Celebrity endorsements

During past presidential elections I’ve had a habit of keeping track of celebrity endorsements. This year I plan to keep a running list on my blog which I will update as new information becomes available. My rule for listing celebrity endorsements is that I have to see a reliable news source listing their support for the current campaign year in some shape or fashion - they attended a fund raiser, gave cash, signed a petition, peformed at a support function, or simply said “I support so-and-so.” If they supported a different candidate in the primary, I do not assume that they have transferred their support to the winner until I see some confirmation.

So without further ado, here is the list as it stands to date:

George W. Bush:
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Bruce Willis
Tom Selleck

John Kerry:
Meg Ryan
Leonardo DiCaprio
Jennifer Aniston
Kevin Costner
Barbara Streisand
James Taylor
Larry David
Carole King
Dennis Hopper
Kathleen Turner
Kenneth “Babyface” Edmonds
Moby
Aaron Sorkin
Quincy Jones
Penny Marshall
Bette Midler
Jerry Seinfeld
Uma Thurman
Stephen Stills
Chevy Chase
Kevin Bacon
Paul Newman
Kate Hudson
Russell Crowe
Harvey Weinstein
Jennifer Garner
Robert DeNiro
Michael J. Fox
Peter Yarrow (of Peter, Paul & Mary)

Aunt Pearl turns 90!

My Great-Aunt Pearl turned 90 over the weekend. Here is a picture of her at her party. I'd say she doesn't look a day over 75. Seriously, though, I think she looks terrific and I hope she makes it to 100-plus. I don't want to be the only family member who is going to live to be 100.

My mom attended the celebration along with my Uncle Kenneth and Aunt Sarah. You can see my mom in this picture facing the camera with my Uncle Kenneth to her right.

And here is a picture of the surviving sisters: Aunt Pearl, Aunt Iris and Aunt Vesta. Their sister Erna Mae, my father's mother, passed away in about 1986, I think.

Kudos to whichever family member posted all of these pictures online!

Late night watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer

I've lately become a big fan of the cult TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I know that I am a little late to the party since the series ended its 7-year run last year.
I got hooked on Buffy lately because I wind up staying up two to three hours every night with my seven month old son. I've found that I can rock him back to sleep while sitting on the living room couch and watching the TV with the sound muted. Fortunately, now that I have Tivo (or at least the cable equivalent) I can record shows to watch at these odd hours. One night when I had nothing else to watch, I stumbled upon a Buffy episode on the FX network which just happened to be showing two episodes a night beginning with the first season. Since the shows are close captioned I can watch them without sound with no problem.
I'm up to about the third season now and I have to say it is one of the best written and most enjoyable TV shows I've ever seen. It's right up there with Star Trek among my all-time favorites. I also like the spin-off series Angel too. The best comparison I can make is that it is like a cross between Beverly Hills 90210 and the X-Files. But it is even better than that.
Unfortunately, my wife is usually getting some badly needed sleep while I'm watching the show and putting Nathan to sleep, so she is not a fan of the series like I am. That means she probably would not consider spending $200 or more dollars buying all the episodes on DVD to be a good investment at this point. So I will just have to continue watching them in random order at odd hours of the night.

Is Blogging just the tip of the iceberg?

I’ve often worried that blogging is just a fad that will eventually go out of fashion. If Blogger were to shut down in a year or so I would lose all of my archived blog entries (not that that would be a great loss) and the Internet would become a lot less interesting.

But there are apparently some folks out there who see the trend going the otherway. Jason Calacanis at Weblogs Inc. thinks blogging will catch on the same way e-mail did and soon everyone will have one.

“It’s becoming clear to me that blogs are not simply journals or editorial. They are, in fact, the new email address. They will be the most important piece of data on anyone’s business card. Want to email me and don’t know my email address? Visit my blog — which you will find by Googling me — and fill in my contact form. Try finding someone’s email address using Google — good luck.
Everyone will have a blog in ten years or less and I mean everyone. The way everyone has an email address today and so few people had email in 1994, the same will happen to your blog address. Why? Blogs are simple, as flexible as the Internet itself and they are rich. You can’t fit the same depth of information on a vcard.
Now, I’m sure some people said this about homepages back in 1994. However, back then people were not as tech savvy as they are now, and certainly only a fraction of them were online. In the past ten years online publishing technology has become easier, more powerful and more ambitious. Like many things, the second or third time is a charm.
Blogs are hyped, but the truth is they will ultimately surpass and transcend the current hype — the same way the Internet did.
As much as it may seem they are overexposed, blogs are underrated.”

