The Bush administration is at it again. They have changed their position 180 degrees and now claim it was what they've been doing all along. He obviously thinks that all 300 million Americans are complete idiots - not just the 20% to 30% who still believe him when he speaks.
The administration, through Condoleeza Rice, is now saying they are willing to sit down and talk with Iran and Syria about trying to find a solution to the mess Bush has created in Iraq. They then said their willingness to take part in these talks was not a change of policy. White House counselor Dan Bartlett said, "We've always been inclined to participate in an Iraqi-led conference."
Bullshit! I can't be the only one that remembers Bush telling the world that Iran and Iraq were supporters of our enemies, and he would not engage in talks with them. He told us that he would not talk with Syria until they stopped supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. He told us that he would not talk with Iran unless they stopped enriching uranium.
Well, Iran has snubbed its nose at the world and is still enriching uranium. Syria has not stopped its support of Hezbollah and Hamas. So why has Bush done a complete flip-flop? Why is he now willing to join Syria and Iran in talks about the Iraqi situation?
Simple. The talks were going to happen whether he joined them or not. And if by chance the talks went on without him and a solution was found, Bush would look like an even bigger fool than he already does. He could not afford to take that chance.
But Bush is not serious about using these talks to find a solution. If you think he is, then please contact me - I have some ocean-front property here in the Texas panhandle I know you'd be interested in.
Bush has joined the talks because that's the only way he can be sure they'll not produce a solution. He'll hem and haw and throw a few wrenches in the gears, and then blame the failure of the talks on Iran and Syria. He cares far more about saving face than saving lives.
This whole thing is just more B.S. from the Bush administration.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Burnam Seeks To Rein In Electric Costs
Well, Rep. Lon Burnam is at it again - fighting for us ordinary Texans. This time he is seeking to rein in TXU's exorbitant charges for electricity.
The national average for the cost of electricity to the consumer is 10.2 cents per kilowatt/hour. Meanwhile, TXU is charging 15 cents per kilowatt/hour as its standard rate. Does it make any sense that an energy-rich state like Texas must pay such high rates?
I have to think that one reason for the ridiculously high rate is the enormous salaries they currently pay their executives - over $50 million a year to their CEO. In addition he gets to use the company jet as his private plane. And that doesn't even count the hundreds of millions paid to their other executives.
Burnam's bill would attack this problem head-on. HB 1937 would mandate that any electric company that charges its customers more than 125% of the national average, must pay its executives minimum wage. Yes, he said minimum wage! I guarantee you that if TXU executives are paid minimum wage, they will quickly lower costs to the consumer to restore their enormous salaries.
The bill doesn't say the company can't pay a ridiculously high salary to its CEO. It just says they can't gouge their customers to do it. He does allow them one out. They could keep paying their executives hundreds of millions of dollars, as long as they put an equal amount of money into the System Benefit Fund, which helps low-income Texans pay their power bills.
Burnam says, "It's time for Texas' electric companies to act more responsibly. It is simply unconscionable to pay a CEO over $50 million in a year when low-income people are struggling with all-time highs on their electric bills. The Legislature could send a clear message to TXU's new owners that the state of Texas will not tolerate this kind of corporate greed.
The deal is not done. And it may not ever be. Two smaller buyouts of utilities were voted down by state commissions in the last few years.
For now, TXU is still a publicly traded company that took advantage of hurricanes to raise electric rates to unprecedented levels. They could have lowered those prices, but they instead chose to reap the profits and pay John Wilder over $50,000,000.
TXU is a poster boy for corporate excess. They need to be reined in."
I know there's little or no chance of this bill passing. Most of our state officials are too busy kissing corporate ass to worry about ordinary Texans. They have been bought and paid for by corporate interests.
But it's still a good idea.
The national average for the cost of electricity to the consumer is 10.2 cents per kilowatt/hour. Meanwhile, TXU is charging 15 cents per kilowatt/hour as its standard rate. Does it make any sense that an energy-rich state like Texas must pay such high rates?
I have to think that one reason for the ridiculously high rate is the enormous salaries they currently pay their executives - over $50 million a year to their CEO. In addition he gets to use the company jet as his private plane. And that doesn't even count the hundreds of millions paid to their other executives.
Burnam's bill would attack this problem head-on. HB 1937 would mandate that any electric company that charges its customers more than 125% of the national average, must pay its executives minimum wage. Yes, he said minimum wage! I guarantee you that if TXU executives are paid minimum wage, they will quickly lower costs to the consumer to restore their enormous salaries.
The bill doesn't say the company can't pay a ridiculously high salary to its CEO. It just says they can't gouge their customers to do it. He does allow them one out. They could keep paying their executives hundreds of millions of dollars, as long as they put an equal amount of money into the System Benefit Fund, which helps low-income Texans pay their power bills.
Burnam says, "It's time for Texas' electric companies to act more responsibly. It is simply unconscionable to pay a CEO over $50 million in a year when low-income people are struggling with all-time highs on their electric bills. The Legislature could send a clear message to TXU's new owners that the state of Texas will not tolerate this kind of corporate greed.
The deal is not done. And it may not ever be. Two smaller buyouts of utilities were voted down by state commissions in the last few years.
For now, TXU is still a publicly traded company that took advantage of hurricanes to raise electric rates to unprecedented levels. They could have lowered those prices, but they instead chose to reap the profits and pay John Wilder over $50,000,000.
TXU is a poster boy for corporate excess. They need to be reined in."
I know there's little or no chance of this bill passing. Most of our state officials are too busy kissing corporate ass to worry about ordinary Texans. They have been bought and paid for by corporate interests.
But it's still a good idea.
Monday, February 26, 2007
U.S. Intelligence On Iran Is Faulty
In the months leading up to the Iraq war, the Bush administration released a lot of false and misleading information to bolster their desire to invade Iraq. We now know that Saddam did not have nuclear weapons and did not have a nuclear weapons program, but Bush and his cohorts made it sound as if a mushroom cloud over U.S. cities was inevitable and imminent.
