So what's going on in Bush's America today? Let's see....

Unemployment hits a 9-year high

Polluters get away with murder while toothless EPA does nothing

Republicans try to eliminate the filibuster rule in the Senate because 2 of Bush's 128 judicial nominees were not approved and Bush demands 100 pecent compliance from a rubber-stamp Congress.

A Pentagon spokesman explains that a DOD intelligence report issued prior to the war that said "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons" was actually consistent with the administration's claims that Iraq had huge piles of Weapons of Mass Destruction that required an immediate, pre-emptive invasion to eliminate. The spokesman also goes on to explain that black is white, up is down and yesterday is tomorrow.

I'm a real sucker for lists. This one is from Country Music Television and purports to be the Top 100 Country songs of all time.
Lots of good ones on the list, but also some filler. I don't see "Luchenbach, Texas" anywhere.

Seeing as how the flag buring issue is bound to keep resurfacing every few years like some kind of zombie horror show I decided to dig up this old Letter to the Editor on that subject that I wrote during the first Bush presidency. This was published in the Bryan-College Station Eagle on July 13, 1989.

“The hysterical wave of nationalism that has swept across our country has encouraged our President to propose an amendment to our Constitution that would put a serious dent in the Bill of Rights. No, even worse than a dent, it would be a wedge that future leaders could use to pressure in even broader restrictions on our freedom of expression.
Some people seem to be surprised that the First Amendment protects more than just the spoken word. The Surpreme Court has consistently held that symbolic actions are protected as free expression as long as they are conducted peacefully. This is nothing new. What is new is this near idolatry of the flag. Having respect for what the flag stands for is one thing, worshipping the flag itself is something else.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was wrong in trying to compare flag burning to defacing a public monument. A protester cannot purchase a monument, but they can go to any store and buy their own flag. If they burn someone else’s flag then they should be tried for theft and destruction of another’s property. But they should not be penalized for expressing anger and resentment against the government in the most dramatic and shocking way - burning a symbol of that government. What if they fire up a copy of the Constitution or hang an effigy of the President? Would this not be equally offensive? Our founding fathers believed that goodness and righteousness would always prevail through forces of reason and therefore were not afraid to allow a free flow of ideas. Why are we afraid today?”

With folks like John Ashcroft and Tom Delay in charge of things these days maybe we should be afraid!

"Sen. Clinton calls husband a liar"
That is the screaming Page 1, top of the fold, banner headline in today's San Antonio Express-News. One would think, from the way the newspaper is playing the story, that Sen. Clinton had denounced her husband, the former president, just yesterday from the floor of the Senate. But the story is actually an Associated Press review of Hilary Clinton's new book "Living History" which is a memoir of her 8 years as First Lady. Sure, it reveals for the first time the pain she felt when her husband's infidelity was exposed during the Monica Lewinsky/Ken Starr debacle in the late 1990s. And I suppose that even makes it somewhat newsworthy. I could even see a newspaper teasing the story on its front page and then running it inside somewhere. But treating it like the major news of the day in such tabloid fashion is something I thought was beneath my local newspaper. It certainly helps to make the point that Eric Alterman makes in his book "What Liberal Media?" which is that there is no liberal bias in the news media, especially when it concerns the Clintons.

Meanwhile, runner-up for President George W. Bush has told one of the biggest lies in modern political history when he claimed repeatedly that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. So where are these tons of biological and chemical agents that Bush detailed in his State of the Union address and in multiple speeches leading up to our pre-emptive military invasion? If he was so concerned that they were there back then, why isn't he more concerned that they are missing now? Did they really end up in Syria or Iran or in the hands of Al Quaeda terrorists? Or is it more likely that these weapons were destroyed long ago and Bush purposely misread intelligence reports to make his case for a military confrontation?

I saw this quote floating around on the Internet and it is particularly apt to think about right now. "Nobody Died When Clinton Lied" Yeah, and nobody lost their job either.

