More Evidence Bush Wrong on WMD

Quess what--yet another investigation shows Bush was wrong. Don't count on viewers of Fox News to find out about this. I wish they had looked more at the politicization of the process.

WMD Commission Releases Scathing Report
Panel Finds U.S. Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons Was 'Dead Wrong'

By Katherin Shrader

Associated Press
Thursday, March 31, 2005; 8:50 AM

In a scathing report, a presidential commission said Thursday that America's spy agencies were "dead wrong" in most of their judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction before the war and that the United States knows "disturbingly little" about the threats posed by many of the nation's most dangerous adversaries.

The commission called for dramatic change to prevent future failures. It outlined 74 recommendations and said President Bush could implement most of them without action by Congress. It urged Bush to give broader powers to John Negroponte, the new director of national intelligence, to deal with challenges to his authority from the CIA, Defense Department or other elements of the nation's 15 spy agencies.

MORE

Chimp Facial Expressions

Official Calls Bush-Chimp Comparison Bad Taste
Thu Mar 31, 2005 08:22 AM ET

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Belgian trainers helping police to understand body language have caused a controversy by likening George Bush's facial expressions to a chimpanzee's.

Interior Minister Patrick Dewael said he was unaware of the pictures when he signed a letter promoting the training package for police dealing with unruly soccer fans, and said the idea was "of bad taste," Het Laatste Nieuws daily reported.

The training presentation pictured the U.S. president's face in various expressions beside photographs of a chimpanzee, the paper showed on its front page, in what was meant to be a humorous introduction to the subject of reading expressions.

Dewael's office was not immediately available for comment.
_________________

I don't see what the fuss is all about. After all, the technique appears valid:

Kerry aide calls for an end to Schiavo `circus'

Kerry aide calls for an end to Schiavo `circus'
By Andrew Miga
Thursday, March 31, 2005 - Updated: 02:38 AM EST

WASHINGTON - America may be transfixed by the emotionally wrenching Terri Schiavo case, but Sen. John F. Kerry [related, bio] has had little to say on the raging national controversy over reconnecting Schiavo's feeding tube.
Kerry's low profile in the explosive battle is in contrast to that of fellow Bay Stater U.S. Rep. Barney Frank [related, bio], who helped lead the Democratic response to the conservative-dominated coalition seeking to keep Schiavo alive.
Kerry (D-Mass.) was unavailable for comment on the case yesterday, but a senior aide accused politicians and journalists of exploiting the case.
``This is a terribly difficult personal tragedy for this family to experience, and elected officials and journalists should respect their privacy and stop treating it like a political circus,'' said Kerry senior adviser David Wade.
``Senator Kerry's prayers are with Mrs. Schiavo, her husband and her parents,'' Wade added. ``The courts have ruled and it's time for the politicians to step aside.''
Several Bay State congressmen, with the notable exception of U.S. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-South Boston), have denounced GOP-led efforts in Congress aimed at getting federal courts to intervene and restore Schiavo's feeding tube.

Kerry on Bush's Budget

Bush's Budget Assaults Our Values

by John Kerry

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Last week's debate on the federal budget should remind all Americans that Washington is not working for them.

If the president gets his way, Lawrence residents should prepare themselves for cuts in everything from home heating assistance to vocational education to law enforcement. The president tried to cut the $1.3 million grant currently revitalizing Haverhill's Acre, Mount Washington and Highlands neighborhoods, but fortunately we were able to block that cut in the Senate.

The votes last week were more than ticks in the won-loss column; they were assaults on our nation's values. Honesty, opportunity and responsibility were all cut from this budget. These cuts should give us all cause for concern, because in the end budgets are a statement of your priorities. They are your values backed up by dollars and cents.

When considering the budget of the United States, honesty at minimum means actually counting every dollar we plan to spend. It sounds simple -- it's what every American does -- but this budget doesn't do it.

Ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost at least $400 billion over 10 years. That's not in the budget. The president's Social Security scheme will cost another $750 billion over 10 years. That's not in the budget. The budget ignores interest on the debt, which not even the most creative accountant would leave out.

This budget is like an Enron budget -- smoke the numbers, cook the books, hide the truth and hope no one finds out. When Enron went bust, stockholders were the losers. When this budget goes bust, the American taxpayer will be the loser. They'll lose because this budget does exactly what Enron did: It makes irresponsible choices the administration does not want you to know about.

The responsible choice would be to honor those who have worn our nation's uniform, but the administration made a different choice. They're raising veterans' health care fees by $250 a year while cutting taxes for millionaires. They welcome home our troops with $2.6 billion in unanticipated co-payments and fees instead of cracking down on offshore tax shelters. The result of these irresponsible choices: In Massachusetts alone over 22,000 veterans could be forced to leave the VA health care system, including 7,600 active patients. Some in Washington may be quick to embrace the symbols of patriotism with words, but too often deeds lag behind.

Responsibility also means keeping our nation on sound financial footing for the long run, but the Congressional Budget Office estimates we'll be facing over $5 trillion in new debt because of this president. These debts not only hurt your children in the future -- they hurt you and every family today. Almost 8 cents of every tax dollar goes just toward paying interest on the debt. By contrast, you only pay about 2 cents on the dollar for education. $160 billion goes to interest on the debt, not to giving health care to every child, fully funding No Child Left Behind, securing our energy independence or funding a military family's Bill of Rights. Eight cents on the dollar is a lot of money, and it's not buying you more security and it's not buying your kids a better education. On the other hand, bankers in Japan and Korea and Taiwan are benefiting, and you should be worried about it. Responsible leaders wouldn't turn our economic future over to the whims of foreign bankers. They would fight to keep it in responsible hands here at home.

