House G.O.P. Adopts Change Theme - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

“Through our “Change You Deserve” message and through our “American Families Agenda,” House Republicans will continue our efforts to speak directly to an American public looking for leaders who will offer real solutions for the challenges they confront every day,” said the memo prepared for lawmakers.

The party agenda is part of an effort to show that Republicans have ideas beyond simply blocking Democratic initiatives and supporting Mr. Bush on his multiple veto threats, some of which are looming over bills that could be before lawmakers this week.

Only politicians could do this, and I have to credit Republicans with doing it so brazenly. How exactly does a sitting group of elected officials decide to make their message about change. Especially the sitting group that got us all in this mess in the first place.

You want to demonstrate you have ideas beyond simply blocking the democrats or supporting Bush's vetoes? Try not blocking democratic initiative and not supporting Bush's vetoes. Has it not occurred to the party leadership that the reason the Republicans keep losing is because they're blocking initiatives that Americans want?

Of course not. Like most politicians they never think they've done anything wrong, except that they haven't managed to convince you why what they're doing is right, yet. Give them time, and surely you'll buy into what they're selling. The worst part is that they might be right.

I think it's a real sign of the strength of Obama's message that the Republicans have decided to incorporate it into their strategy. But hopefully it won't work. I can envision this stemming the tide of Republicans jumping ship, but I can't imagine that independents will be swayed.

I call on Republicans. If you want to run on change, I suggest you start changing.

Who's the superpower now? | Salon

When questioned about why Iraqis are paying almost a third less for oil than American forces in their country, senior Iraqi government officials scoff at any suggestion of impropriety. "America has hardly even begun to repay its debt to Iraq," said Abdul Basit, the head of Iraq's Supreme Board of Audit, an independent body that oversees Iraqi governmental expenditures. "This is an immoral request because we didn't ask them to come to Iraq, and before they came in 2003 we didn't have all these needs."

I think this article might be a bit alarmist, but not so far off the mark. I think the author makes some really valid points, but misses a few key concepts.

The most important was the USSR's inability to move and control money. I know the US is in a credit crunch, and that the national debt is more than burdensome, but the US is hardly bankrupt, which was a key failure of the Soviet Union, and one of the reasons capitalism, not the military, is credited with the fall of the Soviets.

In the short term, some huge changes have to be made, and hopefully with a new president in the oval some of those changes can get started. The government has to get out of Iraq, start paying down the national debt, and invest any money it can find into alternative fuels.

In the long term whichever world nation can escape the ties of oil will be the superpower of the future. Eventually the worldwide deposits of oil will vanish. Production is already slowing, and I don't see any reason for it to pick up.

Unlike the fall of the Soviet Union, the US is not losing a large percentage of it's landmass or population. We've lost credibility, and we've lost some bargaining chips on the global playing field, but we still control a vast percentage of the world economy.

Also, while I don't think a weak dollar policy is necessarily a smart one, it has significantly reduced the US trade deficit, and increased exports to China. The high price of gasoline is finally starting to make Americans change the way they live their lives everyday.

In the long run I believe America is in crisis. That crisis is caused by our oil dependency, and the blunders of Bush's foreign policy. In the end the US is much more capable of change and redirection that was the Soviet Union in the late 90's.

Analysis: Could Clinton land the VP nomination? - CNN.com

A person close to her, with whom her campaign staff has counseled at various points, said this week, "I think the following will happen: Obama will be in a position where the party declares him the nominee by the first week in June. She'll still be fighting with everybody -- the Rules Committee, the party leaders -- and arguing, 'I'm winning these key states; I've got almost half the delegates. I have a whole constituency he hasn't reached. I've got real differences on approach to how we win this election, and I'm going to press the hell out of this guy. ... Relief for the middle class, universal health care, etc.; I'm Ms. Blue Collar, and I'm going to press my fight, because he can't win without my being on the ticket.' "

God I hope not. After the behavior of Hillary (not to mention Bill) in this campaign, I hope that there's nothing she can do to crowbar herself into the VP nominee. Hopefully, as the super delegates begin to shift inexorably to Obama's camp, he will be in a strong enough position to select his own nominee.

I agree that Clinton could bring something to the ticket. She definitely still has a certain voter appeal, and could drag white, working class voters kicking and screaming to the ballot box, but I'm not sure it's enough.

