Ted Kennedy unloads on the Greedy

From Schmidlap, we know that there are three types of Republicans, Evil, Greedy, and Stupid. It's probably some combination of the first two that has prevented the Senate from passing the minimum wage bill that the House passed very easily during the first 100 hours flurry. They killed it in a cloture vote (essentially, now everything takes 60 votes to pass), although they bitched to high heaven when the Dems did it when they were in the minority, and are now trying to add tons of amendments to it, just to make sure that rich people don't, you know, incur any actual costs or anything.

Ted Kennedy's sick of it, and he's letting people know (thanks to Bob Geiger for the story):

"We have now had amendments that have been worth over 200 billion dollars… Amendments that have been offered. We've had amendments on education of 35 billion dollars. We've had health-savings amendments that will benefit people with average incomes of $112,000… We've had those kinds of amendments and we're looking at the Kyl amendment at 3 billion dollars. But we still cannot get two dollars and fifteen cents -- over two years. Over two years!

"What is the price, we ask the other side? What is the price that you want from these working men and women? What cost? How much more do we have to give to the private sector and to business? How many billion dollars more, are you asking, are you requiring?

"When does the greed stop, we ask the other side? That's the question and that's the issue."

"Make no mistake about it -- they have on the Republican side, 70 more amendments. 70 more amendments!" said Kennedy. "We have none. We're prepared to vote now. 70 more amendments… 'Oh yes, we want an increase in the minimum wage, we want this, we want that but… let's have some other kinds of amendments that have virtually nothing to do with this.'"

"240 billion dollars in tax breaks for corporations. 36 billion dollars in tax breaks for small businesses. Increase in productivity -- 42 percent over the last 10 years," yelled Kennedy emotionally. "But do you think there's any increase in the minimum wage? No. At 12 after five today, on Thursday, I speak for all of our Democrats and say we're prepared to vote now. Now!"

"Do you have such disdain for hard-working Americans that you want to pile all your amendments on this? Why don’t you just hold your amendments until other pieces of legislation? Why this volume of amendments on just the issue to try and raise the minimum wage? What is it about it that drives you Republicans crazy? What is it? Something. Something! What is the price that the workers have to pay to get an increase? What is it about working men and women that you find so offensive?"

"We don’t want to hear any more from that side for the rest of this session about permitting or not permitting votes in here when you're denying it on the most simple concept of an increase in the minimum wage," said Kennedy. "We don’t want to hear any more about that."

"This is filibuster by delay and amendments. I've been around here long enough to know it when I see it and smell it, and that's what it looks like, that's what it is, make no mistake about it. Make no mistake about it."

Now, that's some real vitriol. Wait for the SCLM to hammer him for being uncivil.

State of the Union Whack-a-Mole

First, we must balance the Federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009 — and met that goal 3 years ahead of schedule. Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the Federal deficit within the next 5 years. I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the Federal Government, and balance the Federal budget. Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour — when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate — they are dropped into Committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You did not vote them into law. I did not sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process … expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress … and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.

Hmm. Mr. President. where have you been for the last six years?

For the terrorists, life since 9/11 has never been the same.

You're absolutely right, since 9/11, it has been Terrorist-apalooza.

Our enemies are quite explicit about their intentions....By killing and terrorizing Americans, they want to force our country to retreat from the world and abandon the cause of liberty.

Hmmm, who are our enemies??? How are we advancing "liberty??"

We have said this many times here, but the basic fact is that this is NOT A WAR. There is nothing to be won or lost here as in a war. There is just an end, and a bad end at that.

Everyone's running for President!

Except John Kerry.

Stay in the Senate, John. I certainly won't miss you.

Repubicans hate poor people

Despite passing easily in the House, the Republicans in the Senate just can't keep their grubby hands to themselves, and have messed up an attempt to raise the minimum wage. The bill from the House was extremely simple, spelling out when and to what amount the minimum wage would be raised, and that's it. However, unless businesses get tax breaks (I know, shocking), the GOP doesn't believe that they should have to pay their workers a respectable wage.

Of course, they killed it in a cloture vote. What about an up and down vote, folks? What about those obstructionists in the other party?

Who cares about the poor, anyway - hell, can they even vote?

