Your Weekly Rush

Well, as i'm sure we all know, Tom Daschle has dropped out of the race. As he said at his announcement, "I’ve concluded that at this moment in our history, with so many important decisions to be made about our nation’s future, my passion lies here in the Senate." While you may not like Daschles politics, his statement seems clear to me. He thinks he can accomplish more in the senate.

But that was until I read Rush's take on the situation. He reported that he had dropped out, but then went to a Washignton post story that reported that his wife was staying with Baker, Donelson, Bearman & Caldwell, as an airline lobbyist. Look at the way he words this story. "The Washington Post reports that Linda Hall-Daschle told her law firm that she would leave to stand by her man in any presidential campaign. If she'd left her job to advance her husband's career, it would've been the first time in a quarter century that she would have not been working."

Did you catch the subtle code there? I know that not all of you have recieved your Rush Limbaugh Decoder Rings, but to make it clear, Republicans don't like women working. Woman working are bad, unless they are writing diatrabes against Democrats (also known as the Ann Coulter Loophole). Women who work can't be trusted. Also Tom Daschle is unmanly to let his wife work, and apparently make more than he does. We wouldn't be surprised if the wussy Tom didn't drop out so his wife could keep her salary.

That's Rush, always willing to tackle the tough progressive issues facing 1947.

Definitions

Here are some definitions for you, to guide you as you wander the wacky world of commentary.

Descredited Plan (as used by John Nichols yesterday) - any scheme which most people within your party or political bent don't believe in. See for example, discredited Democratic social programs or discredited Republican economic policies.

Terrorist (as used by conservative pundits) - Al Queda, Hamas.

Terrorist (as used by liberal extremists) - the United States, Isreal

Rogue Nation (as used by Conservative Pundits) - Iraq, North Korea, any non Western Europeon nation that challanges the United States or any Corporation based in the United States.

Rogue Nation (as used by Liberal Pundits) - the United States, Isreal.

New Tone (as used by David Limbaugh, today) - President Bush's bizarre and wrongheaded plan of working with Democrats to pass legislation he obviously doesn't believe in, such as the education bill. Alternatively, it means not crushing the democrats like bugs but instead realizing that they have political power and must be worked with not against.

Policies of Racial Equality (As used by David Limbaugh) - Making sure that America is safe and fair to white people.

Further thoughts on Cloning

Here are some thoughts from Brandy, an exceedingly clever lady who reads this site and wrote me a letter on cloning. Enjoy.

Here is my 2 cents on the cloneing subject: I could really care less if people are cloning themselves...people who shouldn't reproduce at all, let alone mix 2 bad DNA together to do so have been having kids for centuries...the world seems to go on. My problem with the cloneing issue is what will happen to all the babies born deformed? In animal cloneing the number of deformed babies is so much higher than any that aren't. And even Dolly...one of the more successful clones has many problems.

Australian Spiders to be Sent into Space

Yes, famed indie group, Australian Spiders, are going into space, where their inventive mix of funky basslines, electric zither, and melodious cat scratching will be a real lift to those people stuck up there.

No actually it's real spiders--30 Golden Orb spiders are in the program, but only the eight friskiest will make it into space. The Orb Spiders build particularly symetrical webs so that will enable researchers to discover whether or not spider webs would make a particularly good beverage holder. It has so far proven difficult to find the ideal beverage holders for those long nights when the orbitor orbits the earth about a thousand times.

In truth I think they already have something involving velcro--but it's still kind of a funny bit. More politics soon.

Clones

Well it's hard to write an article about cloning. It's the sort of subject that invites grandiose soul searching--but that's not for me. I vacuum my soul twice a week so its hard to find anything there. But in my attempts to understand cloning I've come to one conclusion. It's very very annoying now, and it will get worse.

Make a list in your head of the people you know who think the most of themselves. Now consider a list of who you think the most likely to clone themselves might be. I stipulate that list A will look a lot like list B. Just what the world needs, more people who are stuck on themselves. (On a related note, Blogspot, which powers my weblog, has just pased the 1,000,000 mark.)

It does pose troubling questions. One position, taken by Jacob Sullum, is largely that if the technology exists it will happen. He cautions against thinking a clone inferior to a human. We already have examples of people with identical DNA in identical twins--many of whom turn out quite different. He states, "As Reason science correspondent Ron Bailey has observed, a person and his clone would in fact be less alike than identical twins, since they would be separated in time, probably by a generation or more, and would therefore have quite different experiences. In any case, there is no question that they would be distinct individuals, each with his own rights and his own life to lead."