Now they are trying to do the same thing with Iran. Everyone knows that Iran is enriching uranium, but the Bush administration has taken that a step further and is claiming that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. So far, there is absolutely no evidence that this is happening.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the U.S. government has been supplying the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with information about Iran's nuclear bomb program since 2002. One IAEA official says, "Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong." The IAEA says that although they are concerned about Iran building a bomb, there is absolutely no evidence that the Iranians have diverted enriched uranium to a bomb program.
We know that the U.S. has sent another carrier group to the Middle East region, and Seymour Hersh reports that a high-level group in the Pentagon is drawing up plans for an attack on Iran. This group has been ordered to draw up plans that could be put in motion within 24 hours of Bush giving the order.
Is Bush feeding the world faulty information to justify an impending attack on Iran, just as he did with Iraq? It certainly looks that way.
A rational person would know that we have already stretched our forces too thin with our continuing failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Bush is not a rational person. He is a "true believer" in the neocon cause. And "true believers" are not swayed by facts or the lack of facts.
We need only look at his track record to know that he is spreading lies about Iran to bolster his fervant desire to attack them. He says he wants to settle the matter diplomatically, but he said the same thing about Iraq. He was lying then, and he's lying now.
Now they are trying to do the same thing with Iran. Everyone knows that Iran is enriching uranium, but the Bush administration has taken that a step further and is claiming that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. So far, there is absolutely no evidence that this is happening.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the U.S. government has been supplying the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with information about Iran's nuclear bomb program since 2002. One IAEA official says, "Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that's come to us has proved to be wrong." The IAEA says that although they are concerned about Iran building a bomb, there is absolutely no evidence that the Iranians have diverted enriched uranium to a bomb program.
We know that the U.S. has sent another carrier group to the Middle East region, and Seymour Hersh reports that a high-level group in the Pentagon is drawing up plans for an attack on Iran. This group has been ordered to draw up plans that could be put in motion within 24 hours of Bush giving the order.
Is Bush feeding the world faulty information to justify an impending attack on Iran, just as he did with Iraq? It certainly looks that way.
A rational person would know that we have already stretched our forces too thin with our continuing failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Bush is not a rational person. He is a "true believer" in the neocon cause. And "true believers" are not swayed by facts or the lack of facts.
We need only look at his track record to know that he is spreading lies about Iran to bolster his fervant desire to attack them. He says he wants to settle the matter diplomatically, but he said the same thing about Iraq. He was lying then, and he's lying now.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
TXU Buyout Could Save Texas Environment
TXU has not shown in the past that they have any interest in helping Texas solve it's pollution problems, even though they have been one of the major contributors to that problem. Their attorney recently said in court that global warming was the problem of president's and kings, and not TXU's problem.
In other words, they are only interested in greedy windfall profits, and care nothing about the environment of Texas or the health of Texans. They have no interest in being good and responsible corporate neighbors as long as they can pump up their profits and the price of their stock. But we may not have to worry about these greedy bastards much longer.
Two groups (Texas Pacific Group and Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co.) are trying to buy TXU. Even better, it looks like these groups ARE interested in being good corporate neighbors.
Last week I was very leery of this buyout proposal. After all, the common man is seldom helped when one conglomerate buys another. But right now, these two groups (TPG and KKRC) seem to be different. Rather than try to run roughshod over environmental concerns of TXU critics, they have sat down with them and actually had a dialogue.
They were not only willing to listen to the concerns of Texans - they were willing to compromise for the good of the citizens of Texas and for themselves. This is a remarkable change from the heavy-handed tactics of TXU.
In a deal expected to be announced today, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram is reporting that TPG and KKRC have agreed to:
* Build only 4 of the proposed 11 coal-burning plants that TXU wanted to build.
* Commit to cutting emmissions company-wide by 20%.
* Commit to slashing emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by the year 2020.
* Agree to support legislation capping the emission of carbon dioxide.
* Pledge to increase the amount of renewable energy sources in the company's portfolio.
This is a compromise that would be beneficial to the people and the environment of Texas. I don't know how well TPG and KKRC will live up to this compromise, but I know TXU isn't willing to compromise at all. I hope this buyout will happen, and will receive approval from the neccessary entities.
In other words, they are only interested in greedy windfall profits, and care nothing about the environment of Texas or the health of Texans. They have no interest in being good and responsible corporate neighbors as long as they can pump up their profits and the price of their stock. But we may not have to worry about these greedy bastards much longer.
Two groups (Texas Pacific Group and Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts & Co.) are trying to buy TXU. Even better, it looks like these groups ARE interested in being good corporate neighbors.
Last week I was very leery of this buyout proposal. After all, the common man is seldom helped when one conglomerate buys another. But right now, these two groups (TPG and KKRC) seem to be different. Rather than try to run roughshod over environmental concerns of TXU critics, they have sat down with them and actually had a dialogue.
They were not only willing to listen to the concerns of Texans - they were willing to compromise for the good of the citizens of Texas and for themselves. This is a remarkable change from the heavy-handed tactics of TXU.
In a deal expected to be announced today, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram is reporting that TPG and KKRC have agreed to:
* Build only 4 of the proposed 11 coal-burning plants that TXU wanted to build.
* Commit to cutting emmissions company-wide by 20%.
* Commit to slashing emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by the year 2020.
* Agree to support legislation capping the emission of carbon dioxide.
* Pledge to increase the amount of renewable energy sources in the company's portfolio.
This is a compromise that would be beneficial to the people and the environment of Texas. I don't know how well TPG and KKRC will live up to this compromise, but I know TXU isn't willing to compromise at all. I hope this buyout will happen, and will receive approval from the neccessary entities.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Guantanamo Injustice
This slide show is from our good friend Korova at Mask of Anarchy. It's time to close Guantano, and give everyone there a fair trial (if's there's any evidence they did anything wrong).
Tx-DOT Lied About Trans-Texas Corridor
Critics of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) have been telling Texans for months that the TTC is a bad deal for Texas. Now we learn from a state audit report released last friday, that these critics were telling us the truth.
State auditors examined the contract with Cintra-Zachary, and Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) actions regarding the Trans-Texas Corridor. What they found is not good. The auditors said that TxDOT had underplayed the costs of building the TTC and overplayed the benefits of the TTC to Texas. They also chided TxDOT for refusing to release parts of the contract with Cintra-Zachary in a timely manner.