The Blogger and the Pea

There is so much to comment on from last night, so much fuzzy math and so many disconnects from reality. However it is the first and the smallest, the pea under oh so many mattresses, that is really bothering me. Perhaps I'm suffering from outrage overload on Iraq, or perchance I'm dumbstruck that this man with the popularity of open sores would dare broach funding religious schools or screwing up social security at this late date.

But no. Read the official transcript: "Some in this chamber are new to the House and Senate—and I congratulate the Democratic majority." But he didn't say that. He used the Newt Gingrich-Frank Luntz "talking point" adjective, the DEMOCRAT majority. You see, they really aren't "democratic" and it rhymes with RAT--get it?

OK, back to business now, but that damned pea certainly does bother me.

(Note: See Joshua Holland over at Alternet for a thorough breakdown. Note in particular how Tony Snow described picking out the highlights of the speech as choosing among "a drawer full of diamonds." YACK.)

I don't know who's watching tonight

Link to the text (h/t Think Progress)

Who yelled "Whoo!" when W was introduced?

Health care? Higher fuel standards? Global climate change? Who does this guy think he is, a liberal?

What the hell is Cheney smirking at?

Oh, crap. 9/11. Time for whiskey.

Notice how he's gotten almost no applause at all about his 20k Tank Fodder approach?

This really is a painfully weak speech. He's not saying anything at all. Not the usual nothing, but really nothing. Even the "initiatives" are small time for a SotU. Not exactly what he needs to get a bounce.

Man, did he have to concentrate to say "Dikembe Mutombo".

Someone call Jack Nicholson. Laura stole his Joker mask.

That's it - if we have kids, I'm never buying them "Baby Einstein" stuff.

I'll give Wesley Autrey his props, though. That took some serious guts.

Thoughts?

Will the Circle be Unbroken?

Will the Circle be Unbroken? Yup.

There is a god.

E, Howard Hunt dies on the day where Pat Fitzgerald comes out firing on Cheney, the man whose idiot daughter penned a ridiculous op-ed saying that our republic was in an “existential” struggle while der Chimpenfuhrer prepares an address that even Republicans don’t want to hear.

Indeed, there is a god. As former Chicago Bulls guard Jamaal Crawford once opined, things are coming to “fruitation.”

When in free fall, objects accelerate downward at a constant rate of 9.8 m/s/s

CBS News' latest poll has the Liar in Chief at a 28% approval rating.

Other presidents two years before their 2nd term was up?

Clinton in 99, after the impeachment (remember, he was hated and despised and ruined America) - 65%.

Reagan in 87, after Iran-Contra - 52%.

LBJ in 67, hip-deep in Vietnam - 47%.

Ike in 59 - 57%.

Where the hell were you people in November of 2004?

--UPDATE (by Rousing Rabble)--
Good Dr. Magoo didn't have access to my archives, but I have been able to find the approval rating of one other famous (well, infamous) American president who had his own war debacle

Jefferson Davis, 1865, after Appomattox - 29%

Meanwhile, back in Frostbite Falls

BAGHDAD (AP) — Twin bombings Monday tore through stalls of vendors selling second-hand clothes and DVDs in a busy Baghdad market catering to Shiite Muslims during a religious festival. A market also was attacked north of the capital, and police said nearly 100 people died in the renewed campaign blamed on Sunni Muslim insurgents.

Think about this for a minute. Nearly a hundred people dead in ONE DAY in ONE CITY. We have sown the wind, and are indeed reaping the whirlwind.

Having nothing to do with politics

Bear down, Chicago Bears
Make every play clear the way to victory;
Bear down, Chicago Bears
Put up a fight with a might so fearlessly.
We'll never forget the way you thrilled the nation
With your T-formation.
Bear down, Chicago Bears
And let them know why you're wearing the crown.
You're the pride and joy of Illinois
Chicago Bears, bear down!

In news you may have missed...

Sam Brownback (R-Kan)

announced the formation of an exploratory committee to prepare for a run for chancellor of Germany in 1933 on the National Socialist ticket president.