So are we bloggers on the cutting edge of something big? Or are we part of a fad that will soon be overtaken by the next big thing - whatever that may be?

Doubts about new "Alamo" movie

I hope that the new “Alamo” movie is good, but I have my doubts. I’ve always loved Texas history and as a resident of San Antonio I would love to see the movie become a big hit. However, I’m afraid it will be hampered by a serious case of the “might have beens” thanks to the arrogance, incompetence and stupidity of Disney CEO Michael Eisner.

The film was supposed to have been helmed by Ron Howard fresh off of his Academy Award win for “A Beautiful Mind.” Howard had reportedly spent a year working on the project and had lined up Russell Crowe and Ethan Hawke to take prominent parts in the movie. There were even reports that Sean Penn was considering accepting the role of Jim Bowie.

But then Eisner stepped in and vetoed the project reportedly because he was afraid it might get an R rating for violence. So Howard dropped out and when he left so did Crowe, Hawke, Penn and anyone else of significance who might have thought about coming aboard.

So Disney brought in rookie director John Lee Hancock whose most prominent film to date was the feel-good Disney baseball flick “The Rookie” that starred Dennis Quaid. Not surprisingly, Quaid was also brought on to replace Russell Crowe in the role of Gen. Sam Houston. Unfortunately for Quaid, the latest reports say the Sam Houston role was trimmed back significantly to cut the length of the movie down from 3 hours to about 2 hours and 15 minutes. The only other actor of note to sign up was Billy Bob Thornton in the role of Davy Crockett.

Quite frankly, I’m dreading finding out how they handle the Crockett character in the film. If they give credence to that bogus story about Crockett being captured and executed by Santa Anna, well that would pretty much end it for me right there.
But I’ll wait and see what happens. Maybe Hancock will surprise everyone the way Peter Jackson did and come out with an extraordiary film. Or maybe I’ll just go down to Wal-Mart and pick up the old John Wayne version instead.

Daschle sums up the latest Bush outrages

I swiped this from Eschaton because it was too good to pass up.

Excerpt from statement by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle:

“When former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill stepped forward to criticize the Bush Administration's Iraq policy, he was immediately ridiculed by the people around the President and his credibility was attacked. Even worse, the Administration launched a government investigation to see if Secretary O'Neill improperly disclosed classified documents. He was, of course, exonerated, but the message was clear. If you speak freely, there will be consequences.

Ambassador Joseph Wilson also learned that lesson. Ambassador Wilson, who by all accounts served bravely under President Bush in the early 1990s, felt a responsibility to speak out on President Bush's false State of the Union statement on Niger and uranium. When he did, the people around the President quickly retaliated. Within weeks of debunking the President's claim, Ambassador Wilson's wife was the target of a despicable act.
Her identity as a deep-cover CIA agent was revealed to Bob Novak, a syndicated columnist, and was printed in newspapers around the country. That was the first time in our history, I believe, that the identity and safety of a CIA agent was disclosed for purely political purposes. It was an unconscionable and intolerable act.

Around the same time Bush Administration officials were endangering Ambassador Wilson's wife, they appear to have been threatening another federal employee for trying to do his job. In recent weeks Richard Foster, an actuary for the Department of Health and Human Services, has revealed that he was told he would be fired if he told Congress and the American people the real costs of last year?s Medicare bill.
Mr. Foster, in an e-mail he wrote on June 26 of last year, said the whole episode had been "pretty nightmarish." He wrote: "I'm no longer in grave danger of being fired, but there remains a strong likelihood that I will have to resign in protest of the withholding of important technical information from key policymakers for political purposes."
Think about those words. He would lose his job if he did his job. If he provided the information the Congress and the American people deserved and were entitled to, he would lose his job. When did this become the standard for our government? When did we become a government of intimidation?

