My congressional district is unconstitutional

The Supreme Court today threw out the Republican gerrymandering for Texas CD-23, which just happens to be my congressional district. It is currently represented ineffectively by right-wing wanker Henry Bonilla, a former TV newscaster turned politician. Bonilla nearly lost the seat a few years ago when Hispanics in the district began abandoning him in mass for conservative Democrat Henry Cuellar. In order to protect one of their few token Hispanics, Republican Party bosses led by Tom DeLay dumped more than 100,000 Hispanics from the 23rd District into the 28th as part of their Perrymandering scheme in 2003. The Supreme Court has now ruled that this effectively violated the Voting Rights Act. How and when it will be remedied is unclear, but it is likely that any fix will impact a number of other districts throughout the state - as Justice Kennedy alludes to here:

Kennedy's decision did not specify how quickly the lines of District 23 must be redrawn, but he said that more than one district would be affected.
"The districts in south and west Texas will have to be redrawn to remedy the violation in District 23, and we have no cause to pass on the legitimacy of a district that must be changed," he wrote.

I’m disappointed that the majority of the justices think it is OK to allow redistricting anytime the Legislature feels like it rather than limiting it to once a decade as had been the tradition. This is bad news for both parties, even though Republicans will pretend that it is a victory for them. But it is good that they nailed the GOP for their Voting Rights violations, just as the experts in the Justice Department had warned before Bush’s political flunkies overruled them.

Daily Kos and Off the Kuff have lots more on the decision.

Rick Monday: American Hero

It was 30 years ago that Chicago Cubs outfielder Rick Monday charged across left field at Dodgers Stadium in Los Angeles and scooped up an American flag that a couple of punk kids were attempting to set on fire. That brief moment of patriotic fervor, more than anything else he did in baseball, is what people remember most about Monday today. I remember reading news accounts of the incident when it happened. I was 10 years old and a huge baseball fan. This is how I still remember Rick Monday (a 1973 Topps baseball card that I still have in my collection).

The other day, Monday was in Washington, D.C., recounting his flag-saving exploits at a rally in support of a Constitutional amendment that would make flag burning illegal. I am opposed to the flag burning amendment, but I still applaud Monday for what he did 30 years ago. Those protesters were clearly wrong in their actions and there was no need to have a law criminalizing the act of flag burning itself to punish them. They were already guilty of trespassing (the baseball stadium is private property) and disorderly conduct. One of them could have even been charged with assault. It was reported that one of the protesters threw a can of lighter fluid at Monday after he scooped up the flag.

If the protesters had wanted, they could have applied for the appropriate permits and held their little demonstration at some public place where they would not have been breaking any laws. But what they craved most was attention and they didn’t care if they broke the law to get it. That should tell you something right there about the potential effectiveness of any laws banning flag burning. Fortunately, today nobody knows who the protesters were or what they were trying to protest one year after the end of the Vietnam War. But everybody knows Rick Monday and that is for the best.

The flag burning issue comes up every year around this time. Here is what I had to say about it last year. I still stand by that statement and I hope that we can continue to honor the American flag and patriots like Rick Monday without dishonoring our First Amendment protections of free speech.

Multiculturalism still alive and kicking

What the heck is Jonathan Gurwitz talking about in his latest column?

Multiculturalism, rest in peace. There may have been no obituary for the notion that every group and every belief in a multiethnic society is deserving of mutual respect and tolerance. But thanks to jihadism, multiculturalism and moral relativism, its necessary counterpart, are now six feet under.

Moral relativism is a “necessary counterpart” to multiculturalism? I’m lost here. What does Gurwitz think multiculturalism is, anyway? Here is a definition:

Multiculturalism is a public policy approach for managing cultural diversity in a multiethnic society, officially stressing mutual respect and tolerance for cultural differences within a country's borders.

So “stressing mutual respect and tolerance for cultural differences” equals moral relativism in Gurwitz’ mind? And what is so bad with having “mutual respect and tolerance for cultural differences” anyway? We already stress essentially the same thing for religious differences.

Apparently, Gurwitz thinks because some extremist Muslims have committed terrorist acts in countries that practice “mutual respect and tolerance for cultural differences,” this means that these countries will now stop doing this and will, I suppose, enforce a strict mono-culturalism on everyone. And I’m guessing that Gurwitz thinks this would be a good thing?
How much sense does that make? Because of the actions of a small group of Muslim extremists, Hispanics, for example, will now have to abandon their own culture and embrace Anglo-Saxon culture here in the U.S.?
Is everyone else as lost as I am now?

And here’s my favorite part of Gurwitz’ column this week:

Multiculturalism created a political morass in which a religious fundamentalist subculture that denied the equality of women and castigated homosexuality could challenge national secular law.

Hmmmm. A “religious fundamentalist subculture that denied the equality of women and castigated homosexuality”. Doesn’t that also describe Catholicism? Perhaps they would object to the term “fundamentalist”, but denying the equality of women (i.e. women priests) and castigating homosexuality sounds spot on.

Somehow we’ve managed to continue to respect and tolerate religious differences here in the U.S. in spite of the fact that we have had extremist groups like the Branch Davidians and the Christian Identity Movement crop up. Therefore, I predict that we will continue to respect and tolerate cultural differences as well.
As Mark Twain would say “Reports of multiculturalism’s death have been premature.”

Benevolent Billionaire

I can’t blame Warrent Buffett for wanting to give his multi-billion dollar fortune away. I imagine it’s a real pain managing that much money all the time. I mean, what can you do with $40 billion? There is only so much money one can spend on oneself. There is a finite amount of consumable goods a person can consume in one lifetime.
So you end up hiring an army of people to help manage the money for you and keep it from dwindling away through either bad investments, theft or taxes. And of course everyone wants a piece of it. Especially the government. President Bush and Dick Cheney were probably salivating thinking of all the countries they could invade and the wars they could start with that money. (OK, that wasn’t fair. Bush obviously doesn’t think he needs money in the bank to start needless wars. He is happy to wage war on the government’s good faith and credit, which he is currently tarnishing and burying under mountains of debt.)

It makes perfect sense that Buffett would choose Bill Gates’ foundation to take his money. Who else is better prepared at handling and distributing billions and billions of dollars? Giving away millions of dollars is one thing. But billions? That will corrupt even the best institutions. I asked my wife who she would give the money to and she suggested the church. But churches aren’t set up to handle that kind of money. They need money, but they don’t need the responsibility and headaches that come with handling THAT MUCH money. So the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is set up to handle just this kind of thing, is probably the best bet for any billionaire looking to unload a big wad of cash that is currently giving him a big pain in his backside.

Cuttin' and Runnin'

Via Kevin Drum: I see this item in Newsweek that shows that the Democrats' plan for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq is not only supported by the vast majority of Americans, but also by the new Iraqi government.
And now it seems to be confirmed in this NYTimes story that we will be drawing down troops during the next year, almost as rapidly as Sen. John Kerry had proposed.
So if the American public, the Democratic Party, the Iraqi government and the U.S. military are all in favor of a timetable for withdrawing troops, who does that leave on the other side? Why the Republicans, of course, and a bunch of conservative bloggers, who favor keeping our troops mired in Iraq untile Hell freezes over. Apparently, they think that is somehow supposed to be a winning formula for the Nov. general elections.

Unrepresentative House

The House of Representatives, under Republican control, instituted an “informal rule” sometime back that essentially makes bipartisan compromises in the House nearly impossible. The rule requires that before any bill can come up for a vote it must first have the support of a majority of Republicans. This effectively takes Democrats out of the equation altogether. It does not matter if a bill has the support of a clear majority of representatives in the House, it can still be derailed by a minority faction of Repubican lawmakers due to this GOP-instituted rule.
A perfect example of this came up just yesterday when House Republican leaders stalled a vote on reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act because of the objections of some southern state Republicans - mostly from Texas.

The House abruptly dropped plans Wednesday to vote on a renewal of the Voting Rights Act, a seminal law from the civil rights era, after criticism from Republican lawmakers from Texas.

Nevermind that the bill has the support of the White House and top legislative leaders from both parties, in fact this just once again demonstrates how weak this President is in getting any legislation through Congress even when his party controls all branches of the government.

Just some

President Bush defended the detention facility at Gitmo today by noting that “some” of the inmates there are “cold-blooded killers.”

"There are some who need to be tried in U.S. courts," Bush said. "They're cold-blooded killers. They will murder somebody if they're let out on the street."

