Droppings of joy, courtesy of Bush Administration

G

Guest

Guest
These are some of the good things we have to look forward to during these next four years of rule under King George. I can hardly wait (yes, I'm being sarcastic).

By the way, notice how the "culture of life" is mentioned in this article (referring to outlawing abortion) and yet the same people want to give the death penalty to abortion doctors. Do I detect some hypocrisy? Nah, couldn't be.

Also, this is the first time I've heard anyone try to assert that multiple abortions are a "gay agenda". 'Cause if you're gay, and you are with a same sex partner it's kind of hard to make a baby... But hey, why let logic get in the way of agendas, right?


The New Republican Reality: No Policy is too Right-Wing
By Andrew Gumbel
The Independent U.K.

Monday 08 November 2004
Conservative pipedreams are suddenly part of America's mainstream.

Los Angeles - Where should the United States invade next? Iran, Syria, or Cuba? Will George Bush merely slash taxes on the rich even further in his second term, or will he have the courage to abolish income tax altogether? Will gay marriage simply be outlawed state by state, or will a much-threatened constitutional amendment come into being?

These might once have been idle questions for conservative Washington think-tanks. But now, with President Bush safely re-elected for another four years and increased Republican majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives, such radical right-wing notions are no longer pipedreams. They are the active stuff of policy discussion.

Grass-roots conservatives, many of them religious fundamentalists who paved the way for President Bush's victory in the suburbs and the rural heartland, are positively salivating at the prospect of having their efforts rewarded.

"I don't know if we're going to abolish the prescription drug benefit [for senior citizens], but we'd like to. It's just an expansion of government," the Republican strategist and direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie said over the weekend. "We'd like to see oil and gas
exploration increased in the continental United States. We want a constitutional amendment on marriage. We want the culture of life expanded."


This wish list and others like it now face little or no opposition in Congress, in the White House or - as the federal bench is increasingly filled with ideological conservatives - the courts.The rest of the world may have thought the first four years of Mr. Bush's presidency were quite radical enough, but they could turn out to be just the hors d'oeuvre to a radical-right beanfeast.

The New York Times reported yesterday that Vice-President Dick Cheney was supporting the idea of abolishing income tax and replacing
it with a flat national sales tax - a highly regressive notion that would effectively shift the tax burden drastically away from the rich to the dwindling middle class and the working poor.


In Cuban exile circles in Miami, meanwhile, hardline anti-Castro leaders are getting very excited by a pledge President Bush made in one of his last campaign appearances in Florida to liberate their homeland. Career diplomats at the State Department are getting concerned this might be an indication that military intervention - the first since President Kennedy's disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 - might be seriously contemplated.

State Department stalwarts are getting equally alarmed at the prospect - yet to be confirmed - that Colin Powell will depart his post as Secretary of State and open the door to a neo-conservative takeover of foreign and national security policy.

A senior State Department official, writing anonymously in the online magazine Salon.com last month, laid out a stark future for US policy in the Middle East in a second Bush term, the first part of which appears to be close to fruition already. "The neo-cons, working in tandem with a similar staff in the office of Prime Minister Sharon of Israel, have a three-part agenda for the first part of Bush's second term," he wrote. "First, oust Yasser Arafat; second, overthrow the secular Baathist al-Assad dictatorship in Syria; and, third, eliminate, one way or another, Iran's nuclear facilities."

The Republicans' domestic agenda is likely to contemplate the further delegation of social services to religious charities, the further concentration of media ownership in a few corporate, largely pro-Republican hands, further moves to restrict or even outlaw
abortion, restrictions on the civil rights of gay couples (for example, their right to bequeath property to each other) and increasing challenges to Darwinian evolution in school classrooms.


Some of the new faces in the Senate gave a flavor of the kind of politics we can expect out of Washington in the next political cycle. Tom Coburn, newly elected Senator from Oklahoma, is on record saying he thinks doctors who perform abortions should be executed. (So much for the "culture of life" behind the anti-abortion movement.) Jim DeMint of South Carolina said during his campaign that homosexuals and unmarried pregnant women should not be allowed to teach in public schools.