UPDATE: As mentioned in one of the comments, Rolling Stone did a feature story on Brownback a few years ago. It can be accessed on-line here. It is recommended reading on any number of levels. (Rousing Rabble)

For a Cubs fan, George Will is an idiot

Okay, maybe there's a dispute about that Cubs fan part. The second part, on the other hand, is an ever-growing truth. On This Week, this week, during the roundtable session they were talking about Bush's future State of the Union address, and brought up that the Liar in Chief will talk some about global warming, for the first time. I don't expect that Bush will propose anything of value that he'll actually back up with funding, but even discussing it will move the national dialogue in a better direction. That way, when there's someone who's less of an idiot in the White House, there will be real bipartisan support to try to do something about this issue.

Back to Mr. Will. He states (correctly) that India and China are growing very quickly, and that their production of greenhouse gases will outpace ours. He concludes that we shouldn't bother to do anything about it, since others will be causing problems. Appropriately, Sam Donaldson pointed out how dumb that statement is, but it goes further. Of course the "well, they're bad, so it doesn't matter if we are or not" is a dumbass argument. But so is ignoring the idea that if the US truly invested in technologies that combated global warming we wouldn't see a growth in our economy, that China and India and Europe wouldn't become our customers for that technology. It's also our responsiblity to do what's right.

Not that George Will would understand that.

Iron-y Deficiency

Dick Cheney tells Iran that they should "keep their folks at home," while the secretary of state tells Iran that we won't tolerate outsiders "meddling" in Iraq.

Do they even listen to themselves?

It's dumbass shooting fish in a barrel time

Sometimes it is just WAAAY too easy:

Many argue that the cost of American lives in Iraq has been too high. How soon we forget that we once had a war called the Civil War in which hundreds of thousands of Americans died. A hundred years before that, we were ruled by our own perceived tyrant, the king of England. Likewise Saddam Hussein killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. I applaud the U.S. for standing up to a tyrant. Who knows what Hussein was going to do next? The price of freedom isnever cheap.

Mitch Johnson
Western Springs

"How soon we forget that we once had a war called the Civil War in which hundreds of thousands of Americans died??? " Excuse me, Mr. Johnson, who has forgotten? It is not a problem with "us" forgetting, it is a problem of you fundamentally misunderstanding the events of which you speak.

With regard to the Civil War, need we even point out that this conflict was HERE rather than a world away? Let's also note that Lincoln took our nation to war to protect a union that he believed was worth holding together, a national idea joined and bound by "the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land." It is difficult to imagine a starker contrast between that cause and this ill-conceived invasion of a fractured legacy of European colonialism where the competing sides cannot even be rationally identified.

Mr. Johnson then refers to our rule by a "tyrant" where he again displays his ignorance of history. While the phrase may have been tossed around by firebrands and agitators, few Americans, even revolutionary leaders, perceived King George as tyrannical. Arrogant, stubborn, petty and incompetent, yes (...hmmm, that sounds familiar...) but tyranny? No.

Besides that, Mr. Johnson, how does that have anything to do with the present mess? You present two instances of domestic insurrections and compare them to an unwarranted and unlawful invasion of a sovereign nation? You equate the establishment of permanent U.S. bases and a stooge government in Iraq while thousands are butchered monthly with freedom?

We did not "stand up" to a tyrant, sir. We destroyed a country. We sowed that wind and reaped the whirlwind of a region in chaos. You also say that we did not know what Saddam Hussein would have done next. Yes, we do. He would have continued to rule over a functioning society in a repressive and often cruel fashion, under close U.S. surveillance. People would have suffered, but for the most part, they would have worked and lived rather than hide and die. We do know one thing he would not have done, however, and that is attack Iran. If only the same were true of our leader.

Mr. Johnson....

One of my least favorite people gets a smackdown

The "intellectual" right has been feeling uppity lately, with moron Dinesh D'Souza explaining how gays and drugs and permissiveness casued 9/11. He's not the only one out there explaining, under the guise of intellectualism, how liberals are ruining the world. One of his compatriots in idiocy is David Horowitz, who had a brainiectomy and has decided to spew venom against those who do the most harm to our society - college professors.

On a website called "The Beast," they ranked the 50 most loathsome people in America, 2006. The list includes many of the obvious people (Bush, Cheney, et al), as well as some less obvious, such as "You" and "Us". It's a worthy read, if you enjoy reading insulting things about obnoxious people. My favorite, though, is what they have to say about the aforementioned Mr. Horowitz:

Like most fascist converts, Horowitz sees disseminating information as an act of treason. His favorite targets are university professors he declares enemies of "academic freedom," because nothing is more dangerous to a neocon than someone who actually knows what they’re talking about.