Some? What about the rest? What are they still there for? Jaywalking? Three years later and we still haven’t even charged anyone there with anything. Haven’t we had enough time to sort these things out yet?
This makes it sound like we just rounded up a big group of people knowing that some of them are murderers, but we’re not sure which ones so we are just holding on to all of them indefinitely.

Unwise fashion choices

The Wall Street Journal has a hilarious story on the front page today (not available online):

Baggy Pants Often Trip Up Thieves
Perpetrators wearing low-slung, baggy pants fairly regularly get tripped up in their getaways, a development that has given amused police officers and law-abiding citizens a welcome edge in the fight against crime.

The story gives several examples of thieves trying to run away after a robbery only to have their pants fall down around their ankles leaving them flopping around like a fish out of water.
One unlucky chap trying to elude police tried to leap over a fence only to have his baggy trousers get snagged. He was found dangling upside down on the other side.

Just about every week, Jim Matheny, a 41-year-old police lieutenant in Stamford, Conn., says he gets into a foot chase with youths. He says it’s getting easier to capture them because they can’t run fast or far in those loose jeans.
“When I catch them, I tell them they’d do much better if they had pants that fit,” he says. “It’s like: ‘Hey dude, buy a belt and save yourself some trouble.’”

Bashing Lieberman

Sen. Joe Lieberman’s political fortunes have certainly taken a turn for the worse since he was riding high as Al Gore’s vice presidential nominee. He is currently facing a serious primary challenge in Connecticut that may cost him his seat this November.
While I am no big fan of Lieberman’s right now, I am disturbed that liberal bloggers seem to be so fixated on defeating his re-election above all the others. If Ned Lamont ousts Lieberman in November, that’s great. But it is not going to help Democrats regain the majority by replacing one Democrat with another.
This promises to be a good election year for Democrats.
I’d like to see the liberal blogosphere get more excited about defeating Repubican incumbents this fall. Rather than obsessing so much over Lieberman, how about some excitement over the Pennsylvania Senate race where Democrat Bob Casey leads Repbulican Sen. Rick Santorum 49% to 40%; or the Rhode Island race where Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee is neck-and-neck with Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse; or in Ohio where Democrat Sherrod Brown is leading incumbent Republican Mike DeWine in the polls.

If the House is Rockin’ Don’t Bother Knockin’

I don’t know that much about it, but I’m having a hard time getting too worked up about the Supreme Court’s decision to allow evidence in a case where authorities failed to follow a rule that they knock before executing a search warrant. I guess I’ve seen too many movies where a cop knocks on the door and then ducks as the bad guys start blowing holes through it. Maybe their excuse in this case that they were afraid of getting shot has some credibility.
The troubling thing for me, of course, is that the four justices that I most respect are on the other side while the four justices I least respect are on this side. But I think I may have to go with Anthony Kennedy who is proving to be the new swing vote on the court taking the role once occupied by Sandra Day O’Connor.

Last week, Kennedy was the deciding vote on a case that allows death row inmates to use DNA evidence to challenge their convictions. That one seemed so obvious that I’m still floored that the conservative justices think they can rationalize coming down the other way. If the scientific evidence can demonstrate that someone is innocent, why on Earth would you vote to go forward with the execution anyway? Outrageous!

Iran/Iraq policy

One good thing that might have come from the debacle in Iraq is that it may have forced the adminstration to deal more realistically with Iran and North Korea.
Not too long ago, the Bush administration started banging the war drums and rattling their sabers at Iran. Many conservatives were ready to jump on the Bomb Iran Bandwagon. But the logistical nightmare we are facing with most of our military resources currently bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire made such a move not just unwise (which would not have been enough to stop this administration) but practically impossible.

So now we find the administration pursuing an Iran policy that is very similar to the one the Clinton administration
used in regards to North Korea. Amazing how that works. We are actually forced to use diplomacy, rather than military muscle to push Iran in the direction it needs to go to stay in good graces with the rest of the world. I’m quite certain that if President Gore or President Kerry were pursuing this exact same policy with Iran today, conservatives would be absolutely hysterical.

What this reminds me of is the conservative’s “Starve the Beast” policy with regards to domestic politics. The idea there is that by allowing the federal deficit to balloon out of control, lawmakers are forced to stop spending money on new domestic programs and cutback on funding current programs. Could it be that the Bush administration has inadvertently created a “Starve the Beast” situation with regards to U.S. foreign policy by miring our military in the Iraqi tar pit such that we cannot use them to address other world crisis’ as they crop up? This could be both good and bad. Good if diplomacy is the most desirable option and this situation forces administration hawks to go that route. Bad if such diplomacy requires a credible threat of force which is now lacking because people can see that our military is pre-occupied with the mess in Iraq.

AFI Top 100

Oh, Goody! The American Film Institute has another list out. This one called AFI's 100 YEARS...100 CHEERS denotes the most inspirational American films of all time.
Here is the Top 10:
1 It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
2 To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
3 Schindler's List (1993)
4 Rocky (1976)
5 Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)
6 E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
7 The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
8 Breaking Away (1979)
9 Miracle on 34th Street (1947)
10 Saving Private Ryan (1998)

So far, that means they have come out with the Top 100 Movies; Top 100 Action/Adventure Movies; Top 100 Comedies; Top 100 Dramas; Top 100 Stars; Top 100 Heroes and Villains; Top 100 Movie Songs; Top 100 Movie Scores; and Top 100 Movie Quotes.
Phew! What else can they come up with?
How about the Top 100 Animated Movies; The Top 100 Family Movies; The Top 100 Documentaries; The Top 100 Westerns; The Top 100 War Movies; The Top 100 Tearjerkers; The Top 100 Sequels; The Top 100 Movies That Started Out as TV Shows...

Local activism

The local chapter of Drinking Liberally (DLSA) will be getting together on Saturday at 7:30 p.m. to watch Al Gore’s new movie “An Inconvenient Truth” at the Bijou Theater at the Crossroads Mall in San Antonio. They will be joined there by the San Antonio Area Progressive Action Coalition.

The DLSA group, hosted by Bill Livermore, meets on the second Thursday of each month at 6 p.m. at the Blue Star Brewery, 1414 S. Alamo St. The SAAPAC meets on the first Saturday of each month from 1-3 p.m. at Grady's  Barbeque at 6510 San Pedro (at Jackson-Keller).

I’ve never attended either group’s meetings and unfortunately won’t be able to attend the movie on Saturday, but I think it is great that there are actually groups of liberals still active here in San Antonio that haven’t yet been rounded up by Alberto Gonzalez and the NSA.

A local treasure

As much as Express-News cartoonist Leo Garza’s right-wing politics sometimes irritate me, his Nacho Guarache comic strip is indeed a local treasure here in San Antonio. This one featuring loud-mouthed Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban is destined to be a classic.
I’ve said before that Garza deserves to be syndicated, but then that would probably take his focus away from local issues and that would be unfortunate.

Karl Rove slips the noose

I have to admit that I was extremely disappointed to learn this morning that Karl Rove has been told he will not be indicted in the CIA leak case.
There are still some folks who hold out hope that Rove may have avoided indictment by cooperating in the investigation, possibly targeting an even bigger fish like Dick Cheney, but I’m not going to put any stock in that theory until I see hard evidence of it.
At this point, it looks like the Bush administration successfully skirted justice in this egregious case. Cheney’s top aide Scooter Libby is still under indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice, but no one has ever been charged with the actual leak of Valerie Plame Wilson’s role as a covert CIA agent.

Now some folks may recall that I agreed to a particular wager in this case with one Nigel Tufnel, the lead guitarist for the band Spinal Tap, and might conclude that I must now pay up. While I will readily congratulate Nigel on being right in his insistence that Rove would not be convicted of a crime in this case, that is not the wager we agreed to.
To refresh, here is the key item that I agreed to.

Let's say that if Rove is not indicted, or is indicted but not convicted of a crime related to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act because it is determined that Valerie Plame was not considered covert under the law, then I will author a mea culpa piece for ATC.
Or regardless of what happens to Rove, if it is determined through the course of the investigation that Plame was not a covert agent under the law, I would concede and admit that I was wrong.

From the beginning, I have conceded that Rove might get off without being indicted. My contention all along was to shoot down the conservative talking point that that said Plame wasn’t really a covert agent. And today, in most every story reporting Rove’s non-indictment status, Plame is referred to as a covert or undercover CIA agent.
So it appears that Nigel and I were both correct, but I’m sure that he is happier about it than I am.