It's been a long time since the democrats really had a chance to set up a legacy. The last time was under the first Clinton who fucked it up, but now we have a chance again. I would love to see Obama bring someone a little more progressive, and dare I say younger to the ticket.

Some believe that Obama can't win without Clinton, but I disagree. I think one first has to understand that there's going to be a big difference between a primary and a national. In many ways it's going ot get tougher, but in many ways I think it will get easier as well.

For instance the female vote has been largely split, because many women love Hillary, and love even more the idea of a woman in the White House. But realistically Obama has done well with women, too. I think when Hillary is out of he race, women will vote for Obama rather than stay home or vote for McCain.

I also think that strong democratic groups who have favored Clinton will support the nominee. Clinton has been selling the idea that people who support her will simply not vote for Obama, but I think she's wrong. No matter what people say, they will rarely support a loser to their own detriment.

I have spent a large portion of my life managing people. On more than one occasion I came down on the wrong side of my company or higher ups, but I was almost universally liked by my subordinates. On several occasions my staff swore oaths of loyalty to me should anything happen. Often there were ridiculous talks about revolt or work stoppages.

In the end I can tell you that nothing ever happens after your gone. They might grumble and complain, they might even make life a little tough for your successor, but in the end you've stepped off the stage, and they go back to work. I'm certain that this will be the case when Clinton finally steps off the stage.

The US is no longer the only superpower in the world. As China develops and Russia recovers, the US finds itself increasingly under competition for the hearts and minds of world citizens. Add to this the unpopular wars that the US is currently fighting, and our less than stellar foreign policy of the last 8 years (to say nothing of the last 50), and it seems like the US should begin to rethink some of our strategies.

The reason I bring this up is that I have been watching Raul Castro since he took over Cuba.

VOA News - Bush Says Cuba Has Made 'Empty Gestures' at Reform

President Bush says the new Cuban leadership is not serious about reforms. He says the transition to Raul Castro has produced only empty gestures.

But I'm not convinced. Bush says that he wants to continue to treat Cuba in exactly the same way we have always treated them, at least until they are a friendly democratic state. My question, of course, is exactly who is going to coach them into becoming a friendly democratic state.

The new president is easing restrictions on personal freedoms. He's allowing consumer goods, and he's opened up land for for-profit farmers. I understand that most Cubans can't afford the new consumer goods, but it's a start. An instead of at least opening a dialog or praising the new president for at least making the gesture, Bush criticizes the gesture as empty.

So where does Cuba turn? To Venezuela for a start. A nation that doesn't really like us that much, and is flush with oil money. A neighbor to Cuba that has vastly more influence than we do in Cuba's future growth. Next of course is China. China is a developing power in the world, that is also flush with money from trade. China wants new allies, and new power. China is investing heavily in Africa, so why not Cuba?

What we've basically done is disengage ourselves from the game. You can't win, if you don't play. Cuba will grow, and Cuba will change. The powerful will of Fidel is gone. The only real question is who will be friends and who will be enemies. Personally, I'd like to see the US sit down for a chat. One less enemy on our side of the Oceans can only be an advantage.

McCain camp hits Obama over losing bearings | Politics | Reuters

The McCain campaign said Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois who leads Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, was hinting at something when he used the words "losing his bearings."

It was "a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue," said Mark Salter, a McCain adviser, in an e-mailed statement.

First thing I would like to say is that I don't think Obama was making a reference to McCain's age. If he was, then I disagree that it was not clever. Realistically, it was so hidden in his statement, that I didn't notice it until the McCain camp pointed it out. Personally I think Obama was making more of a point that McCain often finds himself flailing wildly while looking for something that enough people support for him to grab on to.

This year McCain's actual positions are unpopular with his own party as well as the public at large, so he often changes his positions or moves closer to anything that looks bad for the opposition. That may or may not have anything to do with age, but is definitely worth noting.

As for the age gap, I do think it matters. Let's look at that again. McCain would be the oldest first term president in history. The very oldest. Should that matter? I think so. First off it gives him a different perspective on the world. Go sit and have a chat with a 72 year old person. See how much of the world looks the same to you.