It seems that the contract guarantees the Spanish company a 12% profit margin and gives Cintra-Zachary control of the TTC for the next 50 years. If the foreign company does not make its 12% profit, then the state of Texas would be responsible for making up the difference. Considering the exorbitant rates it would cost for motorists and truckers to drive on the TTC (up to 45 cents a mile), it is reasonable to believe that few would be able to afford the drive, thus causing Texas taxpayers to make up the difference.
Auditors also addressed the supposed benefits to be derived from the building of the TTC. Texans have been told that the Spanish company would be paying the state of Texas around $3 billion for the right to build this boondoggle. Now we learn from the auditors that if interest rates and inflation are higher than expected, these expenses would be deducted from the $3 billion, perhaps reducing it to NOTHING!
So, TxDOT and TTC supporters want us to let a foreign company build the TTC and own it for at least 50 years. They want Texans to guarantee them a 12% profit for those 50 years. And for all this, Texas will probably receive absolutely nothing. The people who came up with this idea are either complete idiots, or they have been paid off.
Senator Kirk Watson said, "Texas cannot rush into a project that will help define our future when there are so many uncertainties about the present. We must step back, demand answers, and (ensure) the public is protected before the work proceeds on the Trans-Texas Corridor."
I would go further. The TTC is a bad deal for Texas. It should not be built at all.
State auditors examined the contract with Cintra-Zachary, and Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) actions regarding the Trans-Texas Corridor. What they found is not good. The auditors said that TxDOT had underplayed the costs of building the TTC and overplayed the benefits of the TTC to Texas. They also chided TxDOT for refusing to release parts of the contract with Cintra-Zachary in a timely manner.
It seems that the contract guarantees the Spanish company a 12% profit margin and gives Cintra-Zachary control of the TTC for the next 50 years. If the foreign company does not make its 12% profit, then the state of Texas would be responsible for making up the difference. Considering the exorbitant rates it would cost for motorists and truckers to drive on the TTC (up to 45 cents a mile), it is reasonable to believe that few would be able to afford the drive, thus causing Texas taxpayers to make up the difference.
Auditors also addressed the supposed benefits to be derived from the building of the TTC. Texans have been told that the Spanish company would be paying the state of Texas around $3 billion for the right to build this boondoggle. Now we learn from the auditors that if interest rates and inflation are higher than expected, these expenses would be deducted from the $3 billion, perhaps reducing it to NOTHING!
So, TxDOT and TTC supporters want us to let a foreign company build the TTC and own it for at least 50 years. They want Texans to guarantee them a 12% profit for those 50 years. And for all this, Texas will probably receive absolutely nothing. The people who came up with this idea are either complete idiots, or they have been paid off.
Senator Kirk Watson said, "Texas cannot rush into a project that will help define our future when there are so many uncertainties about the present. We must step back, demand answers, and (ensure) the public is protected before the work proceeds on the Trans-Texas Corridor."
I would go further. The TTC is a bad deal for Texas. It should not be built at all.
Friday, February 23, 2007
American Tour de France Winner May Be Innocent
Last summer, American Floyd Landis won the Tour de France bicycle race in a marvelous come-back performance. That made it 8 years in a row that an American had won the Tour. The prior seven wins were done by Texas cyclist Lance Armstrong.
But a few weeks after his win, a French lab accused Landis of taking synthetic testosterone, even though he had tested clean in six prior tests taken earlier in the Tour. Many people immediately condemned Landis even though he has always claimed he was innocent. He was kicked off his cycling team and his Tour win was taken from him.
Now it looks like he may really have been innocent. Landis' attorney's have uncovered several "mistakes" made by the French lab which could have resulted in his being falsely accused of doping. It is not known whether these mistakes were intentional or not.
What is known is that the French have been embarrassed for years now that "their" sport is currently dominated by Americans. This same lab tried for years to find Lance Armstrong dirty and have accused him of doping in the past. But they could never prove anything or back up their accusations.
I think they thought a European, possibly even a Frenchman, would win the Tour when Lance Armstrong retired. They simply could not take it when a virtually unknown American, Floyd Landis, stepped up and won last year's Tour. Landis did not have the established reputation of Lance Armstrong, and they were able to make the charges stick - at least until now.
The Los Angeles Times is now reporting that the French lab made several critical errors. They say the lab allowed two lab techs to participate in the testing of both the "A" and the "B" samples of Landis' urine. This is a violation of international standards, which prohibits lab techs from participating in both tests to avoid techs from confirming their own results.
Also, someone altered a lab document after Landis questioned its accuracy, and then the altered version was certified as "original". It is not known at this time whether the lab or other doping officials altered the document, but it was altered.
The lab also seems to have operated a critical piece of testing equipment under conditions that violated manufacturer specifications. It seems the lab didn't know what the manufacturer specs were because they didn't even have an owner's manual.
The Times further reports that software used "was 10 years old, based on an operating system no longer in use and was designed for a different piece of equipment." Should this kind of equipment be used to destroy a man's future and livelihood?
But perhaps most damning of all, the lab was in possession of documents that clearly linked the samples to Landis. This is a clear violation of anti-doping standards which require that samples be tested anonymously.
I believe Floyd Landis is innocent of the doping charges. I don't know whether the lab just performed some incredibly shoddy work or whether they conspired against Landis, but their results can no longer be trusted. I think a lot of people owe Floyd Landis an apology.
But a few weeks after his win, a French lab accused Landis of taking synthetic testosterone, even though he had tested clean in six prior tests taken earlier in the Tour. Many people immediately condemned Landis even though he has always claimed he was innocent. He was kicked off his cycling team and his Tour win was taken from him.
Now it looks like he may really have been innocent. Landis' attorney's have uncovered several "mistakes" made by the French lab which could have resulted in his being falsely accused of doping. It is not known whether these mistakes were intentional or not.
What is known is that the French have been embarrassed for years now that "their" sport is currently dominated by Americans. This same lab tried for years to find Lance Armstrong dirty and have accused him of doping in the past. But they could never prove anything or back up their accusations.