The American people also deserve a budget that keeps faith with the promise of opportunity for all, special privileges for none. One of the dangers in tight fiscal times is you start hearing a lot of empty talk about tough choices that are really nothing more than excuses to destroy opportunity. We heard the excuses from the administration during the recession, we heard them during the war, and we've heard plenty more excuses during this budget debate.

The administration makes a number of "tough choices" in this budget under the guise of fiscal restraint. The budget gives a huge tax cut to people making over $1 million a year, but cuts heating aid and vocational education in Massachusetts by over $20 million. The budget wastes billions of dollars in corporate loopholes, while Boston Children's Hospital should expect a $7 million cut and almost 28,000 students across the state could be kicked out of after-school programs. The budget wastes billions more in offshore tax shelters, but cuts Even Start literacy programs in Springfield, Holyoke, Northampton, Greenfield, Pittsfield, Orange and across the commonwealth. The Safe and Drug Free School Program is completely eliminated.

There is not a tough choice in the list above, and there can be no excuse. The people deserve better, and that starts by demanding our leadership do a better job budgeting our cherished values of honesty, responsibility, and opportunity. John F. Kerry is the junior senator from Massachusetts and was the Democratic candidate for president in 2004.

New Source Debunks Bush's Social Security Plan

Are private investments a good idea in place of Social Security? We've had previous posts questioning the value of private accounts. Now Oliver Willis has found an unexpected source of information--Social Security On Line. The government's own site debunks Bush's proposals in this Q&A exchange:

Question:
I think I could do better if you let me invest the Social Security I pay into an Individual Retirement Plan (IRA) or some other investment plan. What do you think?

Answer:
Maybe you could, but then again, maybe your investments wouldn't work out. Remember these facts:

-Your Social Security taxes pay for potential disability and survivors benefits as well as for retirement benefits;

-Social Security incorporates social goals - such as giving more protection to families and to low income workers - that are not part of private pension plans; and

-Social Security benefits are adjusted yearly for increases in the cost-of-living - a feature not present in many private plans.

Filiblog to Save the Filibuster

Democracy Cell Project calls for Filiblog on the Nuclear Option:

It's Time to Begin the Filiblog!!

Senator Bill Frist is sitting on his nuclear option. The filibuster is in danger. Right now, the future of the filibuster rests in the hands of a few Senators--and, of course, US.

Because after all, THEY WORK FOR US. So no matter who you voted for, or what your persuasions are--take the time to think about this issue. Really think. Do you want checks and balances? Do you want discussion of judgeships? Or are you thinking that it is a good thing to rush appointments to the Federal bench through without much discussion?

The Democracy Cell Project is inviting all other blogs to begin what we are pleased to introduce as the FILIBLOG.

RALLY THE FILIBLOGSTERS

We are calling out to all of you, become filiblogsters by contacting the Senate and let them know how you feel about using the nuclear option in the confirming of judges. If the filibuster is to survive, the time to filiblog is now. Phone, fax, and e-mail your concerns and comments.

www.senate.gov

Senator Bill Frist
509 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington D. C. 20510
202-224-3344
202-228-1264 (fax)
In Nashville
615-352-9411
615-352-9985 (fax)

You can start with Senator Frist and keep the filiblog going by contacting your own senators: www.senate.gov

FILIBLOG TODAY TO SAVE THE FILIBUSTER!

Kerry Reference Library Back On Line

The Kerry Reference Library is back, now moved to: http://kerrylibrary.invisionzone.com/
(It was necessary to move due to Forum Flash shutting down recently.)

The Kerry Reference Library started during the 2004 campaign and currently has about 2500 articles on the candidates and issues. The Library continued to be updated after the election, including new sections on moral values, Bush's second term nominees, Tom DeLay and the Republican Congress, and Terri Schiavo. Multiple other issues are present, so this site should also be a useful resource even for people not interested in the articles on Kerry or Bush.

Of course news and interviews on John Kerry have also been updated. At present articles posted until last Thursday have been moved over, and I'll be updating in the near future. There's still a little work to be done. For example, the graphics files (including Avatars and photos in some of the posts) have not been moved yet.

Registered members have been emailed with the new link, but many people read as guests and might not know where the new site is. To help get the word out to all former readers, as well as others who might be interested, I'd appreciate it if anyone with sites or blogs on related topics would post the new link.

The Best Government Money Can Buy

The Washington Post reports on how the "Fortune 500 companies that invested millions of dollars in electing Republicans are emerging as the earliest beneficiaries of a government controlled by President Bush and the largest GOP House and Senate majority in a half century."

In a front page article, the Post reviews the benefits received for their investment by companies such as MBNA Corp, Exxon, Wal-Mart, and other Fortune 5000 companies from Republican initiatives including limitations on class action suits, the bankrupcy law, and Alaska oil drilling. Wal-Mart, for example, has been a major contributor to Republicans, and benefits from the restrictions in class action suits as it is believed to be the most sued company in America.

Battle Ground Ohio

The New York Times reports on an attempt by Christian conservative leaders to take control of the state government and the Republican Party. Ohio is often considered a bellwether state, and whether they succeed could be an indicator of how far religious organizations can succeed in other states.

While George Bush used the religioius right to win a narrow election in 2004, in the future this might pit the religious right against the GOP establishment, with such divisions making it harder for them to win general election campaigns. If the religious right succeeds in controlling the Republican nominees, it might make it particularly difficult to win. Republican leaders fear this may occur:

Republican officials are watching warily. The chairman of the state party, Robert T. Bennett, warned that the decade-long dominance of his party could be jeopardized if it was pushed too far to the right. "This is a party of a big tent," Mr. Bennett said. "The far right cannot elect somebody by itself, any more than somebody from the far left can."

Good News, Bad News

The good news is that support for George Bush and the Republican leadership have fallen. Bush's approval has fallen to 45%, while support for the Congressional leadership has also fallen.