Byrd dethrones Thurmond

I was pleased to learn yesterday that Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, is now the longest serving senator in U.S. history, taking the title away from the late Strom Thurmond.
Thurmond, the Dixiecrat-turned-GOP stalwart, set the record a while back after living to be 100. Byrd, by contrast, is still a youthful 88 and looks to extend the record quite a ways. He is favored to win re-election to another six-year term this November.
Byrd recently said that the vote he is most proud of in his long career was the one he cast in 2002 opposing the “blank check” that Congress gave President Bush to wage war in Iraq.

DeLay: Partisanship is good

Tom DeLay is the Gordon Gekko of American politics. At least he was for one brief moment as he made his farewell speech on the floor of the House of Representatives last week.
Let’s compare.
Here is DeLay, praising excessive partisanship without compromise as a virtue of American politics:

"Because partisanship, Mr. Speaker — properly understood — is not a symptom of a democracy's weakness, but of its health and strength — especially from the perspective of a political conservative."

Now, here is Mr. Gekko, the corporate raider as played by Michael Douglas in Oliver Stone’s movie “Wall Street”:

“The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of it's forms - greed for life, for money, knowledge - has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed - you mark my words - will not only save Teldar Paper but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you.”

So one man praises partisanship and the other praises greed. But are these things really all that different? Isn’t partisanship at its core essentially greedy. A demand that everything has to be done just your way and no way else?
We are all guilty of partisanship in one form or another, and indeed there is a point to be made that staying true to your principles is a good thing. But compromise has always been the glue that has bound this country together and it is astonishing to hear the leader of the major political party today denouncing compromise as if it were some kind of vice.

Here is Tom DeLay speaking about compromise:

"It is not the principled partisan, however obnoxious he may seem to his opponents, who degrades our public debate, but the preening, self-styled statesman who elevates compromise to a first principle. For true statesmen, Mr. Speaker, are not defined by what they compromise, but what they don't."

Rick Casey had an excellent column in the Houston Chronicle the other day in which he recalls a defense of the art of compromise made by the historian Gary Wills in 1975.

His essay was titled "Hurrah for Politicians," whom he praised for "virtues that ignorant people take for vices."
The first among these was "compromise of principle."
As DeLay pointed out, sometimes compromise is necessary. But, Wills argued, "The true test of a politician comes when he does not have to compromise, yet finds a way to do so."
By compromising when he doesn't need to, a politician makes friends of associates he will at some point be forced to oppose, and he gathers debts of varying force that he can call in the service of his constituents.
Most importantly, said Wills, "compromise is just another name for the discipline all vote-getters must profess. It is representation. Without compromise, a politician would not represent anything or anyone but himself."

Perhaps that is the best way to sum up Tom DeLay. He successfully represented himself. He is a Christian conservative, so everyone has to be a Christian conservative and do things his way.

Death of a terrorist

The death of terrorist leader Zarqawi in Iraq is certainly good news. Folks on the right and left can take solace in his passing:

From Daily KOS:

CHEERS to finding a really evil needle in a really big haystack.  U.S. forces rocked terrorist Abu Musab "Dick" al-Zarqawi's world last night when they tossed a thousand pounds of explosive whupass down his gullet.  They found his body in the bedroom.  And the kitchen.  And the den.  And the garage.  And the neighbor's apartment.  And I think I found an eyebrow in my Cocoa Puffs this morning.  My only regret: he didn't know what hit him.

But I find it worrisome that according to U.S. Major Gen. Bill Caldwell,

...the tips leading to the safe house had come from within Zarqawi's network.

This would seem to indicate that Zarqawi’s betrayal was a calculated move by al-Qaeda and rather than viewing his death as a defeat, they see it as us doing them a favor. It is possible that Zarqawi had become too much of a loose cannon and had outlived his usefulness for al-Qaeda. The story notes that in recent days Zarqawi’s group had begun to shift from attacks on military forces to the targeting of civilians, most of them Shiites.

In an audio statement last week Zarqawi called for the killing of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country's most revered Shiite cleric.

Hmmmmm. One week he threatens the top cleric, the Grand Ayatollah, and the next week he gets a 500 pound bomb dropped on his head courtesy of the U.S. military. Coincidence? Probably not.

So now I have one more question. Who gets the $25 million bounty that we had placed on Zarqawi’s head? Will we reneg on giving out the prize because the tipster is probably tied to al-Qaeda?

Calm before the storm

I won’t deny that the GOP victory in the California special election was a big disappointment. But I thought the headline in the Washington Post story was a bit humorous:

Victory in California Calms GOP

Fearing humiliation in a race that drew national attention, the National Republican Congressional Committee pumped about $5 million into the race to replace imprisoned former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham. The results settled Republican nerves, which have been set on edge by months of nearly relentless bad omens, including corruption scandals and dismal poll ratings for President Bush and the GOP leadership in Congress.

So they pump $5 million into a single congressional election - more than twice what the Democrats spent - in what had been a solidly Republican district and squeak out a victory with less than 50 percent of the vote. If this is enough to settle Republican nerves then good for them. The last thing I want is agitated Republicans revving up their base as we go into the November general election. I would much prefer that they remain complacent in their assurance that their redistricting shenanigans and big business-financed monetary advantage will once again carry the day and keep them in control of Congress.

But it does mean that Democrats are going to have to work that much harder and Independents are going to have to make a choice and answer a simple question, “Have you had enough, yet?” If not, then go ahead and vote to keep the Republicans in charge for the next two years. But eventually I have faith that people will get their fill of corruption, scandal, war, debt and a stagnant economy and we will finally see an electoral tidal wave that will change the face of Washington. And I’m still betting that such a storm is brewing and could strike this fall.

Top Liberal Rock Songs

Here is my first crack at a list of the top liberal rock songs. My criteria for the list was that each song had to be relatively well known and the liberal content needed to be fairly obvious. No obscure songs that were used as album filler and got no airplay. And no songs where the message is vague and muddled.

Most rock songs are apolitical and deal with universal concepts such as love and heartbreak. It’s hard to write a really good song with a strong political message that doesn’t come off sounding forced and/or preachy. The following songs, in my opinion, succeeded in getting across a mostly liberal political viewpoint while still being good, solid rock songs.

1. “All You Need is Love,” by the Beatles
2. “Give Peace a Chance,” by the Beatles

Just the titles of these two John Lennon songs tell you everything you need to know. Simple but powerful message, irresistably catchy songs.

3. “Imagine,” by John Lennon
Derided by many on the right because of its anti-religious sentiments, I think it is one of the most beautiful odes to an idealistic future that has ever been put to music.

4. “Blowin’ In the Wind,” by Bob Dylan
5. “The Times They Are A Changin’,” by Bob Dylan

I’m sure there are many other Dylan songs that could be included, but these two are probably the best known.

6. “Man in Black,” by Johnny Cash

Since the National Review decided to include one country song, I decided to pick on as well.

7. “Ohio,” by Crosby Stills, Nash & Young

Protest songs don’t get much better than this. A hard-rocking number that slams home its point with full force and doesn’t sound outdated 30 years after the tragic incident that inspired it.

8. “For What It’s Worth,” by Buffalo Springfield

A lot of the hippie protest songs from the ‘60s sound naive and outdated today, but this one has stood the test of time and is still relevant today.

9. “Get Up Stand Up,” by Bob Marley

A rousing rocker that spun in my head the whole time that my son was learning to walk.

10. “What’s Goin’ On,” by Marvin Gaye

I never paid much attention to this song until Cuba Gooding Jr. sang it in the film “Jerry Maguire.” It has grown on me ever since.

11. “Living For the City,” by Stevie Wonder

I love this song. Very powerful and moving.

12. “War” by Edwin Starr

One of my favorite political cartoons from the start of the Iraq war shows a picture of the White House and someone inside is singing “War! Huh! Good God, y’all! What is it good for?” And then someone from the other side of the room (probably Karl Rove) says “Put a sock in it, Colin.”

13. “Pride (In the Name of Love),” by U2

It seems like such an obvious thing now, juxtaposing Christ’s crucifixtion and Martin Luther King’s assassination, but when I first heard the song it seemed profound.

14. “Fortunate Son,” by Creedence Clearwater Revival

A populist shot across the bow of the U.S. military establishment that relies on the American underclass to supply its cannon fodder for the wars started by the privileged sons of the wealthy. It speaks very loudly to this day.

15. “Born in the USA,” by Bruce Springsteen

Ronald Reagan tried to co-opt it for his re-election campaign, but he obviously wasn’t listening very closely to the lyrics.

16. “Pink Houses,” by John Mellencamp

Populist, patriotic and progressive all wrapped into one catchy tune.