I'm not implying that his vision of the world is less valid, only that it represents a different vision from the large bulk of the world. In the developed world, less than 10 percent of the population is over 60, and at just over 60 most of these people are still young compared to McCain. A 2007 estimate of US population over 65 is at just 12.6%.

Now obviously it would be political suicide for Obama to start carrying on about McCain's age, but if the McCain camp is gonna start in on it then I think it's worth talking about. McCain has as much as said that he thinks Obama is out of touch with Americans. I'd love to sit down and have a chat with McCain about how in touch he is with the things I care about. Personally I can't wait until the debates.

So Obama won in North Carolina with a pretty large margin, and Hillary took Indiana with almost no margin at all. I'm pretty sure this will cripple any momentum that Hillary picked up from her last win. The next few contests tend to favor her, but I'm starting to feel that even Hillary might have to start rethinking the merits of continuing her campaign.

Glenn Beck: Obama's odd timing on Wright - CNN.com

Obama's political excommunication of Wright is not only a sudden and stark departure from his vaunted Philadelphia speech on race -- it also appears to be retroactive. In his press conference he said about Wright: "I know that one thing that he said was true, that he was never my "spiritual adviser." He was never my spiritual mentor. He was my pastor. And to some extent how the press characterized in the past that relationship, I think, was inaccurate."

I hate to give Glenn Beck any more attention. In fact I often try to ignore him as a rule. Unfortunately, in this argument I think he is expressing the views of an growing contingent of uninformed or really thoughtless people.

I have many problems with the problem that Obama faces in dealing with Wright. My first problem is that I don't think it should be a problem. Obama's critics are asking whether being friends with Wright will affect Obama's judgment. I think that's a stupid question. First ask yourself if your friends all share your views, then ask yourself if anyone in your family is a racist, or an activist, or believes in aliens. How did you fare?

Now for those of you who attend church on a regular basis, I would ask you how certain you are that your pastor shares your beliefs. Many Christians, in my experience, attend churches where they respect the ministry, or because the pastor gives a great sermon. Ever question how he/she feels about gender equality or gay rights?

My next problem is that this is largely a problem invented by the press. They've boiled down the ministry and works of a pastor to a few minutes of sound bites. He's a man who has stood up in his community and done some really great things there. He fights for literacy, freedom and equality. Imagine taking every stupid thing you every said and rolling it up into a 2 minute clip. How would you come off do ya think?

Another problem I have is that every time Wright says something unpopular it is called a message of hate. I'll agree that some of what he says is pretty divisive, and definitely not the politics of Obama, but some of what he says deserves attention. I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about the idea that the US shares responsibility for 9/11. Are there people out there that honestly believe that the US in it's innocence was attacked unprovoked by lunatics?

That's possibly the most naive sentiment I have ever heard. Of course the US shares responsibility for 9/11. Our foreign policy has been working toward creating hate, resentment, and intolerance for decades. How many leaders must we overthrow? How many dictatorships must we support? How many oppressed people must we ignore? Eventually someone is gonna get pissed off enough to come a knockin.

Despise Reverend Wright if you wish, but I think a better plan is to have a listen. Not everything he says is right, but not everything he says is wrong. It is possible to separate the two and come away a little smarter.

Border-fence dispute snares rare jaguars - CNN.com

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told Congress that the agency continues to talk to some 600 landowners along the border to get their input. But in order to comply with the congressional mandate, he said, there is no time to deal with "unnecessary delays caused by administrative processes or potential litigation."

After reading the article above you may or may not be in the least bit concerned. I guess it depends on whether you give a damn about the natural flora and fauna of the US. If you do care enough to believe that the government shouldn't be able to arbitrarily wave environmental laws, then I suggest you contact either Defenders of Wildlife or the Sierra Club, and get in on the conversation.

I you are the type of person who believes that the environment must bend to the will of people, and that our security is worth the destruction of a few species, then I would first like to say that you are very shortsighted, but in an effort to win you over to my side, I would like you to read this:


Border fence dispute brings Texas showdown - CNN.com

This week, the Justice Department began legal action against landowners and municipalities who have refused to give government surveyors access to their land. Tamez expects she will be sued sometime soon, but she is not intimidated. Asked how long she will fight, she said, "As long as I have to." Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of Homeland Security, said the fence will not be stopped by opponents like Tamez. "Can we simply abandon an enterprise because it is a problem for a particular individual?" Chertoff told CNN. "I don't think I can accept that."