And now, in today's newspapers, we see the latest example of how the people around the President react when faced with facts they want to avoid.
The White House's former lead counter-terrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, is under fierce attack for questioning the White House?s record on combating terrorism. Mr. Clarke has served in four White Houses, beginning with Ronald Reagan's Administration, and earned an impeccable record for his work.
Now the White House seeks to destroy his reputation. The people around the President aren't answering his allegations; instead, they are trying to use the same tactics they used with Paul O'Neill. They are trying to ridicule Mr. Clarke and destroy his credibility, and create any diversion possible to focus attention away from his serious allegations.

The purpose of government isn't to make the President look good. It isn't to produce propaganda or misleading information. It is, instead, to do its best for the American people and to be accountable to the American people.
The people around the President don't seem to believe that. They have crossed a line -- perhaps several lines -- that no government ought to cross.
We shouldn't fire or demean people for telling the truth. We shouldn't reveal the names of law enforcement officials for political gain. And we shouldn't try to destroy people who are out to make country safer.
I think the people around the President have crossed into dangerous territory. We are seeing abuses of power that cannot be tolerated.
The President needs to put a stop to it, right now. We need to get to the truth, and the President needs to help us do that.”

I would just add that every one of these abuses by the Bush administration is far worse and more detrimental to civil society than any of the pseudo-scandals that Ken Starr and his right-wing cabal spent $70 million of taxpayers’ money investigating in the 1990s.

Loyalty and betrayal after school

I never got into fights much when I was a kid. This was probably a good thing since I was and still am thin as a rail. But one time when I was about 7 or 8 my friend Dickie was supposed to fight some kid after school and he asked me to come along. I didn’t know what the fight was about or who the other kid was, but I agreed to tag along to back up my friend. What resulted was one of my first lessons in loyalty and betrayal.

I happened to mention to another kid that day named Ronnie that there was going to be a fight after school and he agreed to come along as well. I don’t remember how many kids showed up in the end but it was something like a half dozen on each side. It was a rather bizarre experience. Sort of like being on a team in a sport where you don’t really know what the rules are or what you are supposed to do. When the actual fight started it was just Dickie and the other kid wrestling on the ground with everyone else just standing around shouting encouragements.

Before the fight actually got underway, however, I found out just how fickle my friend Ronnie’s loyalties turned out to be. As the other group of kids was walking up, Ronnie noticed that the group included a big black kid named Derrick who I’m guessing must have known a bit of judo or something. Derrick proceeded to demonstrate this skill by flipping several kids onto the ground, including me.

When Ronnie saw Derrick, he suddenly stopped and announced “They have Derrick on their side! I’m on their side!” Then he turned around and shoved me. I remember being surprised at first and then shoving him back. Afterwards he kind of slipped away to the back of the group and didn’t participate in any more fighting. Thus ended our brief friendship.

I’ve always wondered whether Ronnie went away ashamed of his actions that day. I kind of hope that he did and that he learned a valuable lesson himself. But I’ve seen that same kind of behavior over the years. People want to be on the winning side regardless of which side it is. It takes a certain amount of integrity to stick it out on the side that you know is destined to lose. This doesn’t mean that you should never change sides. It is also a mark of integrity to change sides if you determine that the side you are on is in the wrong. But that decision should be based on facts, evidence, logic and values, not on the desire to win.

Bush's Iraqi qWagmire

One year after the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq and the country is still in turmoil.
Most of Bush's promises about the war have turned out to be as reliable as his prescriptions for fixing the economy.
In fact, a new congressional study has documented more than 230 misleading statements , if not outright lies, told by Bush and his top advisors during the run-up to the invasion.

The cost of the war in both dollars and lives has far exceeded what the Bush administration said it would be.

"The invasion and occupation of Iraq, his administration predicted, would come at little financial cost and would materially improve the lives of Iraqis. Americans would be greeted as liberators, Bush officials predicted, and the toppling of Saddam Hussein would spread peace and democracy throughout the Middle East.

Things have not worked out that way, for the most part. There is evidence that the economic lives of Iraqis are improving, thanks to an infusion of U.S. and foreign capital. But the administration badly underestimated the financial cost of the occupation and seriously overstated the ease of pacifying Iraq and the warmth of the reception Iraqis would give the U.S. invaders. And while peace and democracy may yet spread through the region, some early signs are that the U.S. action has had the opposite effect."


