in an attempt to survive government retaliation, or ‘Collective Punishment’, as they call it.
...It is likely going to be necessary to invent another offense of "extrajudicial execution" proportions soon; formerly ‘free’ people are slow to adapt to the new type of government and need frequent object lessons. His Holiness, Lord High (the Black) Abbot Dick(less) "Chainsaw" Cheney, aka "The Executioner" and "The Soulless One" (he has lots of nicknames, depending on who is speaking and how far away from Cheney he is), sighs.
..."Well, my goodness gracious me," ‘Rummie’ Rumsfeld is at least as dangerous as Cheney. He speaks like someone’s slightly dottie old grandmother for the TV people, and is perfectly capable of ordering the extrajudicial execution of said grandmother without losing a wink of sleep or needing to skip his next meal.
...Karl, now, he is an inside-outsider. He and George were friends – well, master and attack dog – for a long time, though he works with the new figurehead well enough. Karl is devious and completely vicious: the Pillsbury Doughboy with poison fangs, claws, and no conscience whatsoever. He is a weapon. You give him a destination, and he gets there, whoever he has to ruin or run over, whatever he has to destroy to do it. Point him at a person and he gets that person, whatever lies, fake pictures or anything else he has to invent, whatever he has to do, and never mind collateral damage.
Then there is John "My God, My Country" Bolton. He hates any non-WASP, anything that looks like a person but is too dark or too poor to be one. As far as he’s concerned, every pissant little excuse for a country in the world should just shut up, hand over whatever they have that America wants, say thank you, be grateful for their lives, those who still have them, and piss off. ...For whatever reason, he is a hate-full man, a Neofascist to the core, and his specialty is removing wealth from poor countries, usually making the middle class poor and making the poor dirt poor, homeless or dead, and transferring the wealth to the wealthy of his own country. It’s amazing how the riches that would leave a medium-sized country full of people on the edge of starvation adds up into real wealth when you add it all up – and walk off with it.
...Jams A. Baker III is a roving lawyer, and another thief of a special level and kind. He was pulled out of Iraq because his mission had been accomplished, or at least most of it had, and there would be other uses for him. Also because whoever was in charge there after him would be in charge of an impossible situation and many if not all would have to be sacrificed. The public mission was to rebuild the country, set it on it’s feet again and go away; his real mission was to gain control over Iraq’s oil – all of it, so the government must be in name only and entirely under the control of the Neocons – to make sure that that the place became a drain that emptied the ‘rebuilding’ money into the coffers of crony corporations."
You've gotta love this sort of warped, nutty fantasy. Heck, even Bolton and Rumsfeld are there participating in it. Maybe they can bring back Ari Fleischer, too, then he can be spokesman for apocolypse.
Know what else is funny? That even the Democratic victory in 2006 had no impact on this guy's psyche. The Democrats won, the Republicans lost; there was no coup, there was no re-education camp set up for people who voted for liberals, etc., etc., etc.
It's still very early, but the race for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 is starting to shape up. Here's a quick and dirty breakdown of the field.
1) Due to his high name recognition and the fawning press that he gets from the mainstream media for trashing other Republicans, John McCain is currently one of the two front runners for the Republican nomination. On the upside, McCain is a Vietnam vet, a true blue fiscal conservative, and he scores an 82 out of a possible 100 lifetime points on the American Conservative Union's scoring system, which isn’t terrible.
On the other hand, McCain is probably the single most widely despised Republican on Capitol Hill amongst conservatives in the know. That's because he seems to take particular delight in poking his finger in the eye of other conservatives in order to draw praise from liberals in the press. McCain sponsored Campaign Finance Reform that ran roughshod over the First Amendment, he was the ringleader of the Gang-of-14 compromise which may make it easier for Democrats to block conservative judges over the next two years, he voted against Bush's tax cuts multiple times, he's the prime mover and shaker behind the atrocious Senate Amnesty plan for illegals, he supports a radical Kyoto-like bill that would do massive damage to the American economy in the name of reducing greenhouse gasses, he opposes a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, and he even said twice back in 1999 that he opposed overturning Roe v. Wade (although he has flip-flopped since then). Combine that with his advanced age (He'll be 72 in 2008), his discussions with John Kerry about becoming the Democratic veep in 2004, and the fact that he committed adultery in his first marriage, and it becomes obvious that McCain isn't anywhere near as great a candidate as his supporters try to make him out to be. With a guy like McCain, even if he wins, Republicans still lose because they'd be forced to have him as their party's representative in the White House for at least four years.