So, it seems in fact that Chertoff is going after people as well. He's basically stripping people of their land. So the question has to be raised, "What precedent is Chertoff trying to set?" How much power do we as the American people really want to put in the hands of any one man. Are we OK with the destruction of our environmental habitats? Are we OK with the DHS taking away land at their own whim?

And consider that last statement. How many people does it have to be a problem for? Exactly what level of destruction and theft would he consider worth slowing down to have a conversation? My guess is that Mr. Chertoff knows the same thing that many of us know. That if the project is given enough time to be thought through, that if people are allowed to speak and bring argument, then there's a very good chance that the project will not be completed.

I'm sure he knows this. I'm sure he's considered it. I'm also sure that he knows that the speed of the US justice system is working in his favor for the time being. If he can put up enough fence fast enough, he might just be able to avoid the legal entanglements that he rightly should face while constructing the fence.

For my half dozen regular readers out there, and for those who happen by, I would like to let you know that I am off to Moravia for a four day Holiday. I will be drinking Moravian wine, and if the weather holds I will be hiking the lovely Moravian country-side. I will not, however, be reading the news or posting to my blog. Please feel free to read and comment on older material.

As Clinton Seeks Gas Tax Break for Summer, Obama Says No - New York Times

Mr. Obama's view is shared by environmentalists and many independent energy analysts, his position allowed Mrs. Clinton to draw a contrast with her opponent in appealing to the hard-hit middle-class families and older Americans who have proven to be the bedrock of her support. She has accused Mr. Obama of being out of touch with ordinary Americans who are struggling to meet their mortgages and gas up their cars and trucks.

While I'm a little disturbed that the White House agrees with Barack Obama, I'm more concerned (if not the least bit surprised) that McCain and Clinton have the same plan. It shouldn't come as a shock that the two campaigners rapidly developing reputations for doing anything to win votes would support a gas tax holiday.

Most experts agree that the holiday would save the average American almost nothing, while costing America as a whole millions of dollars, and possibly thousands of jobs. However, to a struggling middle class American who wants to go on vacation this summer, it probably sounds like a great idea.

McCain and Clinton are even calling Obama a flip-flopper because he once supported a gas tax holiday in Illinois. Problem with the flip-flopper theory is that he's basically said he tried it, and it didn't work. That's not flip-flopping, that's using experience in decision making. Sounds like something a president should do.

Clinton on the other hand once rejected a call for a gas tax holiday when she felt her constituents could be convinced that they actually benefit from a gas tax. Now that she needs votes in critical swing states, she's changed her tune. Makes one a little concerned about her actions in the Oval.

McCain is the most surprising. Not because I wouldn't expect him to rearrange his opinion based on polling data, but because he's speaking out against the White House. Of course he has been demonstrating the same kind of carelessness with spending that the White House has demonstrated over the last two terms, so I guess what's more surprising is that the White House is against McCain.

McCain rejects 'big government' takeover of health care - CNN.com

The solution, McCain said, "isn't a one-size-fits-all-big government takeover" but "with the American people themselves."

"We have always trusted in ourselves to meet any challenge that required only our ingenuity and industry to surmount," the Arizona Republican said. "Any solution that robs us of that essential sense of ourselves is a cure far worse than the affliction it is meant to treat."

After McCain delivered his speech, the Democratic National Committee criticized McCain for "promising four more years of the Bush health care agenda."

I read through this article twice looking for some kind of substance. Down at the bottom the author admits that this speech was given the day before McCain plans to release details of his health plan. I'll admit that I'm eager to see what it might include.

His goal seems to be to keep government control out of health care, but to somehow force the people making millions on health care to voluntarily choose to reduce costs. He wants the health care system to be responsive to the needs of the American Family. Credit where credit is due, that is indeed a great sound bite.

I can't help but think the language he is using sounds a lot like fee market jargon. The idea that a free market will naturally control costs, and that companies would naturally be controlled by their customers. Unfortunately that hasn't really proven to be the case in the economy, and I doubt it would be the case in health care. But the real question is exactly he goes about convincing Americans that he can make health care more affordable without actually doing anything.

