by catastrophile, Thu Apr 14, 2005 at 07:56:36 AM EDT
I am certainly hot and bothered over this bill, and I do not share the subdued outlook of catastrophile. However, I undoubtedly recognize that this is something we need to be talking about, and of all the diaries on the subject, this one best serves that purpose--Chris
All right, since people are all hot and bothered over this thing, it seems like a good idea to actually take a look at it and see what's actually being proposed here. This bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. An identical bill has been introduced in the House, which I'm not going to bother researching because this thing has eaten up a big enough chunk of my life as it is.
Below the break is the US Code as it would read if this bill were passed in its current form.
This is a direct link to the CR page with the text of the bill, but past experience leads me to expect it won't work for very long. You can also search the Congressional Record for the bill. It's on pages S3057 and S3058).
by catastrophile, Mon Apr 11, 2005 at 02:09:25 PM EDT
The role of the Ambassador to the UN is to represent the Bush administration in the United Nations.
This arrogant lunatic is perfect for the job.
by catastrophile, Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 02:29:20 PM EDT
If you somehow missed the previousposts
on this, I'm referring to this survey
, which found:
A disproportionate number of Dean activists are white, well-educated Baby Boomers fully a third are college graduates between the ages of 45 and 64, compared with just 9% of Democrats in the general public.
On reflection, the only thing I find surprising about this conclusion is that WaPo found it newsworthy:
Dean attracted an activist corps that is whiter, wealthier, better educated and far more liberal and secular than Democrats generally or the population at large, according to the Pew Research Center.
"Whiter, wealthier, better educated and far more liberal"? Puh-leez. This "finding" is completely lacking in relevance or value, except to opportunists like the Bull Moose and others who want to portray the Dems (and their new leader, Dr. Dean) as "liberal elitists," to wit:
[The Pew survey] undercuts all of those self-righteous claims that it was the Deaniacs who were the genuine tribunes of the Democrats battling against those evil forces who would transform the party into "Republican lite". They have about as much in common with the Democratic mainstream as Tom Delay has with Christie Todd Whitman.
The Catastrophile observes that comparing Dean activists to Dems-in-general is like comparing apples to supermarkets.
by catastrophile, Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 11:27:15 AM EDT
Last night, Atrios
quoted from this WaPo article
from 2000, which touched upon the bizarre brand of nepotism practiced by the DeLay clan (emphasis mine):
The weekend included a late-night party Saturday in DeLay's suite at the Rio Hotel and Casino, which featured a living room, bar and hot tub on the balcony. DeLay was not present, aides said; the event was hosted by his daughter, Dani Ferro, the campaign manager for DeLay's reelection campaign. After the party, Ferro told associates that a lobbyist poured champagne on her while she was in the hot tub.
Today, Josh@TPM posted a link to this CNN article about how upset Tom DeLay is (look'it the picture, awww, he's so sad) that he and his family are being singled out for abuse (emphasis still mine):
"My wife and daughter have any right, just like any other American, to be employed and be compensated for their employment," DeLay said. "It's pretty disgusting, particularly when my wife and daughter are singled out and others are not, in similar situations in the Senate and as well as the House."
I think DeLay's comments beg the question: who else in the House and Senate are pimping their children out for political contributions?
Is Jimmy Guck the illegitimate child of some high-ranking Reep?
Inquiring minds want to know!
by catastrophile, Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 02:45:43 PM EDT
In my opinion, Senator Cornyn's recent comments about the cause of violence against judges being the perception
of judicial accountability cut right to the heart of the Reep agenda; specifically, the campaign to mobilize their extremist base against the judiciary by fostering the perception
of judges as godless, heartless, murderous liberals.
Now, I grant you, Cornyn's comments were not intended to lay bare the theocratic Reep terror agenda, but by acknowledging the link between the perception of unaccountability and these acts and threats of violence, Cornyn has placed people like Tom DeLay -- public figures who bemoan decisions they disagree with as "judicial activism" and make public threats of retaliation -- firmly in the same category as Osama bin Laden.
Now all we need to do is agree with him. My note to my Senator's office after the break. (All right, I've got two Senators, but only one I count on. Which still leaves me lucky.)
by catastrophile, Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 12:54:31 PM EST
I'm not at all clear on what it is y'all are trying to accomplish with this proposed "hands off my blog" CFR resistance effort. Is the idea here that contributions which would otherwise be regulated should be left alone specifically because
they're on the Internet?
That seems like a hard sell. Or am I missing something?
Lame analogies in the extended entry.
by catastrophile, Mon Mar 07, 2005 at 04:39:10 AM EST
Garrett worked on DFA's national HQ's, where he was the frontline for all press and media inquiries and works with Echo Ditto now. I think Garrett, day in and out, was the best-dressed staffer (not that the bar was that high), Jerome
Editor & Publisher calls it a Landmark Day:
The blogger, Garrett M. Graff, who writes about the news media in Washington for mediabistro.com, had to make multiple attempts over several days last week before finally securing the promise of a day pass for today.
Of course, he had to get people at other outlets calling on his behalf to make it happen...
by catastrophile, Mon Feb 28, 2005 at 12:16:13 PM EST
It just struck me what wonderful news 2004 was for the Dems.
The Reeps have handed the Dems a wonderful gift in the form of GWB: Bush has scared the living $#!+ out of millions of Americans who were previously disinterested in politics. Through his supernatural uniting power, record numbers turned out in November to vote against the Reep agenda.
I know, I know, an even larger record number of people turned out to vote for Bush. But here's the good news:
THEY WERE VOTING FOR BUSH.
by catastrophile, Wed Feb 23, 2005 at 09:38:43 AM EST
MarketWatch (free subscription required) has this great article
on why SS privatization is such a big deal.
A decade ago Wall Street started aggressively pushing privatization. It began in 1995 with the SEC's historic Tully Commission, named after Merrill Lynch's CEO Dan Tully.
The Tully Commission fundamentally restructured Wall Street's business model, shifting from commission-based revenues to fees from assets under management. Privatization became a key element in this strategic shift, a shift once described as an annuity cushioning Wall Street from the roller-coaster ride of bull/bear cycles.
Investor advocacy groups resisted. Wall Street went behind the scenes: Lobbying, political donations, favorable think-tank reports and a presidential campaign pledge.
Flash forward: The big moment is here. Wall Street smells victory. It's acting like a desperate housewife panting over the gardener. It's now or never. Wall Street wants its hands on privatization's trillions.
by catastrophile, Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 06:55:08 PM EST
. . . and the Iraq elections were fixed. The article
also indicates that Sy Hersh will be reporting on the Iraq story soon. Money quote below.