2) The support for Rudy Giuliani amongst many conservatives is rather puzzling. Yes, he's charismatic, did a great job of cleaning up crime when he was mayor of New York, and did a masterful job of holding things together in New York City after 9/11. However, Rudy Giuliani is not conservative in the least. In fact, he's so ideologically ambiguous on most issues that he has more in common with the Democratic contenders than his Republican counterparts on perhaps a majority of issues. Rudy Giuliani is pro-abortion, pro-partial birth abortion, soft on gay marriage, pro-gun control, and even once said he was open to endorsing Bill Clinton for President. Speaking of Clinton, Giuliani's former wife accused him of "open and notorious adultery." Is this really a guy that Reagan Republicans would be happy to have as their President? All I can say to conservatives is be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.
3) Mitt Romney is an interesting character. Although he is the outgoing Governor of the very liberal state of Massachusetts and was named as one of the Top 10 RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) less than a year ago in Human Events, he's not as liberal as he might appear at first glance. He opposed raising taxes in Massachusetts, balanced the budget, fought gay marriage (although unfortunately, he lost) and has flip flopped on abortion (He now has a pro-life stance). He's even publicly calling himself a ”conservative Republican.”
On the other hand, according to recent polls, even if you set aside the debate about how conservative he is or isn't, the "Mormon issue" is starting to look like an insurmountable obstacle to his candidacy. According to Rasmussen Polling, 43% of Americans and 53% of Evangelicals say that they, "wouldn't consider voting for a Mormon candidate." For good or ill, that probably means that Romney is unelectable.
4) Putting Newt Gingrich in the top tier is probably a bit of a stretch at this point, but after George Allen's untimely political demise, Newt is basically the "conservative choice" by default. That's not to say that Newt doesn't have his charms. Not only is he extremely well informed and conservative, as the author of the Contract with America, he's the closest thing to a flag carrier that Reagan Republicans have.
Unfortunately, Newt is also carrying around some extremely heavy baggage. He has had multiple wives and multiple extra-marital affairs. He's also notorious for hashing out a divorce agreement with his first wife while she was in the hospital recovering from uterine cancer. On top of that, Newt, who was an extremely polarizing figure back in the nineties, got caught up in a rather silly ethics flap over an advance on a book he wrote. Also, he gave up his leadership position in Congress after his fellow Republicans lost confidence in him back in 1998.
In short, Newt has a checkered past that would probably be revisited in excruciating detail in 2008. On the other hand, Newt's baggage is probably not much heavier than Rudy Giuliani's and Rudy’s numerous personal flaws don’t seem to be curbing anyone's enthusiasm for his candidacy.
2nd Tier Candidates
5) Although Tom Tancredo has a significant fan base in the Republican party because of his tough stance on illegal immigration, he hasn't made a name for himself on any other issues and his comments about nuking Mecca and Miami being a "Third World country" indicate that he may not be ready for the big show. Still, even though Tancredo probably can't win the nomination, his endorsement, which would be like the good housekeeping seal of approval on the illegal immigration issue, could turn out to be very important.
6) Duncan Hunter, a Congressman from California, is perhaps the most intriguing of the 2nd tier candidates. Hunter is very conservative, charismatic, and tough on illegal immigration. He's also a former Army Ranger, who fought in Vietnam, has a son serving in Iraq, and is the current Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
The weakness of the field overall combined with Hunter's foreign policy credibility and tough stand on illegal immigration may give him an opportunity to climb the ladder into the top tier if, and this is a big "if," he can significantly build up his name recognition and convince the base that he's a fiscal conservative.
7) Sam Brownback is a socially conservative Senator from Kansas who might have had an outside shot at filling the now vacant "conservative candidate" role had he not been one of the strongest backers of amnesty for illegal aliens in the Senate. As it is, Brownback, who's not especially charismatic and has almost no name recognition, is better known for being in favor of unlimited illegal immigration than anything else. That's not an especially promising way to start a dark horse campaign for the Presidency.
8) Mike Huckabee, the former minister and Governor of Arkansas has a cheerful personality, has gotten some attention for losing over a hundred pounds, and is, as you'd expect from a former minister, quite socially conservative. However, he doesn't come across as hawkish, fiscally conservative, or tough on illegal immigration. Given that he doesn't have high name recognition either, it's hard to see how Huckabee is going to be able to climb up the ranks.