The bad news is that this translates into marginal improvements for the Democrats. The number of people identifying themselves as Democrats did increase from 32% to 37% in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, but the Pew Research Center Poll shows that people don't feel any better about the Democratic leadership.

The Democrats aren't able to capitalize on the Republicans misfortunes. The public opposes the President's Social Security schemes, but the Democrats have not offered any alternatives. The public opposes the Republicans on the intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, but have not heard a coherent position from the Democrats.

There are a few factors in play in the Schiavo case:

1. Some felt it helpful to let the Republicans damage themselves over this on their own. The problem is that it is not guaranteed that the Democrats actually benefit from public opposition to the Republican position
   
   
2. This may have been part of a deal to prevent a more widespread law from being written. This still leaves the impression of a Republican victory in Congress and nobody knows what the Democrats thought.
   
   
3. Republicans have been much better than Democrats at articulating a coherent underlying philosophy for at least 20 years, which has contributed to their control of all three branches of government
   
   
4. Democrats don't have the synergy with media the Republicans do. There are more spokesmen besides the leaders of the House and Senate. This was a good issue for Dean to speak out on but his comments received little publicity. If it was the Republicans, his comments would be all over Fox and talk radio at very least. This could also be a good issue for Kerry with his religious background, but his comments were butchered by being turned into a short sound bit.

These aren't problems which can be solved overnight. In an age of coverage based upon sound bites and brief news reports, the Democrats can't easily get across a coherent philosophy without any previous history in the minds of the public--but they most start somewhere. The Republicans have had a long head start on outlining their philosophyt to the public, making it easier to speak in sound bites on any single issue. I recently discussed one attempts by Democrats to do this in the Principles Project. I agreed with some people who commented that this was too long winded and sometimes poorly written, and even disagreed on some specifics in their ideas, but do find it hopeful that some Democrats are thinking along these lines.

Related Posts:

Kerry Sticks to Liberal Values at Kennedy Library Foundation Award
The Era of Big Government is Back--Under George Bush
The Rights of the Individual vs. The State
Liberalism Is A Demanding Faith

Blogs Influence Social Security Coverage

Liberal blogs do have some impact on the news media. This comes from ABC News's The Note today:

(f) Trustees say Social Security goes "broke" one year earlier, in 2041. (We add the quotation marks so we don't get spam from Josh Marshall's readers, and we're aware that the system still has money in it to pay about three-fourths of present benefit levels then.) Benefits exceed revenues in 2017, not 2018, the trustees project.

Fake Picture Alert

Reportedly this picture of the Bush twins circulating on the internet is a fake:

Republican Place Pandering Over Real Values

The hypocrisy of the Republicans is seen in this report from the LA Times. The key line is that "Bush's responses to the Schiavo case and the school shootings track with the preferences of two of his core constituencies." It's not a matter of the Republicans having real values. They just pander to the religious right and the gun lobby to get votes.

Bush Speaks Out and Stays Silent

His responses to the Schiavo case and the school rampage track with the preferences of two core constituencies.

By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer

March 24, 2005

WASHINGTON ? Does the "culture of life" extend to the victims of gun violence?

That's the question critics are asking after President Bush's contrasting responses to the two events dominating national attention this week.

Although Bush made a special trip back to Washington from vacation to sign legislation offering a new federal right of appeal to Terri Schiavo's parents, the president and his aides have said almost nothing about the mass shooting in Red Lake, Minn. ? the deadliest outbreak of school violence since the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, Colo.

The Minnesota tragedy has increased alarm among some school safety professionals about Bush's efforts to eliminate funding for two major programs meant to prevent classroom violence, including a Clinton administration initiative to help schools hire more police officers.

"It makes absolutely no sense that at a time when we are talking about better protecting bridges, monuments, dams and even the hallways of Congress, that we are going backward in protecting the hallways of our schools," said Kenneth S. Trump, president of National School Safety and Security Services, a consulting firm.

Bush's responses to the Schiavo case and the school shootings track with the preferences of two of his core constituencies.

Conservative Christians pressed Bush to intervene for Schiavo, while the National Rifle Assn. and other gun-owner groups generally look to minimize the relevance of political responses to mass shootings.

MORE

West Wing: Television Imitates Reality, But Does it Better

In real life, we got nauseated watching Democrat Ron Silver cross over to support George Bush in the last election. On West Wing, Ron Silver's charcter, Democratic political consultant Bruno Gianelli, is working as an advisor to the Republican candidate for President.

The similarities between Silver/Bruno supporting the Republican end there. The Republican who Bruno supports is Arnold Vinick, played by Alan Alda, and is closer to Hawkeye Pierce (who Alda played on M*A*S*H) than a modern Republican. Vinick, who could never win the Republican nomination in real life, is a Republican Senator who I could support for President. He has been shown to be a man of integrity, and who is socially liberal. including support for abortion rights.

Bruno supports Vinick on West Wing because he is a man who can unite the country, supporting principles which are supported by the majority of people and are good for the nation. He advises Vinick that he could help him to a fifty state victory rather than carving out an electoral college victory by pandering to the right wing.

In real life Silver abandoned principle to support a Republican nominee who has placed politics above country, and has been one of the most divisive Presidents in history. Rather than supporting a man who has policies which are good for the country, Silver has supported George Bush, who has undermined the nation's security and has abandoned the principles this country was founded upon.

For those who are upset about the prospect of supporting a Republican for President even on a TV show, there remains hope. While Vinick leads on television, a real life Zogby poll shows a majority of viewers supporting the probable Democratic nominee Matt Santos, played by Jimmy Smits. If only real life Presidential elections were a choice between two good men as they are on the fantasy world of West Wing.