17. “The Way It Is,” by Bruce Hornsby

The man in the silk suit telling the old beggar lady to “get a job” is an image that has stuck with me from the first time I heard this song.

18. “Sowing the Seeds of Love,” by Tears for Fears

They threw everything into this song including the kitchen sink, but somehow it still works.

19. “Tom Sawyer,” by Rush

“His mind is not for rent, to any God or government.”

20. “American Idiot,” by Green Day

The most recent addition, but notable in that it came out in 2004 before the election when the Bushies were still riding high.

21. ”Allentown,” by Billy Joel

A personal favorite and similar in structure to “Born in the USA.”

22. ”Ebony & Ivory,” by Paul McCartney

Yes, it’s sappy and syrupy, but its liberal message is unmistakable and everyone knows the song by heart whether they like to admit it or not.

23. “Land of Confusion,” by Genesis

I can’t listen to this song without seeking the MTV video with the puppets of Reagan and Gorbachav.

24. ”We Are the World,” by Michael Jackson

Back when Michael Jackson still had the Midas touch, this was a monster hit in the late ‘80s that helped to raise lots of money for African famine victims.

25. ”Sun City,” by Little Steven

Written around the same time as “We Are the World,” this was an even better protest song that became the anthem for the anti-apartheid movement.

26. “In The Ghetto,” by Mac Davis

Covered most notably by Elvis, this song by Lubbock, Texas native Mac Davis paints a haunting picture of life in the urban jungle.

27. “Big Yellow Taxi,” by Joni Mitchell

As suggested by Ann, this song takes on the developers who keep paving paradise to put up another parking lot.

I’m sure there are more and I will be adding them as I think of them...

First Update:

28."Fly Like an Eagle," by Steve Miller Band

Feed the babies, shoe the children, house the people! Yes, there IS a solution. It's called government get off its ass and start providing for the general welfare rather than wasting hundreds of billions on never-ending wars around the globe.

Second Update:

29. “Saturday Night Special” by Lynyrd Skynyrd

The NRO list claims these southern rockers as right-wing partisans because they wrote “Sweet Home Alabama” in reponse to Neil Young’s angry swipe at the south in “Southern Man.” But I have little doubt that these long-haired southern rockers would have been chased out of any GOP convention by wild-eyed, screeching gun nuts for penning these lyrics:

Hand guns are made for killin
Aint no good for nothin else
And if you like your whiskey
You might even shoot yourself
So why dont we dump em people
To the bottom of the sea
Before some fool come around here
Wanna shoot either you or me

30. ”The Wall,” by Pink Floyd

It’s hard to pick out just one song from this magnum opus, so I am including the entire album here.

Conservative rock songs

As someone who loves music and making silly lists, I can hardly resist commenting on The National Review’s recently published list of the Top 50 Coservative Rock Songs.

Just looking at the Top 10, however, it is obvious that they ran out of steam after No. 7.

1. “Won’t Get Fooled Again,” by The Who.
2. “Taxman,” by The Beatles.
3. “Sympathy for the Devil,” by The Rolling Stones.
4. “Sweet Home Alabama,” by Lynyrd Skynyrd.
5. “Wouldn’t It Be Nice,” by The Beach Boys.
6. “Gloria,” by U2.
7. “Revolution,” by The Beatles.
8. “Bodies,” by The Sex Pistols.
9. “Don’t Tread on Me,” by Metallica.
10. “20th Century Man,” by The Kinks.

Who ever heard of “Bodies” by the Sex Pistols? Not to mention how silly it is to include anything by the Sex Pistols on a list supposedly touting the top “conservative” rock songs in the first place. Also, “Don’t Tread on Me” by Metallica and “20th Century Man” by the Kinks are not exactly rock-n-roll standards that everyone is familiar with.
The rest of the list is apparently a mish-mash of songs with a few standards, a lot of album filler and several that are total mysteries (”Government Cheese” by the Rainmakers?).

11. “The Trees,” by Rush.
12. “Neighborhood Bully,” by Bob Dylan.
13. “My City Was Gone,” by The Pretenders.
14. “Right Here, Right Now,” by Jesus Jones.
15. “I Fought the Law,” by The Crickets.
16. “Get Over It,” by The Eagles.
17. “Stay Together for the Kids,” by Blink 182.
18. “Cult of Personality,” by Living Colour.
19. “Kicks,” by Paul Revere and the Raiders.
20. “Rock the Casbah,” by The Clash.
21. “Heroes,” by David Bowie.
22. “Red Barchetta,” by Rush.
23. “Brick,” by Ben Folds Five.
24. “Der Kommissar,” by After the Fire.
25. “The Battle of Evermore,” by Led Zeppelin.
26. “Capitalism,” by Oingo Boingo.
27. “Obvious Song,” by Joe Jackson.
28. “Janie’s Got a Gun,” by Aerosmith.
29. “Rime of the Ancient Mariner,” by Iron Maiden.
30. “You Can’t Be Too Strong,” by Graham Parker.
31. “Small Town,” by John Mellencamp.
32. “Keep Your Hands to Yourself,” by The Georgia Satellites.
33. “You Can’t Always Get What You Want,” by The Rolling Stones.
34. “Godzilla,” by Blue öyster Cult.
35. “Who’ll Stop the Rain,” by Creedence Clearwater Revival.
36. “Government Cheese,” by The Rainmakers.
37. “The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down,” by The Band.
38. “I Can’t Drive 55,” by Sammy Hagar.
39. “Property Line,” by The Marshall Tucker Band.
40. “Wake Up Little Susie,” by The Everly Brothers.
41. “The Icicle Melts,” by The Cranberries.
42. “Everybody’s a Victim,” by The Proclaimers.
43. “Wonderful,” by Everclear.
44. “Two Sisters,” by The Kinks.
45. “Taxman, Mr. Thief,” by Cheap Trick.
46. “Wind of Change,” by The Scorpions.
47. “One,” by Creed.
48. “Why Don’t You Get a Job,” by The Offspring.
49. “Abortion,” by Kid Rock.
50. “Stand By Your Man,” by Tammy Wynette.

The list has already been shredded, ripped apart and lampooned by people more eloquent than me. They have made the obvious observations about how much of a stretch it is to claim many of these songs for the conservative cause, based both on the actual lyrics of the individual songs in the context of the times they were written (i.e. The “new boss” in the No. 1 ranked Who song “Won’t Be Fooled Again” refers to President Richard Nixon) and the politics of the artists who wrote and performed them (John Lennon, Mick Jagger, U2, etc.) And what a slap to right-wing rocker Ted Nugent that he gets no mention on the list.

But I do want to object to the notion that themes such as suspicion of the government, opposition to Soviet-style communism, objections to excessively high taxes and promotion of marital fidelity are somehow strictly “conservative” values, as if the opposites are supposed to be “liberal” values. If that were the case, then I guess we could say that “love” and “peace” are liberal values, leaving conservatives to value “hatred” and “war.” That’s hardly fair.

Finally, the cheap shot at Hillary Clinton at the end of the list is wholly undeserved. First off, Tammy Wynette’s “Stand By Your Man” is clearly a country song, not rock, and if you are going to delve into country music then there are a whole host of songs that should be on the list starting with Merle Haggard’s “Okie From Muskogee” and Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA.” But secondly, it should be clear to anyone that no politician today is more represetative of the “Stand By Your Man” sentiment in Wynette’s classic tune than Hillary Clinton, who has managed to keep her marriage together despite Bill’s widely publicized issues with fidelity. Why don’t we contrast that with the marital values of the potential field of Republican presidential candidates for 2008 - how many divorces can we count between Rudolph Guiliani, John McCain, and Newt Gingrich?
Clearly, “conservatives” do not hold any kind of monopoly on marital fidelity today.

But to play along, I will shortly be posting my list of the top “liberal” rock songs of all time. Stay tuned.

Swift Boat Liars Lessons

The New York Times had a story a few days ago revisiting the Swift Boat Liars smear campaign that is partially credited with defeating Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign and extending the term of the Worst. President. Ever.

I’m glad to see that Kerry is finally devoting his attention to exposing all the lies stirred up by this GOP character assassination squad, but I’m also disappointed that he did not take it more seriously during the campaign when it might have made a difference.
I had a lot to say about the Swift Boat Liars during the campaign here, here and here.