I think they thought a European, possibly even a Frenchman, would win the Tour when Lance Armstrong retired. They simply could not take it when a virtually unknown American, Floyd Landis, stepped up and won last year's Tour. Landis did not have the established reputation of Lance Armstrong, and they were able to make the charges stick - at least until now.
The Los Angeles Times is now reporting that the French lab made several critical errors. They say the lab allowed two lab techs to participate in the testing of both the "A" and the "B" samples of Landis' urine. This is a violation of international standards, which prohibits lab techs from participating in both tests to avoid techs from confirming their own results.
Also, someone altered a lab document after Landis questioned its accuracy, and then the altered version was certified as "original". It is not known at this time whether the lab or other doping officials altered the document, but it was altered.
The lab also seems to have operated a critical piece of testing equipment under conditions that violated manufacturer specifications. It seems the lab didn't know what the manufacturer specs were because they didn't even have an owner's manual.
The Times further reports that software used "was 10 years old, based on an operating system no longer in use and was designed for a different piece of equipment." Should this kind of equipment be used to destroy a man's future and livelihood?
But perhaps most damning of all, the lab was in possession of documents that clearly linked the samples to Landis. This is a clear violation of anti-doping standards which require that samples be tested anonymously.
I believe Floyd Landis is innocent of the doping charges. I don't know whether the lab just performed some incredibly shoddy work or whether they conspired against Landis, but their results can no longer be trusted. I think a lot of people owe Floyd Landis an apology.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
In Need Of An Old-Fashioned Fatburger !
This is a plea for help from my fellow Amarillo residents. Since moving up here, I have found many good eating places for steaks, Mexican food, barbeque, etc.
But there is one thing I've yet to find - a good grease-dripping, toasted-bun, old-fashioned fat-burger. I'm not talking about the pseudo-hamburgers produced by the national chains like McDonald's, Whataburger, Wendy's or Burger King. Those things are edible, but just barely.
No, I'm looking for that burger that would send a health-nut screaming into the night. Does such a thing still exist in this fair city? Surely it does, but so far I've been unable to find it.
So I ask for help from my fellow citizens. Where is the best hamburger in Amarillo? Please tell me, what is your favorite place to get a hamburger? I'm willing to give all suggestions a try.
But there is one thing I've yet to find - a good grease-dripping, toasted-bun, old-fashioned fat-burger. I'm not talking about the pseudo-hamburgers produced by the national chains like McDonald's, Whataburger, Wendy's or Burger King. Those things are edible, but just barely.
No, I'm looking for that burger that would send a health-nut screaming into the night. Does such a thing still exist in this fair city? Surely it does, but so far I've been unable to find it.
So I ask for help from my fellow citizens. Where is the best hamburger in Amarillo? Please tell me, what is your favorite place to get a hamburger? I'm willing to give all suggestions a try.
Ethics Commission Approves Unethical Conduct
I have to wonder if there's any point in continuing to waste taxpayer's dollars on the Texas Ethics Commission, who don't seem to understand what constitutes unethical conduct.
I'm sure you've heard about the Commission's ruling a few months back that state officials don't have to reveal the amount of any gifts they may receive from outside sources. They would allow the officials to simply write "check" or "gift" on disclosure forms, even though the "check" may be for thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Commission may consider it to be legal and ethical, but it allowed officials to hide the fact that their influence had been bought and paid for.
Now we learn from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that this was not the only ethical short-coming that the Commission was blind to. The newspaper investigated recently just how elected officials in Texas are using (or mis-using) their campaign contributions.
It is illegal in Texas for elected officials to use their campaign contributions "to buy real estate or enrich themselves". But until recently it was a fairly widespread practice for them to pay exorbitant amounts to their spouses for rent from their campaign funds.
Two of the worst offenders are still doing it - Senator Jane Nelson (R-Lewisville) and Senator Kim Brimer (R-Fort Worth). Nelson has paid $147,500 to her spouse for rent since 2000 from her campaign contributions, and Brimer has done the same thing to the tune of $169,456.
Is it unethical? Of course it is! But the Commission has ruled that it's perfectly acceptable because the spouse's property was "seperate" from that of the elected official.
Many officials have stopped the practice, but not because of anything done by the Texas Ethics Commission. They're stopping because voters know it's unethical, and actually kicked some elected officials out of office in the last election because of it.
Maybe it's time to get rid of the Texas Ethics Commission. They obviously wouldn't recognize unethical conduct if it smacked them in the face. Their continued existence is just a waste of taxpayer's money.
I'm sure you've heard about the Commission's ruling a few months back that state officials don't have to reveal the amount of any gifts they may receive from outside sources. They would allow the officials to simply write "check" or "gift" on disclosure forms, even though the "check" may be for thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Commission may consider it to be legal and ethical, but it allowed officials to hide the fact that their influence had been bought and paid for.
Now we learn from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that this was not the only ethical short-coming that the Commission was blind to. The newspaper investigated recently just how elected officials in Texas are using (or mis-using) their campaign contributions.
It is illegal in Texas for elected officials to use their campaign contributions "to buy real estate or enrich themselves". But until recently it was a fairly widespread practice for them to pay exorbitant amounts to their spouses for rent from their campaign funds.
Two of the worst offenders are still doing it - Senator Jane Nelson (R-Lewisville) and Senator Kim Brimer (R-Fort Worth). Nelson has paid $147,500 to her spouse for rent since 2000 from her campaign contributions, and Brimer has done the same thing to the tune of $169,456.
Is it unethical? Of course it is! But the Commission has ruled that it's perfectly acceptable because the spouse's property was "seperate" from that of the elected official.
Many officials have stopped the practice, but not because of anything done by the Texas Ethics Commission. They're stopping because voters know it's unethical, and actually kicked some elected officials out of office in the last election because of it.
Maybe it's time to get rid of the Texas Ethics Commission. They obviously wouldn't recognize unethical conduct if it smacked them in the face. Their continued existence is just a waste of taxpayer's money.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
'Coalition' Falling Apart In Iraq
Bush has always claimed that his invasion of Iraq was not a unilateral action, but a legitimate war conducted by a "coalition" of nations. The idea is ridiculous of course.