9) Jim Gilmore, the former Governor of Virginia and RNC chairman has been said to be considering a run at the Presidency. Although Gilmore is certainly very conservative and has burnished his national security credentials since he left office, he hasn't been the Governor of Virginia for more than five years and he has very little name recognition. Since that's the case, if he decides to run, it seems likely that he will have an extremely difficult time getting any traction.
10) After hearing that Tommy Thompson was the former Governor of Wisconsin, you might think that he'd be an interesting dark horse candidate for the presidency. After all, Wisconsin barely went blue in 2004 and if Thompson could turn it red, along with perhaps Minnesota, which is next door, that would be an additional 20 electoral votes that the GOP could rake in. However, as Bush's Health and Human Services Secretary, Thompson shepherded through the biggest new government boondoggle since the Johnson Presidency, the Medicare prescription drug program. That's just not the sort of thing you want to have on your resume when you're running as a Republican nominee for the Presidency, especially when the base is particularly grouchy about issues related to fiscal conservatism.
11) Does a moderate, not particularly popular or well known, pro-abortion Governor of a liberal state like George Pataki really have a shot to become President? Honestly, probably not.
12) Chuck Hagel, the Senator from Nebraska, is best known for his anti-war stance, his criticism of other Republicans, and for being nearly as despised by conservative bloggers as John McCain. Hagel's chances of being the nominee in 2008 are about the same as those of Richard Nixon -- and Nixon's dead.
The Has Beens And Just Might Be’s -- If They Decide To Run
13) Condi Rice has a surprising amount of grassroots support for a candidate who has never run for office before and if she were to get into the race, she'd probably become a top tier contender. However, the fact that she's a never married woman in her fifties would be a major hindrance (The Democrats would tag her as a lesbian or a weirdo) and as she actually revealed her domestic policies (of which, people know almost nothing at present), it's likely her support would drop significantly.
14) George Bush's replacement as Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, is a socially conservative, fiscally conservative candidate from one of the most important states for Republicans. There has been some talk that he wants to be considered as a VP in 2008, but if Perry were to get into the race, he'd have a good shot of moving right up into the top tier.
15) The current Governor of Minnesota, Tim Pawlenty, would be an intriguing candidate if he chose to run. Pawlenty is conservative and could likely bring Minnesota and Wisconsin (20 electoral votes) into the GOP column in 2008. Although he has minimal name recognition at present, he would get a long, hard look if he got into the race.
16) Is the time right for South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford to dip his toes into Presidential waters? This quote tells you just about everything you need to know:
"Governor Sanford's reforms have saved South Carolina taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. ... Mark Sanford has made a real difference. He is a true taxpayer hero." - Citizens Against Government Waste Political Action Committee chairman Tom Schatz
Sanford would have a real uphill battle to get the nomination, but in a field this weak, he'd be guaranteed to at least get a long, hard look from the base.
17) When does it not make sense for a popular, fiscally conservative Governor of an important swing state who is popular with Hispanics not to run for President? The answer to that is when his last name happens to be Bush, as in Jeb Bush. At the moment, Republicans have had enough of the Bush family in the White House and if Jeb wants to have a chance to win, he'll want to wait until at least 2012 at this point.
18) Normally, you'd think that the sitting Vice President would consider a run at the Presidency, but Dick Cheney isn't particularly popular, has had heart problems, and has said definitively that he's not going to run.
19) George Allen was slowly morphing into the "conservative candidate" in the race before he lost to Jim Webb in what was perhaps the nastiest political battle in the country. After losing, Allen is out.
20) After the GOP's crushing loss in 2006, Bill Frist decided not to run for the Presidency which makes sense because, after all, if people think the Republican Senate performed miserably and you were the Senate Majority Leader, a promotion probably isn’t in the cards.
Excerpt Of The Day: Another Democratic Crook Who's In Line To Get A Promotion
"Representative Alan Mollohan, a West Virginia Democrat whose finances are being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is in line to take over the House panel that sets the bureau's budget.
...The pending appointment poses an ethical dilemma for incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 66, who helped her party take control of Congress for the first time in 12 years by vowing to clean up a ``culture of corruption'' on Capitol Hill." -- Bloomberg
There is a move to require companies to pay for sick days. Conservatives say this is "Socialism."
If basic human rights is "Socialism" then I guess I'm a Socialist! How about you?
...What sorts of things should we, the people, require of the companies we, through the laws we pass, allow to operate? Who is our economy FOR? Discuss.
