Still Fighting has moved! Check us out at
www.stillfighting.com!
December 29, 2005
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Thursday's Links
Activism
Stop Drive-Through Mastectomies. Sick of politics? So are we. Just kidding. But here's what must surely be an apolitical issue, right? Surely, the idea of a woman with breast cancer who has been forced to get a mastectomy to save her life, and then is booted out of the hospital to save insurance costs is abhorrent to people of any political persuasion, right? So then why does it still go on? The Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005 would require that all women being undergoing be mastectomies be guaranteed reasonable coverage. Go to the link and sign the petition supporting this important legislation.
News
GOP Closer to Breaking Up Left-Leaning 9th Circuit Appeals Court. Here's the problem with electing conservatives: They do long-term damage to the country that can't simply be undone in a couple of election cycles. The recent incarnation of conservatives seek total dominance of the government. They're not satisfied with just two of the three branches, even though we've seen what atrocities they've already wrought. No, they want to rule them all. So, even though it's the only Appeals Courts left dominated by Democratic nominees, the Ninth Circuit has to go. Legislators claim that "it's too large to administer justice", whatever that means. Even conservative judges think it's a ridiculous idea. It's solely politics at work - break up any last vestiges of liberal courts (even though the Ninth Circuit works just fine) and engineer a lasting conservative rule of the judicial branch. This is why Republican domination of the government cannot be allowed to occur again.
Air Force Erred With No-Bid Iraq Contract, GAO Says. Once again, the Pentagon is looking out for its friends, instead of the country. Last year, the Pentagon pressured the Air Force into awarding a no-bid contract to REEP, Inc. The contract required REEP to find bilingual speakers "committed to a democratic Iraq," for some propaganda and "government advisement." REEP went ahead and employed Iraqi political exiles for the job. The first problem is that the Air Force didn't bid the contract, which means that no one else had an opportunity to submit a proposal for the work. The Pentagon says that they felt like there wasn't enough time to seek proposals, and REEP was the only qualified company, so that's who they chose. Never mind that there are (at least) two other companies capable of doing this work. But those companies probably aren't under the thumb of the Pentagon, and wouldn't have used the political exiles, which is problem number 2. Problem number three reared its head when the Pentagon decided not to compete an extension of the same contract, and award it to REEP again. Thankfully, the GAO has called the Air Force on this egregious misuse of taxpayer monies. However, we don't expect the Pentagon to change their spots over this.
IRS Complaint Filed Against Focus on the Family. We love this story, if for no other reason then it shows liberals on the offensive, for once. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has asked the IRS to investigate whether or not James Dobson's Focus on the Family should lose its tax-exempt status, based on Dobson's endorsement of candidates in 2004. You may recall that a liberal pastor in California is under investigation for the same charges. But what's most amusing about this are the views of the right. This editorial, in Texas's The Monitor, tries to fight back against the charge, and fails. Instead of trying to defend Dobson, the editorial attacks CREW for being partisan, and claims that there's a double standard at work, and perhaps CREW should be investigated and have their tax-exempt status revoked. News flash: CREW doesn't participate in electioneering. The editorial cites CREW's website. "Moreover, a look at CREW’s Web site indicates that the vast majority of those it targets for alleged ethics violations are Republicans. . .But CREW has made only a token effort to go after Democrats — two of 13 members of Congress identified by the organization as "most corrupt" were Democrats — suggesting a one-sided agenda." Or, perhaps it suggests that there just aren't as many Democrats whose corruption approaches that of Republicans. The right's arguments here are hollow, and don't add up. How often are we going to see Democrats use facts and Republicans use innuendo and slander before we do something about it?