A few other nations were pressured to send a few hundred troops to give Bush some cover for his unneccessary unilateral action, but these few troops from a few other nations never added up to even 10% of the "coalition" forces in Iraq. And in fact, many of them have either already withdrawn (such as the Polish troops), or are in the process of withdrawing (like the few Italian troops).
The largest force besides the U.S. troops has been the British troops sent by P.M. Blair, and they only have 7200 troops in Iraq, mostly patrolling around Basra in the south. Now, even the British are abandoning the "coalition".
The Guardian newspaper in London is reporting that the British will pull out at least 1000 troops in May of this year, and by the end of 2008, the British will have pulled out all of their troops. This will leave the U.S. alone in Iraq.
No one, including Bush himself, expects the violence in the Iraqi civil war to be under control by then. But Blair has been ruined politically (and possibly the Labour Party itself) and can no longer justify continuing the war. The British public simply will not stand for Blair's support of Bush's war any longer, and may actually put the Tories back in power in the next election. Blair has no choice. He must withdraw.
This effectively destroys the pretense of a "coalition". But don't expect this to have any effect on Bush. He long ago gave up hope of winning in Iraq. Now he is spending American lives in the vain hope of salvaging his own pride.
He lied to get us into this war, and now that it has blown up in his face, he is lying to keep us there. His pride is more important to him than the lives of American soldiers. It is time for Americans to demand an immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. Anything else is just bloody futility.
A few other nations were pressured to send a few hundred troops to give Bush some cover for his unneccessary unilateral action, but these few troops from a few other nations never added up to even 10% of the "coalition" forces in Iraq. And in fact, many of them have either already withdrawn (such as the Polish troops), or are in the process of withdrawing (like the few Italian troops).
The largest force besides the U.S. troops has been the British troops sent by P.M. Blair, and they only have 7200 troops in Iraq, mostly patrolling around Basra in the south. Now, even the British are abandoning the "coalition".
The Guardian newspaper in London is reporting that the British will pull out at least 1000 troops in May of this year, and by the end of 2008, the British will have pulled out all of their troops. This will leave the U.S. alone in Iraq.
No one, including Bush himself, expects the violence in the Iraqi civil war to be under control by then. But Blair has been ruined politically (and possibly the Labour Party itself) and can no longer justify continuing the war. The British public simply will not stand for Blair's support of Bush's war any longer, and may actually put the Tories back in power in the next election. Blair has no choice. He must withdraw.
This effectively destroys the pretense of a "coalition". But don't expect this to have any effect on Bush. He long ago gave up hope of winning in Iraq. Now he is spending American lives in the vain hope of salvaging his own pride.
He lied to get us into this war, and now that it has blown up in his face, he is lying to keep us there. His pride is more important to him than the lives of American soldiers. It is time for Americans to demand an immediate withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq. Anything else is just bloody futility.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Electoral Bigotry
The Gallup Poll recently released a survey they did on electoral bigotry, and the results were pretty interesting. They asked respondents whether they would vote for their party's nominee if they were of a certain race or ethnicity, age, sex, religion or sexual preference.
First, the good news. If this survey is to be believed, it looks like race or ethnicity is less of a factor than it has been in the past. Only 5% of the respondents said they would not vote for a black candidate nominated by their party. Hispanics didn't quite do that well. At least 12% said they would not vote for a Hispanic candidate. I suspect this is because of the ethnic slurs and attacks made against Hispanics in the last election (disguised as opposition to illegal immigration).
Although they were not included in the survey, I believe that those of Middle Eastern heritage would probably not fare well in an election right now - there's just been too much bad press the last few years.
Women fared about as well as Hispanics. A full 11% of respondents showed their sexist bigotry by saying they would not vote for a woman nominated by their party.
Most religions fared pretty well, although 4% said they would not vote for a Catholic, 7% would not vote for a Jew, and 24% would not vote for a Mormon.
From there, things go downhill. Gays and the elderly did not fare too well. Of the respondents, 42% would not vote for a 72 year-old and 43% would not vote for a gay candidate. But as poor as these numbers are, a majority of respondents said they would vote for all of the above groups if nominated by their party.
In fact, there was only one group that a majority said they would NOT vote for even if they were nominated by the respondent's own party. Who is the most electorally-discriminated against group in America? Atheists. 53% of respondents said they would not vote for an atheist. If you're an atheist planning on running for political office, you'd better keep your non-belief in a religion secret or you will surely be defeated. Electorally, atheists are the most discriminated-against group in America.
We like to brag about everyone being equal in this country. But the truth is that when we go into the election booth, many of us still vote our prejudices. I wish it was different, but it's not. Maybe someday.
Here are the poll results:
94% would vote for a black candidate (5% would not)
87% would vote for a Hispanic hopeful (12% would not)
88% would vote for a woman (11% would not)
92% would vote for a Jewish candidate (7% would not)
95% would vote for a Catholic candidate (4% would not)
72% would vote for a Mormon (24% would not)
45% would vote for an atheist (53% would not)
57% would vote for a 72-year-old (42% would not)
55% would vote for a gay candidate (43% would not)
First, the good news. If this survey is to be believed, it looks like race or ethnicity is less of a factor than it has been in the past. Only 5% of the respondents said they would not vote for a black candidate nominated by their party. Hispanics didn't quite do that well. At least 12% said they would not vote for a Hispanic candidate. I suspect this is because of the ethnic slurs and attacks made against Hispanics in the last election (disguised as opposition to illegal immigration).
Although they were not included in the survey, I believe that those of Middle Eastern heritage would probably not fare well in an election right now - there's just been too much bad press the last few years.
Women fared about as well as Hispanics. A full 11% of respondents showed their sexist bigotry by saying they would not vote for a woman nominated by their party.
Most religions fared pretty well, although 4% said they would not vote for a Catholic, 7% would not vote for a Jew, and 24% would not vote for a Mormon.
From there, things go downhill. Gays and the elderly did not fare too well. Of the respondents, 42% would not vote for a 72 year-old and 43% would not vote for a gay candidate. But as poor as these numbers are, a majority of respondents said they would vote for all of the above groups if nominated by their party.