Center for American Progress Releases Health Care Proposal

The Center for American Progress, a think tank with some Clinton ties, has come out with a new heath care proposal. I have only had time to look at the proposal quickly. On first impression, one of the best things I can say about it is that it is certainly not a reintroduction of HillaryCare. Like the plan proposed by John Kerry during the 2004 election campaign, this plan starts with existing health plans and acts to make them more affordable.

The program does depend a lot upon extending Medicaid to low income individuals, which may be more realistic than a more extensive program but is far from desirarable. Wherever possible, I prefer plans which extend Medicare coverage rather than Medicaid.

In comparison to Kerry's plan (with information still available at the Doctors and Nurses for Kerry web site) I see a couple of concerns on quick review. The plan proposes to take preventative services out of the insurance system and start a new benefit plan. In practice I find that once there is a question of which of two plans is to cover a service, chaos often results and nobody winds up paying. There is not an absolute dividing line between what is preventative and what is normal care for a disease. If I draw a Lipid Profile on a diabetic patient (who typically have abnormal lipids), is this part of standard care for the patient to be covered by their ususal insurance, or is screening for lipid abnormalities to be the responsibility of the new preventative service system? I prefer Kerry's approach of encouraging traditional insurance plans to cover preventative care.

They suggest paying for these benefits through a new Value Added Tax. I fear this would be a much harder sell politically than Kerry's suggestion of rolling back the tax cuts on those making over $200,000 per year. There will be plenty of opposition to setting up an entirely new tax system, and the fear that once a small Value Added Tax is initiated to pay for this, it will follow the path of most taxes and continue to grow.

Center for American Progress Releases Heatlh Care Proposal

The Center for American Progress, a think tank with some Clinton ties, has come out with a new heath care proposal. I have only had time to look at the proposal quickly. On first impression, one of the best things I can say about it is that it is certainly not a reintroduction of HillaryCare. Like the plan proposed by John Kerry during the 2004 election campaign, this plan starts with existing health plans and acts to make them more affordable.

The program does depend a lot upon extending Medicaid to low income individuals, which may be more realistic than a more extensive program but is far from desirarable. Wherever possible, I prefer plans which extend Medicare coverage rather than Medicaid.

In comparison to Kerry's plan (with information still available at the Doctors and Nurses for Kerry web site) I see a couple of concerns on quick review. The plan proposes to take preventative services out of the insurance system and start a new benefit plan. In practice I find that once there is a question of which of two plans is to cover a service, chaos often results and nobody winds up paying. There is not an absolute dividing line between what is preventative and what is normal care for a disease. If I draw a Lipid Profile on a diabetic patient (who typically have abnormal lipids), is this part of standard care for the patient to be covered by their ususal insurance, or is screening for lipid abnormalities to be the responsibility of the new preventative service system? I prefer Kerry's approach of encouraging traditional insurance plans to cover preventative care.

They suggest paying for these benefits through a new Value Added Tax. I fear this would be a much harder sell politically than Kerry's suggestion of rolling back the tax cuts on those making over $200,000 per year. There will be plenty of opposition to setting up an entirely new tax system, and the fear that once a small Value Added Tax is initiated to pay for this, it will follow the path of most taxes and continue to grow.

Correction to Previous Post

CORRECTION:
When I first heard of this they were quoting Republicans in the state legislature which led to the impression that this was a Republican sponsored idea, but per the article linked above, the sponsor is a Democrat. (I also assumed he was a Republican as the area he represents is far away from the usual Democratic parts of the state.) The argument still holds as to why legislators should stay out of this, but we can't blame the Republicans for this idea.

Reactions to The Terri Schiavo Case

There's been a variety of responses to the Terri Schiavo case since the bill was passed giving federal courts jurisdiction. In California, the California Medical Association voted, with agreement by all but one of the 450 members, to "express its outrage at Congress' interference with medical decisions."

Congress is planning to have a hearing next week to decide if further national legislation is needed. Some do not believe this is a good idea:

"We don't really have a problem that requires federal action," said William J. Winslade, a bioethicist and law professor at the Institute for the Medical Humanities at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston. "The state laws have already covered these situations relatively well."

There has been speculation that Harry Reid made a deal with the Senate Republicans to allow them to pass the measure without requiring a quorum (and without debate) in order to prevent such a move. Reportedly the compromise was to have such a law which only affects Terri Schiavo rather than more general legislation. If the Republicans are now going to go ahead and do this, the Democrats played dead in the Senate for nothing.

As a physician who is sometimes involved in end of life decisions which may result in cessation of life support, I am glad that they (so far) have prevented the current Congress from getting involved in more widespread legislation. I fear that the result of such legislation, considering the degree to which the Republicans are pandering to the religious right, could wind up unnecessarily inhibiting cessation of life support. The Schiavo case got messy due to differences of agreement in the family, followed by politicians butting in where they shouldn't. Most of the time these matters go remarkably well, but it is best having a somewhat free hand to do what makes sense at the time, while trying to follow the wishes of the family and those which may have been expressed by the patient. I fear what a mess the Republicans will make out of this.

An example of the bad judgement we can see from Republican legislators comes out of Michigan where a state legislator wants to prohibit spouses who have been involved in adulterous affairs from making decisions involving cessation of life support. (I initially heard this on radio reports over the local NPR stations, and it is also reported here.) Should these matters be taken to the courts, the court should certainly consider the presence of adultery in deciding whether a spouse is acting in the patient's best interests, but I feel it is overstepping the bounds of the legislature to make a blanket rule that adulterous spouses can no longer represent the interests of their spouse.

Howard Brody, a professor at Michigan State University's Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, took a similar position to mine:

Brody said the current judicial process to consider such issues is a good one.

