Social Security’s Birthday

Social Security’s Birthday:

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey says the Social Security program turns 70 this week.

It seems a lot older than that.

(Via Amy Ridenour’s National Center Blog.)

That’s right folks, step right up and see the oldest pyramid scheme in the USA. I would say I’m amazed it lasted this long, but I’m not amazed at things like that any more. Just sad and dispirited.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Limbaugh’s Press Release About Progressive Radio

Lies, Damn Lies, and Limbaugh’s Press Release About Progressive Radio:

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh, through his radio syndicator Premiere Radio Networks, sent out a press release titled “Limbaugh Leads the Race Against Liberal Talkers,” purportedly comparing his ratings to those of progressive talk stations.

<snip>

The reality is that in several major markets, ratings for progressive talk are booming. In Denver, Air America’s ratings are up 500% from one year ago. Seattle’s newly talk-formatted KPTK, doubled in the winter [ratings] book, Portland’s KPOJ-AM grew 1000% in audience share. In conservative San Diego, KLSD-AM went up 73%. Other markets with similar success include: Boston, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Sacramento and Columbus. Rush is even on the verge of being overtaken in his own home state.

An even more interesting comparison is found when looking at stations with integrated lineups that carry both Rush and a progressive host. In that apples-to-apples comparison, we see that Rush Limbaugh and Ed Schultz are actually very competitive.

(Via Think Progress.)

Blah, blah, blah. I disagree with just about everything Rush Limbaugh says, but come on! Can anyone name these “progressive” broadcasters who are beating him? Want to know who is winning the ratings war? The guy whose name everyone knows. I’ve heard of Rush Limbaugh, I haven’t heard of your guys. Ed who?

Bush signs the $286 billion highway bill

Bush signs the $286 billion highway bill:

Because you can never have too much pork:

President Bush signed a $286.5 billion highway bill on Wednesday that he said would create new jobs but which critics contend is stuffed with billions of dollars worth of lawmakers’ pet projects.

<snip>

And don’t get me wrong: if the money appropriated by this bill does some good, that’s wonderful. But the special interests involved is just more of what we have come to expect out of Bush-approved legislation.

(Via Daily Kos.)


Sorry guys, but the Republicans learned about pork from you Democrats. The student has now become the master. Plus, you can’t even see that the pork and extra programs are wrong whether or not they are useful or do some good. If you have a good idea for a spending program, introduce your own damned bill.

Of course this doesn’t even address the fact that the highway bill is immoral anyway. Let’s take 286 billion dollars from everyone in the country for something they don’t necessarily agree with. If someone wants a highway so badly, let the people who want it pay for it.

In Romance with USA, Americans Play Hard to Get

In Romance with USA, Americans Play Hard to Get:

<snip>

In fact, it’s difficult to know just what Americans do approve of. Only 39% of Americans have a favorable opinion of the Supreme Court, which means that the public disapproves of all three branches of government.

And the media? It turns out that Americans like (and trust) those folks less and less. A Pew Study found that in 1985 84% of Americans could “believe most of what they read in their daily newspaper.” By 2004 that figure had fallen to just 54%

And yet, in a bizarre instance of cognitive dissonance, Americans are still some of the most patriotic people on the planet: a recent Roper poll found that 8 in 10 people think patriotism is “in,” and consider themselves very patriotic.

Is this evidence that Americans like America, and simply hate everything in it?

(Via Think Progress.)

No, it’s evidence that Americans love their country but hate their government. Clinton didn’t understand either.

Who Hates Our Freedom?

Who Hates Our Freedom?:

Musharraf’s Pakistan apparently:

For the vast majority of humans, terror comes in more mundane ways – like the violent hands that woke Dr. Shazia Khalid as she lay sleeping in her bed, and the abuse she’s suffered at the hands of Mr. Musharraf’s government ever since.

<snip>

The cynical Bush claim to be working for “freedom” is an offensive and detestable lie. Pakistan, the “new” Iraq, Uzbekistan. The truth has never mattered to Bush. And neither, apparently, do the rights and well being of women.