Editorials
The War on Our Children. When a Congressman from California speaks, we listen. First it was "Duke" Cunningham admitting that he is a liar and a fraud, by accepting $2.4 million in bribes. Now, Pete Stark (D-CA) has an editorial up that blasts Congress for its poor short-sightedness. Republicans in Congress are creating so many roadblocks for Americans who are under the age of 18 that their lives are going to be harder than ever. Cutting Head Start: check. Making job training for mothers of children six and under harder: check. Under funding a bad No Child Left Behind Act: check. Not raising the minimum wage: check. How else can Republicans screw up our children? Oh yes, by proposing to cut $14.3 billion from federal student aid programs. If we're facing such a money crisis, why are House Republicans continuing to cut taxes? Stark puts it far better than we could. "If the United States can find $250 billion for a failed war in Iraq and give American millionaires an average tax break of $41,574 apiece in 2006, then the most affluent country in the world can find the funds to improve its schools and workplaces. Our future depends on it."
Starving The Beast. Republicans love the idea of "starving the beast," the idea that less government is better, and that states and private enterprise are better equipped to deal with issues. But even before Hurricane Katrina, it's obvious that parts of the country were woefully unprepared. Take Louisiana, for instance. Poverty; teen pregnancy; low teacher pay; these were all occurring in Louisiana in disturbing proportions. Louisiana, unable to financially deal with the Katrina impact, has had to cut funding to Medicaid and hospitals (nearly $1 billion worth). So while Republicans "starve the beast," the people in Louisiana starve. Just dandy.
Blogger Commentary
Mark Warner, Batting a Thousand. Governor and Presidential hopeful Mark Warner (D-VA) didn't grant clemency to Robin Lovett because of a stunt, or because he didn't want the stigma of the "1,000th person executed since 1976" label. Warner had denied clemency to eleven previous executions. No, Warner granted clemency because the DNA evidence that might have cleared Lovett was destroyed, and Lovett's conviction wasn't strong enough, in Warner’s eyes, to merit the death penalty. Warner did the right thing, and in doing so, elevated his status in the eyes of liberals. Michael Oates Palmer looks at the case, and why Warner did the right thing.
Mexamerica. Digby chimes in with the next big topic. After failing with Social Security and, in a sense, the war, Bush is trying to find something to build a legacy on. The answer may be in a wall to separate the U.S. and Mexico. Not a fence, and not a "Great Wall," but an honest to goodness $8 billion dollar prison-type wall. "[A] barrier consisting of a 'pyramid' of rolls of barbed wire piled 6 to 8 feet high. Alongside it would run a deep ditch, followed by a fence, a security road, another fence, another ditch, and then another wire pyramid. Cameras and motion detectors would monitor the fence to create a formidable barrier 40 to 50 yards wide. The cost: $2 million to $4 million a mile, or $4 billion to $8 billion in total." Despite wingnuts like Pat Buchanan who have no sense of history, it's true that some 500,000 Mexicans make it into America every year. This is nothing new. But this $8 billion dollar idea isn't the solution. Do you have any suggestions?
|
December 29, 2005
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Thursday's Links
Activism
Stop Drive-Through Mastectomies. Sick of politics? So are we. Just kidding. But here's what must surely be an apolitical issue, right? Surely, the idea of a woman with breast cancer who has been forced to get a mastectomy to save her life, and then is booted out of the hospital to save insurance costs is abhorrent to people of any political persuasion, right? So then why does it still go on? The Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005 would require that all women being undergoing be mastectomies be guaranteed reasonable coverage. Go to the link and sign the petition supporting this important legislation.
News
GOP Closer to Breaking Up Left-Leaning 9th Circuit Appeals Court. Here's the problem with electing conservatives: They do long-term damage to the country that can't simply be undone in a couple of election cycles. The recent incarnation of conservatives seek total dominance of the government. They're not satisfied with just two of the three branches, even though we've seen what atrocities they've already wrought. No, they want to rule them all. So, even though it's the only Appeals Courts left dominated by Democratic nominees, the Ninth Circuit has to go. Legislators claim that "it's too large to administer justice", whatever that means. Even conservative judges think it's a ridiculous idea. It's solely politics at work - break up any last vestiges of liberal courts (even though the Ninth Circuit works just fine) and engineer a lasting conservative rule of the judicial branch. This is why Republican domination of the government cannot be allowed to occur again.