Interestingly enough, the AP story is not really that sensational. It is just the headline writers and editors at the Express-News whose bias is showing in this case. For example, inside on the jump page the story has the following statement "She (Hilary) concludes that what her husband did was morally wrong, but not a betrayal of the public." And what is the subhead for the story as it continues on Page 4A? "Sen. Clinton tells of betrayal"

I noticed on C-SPAN today that in the House they are debating a flag burning amendment once again. This is amazing. It is like an annual ritual that the Republican right must go through every year. They have been debating this thing since I was in college in the mid-1980s and they just keep bringing it back over and over again. I guess I should dig up the old letters to the editor I wrote about this issue back in College Station (where I was probably the only member of the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets who was also active with Students Against Apartheid).

I guess it's not like we have anything more important to concern ourselves with. Like maybe these missing Weapons of Mass Destruction that we went to war over just a few months ago that nobody seems to care about anymore. Or how about the stagnant economy and the 2 million jobs lost since runner-up W. took office? No, the flag debate is a great distraction. Funny how I haven't noticed any flag burning during the past 15 years while our national symbol has remained unprotected by a Constitutional amendment. But I have noticed lots of people wrapping themselves in the flag on a regular basis.

I got to see the big dust-up between right-wing talkmeister Bill O'Reilly and liberal comedian/author Al Franken that was televized on C-SPAN today. I have to admit that it was never as nasty an exchange as I was led to believe. I thought that O'Reilly was pompous and kind of dry. Franken was just flat-out funny. I loved the way he kicked off his talk about his new book "Lies and the Lying Liers Who Tell Them" (with a picture of O'Reilly on the cover, by the way) by announcing that God had told him to write the book to correct the assertion by Bush that he had been chosen by God to be president. No, actually it was Clarence Thomas who chose him to be president, Franken says.

Molly Ivins was also on the bill with Franken and O'Reilly and it was wonderful to see her looking so well and nice to know that she is coming out with her own new book "Bushwhacked." I remember seeing Molly many years ago in College Station when she gave a talk at a local Unitarian Church. Back then, Bush Jr. was just a failed businessman who kept getting one incredible break after another eventually leading up to partial ownership of the Texas Rangers baseball team.

Today, Bush Jr. is our president despite the fact that myself and a majority of American voters (even in Florida) did not vote for him. And so far, his presidency has been an unmitigated disaster. Josh Marshall today talks about a new poll out that shows how America's image with other countries has plummeted since the war with Iraq began. And that image will only get more tarnished if it turns out that Iraq never had the WMDs that we used to justify a pre-emptive military invasion.

This is pretty neat! I'm a "Crunchy Crustacean" in the Blogosphere Ecosystem over at The Truth Laid Bear. The site uses a special program to track the number of inbound links to weblogs registered at the site and then ranks them accordingly.

So far I'm ranked at No. 2076 out of about 2612 web logs tracked on the site. I have 2 inbound links thanks to Off the Kuff and Easter Lemming - Liberal News which both were good enough to link to my May 20th rant about the sparcity of liberal voices in the national media.

Now all I need to do is get blogrolled by a couple more web sites and I can evolve up through the blogosphere food chain to become a "Lowly Insect"!

Today is Bob Hope's 100th Birthday!!! I'm glad to see that he made it this far, same as George Burns a few years ago. I just started reading his memoir called "Don't Shoot! It's Just Me!" but I need to finish reading my Bing Crosby biography first.
Maybe they will play some old Bob Hope movies tonight to celebrate. I can hope, anyway.
Check out the Official Bob Hope web site.

The administration's lies from the Iraq war are finally starting to catch up with them. Now it is just a question as to whether anyone will notice or even care.

The Washington Post reports here that Bush officials are starting to "hedge" on their certainty that Saddam ever had any weapons of mass destruction.

Oh, and remember at the beginning of the war when we bombed that underground bunker in the hopes of killing Saddam? Well, now it turns out that there was no bunker there.

And remember the story of Pfc. Jessica Lynch's heroic rescue after being held as a POW in Iraq? Yeah, that's right, more lies. Read about it here.

Here is report today from the Financial Times in London about the economic disaster that Bush is creating for the country:

"The Bush administration has shelved a report commissioned by the Treasury that shows the US currently faces a future of chronic federal budget deficits totalling at least $44.2 trillion in current US dollars.

The study, the most comprehensive assessment of how the US government is at risk of being overwhelmed by the "baby boom" generation's future healthcare and retirement costs, was commissioned by then-Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill.