In fact, there was only one group that a majority said they would NOT vote for even if they were nominated by the respondent's own party. Who is the most electorally-discriminated against group in America? Atheists. 53% of respondents said they would not vote for an atheist. If you're an atheist planning on running for political office, you'd better keep your non-belief in a religion secret or you will surely be defeated. Electorally, atheists are the most discriminated-against group in America.
We like to brag about everyone being equal in this country. But the truth is that when we go into the election booth, many of us still vote our prejudices. I wish it was different, but it's not. Maybe someday.
Here are the poll results:
94% would vote for a black candidate (5% would not)
87% would vote for a Hispanic hopeful (12% would not)
88% would vote for a woman (11% would not)
92% would vote for a Jewish candidate (7% would not)
95% would vote for a Catholic candidate (4% would not)
72% would vote for a Mormon (24% would not)
45% would vote for an atheist (53% would not)
57% would vote for a 72-year-old (42% would not)
55% would vote for a gay candidate (43% would not)
Monday, February 19, 2007
Bush Healthcare Plan Is Nonsense
Last week on TV news, I heard the fact that more than half of all bankruptcies in this country are caused by medical problems. Even worse, over 2/3 of these families actually had health insurance when the medical problem was discovered. Doesn't paint a very good picture of healthcare in America does it?
If you are rich, I can understand you believing that America has a wonderful medical system. After all, you can afford the best care no matter what it costs. But for the rest of us, including the middle class, that is just not true. We can only afford what our insurance will pay for - and if you've dealt with insurance companies lately, you know that the more expensive your treatment becomes, the more likely your insurance will not cover it, or will delay paying for it until it is too late.
If you are poor or uninsured, then we have one of the world's worst healthcare systems because you simply don't have access to it. You'll find yourself waiting in an overcrowded emergency room for over 12 hours. Then you'll find the doctor has little time for you, and the hospital has no room for you.
Yesterday, Bush said in his radio address that "it is clear both parties recognize that strengthening health care for all Americans is one of our most important responsibilities. I am confident that if we put politics aside, we can find practical ways to improve our private health care system."
Sounds good doesn't it? Bush's promises usually do sound good, but as usual, his solution doesn't live up to his promise. His solution is to make money spent on insurance part of our taxable income - even insurance paid for by an employer. Then he would give us a tax deduction of $7500 for a single person and $15,000 for a family. While this would give those who already purchase their own insurance a new tax break, it would result in higher taxes for 20% of workers who have employer-paid insurance.
For the poor, it would do nothing. For low-paid workers whose employer does not provide insurance, it would also do nothing. All of these people would still be without healthcare coverage. The poor and working class people don't make enough money for a new tax deduction to mean anything.
It might sound as if it would help the middle class, but I don't even believe that is true. It would simply leave them at the mercy of the insurance companies. As soon as a major illness occurs, and their insurance company decides the treatment needed is not covered by their policy, they'll be forced into bankruptcy court (and probably lose that worthless insurance also).
Bush's plan is not a solution - it is just an illusion. There is only one solution and that is national healthcare - a single-payer system run by the government, and covering all citizens. We must take healthcare decisions out of the hands of greedy insurance executives, and put it in the hands of doctors whose payment will be guaranteed by the government.
Call it socialized medicine if you want. Hell, I don't care what you call it. The fact is that it's working in every other developed nation right now. And don't believe the lies told about systems such as Canada's. Just ask anyone in Canada who's not filthy rich. They'll tell you they wouldn't trade their system for ours in a million years.
It's time to stop making promises while failing to live up to them. It's time to institute a national government- controlled healthcare system that covers all American citizens.
If you are rich, I can understand you believing that America has a wonderful medical system. After all, you can afford the best care no matter what it costs. But for the rest of us, including the middle class, that is just not true. We can only afford what our insurance will pay for - and if you've dealt with insurance companies lately, you know that the more expensive your treatment becomes, the more likely your insurance will not cover it, or will delay paying for it until it is too late.
If you are poor or uninsured, then we have one of the world's worst healthcare systems because you simply don't have access to it. You'll find yourself waiting in an overcrowded emergency room for over 12 hours. Then you'll find the doctor has little time for you, and the hospital has no room for you.
Yesterday, Bush said in his radio address that "it is clear both parties recognize that strengthening health care for all Americans is one of our most important responsibilities. I am confident that if we put politics aside, we can find practical ways to improve our private health care system."
Sounds good doesn't it? Bush's promises usually do sound good, but as usual, his solution doesn't live up to his promise. His solution is to make money spent on insurance part of our taxable income - even insurance paid for by an employer. Then he would give us a tax deduction of $7500 for a single person and $15,000 for a family. While this would give those who already purchase their own insurance a new tax break, it would result in higher taxes for 20% of workers who have employer-paid insurance.
For the poor, it would do nothing. For low-paid workers whose employer does not provide insurance, it would also do nothing. All of these people would still be without healthcare coverage. The poor and working class people don't make enough money for a new tax deduction to mean anything.
It might sound as if it would help the middle class, but I don't even believe that is true. It would simply leave them at the mercy of the insurance companies. As soon as a major illness occurs, and their insurance company decides the treatment needed is not covered by their policy, they'll be forced into bankruptcy court (and probably lose that worthless insurance also).
Bush's plan is not a solution - it is just an illusion. There is only one solution and that is national healthcare - a single-payer system run by the government, and covering all citizens. We must take healthcare decisions out of the hands of greedy insurance executives, and put it in the hands of doctors whose payment will be guaranteed by the government.
Call it socialized medicine if you want. Hell, I don't care what you call it. The fact is that it's working in every other developed nation right now. And don't believe the lies told about systems such as Canada's. Just ask anyone in Canada who's not filthy rich. They'll tell you they wouldn't trade their system for ours in a million years.
It's time to stop making promises while failing to live up to them. It's time to institute a national government- controlled healthcare system that covers all American citizens.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Rick Perry Making Sense ?
Is the world coming to an end? I ask because it seems like lately that our governor, known for his kowtowing to the radical right and to his business buddies, may actually be trying to help some of us ordinary Texans.
On February 2, Perry issued an executive order requiring that all sixth-grade girls in Texas be immunized against the HPV virus. This is not a cure-all for cervical cancer, but it will keep hundreds of thousands of female Texans from contracting the disease in the future.