"Who would be the person to best know Terri's wishes and who could best report to us what Terri wanted? That person might well be the person who lived with Terri day in and day out," said Brody, who added that a court has not stopped Michael Schiavo from being his wife's legal guardian.

"Who are we to say that they're wrong?"

“Since Taking Office, the President Has Cut the SBA More Than Any Other Agency”

We hear in the corporate propaganda press frequently that Bush is a friend to small business. However, the definition of small business is somewhat reaching, because if Bush and friends had their way, the real small business owners of America would be wishing they had filed for bankruptcy a few weeks ago, before the bankruptcy bill passed.

Real small business owners know that they have a friend in John Kerry. I’m talking about the small businesses that are the cornerstone of the American economy, the “rural, low-income, women-owned, minority-owned and home-based small businesses” that you don’t hear about in the news every day, the small businesses that are currently struggling under the Bush economy. Some of those businesses grow and prosper, and become larger corporations, but many remain family owned small businesses, mom and pop shops, as they used to be know and still are in rural areas. If you think about it, everyone knows someone who owns a small business, but companies like Wal-Mart would seek to drive those companies out of business.

Once again, due to John Kerry’s tireless work as Ranking Member of Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, they still have fighting chance (unless the House rejects this).

Thursday the Senate passed the bipartisan Kerry-Snowe amendment which restores “$78 million for critical programs at the Small Business Administration (SBA) that President Bush had proposed drastically cutting or eliminating all together.”

MORE

John Kerry: The Eternal Optimist

Although the article in the new issue of Time about John Kerry could not manage to do with out a touch of snark, it’s a good read. Among notes of interest were the acknowledgment that he is using his email list “of more than 3 million supporters to promote causes he championed as a candidate” and that “Kerry plans to write a book on his views on national security.”

Here are a couple quips from the article, The Eternal Optimist:

Besides stumping and writing, Kerry is hoping to curry favor within the party by donating some of the $14 million left over from his campaign fund. He offered a vote of confidence to former rival Howard Dean, giving the national party $1 million when Dean took over as chairman. He donated $250,000 to the recount effort of Christine Gregoire, who eventually won a very close Governor's race in Washington. Venturing into local politics, he will probably endorse Antonio Villaraigosa in a runoff election for mayor in L.A., choosing a loyal supporter over incumbent James Hahn. "He gets to travel and gets to pick up IOUs," says former party chairman Steve Grossman, a Boston fund raiser who served as Dean's campaign chairman.

Kerry is also embracing the Senate with new fervor. Derided as an absentee Senator by Bush and other critics in 2004, Kerry seems almost everywhere on Capitol Hill these days, introducing bills to expand health care to all children, enlarge the military by 40,000 troops and rewrite election laws to allow any citizen to register to vote on Election Day. "I'm in a position to be more effective on these issues," he says.

MORE

Republican Sleeze

The Republicans have become so sleezy that even conservative columnist David Brooks objects. He notes:

Back in 1995, when Republicans took over Congress, a new cadre of daring and original thinkers arose. These bold innovators had a key insight: that you no longer had to choose between being an activist and a lobbyist. You could be both. You could harness the power of K Street to promote the goals of Goldwater, Reagan and Gingrich. And best of all, you could get rich while doing it!

After exposing recent abuses, he concludes by noting "It took a village. The sleazo-cons thought they could take over K Street to advance their agenda. As it transpired, K Street took over them."

With control of Congress being such a lucrative business, the Republicans are doing everything possible to hold onto power, ethical or not. Georgia Republicans are taking ideas out of the DeLay playbook with redistricting.

Ed Kilgore, sitting in at Talking Points Memo, looks at yet another act of abuse, but his theories on why we see such corruption more under Republicans is worth repeating:

There are Democratic and Republican Commissars, but in my experience, the GOPers are the most numerous and vicious. Why? For the same reason that you tend to have more corruption in Republican administrations: when you don't much care about the positive uses of government, and you don't have the political guts to cut it back as much as you would like, then government becomes little more than a vast patronage operation. And if chaos in services ensues, hey, it's just more proof that government's bad to begin with, right?

White House Expresses Orwellian View of Consent of the Family

The Texas law which led to the discontinuation of life support for Baby Sun contrary to the wishes of the baby's mother came up at a White House press briefing this morning. We saw more Orwellian logic come out of the White House, this time from Scott McClellan. In describing the legislation, signed by George Bush, which allows hospitals to discontinue care considered futile without the consent of the family, McClellan stated: "The legislation was there to help ensure that actions were being taken that were in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient's family."

A Remarkable Event: Bush Returns Early from Vacation

George Bush rushed to sign the Terri Schiavo bill last nigh, which is very unusual for a President who loves to spend time on vacation. AMERICAblog noted four items which George Bush did not find important enough to spend his time on:

1. The tsunami victims -- More than 100,000 people died in the worst natural disaster of our lifetime. Millions were left homeless. It happened just after Christmas and hit hard our staunch ally, Thailand. (Many, many Muslims were devastated by this disaster.) Bush couldn't be bothered to step outside for FIVE minutes and offer his heartfelt sympathy to an event that had the rest of the world riveted and shocked. It took Bush DAYS to do anything, even after his aides had bungled our first offer of aid.

2. Investigating 9/11 with Congress -- Bush spent months hemming and hawing and avoiding having to meet with the bipartisan panel trying to look into the worst attack on US soil in history. He finally, grudgingly, spent a few hours but insisted he appear with Cheney by his side, cause they were busy and needed to get this over with.

3. Heck, 9/11 itself -- On the day of the worst attack on US soil in our history, Bush spent hours and hours flying around the country when he could have just spent a few minutes to get in front of a camera and reassure the nation that he was in charge and we'd get through this.