It still burns me up every time I have to think about it. Without a doubt it was one of the most disgusting, dishonest, despicable displays of political chicanery in recent times. The lesson we should take from this story is that because it worked it will undoubtedly happen again and again. These GOP spin artists now know that they can get away with saying anything, however demonstratably untrue, and the national media will dutifully report it to achieve “balance” in their horserace-style coverage of election campaigns.
The only way to combat it is to be relentless in defending yourself against these types of scurillous accusations. No more of this high-minded, “I’m not going to respond because it would give the charges credibility” nonsense. The candidate or a surrogate speaking for the candidate has to take the smear artists on full-force and respond in kind to each and every attack. It is the only way to survive in today’s media-saturated culture.

Worst. President. Ever.

A new poll that is just out confirms that Bush is The Worst President Ever. And, of course, I always believe every poll that comes out (as long as it confirms what I already think).

Henry Cuellar is no Lloyd Bentsen

What an awful, awful column by Jonathan Gurwitz today.
Why a hard-core right-wing partisan like Gurwitz constantly feels the need to advise Democrats on how to run their party is beyond me, but at the very least you would think he could make a coherent argument. But here we have Gurwitz claiming that:

Independent-minded politicians willing to do right by their constituents are an increasingly rare breed in both parties. But among Democrats, they are positively an endangered species.

But who is Gurwitz’ example of this? Why Henry Cuellar who Gurwitz admits coasted to an easy primary victory recently and faces no serious opposition in November. Some endangered species.
Is there another example? Oh, yes, there is Sen. Joseph Lieberman whose ultra-hawkish support of the debacle in Iraq has drawn him a primary opponent in the liberal bastion of Connecticut. Lieberman has been a more outspoken proponent of the war in Iraq than most of the Republicans representing his home state, so it should be no surprise that he might face a primary challenge this time. But there is no guarantee that he will lose. In fact, chances are that he will coast to victory just as easily as Cuellar did.

So then, how can Gurwitz support his contention that Lloyd Bentsen could not win a Democratic primary campaign in Texas today? He can’t. Bentsen would win easily if he were running today. His kind of traditional conservatism - fiscal discipline, responsible management of our military resources - is still very popular among mainstream voters today in contrast to the reckless and radical misuse of both our domestic and military resources by the current administration.
But Bentsen was no Henry Cuellar. It was not Cuellar’s support of free trade agreements or his opposition to the estate tax that riled so many Democrats during the last campaign. It was his decision to sit on the Republican side of the aisle during the State of the Union Address and his playing kissy-face with the president afterwards. Bentsen would never have done such a thing.

As for Lieberman drawing a primary opponent, let me ask Gurwitz to consider this scenario. What if our own Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison were to suddenly announce her strong support for abortion rights and then began voting like Olympia Snowe of Maine. And what if she also suddenly became a very outspoken opponent of the war in Iraq. Would she be likely to draw an opponent in the next Republican primary? You bet she would!
The other big fallacy of Gurwitz’ column is the blind eye he casts on his own party’s ideological intolerance. You think Democrats are purging their party of conservatives? What about the dodo birds of modern politics - the liberal Republicans? That is almost an oxymoron these days. Remember what happened to James Jeffords? I think the GOP needs to worry about the log in its own eye before trying to pick the sliver out of the Democratic Party’s eye.

Da Vinci Code

I got to see The Da Vinci Code over the weekend and really enjoyed it. The movie it most reminds me of is National Treasure, the Disney film starring Nicolas Cage that came out a couple of years ago. It too involved efforts to unlock a puzzle created by an ancient secret society that sends our heros on an elaborate scavenger hunt in the search of a grand prize.
I thought the movie was well done, the acting was superb and the story was both interesting and entertaining.
What I did not understand was why the movie or the book should have sparked such a strong protest from the religious right. I went into the movie, based on all the hype, thinking it was going to try and debunk Christ’s divinity. But it does nothing of the sort. Instead, it is all based on a mythical theory that Christ fathered a child with Mary Magdalene before his crucifixtion and created a blood line that would have been seen as a threat to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. But whether or not Christ would have fathered a child, it would not preclude nor does it make any claim as to his own divine lineage.
Interestingly enough, the only person who actually questions Christ’s divinity in the film is the guy who turns out to be the “bad guy” in the end. Everyone else, inlcluding the Tom Hanks character, defends the Biblical story as we know it today.
I also thought it was interesting that, despite all of the killing, there really were no “bad guys” in the movie. Everyone was acting on what they believed to be a higher purpose or a greater good, including the Catholic archbishop, the French cop and the “teacher” who set everything in motion to begin with. Even the albino assassin. In fact, you could argue that he was probably the most devout person in the whole movie.

Won’t you be my neighbor

I found this link at Huffington Post. It’s Mr. Rogers addressing the U.S. Senate in 1969 when they were debating whether or not to expend $20 million toward the creation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
It was a remarkable display of wholesome sincerity that seemed oddly out of place in that setting, but it may have tipped the scales in favor of public broadcasting.
Thank God the Republicans weren’t in charge back then. I imagine they would have kicked Mr. Rogers out on his rear and we would never have had widespread availability of Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood, Sesame Street or the myriad other educational children’s programming that became the foundation for multiple generations of children from that point onward.

Ken Lay is guilty, guilty, guilty!!!

President Bush's top money man was found guilty on all charges today and will likely spend the rest of his life in jail.

Spurs postmortem

Heartwrenching. Absolutely heartwrenching.
I don't know how else to describe watching the Spurs come back from a 20-point deficit to tie the game with under a minute to go and then see Manu Ginobili sink a 3-pointer. It was exhilerating!
And then my wife warned that the Mavericks still had time to sink a 3-pointer of their own. Or get two-points and a foul, I added. Which of course is just what happened with Dirk Norwitzki, Mr. Automatic with the free throws, getting the easy layup and the foul call. But the Spurs still had a chance with Manu driving to the basket and Tim Duncan getting a chance for the tip in.
But at that point, the Spurs had run out of magic. And for the second time during the series we watched as the Mavericks took charge and dominated the overtime period.

So the Spurs' season is over. What's next? I'm the last one anybody should come to for answers here, but here's what I think anyway.
I think we will see a mass exodus of players as the Spurs try to revamp their team around their core players - Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker. I think they will hang on to Michael Finley, Bruce Bowen and Brent Barry, but all of them are better suited at this point to play the sixth-man role off the bench. The Spurs badly need another tall guy to match up with Duncan. Rasho Nesterovic and Nazr Mohammed are obviously not filling the bill, so I think they will be gone. I expect Robert Horry will retire. And I doubt that Nick Van Excel will be back.
What the Spurs need is someone who can come in and match up with an aging Duncan the way Duncan did with an aging David Robinson. I don't know if that means trading, free agents or draft picks, but they have to do something to fill that hole if they want to make it back to the finals next season.

Dissing the Dixie Chicks

Here's another reason why I don't listen to country radio.

The Chicks aren't the only ones who get no love from these clowns. Country radio programmers would rather play rehashed 60's rock songs by established "country stars" than play original music by extremely talented but struggling artists.
If you want to hear really good "country" music, then turn off your radio and go to the Kerrville Folk Festival some time.

Our national language

Oh, great! So now we have a “national language.” Something called “English,” whatever that is. The bill really didn’t define what “English” is so I’m not sure how they expect to enforce it.
What is “English” anyway? Is it the words I find in my Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language: Second College Edition (pulished in 1972)? Flipping through my dictionary I can find definitions for sombrero, adios, amigo, buenos dias, and pinata (which even uses a letter that is not in the English alphabet!)
Caramba! (Found that word in there, too.)
Heck, I even came across a bunch of German words and French words and Italian words. What a mess! Why someone could slip in every word of Spanish into our dictionary and then where would we be?!?

So I propose that we go back to the English language as it was when our Founding Fathers were writing the Constitution. Nevermind that they saw no need to enshrine the King’s English as the national language at the time. It is clearly a vitally pressing matter today or surely our Republican-controlled Congress would not be wasting time debating it. Right?

But then that may not be far enough back to ensure linguistic purity. Just to be safe, let’s go all the way back to our language’s beginnings, before it was polluted with all these other foreign dialects.

Here is a good example. The Lord’s Prayer presented in the standardised West Saxon literary dialect:

Fæder ure pu pe eart on heofonum,
Si pin nama gehalgod.
To becume pin rice,
gewurpe din willa, on eordan swa swa on heofonum.
urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg,
and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfad urum gyltendum.
and ne gelæd pu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. soplice.

Illegal immigrants pay taxes

In the comments to my post on border security, Gary states that “10-12 million illegal immigrants (are) taking advantage of our government programs without paying in any taxes...”