If anything, Iraq is a more dangerous place today than it was during Saddam's brutal regime. The AP today reports that suicide bombings in Iraq have claimed more than 660 lives. That is more than all the suicide bombing deaths in Israel since 2000. Suicide bombings used to be unheard of in Iraq, but ever since the invasion it has become common place.

There is not much nice that can be said about Saddam Hussein, but the main reason why western leaders before Bush were willing to tolerate him was because he was a secular counter to the religious fundamentalism that is spreading across the middle east.

George Bush - Crooked Liar!!

OK, so that might be a bit provacative. But how else do you respond to this type of nonsense - "Bush Exaggerates Kerry's Position on Intelligence Budget (washingtonpost.com)"

"President Bush, in his first major assault on Sen. John F. Kerry's legislative record, said this week that his Democratic opponent proposed a $1.5 billion cut in the intelligence budget, a proposal that would "gut the intelligence services," and one that had no co-sponsors because it was "deeply irresponsible."

In terms of accuracy, the parry by the president is about half right. Bush is correct that Kerry on Sept. 29, 1995, proposed a five-year, $1.5 billion cut to the intelligence budget. But Bush appears to be wrong when he said the proposed Kerry cut -- about 1 percent of the overall intelligence budget for those years -- would have "gutted" intelligence. In fact, the Republican-led Congress that year approved legislation that resulted in $3.8 billion being cut over five years from the budget of the National Reconnaissance Office -- the same program Kerry said he was targeting."

I think the Washington Post was being kind to use the term "exaggerates" rather than saying what it really was - a blatant lie. The $1.5 billion over five years ($300 million annually) that Kerry proposed cutting was the surplus amount left unspent that year in the intelligence budget. So all that Kerry was proposing to do was to give that unspent money back to the taxpayers - something that Republicans are typically in favor of. It would hardly have "gut the intelligence services," as Bush well knows.

But this blatant lie about Kerry trying to "gut the intelligence services" is currently being spread all across the country by our president as he attempts to divert attention from his own domestic and foreign policy failures.

But that kind of dirty pool campaigning, while despicable, is not even the worst thing that came out about the Bush administration this past week. There was also this story about how the Bush administration lied to members of its own party and threatened to fire the government's top expert on Medicare if he didn't keep quiet about how the administration's prescription drug plan would cost $100 billion more than what they were telling everybody it would cost.

"When the House of Representatives passed the controversial benefit by five votes last November, the White House was embracing an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office that it would cost $395 billion in the first 10 years. But for months the administration's own analysts in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had concluded repeatedly that the drug benefit could cost upward of $100 billion more than that.
Withholding the higher cost projections was important because the White House was facing a revolt from 13 conservative House Republicans who'd vowed to vote against the Medicare drug bill if it cost more than $400 billion."

The Bush folks knew they didn't have the votes to pass their version of the Medicare drug bill, so they simply lied about it. They LIED about it!

And they want John Kerry to apologize for what? Stating the obvious??

Bush admin treated view of Iraq WMDs "like a religion"

Buried inside Saturday's NY Times is the following story - U.S., Certain That Iraq Had Illicit Arms, Reportedly Ignored Contrary Reports which sums up much of what I find most egregious about the Bush administration.

"In the two years before the war in Iraq, American intelligence agencies reviewed but ultimately dismissed reports from Iraqi scientists, defectors and other informants who said Saddam Hussein's government did not possess illicit weapons, according to government officials.

"The reports, which ran contrary to the conclusions of the intelligence agencies and the Bush administration, were not acknowledged publicly by top government officials before the invasion last March. In public statements, the agencies and the administration cited only reports from informants who supported the view that Iraq possessed so-called weapons of mass destruction, which the administration cited as a main justification for going to war.

"...government officials said they knew of several occasions from 2001 to 2003 when Iraqi scientists, defectors and others had told American intelligence officers, their foreign partners or other intelligence agents that Iraq did not possess illicit weapons.