But the Bush administration chose to keep the findings out of the annual budget report for fiscal year 2004, published in February, as the White House campaigned for a tax-cut package that critics claim will expand future deficits.

The study asserts that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts or a painful mix of both are unavoidable if the US is to meet benefit promises to future generations. It estimates that closing the gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 per cent across-the-board income tax increase."

Saw X-Men II over the weekend and also saw Matrix Reloaded the week before that. So I guess I'm all caught up on my summer movie watching for awhile, at least until Finding Nemo comes out next week.
I give both movies a thumbs up. The Matrix sequel did not disappoint on the special effects action sequences and I thought the story line was advanced in an interesting direction with a particularly enticing tease at the end of the film that should be resolved in the final chapter.
Don't listen to the movie critics who are panning this film. Most of them probably panned the first film when it came out, but now hold it up as the gold standard and bash the sequel by comparison. I don't think you need to compare the two films any more than you need to compare two chapters of the same book. Which one did you like better? What does it matter? The only thing that matters is whether or not you like the book.

X-Men II on the other hand was not like the next chapter of a book so much as the latest issue of a comic book series and for my money it was a better movie than the first. Perhaps that is because the characters were already established for me and they could dive straight into the narrative of the story without any long detours to flesh out background details. Whatever the reason, I was entertained by the film and look forward to No. 3 which is undoubtedly in the works.

Some instructive reading in the Wall Street Journal today concerning Bush’s latest multi-billion dollar tax cut package.
The lead story makes the point that the tax cut “will likely provide a significant boost to the tepid U.S. economy, but at a potentially significant long-term cost.”
So short-term gain and long-term pain. So what exactly does that mean?
“It should boost consumer incomes and thus spending, encourage business investment and could lift stock prices...” but at the cost of “... driving up deficits and therefore long-term interest rates, and widening the gap between rich and poor.”

So Bush is willing to sacrifice the long-term health of our country in order to gain a temporary short-term boost to help with his re-election effort.

But there is more... The $350 billion price tag on the tax package is really an illusion pieced together with smoke and mirror accounting gimmicks...

“The true price tag would balloon to more than $800 billion if various temporary provisions are extended...”

The article goes on to spell out in very blatant terms about Bush’s true intentions for the tax cut...

“Mr. Bush is particularly eager to lift the economy and investors’ spirits before he has to face the voters in November 2004 — and avoid the election result his father suffered after winning a war with Iraq but letting the economy slide.”

Ah, but the difference here is that the economy has already slid long before the most recent Iraq war. Bush lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein (his elusive weapons of mass destruction and non-existent nukes) in order to distract the public’s attention away from the economic mess on the homefront. His first big tax cut a year ago failed to provide any economic relief or job growth and instead served to sap away the budget surplus built up over the Clinton years and return the nation to huge deficits and a mounting debt burden.

A separate story on the front the the WSJ today makes this intriguing statement...

“As a former business executive, (Bush’s) instincts told him the economy needed some aid and he resolved to give it the largest dose possible.”

They failed to mention that Bush, the former business executive, ran each and every one of his companies into the ground and had to be bailed out each time by his Daddy’s wealthy friends. Please note that these wealthy friends did not bail out George’s companies necessarily, just George himself.
And now the process is repeating itself. Bush has effectively run the nation’s economy into the ground and now these same wealthy individuals are trying to bail him out - not by helping the country, but by helping Bush. Bush just the other day raised another $22 million at a campaign fund raiser.

By the way, aren’t Bush’s instincts a little dull if he is just now figuring out that the economy needs some aid?

There is more good stuff inside the WSJ today... In particular an article headlined “Get Ready for Era of Budget Deficits”

“The compromise 2003 tax bill would usher in a new era of federal budget deficits as far as the eye can see - especially if politicians, as expected, ultimately refuse to go along with an accounting gimmick that calls on key provisions to expire after a few years.”
“Even without the proposed tax cut, the Treasury’s ledgers would have been written in red ink through at least 2007, according to government estimates, thanks to the slowing economy, the war against terrorism and the first two tax cuts under President Bush.”