Air Force Erred With No-Bid Iraq Contract, GAO Says. Once again, the Pentagon is looking out for its friends, instead of the country. Last year, the Pentagon pressured the Air Force into awarding a no-bid contract to REEP, Inc. The contract required REEP to find bilingual speakers "committed to a democratic Iraq," for some propaganda and "government advisement." REEP went ahead and employed Iraqi political exiles for the job. The first problem is that the Air Force didn't bid the contract, which means that no one else had an opportunity to submit a proposal for the work. The Pentagon says that they felt like there wasn't enough time to seek proposals, and REEP was the only qualified company, so that's who they chose. Never mind that there are (at least) two other companies capable of doing this work. But those companies probably aren't under the thumb of the Pentagon, and wouldn't have used the political exiles, which is problem number 2. Problem number three reared its head when the Pentagon decided not to compete an extension of the same contract, and award it to REEP again. Thankfully, the GAO has called the Air Force on this egregious misuse of taxpayer monies. However, we don't expect the Pentagon to change their spots over this.
IRS Complaint Filed Against Focus on the Family. We love this story, if for no other reason then it shows liberals on the offensive, for once. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has asked the IRS to investigate whether or not James Dobson's Focus on the Family should lose its tax-exempt status, based on Dobson's endorsement of candidates in 2004. You may recall that a liberal pastor in California is under investigation for the same charges. But what's most amusing about this are the views of the right. This editorial, in Texas's The Monitor, tries to fight back against the charge, and fails. Instead of trying to defend Dobson, the editorial attacks CREW for being partisan, and claims that there's a double standard at work, and perhaps CREW should be investigated and have their tax-exempt status revoked. News flash: CREW doesn't participate in electioneering. The editorial cites CREW's website. "Moreover, a look at CREW’s Web site indicates that the vast majority of those it targets for alleged ethics violations are Republicans. . .But CREW has made only a token effort to go after Democrats — two of 13 members of Congress identified by the organization as "most corrupt" were Democrats — suggesting a one-sided agenda." Or, perhaps it suggests that there just aren't as many Democrats whose corruption approaches that of Republicans. The right's arguments here are hollow, and don't add up. How often are we going to see Democrats use facts and Republicans use innuendo and slander before we do something about it?
Editorials
The War on Our Children. When a Congressman from California speaks, we listen. First it was "Duke" Cunningham admitting that he is a liar and a fraud, by accepting $2.4 million in bribes. Now, Pete Stark (D-CA) has an editorial up that blasts Congress for its poor short-sightedness. Republicans in Congress are creating so many roadblocks for Americans who are under the age of 18 that their lives are going to be harder than ever. Cutting Head Start: check. Making job training for mothers of children six and under harder: check. Under funding a bad No Child Left Behind Act: check. Not raising the minimum wage: check. How else can Republicans screw up our children? Oh yes, by proposing to cut $14.3 billion from federal student aid programs. If we're facing such a money crisis, why are House Republicans continuing to cut taxes? Stark puts it far better than we could. "If the United States can find $250 billion for a failed war in Iraq and give American millionaires an average tax break of $41,574 apiece in 2006, then the most affluent country in the world can find the funds to improve its schools and workplaces. Our future depends on it."
Starving The Beast. Republicans love the idea of "starving the beast," the idea that less government is better, and that states and private enterprise are better equipped to deal with issues. But even before Hurricane Katrina, it's obvious that parts of the country were woefully unprepared. Take Louisiana, for instance. Poverty; teen pregnancy; low teacher pay; these were all occurring in Louisiana in disturbing proportions. Louisiana, unable to financially deal with the Katrina impact, has had to cut funding to Medicaid and hospitals (nearly $1 billion worth). So while Republicans "starve the beast," the people in Louisiana starve. Just dandy.
