Thought for the day:

You can't spell PATRIOT without R-I-O-T

I've been a little behind in blogging, primarily because I've been so busy with a lot of things, among them doing my radio show at WZRD Chicago, volunteering for Kerry, planning for the future, playing with my new iPod, and waking up at an ungodly hour to enjoy my newest obssesion live, Morning Sedition.

I almost feel the same way about Morning Sedition as I do when I'm being an indie rock snot bragging to anyone who will listen that "I was into them when no one knew who they were, when they played a basement for nothing but free beer". If you can't catch it live on WLIB 1190 Air America Central or the Portland rebroadcast 3 hours later on KPOJ, you can download the whole show at the archives location for Air America Place. Riley and Maron have developed an amazing chemistry in a short amount of time. Riley is the experienced and knowledgable journalist. Maron is the guy who makes fun of things and speculates half baked but not completely ridiculous conspiracys. It's in my opinions the best and most consistent show on AAR. I love Al Franken's; he's more informative and political, and consistent, but Morning Sedition is the only show that I make it a point to hear the whole thing.

Deregulation Creates More Litigation

or why the GOP has no one but to blame but themselves for the rise of trial lawyers like John Edwards

---

Right now the best argument the GOP and Dem-haters have on the newly chosen VP Democratic Candidate John "People Magazine's 50 Sexiest" Edwards is that Edwards is the lowest of all professional trades; a trial lawyer. Ambulence Chaser, Vulture, scavenger, call him what you want and recite all those bad jokes about lawyers, whatever it takes to bring him down.

Personally I think this outpouring of negativity is more fear within the GOP finding a voice, rather than a genuine hatred of Edwards, or even trial lawyers in general. It was well noted throughout the election that the person Karl Rove was most worried having to face in an election was.

Of course I wouldn't put much stock in the Bush campaign's take in their sizing up their Democratic opponents. With the ineptitude, hubris, myopia and complete self delusional persona the Bushies exhibit on a daily basis in even the simplest of matters, one has to wonder if Team Dubya can accurately size up something as low a threat as a domestic political opponent, much less a foreign nation that requires a full scale invasion.

Face it, these idiots were handed the best military on the face of the earth top to bottom, from the intel to personel, leadership to technology. The Pentagon gets nearly every $ it wants. Even with top flight analysis from experts like General Shinseki, the fools that occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue couldn't seem to see straight. You have to take everything they say with a grain of salt with these bastards. As soon as one of their appointed and highly regarded cabinet members tells the truth, they're fired. Thank you Larry Linsey and Paul O'Neil.

Nonetheless it is hard to ignore the charm and radiant personality of John Edwards. It was my belief early on that Kerry was the man of substance, while Edwards was more style. Yeah, Kerry can be a little gurff, and when his speeches sound "canned". He does not always translate well. On the other hand I liked Edwards, but he didn't evoke a sense of experience with the mess we're in. Edwards might have been better suited post Clinton, but not now with the mess King George has made. The best line I've heard regarding the Democratic ticket is that Edwards will do a better job of selling the nation on Kerry than Kerry could.

However a thought occurred to me while listening to all the righties on the radio complain about the trial lawyer that I am nearly positive will be our future Vice President. The lawsuit happy state of our society didn't occur overnight. What has happened in the past 30 years that has caused this severe rise in lawsuits?

Could it be DEREGULATION? Am I the first one to connect these 2 dots? Has anyone come up with this hypothesis yet? I'd have to reference studies and stats to prove it, something I don't have time for. I do know though that for organizations like the FERC, SEC and EPA, industry friendly appointees, poor oversight and inadequate funds (thank you GOP Congress!) the number of lawsuits filed by shareholders, and environmental groups respectively have jumped quite a bit, and have been on the rise ever since Reagan got into office.

Could it be that when the government doesn't keep corporations in check, those corporations violate other people's rights or take their money because there is no one to stop them?

Could it be that customers who were fleeced by the likes of Enron and Duke Energy were so vulnerable because new land of utility deregulation? The government wasn't looking after the utlities, who in turn screwed over an entire state because they could get away with it?

Could it be that, when the people who watched their 401K and retirements fund go down the toilet due to corporate malfeseance and corruption, they decided that they needed to fight back?

Could it be that when these people find their water contaminated and their property values are in decline due to pollution, that these same people figure out the government wasn't going to protect them?

Could it be that the only option these people have is to find a lawyer to get adequate justice?