The Texas Department of Public Safety is not helping its reputation with this latest news of document and records destruction. The DPS has apparently destroyed all of its records
of its actions in trying to hunt down Democratic lawmakers who broke the Texas House quorum last week by absconding to Ardmore, Okla.

This is an incredible story. The DPS would seem to have ripped a page straight out of the Enron/Arthur Andersen playbook here. The only question is whether the agency did it on its own, as is being claimed, or were there behind-the-scenes political machinations involved? I suspect the latter and I want to know whether Tom Delay or Tom Craddick’s fingerprints are on this mess. I don’t like the fact that are state funded law enforcement agency was turned into a politcal tool by the Texas Republican Party last week and it outrageous that someone thinks they can just sweep it all away by pulling off some cheap Nixonian coverup operation now.

Josh Marshall has a good column this week in The Hill about Tom Delay’s involvement in trying to sic federal agents on the Killer D’s who screwed up his political powerplay last week.

There is a new book out that purports to list the Top 500 Country songs called "Heartaches By The Number" by David Cantwell and Bill Friskics-Warren. It looks to be very entertaining and interesting with the authors contributing essays for each of their chosen songs. But what caught my attention is that the book gives a nod to Bing Crosby for his influence on Country music:

"One of the looming presences in the book is Bing Crosby, rarely identified with country but actually one of the genre's most important practitioners.
"He's one of the heroes of the book," Cantwell says. "He was a huge influence on any number of country singers, and he also listened to country music. ... He played a big part in popularizing country songs." Crosby is represented by two tunes -- "Pistol Packin' Mama" (his version of the Al Dexter hit, which reshaped the song considerably) and "Don't Fence Me In" (written by, of all people, the urbane Cole Porter)"

Always good to see Bing getting some long overdue credit now and then. As with Bob Hope, this year is also the 100th anniversary of his birth, but I doubt there will be any TV specials to commemorate that fact, unfortunately.





.

So who serves as the “Voice of the Left” today (see post below)? When liberal commentators started to fade off of the TV screens during the 1990s it was largely attributed to the simple give and take of political power shifting. While the Democrats remained in power through President Clinton, the right wing commentators would take the forefront in the media to harp at and criticize the administration. But now that Bush has been in office for more than two years, the liberal commentators have not come back. In fact, the number of conservative commentators just continues to multiply. Fox News has become the leading cable news channel by offering a steady stream of Republican propaganda and right-wing commentary without even the pretense of trying to be fair or balanced. CNN has abandoned most commentary shows in an effort to avoid being labled “liberal.” Even, the old workhorse “Crossfire” has been cut back and stuck in a poorly watched time slot so as to attract as little notice as possible. I haven’t watched the show in a while, but I believe it is currently one of the only shows where you can hear an unapologetic liberal voice -- James Carville or Paul Begala -- balanced of course by two or three conservative voices. And over at MSNBC, the lone liberal commentator Phil Donohue saw his show canned in favor of a slew of new shows for right-wing talkers including Dan Savage and Joe Scarborough.
The best chance for hearing a liberal perspective on TV these days resides with PBS (which Newt Gingrich and the Republican’s in Congress failed to shut down a few years ago) especially with Bill Moyers’ NOW program. But like CNN, PBS and its radio counterpart NPR have felt pressure to “balance” every liberal voice with a conservative one - something that the other networks and radio shows fail to do in reverse.
For people looking for a left perspective today one is practically forced to turn to the Internet where you can track a few liberal columnists at major newspapers like Paul Krugman and Frank Rich at the New York Times, E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post, Robert Scheer at the Los Angeles Times and Molly Ivins at the Fort Worth Star Telegram. Another powerful voice from the left is Michael Kinsley, the former editor of the online Slate Magazine, whose columns appear regularly in Slate and the WashPo.
Next, one must turn to the blogosphere to find leading voices from the left. Joshua Marshall has become very influential with his Talking Points blog as has Eric Alertman’s Altercation hosted by MSNBC.com. Then there is the anonymous Atrios who runs the Eschaton blog. Also, look for Joe Conason’s regular journal entries at the online Salon magazine.
It is a pretty thin list today, especially when compared to the number of folks lining up to pontificate the right-wing perspective over the corporate-controlled airwaves.
One problem for the left today is the continuing scourge that is Ralph Nader and the Green Party which drove a split through the Democratic Party and handed the presidency to George W. Bush during the 2000 election. A number of left leaders became caught up in the Nader charade including Michael Moore, Jim Hightower and to some extent even Molly Ivins. Today, some though not all of these people have returned to their senses. But it still remains to be seen whether the left can rally around a Democratic candidate be it Howard Dean, John Kerry or someone else.