"The officials said they believed that intelligence agencies had dismissed the reports because they did not conform to a view, held widely within the administration and among intelligence analysts, that Iraq was hiding an illicit arsenal.

"It appears that the human intelligence wasn't deemed interesting or useful if it was exculpatory of Iraq," said one senior government official with detailed knowledge of the prewar intelligence.

"A second senior government official, who confirmed that account, said the view that Iraq possessed illicit weapons had been "treated like a religion" within American intelligence agencies, with alternative views never given serious attention.

The view that Iraq possessed illicit weapons had been "treated like a religion." That says a lot right there. That pretty much sums up what is wrong with this administration. Bush is essentially a religious fundamentalist. A right-wing Christian hard-liner who refuses to accept or even consider evidence that is contrary to the preconceived conclusions dictated by his narrow and rigid ideology.

This is why we are bogged down in Iraq hunting for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction while 500-plus U.S. troops lie dead and many thousands more are seriously injured.

This is why we have an "economic recovery" that isn't producing enough jobs to even keep up with normal growth. Bush's only answer for the loss of jobs is to cut taxes for the rich even though doing so twice in three years has failed to turn the employment situation around.

This is why we now have record deficits when we started the Bush era with record surpluses. Bush adheres to the supply side nonsense that cutting taxes will produce more revenue for the government even though it failed to work for Reagan and hasn't worked for him.

You cannot reason with somebody who starts out with a preconceived notion and then demands that everything must fit into that scheme or be discarded. We might as well just disband our intelligence agencies right now since it does not matter what evidence they dig up - the only items that will be believed will be the ones that Bush wants to believe and nothing else.

The NYT article goes on to note that while intelligence reports stating that Iraq had no WMDs were being discarded (and hidden from the public) the administration was basing its arguments for the war on the testimony of an Iraqi defector who had been determined to be a fabricator by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

"In the past month, some senior intelligence officials have acknowledged that some information from human sources on Iraq was mishandled, including reports based on interviews in early 2002 with an Iraqi defector who later that year was labeled a fabricator by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

"The information the defector provided was nevertheless included in the administration's statements, including the October 2002 intelligence assessment and Mr. Powell's speech."

It didn't matter that the man was a liar and a con artist. The only thing that mattered was that he was saying what the administration wanted to hear.

I'm sorry, but foreign policy should not be treated like a religion and the power of the presidency should not be wielded by someone who refuses to consider evidence "contrary to the conclusions" they start out with.

Oscar Shocker!

Everyone who was supposed to win..... won!!! I don’t think this has ever happened before in the history of the Oscars! No upsets! No surprises! No dark horse victories!
The one thing everyone is always sure about around Oscar time is that at least one of the presumed victors will be upset by someone who comes out of left field at the last minute. This year that could have been Johnny Depp who surprised everyone by winning the Screen Actors Guild award for best actor just a few weeks ago. Or it could have been Keisha Castle-Hughes, the cute little 13-year-old from Whale Rider for best actress. Or it could have been Shohreh Aghdashloo swiping a sure thing away from Renee Zellwegger in the best supporting actress category. It could have been any number of films coming from behind to overtake front-runner Lord of the Rings in its nearly a dozen categories. Some people thought Rings might fold just like Howard Dean in the Iowa caucuses.

But none of that happened and that may have been the biggest surprise of all.
The Lord of the Rings romped to a record 11 victories (tied with Ben-Hur and Titanic) leaving very little Oscar gold to be split between the other contenders.
Master and Commander picked up two Oscars in the only two technical categories where Rings wasn’t nominated. Mystic River won two acting awards. Lost in Translation got a single Oscar for original screenplay and Seabiscuit was shut out. Finding Nemo, of course, won for animated feature. The only other films to garner a trophy were Cold Mountain and Monster in the other two acting categories.

TV Pundits are declaring this year’s Oscar ceremony as “boring” due to the lack of controversy and scandal. No left-wing political rants! No sudden flash of nudity! No fistfights or brawls! What is the world coming to??
Frankly, I quite enjoyed the show. I thought Billy Crystal was funny and none of the tributes - Bob Hope, Katherine Hepburn, Blake Edwards, Gregory Peck - were too drawn out. The musical performances where also good.
It’s no surprise that I am thrilled with the results. I still think that Rings should have gotten at least one acting nomination - they won the ensemble acting award at the SAGs - but I can’t complain about an 11-Oscar sweep. This was obviously pay-back from the Academy for having passed over LOTR the first two go arounds.