Democrats and many Independents are appalled at the prospects ahead. Since moderation seems unlikely in the immediate future, some of them are left hoping the Republicans will overreach so drastically that it will create a large political backlash.

California: Three Strikes and Jail for Life

Petty criminals who steal a slice of pizza or a pack of batteries are still liable to be sentenced to 25 years to life under a notoriously draconian piece of legislation known as California's Three Strikes law. First introduced in 1994, it was sold to the public as a way of ensuring that violent repeat offenders are kept out of harm's way. But it rapidly became clear that the law applied to offenders of almost any kind. As a result, thousands of shoplifters, welfare frauds and other small-time offenders found themselves on the receiving end of a judicial sledgehammer.

A modest proposal to amend the law and exempt the pizza-stealers was well on its way to success at the polls last Tuesday until a coalition of prosecutors and prison guards managed to talk Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and four former governors into campaigning to defeat the measure. The airwaves were bombarded with adverts falsely
claiming that thousands of violent offenders would be released if the
ballot initiative passed. Result: Three Strikes will stand unamended
for the foreseeable future.


Arizona: Immigration

Arizona voters resoundingly endorsed a ballot initiative requiring
immigrants to show proof of citizenship when seeking government benefits - potentially barring all foreigners from the public schools and health programs.


Quite what the initiative known as Proposition 200 means is not clear because its language is vague, but already it has spooked the state's large Latino population, most of whom did not vote. Attendance at public pre-schools in Phoenix has already dropped - numbers at one visited by a reporter dropped from 20 to just 2 at the end of last week.

Supporters of Prop. 200 say it is time to crack down on illegal immigration. (This is a state where ranchers take pot shots at Mexicans sneaking across the border.) Statistics show undocumented workers pay more into the system in taxes than they take out of it. Opponents hope they can strike the measure down in court before it spreads to other states. A slightly less draconian measure was passed in 1994 in California but later [color=blue=deemed unconstitutional[/color].

Oklahoma: Death Penalty for Abortion Doctors

Widely seen as the kookiest candidate in the recent election,
Oklahoma's new Senator-elect Tom Coburn is so conservative it actually
pains him to request federal money for his home state - usually the number one job of any elected representative in Washington.

On his campaign, he advocated the death penalty for abortionists and "other people who take life" - not, presumably, executioners or US
military personnel in Iraq. He loves guns so much that after the Columbine High School shootings in 1999 - when he was a Congressman - he said he saw nothing wrong with people having access to bazookas and using them "in a limited way". And he loathes homosexuals. "The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power," he said. "That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That's a gay agenda." Interestingly, Coburn is a doctor - an obstetrician, to be exact, who once admitted sterilizing a 20-year-old woman without her written consent.


Kentucky: The Terrorists are Out to Get Me

The republican Senator Jim Bunning achieved re-election by a hair, but not before spooking many of his constituents into thinking he had lost his marbles.

He insists that all rumors about Alzheimer's or another degenerative disease are nonsense. One can be forgiven, though, for thinking him a touch paranoid for insisting on a massive security detail in the less than high-profile Bluegrass State. ("There may be strangers among us," he said a few months ago, hinting that al-Qa'ida
was out to get him.)

Ditto his assertion - entirely unsupported by the facts - that
campaigners loyal to his Democratic rival beat up his wife until she was "black and blue". The Washington rumor mill suggests that, having
won re-election, Senator Bunning - a former baseball star - may now quietly retire.

Nationwide: Replace Income Tax with a Levy on Sales

Extreme policy ideas begin in the White House itself. Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, was reported yesterday to favor the kind of tax reforms that would make even the most radical fiscal wonk blush.

Mr Cheney is said to be among a powerful lobby with the President's
ear whose recommendations include the abolition of income tax, the
cornerstone of a progressive tax policy. In its place would come a national sales tax, in effect replacing a tax on income with a levy on consumption.

The idea that a Bush administration would use the tax system to favor the rich is hardly an outlandish one. Much pre-election debate centered on tax cuts implemented during his first term, which were heavily weighted towards the better-off.

Nor would he be the first leader to try to tip the balance of taxation from direct to indirect levies: Margaret Thatcher cut income tax and raised value-added tax.