This is not something many on the radical right wanted to see. They are using the same tired old argument they use against sex education and condom availability. They say if you protect these girls against disease, it will make them want to run out and have sex. It's a stupid argument at best, but these people are not rocket scientists.
These people make up a large part of Perry's base, but he defied them and moved to protect ordinary Texans. Quite frankly, I'm shocked. I didn't think he had the balls to do something this bold.
Now I read in the Austin American-Statesman that Perry has come up with a higher-education plan that makes some sense. Our governor wants to:
•Increase state appropriations for higher education by 7.8 percent, or $712 million, during the next two years.
•Increase major state financial aid programs by 60 percent, or $363 million.
•Consolidate three grant programs into a new 'tuition assistance grant' that would have to be repaid at zero interest if the student did not graduate within five years for a four-year degree plan or within six years for a five-year plan. Require recipients to maintain at least a 3.0 grade point average, up from the current 2.5, to maintain eligibility.
•Boost funding for the B-on-Time loan program to $405 million from about $21 million, and make it available to more students. A student who graduated on time with at least a 3.0 GPA would not have to repay the zero-interest loan.
•Eliminate most 'special items,' or earmarks, which provide funding for particular institutions for favored programs.
•Require an exit test for each student earning a bachelor's degree. A low score would not prevent a student from graduating.
•Pay colleges and universities a reward for each graduate and more for students who did well on the exit test, students from low-income families or who otherwise are considered at-risk or students who majored in math, science and other technical fields.
I'm don't agree with everything in this plan. I'm not sure an exit test is neccessary, or even a good thing. And I think a 2.5 grade point average should be enough to remain qualified for grants - after all, the idea is to help as many as possible get a good education. For many nowdays, that 2.5 may be because they are working many hours and trying to raise a family, and not because they're not smart enough.
But the thrust of the program is to make more money available to institutions of higher learning and more financial aid available to students who need it, and that is a good thing.
Imagine! A Texas Republican governor actually trying to help ordinary Texans. What a novel idea! Maybe I'm just dreaming, but if I am don't wake me up. It sure beats the nightmare of his last term.
On February 2, Perry issued an executive order requiring that all sixth-grade girls in Texas be immunized against the HPV virus. This is not a cure-all for cervical cancer, but it will keep hundreds of thousands of female Texans from contracting the disease in the future.
This is not something many on the radical right wanted to see. They are using the same tired old argument they use against sex education and condom availability. They say if you protect these girls against disease, it will make them want to run out and have sex. It's a stupid argument at best, but these people are not rocket scientists.
These people make up a large part of Perry's base, but he defied them and moved to protect ordinary Texans. Quite frankly, I'm shocked. I didn't think he had the balls to do something this bold.
Now I read in the Austin American-Statesman that Perry has come up with a higher-education plan that makes some sense. Our governor wants to:
•Increase state appropriations for higher education by 7.8 percent, or $712 million, during the next two years.
•Increase major state financial aid programs by 60 percent, or $363 million.
•Consolidate three grant programs into a new 'tuition assistance grant' that would have to be repaid at zero interest if the student did not graduate within five years for a four-year degree plan or within six years for a five-year plan. Require recipients to maintain at least a 3.0 grade point average, up from the current 2.5, to maintain eligibility.
•Boost funding for the B-on-Time loan program to $405 million from about $21 million, and make it available to more students. A student who graduated on time with at least a 3.0 GPA would not have to repay the zero-interest loan.
•Eliminate most 'special items,' or earmarks, which provide funding for particular institutions for favored programs.
•Require an exit test for each student earning a bachelor's degree. A low score would not prevent a student from graduating.
•Pay colleges and universities a reward for each graduate and more for students who did well on the exit test, students from low-income families or who otherwise are considered at-risk or students who majored in math, science and other technical fields.
I'm don't agree with everything in this plan. I'm not sure an exit test is neccessary, or even a good thing. And I think a 2.5 grade point average should be enough to remain qualified for grants - after all, the idea is to help as many as possible get a good education. For many nowdays, that 2.5 may be because they are working many hours and trying to raise a family, and not because they're not smart enough.
But the thrust of the program is to make more money available to institutions of higher learning and more financial aid available to students who need it, and that is a good thing.
Imagine! A Texas Republican governor actually trying to help ordinary Texans. What a novel idea! Maybe I'm just dreaming, but if I am don't wake me up. It sure beats the nightmare of his last term.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
We're Back !!!
I'm sorry it took so long, but we're finally back on line here in our new city. My boss transferred me to Amarillo (and raised my paltry salary a bit). The move took more money than I had counted on, and we were left with a choice after arriving here - we could buy food or get on the internet. My family chose to eat. Imagine that!
Of course we picked the worst possible day to make our move. We took off from the DFW metroplex on January 13th, in the middle of the winter's worst ice storm. We had to drive from Decatur to Amarillo on a sheet of ice - over 300 miles. It was a frightening experience, and not one I would ever care to repeat.
But we're here now and getting used to our new city. So far, I like Amarillo. The people are friendly and it's much easier to drive here than in Fort Worth. It has more of a big-city feel than I expected and seems to be in a growth mode. There's lots of construction going on.
I am having a bit of trouble getting used to the weather though. I've seen more snow in the last month than I've seen before in my entire life. People keep telling me this is an unusually harsh winter. I hope they're right.
Of course, since we had to go off-line there's been lots of news. Hope you don't mind if I sound off a bit on some of it.
The Scooter Libby trial is now nearly over. He's a jerk, and I hope he's found guilty, but we all know he's just the sacrificial lamb thrown to the wolves by the Bush administration to protect higher-ups - Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.
Gov. Bill Richardson threw his hat into the 2008 presidential race. I was glad to see that. I still think he's the most qualified candidate. Congressman, Ambassador, Governor, Diplomatic Trouble-Shooter - Bill has done it all, and done it well. He's even got the balls to speak the truth on Iraq. He says we need to get our soldiers out now! Before you climb on the Clinton or Obama bandwagons, give Richardson a chance. He's a pretty impressive guy.