Bush: Economy in slowdown, checks on the way | Reuters

"Whatever the American people do with these checks will benefit the economy, whether they're buying products, whether they're helping to pay their gas bills, or whether they're paying off their credit cards, putting more liquidity back into the market," said House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio. "The American people are bright. They'll figure out how to spend this money the best way possible."

I'm not really sure what makes John Boehner think that Americans are wise enough to spend money in a way that will stimulate and strengthen the economy. What you will find in this article is that many Americans are probably going to spend their rebate paying down debt. Personally, I think that's a great idea, though I think it will do very little to stimulate the economy.

But despite mentioning this, the article doesn't discuss that the root of many American's current financial problems is the fact that they have more debt than they can reasonably pay off. The fact that Americans have no money left to pay for new things, and that when given money, that money goes to pay for things they already have, speaks in my mind to the fact that Americans do not know how to spend money.

Now don't get me wrong, the Bush administration hasn't done a swell job of spending our money either. In fact the rising national debt eerily reflects the spending patterns of the American people. The concept of buy now and pay later.

I'm not an economist, but I think that keeping the money and spending it on new infrastructure (jobs), food stamps (poor have more money), and unemployment benefits (safety net) would be a wiser course of action. Of course, this is what the democratic congress wants to do, but Bush is bargaining the security of the American working class on his ill-conceived free trade agreement with Colombia.

I have generally avoided the Reverend Wright discussion, because I find it incredibly biased, ridiculously political, and absurdly naive. Mostly the conversation is about a black reverend for DARING to imply that America might share responsibility for 9/11, or that blacks in America might still be a little pissed about inequality. I feel bad for Barack that he had to distance himself from a man of incredible intelligence and character.

For those that are interested, Rev. Wright took the opportunity to provide an interview with Bill Moyers. You can see a bit of his history as a patriot, a bit about the ministry, and hear him speak about what it means to be a black spiritual leader on the south side of Chicago. I recommend it.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

I was less than shocked to read a story that a gun merchant wanted to speak on campus in favor of Conceal and Carry, an organization that wants to put more guns on college campuses. I think I've made it abundantly clear that I think this is a bad idea. What got me about this story is that this is the guy who sold the gun to the VA Tech shooter, and sold ammo to the Northern Illinois shooter.

I was pleased to see that h only drew a crowd of 50 people, and that at least one was there in opposition to the whole idea. It amazes me that people actually seem to believe that increased gun carrying reduces the threat of violence, though there is no evidence to suggest that. He is so convinced that he is selling his guns at cost just to make sure more people can afford guns:


Gun seller offering discounts to 'save lives' - CNN.com

The owner of a company that sold firearm merchandise to both the Virginia Tech University and Northern Illinois University shooters said he will sell his guns at cost for the next two weeks in hopes that "law-abiding" citizens will buy them to prevent similar tragedies.
art.va.tech.gi.jpg

"I want to help people save lives," Eric Thompson said Thursday. He was to speak Thursday evening at Virginia Tech University at an event sponsored by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Thompson made the announcement Wednesday.

Amazing. I guess it hadn't occurred to him that if it had been harder instead of easier to buy the guns, it's possible no one would have gotten shot at all. But generally gun nuts don't think that way. In their minds guns are perfectly safe, until handled poorly, and that's not really anyones fault. In fact Mr. Thompson actually compares guns to cars:


Seller of gun used in massacre speaks at Va. Tech - CNN.com

Jessica Schmale, a junior political science major, sat wearing a homemade T-shirt reading, "Guns Kill" on the front, and "Protest Easy Guns" on the back.

"Guns kill, they certainly do, but so do cars and all sorts of other things," Thompson said. "What we need to do is focus on the person that's doing the killing."

Of course cars were designed to move us from one place to another, and sometimes cause accidents. Guns on the other hand were designed to kill people, though sometimes we're lucky and they don't. The second amendment was about civil defense, not personal defense. What amazes me is that this guy actually feels victimized and martyred. Poor bastard. Just to make my point:



Bullet Counter Points

Florida has long been known as a state with loose gun laws. A “Shall Issue” state for concealed carry permits (meaning that local law enforcement must issue a concealed weapons license to an applicant if he/she passes a background check and meets modest safety/training requirements), Florida is also notable for being the first state to pass a “Shoot First” law at the behest of the National Rifle Association (NRA). The 2005 law expanded Floridians’ right to use deadly force in self-defense inside and outside the home and eliminated any duty to retreat (if possible) before resorting to the use of such force.