Blogger Commentary
Mark Warner, Batting a Thousand. Governor and Presidential hopeful Mark Warner (D-VA) didn't grant clemency to Robin Lovett because of a stunt, or because he didn't want the stigma of the "1,000th person executed since 1976" label. Warner had denied clemency to eleven previous executions. No, Warner granted clemency because the DNA evidence that might have cleared Lovett was destroyed, and Lovett's conviction wasn't strong enough, in Warner’s eyes, to merit the death penalty. Warner did the right thing, and in doing so, elevated his status in the eyes of liberals. Michael Oates Palmer looks at the case, and why Warner did the right thing.
Mexamerica. Digby chimes in with the next big topic. After failing with Social Security and, in a sense, the war, Bush is trying to find something to build a legacy on. The answer may be in a wall to separate the U.S. and Mexico. Not a fence, and not a "Great Wall," but an honest to goodness $8 billion dollar prison-type wall. "[A] barrier consisting of a 'pyramid' of rolls of barbed wire piled 6 to 8 feet high. Alongside it would run a deep ditch, followed by a fence, a security road, another fence, another ditch, and then another wire pyramid. Cameras and motion detectors would monitor the fence to create a formidable barrier 40 to 50 yards wide. The cost: $2 million to $4 million a mile, or $4 billion to $8 billion in total." Despite wingnuts like Pat Buchanan who have no sense of history, it's true that some 500,000 Mexicans make it into America every year. This is nothing new. But this $8 billion dollar idea isn't the solution. Do you have any suggestions?
|
December 29, 2005
Stop Drive-Through Mastectomies. Sick of politics? So are we. Just kidding. But here's what must surely be an apolitical issue, right? Surely, the idea of a woman with breast cancer who has been forced to get a mastectomy to save her life, and then is booted out of the hospital to save insurance costs is abhorrent to people of any political persuasion, right? So then why does it still go on? The Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2005 would require that all women being undergoing be mastectomies be guaranteed reasonable coverage. Go to the link and sign the petition supporting this important legislation.
News
GOP Closer to Breaking Up Left-Leaning 9th Circuit Appeals Court. Here's the problem with electing conservatives: They do long-term damage to the country that can't simply be undone in a couple of election cycles. The recent incarnation of conservatives seek total dominance of the government. They're not satisfied with just two of the three branches, even though we've seen what atrocities they've already wrought. No, they want to rule them all. So, even though it's the only Appeals Courts left dominated by Democratic nominees, the Ninth Circuit has to go. Legislators claim that "it's too large to administer justice", whatever that means. Even conservative judges think it's a ridiculous idea. It's solely politics at work - break up any last vestiges of liberal courts (even though the Ninth Circuit works just fine) and engineer a lasting conservative rule of the judicial branch. This is why Republican domination of the government cannot be allowed to occur again.
Air Force Erred With No-Bid Iraq Contract, GAO Says. Once again, the Pentagon is looking out for its friends, instead of the country. Last year, the Pentagon pressured the Air Force into awarding a no-bid contract to REEP, Inc. The contract required REEP to find bilingual speakers "committed to a democratic Iraq," for some propaganda and "government advisement." REEP went ahead and employed Iraqi political exiles for the job. The first problem is that the Air Force didn't bid the contract, which means that no one else had an opportunity to submit a proposal for the work. The Pentagon says that they felt like there wasn't enough time to seek proposals, and REEP was the only qualified company, so that's who they chose. Never mind that there are (at least) two other companies capable of doing this work. But those companies probably aren't under the thumb of the Pentagon, and wouldn't have used the political exiles, which is problem number 2. Problem number three reared its head when the Pentagon decided not to compete an extension of the same contract, and award it to REEP again. Thankfully, the GAO has called the Air Force on this egregious misuse of taxpayer monies. However, we don't expect the Pentagon to change their spots over this.