Of course, if you listen to the main-stream media you wouldn't know there was anyone in the race other than Clinton and Obama, even though both seem to be having trouble deciding just what they believe in - especially about Iraq. Guess they need to read some more opinion polls. They seem to be afraid to take a position unless they're certain it won't cost them a few votes. Surely the Democrats can do better than these two!
George Bush is still determined to go down as the most incompetent president ever elected. Now he's told Americans that he's sending another 28,000 troops to Iraq (even though military sources say it's upward of 42,000 actually being sent). Neither figure is anywhere near enough to make a difference in Iraq. Georgie lost this war a long time ago. Now he's just trying to hang on until the end of his term so he can try and blame the loss on a new president. More troops will die because of Georgie's pride.
Since the death of Anna Nicole Smith, I have to feel sorry for her baby. There are at least a half-dozen people fighting to claim possession of the child. Actually, what they really want is control of the child's inheritance. What a pathetic group of losers!
News reports say we have a deal with North Korea now. I'm not going to hold my breath for this to be finalized. Bush will find a way to screw it up.
Better sign off for now. I want to thank Matt for keeping the blog alive while we were gone. Hopefully, it will be a very, very long time before we have to leave again.
Of course we picked the worst possible day to make our move. We took off from the DFW metroplex on January 13th, in the middle of the winter's worst ice storm. We had to drive from Decatur to Amarillo on a sheet of ice - over 300 miles. It was a frightening experience, and not one I would ever care to repeat.
But we're here now and getting used to our new city. So far, I like Amarillo. The people are friendly and it's much easier to drive here than in Fort Worth. It has more of a big-city feel than I expected and seems to be in a growth mode. There's lots of construction going on.
I am having a bit of trouble getting used to the weather though. I've seen more snow in the last month than I've seen before in my entire life. People keep telling me this is an unusually harsh winter. I hope they're right.
Of course, since we had to go off-line there's been lots of news. Hope you don't mind if I sound off a bit on some of it.
The Scooter Libby trial is now nearly over. He's a jerk, and I hope he's found guilty, but we all know he's just the sacrificial lamb thrown to the wolves by the Bush administration to protect higher-ups - Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.
Gov. Bill Richardson threw his hat into the 2008 presidential race. I was glad to see that. I still think he's the most qualified candidate. Congressman, Ambassador, Governor, Diplomatic Trouble-Shooter - Bill has done it all, and done it well. He's even got the balls to speak the truth on Iraq. He says we need to get our soldiers out now! Before you climb on the Clinton or Obama bandwagons, give Richardson a chance. He's a pretty impressive guy.
Of course, if you listen to the main-stream media you wouldn't know there was anyone in the race other than Clinton and Obama, even though both seem to be having trouble deciding just what they believe in - especially about Iraq. Guess they need to read some more opinion polls. They seem to be afraid to take a position unless they're certain it won't cost them a few votes. Surely the Democrats can do better than these two!
George Bush is still determined to go down as the most incompetent president ever elected. Now he's told Americans that he's sending another 28,000 troops to Iraq (even though military sources say it's upward of 42,000 actually being sent). Neither figure is anywhere near enough to make a difference in Iraq. Georgie lost this war a long time ago. Now he's just trying to hang on until the end of his term so he can try and blame the loss on a new president. More troops will die because of Georgie's pride.
Since the death of Anna Nicole Smith, I have to feel sorry for her baby. There are at least a half-dozen people fighting to claim possession of the child. Actually, what they really want is control of the child's inheritance. What a pathetic group of losers!
News reports say we have a deal with North Korea now. I'm not going to hold my breath for this to be finalized. Bush will find a way to screw it up.
Better sign off for now. I want to thank Matt for keeping the blog alive while we were gone. Hopefully, it will be a very, very long time before we have to leave again.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Some Fun with EULAs
Over at my other blog I recently did a bit about the Vista EULA, and as Vista was release a couple days ago we might get back to the topic for a bit.
The excellent Cory Doctorow gave me a neat idea in his latest piece, namely: take an unconscionable phrase from a license agreement, google it, and see how many companies use it and for what. I tried "you cannot, for any reason" and got a neat hit from ADT.com:
Doctorow pictures (and damn near inhabits) a world in which half of one's life is spent clicking on (or otherwise "implicitly accepting" -- heh) agreements that one will not do all sorts of things that heshe can ordinarily do in a free society.
The biggest ramifications are in the world of copyright (music, movies, software) for a simple reason that I never get tired of elucidating:
Those industries are based on an outdated economic system. It was once at-least-somewhat expensive to copy the basic elements of culture -- books, recording -- and the patterns of mathematical knowledge we call software. As this is no longer the case, the companies that rely on this being the case must now foist endless contracts on us, wherein we agree that it is the case or that we will act as though it is.
We will *not, for example, use Microsoft FrontPage "in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services ... ". (src) Did you know that
And that was about 6 years ago. Think it's gotten better or worse since then?
The excellent Cory Doctorow gave me a neat idea in his latest piece, namely: take an unconscionable phrase from a license agreement, google it, and see how many companies use it and for what. I tried "you cannot, for any reason" and got a neat hit from ADT.com:
You may not, for any reason, distribute, modify, duplicate, transmit, reuse, re-post, or use the content of the Site for public or commercial purposes, including the text, images, audio, and video without ADT’S prior written consent.I like how they star with "for any reason," but then tell you which reasons they mean later. This, of course, is because the fundamental protections of fair use in our copyright law allow you to do those nefarious things for certain reasons.
Doctorow pictures (and damn near inhabits) a world in which half of one's life is spent clicking on (or otherwise "implicitly accepting" -- heh) agreements that one will not do all sorts of things that heshe can ordinarily do in a free society.
The biggest ramifications are in the world of copyright (music, movies, software) for a simple reason that I never get tired of elucidating:
Those industries are based on an outdated economic system. It was once at-least-somewhat expensive to copy the basic elements of culture -- books, recording -- and the patterns of mathematical knowledge we call software. As this is no longer the case, the companies that rely on this being the case must now foist endless contracts on us, wherein we agree that it is the case or that we will act as though it is.
We will *not, for example, use Microsoft FrontPage "in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services ... ". (src) Did you know that
And that was about 6 years ago. Think it's gotten better or worse since then?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)