You've got to love these socialist libs and their belief that they're doing people a favor by allowing them to use their own money, talent, and initiative to create a company. In other words, your life, your labor, your effort doesn't belong to you, it belongs to the state (which is acting on behalf of the proletariat) and it's only because of their benevolence that you're allowed to create a company and better yourself -- or, to take a step further down the road Dave is trotting happily down,
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." -- Karl Marx
"But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."
It is not the job of a company to provide benefits for society or health care or sick days or anything else. It's the job of a company to make a profit for its owners and in the process of doing so, it will create things like jobs, taxes, health care for workers, value for its customers, and other such things that are beneficial to society.
Does that mean we shouldn't regulate companies at all? No, but in a society like ours where people are free to work where they choose, the government shouldn't get involved with things like what sort of health care a company is providing, sick days, or the minimum wage. If people are unhappy with what they're getting paid, whether they get paid for sick days, or the health care they're getting, they're not chained to their desk. They can try to get a job elsewhere. People all across the country do that every day of the week. To try to force businesses to meet some arbitrary standard for pay or benefits, set by know-nothing liberals in the government, will only make our businesses less competitive.
In a part of Dave's comments that I cut out, he talks favorably about the vacations and pensions in Europe. Of course, the flip side of those generous pensions and benefits is a staggeringly high jobless rate and stagnant economies. That's the price they pay for having so much government interference in the market. The more regulations and mandated costs the government piles onto businesses, the more poorly they perform.
It works that way in Europe and the more we copy them, the more we'll see those same problems crop up here in the United States.
"Standard caveats aside (it's early, we don't have a set field, blah blah blah), it's hard to see how Barack Obama loses the nomination barring scandal or the mother-of-all gaffes.
I've been working up a few scenarios given the primary calendar (which isn't set in stone, with states like California looking to move up), and really, it would be Obama's race to lose.
....There's one thing that could put a skid on Obama's fast rise -- an Al Gore entrance into the race. Other than that, I don't see a way anyone stops him.
Again, we don't know what the final field will look like, so things can dramatically change. But an entrance into the race would make Obama the prohibitive favorite. If politics is about seizing opportunities, it would seem a no-brainer for him to enter the race now.
What's more, Obama would then be tough to beat in the general. He would very well be the favorite in that race, even against a McCain, and would probably be a net positive for Democrats running down the ballot. So it wouldn't be a terrible thing by any means."
Is Kos right about Obama being unstoppable in the Democratic primaries? I don't know. But, I can tell you that he would be a terrible Democratic candidate in the general election.
Barack Hussein Obama jr. is charismatic and he has sort of a "moderate tone," similar to the one that Joe Lieberman has, that people tend to like. So, he has that going for him.
But, on the other hand, he has only been in the Senate for two years and hasn't accomplished anything of note yet. Moreover, he has an extremely liberal voting record and he can be plugged right into the same old "Northern liberal" template that Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale, and John Kerry were in.
Furthermore, addressing the elephant in the room, black voters already come in for the Democrats -- so Obama adds nothing there. Moreover, research has shown that, "In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black." (Incidentally, for Republicans, the number is 25%). Would the numbers be all that different for the presidency? The number of racist Democrats crossing the line might drop a bit because of the importance of the presidency to each party, so you might see a 25% loss of white Democrats for Obama instead of 38%, but that still would turn into an extra few points at the ballot box in every state for the Republican candidate.
Put the liberalism, his inexperience, and the racist Democrats all together and I think Barack Hussein Obama jr. would have an extremely difficult time becoming President unless the Republican candidate would completely melt down and essentially hand it to him on a silver platter.
PS #1: I still want to see him run for the nomination though and not just because he won't win the general. The Democrats always act as if disagreeing with a black man is caused by some sort of racist impulse. That's why, for the most part, they ignored anti-semitic crank Al Sharpton during the last Democratic presidential primary. However, Obama would be too much of a "rock stah" to ignore, so they'd have to beat him up and all the charges and counter charges of racism among Democrats would be just too delicious to miss.
PS #2: There will be a black President one day, but he'll be a Republican. That's because white Republicans are more willing to vote for a black candidate than Democrats and because a lot of black conservatives who are today voting for the Democrats just because it's expected of them will cross the lines and vote for a conservative, black Republican.
PS #3: The first black Republican President will not, however, be Condi Rice. Setting aside her not particularly impressive performance as Secretary of State of late, here's why.