As for predicting the Oscars this year, I did surprisingly well. I entered at least two online contests and predicted a LOTR sweep and all of the acting noms. I went 21 for 24 missing only the cinematography, animated short and documentary short categories. Still don’t know if I won anything.

Thank you, Alan Greenspan!

I was glad to see Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan calling for cuts in Social Security benefits yesterday. I think that any time that Republicans are forced to talk about cutting Social Security during an election year is a good thing.

It is, of course, an outrage that the Republicans now want to pay for their tax cuts for the rich by taking benefits away from the elderly. Normally they would not be willing to talk about it in the open, especially right before an election. But now Greenspan has kicked the issue out into the open and has thereby done a great favor for the rest of us.

Social Security is currently collected out of the first $87,000 of every person's salary. That means that the vast majority of us who earn less than $87,000 per year have 100 percent of our income taxed for the purposes of Social Security. Meanwhile, folks like Alan Greenspan, George W. Bush and Ken Lay who make considerably more than $87,000 per year have only a fraction of their incomes going toward Social Security. So how is it fair that they should use the Social Security surplus to cover for Bush's fiscal irresponsibility?

Kerry vs. Edwards on the Issues

The New York Times has a summarazation of where Kerry and Edwards stand on the “issues.”

I have to admit that I have not read either candidate’s position papers. But looking at the Times’ summary they don’t appear to be too far apart on most things. Here is a rundown:

Kerry vs. Edwards

Issue: Abortion

Both support abortion rights, however Edwards for whatever reason did not vote on the controversial effort to ban the “partial birth abortion” procedure, while Kerry opposed the ban. Kerry has also said he will not appoint abortion opponents to the Supreme Court while Edwards has apparently not taken a position on this.

Being from Massachusetts, I’m sure that Kerry has to be more specific about his pro-choice views while Edwards coming from a southern conservative state would probably rather just say he is pro-choice and leave it at that. I don’t see this as a defining issue between the two.

Issue: Death Penalty

Edwards supports it; Kerry does not. However, Kerry now hedges and says he would make an exception in cases of terrorism, whatever that means.

This is still not a defining issue. I’m personally opposed to the death penalty, but it would not be a major factor in how I cast my vote.

Issue: The Economy

Edwards is proposing to give companies that make products in the U.S. a 10 percent tax cut while punishing companies that send jobs overseas by scaling back their tax breaks. This sounds like a promising plan, but I have no idea how it would work in practice. What about companies that have plants in the U.S. and overseas?
Edwards also proposes a $5,000 tax credit for first-time homebuyers. Not sure if that would really make a difference in homeownership rates. It might just encourage folks to buy more expensive homes and/or get more upgrades.

Kerry wants to send $50 billion to the states “to create jobs.” I’d have to see some more specifics on that one. He also wants to give out manufacturing tax credits (how many do we already have?) and “crack down on trade violations” (how much do we spend on enforcement now?). Finally, he is promising to cut the deficit in half in five years. I find this promise to at least be more credible than George W.’s

Issue: Education

Edwards wants to give every student a free year of tuition at the public university or community college of their choice provided that they agree to do 10 hours of community service every week.
Frankly, I think this sounds like a logistical nightmare. Who is going to coordinate all these community service projects for all these thousands of students across the country? Who is going to make sure they don’t pull a George W. Bush and just not show up for their community service each week? And how much is it going to cost to make up for eliminating 1/4th of the tuition revenues at every public college?
Edwards is also proposing to increase teacher pay and breakup large high schools, which are local and state issues.

Kerry is proposing tax credits on first $4,000 of tuition for every year of college. As well as a $3.2 billion community service plan for high school students that would let them qualify for equivalent tuition at their four-year public colleges. I would have the same questions and reservations about his proposals.

Issue: Gay Marriage

Both say they are opposed to same-sex marriage, but support domestic partner benefits.
Bush is obviously trying to make this into a bigger issue for the campaign. I would like to see the Democratic candidate stand up to him on this one from a civil rights perspective, but that may be too much to hope.