The rise of lawsuits and lawyers are very much the result of government not doing it's job. Yeah, there are lawyers who have taken advantage of this trend, and there are ambulance chasers who try to bring large corporation to court in egregious and frivoulous cases. But there are always going to be those who will take advantage of the system. Funny, because the very same thing could be applied to the corporate world right now. Except I think the damage done by Corporations are far greater than any cabal of trial lawyers. Just ask this guy, Clark Judge, a Republican. Apparently while Americans have a low opinion of trial lawyers, they have an even lower opinion of big business.

But really, if you're a conservative you are getting exactly what you want. Lawsuits are a perfect example of citizens taking responsibility in prosecuting the law when and where the government does not. Face it, after 20+ years of Reagan-esque anti government deregulation policies, this legilative direction the country has taken has led to the rise of our class-action nation. The whining conservatives who point to trial lawyers have no one to blame this whole mess on but themselves.

DEREGULATION = MORE LITIGATION

Congratulations, you are getting what you deserve!

More signs the end is near

Military personel is supposed to be the GOP bread and butter. I have a funny feeling that trend is about to end.

Army Recalling Thousands Who Left Service

And would anyone on the right care to explain how this doesn't conflict with the constant push from the GOP to make state labor laws conform with the "Right to Work" idealogy.

One more thing - this website is fucking hysterical - enter any website and it makes it porntastic.

Why does it take a Republican to hit the nail right on the head?

From this artcile in the New York Times;

When Tom Brokaw of NBC suggested to Bob Dole that Ronald Reagan had been an inspiring flag-bearer for the World War II generation, it was a bit too much for Mr. Dole, who was wounded in Italy. He replied dryly that Mr. Reagan, who spent the war making Army training films in Hollywood, had never heard a shot fired. "But he was a captain," Mr. Dole said. "And mighty proud of it."

More signs the end is near for W

Gotten from this article off of Capitol Hill Blue;

"It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.”

In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and then tells aides to “fuck over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration.

“We’re at war, there’s no doubt about it. What I don’t know anymore is just who the enemy might be,” says one troubled White House aide. “We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing.”

And I found this one really fascinating;

WASHINGTON - A new book on the Bush political dynasty claims former President George H.W. Bush opposed last year's invasion of Iraq.

In "The Bushes: Portrait of a Dynasty," Peter and Rochelle Schweizer cite as evidence a summer 2002 interview in which the older Bush's sister said her brother had expressed his "anguish" about the administration's preparations for war.

"But do they have an exit strategy?" the former President is quoted as worrying.

"Although he never went public with them," the authors assert, "the President's own father shared many of [the] concerns" of Brent Scowcroft, his national security adviser and a leading war opponent.

Top Bush aide Jean Becker denied the allegations yesterday.

After much thought I figured out a way to pay my respects to Reagan, and expose what a third rate hack DubyaCo. is at the same time.

So What Else is News on Air America interviewed Walter Mondale about his impression of Reagan. He said he liked REagan personally, and admired his sunny optimism. Mondale even spoke in respective tones regarding the 1984 election. Reagan did not engage in the ugly personal attack style politics that now seem to be the norm. This might have something to do with Reagan's popularity, but I didn't follow politics back then. Heck I didn't know much about politics period, on account that I was 9 years old.

I certainly didn't like Reagan's policies then, and I didn't even know about the details of Reagan's Foreign Policy regarding Latin American. It seemed like a waste, for all the moolah that Reagan blew during the 1980's for nuclear ballistics and defense spending, but I would agree that our excessive defense spending contributed (not single handedly led) to the fall of Communism and the USSR.

We are, to this day, still paying for this strategy. The debt that was amassed during the Reagan Administration still hangs over our collective heads. The huge increase in the Pentagon's budget plus the tax cuts can be blamed for this one. Call it the Peace divided, or rather the Peace deficit. I would imagine that, had I been politically active during that period of time, I would have disagreed with the tax cuts Reagan implemented, BUT I will say this; charging 70% as the tax rate for those in the top tax bracket seems over the top. I know there are some libs who may balk at that comment, but 70% just seems excessive. Anything more than 1/2 in taxes for "earned income" doesn't seem right to me. What do I know?

Either way, here's my point; I know plenty of GOP strategists who would love to align Bush Junior with the Reagan legacy, but there is one huge glaring difference. During the 1984 re-election campaign Reagan didn't not mention Mondale's name till September. Reagan's popularity, or optimism, or confidence, allowed him to virtually ignore Modale until roughly the last two months of the campaign.

Bush on the other hand was trashing Kerry as soon as he was the inevitable Democratic nominee. I'm pretty sure Bush was running negative ads back in March, though I may be off by a little, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Think about that for one second - Reagan didn't say Modale's name till the last 8 weeks before election day. Dubya started in March and continues to run THE MOST NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

For what it's worth I send my condolences to the Reagan family.