Update #1: From the comments section:
"Barack Hussein Obama Jr."
John --
"I've always been a fan of your blog, despite being a Democrat. But if his middle name were anything other than Hussein, would you be including it in your posts? I think we can safely assume no, since you follow common practice of not including middle names.
I can only assume, then, that you're including it because it's Hussein, which of course reminds all of us of Saddam Hussein, who I'm sure we all agree was a dispicable dictator. If I am wrong about your motivation, please let me know, but if I'm write, don't you think that making political hay out of what a candidate's *name* is is rather below the belt?" -- FairMindedLefty
Actually, after the 2006 election in which George Allen was called George Felix Allen jr. endlessly by liberals, the only reason I included Obama's middle name was to expose the hypocrisy of liberals when they complained about the "Hussein" being in there.
"Survivors of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre have criticised the Dutch government for giving an insignia to UN peacekeepers who served in the city.
They said honouring Dutch troops who were charged with protecting the Muslim Bosnian enclave was "scandalous".
Nearly 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed by Serb forces who overran Srebrenica in July 1995.
The Dutch government said the troops deserved recognition for their behaviour in difficult circumstances.
Presenting the insignia to some 800 soldiers from the Dutch battalion (Dutchbat) at a military barrack in Assen, Dutch Defence Minister Henk Kamp said they had been unjustly seen in an unfavourable light.
He said they were sent to Srebrenica on a mission impossible - without enough weaponry - and a limited mandate.
..."They [the Dutch peacekeepers] allowed Bosnian Serb troops to slaughter 10,000 people. Shame be on them," she said.
...The government in the Netherlands resigned in 2001 after accepting partial blame for the genocide."
Here's what happened.
The pathetic Dutch, under the flag of the United Nations, were "protecting" Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica. Keep in mind that the UN had confiscated the weapons of those Muslims as a condition of "protecting" them.
Well, the Serbians show up and demand access to the Bosnian Muslims and the Dutch troops gave up and fled with their tails between their legs, without firing a single shot, even though they knew that they were the only thing standing between the civilians under their protection and a massacre. After the UN "peacekeepers" left, the Serbs, who were outraged by Bosnian Muslim attacks against Serbian civilians, raped many of the women and butchered 7500 men and boys.
The Dutch soldiers who left those people to die? They're the ones getting the medals. It would be more appropriate to hang the officers responsible for that cowardly retreat than it would be to give the men medals. You've heard of the "red badge of courage?" Well, those soldiers should be given a yellow badge of shame for their participation in that whole disgraceful episode, not a medal.
"Preceding an ongoing investigation into SF State College Republican behavior, the Associated Students board unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the student group for purposely stomping on flags containing the Arabic symbol for God.
“Associated Students, Inc. deems the College Republicans’ actions as contrary to university values and feel they should be held accountable by the university for their actions,” the resolution says.
The Nov. 15 resolution comes on the heels of several student and student organization complaints at board meetings and the Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development, or OSPLD, which has also sparked a separate investigation and assembly of a special panel to decide if the College Republicans did indeed violate the university’s conduct rules.
The resolution cited a rule outlined in the university’s Strategic Plan saying, “SFSU facilitates teaching, learning and work experiences among students, faculty and staff that promote equity and social justice within a respectful and safe environment.”
Moreover, the resolution sets the stage for the College Republicans possibly losing official student group status and or ASi funding.
Amid heavy campus police presence at an Oct. 17 anti-terrorism rally in Malcolm X Plaza, some members of the crowd turned angry when the College Republicans stepped on homemade Hezbollah and Hamas flags, though the student group claims they were not initially aware the flags contained the Arabic symbol for God.
After that, the College Republican-organized rally dissolved into a heated shouting match between the group and a mix of students, including some Muslim students, eventually resulting in formal complaints to student representatives.
‘They were voicing their concerns that this event was even allowed. They were offended,” said Kimberly Castillo, board member and chair of University Affairs, the committee that drafted the resolution. “We felt it our duty to respond.”
Administrators have been criticized for even allowing the rally to take place.
“The actions on the part of the College Republicans amount to no more than hateful religious intolerance, and constitutes an attempt to defy policies outlined and defined by San Francisco State University’s values,” the resolution says. “Members… pre-mediated the stomping of the flags knowing it would offend some people and possibly incite violence."