This is a common misperception that I want to address. As a matter of fact, illegal immigrants do pay taxes - an estimated $16 billion a year. And that is just counting federal income taxes. It doesn’t take into account sales taxes that everyone pays, or property taxes, which if they pay rent (and most likely do) then a portion of that rent is used by the landlord to pay property taxes.

Still, the argument is made that the $16 billion they pay in doesn’t make up for the estimated $26 billion they take out in government benefits. However, there are several problems with the study that makes this argument.

The study acknowledged that, on average, the costs that illegal-immigrant households bear on the federal government are less than half that of other households, and that many of those costs relate to their U.S.-born children.

And critics of the study point out that it does things like charge the costs of small-business loans and civil litigation that are unrelated to illegal immigrants. But the biggest fallacy about the study is the implication that all these expenses would disappear if these illegal immigrants and their children were to suddenly disappear. It won’t. You can take a school district’s budget and divide by the total number of students and then claim that each student receives X amount of government benefits. But that doesn’t mean if one student leaves the district, they suddenly save X amount of money.

The study also fails to consider the return on investment when these children of illegal immigrants use their public education to get a good paying job and start paying taxes. And, as we have seen, some of these children of illegal immigrants grow up to become U.S. Congressmen, Attorney General and Secretary of Commerce.

This is not to say that we should not enforce our immigration laws or guard our borders against illegal entry. But we should maintain a realistic perspective about the true costs and benefits of the people who for good or bad are already here to stay.

A multibillion dollar fence

After failing to fund border protection needs in his regular budgets, President Bush is suddenly ready to rush out and spend billions playing catch-up. Aside from calling out the National Guard to make up for the 6,000 border patrol agents that Bush refused to fund during the past several years, he is also advocating building a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. But did anyone imagine that this fence would cost billions? That’s right. That’s not a typo. Not millions, BILLIONS.
And who else can build billions dollar fences but giant military contractors.

Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, three of the largest, are among the companies that said they would submit bids within two weeks for a multibillion-dollar federal contract to build what the administration calls a "virtual fence" along the nation's land borders.

Multibillion-dollar federal contract! I imangine if we just spent a few hundred million dollars building the fence it might allow a few illegal immigrants to slip through once in awhile. What a travesty that would be!! So naturally, we have to spend multibillions.

And you know of course, based on their track record in Iraq, what will happen next. After about six months when only 20 percent of the fence is completed, they will go back to the government and say that they ran out of money and need more.

The really ironic thing, of course, is that these giant military contractors will probably subcontract most of the work out to small companies along the border that will hire illegal immigrants to build the new fence.

Play ball!

The baseball season is in full swing and looks like it will be a fun season to watch. The Houston Astros got off to a solid start although they have slipped back a bit. But the St. Louis Cardinals look like they will be tough to beat again so we may have to settle for another Wild Card bid to the playoffs. The Texas Rangers have done surprisingly well so far this season too and are leading their division (AL West) despite having a worse record than the Astros who have fallen to third place in the NL Central.
The New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox are neck and neck in the AL East which is unsuprising. But more interesting to watch, I think, is the AL Central where the Detroit Tigers led by former Ranger All Star Ivan Rodriguez are giving the defending champion Chicago White Sox a good race.
Another good race will be in the NL West where every team is playing better than .500 ball and less than two games currently separates the top dog San Diego Padres from the bottom scraping San Francisco Giants. And over in the NL East the New York Mets are doing surprisingly well.

Spurs height dilemma

Before moving to San Antonio five years ago, I had never lived in a town with a professional sports franchise before. Needless to say, the San Antonio Spurs have been fun to watch as they have won three championships in six years. But this year it looks like they may come up short which is distressing a lot of hardcore Spurs fans that I know. One of my friends is ready to dump the whole team with the exception of Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili.
I admit that it is frustrating when the three stars are all having a great game and you still lose but I don’t think I would let go of folks like Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry and Michael Finley so easily. But there probably is something to the complaint that going with a small lineup - everyone with the exception of Duncan is under 6-6 - is making it hard to get rebounds and block opponents out of the lane.
It would appear that Coach Popovich doesn’t have a lot of faith in the other tall guys on the team like Rasho Nesterovic (7-0) and Nazr Mohammed (6-10), so I’m not sure what else they can do. Do you suppose David Robinson could be persuaded to come out of retirement?

President Gore looks back

I missed seeing Al Gore on Saturday Night Live this past weekend. Fortunately, Crooks and Liars has the video here of President Gore reflecting on his first six years in office. Hilarious.

Playing politics with border security

President Bush’s plan to militarize our southern borders is a disgusting display of election-year pandering by the Worst President Ever.

President Bush will announce plans to deploy "up to 6,000" National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to support border patrol officers...

Nevermind that our National Guard troops have been stretched far beyond their limit by the neverending Quagmire in Iraq. Let’s just look at whether or not this is a good use of U.S. resources.

First, how much will it cost to mobilize 6,000 troops on the border? Where will they sleep? Where will they eat? How long will they have to be there?

Second, is this really a national security crisis that merits taking these part-time soldiers away from their families and their jobs for an unspecified period?

Third, why can’t our Border Patrol do the job their paid to do? Why not just hire some more border patrol agents and leave it at that?

Oooh! That’s a good question! Let’s look at that question for a minute. Here is the FY 2006 Budget for the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency.
They got a 4.5 percent increase which they tout as one of the biggest of any government agency. Surely, you can’t criticize the Bush administration for that.

But wait! Maybe you can...

...in spite of what many feel is a generous budget increase, some security experts are disappointed over the continued lack of manpower at US borders and the lack of resolve to add the expected 10,000 new Border Patrol agents within the next five years....
The budget provides $36.9 million for 210 additional Border Patrol Agents, directly supporting the strategic goal to increase and extend control of the borders between the ports of entry. But critics complain that originally 2,000 border agents were supposed to be hired annually for five years and the 210 agents will not have much positive impact on border security.

So, the CBP requested funds for 2,000 more border patrol officers for 2006 and they got 1/10th of that, or enough for 210.
That doesn’t sound like the Bush administration thought this was all that serious of a crisis just a few months ago if they only funded 1/10th of the number of border patrol positions that had been requested.
But now, all of a sudden, Bush wants to mobilize the National Guard and send 6,000 troops down to the border? What has changed between then and now other than Bush’s plummeting approval rating?

Republican Sen. Judd Gregg, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on homeland security, wasn’t too happy with the Bush administration’s proposed budget, although it didn’t get much play at the time.

The Bush administration sent a "hollow" budget to Capitol Hill that does not fulfill its funding commitment to add 1,500 law-enforcement officers to guard the borders against illegal aliens, key Senate appropriators said yesterday.
    "This is a situation of showing a proposal and then hiding the funds, and so we end up with a budget that we've got a $1.6 billion hole in," said Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican and chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on homeland security.
    Facing off against Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff during a budget hearing yesterday, Mr. Gregg said the funding priorities of the Bush administration treat border protection like "a stepchild of national defense."
    "I can't think of anything more significant to national defense than protecting our border and making sure that our homeland is secure, and yet the Department of Homeland Security is being starved for funds in crucial areas," Mr. Gregg said.
    "It's a hollow budget and I can't understand it because I've watched the press conferences where the administration has said it's committed to border security and domestic defense, and yet this budget isn't going to get there," Mr. Gregg said.

   This is inexcusable. If President Bush thinks we need 6,000 more bodies guarding our border then we need to provide the requisite funding to get qualified and trained people down there in the agency we already have tasked with doing that job. And they are doing it to the best of their understaffed ability.
In 2005 they apprehended 411,221 individuals attempting to cross the border illegally, up from 336,316 apprehended in 2004.
So they are doing their job, unfortunately the only support they get from this administration is lip service. At least until it serves the president’s political purposes to try and boost his anemic job approval ratings.

I feel safer now

Let me see if I have this straight.

We are going to take all the arms we had been selling to Venezuela and we are going to sell them to Libya.

OK, then.

Buyer’s remorse

I love this poll that shows people prefer Bill Clinton to George W. Bush by a wide margin. It gives me some hope that the electorate is finally recognizing how badly they screwed up during the past two election cycles.

Clinton was favored by greater than 2-to-1 on questions of handling the economy and solving the problems of ordinary Americans. He even bested Bush when it came to ethics and trust.

Who did a better job...