But the latest proposals would be something else entirely, and a sign that the election victory has given Mr. Bush the mandate to rip up the rule book and start again when raising revenue.

Mr. Cheney's is not, however, the only voice advising the President on this subject.

Creationists Rule in Kansas, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania

The last time there was a conservative majority on the Kansas state school board in 1999, they voted to change the science curriculum and
present Darwinian evolution as just one theory among many to account for the bio-diversity of the planet.

Back then, the move provoked national ridicule, led to a defeat for the conservatives at the next school board election and eventually caused their ruling to be reversed.

That, though, was before the conservative tidal wave heralded by
the re-election of President George Bush. Now the creationists are back
in the majority in Kansas and have every intention of re-opening the
debate sometime in the next nine months, according to local newspapers.

And Charles "it's only a theory!" Darwin appears to be under siege in other parts of the country too.

In the small town of Grantsburg, Wisconsin, the school board just
voted to introduce a very similar change in biology teaching. The local schools superintendent, Joni Burgin, argues the science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory".

More than 300 biology and religious studies teachers have written to the board to protest, so far without result.

In Dover, Pennsylvania, the school board last week approved the teaching of a newish twist on creationism called "intelligent design" - a theory that does not entirely reject Darwin but says the process of evolution and natural selection is too complex and too wondrous to have occurred without the guiding hand of a divine force.

The evolution debate has never entirely gone away in the American
heartland, but until very recently, it was deemed too ludicrous to make its way into public school rooms.


The notorious Scopes monkey trial in 1925 turned the United States into a global laughing-stock that has haunted public administrators ever since.

Two things have now changed, however. First, religious fundamentalists are succeeding in making their influence felt on school
boards across the nation - everywhere from Colorado Springs in Colorado, to Tulsa, Oklahoma, to the rural Midwest (not only Wisconsin but also Ohio).

Secondly, hardline creationists are now taking a back seat to the proponents of "intelligent design", or ID, which can be seen as a paradoxical form of evolution within the creationist movement.

Unlike the cruder, God-made-the-world-in-six-days brigade, ID proponents are trained scientists with degrees from respectable universities. They do not so much challenge Darwin as chip away at him piece by piece.

South Carolina: Ban Gay Teachers Homosexuals

South Carolina's new senator-elect, Jim DeMint, runs only a short distance behind Tom Coburn when it comes to extreme positions.

"If a person is a practicing homosexual, they should not be
teaching in our schools," he said during a televised campaign debate a month before the election. Two days later, he told a newspaper reporter he didn't think pregnant single women who live with their boyfriends should be allowed to teach either.

The comments created a furor and led to Republican aides begging him to tone down his rhetoric. DeMint agreed not to repeat them and told subsequent interviewers that the issue was one for local school boards, not the US Senate. But he refused to retract his remarks, much less apologize.

He is also an advocate of a flat sales tax in place of income tax, something that might endear him to certain fiscal radicals in the new Bush administration.
 
ruminator said:
Guess the first term was the honeymoon.

Yep.

But can you imagine what will happen if (as rumor claims) Jeb Bush runs for Presidency after this and wins? At that point I think there will be mass suicide.
 
The new global warming report came out yesterday too.
 
gman23 said:
The new global warming report came out yesterday too.

Yep.

Did you see this?
(notice how instead of being alarmed and wanting to do somethign about it they've whipped out their oil drilling equipment. Some people never learn. I really do think greed is going to kill us).

Global Warming to Expose Arctic to Oil, Gas Drilling

Mon Nov 8, 3:18 PM ET

By Tom Dogged

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rising global temperatures will melt areas of the Arctic this century, making them more accessible for oil and natural gas drilling, a report prepared by the United States and seven other nations said on Monday.

It predicts that over the next 100 years, global warming could increase Arctic annual average temperatures 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (3-5 degrees Celsius) over land and by up to 13 degrees (7 Celsius) over water. Warmer temperatures could raise global sea levels by as much as 3 feet (90 centimeters).