The NRA and other pro-gun groups have praised these laws, arguing that the more than 400,000 Floridians who have obtained concealed carry permits will make their state safer because criminals will be concerned that potential victims could be packing heat. As the gun lobby frequently claims, “an armed society is a polite society.” Skeptics were even told that these laws would deter rapists by arming women and giving them the freedom to fight back.

Recent statistics from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, however, have cast serious doubt on these claims. The figures for 2007 show an 11.5% increase in gun murders, a 25% increase in armed robberies with guns, and a 20% increase in forcible rapes in which a gun was used. Notably, the overall violent crime rate in the state went up by only 1.4 percent in 2007.

These statistics demonstrate a point that Harvard researcher David Hemenway has often made. America is not unique in its overall level of violent crime. What separates us from other industrialized democracies is that American violence tends to end in death; and that is because we own more guns per capita than any other high income country. Looking at Florida’s 2007 statistics again, the overall murder rate went up by 6.5%, but murders in which a knife was used actually decreased by 24%. Easy access to guns in the state is responsible for the discrepancy, as it makes crime more lethal.

Israel's U.N. envoy calls Jimmy Carter bigot | Politics | Reuters

Speaking to reporters at a gathering in New York organized by The Israel Project, Gillerman said that he was saddened by the meeting and that in his mind Carter had become "what I believe to be a bigot" for having the meeting. Carter "went to the region with soiled hands and came back with bloody hands," he said.

I was so shocked and appalled by anyone calling Jimmy Carter a bigot that I even had to look the term up, just to make sure it meant what I thought it meant. Just to be clear:

bigot - Definitions

A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

So Dan Gillerman is accusing Jimmy Carter of believing himself unquestionably right and all others unquestionably wrong because he went to the middle east to open a dialog. We may or may not believe anything that Hamas has to say, but the fact that Carter went there and came back with a promise from Hamas to abide by a deal that gives them a homeland is certainly more than the Bush administration or the Israelis have accomplished.

And at the risk of sounding like an apologist for Hamas, which I am not, let's remember that they were democratically elected to govern, after which the US, our global defender of democracy, decided that the people made the wrong decision, and sanctioned them. Maybe that was the right thing to do, but it sounds an awful lot more like the definition above than any action by Jimmy Carter.

Floyd Brown's ad smearing Barack Obama | Salon

What is remarkable about Brown is that no matter how much America changes, he does not. He not only survives but thrives, cycle after cycle, playing the same ugly game that first won him notoriety in 1988, back when he scripted and televised the flagrantly inflammatory Willie Horton ad. He lurks on the fringe of presidential politics because the Republicans tolerate and sometimes secretly encourage him, so long as they can claim that they have no connection with his schemes. Those denials have always been implausible -- and as he ramps up for a new season of divisive attacks, the question is whether the mainstream media will give Brown the kind of scrutiny he deserves.

Who the hell is Floyd Brown and why does he hate Barack Obama? Fair question. The above article will give you a brief political biography of this right wing political attack soldier. The article ends with a call to John McCain to step up, to be the man he pretends to be and not just denounce Floyd Brown, but ostracize him. The article asks John McCain to make it clear that anyone supporting Floyd Brown is not welcome in the company of John McCain.

I think that scenario is unlikely. The problem is that people who have been duped by media coverage of John McCain believe that he is really interested in holding the high ground. Like many people I used to say that I might not agree with McCain, but I trusted him, and believed that he was always looking out for the best interests of the country.

Unfortunately, a careful read of his record, and one realizes that he's much more interested in those wonderful republican values of protecting the wealthy, marginalizing gay rights, overturning roe vs. wade, and putting religion into our government. Now if your a republican who hates gays, believes that making abortion illegal will solve anything, wants their children to have enforced school prayer, or believes in making money on the backs of the middle class, then you are probably good with McCain.

All that being said, McCain is not interested in distancing himself too far from anyone that might make him stronger with a base he was forced to alienate to create his middle of the road image. The closer Obama gets to the nomination the further McCain gets from independent voters. He will have to mobilize the worst part of the Republican base, and that includes our friendly neighborhood KKK members, and a few of their friends.