Handling the economy:
63 percent Clinton
26 percent Bush

Solving the problems of ordinary Americans:
62 percent Clinton
25 percent Bush

On foreign policy:
56 percent Clinton
32 percent Bush

On taxes:
51 percent Clinton
35 percent Bush

Handling natural disasters:
51 percent Clinton
30 percent Bush

Handling national security:
46 percent Clinton
42 percent Bush

Who was more honest:
46 percent Clinton
41 percent Bush

But Bush did win in one category:

Who did more to divide the country?
59 percent Bush
27 percent Clinton

I don’t think there is any question today that if the 2004 election were rerun knowing what we know now John Kerry would be president. In fact, if the 2000 election could be rerun, Al Gore would be president, as he should have been anyway.

More NSA snooping

Wow! Remember when Bush said that they were only tapping international phone calls and that all our domestic phone calls were safe? Well, he forgot to mention that the NSA was compiling data on all our domestic calls too.

In a hastily arranged appearance before reporters at the White House, Bush reacted to a USA Today report that says the National Security Agency has been secretly using records provided by the three largest American telephone companies to build a massive database of foreign and domestic phone calls. The program was launched shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks with the aim of analyzing calling patterns to detect terrorist activity, the paper reported. The effort involves collecting phone numbers but does not entail recording or eavesdropping on phone conversations, it said.
The NSA declined comment, saying only that it "operates within the law."
In his statement, Bush denied that the government listens to domestic phone calls without court approval and maintained that "the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities."
"We are not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans," Bush said. "Our efforts are focused on links to al-Qaeda and their known affiliates."

Is that supposed to make me feel better? Bush says you don’t have anything to worry about unless you are a terrorist or maybe a terrorist sympathizer (i.e. anyone opposed to the Bush administration’s so called “War on Terror”).

I like the lead from this story from Forbes.com:

The allegations that the federal government has been secretly tracking the calls of millions of Americans, aided by three major telephone companies, will doubtless inflame privacy advocates and Democrats.

Got that? Privacy advocates and Democrats will be upset. Republicans are apparently OK with this. The phone companies turn over all your personal phone records to the feds and the Republicans don’t even bat an eye. Amazing!

Well, some Republicans are batting their eyes like Senator Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who says he will call executives of AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon "to see if we can learn some of the underlying facts."
But it remains to be seen if he will follow through with anything other than a whitewash investigation.

Texas Blogs Left and Right

I was flattered the other day to find that my humble blog was included in a wrapup piece on Texas blogs entitled "A Guide To Texas Blogs Left and Right" that Vince Liebowitz of Capitol Annex put together for Dallas Blogs.
Liebowitz did yeoman's work pulling together his list which includes brief descriptions and background info on most of the sites. It is one of the best roundups I have seen and it is clear that Liebowitz is well versed on the Texas blogosphere. He highlights many excellent sites that I had been unfamiliar with.

While no one can pull together a completely comprehensive list of Texas political blogs, I would just point out a few sites that were overlooked in his list. Most prominently in my view is my friend Bill Crawford's excellent All Things Conservative based here in San Antonio which has become a popular hangout for conservatives looking for good news about the war in Iraq. Bill has even landed a regular gig at National Review Online writing a weekly column on that topic. While the site is decidedly conservative, Bill's open-minded tolerance of dissenting views makes it a good place for folks on the right and left to go and debate the issues of the day.
Also on the right-side of the spectrum is my friend Ranten Raven's The View From The Nest? also based here in the Alamo City.
And another Texas Lefty blog that got overlooked is Peter Bryant's excellent B and B with its focus on progressive politics, science and environmental issues.
Also missed was my friend Libertas who blogs at The Price of Liberty is Vigilance His eclectic libertarianism makes him hard to pigeonhole on either the right or left side of the political spectrum, but he is definitely a must read for people on both sides.

Privatization debacle

The Express-News has a lead story today about a state privatization deal gone sour.

Effective immediately, state workers again will be responsible for processing applications for assistance programs such as food stamps and Medicaid after myriad problems resulted with the private company hired to do the job.
Bermuda-based Accenture LLP won an $899 million, five-year contract early last year to take over the state's public assistance eligibility system.

Bermuda-based??? That should have been the first clue that something was seriously wrong with this deal. Companies base themselves in Bermuda to avoid paying U.S. taxes, so why would any government entity think that such a company would have the best interests of its citizens in mind?

The story does not give you a clear idea of who should be held responsible for this debacle, but it’s no secret that the Republicans who have taken charge of the state government have always insisted that privatization is the miracle cure for all that ails us. Unfortunately, we are now finding out what a bitter aftertaste that snake oil really has:

State eligibility offices are understaffed because of the departure of thousands of state workers who feared they would lose their jobs when Accenture took over.
Those understaffed state offices now will be required to deal with thousands of cases that are to be transferred out of Accenture's control.

Then there are the workers who were hired by the Bermuda-based company to staff their call centers who are now in limbo:

The system operated by Accenture includes four privately run call centers around the state that eventually will replace hundreds of local offices staffed by state workers. Already, the San Antonio call center, which is to serve a large swath of South Texas, has become the largest in the state, employing more than 500 workers.
It is not clear what other tasks the private workers will be performing because the jobs they were supposed to do will now be done by public employees.

I wonder how much money Texas taxpayers are going to be out as a result of this mess.

The Party of Fiscal Irresponsibility strikes again

Republicans desperate to regain an edge before the mid-term elections have finally settled on an answer: bribe voters with a $70 billion tax cut.

House and Senate Republican negotiators reached a final agreement yesterday on a five-year, nearly $70 billion tax package that would extend President Bush's deep cuts to tax rates on dividends and capital gains, while sparing about 15 million middle-income Americans from the alternative minimum tax.

Nevermind that the federal debt is setting new records everyday, cutting taxes (and raising the debt limit) is the only thing this crowd knows how to do. With the Republicans, it’s cake and cookies at every meal, with a big helping of whipped cream on the side. Eat all you want! Don’t worry about tomorrow! That’s the Republican mantra these past five years.

That’s fine if you prefer a weak, emaciated government that is incapable of responding adequately to national disasters like Hurricane Katrina, but if you would prefer to have a government that is strong enough to protect its citizens then we are going to have to put the grown-ups back in charge of things come this November.

E-N discovers blogging - in Austin

I guess all us local San Antonio bloggers just aren't exciting enough for our local newspaper the Express-News. They had to go all the way to Austin today to profile some blogger I'd never heard of for a piece touting the rising popularity of blogging.
Stephanie Klein, who writes a blog called Greek Tragedy got the fawning attention of our local paper mainly because she had already been written up by the New York Times before moving recently to Austin from the Big Apple.
It's not that I'm jealous or anything (ahem), it's just that they might look around sometime and notice that they have some ,fairly prominent and up-and-coming bloggers right here in their own backyard.

Kissing up to China; dissing Taiwan

I'm curious what my conservative friends thought of the Bush administration's intentional snubbing of the Tiawanese president last week.

The United States decided to bar a stopover by Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian on his way to Latin America to avoid angering China, whose backing for UN action against Iran is critical, analysts said.
In an apparent rebuff, Chen completely dropped plans to transit in the United States after Washington said he could only make a refueling stop in Alaska rather than New York or San Francisco as requested by him. Chen instead made transit stops in Abu Dhabi and Amsterdam en route to Paraguay and Costa Rica, two of only 25 nations that recognise Taiwan diplomatically.

We won't even let the Taiwanese president stay overnight in the U.S. for fear that it might annoy China and then they might not go along with our war-monging plans against Iran at the U.N.
Is this the same administration that claims that sacrificing thousands of U.S. lives and spending billions in tax dollars to promote democracy is a most worthy goal? And yet we turn our back on democratic Taiwan and shamelessly kowtow to the brutal totalitarians in China so we can advance a questionable foreign policy goal against Iran?
Are the pro-democracy conservatives upset by this? Or do they see it as a necessary sacrifice and compromise toward a larger goal? Which is it?

Movies, movies, movies

It looks like there are a lot of good movies coming out this summer.

Here are the ones currently in the theaters or due to come out soon that I think would be most entertaining:

Mission Impossible III Tom Cruise may be a loopy Scientologist, but he is still a good actor and I really enjoyed the first two films in this series.
The Da Vinci Code All controversy aside, I don’t see how you can go wrong with Ron Howard directing and Tom Hanks starring.
X-Men 3: The Last Stand I’m also a fan of this series and am looking forward to the next installment even if it does have a lame subtitle.
Cars Pixar + Disney = Blockbuster hit. Any questions?
Superman Returns In a brilliant casting move, the director found someone who looks just like Christopher Reeve. That’s all they will need to sell this movie.
James Bond movie In a brilliant casting move, the director found someone who doesn’t look anything like James Bond. That’s all they will need to sell this movie.
Pirates of the Carribbean: Dead Man’s Chest Another can’t miss sequel, especially since they kept the original cast together.
United 93 One of the two great stories to come out of 9/11 was the heroic struggle of these airline passengers to divert their hijacked plane from its intended target.
World Trade Center The other great story is about the cop and port authority officer who survived the collapse of one of the towers. Helmed by Oliver Stone who needs a hit to redeem himself after the lackluster response to Alexander.