So, the college Republicans stomped on some terrorist flags, some Muslim terrorist sympathizers complain that the event was allowed, and the Associated Students board agrees that the First Amendment shouldn't apply to Republicans. That's not a big surprise for a San Francisco college and of course, as we all know, this would never work the other way.
If let's say a Muslim group got together to protest, let's say women being able to leave the house without getting permission from a man, and they burned an American flag or stomped a flag with a crucifix or star of David on it, do you think the Associated Students board would care in the least? No, of course not. In fact, if some Jew or Christian on campus even took offense or yelled, they'd probably be the ones who got in trouble, not the Muslims.
But, this is nothing new. The only surprising thing about liberals bending over backwards to stick it to Republicans or cater to America's enemies is to figure out what their excuse will be this time. In this case, it was that there was an "Arabic symbol for God," on the flags. Well, whoop-de-doo. When they ban insulting Christians and Jews on that campus (Which I wouldn't support by the way. People have a constitutional right to say and do things that are offensive to Christians, Jews, AND Muslims), I'll believe that they're really concerned about someone's religion being insulted.
Quote Of The Day: Barrack Obama Tries To Have A "Sister Souljah Moment" At Kos's Expense
“One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me? And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn’t surprise me. It’s all just exactly what I would expect.” -- Barrack Obama
"With the Democratic Congress expected to move quickly to raise the minimum wage, many Democrats, women’s organizations and liberal groups are gearing up for a fight on another workplace issue: paid sick days.
Supporters point to studies showing that nearly half of American workers do not receive paid sick days. But many Republicans and businesses complain that such legislation would impose another mandate on companies, driving up their costs.
Advocates of paid sick leave cite workers like Naomi Nakamura, who lost a week’s pay when her 103-degree fever forced her to miss five days from her job at a video rental store in San Francisco.
Ms. Nakamura said, “Some employees didn’t want to lose their pay, so they showed up for work even though they had strep throat, and they just spread it to other people.”
Last month, San Francisco voters approved a measure requiring all employers to provide paid sick days, making it the first jurisdiction in the nation with such a requirement. The vote was 61 percent to 39 percent.
Now supporters are planning a big push for sick day legislation not just in Congress, but in Maine, Maryland, Montana and several other states. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, introduced a bill last year to require companies with at least 15 employees to provide seven paid sick days a year, but that bill languished in the Republican-led Congress.
Now that Democrats have won control of Congress, Mr. Kennedy, the incoming chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, is more optimistic.
“It has a wildfire of support across the country,” he said. “When you talk to workers, this is, besides an increase in the minimum wage, the most important issue for these families. This is a families issue. This is a values issue.”
Mr. Kennedy’s bill, like a House bill sponsored by Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, would provide a total of seven paid sick days not just when workers are ill, but when members of their families are ill — or need to go to the doctor for checkups and tests.
A big problem with not having paid sick days, Mr. Kennedy said, is that many parents, not wanting to miss work, let their sick children go to school, spreading their illnesses. Mr. Kennedy said his bill would guarantee paid sick days to 66 million who do not now have them."
Democrats always talk about a strong economy and then once they get into office, they immediately start to saddle businesses with all sort of regulations and extra expenses that kill growth, just like this one.
Furthermore, whether a business has paid sick days or not isn't something that Congress should even be involved with. Nobody puts a gun to your head and forces you to work for a company that doesn't have paid sick days. That's just one factor out of many that people take into consideration when they choose to go to work for a company.
Moreover, let me tell you that in my experience, sick days are heavily abused. Where I used to work, we did have paid sick days and initially, they carried over from year to year. Well, after they changed that policy so that the sick days didn't carry over, everybody I knew took them just like impromptu vacation days from that point forward. I'd bet you 95% of the sick days weren't actually used by people who were sick and I can tell you from personal experience that there were a lot of days I stayed out of work because I was dog tired from not getting enough sleep 3 or 4 nights in a row or because I woke up with a headache or the sniffles. Could I fairly say that I didn't feel great? Sure. Did the fact that I had a paid sick day influence my decision not to show? Oh, you bet. Let me put it this way: after I was at the company for 5 years, I had 12 paid sick days and never once did I finish the year with one of them left over. On the other hand, since I started working for myself on RWN, I think I have taken maybe 1 or 2 sick days in 21 months.
Long story short, this idea would saddle a lot of businesses with an extremely expensive new cost and it would also drive the number of sick days taken way, way up. So for businesses, it's a stone cold loser on both ends and it would undoubtedly have a big negative economic impact.