My point is that we shouldn't expect John McCain to make too strong a statement about Mr. Brown. In reality I'd be surprised if McCain makes a statement at all.

Boy, 10, fires semiautomatic at N.J. school - USATODAY.com

Police say a fourth-grader fired a semiautomatic handgun inside a New Jersey elementary school as he was showing it to a friend. Linden Lt. Raymond Tyra says no one was injured in the gunfire at School Number 2 on Wednesday afternoon. A 10-year-old boy was showing the .38-caliber gun to his friend in a coat closet when the weapon went off. A bullet passed through the wall and into the classroom next door, where it lodged in a wall. Tyra says most of the kindergarten to fifth-grade students who attend the school had gone home before the incident. Police officers recovered the gun and secured the school.

Anyone want to lay odds as to where the boy got the gun? Could it possibly be from his parents? Anyone want to lay odds as to whether the gun was legal? I'm betting it was.

Bush administration offers new fuel economy rules - CNN.com

The plan is expected to save nearly 55 billion gallons of oil and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 521 million metric tons over the life of the new vehicles built between 2011-15. It will add an average cost of $650 per passenger car and $979 per truck by 2015.
Environmental groups and their allies in Congress, who have criticized the Bush administration's handling of the requirements, said they were mostly encouraged by the proposal.
"After years of fighting a fuel economy increase, the Bush administration is showing faith in the American auto industry's ability to reform," said Rep. Edward Markey, D-Massachusetts, who sought the higher standards.

So the bush administration has fought tooth and nail for it's entire time in office against any kind of policy that would favor the environment. Fought against anything that might reduce greenhouse gases or improve fuel efficiency. Now as Bush reaches record highs in disapproval ratings to match his record lows in approval ratings, as it becomes increasingly clear that the American people are no longer buying his spin on the Iraq war, and the economy tumbles into a shambles, he's running out of options for being remembered as anything more than a failure.

However, if he can manage to really get the ball rolling on a few plans to save the environment, perhaps get his name attached to a few critical bills, like increasing fuel efficiency standards, then that goes down in the books. I have to imaging that in some meeting somewhere an intelligent adviser sat down an told him that environmental issues would look good on his resume.

Or perhaps his buddy God, who gave him so much advice on getting into the Iraq war, has asked him to train his focus on the planet. I guess I shouldn't be too critical, since this is in fact advantageous to the environment, though California might be a little pissed. Still it seems like Bush has showed up late to the game and is hoping to be carried out on everyone's shoulders.

To fight prostitution, some say target clients | Reuters

The rise of international sex trafficking is causing many countries to rethink their laws on prostitution and re-examine legal frameworks that for decades have treated the purchase of sex as a social nuisance or "victimless crime".

Not long ago I was teaching at a firm called Centrum Addictology. They were largely a group of graduate students who were trying to to radically change the concepts of law and social thinking with things like drugs and alcohol.

Generally they spoke remarkably good English, so most of our classes were mostly spent discussing and debating social structures globally and here in the Czech Republic. One of my favorites of those discussions was the idea of decriminalizing prostitution.

One of many things I learned from that class is that there are several movements here in Europe and around the world that are trying to actually unionize sex workers. I personally think this is a great idea. While trafficking in women is undoubtedly not a victimless crime, punishing the women is certainly the wrong way to go.

As for punishing the client, there's no evidence to suggest that men will avoid prostitutes for fear of prosecution. Based on the experience in the US anyway, making prostitution illegal has definitely not helped.

So how do you stop trafficking? Legalize prostitution and provide them with the same basic services as any other worker. At the same time increase the penalties for trafficking and shift all the resources previosuly used to stop prostitution to finding and stopping traffickers.

Imagine if a prostitute could walk into the police station, fill out a report about abuse, and actually have her report taken seriously. Suddenly prostitutes have the power to protect themselves, and the ability of the average trafficker to intimidate is vastly weakened.

By making prostitution legal, you also reduce the spread of disease, and potentially reduce the number of prostitutes who are unable to escape a situation that they don't want to be in. Suddenly these women have access to basic health care, counseling services, and basic legal protection. Also, just as a bonus, we can tax their income.