Of course I’m not likely to see any of these films until they come out on DVD. And I already have a long list of films out on DVD that I want to see:

King Kong
Chronicles of Narnia
Walk the Line
Harry Potter Goblet of Fire
Cinderella Man
Serenity
Fantastic Four
Good Night, Good Luck
Capote
History of Violence
Constant Gardener
Syriana
Munich
The Producers
Chicken Little
Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were Rabbit
Corpse Bride
Sahara

Louis Rukeyser

First John Kenneth Galbraith and now Louis Rukeyser is gone. It is a sad time for fans of popular economics.

Louis Rukeyser, a best-selling author, columnist, lecturer and television host who delivered pun-filled, common-sense commentary on complicated business and economic news, died Tuesday. He was 73.
As host of "Wall $treet Week With Louis Rukeyser" on public TV from 1970 until 2002, Rukeyser took a wry approach to the ups and downs in the marketplace and urged guests to avoid jargon. He brought finance and economics to ordinary viewers and investors, and was rewarded with the largest audience in the history of financial journalism.

My wife grew up listening to Rukeyser every evening as Wall Street Week was her father’s favorite TV show. I came to appreciate the man later in life and was outraged when he was summarily dumped by PBS back in 2002.

In response, I wrote this column for the San Antonio Business Journal.

Ban those laptops

The AP reports that more professors are banning laptops in classrooms. I say more power to them!

As the professor lectured on the law, the student wore a poker face. But that was probably because, under the guise of taking notes on his laptop, the student actually was playing poker - online, using the school's wireless Internet connection.

Well, at least the student showed up for class. That’s more than you can say about most of the students taking my wife’s chemistry classes at UT San Antonio. I think there are something like 200 students enrolled in one class and on any given day about one-third will bother to show up.

It really amazes me what students today think they can get away with. I wasn’t the ideal student when I was in college by any means, but I would at least show up to class 90 percent of the time. I would try and limit myself to no more than one absence per class per semester for any reason.
But these students today only show up to take the exam and then they have the gall to complain when they make a failing grade. They don’t attend lectures, they don’t do their homework and then they expect the professor to curve the grades or give them enough extra credit to slip by. It is really pathetic.

Colbert’s devastating satire

Stephen Colbert’s performance at the Washington Correspondents dinner is already legendary. It was delicious satire as has rarely been pulled off for a captive audience at that level of society in Washington.

It was a performance so masterful and struck home so forcefully that it left the Washington elite politicos and media dumbfounded. Some responded indignantly, whining that Colbert had “gone over the line.” Others tried desperately to ignore it the next day like New York Times reporter Elizabeth Bumiller who didn’t even mention Colbert in her story the next day. Absolutely pathetic. That’s like going to a Bruce Springsteen concert and writing your review about the opening act.

If the Washington elite media was anxious to downplay Colbert’s performance, it’s not hard to understand why.
Here is Colbert, in character as the right-wing talkshow host he parodies on his Comedy Central show:

I am appalled to be surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story:  the president's side, and the vice president's side.

But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA wiretapping or secret prisons in eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very important reason:  they're super-depressing. And if that's your goal, well, misery accomplished. Over the last five years you people were so good -- over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!

Ouch!! No wonder Busmiller wanted to ignore Colbert’s tour-de-force performance. It was aimed right at her.

Fortunately, Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post has the best round-up of the story to somewhat make up for the deafening silence and blackout it has recieved elsewhere.

President Bush on Saturday night had the audience at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner in stitches. With doppelganger comedian Steve Bridges alongside -- playing his inner self -- Bush poked gentle fun of his own mangling of the English language, his belligerence and his feelings about the media.
Then Comedy Central satirist Stephen Colbert ripped those stitches out.
Colbert was merciless, reserving his most potent zingers for the people in spitting distance: The president who took the nation to war on false pretenses and the press corps that let him do it.

The boozy bonhomie of the annual event is intended to serve as a balm for the often tense relationship between the White House and the reporters who cover it.
Bush largely delivered on his side of the bargain. Colbert delivered something else entirely.

Colbert stayed in character as the bombastic, over-the-top, right-wing cable TV host he plays on the Colbert Report.
"Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us; we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality.' And reality has a well-known liberal bias. . . .
"The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday, that he believed on Monday, no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change, this man's beliefs never will...

You can watch the latter half of Colbert’s performance here (Including the video-taped routine with Helen Thomas).
And you can read the entire transcript here.

I think Billmon sums it all up best here.

Colbert's routine was designed to draw blood -- as good political satire should. Colbert used satire the way it's used in more openly authoritarian societies: as a political weapon, a device for raising issues that can't be addressed directly. He dragged out all the unmentionables -- the Iraq lies, the secret prisons, the illegal spying, the neutered stupidity of the lapdog press -- and made it pretty clear that he wasn't really laughing at them, much less with them. It may have been comedy, but it also sounded like a bill of indictment, and everybody understood the charges.

The fine art of Bush-bashing

President Bush’s approval rating has been under 50 percent for more than a year now and is currently at an all-time low, so it is not surprising that there is a lot of Bush-bashing going on. But a lot of these critics are Johnny-come-latelys who are just jumping on the bandwagon now that it is deemed OK by the CW to show your disapproval of the president’s policies (although even now you still risk being labeled a traitor for doing so).

But if you want to see real quality Bush-bashing of the highest level, you have to turn to the masters of the craft who have been honing their talents from the start. Start with Frank Rich who sliced and diced Bush in this Sunday’s NYTimes with his usual razor-sharp eloquence.

LIKE the hand that suddenly pops out of the grave at the end of "Carrie," the past keeps coming back to haunt the Bush White House. Last week was no exception. No sooner did the Great Decider introduce the Fox News showman anointed to repackage the same old bad decisions than the spotlight shifted back to Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury room, where Karl Rove testified for a fifth time. Nightfall brought the release of an NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll with its record-low numbers for a lame-duck president with a thousand days to go and no way out.

The demons that keep rising up from the past to grab Mr. Bush are the fictional W.M.D. he wielded to take us into Iraq. They stalk him as relentlessly as Banquo's ghost did Macbeth. From that original sin, all else flows. Mr. Rove wouldn't be in jeopardy if the White House hadn't hatched a clumsy plot to cover up its fictions. Mr. Bush's poll numbers wouldn't be in the toilet if American blood was not being spilled daily because of his fictions. By recruiting a practiced Fox News performer to better spin this history, the White House reveals that it has learned nothing. Made-for-TV propaganda propelled the Bush presidency into its quagmire in the first place. At this late date only the truth, the whole and nothing but, can set it free.

All too fittingly, Tony Snow's appointment was announced just before May Day, a red-letter day twice over in the history of the Iraq war. It was on May 1 three years ago that Mr. Bush did his victory jig on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. It was May 1 last year that The Sunday Times of London published the so-called Downing Street memo. These events bracket all that has gone wrong and will keep going wrong for this president until he comes clean.

To mark the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion last month, the White House hyped something called Operation Swarmer, "the largest air assault" since the start of the war, complete with Pentagon-produced video suitable for the evening news. (What the operation actually accomplished as either warfare or P.R. remains a mystery.) It will take nothing less than a replay of D-Day with the original cast to put a happy gloss on tomorrow's anniversary. Looking back at "Mission Accomplished" now is like playing that childhood game of "What's wrong with this picture?" It wasn't just the banner or the "Top Gun" joyride or the declaration of the end of "major combat operations" that was bogus. Everything was fake except the troops.

"We're helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools," Mr. Bush said on that glorious day. Three years later we know, courtesy of the Army Corps of Engineers, that our corrupt, Enron-like Iraq reconstruction effort has yielded at most 20 of those 142 promised hospitals. But we did build a palace for ourselves. The only building project on time and on budget, USA Today reported, is a $592 million embassy complex in the Green Zone on acreage the size of 80 football fields. Symbolically enough, it will have its own water-treatment plant and power generator to provide the basic services that we still have not restored to pre-invasion levels for the poor unwashed Iraqis beyond the American bunker.