The Faint, Fading Voice of the Left
Tuesday May 20, 8:41 am ET
By Thane Peterson

Here's a quiz for you: Name the best-known and most influential conservative commentators in America? Rush Limbaugh? George F. Will? Bill O'Reilly? Now, quick, who are their liberal counterparts?

If you can't think of any, you're not alone. Conservatives love to rant that liberals dominate the news media. Trouble is, it's just not true. In fact, I'd argue that the biggest problem with America's public discourse today is that the left is barely represented at all on mainstream TV and radio talk shows and in major newspapers and magazines.
Read the rest here.

I'm a little disturbed by some of the reports I've read of the overzealous efforts of law enforcement officials in trying to track down the Democratic lawmakers who broke the legislative quorum this week. Perhaps most disturbing is a report from the Fort Worth Star Telegram about Rebublicans using part of our new Homeland Defense Anti-Terrorist operations to track down Rep. Pete Laney's Piper airplane. We are spending billions to set up this new Homeland Defense operation and Texas Republicans are using them like their personal stormtroopers to enforce their political dictates.
Then there has been the shameful and excessive use of DPS troopers and Texas Rangers to harass the lawmakers families. One report has a trooper entering a lawmakers home after his daughter left the door open.. Another trooper staked out the hospital where a lawmaker's newborn twins are being treated in intensive care.
Quite frankly these law enforcement officials should get out of this political fight and go back to hunting down real bad guys like we pay them to do. I fully support my lawmakers decision to break the quorum. My interests are not being represented by the group that is left behind in Austin right now and they should not have the power to sick law officers on their political counterparts. It's disgraceful and deeply disturbing.
I understand that some Republicans are upset because they have a majority and feel that therefore they should be able to push through whatever legislation they please, but that is not how our government was set up to work. Our government only works when we are willing to compromise and so far House Speaker Tom Craddick has made it clear that compromise is the furthest thing from his mind.

I loved the response today of New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid when asked by Gov. Rick Perry to track down the missing Texas House Democrats:

"I don't think they are in Santa Fe now. Nevertheless, I have put out an all-points bulletin for law enforcement to be on the look out for politicians in favor of health care for the needy and against tax cuts for the wealthy."

And here is the response of Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry:

"Our position is that, without a warrant signed by a judge, we have no authority. Even under those circumstances, we are hesitant to get pulled into a Texas political battle. If we're going to do battle with Texas, we prefer that it be on the football field," Mr. Henry said through his spokesman.

HaHaHa

Hooray for the Killer Bees!
59 of the 62 Democrats in the Texas House have left the state in a bid to break the quorum and kill legislation that the new Republican majority has been cramming through the Lege in a one-sided, partisan fashion. Here are the latest details.
I'm glad to see that the Texas Democrats are finally showing some backbone! We are going to be bombarded for the rest of the week by Republican namecalling, but these lawmakers should be applauded for standing up for their constituents. Republicans are complaining that they never used these extreme tactics when they were in the minority, but what they don't admit is that they still managed to get much of what they wanted while the House was controlled by Democrats. When the Republicans took over earlier this year they made many of the same mistakes as their counterparts at the federal level did 8 years ago under Newt Gingrich. Rather than working with the minority party to reach a bi-partisan consensus on major legislation the way Democrats did for years - they have plowed ahead in a power-hungry bid to get everything they want all at once without compromise. Republicans never opted for the Killer Bee tactic because they were never driven to it the way Democrats have been this year. Conservative Democrats like former House Speaker Pete Laney always gave the Republicans plenty of leeway to keep them happy over the years. Now, the fact that Pete Laney is among the missing is very instructive in how harsh and partisan the House has become under Tom Craddick.

It looks like Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers has passed up Forrest Gump to take the No. 7 spot on the All-Time Domestic Box Office list.