Such a change would threaten coastal cities, change growing patterns for vegetation and destroy habitats for some wildlife, but an energy-starved world would have new areas for oil and gas exploration, according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report.

The Arctic region, particularly offshore, has huge oil and gas reserves, mostly in Russia, Canada, Alaska, Greenland and Norway.

Warmer temperatures would make it easier to drill and ship oil from the Arctic, the report said. It did not attempt to quantify the costs of drilling and shipping Arctic oil and gas, or estimate how high energy prices would have to be to justify drilling in the region.

"Offshore oil exploration and production are likely to benefit from less extensive and thinner sea ice, although equipment will have to be designed to withstand increased wave forces and ice movement," the report said.

However, land access to energy reserves would likely be restricted due to a shorter season during which the ground is frozen hard enough to support heavy drilling equipment.

"The thawing of permafrost, on which buildings, pipelines, airfields and coastal installations supporting oil and gas development are located, is very likely to adversely affect these structures and increase the cost of maintaining them," the report said.

Energy companies would find it easier to transport oil and gas because the warmer temperatures would open sea routes.

"By the end of this century, the length of the navigation season...along the Northern Sea route is projected to increase to about 120 days from the current 20-30 days," the report said.

However, a longer shipping season will increase the risk of oil spills, the report warned.

The report was commissioned by the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland. It concluded that global warming is heating the Arctic almost twice as quickly as the rest of the planet in a thaw that threatens millions of livelihoods.
 
gman23 said:
Not for long, it looks like Bush will be invading there soon too.

Yes.
When it comes to a war mongering president there's nothing like Bush.
 
Owera said:
Yep.

But can you imagine what will happen if (as rumor claims) Jeb Bush runs for Presidency after this and wins? At that point I think there will be mass suicide.

Think back 4 years ago. Run a quick review in your mind of all the seemingly improbable and near-impossible actions that have succeeded. I remember about mid-02 when it seemed like every day they were doing something that I thought couldn't be topped. Each day they topped it.

I know the right won't really see it, but look,...really close at all of the individual daily victories of the far right/neocon/norquist type influences.

4 years is a looo-o-o-o-o-o-ng time.
 
gman23 said:
Not for long, it looks like Bush will be invading there soon too.

Regime change is a way to bring The Almighty's gift of freedom to godless people.
 
ruminator said:
Think back 4 years ago. Run a quick review in your mind of all the seemingly improbable and near-impossible actions that have succeeded. I remember about mid-02 when it seemed like every day they were doing something that I thought couldn't be topped. Each day they topped it.

I know the right won't really see it, but look,...really close at all of the individual daily victories of the far right/neocon/norquist type influences.

4 years is a looo-o-o-o-o-o-ng time.

I agree. It's funny how you mentioned "every day they were doing something that I thought couldn't be topped." I felt that way too. In fact, I think it WAS just about every day, because I would get up in the morning and check the news, and find all sorts of articles about decisions/laws/rules/initiatives/rulings the Shrub administration had just dedided to take, and I would think to myself, "How in the hell can they just do this when it hasn't even been made known to the public that this was even an issue?!!?" I remember feeling angry and depressed just about every morning because there would always be something horrendous that they had done--whether it was taking away people's rights, fucking over education, messing with health care, screwing over the environment, etc. And then I look at the article I just posted (not as if it contain anything new and surprising) and I think to myself, "If they did THAT much damage in four years, will we even survive another four?"

And if we do, what the hell is it going to be like at the end? Seriously, I'm scared. And I'm not just upset about what this will mean to the people of this country, but what it will mean to the health and well-being of the entire planet. It might just be possible that the U.S. gov't (read "corporations"), in its greed, will doom the entire planet.
 
Owera said:
I agree. It's funny how you mentioned "every day they were doing something that I thought couldn't be topped." I felt that way too. In fact, I think it WAS just about every day, because I would get up in the morning and check the news, and find all sorts of articles about decisions/laws/rules/initiatives/rulings the Shrub administration had just dedided to take, and I would think to myself, "How in the hell can they just do this when it hasn't even been made known to the public that this was even an issue?!!?" I remember feeling angry and depressed just about every morning because there would always be something horrendous that they had done--whether it was taking away people's rights, fucking over education, messing with health care, screwing over the environment, etc. And then I look at the article I just posted (not as if it contain anything new and surprising) and I think to myself, "If they did THAT much damage in four years, will we even survive another four?"