With that note, no amount of marketing or campaign contributions will hide the fact that Bush is a miserable failure. I'm looking forward to seeing Bush ejected from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave come November. At least Reagan could blame anything that went wrong on a Democratic Congress, like when Reagan blamed Tip O'Neil for pulling out of Lebanon, despite the fact that Ronnie was the one in charge of our troops. Dubya has no one else to blame for the failures of the last 3-1/2 years but his neo-con enablers, the lemmings in the House, and most of all himself.

After the tax cuts of 1981, Reagan and budget advisor David Stockman had enough sensibility to recognize that their "starve the beast" idea was not working. This is why Reagan raised taxes three times after the tax cut, to keep the Treasury from being swallowed in a sea of red ink. The myopia that afflicts the current hacks in Congress and the White House has blinded them from recognizing something so obvious, that the tax cuts are a disaster. Someone else will have to pay the price for the mess he's made. Nobody in the House and less than a handful in the Senate are prepared to admit the train wreck we're heading for.

Hell, the people surrounding Reagan were better crooks that the crazies that Dubya surrounds himself with. Somebody, or a whole lot of somebodys, in the Reagan administration managed to hide Iran Contra for a good long time, until after the 84 election. On the other hand the scandals come so hard and so fast at Dubya that by the time the shock has worn off of the most recent scandal a new one arrives. There might be a Bush fatigue at some point, although the American populace is more likely to just be plain sick of Dubya and send him packing. There's always a new scandal to take an old one's place. Face it, Cheney and the others are just sloppy crooks and thieves. I guess I should be happy about that one.

I heard this morning that no president has been re-elected when their approval rating is less that 50% by May or June. Dubya is below that number as of right now, which does not bode well for him. It may look like 200 Million dollars in campaign contributions cannot buy the White House. Can you imagine the level of failure this will be? The magnitude of money raised without putting the guy in office could change the way people look at campaign fundraising for Presidential campaigns in the future. Think of all those Rangers and Pioneers, imagine how pissed all those people will be when they've dropped serious coin on Bush and he still gets the pink slip. Some have predicted the possibility of a GOP bloodbath should the GOP lose the Presidency and one of the bodies on congress (possibly both?). The House won't be easy, but the Senate is well within reach.

In light of this stark comparrison, I have some advice for the current President; You may want to do some networking with all those heavyweights you'll be seeing at Ronnie's funeral. Update the resume perhaps? You never know who can help you out with a job. Because, by the looks of things, you're gonna need a new one come January.

More signs the end is near

I laughed my ass off after this one;

Bush campaign ran from Noida call centre - KA Badarinath and Prerna K Mishra, New Delhi, May 16

The political split in the US over outsourcing notwithstanding, till very recently the fund-raising and vote-seeking campaign for the Republican Party was done partly out of India. And this was handled by two call centres located in our own friendly neighbourhood in Noida and Gurgaon.

More signs the W ship is sinking...

You know things are not good when the very conservative (and libertarian leaning) Cato Institute is pissed at you. I got this letter thru my email the other day;

Repeal This Unprincipled Medicare Drug Entitlement

by Michael F. Cannon

By stonewalling a legitimate investigation by House Democrats, the Bush administration is showcasing how principle was abandoned to create the new Medicare drug entitlement, and why the program should be repealed.

After President Bush announced last year he would spend "up to $400 billion" over 10 years to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare, senior officials in his administration suppressed estimates by chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster that projected the leading bills before Congress would exceed that amount by as much as $200 billion. Tom Scully, then Bush's Medicare administrator, expressly forbade Foster to share his estimates with Congress and allegedly threatened to fire Foster if he disobeyed. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service opined this week it is possible Scully's actions violated the law.

Meanwhile, Scully and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson campaigned for the bills, citing a Congressional Budget Office cost estimate that met the president's target. As a result, Congress and the public debated and approved the largest entitlement expansion since the creation of Medicare, unaware of the existence of a higher (and highly credible) cost estimate that could have changed the outcome.

Only after the president signed the program into law did the administration release its higher estimate, which came in at $534 billion. When asked about the higher estimate, Bush's response was Clintonian. Without actually saying so, he hinted he learned of the higher estimate only after he signed the bill. An April 16 letter from HHS to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) musters all the obfuscation it can to obstruct Waxman's investigation.

Bush made trust the theme of his last campaign. Yet he and his administration clearly did not trust the people with all the relevant information.

And this scandal compounds another. When brought to a final vote in the House at 3 a.m. on a Sunday, a clear majority voted against the program. Yet GOP leaders held the vote open for nearly three hours-rather than the usual 15 minutes-until they twisted enough arms to change the outcome.