Issue: Health Care

Edwards wants to provide government-subsidized health insurance for all Americans younger than 21 and cover half of nation’s uninsured at a cost of $590 billion over 10 years. Also proposes expanding the nursing work force by 100,000 (not sure how you do that) and wants to restrict drug company advertising.

Kerry wants to expand the insurance system used by federal employees to cover all private citizens; he would cover 61 percent of the uninsured at a cost of $890 billion over 10 years.

It’s amazing to me that George Bush has managed to run up such a huge deficit so quickly without providing health coverage for any of the nation’s uninsured. At least Edwards and Kerry aren’t pushing the elderly to invest all their Social Security savings in the stock market.

Issue: Iraq

Both voted to authorize the use of force and both voted against the administration’s $87 billion funding package.

Contrary to Republican claims, these votes are not necessarily contradictory. First, authorizing the use of force does not mean they approve the way the president decided to use that power (cherry-pick intelligence reports, ignore the U.N. weapons inspectors, thumb his nose at our allies), and secondly, opposing the dishonest way Bush sought to fund the war doesn’t mean the only other option was to provide no funding for our troops.

Issue: Taxes

Both would eliminate Bush’s tax cuts for people making more than $200,000. Edwards would increase capital gains rates for those making more than $300,000 while providing tax cuts for new parents, new home owners, and the working poor.
Kerry would support middle-class tax cuts for college, child care and health care.

These are standard Democratic positions that were proposed as alternatives to Bush’s budget-busting tax cuts for the last several years.

Issue: Trade

Finally another issue where they can disagree. Edwards wasn’t in the Senate when NAFTA was up for a vote but he says he would have opposed it. Kerry supports NAFTA. Both want to see environmental and labor standards added to trade agreements. Both voted in favor of having China join the WTO as a full trading partner.

Conclusion:

There’s really not a lot of substantive differences between these two guys which is why everyone focuses on things like image and style. I agree that Edwards comes across as the more charismatic and dynamic speaker, but Kerry has the greater stature and more experience.

The problem with Edwards is that he is inexperienced on the world stage. I can remember Kerry during the Iran-Contra investigations 20 years ago. Edwards hasn’t even finished his first term in the Senate. Even Bush finished his first term as governor and got himself re-elected before running for president. And the other problem with Edwards, unfortunately, is his lack of military experience. He has even less military experience than Bush, who at least had four “active” years in the National Guard.

So I will be casting my vote for Kerry in the March 9 primaries here in Texas.

Kerry 55% - Bush 43%

Yikes! Those are landslide numbers in the new CNN/USAToday/Gallup poll.

You know, it’s not too late for the Republicans to start a Dump Bush/Draft McCain movement!

Top 10 Bush AWOL excuses

Reposted from ETALKINGHEAD

Top 10 responses by Bush apologists to the AWOL charge:

1. Bush got an honorable discharge so that proves he did everything he was required to do and nothing else matters. (But why did he blow off his flight physical in ‘72?) LaLaLaLaLaLaLa!!! I’m not listening anymore! LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa!!!

2. No one ever formally charged him with being AWOL so you can’t say that he was AWOL.

3. A couple of Bush’s buddies remember him saying he was leaving to go to guard drill during the Alabama senate campaign. That’s good enough for us.

4. Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed, who commanded the Alabama guard unit, says that although he never saw Bush or knew of any Texan in his unit in 1972, he wasn’t physically present on base the whole time so he could have just missed him.

5. A torn document that the Bush campaign dug up in 2000 proves that Bush really only missed 7 months of guard drill and then made up for it in a burst of drills right before getting his discharge 8 months early so he could go back to MBA school.

6. This all happened a long time ago and shouldn’t count anymore. The only thing that matters is that we got Saddam.

7. Bush had been trained to fly a plane that was being phased out by the military so he wasn’t going to go to Vietnam anyway.

8. Flying airplanes is dangerous even if you’re not getting shot at.

9. Clinton got away with it, why can’t Bush?

10. Oh yeah!? Well, at least he didn’t protest against the war with Jane Fonda!

Bush's business record redux

I agree with Josh Marshall’s sentiments
today:

“Given the president's record as a businessman, and since he's now run the country hopelessly into debt, isn't it about time he sells the country off to some rich friends who will swallow the loss so he can move on to greener pastures?”


