NYT is pissed about domestic spying

Great editorial from the New York Times.

And with the upcoming Senate hearings on the issue we'll find out once and for all if Arlen Specter has two mommies. Read More......

Bush thinks we're "over-insured"

Bush is preparing to address health care in the State of the Union. That won't be good. Josh Marshall explains why:

But the core premise of the policies the president is about to lay out is that Americans are over-insured when it comes to health insurance. Over-insured. Got too much insurance.

These aren't my words. These are the words used by the conservative policy-wonks who came up with the president's proposals. Just hop over to Google and start googling the phrase 'over insured' along with 'health' and 'conservative'. This what they think; and what the president thinks. It's why he's behind these ideas.

So the president thinks the problem is that people have too much health insurance. People are over-insured.

Now, maybe in the circles in which the President travels, people are over-insured. But, that's not true in most of America. If anything, we're over-insurance companied. The insurance companies suck up our time and our resources to prevent adequate health care, not deliver it.

Bush is on the side of the insurance companies. Every step he takes on health care will benefit them, not the rest of us. Read More......

Earth facing a "tipping point" as Bush remains in denial

An environmental double whammy from the two big papers. From the NY Times, we see how the Bush Administration spends their time silencing scientists who warn about climate change -- there's a post below on that article. Meanwhile, we learn from the Washington Post that the earth is approaching an environmental tipping point:

Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm, the central debate has shifted to whether climate change is progressing so rapidly that, within decades, humans may be helpless to slow or reverse the trend.

This "tipping point" scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.


There are three specific events that these scientists describe as especially worrisome and potentially imminent, although the time frames are a matter of dispute: widespread coral bleaching that could damage the world's fisheries within three decades; dramatic sea level rise by the end of the century that would take tens of thousands of years to reverse; and, within 200 years, a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe.

Reading this article was almost like reading the script of a movie. The scientists are warning of a problem, but the bumbling politicians are in denial. Unfortunately, this isn't a movie. The Bush team continues to deny and ignore the science that shows the earth is in trouble. It is hard to believe that with all of our technological advances, we can't solve these problems. That would take leadership -- which is something we are sorely missing. Read More......

Saturday Evening Open Thread

No, AMERICAblog did not get invited to the Alfalfa Club tonight...and we wouldn't have gone anyway. Read More......

More efforts by the Bush team to silence science

If the Bush Administration isn't lying, they are censoring:

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. "They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public," he said.

Good for you, Dr. Hansen. Keep speaking out. Read More......

VIDEO: Bush's State of the Union address

As done by an impersonator. It's about 5 to 8 minutes, and really worth sticking through, it gets better as it goes on. Pay special attention to Cheney and Hastert in the background. Read More......

Commission to rebuild New Orleans made up of massive Bush donors

Surprise. Read More......

Open Thread

What are you hearing? Read More......

Bush CUTTING Army Reserve, National Guard

As Katrina showed, the National Guard is already stretched thin in doing the job that it was designed for - protecting the nation. War abroad may be protecting the nation by proxy, but it leaves you short-handed at home. So after years of war in Iraq and nothing but more of the same to come, what does George Bush decide? He decides, I kid you not, to cut the size of the Army Reserve AND National Guard. From AP:

President Bush will use his new budget to propose cutting the size of the Army Reserve to its lowest level in three decades and stripping up to $4 billion from two fighter aircraft programs.

The proposals, likely to face opposition on Capitol Hill, come as the Defense Department struggles to trim personnel costs and other expenses to pay for the war in Iraq and a host of other pricey aircraft and high-tech programs. Bush will send his 2007 budget to Congress on Feb. 6.

The proposed Army Reserve cut is part of a broader plan to achieve a new balance of troop strength and combat power among the active Army, the National Guard and reserves to fight the global war on terrorism and to defend the homeland.

The Army sent a letter to members of Congress on Thursday outlining the plan. A copy was provided to The Associated Press.

Why the hell would one want to cut the Reserve during war time? Well the answer is because they gave up:

Under the plan, the authorized troop strength of the Army Reserve would drop from 205,000 Ã?‚— the current number of slots it is allowed Ã?‚— to 188,000, the actual number of soldiers it had at the end of 2005. Because of recruiting and other problems, the Army Reserve has been unable to fill its ranks to its authorized level.

Army leaders have said they are taking a similar approach to shrinking the National Guard. They are proposing to cut that force from its authorized level of 350,000 soldiers to 333,000, the actual number now on the rolls.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Because you can't recruit (oh, I wonder why?) your answer is to CUT the size of the military at a time war? WTF!! Tax cuts stay, we don't need more money in a time of war!

Democrats there is a HUGE, ENORMOUS and MASSIVE opportunity for you here. A sustained campaign by the nation's Democratic Governors opposing the National Guard cuts paired with a plan in the House and Senate to repeal the tax cuts for the wealthy to pay for the war in Iraq could reap you enormous political hay in the future. In one move you go from being a party on the defensive in national security to the offense. You don't get handed a whole lot of opportunities like that. Pick a spokesperson now - only ONE and get them on TV as THE point person on this issue - and get a sustained PR campaign plan ready that you can launch after Alito. It'd be the right next move. Filibusterer Alito through the State of the Union and then move on to this and pretty soon it will be Spring, right in time to begin the 2006 cycle with a weaker opponent... Read More......

Wash. Post documents the Bush failings in New Orleans

The Washington Post examines the lack of progress in New Orleans compared to what Bush promised. If we all didn't know how incompetent Bush was, this article would be shocking. Instead, it's expected:

While the administration can claim some clear progress, Bush's ringing call from New Orleans's Jackson Square on Sept. 15 to "do what it takes" to make the city rise from the waters has not been matched by action, critics at multiple levels of government say, resulting in a record that is largely incomplete as Bush heads into next week's State of the Union address.

Just because Bush said he'd rebuild New Orleans, doesn't make it true. Bush got a good photo op, New Orleans got the shaft:

The problems include the slow federal cleanup of debris in Mississippi and Louisiana; a lack of authority for Bush's handpicked recovery coordinator, Donald E. Powell; the shortage and poor quality of housing for evacuees; and federal restrictions on reconstruction money and where coastal communities can rebuild.

What's amazing on some levels is the lack of outrage that one hears from elected officials and other pundits about Bush's failings in the Gulf Coast. The GOPers won't challenge Bush, and the Democrats from that region apparently have no voice.

Right after Bush's September 15 speech, Democratic pundit Donna Brazile wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post, titled "I Will Rebuild With You, Mr. President." Since the President isn't rebuilding New Orleans, one wonders if Donna recanted her unbridled praise for Bush -- she "could not have been prouder of the President" that night. Hmmm. Read More......

Most Americans think Bush's second term is a failure

Looks like there are some rough seas ahead for Bush with that failing grade. Americans also believe that they were misled by Bush about WMD. Even 52% believe that his entire term in office is a failure. Why do Americans hate America? Read More......

Open thread

Off to bed. Read More......