James Carroll takes a more pessimistic track--asking what does cloning say about the age old question--what does it mean to be human? Some people might feel that that question is a new one, but it isn't. It goes back to our earliest times, when villages looked at other villages down the river and asked "Ughh Ughhhh Argghhh ughhhhh." Or to put it another way, do those people down the river--are they basically like us? Or are they totally different? Do our laws and accepted mores apply to them? Or, if they aren't human, what does it matter if we cheat them or lie to them or kill them?

Or to shift gears--are Muslims human? Are Iraqis?

Quote Change

Can't find much more to write about today--so changed the quote at the top

War may no Longer be Inevitable

Steve Chapman, writing at Townhall.com, published a column today on the potential of war in Iraq. His conclusion--unless the Inspectors come up with something soon, we might not be able to invade. By committing himself to working through the United Nations, Bush opened himself up for this. He comments, "the administration would have to justify going to war to punish Hussein for transgressions that no one has been able to prove. To the rest of the world, Bush would be in the position of holding a trial and then hanging the defendant after his acquittal."

Conservatives have certainly laid the ideological groundwork for him to attack without provocation and to ignore the UN. In this sense, however, I don't think that's what Bush will do. He and his advisors must realize that such an action would be terrible for how the United States looks in the world.

That can't be right

Last not on NBC's The West Wing, one of the charectars was throwing around the figure that less than 1% of the United States Budget went to foreign spending. I did some research this morning, and it appears that information may be correct. The US spend about $25,227 million on conduct of Foreign Policy. When you take out $7,154 Million for the running of foreign policy, and an additional $910 million for communications efforts, you are left with $17,163 million or a little over $17 billion. The entire Budget is $2.1 Billion. That works out for about 0.86% of the national budget. So for every $100 the Government collects, people in the rest of the world get 86 cents.

Now it looks a little worse if you take foreign policy as a subset of Discretionary spending. The United States budget is divided into two halves--discretionary and non-discretionary. The non-Discretionary includes Social Security and other programs that Congress, in it's wisdom, has declared that they will not touch. Non-Discretionary spending makes up 63% of the annual budget--leaving just 37% for programs that Congress has to approve each year. Out of that, Foreign aid accounts for 3.25%.

National Public Radio, which I love, and many would like to see closed down, will get $454,000,000 or about 0.021%. In other words for every $100 the government collects, NPR gets 2 cents.

Those interested in finding out more can check out the White House site where I collected this info. For those who watched the episode, I agreed when it was said that we don't sell foreign aid right. It's not giving money to poor people, it's not charity. It's investing in making the world a safer place.

E-Mail Me

I changed the format a bit ago and apparently screwed up the e-mailing capabilities. Sorry about that--anyway, for those interested, the correct e-mail address is above and is politicalcombryant@hotmail.com

The End of Dividend Taxes

Two things about this issue--first of all, Republicans are fond of saying that more than half of America has money in the stock market, and therefore a cut in Divident Taxes will benefit all. In fact, most small investors now have their money in 401k's or company IRAs that are already untaxed. Secondly, those who benefit from this tax the most are going to be those who's portfolios are large and diverse. I don't invest for dividends myself--and I don't know anybody who does. I invest because I think the value of the stock is going to go up. If I had much more money than I do, perhaps I would feel different, and I would drop money into blue chip companies who always pay dividends--but so far that's not been my plan. So William F. Buckley's postering aside, this is a tax break for the wealthy.

Second, it's clear to me at least, that this is not going to stay part of the plan for long. It's half of Bush's plan and it's terribly easy for Democrats to criticize. So he "compromises" and eliminates this part of his plan to take it down to the more manageable $3 to $3.5 million.

The Future Is Crap!

OK, so here we are in the future right--and what a rip off. No Lasers, no flying cars, no space ships. And then they mess up the things we do have.

Like Seven Up--this probably happened a while ago and I didn't notice but I noticed tonight. When I was growing up, Seven Up was the Un-Cola. "Crisp and Clean and no Caffeine." was their slogan. Well, look at the picture below.



You note the complete lack of a "Crisp" clear color. And although you can't see it, it says right over Seven Up--Caffeinated. So they are no longer Crisp, and they are no longer lacking caffeine. I haven't come up with a way to test if the soda is "Clean" as of yet, but until I do I'm not drinking it. After visiting the 7-up Website, all the bottles there look normal--so perhaps this is reverse Seven Up--you can see that the label is on upside down. Or perhaps I've entered Bizzarro world.