4. Military funerals -- Bush is the first President in US history during wartime (and presumably peacetime as well) who has refused to attend a SINGLE military funeral to honor one of our fallen soldiers. It's not just the couple of hours he can't be bothered to spend; Bush thinks it would be bad politics to remind people that young men and women die in war, so why bother honoring them? They can take a hit on the battlefield, but Bush won't risk taking a hit in the polls. And if things are going so swimmingly in Iraq, why does he STILL refuse to honor our military?

George Bush and The Wrath of Khan

The Baltimore Sun shows where one Bush advisor received her views on stem cell research: "Diana Schaub, a Loyola College professor and adviser to President Bush, is convinced that cloning and embryonic stem cell research are evil. She says this belief was formed, in part, by watching Star Trek."

Most likely this view is based upon the stories on Khan, who appeared in a 1967 episode and in the 1982 movie The Wrath of Khan in which genetically enhanced humans wage war with humanity.

Star Trek does have some valuable lessons, which we previously discussed. Certainly we must always be watchful for potential misuse of science. However, there is a limit to how much to decide policy based upon adverse events in a television show. For example, denying people the benefits of stem cell research based upon fear of war waged by genetically enhanced humans is rather absurd.

It would have been far better if advisors to Bush learned from the positive lessons of Star Trek, including tolerance, accepting science rather than religious rule and superstition, and noninterference in the affairs of other cultures.

Women in Combat, More Prone to PTSD

If you read any ancient history, you know that centuries ago it was commonplace for women to fight side by side with men on the battlefield. This is not the stuff of mythology. It is fact.

Today, in Iraq women are on the front lines again fighting side by side with their male counterparts.

On a mission just south of Baghdad over the winter, a young soldier jumped into the gunner's turret of an armored Humvee and took control of the menacing .50-caliber machine gun. She was 19 years old, weighed barely 100 pounds and had a blond ponytail hanging out from under her Kevlar helmet.

"This is what is different about this war," Lt. Col. Richard Rael, commander of the 515th Corps Support Battalion, said of the scene at the time. "Women are fighting it. Women under my command have confirmed kills. These little wisps of things are stronger than anyone could ever imagine and taking on more than most Americans could ever know."

However, now we are starting see the effects women fighting on the front lines and studies are indicating that more women are suffering from more debilitating forms of PTSD. According to Paula Schnurr, a lead researcher for a 6 million dollar study on the effects of PTSD in women, “data indicate that female military personnel are far more likely than their male counterparts to have been exposed to some kind of trauma or multiple traumas before joining the military or being deployed in combat. That may include physical assault, sexual abuse or rape.”

Read More

Allow Terri Schiavo A Gentle Death

Assuming the feeding tube remains out, I imagined we would need some scientific data to counter charges from the right regarding the inhumanity of starving Terri Schiavo. I have read literature from hospices in the past regarding this, including advice that those on the verge of death (who are more aware than Terri Schiavo currently is) are often more comfortable without being fed.

I was planning to attempt to dig up such information from a medical or nursing journal. The New York Times saved me from going to the trouble. I often complain about the inaccurate information on medical issues contained in stories in the news media. In this case the New York Times did a fine job:

Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death

By John Schwartz

To many people, death by removing a feeding tube brings to mind the agony of starvation. But medical experts say that the process of dying that begins when food and fluids cease is relatively straightforward, and can cause little discomfort.

"From the data that is available, it is not a horrific thing at all," said Dr. Linda Emanuel, the founder of the Education for Physicians in End-of-Life Care Project at Northwestern University.

In fact, declining food and water is a common way that terminally ill patients end their lives, because it is less painful than violent suicide and requires no help from doctors.

Terri Schiavo, who is in a persistent vegetative state, is "probably not experiencing anything at all subjectively," said Dr. Emanuel, and so the question of discomfort, from a scientific point of view, is not in dispute.

Patients who are terminally ill and conscious and refuse food and drink at the end of life say that they do not generally experience pangs of hunger, since their bodies do not need much food. But they can suffer from dry mouth and other symptoms of dehydration that can be treated effectively.

Once food and water stop, death usually comes in about two weeks, and is caused by effects of dehydration, not the loss of nutrition, said Dr. Sean Morrison, a professor of geriatrics and palliative care at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. "They generally slip into a peaceful coma," he said. "It's very quiet, it's very dignified - it's very gentle."

The process of dying begins in the kidneys, which filter toxins from the body's fluids. Without new fluids entering the body, the kidneys produce less and less urine, and the urine becomes darker and more concentrated until production stops entirely.

Toxins build up in the body, and the delicate balance of chemicals like potassium, sodium and calcium is disrupted, said Deborah Volker, an assistant professor of nursing at the University of Texas who has written extensively on end-of-life issues.

This electrolyte imbalance disrupts the electrical system that triggers the action of muscles, including the heart, and eventually the heart stops beating.

Defining Liberal Principles

Following the election there has been considerable discussion among liberals as to clarifying what it is that Democrats believe. I believe we are in the process of a realignment and redefinition of the meanings of liberal versus conservative. We've seen the south move from being solidly Democratic to solidly Republican. With socialistic economic theories being discredited in practice, the old definitions based upon economics have eroded, with many of the strongest proponents of capitalism now being on the left while many on the right, including the current GOP leadership, have abandoned support for the free enterprise system and small government in their practices if not rhetoric. Social issues have become the more meaningful distinguishing features of the two parties, with church attendance (or lack of attendance) being the best predictor of an individual's vote.

With many people working on statements of principles for which Democrats and liberals stand, one group I found of interest was The Principles Project which is working on a 500 word statement of principles. While not affiliated with the Democratic party, an article in the Washington Post does show these connections: The honorary co-chairmen are Reps. Harold E. Ford Jr. (Tenn.) and Janice D. Schakowsky (Ill.), as well as David Wilhelm, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) sent the group a letter of support, saying that "an effort like this can help us better define shared commitments."