The Republican leadership did exactly what Republicans criticized Al Gore for attempting in Florida: keep counting until you get the result you want, then stop. Congressional scholar Norm Ornstein calls the vote "the ugliest and most outrageous breach of standards in the modern history of the House."

These are officials who once signed a Contract with America that promised "to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives," to give legislation "a clear and fair vote," and to end "government that is . . . too easy with the people's money." These principles were set aside, and in the unwitting service of the administration's deception. Yet not one Republican has joined House Democrats in calling for greater openness from the administration. We're a long way from 1994.

The greatest scandal is the program itself. No one putting their own money on the line would invest in a product like this.

Foster testified before Congress that rather than provide catastrophic-only coverage, the program violates "standard classical insurance principles" by providing coverage that begins at a low deductible then disappears and reappears as one's expenses rise. The point of this bizarre structure, he explained, is political: broad subsidies for non-catastrophic expenses attract more votes. The problem is, they also will lead to over- consumption, inflated drug prices and, if history is any guide, will cost well over $534 billion.

The subsidies were made so broad they will force taxpayers to pick up costs the private sector is now paying voluntarily. The CBO estimates every fourth participant would have had private drug coverage anyway. Employers and unions will receive $71 billion just to keep them from dropping their retirees into the program.

It's hard to remember when more people violated more stated principles to enact such an unprincipled law. Fortunately, the drug program does not take effect until 2006. That gives enough time to repeal it and hold an honest, principled debate about reforming Medicare.

Michael F. Cannon is director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute (www.cato.org)

Support our troops, dont lie to them

it's all downhill from here....

The most recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal complains about the do-gooders at the Red Cross for saying something about the prison torture. They seem to be upset about the Red Cross violating their "scrupolous adherence to confidentiality agreements"...

Since the WSJ charges for content, I'm just going to retype by hand a segment of their most recent editorial, entitled Red Double Cross (Page A12, 05.14.2004);

"...confidentiality has gotten the ICRC remarkable access and- as countless prisoners over the years have testified- has improved conditions for detainees of regimes not known for brooking public criticism. The ICRC held it's tongue even as it worked in nazi Germany and during the 23-year mission in Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

"So it's a more than a little disconcerting and politically suspicious, that a report now leaks, criticizing the United States, of all countries. We'd take ICRC President Jakob Kellenberger's protest that he was 'profoundly distrubed' by the leak a bit more seriously if his organization had not rushed to confirm the authenticity of the document and then hold a press conference about it."

I'm no expert, but I'd like the think the reason the Red Cross has kept mum while doing their work under murderous dictatorship regimes like the Hitler's Nazi Germany and Hussein Baathist Iraq is because these were maybe, um I dunno.... Murderous Dictatorships? Leaking info would mean those that the Red Cross were treating and helping out would ultimately suffer. Anyone suspected of giving out information might be jailed, tortured or executed. Since the population in those nations has no say in how their government acted, there is no disincentive for the respective leaders to show restraint and therefore it would be counterpoductive for the very people the Red Cross would hope to help.

On the other hand, here in the US, we live in a Democratic Republic (in theory anyway), where the elected officials are supposed to be held accountable by the people. While leaked information from within the beuracracy regarding embarresing atrocities that were human rights violations (like say for example RAPE or TORTURE!) might anger the powers that be, it would ultimately be far more difficult for those very same leaders to get away with such violations of law. It would also be more difficult for a deomcratically elected leader to punish those who helped leak the damaging info, being that the info was regarding people breaking the law, and it is after all the executive branch that is supposed to enforce the laws.

At the end of the day the Red Cross leaked the info because, and I'm guessing here, it would do good for those who were suffering, stop current abuses, and prevent future ones as well. The leaked info is a good thing for a nation still interested in preserving it's democracy, decency, human rights and so on. It would also stop some of the problems being created, problems and issues that the Red Cross tries to solve to begin with.

All I can say is this - It's a very sad day in the US when the leaders of the nation that defeated both Nazi Germany and Saddam Hussein are responsible for heinous acts that emulate the cruelty of these bastards. However it is truly pathetic when the supporters of those very same leaders, in an attempt to shake the scandal, can only respond that in judgement they should be held to the same standard as the regimes of Nazi Germany and Baathist Iraq. Truly fucking sad indeed....

sidenote - in attept to boost viewership BMA is adding a host of links in an attempt to be a linkslut. BMA hasn't been that prolific as other blogs, and I hope this might add a few more views with this strategy. I've seen just about all of them, but I never got around to updating the template to add them. BMA gets about 25-30 views a day, but some of them are just google searches on things like "sexy saudi arabia sluts", and clearlty this will not get the right audience.