Yep. And those rich friends unfortunately are our children and grandchildren who will be stuck with Bush’s tab this time.

Bush and that AWOL thing

No matter how they try to spin it, Bush's National Guard Service
looks pretty suspect today. I don't care whether you call it AWOL or not, but the fact that Bush didn't feel it necessary to show up for drills for 6 months (best case scenario), a year (most likely scenario), or 18 months (worst case scenario) is pretty pathetic. The fact that he failed to show up to take his flight physical and was thus grounded for the final portion of his guard duty is an outrage in and of itself. What was he doing wasting the military's time and money learning how to fly if he wasn't going to be serious about it?


I think Bush has a lot of explaining to do about what went on during that final year and a half of his guard service and the infamous Torn Document just isn't cutting it.

Bush's busted budget

When President Bush took office three years ago, the Congessional Budget Office (CBO) was estimating the country would accumulate a surplus of $5 trillion by 2011. Today, the CBO is predicting a budget deficit of $4.3 trillion by 2011. That is a difference of $9.3 trillion - a remarkable testament to President Bush's fiscal leadership. (Thanks to Center for American Progress for the figures.)

Bush's latest budget has a $521 billion deficit. And that is only if we pull all of our troops out of Iraq by the end of September because Bush provides no funding in his budget beyond that point.

Bush makes the laughable claim that we can half the deficit by 2009 by curtailing non-defense and non-homeland security spending. But that only makes up about 18 percent of the total budget pie. And these programs include health research, education, housing, law enforcement, the State Department, environmental restoration and veterans programs. Is that where Bush plans to make all of his cuts?

The real problem of course is Bush's massive tax give away to the rich. By making these irresponsible tax cuts permanent, Bush would ensure that the federal government will be completely bankrupt after he leaves office - something the radical right would no doubt like to see happen.

Possibly the funniest thing in the Bush budget is his decision to give a paltry $18 million increase to the National Endowment for the Arts, something that has greatly upset some of his far-right supporters here in the blogosphere.

Owen Courreges digs up some of the NEA's greatest hits to express his outrage. It's funny how conservatives' obsession with these images has given them a hundred times more exposure than all of the other non-offenisve art sponsored by the NEA combined.

Owen at Boots and
Sabers feels compelled to restate why he is still a devout Bush acolyte in spite of Bush's "abysmal failure" at shrinking the size of government.

And then there is Joe Kelley at The Sake Of Argument who has gone so far as to say that he will not cast another vote for this RINO (Republican in name only) president in response to the NEA funding increase.

I certainly hope this is a trend that will keep growing.

Pixar might regret dumping Disney

It's clear enough that the Pixar/Disney breakup is especially bad news for Disney, which hasn't seen any of its own animated films hit big since "The Lion King."

Pixar has been dominating the animation field lately with blockbuster hits such as Toy Story I & II, Monster's Inc. and Finding Nemo. So it would seem that Disney would be the big loser in this deal. But I can't help but think that Pixar might be shooting itself in the foot as well. As good as the Pixar movies have been, who is to say that their mega-box office success wasn't spurred on by the wholesome Disney glow that surrounded each release? Without the Disney stamp of approval, would the films have performed as well as they did? It is clear that quality is not a guarantee of success at the box office.

Without Disney, I'm afraid Pixar will find its films faring about as well as "Ice Age" or "Antz," which is to say not badly, but far from the huge moneymakers that they have been.

Maybe if we are lucky, the Disney board will can Michael Eisner and then lure Pixar back into the fold before it is too late.

I joined a group blog

I've been invited to join a group blog called eTALKINGHEAD which features political commentary, analysis and opinion. There are about a dozen contributors so far and I'm one of just two Democrats in the bunch.
I'm not sure why or how I came to be picked to join the group, but I was flattered by the offer and am enjoying the challenge of trying to balance out a mostly conservative site. Each blogger was invited to select a book from Amazon.com to feature on the site so I chose Molly Ivin's latest work "Bushwhacked" which I have an autographed copy of.