Their statement stresses principles such as defending dignity based upon the belief that all men are created equal. They endorse strengthening democracy by measures such as transparency and tireless vigilance against corruption and abuses of power. They support promoting progress, including innovation and entrepreneurship along with cultivating the arts and science, and ensuring a quality education for everyone. They note that America’s security requires an effective military, as well as commitment to enduring alliances, and stress the importance of preserving our belief in democracy and human rights in pursuit of global objectives.

While there are items I would have stated differently, it is a good start at a cohesive statement of general principles which most liberals could support. With the right wing noise machine regularly dominating the media with their hatred, opposition to progress and science, xenophobia, homophobia, racism, and blind support for a government which becomes increasingly more intrusive in our lives, it is important to have such clear statements of an opposing viewpoint.

RELATED STORIES:
Kerry Sticks to Liberal Values at Kennedy Library Foundation Award
The Era of Big Government is Back--Under George Bush
The Rights of the Individual vs. The State
Liberalism Is A Demanding Faith

The Eternal Optimist

The Eternal Optimist
John Kerry is on the road again, listing excuses for losing in 2004 and looking like a 2008 campaigner
By PERRY BACON JR.

It seemed as if the campaign had never ended. There was John Kerry standing on a chair in a blue neighborhood of Atlanta, in the Democrat-friendly tavern Manuel's, speaking to 100 folks, many of them wearing Kerry-Edwards T shirts. The Massachusetts Senator insisted that he wasn't "one to lick wounds," but then he did: he noted that Bush had won with the smallest percentage margin ever for an incumbent and complained that the Republican team had six years to develop its electoral strategy while his had only eight months. And although he claimed that "my focus is not four years from now," he made sure his audience knew just how viable a candidate he had been--and could be again. "We actually won in the battleground states," Kerry said, adding that his loss in Ohio was so close that if "half the people ... at an Ohio State football game" had voted differently, he would be in the Oval Office now.

Kerry's words and moves suggest that he thinks Nov. 2, 2004, was merely a detour on his road to the White House. He has been holding private dinners with potential fund raisers and policy advisers, signaling he might run again and blaming his political strategists for many of the mistakes his campaign made last year, such as not responding swiftly to ads attacking his Vietnam service. He has set up a political-action committee to finance his travels around the country, which will include stops in 20 cities over the next two months to give speeches and headline fund raisers for other Democrats. And he is constantly e-mailing his list of more than 3 million supporters to promote causes he championed as a candidate, like expanding health insurance to all children and preventing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Kerry plans to write a book on his views on national security.

Besides stumping and writing, Kerry is hoping to curry favor within the party by donating some of the $14 million left over from his campaign fund. He offered a vote of confidence to former rival Howard Dean, giving the national party $1 million when Dean took over as chairman. He donated $250,000 to the recount effort of Christine Gregoire, who eventually won a very close Governor's race in Washington. Venturing into local politics, he will probably endorse Antonio Villaraigosa in a runoff election for mayor in L.A., choosing a loyal supporter over incumbent James Hahn. "He gets to travel and gets to pick up IOUs," says former party chairman Steve Grossman, a Boston fund raiser who served as Dean's campaign chairman.

Kerry is also embracing the Senate with new fervor. Derided as an absentee Senator by Bush and other critics in 2004, Kerry seems almost everywhere on Capitol Hill these days, introducing bills to expand health care to all children, enlarge the military by 40,000 troops and rewrite election laws to allow any citizen to register to vote on Election Day. "I'm in a position to be more effective on these issues," he says. But some of his powerful colleagues disagree. In a meeting with labor leaders, Kerry questioned whether Democrats had a coherent message opposing Bush's Social Security plan, annoying Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, who told Kerry not to lecture him on strategy, considering his failures in the presidential campaign. And some Democrats on Capitol Hill privately scoff at the idea that Kerry--never particularly popular in the Senate--can expect a leadership role just because he won 59 million votes last year. "In terms of having a louder voice in the Senate," says a Senate Democratic staff member, "I seriously doubt that."

In addition, Kerry faces an also-ran problem. "It's been a long time since the Democratic Party gave somebody a second chance," says Grossman. "That's a big challenge to overcome." But it might not be the biggest. Kerry may find that there is little he or any other contender can do to get his party's nomination if Hillary Clinton decides to run. The New York Senator holds a commanding lead in every poll of Democratic voters, and some major party fund raisers are saying they expect her to have a huge financial advantage over her opponents. "She'll crush them all," says a lobbyist who plans to raise funds for 2008 candidates.

But Kerry, for now, doesn't seem daunted. Discussing his health-care bill at a town-hall meeting in Atlanta, he offered advice on how to get it passed that seemed a nod toward his future. "We had a very, very close race," he said. "I've learned in politics that you don't stop. You've got to keep going."

The Right's Battle Against Science Extends to Imax Theaters

In a previous discussion of Disney World, I commented on how Disney often supports diversity and scientific ideas in an age when science is under attack from the right wing. I noted how Ellen's Energy Adventure at Universe of Energy promotes the ideas of creation of the universe in the big bang, discusses evolution, and is hosted by lesbian Ellen DeGeneres. In another era we would take it for granted that educational movies would include evolution and the big bang, but we cannot take this for granted in Bush World. The New York Times reports on how several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are being intimitated from displaying scientific ideas:

A New Screen Test for Imax: It's the Bible vs. the Volcano
By CORNELIA DEAN

The fight over evolution has reached the big, big screen.

Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject - or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures.

The number of theaters rejecting such films is small, people in the industry say - perhaps a dozen or fewer, most in the South. But because only a few dozen Imax theaters routinely show science documentaries, the decisions of a few can have a big impact on a film's bottom line - or a producer's decision to make a documentary in the first place.