And if we do, what the hell is it going to be like at the end? Seriously, I'm scared. And I'm not just upset about what this will mean to the people of this country, but what it will mean to the health and well-being of the entire planet. It might just be possible that the U.S. gov't (read "corporations"), in its greed, will doom the entire planet.

I think the article and posts also show that they're getting closer to treading on their own.

:D .......They'll run out of friends and bridges because they way they move, 4 years is way too long on top of what they did in the first 4.

It'll just take time to undo the legislation back to closer to the middle......we'll survive but the world will hate us for decades.
 
.
We should have a CannonBall Run for the presidency instead of elections.
 
ruminator said:
.
We should have a CannonBall Run for the presidency instead of elections.

God damn I like the way you think. I got dibs on the ambulance gig....
 
Lovin Tongue said:

Hey, that brings back memories of the place near where I used to live: old coal mining towns, KKK meetings, and even the occasional cross burning. And then there was the time someone skinned a cat and left it on my doorstep because they "don't want no Injuns 'round here." The funny thing is that all those people claimed to be "good, upstanding Christians with the love of Jesus" in their hearts, etc.

I'm sure they voted for Bush.
 
ruminator said:
I think the article and posts also show that they're getting closer to treading on their own.

:D .......They'll run out of friends and bridges because they way they move, 4 years is way too long on top of what they did in the first 4.

It'll just take time to undo the legislation back to closer to the middle......we'll survive but the world will hate us for decades.

I wish I had your optimism. Problem is that too many people seem to support the actions of the Bush administration--mostly people who do so because they feel, as members of the Christian faith, that it is the "right" thing to do. And since Bush plugs himself (heh!) as man of God and whatnot, then they get duped into supporting him no matter what kind of insane shit he does. That's why you have poor people supporting policies that take away money from them, etc.

I suppose the question is, how do we undo this?

Edited to ad: I'm of course talking about people in the U.S. I'm sure the rest of the world can't stand him. But then the problem is that unless someone in the rest of the world forces the U.S. gov't to change nothing will come of it.
 
For those of you who still dont get it (not that you ever will) try this.
We weren't dumb enough to vote Kerry
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 09/11/2004)

Last week, you may recall, I quoted Bob Kerrey - not the Kerry who was running for president, but a fellow senator and Vietnam veteran and a big backer of his near-namesake. This Kerrey was on television a couple of days before the election and claimed to have the pulse of the man in the street.

"I was in Gallia, Ohio, down in the southeastern part of Ohio," he said. "They don't give a damn about the war in Iraq. They're terrified about the loss of their job, health care, their pensions. That's what's bothering them."

I begged to differ: "In fact," I wrote, "the people - in Gallia, Ohio and many other places - understand the relevance of Iraq and Afghanistan to their well-being rather more clearly than the Democratic leadership do."

Just for the record, on Tuesday, in Gallia County, Ohio, George W Bush won 62 per cent of the vote.

It wasn't the economy, stupid. It was the stupidity, stupid. No man is an island, but the Democrats expect voters to act as if they are. Don't think about national security and war and Iraq and Iran and North Korea - that's all way beyond a loser like you. You're too "terrified" about your job to be bothered with the foreign pages. It's practically the Depression out there.

OK, it's not. But it's a recession. OK, it's not. But there aren't any jobs out there. OK, there are. But they're not like the jobs you used to have, when you could go to the mill and do the same job day in day out for 45 years, and it made it so much easier for us come election time because there were large numbers of you all in the same place when we flew in for the campaign stop. But the point is: you are an island, stick to "pocketbook issues", think about yourself.

The Left always used to accuse the Right of appealing to the voters' selfishness, but this year the Dems did and it got them nowhere.

I think there are a couple of lessons here. First, when you're cursed to live in "interesting times", a party has to have something interesting to say. It has to stand for something; it has to have a core identity, not just wonkish programmes. The Dems do have core beliefs - abortion, racial grievances, gay marriage, etc - but unfortunately they're not the kind of thing you can talk about at election time.