Madame Speaker, the President of the United States

The state of the union drinking game.

Congrats to the Schmidlaps

Here.

What time is it?

It's Dumbass Time!

Jimbow, a good friend of this space, submitted what he aptly called the trifecta, from a local paper:

To the Editor:

Unfortunately, this country is at war with two enemies, the terrorists and the liberal leftists who rely on the media to support that lose-at-any-cost agenda. Had Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stood with President Bush and looked the terrorists in the eye and said, “We are one. This country is united and we will not be defeated,” this war would have been over in months, but no. Our own people constantly and wrongly drag this country, which is winning the war and is doing a good job, through the mud. We are enjoying a thriving economy, record unemployment, a deficit on the decline and troops who are re-enlisting in record numbers.Why are people not uniting as one? Those who voted for Sen. Dick Durbin, D–Ill., please, stop and think before you vote next time or just toss your ballot in the garbage. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy – is that who you want running this country? For those of you who are older, remember, we had our Jimmy Carter. Please don’t make the same mistake. Let’s try unity before we choose defeatism, I believe that we are called the United States. Let’s start acting like it.

Bruce Bocian
Lake in the Hills

AND

To the Editor:

Since the Democrats have taken control of Congress, there have been a few letters expressing desires to get rid of President Bush before his term is up. I wholeheartedly agree with this. After all, Bush didn’t respond to an attack on the World Trade Center [editor's note: the attempt at sarcasm here is correct. He did not respond] , ignored the threat posed by Osama bin Laden [editor's note: again, the intended sarcasm is correct, Bush did ignore the threat, and of course the Sudan stuff following is lies and urban legend.] (refusing to take him from the Sudanese government three times), gave us the largest tax hike in American history[editor's note: No], bombed Iraq to avoid an impeachment hearing, [editor's note: No], lied under oath [editor's note: Well, yeah, but it wasn't perjurious because it was not "material."], trampled our Second Amendment rights, [editor's note: No], gave nuclear technology to North Korea [editor's note: No], and, oh, wait a minute.That’s right, Bush cut taxes [editor's note: On the super-rich], put Osama bin Laden on the run [editor's note: No], has protected our Second Amendment rights [editor's note: HOW?], has disrupted uncountable numbers of terrorist attacks [editor's note: No], deposed Saddam Hussein [editor's note: So? Fat lot a good that did you, upsetting the balance of power and creating a `Shi'a Crescent], freed 25 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan from murderous totalitarians [editor's note: No], has signed legislation protecting unborn children [editor's note: Symbolic legislation as part of a partisan agenda], stopped “negotiating” with North Korea because of their broken promises to us [editor's note: and that got us where???] ,and is the reason Saddam no longer is alive. [editor's note: I repeat, that does what for us?]

And, by the way, Bush didn’t lie about weapons of mass destruction. [editor's note: No] Every major intelligence agency in the world supported this claim [editor's note: No], as did former Iraqi soldiers in Senate hearings on the subject, not to mention the Kurds and Iranian army.

Jake Justen
Ringwood

AND

To the Editor:

Impeach President Bush? Articles of Impeachment:

1) The stock market is at a new all-time high [editor's note: Not whwn adjusted for inflation and historic expansion] 2) Unemployment is at 25-year low [editor's note: "Fuzzy math" takes many out of the equation, those who are embittered to the point of giving up] 3) Oil prices are plummeting [editor's note: from record highs???] 4) Taxes are at 20-year lows [editor's note: and the deficit/debt is at a post-1789 high] 5) Federal tax revenues is at all-time highs [editor's note: Nice verb tense there. We have to adjust for inflation and consider the grotesquely would put a Keynsian to shame spending levels and that pesky deficit] and 6) The federal deficit is down almost 50 percent, as projected [editor's note: HIS deficit. HIS projections! 7) Home valuations are up at least 75 percent over the past 3.5 years [editor's note: SOURCE????], 8) Inflation is in check, hovering at 20-year lows [editor's note: while real wages and retirement security are decreasing] 9) Not a single attack on United States’ soil since Sept. 11. [editor's note: SO????], 10) Osama bin Laden is living under a rock, if he is alive. Or in a hole like his cowardly compatriot, the late Saddam Hussein [editor's note: as compared to what?] 11) Terrorist cells are flooding into Iraq to get their heads blown off rather than boarding planes and heading to America to wage war on us here [editor's note: No]. 12) Several terrorist attacks have been thwarted by U.S. and British Intelligence [editor's note: No]Yeah, President Bush sure hasn’t protected the personal and financial security of the American people. [editor's note: Yes]

What a crock.