IRS Complaint Filed Against Focus on the Family. We love this story, if for no other reason then it shows liberals on the offensive, for once. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has asked the IRS to investigate whether or not James Dobson's Focus on the Family should lose its tax-exempt status, based on Dobson's endorsement of candidates in 2004. You may recall that a liberal pastor in California is under investigation for the same charges. But what's most amusing about this are the views of the right. This editorial, in Texas's The Monitor, tries to fight back against the charge, and fails. Instead of trying to defend Dobson, the editorial attacks CREW for being partisan, and claims that there's a double standard at work, and perhaps CREW should be investigated and have their tax-exempt status revoked. News flash: CREW doesn't participate in electioneering. The editorial cites CREW's website. "Moreover, a look at CREW’s Web site indicates that the vast majority of those it targets for alleged ethics violations are Republicans. . .But CREW has made only a token effort to go after Democrats — two of 13 members of Congress identified by the organization as "most corrupt" were Democrats — suggesting a one-sided agenda." Or, perhaps it suggests that there just aren't as many Democrats whose corruption approaches that of Republicans. The right's arguments here are hollow, and don't add up. How often are we going to see Democrats use facts and Republicans use innuendo and slander before we do something about it?
Editorials
The War on Our Children. When a Congressman from California speaks, we listen. First it was "Duke" Cunningham admitting that he is a liar and a fraud, by accepting $2.4 million in bribes. Now, Pete Stark (D-CA) has an editorial up that blasts Congress for its poor short-sightedness. Republicans in Congress are creating so many roadblocks for Americans who are under the age of 18 that their lives are going to be harder than ever. Cutting Head Start: check. Making job training for mothers of children six and under harder: check. Under funding a bad No Child Left Behind Act: check. Not raising the minimum wage: check. How else can Republicans screw up our children? Oh yes, by proposing to cut $14.3 billion from federal student aid programs. If we're facing such a money crisis, why are House Republicans continuing to cut taxes? Stark puts it far better than we could. "If the United States can find $250 billion for a failed war in Iraq and give American millionaires an average tax break of $41,574 apiece in 2006, then the most affluent country in the world can find the funds to improve its schools and workplaces. Our future depends on it."
Starving The Beast. Republicans love the idea of "starving the beast," the idea that less government is better, and that states and private enterprise are better equipped to deal with issues. But even before Hurricane Katrina, it's obvious that parts of the country were woefully unprepared. Take Louisiana, for instance. Poverty; teen pregnancy; low teacher pay; these were all occurring in Louisiana in disturbing proportions. Louisiana, unable to financially deal with the Katrina impact, has had to cut funding to Medicaid and hospitals (nearly $1 billion worth). So while Republicans "starve the beast," the people in Louisiana starve. Just dandy.
Blogger Commentary
Mark Warner, Batting a Thousand. Governor and Presidential hopeful Mark Warner (D-VA) didn't grant clemency to Robin Lovett because of a stunt, or because he didn't want the stigma of the "1,000th person executed since 1976" label. Warner had denied clemency to eleven previous executions. No, Warner granted clemency because the DNA evidence that might have cleared Lovett was destroyed, and Lovett's conviction wasn't strong enough, in Warner’s eyes, to merit the death penalty. Warner did the right thing, and in doing so, elevated his status in the eyes of liberals. Michael Oates Palmer looks at the case, and why Warner did the right thing.
Mexamerica. Digby chimes in with the next big topic. After failing with Social Security and, in a sense, the war, Bush is trying to find something to build a legacy on. The answer may be in a wall to separate the U.S. and Mexico. Not a fence, and not a "Great Wall," but an honest to goodness $8 billion dollar prison-type wall. "[A] barrier consisting of a 'pyramid' of rolls of barbed wire piled 6 to 8 feet high. Alongside it would run a deep ditch, followed by a fence, a security road, another fence, another ditch, and then another wire pyramid. Cameras and motion detectors would monitor the fence to create a formidable barrier 40 to 50 yards wide. The cost: $2 million to $4 million a mile, or $4 billion to $8 billion in total." Despite wingnuts like Pat Buchanan who have no sense of history, it's true that some 500,000 Mexicans make it into America every year. This is nothing new. But this $8 billion dollar idea isn't the solution. Do you have any suggestions?