One thing hasn't changed--Dogs come running for the delicious taste of Seven Up. It helps that they are color blind.



For those concerned, he only got a sip.

Where the Dollars Go

Great article today by Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, on why giving tax breaks to the middle class makes more sense than giving them to the wealthy. Essentially the argument is that the problem with the economy is that there's not enough spending. Our industries are producing in great amounts and are capable of producing more--but if people can't buy the products, well, that production doesn't do us any good.

He stated " . . . the members of the royal class are spending about as much as they want to spend. No amount of extra money in their diamond-studded pocketbooks will cause them to spend much more. . . . The president's plan responds to the nation's two overarching economic problems -- overcapacity and widening inequality -- by worsening both."

And We'll Have Fun Fun Fun

Cal Thomas has revealed in his column today the secret to Conservativism's success. "Conservatism is optimistic and fun. Liberalism is pessimistic and dour." What could be simpler? Thinks look so great when you stick your head in the ground, but the sand often gets in your ears.

He also continues the current Conservative mantra--if only the Democrats would embrace conservatism they could win. Well, they sort of did, and got widely and correctly attacked for abandoning their principles.

This Just In; Civil War Won by North

Some facts to begin with.

1. The South fought the civil war in order to defend their rights; specifically their percieved right to own other human beings as slaves.

2. The South began the war by attacking Fort Sumter, inflicting a war on the North that caused 360,222 deaths to Northern troops, which also cost the South 258,000.

3. Most confederate soldiers may have been valiant noble men--but they were duped by rich land and slave owners into a war to preserve slavery.

The National Park Service has decided to put a monument at Gettysburg to talk about Slavery, and Pat Buchanan is mad about it. I'm happy about it. I'm tired about hearing about how the war had nothing to do with Slavery. I'm tired of hearing about how the North were the villians in that war. The South began the process of Succession before Lincoln had done anything. The South began the war based on what they thought Lincoln would do. Basically, the only way the north could have acted morally in these little playlets the South has constructed is to basically let the South do what ever it wants. It's like a child who throws a tantrum, and afterwards blames the parent for pushing her over the edge.

After the war, the south initially acted as if nothing had happened, some tried to hold on to their slaves, and they enacted laws to ensure the former slaves keep their "proper place." The North imposed some Democratic principles, which held during the period known as reconstruction. They did such horrible things to the South as letting the Blacks vote. So the South began a reign of terror against Blacks and Southern Republicans (both born in the South and transplanted) that involved arson, murder, and terrorism, as referenced last week.

The Standard of Proof

You ever notice how if you come across a story that reflects what you already believe, it's very easy to believe that story. Or conversely, if a story contradicts your views, you take your time to examine the story in depth to find the flaws you know must be there.

Last week, at a press conference, President Bush was asked whether or not we could really go to war with our economy in its current condition. He responded saying, "Well, an attack from Saddam Hussein or a surrogate of Saddam Hussein would cripple our economy. . . . This economy cannot afford to stand an attack. And I'm going to protect the American people. The economy is strong, it's resilient. Obviously, so long as somebody is looking for work, we've got to continue to make it strong and resilient. My most important job is to protect America and Americans, and I take that job seriously. " Not Shakespeare but clear enough in my mind. President Bush believes that the US economy would be hurt if Saddam Hussein were to attack us or (more likely) were to use terrorist surrogates to attack us with weapons of mass destruction. He believes that Saddam Hussein has the potential to do just that. Therefore he feels it his duty to protect us by eliminating the threat of Saddam. Now one can question factually these statements.

But that's not enough for Linda McQuaig, writing in the Toronto Star, reprinted at commondreams.org. In President Bush's statement is the clear statement of purpose. As she puts it, "It may have its drawbacks but, according to George W. Bush, nuclear war could prove an indispensable tool for maintaining a buoyant economy."

Later in her essay she states, "At what point does the personal comfort level of Americans and their allies cease to be the most important thing on the planet, for which everyone else in the world is simply expendable? And we wonder why they hate us?

What will be next? Biological warfare against any nation exporting scratchy sweaters or food that gives us gas?"

Again, unless you read Bush's words with the special binoculars that Ms. McQuaig is wearing, it's clear that Bush was asked an economic question, and he responded with an answer on economics. The disruption of the economy that Bush is referring to would be a terrorist attack using weapons of mass distruction. Whether or not that's likely, it is a ligitemate concern for the Commander in Chief to investigate. And he believes the threat is real (as President Bush apparently does), then he has a responsibility to take action.

Edited at 3:48 because I screwed up some words.