In Britain, alas, it's the Tories, under their current Kerrykaze pilot, who are distressingly Democrat-like: full of itsybitsy policies for this and that, irrelevant on the big picture, deeply evasive on Europe. They're also far too timid on the British equivalent of America's "cultural values" - crime and the other "quality of life" issues.

Secondly, assume for a moment that Bob Kerrey was right - that voters in Gallia County really were "terrified about the loss of their job, health care, their pensions". Even if that's true, do you want the government to do anything about it? In many Continental countries, it's all but impossible to lose your job - which is why so many companies are reluctant to hire anyone and Germany's unemployment rate is twice that of America. And once healthcare and pensions are the province of the government, the basic relationship between the citizen and the state is altered. By 2040, Greece's government pension liabilities will be 25 per cent of GDP, as opposed to 6.8 per cent for America, which is quite colossal enough, thank you.

So even if I was "terrified" of losing my job, healthcare, pension, etc, I'd be reluctant to let the government relieve me of my terror. On the Continent, the mainstream parties of Tweedleleft and Tweedleright, having spent half a century ruling more and more issues beyond the subject of debate, can't quite bring themselves to tell the truth to the voters about the looming crisis.

They reckon that the masses have become too used to 35-hour work-weeks, two months of holiday, you leave college at 36, take early retirement at 47, etc, and that they won't take kindly to being told the jig's up. The Daily Mirror may think American voters are "DUMB", but I'll bet in the chancelleries of Europe there are plenty of officials who wish their own electors would occasionally disdain "pocketbook issues". Once you've turned citizens into junkies for government crack, it's very hard to wean them off it.

Thirdly, after listening to John Edwards's Dickensian tales of "two Americas" for months on end, I'm convinced that any red-state county knows more about business than your average Massachusetts senator, tenured Harvard professor or Boston Globe editor. When John Kerry gets his hair done at Cristophe's in Washington for somewhere north of $75, that high-priced stylist is an employee. If he'd ever stopped to have it done for $10 by DeeDee in a hair salon in a small town, he'd discover that she's a one-woman business.

When he goes to his favourite restaurant in Washington, the waiter's an employee. When he drops by a diner on Main Street in some nowhere burg to pretend to eat a hot dog for a photo op, the waitress might well be like the lady who served me lunch on Sunday: she has her own house-cleaning business, but does some part-time work at the local school and a couple of shifts at the diner for a bit of extra cash.

She's a small business, and she knows more about her tax return than Teresa Heinz Kerry knows about hers. Mrs Kerry farms it out to the best advisers money can buy, and they do a grand job: she's one of the richest women in the world and she paid 12 per cent tax last year. It makes no difference whether the tax rate is 20 per cent, 50 per cent or 88 per cent: the Kerrys of the world will still pay 12 per cent.

The American people don't want to be condescended to by ketchup heiresses, billionaire currency speculators, $20-million-a-picture Hollywood pretty boys, and multi-millionaire documentary-makers posing as bluecollar lardbutts.

The Democrats keep talking to people as if they're like John Edwards's 40-year mill-workers, but that's not what work is any more, and a 23-year-old hairdresser can know enough about starting and running a business to be unimpressed at a few footling tax credits dangled in front of her by a 60-year-old lifelong "public servant" lucky enough to be living a grand old life thanks to his billionaire wife's first husband.
 
BlueEyesInLevis said:
For those of you who still dont get it (not that you ever will) try this.
We weren't dumb enough to vote Kerry
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 09/11/2004)

....



I read the article. If anything, it makes me question the intellect and reasoning abilities of the person who wrote it.

You're not helping your case any.
 
Owera said:



I read the article. If anything, it makes me question the intellect and reasoning abilities of the person who wrote it.

You're not helping your case any. [/B]
One definition of insanity is to keep making the same mistake over and over and expecting a different outcome.
 
BlueEyesInLevis said:
One definition of insanity is to keep making the same mistake over and over and expecting a different outcome.

*looks sharply in your direction*

You were saying?
 
Back
Top