Lester J. Ballerine
Cary

So Bruce, Jake and Lester:

Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum and original intent

Kudos to Doc below.

Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum, also known as "The Great Writ." As the Supreme Court stated, `[t]he writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action.'

Such conduct just demonstrates the lack of regard that this administration has for the constitution and their abject hypocrisy in proclaiming their love for "original intent."

The revolutionary thinkers valued the "Great Writ," and of course presumed its universal application. Another galling aspect of their hypocrisy goes to the very heart of revolutionary sentiment. No, it wasn't "no taxation without representation." That was a shibboleth, albeit one well-used by Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty. They didn't want "representation," as the British parliament in the late 18th century was not a "representative" body in any sense of the word. Taxes on the colonies were also much lower than those levied in Britain, and here, they were almost exclusively transactional (i.e., avoidable).

No, what angered the colonists were "general writs," the right and power to forceably search without cause. You see that definitively written into the 4th Amendment, which includes elements of both cause and specificity. This administration trashes the very basis for the existence of revolutionary America as they become more invasive.

The framers would also be appalled at this war. There are libraries full of explanations of the American Revolution, dating WAY back historiographically speaking to (fellow DePauw alum) Charles Beard who wrote that the founding fathers rebelled basically to avoid paying off their debts to English merchants. You find a much more nuanced view in Bernard Bailyn's Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. In this seminal, albeit dated, work, Bailyn traces revolutionary ideology back to English opposition writers, and grounds revolutionary thought in the notion of "republicanism" and "republican" ideology. This is a political theory that in effect establishes a duality between good and evil, cast as "virtue" and "corruption." The thinkers of the day looked to the few "pure" republics, Athens and Rome (even though their historical grasp of classical Athens and the Roman republic was quite idealized, and the history was just not very good) and saw righteous states overcome by "corruption."

There were two key roots of "corruption" in the revolutionary ideologue's view. The first is selfishness. While we tend to think of our country rooted on capitalism, its revolutionary ideology was based on selflessness and the "commonwealth." According to republican (obviously with a lower case "r") theory, greed is NOT good, it is destructive.

The other great fear of republican thinkers was the mischief of "standing armies." As these 17th and 18th-century theorists saw it, and of course have been proven right time and again, standing peacetime armies are a BAD thing. The framers opposed them because hereditary rulers, often being of less than full control of their mental faculties and flush with the notion that they were God's instrument (thankfully, THAT never happens!) tended to use standing armies to make mischief.

Republican theory may not explain the revolution (I don't think it does), but it explains a lot of constitution-making. For example, the standing army fear is why you see the militia featured so prominently in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does not exist to allow Cooter to protect his "rahts" with his squirrel rifle. Rather, it is there to prevent the federal government from disarming the militias.

The framers also blended the war powers between Congress and the president so that this most solemn of obligations and actions would be carried out thoughtfully and deliberatively. Admittedly, the constitutional language is mushy. The Articles of Confederation vested the war power in Congress, while the constitution obviously tempers that with the Commander-in-Chief notion. However, the framers clearly expected a congressional role, as Congress is authorized to "raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"

In other words, the framers expected congressional diligence and oversight. Simply put--do your job. At LEAST every two years. They would not be de-funding the troops. They would be following the constitution.

I would refer you to the archives over at Alternet for the brilliant writings of my pal Joshua Holland on this topic.

Shut up, Torture Boy

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, at hearings in front of the Senate Juniciary Committee (unofficial transcript, h/t Kos):

Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

What the hell is he talking about? The right of habeus corpus shall not be suspended, but every individual doesn't have the right? Who, then, does have the right? The trees? How the hell does that make any sense?

On the other hand, it does fit in with other actions of the Murderer in Chief's administration. Consider the Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, under TB's interpretation, when they wiretap people without a warrant, or read their mail, it's okay, because the Constitution doesn't guarantee that everyone has the right to a warrant, but just that the right to a warrant shall not be violated.

These people need to go away now.