:: Thursday, April 07, 2005 ::
Democratic Talking Point
This (especially the part I bolded) should be on the lips of every Democrat whenever Social Security comes up:
This is the first time that a President of the United States has declared that we, the United States Government, will not put the full faith and credit of the federal government behind the Social Security trust fund. What this President is saying is, we have two kinds of debt. Let's see how we get the debt first. It is in deficit spending, so we have to go borrow in order to keep the government going. It is cutting, it is damaging, and best of all -- it is absolutely true. Bush stood there, in front of the public, and claimed that US debt held by the American people is "worthless". The non-negotiable treasury bonds held by the SSA (and, for that matter, my personal savings bonds) are just "IOUs". But the hundreds of billions owned by China, by Japan, by various banks and international institutions -- not to mention the 95% or so of Bush's wealth tied up in bond funds -- that'll be paid back to the last dime. But not Social Security.....that's just worthless paper.
So where does he borrow? He borrows from the Chinese. He borrows from the Japanese. He borrows from the trust fund. And what he is saying now to the American worker: 'We will honor our debt to the Chinese and the Japanese, but we are treating you differently. We are not honoring our debt to you.'
Makes it pretty easy to see whom Bush really values. (Link via Kos)
:: Morat 7:17 AM :: ::
Florida eyes allowing residents to open fire whenever they see threat
It's nice to see Florida continues to err on the side of life:
:: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 ::
Florida's legislature has approved a bill that would give residents the right to open fire against anyone they perceive as a threat in public, instead of having to try to avoid a conflict as under prevailing law. You'll have to read down to find out how the NRA feels about the law (I'll give you two guesses, and the second doesn't count!).
All in all, it's nice to see the Republicans have gone absolutely bat-ass crazy. I'm just shocked no one used Terri Schiavo as an example of how the law could have 'saved lives'.
:: Morat 6:43 AM :: ::
How To Do Things With Extremists
Big Media Matt has about the best response to Cornyn's idiocy I've see, as well as the various defenses offered for it.
:: Monday, April 04, 2005 ::
Back to Cornyn -- who's kidding whom here? I've already seen some folks on the right try to explain this away. He was just offering an analytic point, noting the existence of anger about some judicial decisions, some anti-judge violence, and offering some speculations. Sure he was. Nevermind that he and his ilk are the ones whipping up the anger. It wouldn't cross his mind to tone down and suggest that his colleagues do likewise. Suggest that in the wake of some murders and some controversial court cases that we all agree that we are a country under law and that despite disagreements we should respect judicial offices and their holders. No. Far better to note that there may be a connection between non-Cornyn-approved court rulings and the murder of judges. He's just trying to be helpful. If anything, the full statement is even more damning to Cornyn than the excerpt most people posted. Here it is in all it's glory:
"It causes a lot of people, including me, great distress to see judges use the authority that they have been given to make raw political or ideological decisions," he said. Sometimes, he said, "the Supreme Court has taken on this role as a policymaker rather than an enforcer of political decisions made by elected representatives of the people." Sound familiar? It's the "She was asking for it" rape defense.
Cornyn continued: "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. . . . And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence. Certainly without any justification, but a concern that I have."
:: Morat 7:35 AM :: ::
A quick look at the news
Having flipped through several news channels over the last hour, I thought I'd save you the time: The Pope is still dead and they're still planning on burying him.
Apparently, this is a point of some debate, as every frickin' channel appears to offering in-depth coverage, complete with teams of researchers and live reporters.
Why, I don't know. He's dead. I don't think there's a single person in the world who isn't aware that he's dead. I'm pretty sure that world events have not come to a massive halt, so why not cover those until something "new" happens in Rome? Like when they elect a new pontiff? Because, nice guy or not, a corpse doesn't need 24/7 news coverage unless you're thinking he might get back up.
:: Morat 7:31 AM :: ::