(Via Daily Kos.)

HA! Since when have Democrats cared about the rights and well being of women? They would rather see a woman raped and strangled with her own panty-hose than have the right to carry a gun to protect her life.

Does anyone seriously think that any of this wouldn’t have happened with a Democrat in charge? Oh wait, it was happening when Democrats were in charge. How many massacres in Africa were ignored by Clinton?


[composed and posted with
ecto]

Rosy Rhetoric Revisited

Rosy Rhetoric Revisited:

Because it has been more than two years since the original invasion of Iraq, much of the American public has forgotten how easy Bush administration officials predicted the occupation of Iraq would be. The Washington Post reports the hard truth:

<snip>

(Via Think Progress.)

This is the problem with so called progressives. They don’t oppose the war on moral grounds, i.e. war is state sanctioned murder for the selfish purposes of a society’s elite. Rather their sniveling argument is that it is costing more than Bush said it would.

This shows their moral bankruptcy. They aren’t opposed to a war in Iraq (or anywhere else). They just wanted to be the ones who thought of it first. They make me sick.

Roberts Was Prominent Member of Federalist Society

Roberts Was Prominent Member of Federalist Society:

John Roberts and the White House are still refusing to explain why Roberts first denied having ties to the right-wing Federalist Society.

<snip>

(Via Think Progress.)
Right wing? I think not. Go take a look for yourself.

Main points:
1. Interpreting the law as it is, not as they think it should be.

2. Upholding the rights of the states over encroachment by a centralized state.

If this is what Democrats and so-called liberals are opposed to it’s no wonder they keep losing. It’s just too bad the other choice we’re faced with is Republicans, who also oppose the above points, but are just better at concealing it.

If Mr. Roberts was a member of the Federalist Society, that is a recommendation in my book.

I figured out why…

I don’t blog about Democratic party or so called liberal blogs. They aren’t saying anything worth commenting on. I subscribe to several, but for the life of me, I can’t find anything they write that’s worth commenting on. It’s all irrelevant to me or so extremely trivial I don’t care. I’m pretty sure that they care about it, and that it proves some point about how Republicans and so called conservatives are wrong headed or evil, but I just can’t grasp how.

This is why they can’t get a President elected. They can’t talk about anything relevant to me, and I’m pretty sure most other people who aren’t firmly in their camp don’t care either.

Of course, I could be wrong, but c’mon, what are the chances of that, seriously…

Originalism Defined

Originalism Defined:

An e-mail from Barbara Ledeen:

As Senator Specter and others have attacked originalism or constitutionalism, it might be helpful for everybody to have this explanation. It comes from Judge Bork’s opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 15, 1987.

<…>

(Via Amy Ridenour’s National Center Blog.)

Go read it first.

Why the hell was I opposed to this guy being on the Supreme Court? Oh yeah, I was young and stupid and riddled with socialist propaganda. This is one of the most reasonable and agreeable descriptions of a judicial philosophy I’ve ever read.

Way to go Amy!

Our Veterans Deserve Better

Our Veterans Deserve Better:

[…]

The money problems are evident to most of us reading the DFA blog and even to those who visit VA clinics and medical facilities. Clinics across America are closing, appointments are delayed, veterans are being charged more for their care, and they are being denied coverage of non-combat related injuries and medical conditions.

[…]

We must end Bush’s hollow promise to our troops and provide them with the excellent health care they so deserve.

(Via Blog for America.)

Excuse me? This was happening before Bush took office. The erosion of military benefits was in full swing under the Democrats and Clinton as well. I remember it well. I was there. I remember the benefits my parents and brother lost year after year. I remember all the things my father was promised when he signed up, and that he now has to pay for.

The real truth is that both Democrats and Republicans are in the business of breaking promises. Instead of worrying about their health benefits and how well we treat them when they are wounded, how about not putting them in a position to get wounded? How about not spending the lives of our soldiers to get votes?

The purpose of American soldiers is to defend the country. They should not be sent out to other countries in order to extend or maintain an American empire. If we try to create an empire we will end up being twisted into something we shouldn’t become.