People who follow trends at commercial and institutional Imax theaters say that in recent years, religious controversy has adversely affected the distribution of a number of films, including "Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.

"Volcanoes," released in 2003 and sponsored in part by the National Science Foundation and Rutgers University, has been turned down at about a dozen science centers, mostly in the South, said Dr. Richard Lutz, the Rutgers oceanographer who was chief scientist for the film. He said theater officials rejected the film because of its brief references to evolution, in particular to the possibility that life on Earth originated at the undersea vents.

MORE

RELATED POSTS:
The Bush Theocracy vs. Science
Return to the Dark Ages
Supression of Knowledge by the Right

Pandering Trumps Principles for the GOP

The Terri Schiavo case has attracted public attention as it has significance on many levels. The primary concerns involve the right to refuse medical care, but there are many other issues raised. One of the lessons seen here is confirmation that for the current Republican leadership talk about princles is generally just words to attract votes--and trying to attract votes is all that really matters.

Just as with opposing deficits, arguments in favor of state's rights were just tactics for the Republicans when they were out of power, not true principles.When out of power, the Republicans would argue for the need to restrict the power of those in Washington in favor of those on the local and state level as a way to reduce the impact of laws passed by Democrats. Since they have been in control in Washington, they freely ignore these principles. This is at least the third time since the 2000 election that we have seen how little true support the Republicans really have for Federalism:

• Following the 2000 election, Republicans went to the Supreme Court to overrule the decisions of the Florida Supreme Court on what should clearly have been decided at the state level regarding their election. While discriminatory practices--generally the true principle being supported by those who call for state's rights--may sometimes require federal intervention, this hardly applied here. In this case it was the Supreme Court which overruled the state court's attempts to see that all votes were counted. The prospect of controlling the White House trumped Republican beliefs in Federalism.
• The malpractice proposals from the GOP, which are really designed to protect insurance companies from loses and not solve the true malpractie problems, call for Congress to set an arbitrary limit on non-economic settlements. In other words, if someone's negligence should cause a problem such as blindness or death of a child, where the damages have a large non-economic component, Congress would override the judgement of the local court which has evaluated the case with regards to determining settlements. Here support for the insurance industry, which has been a major contributor to the GOP, trumps Federalism. Obtaining the support of physicians who do not realize how little the Republican proposals will do for them is an added benefit.
• Congress is now looking to the federal courts to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. People may have honset disagreements over how it should be handled. Regardless of these disagreements, the case was tried in the Florida courts. The decision to allow the husband to withhold life support in the case of his brain dead wife is consistent with general medical practice. The decisions of the Florida courts should be the final word in such a situation. Here we see that pandering to the Religous Right means more than their old principles. Unfortunately, separation of church and state is one principle which the Republicans do not understand.

For those of us who follow politicis closely, finding that the Republicans are ignoring their previously stated principles is no surprise. We are aware of the work of people like Frank Luntz who tell fellow Republicans what to say for maximum political gain, regardless of principles.
For the typical voter, seeing how easily the Republicans will flip flop on principles like Federalism would be of little concern. There is, however, a principle which the Democrats need to argue, as there is the prospect for developing a new dividing line between the parties. This is a question of government interference in the private decisions of individuals. Ronald Reagan spoke of getting the government off our backs, but this was yet another case of Republicans deciding upon the words to use rather than supporting principles. Here is one of may situations where it is the Democrats who truly in support of getting the government off people's backs.

Becoming known as the party which supports the rights of the individual against unjust government intervention would be a valuable way for the Democrats to define themselves, rather than allowing the Republicans to continue to define them. This is not only the right principle to support, but one which could be beneficial poliltically. Once people understand that this is why liberals take a position, people might be more understanding of decisions they disagree with personally, such as keeping the government out of decisions over matters such as abortion rights, stem cell research, and sexual preference.

Being the party of individual liberty could also help attract new areas of support. Once identified as the party of big government intrusion into individual's lives, the Republicans may keep their support in the south, but are likely to have difficulties in the more individualistic western states.
Republicans have done an excellent job of nationalizing issues and expanding their support. As Republcans take unpopular positons such as with teh Terri Schiavo case, the Democrats must take advantage of this to show a true distinction between the party themselves and the true party of big government intrusion in people's lives.

More Data Questions Value of Social Security Privitization

Retirement Accounts Questioned
Paper Challenges Expected Benefits

By Jonathan Weisman

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 19, 2005; Page E01

Nearly three-quarters of workers who opt for Social Security personal accounts under President Bush's "default" investment option are likely to earn less in benefits than those who stay with the traditional Social Security system, a prominent finance economist has concluded.

A new paper by Yale University economist Robert J. Shiller found that under Bush's default "life-cycle accounts," which shift assets from stocks to bonds over a worker's lifetime, nearly a third of workers would bring in less in benefits than if they remained in the traditional system. That analysis is based on historical rates of return in the United States. Using global rates of return, which Shiller says more closely track future conditions, life-cycle portfolios could be expected to fall short of the traditional system's returns 71 percent of the time.

MORE

RELATED POSTS ON SOCIAL SECURITY:
Social Security and the Young, or Beware the Great Deceiver
Democrats, Social Security, and the Investor Class
Democrats Response on Social Security
Fact Check Disputes GOP Claims on Social Security
No End to The Absurd From Bush on Social Security
Bush World Meets Bizzaro World on Social Security
Cheney: Privitize Social Security, Or Else?
Social Security, A Program For All Times
Women & Social Security, Some Facts and a Calculator
Fact Check on Bush's Social Security Proposals
"The Money in the Account" is NOT All Yours
Social Security Privitization in Chile
Scheming Your Social Security Down the Drain, What Privatization Could Mean to You