THE DAY AFTER: MONICA GOODLING'S TESTIMONY

"I was not the primary White House contact for purposes of the development or approval of the U.S. attorney replacement plan." --former-legal counsel and White House Justice Department liaison Monica Goodling testifying yesterday before the House Judiciary Committee.

Washington D.C.--She's saying she wasn't "the keys to the kingdom" (after all, that would be Jesus) in deciding who was and wasn't going to be fired and appointed as a U.S. Attorney--but who was? We didn't get that yesterday, and this writer--and most of the public--believes that she knows full-well who it is. The problem is that she would incriminate herself, which is why she has continued to invoke the Fifth amendment to bar that. It's up to the House (and Senate) Judiciary committees to press her on who this is. Goodling is saying she never conferred with presidential advisor Karl Rove about this at any time.

This is odd, considering she was the Justice Department's liaison to the White House--she went there and spoke with them face-to-face about the firings and all other issues pertinent to the running of that department. She was the message-girl for Alberto Gonzales, as well as his senior legal advisor. It seems her advice wasn't that good. Perhaps it's her credentials, maybe more akin to monopoly money in the legal world:

Indeed, Goodling, a graduate of conservative Christian leader Pat Robertson's Regent University law school who served as a senior counsel to Gonzales and the department's White House liaison, said Bush political adviser Karl Rove never contacted her about the firing of any prosecutor. One of the dismissed U.S. attorneys was replaced by a former Rove aide. Goodling was subpoenaed as part of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's probe of Gonzales' firing last year of nine of the 93 U.S. attorneys, all Bush appointees. (Reuters, 05.23.2007)

Regent University?! That's not a real college, is it? It's time to ask this question: how many individuals with Goodling's religious university credentials have been inserted-into all of the departments of government by the Bush administration? This is creepy stuff, and has the shades of a silent-coup. By placing as many of these people within the bureaucracy, you begin to have what is essentially a parallel institution, or a "fifth-column." Parallel institutions are part of how NSDAP seized-power in Germany in 1933. Are we seeing the fruits of "faith-based" subsides? Power was certainly on their minds.

Goodling had been a divisive figure at the Justice Department since she arrived in early 2002, gaining a reputation for having a mercurial temperament and being prickly toward career employees, said numerous current and former officials who worked with her. Goodling and Sampson "knew politics, not law," said Bruce Fein, a senior Justice official during the Reagan administration. "This extent [of] neophytes running the department is highly irregular." Goodling started at Justice in a newly created position as senior counsel to the head of the public affairs office. (Washington Post, 05.23.2007)

That's right, even a Reagan appointee thinks the Bush-approach stinks of corruption and cronyism. New-positions were created within the Justice Department to employ people like Goodling (just the case with her example and the recently resigned Randall Tobias). These are patronage jobs for favors rendered (in her case, from Pat Robertson), nothing more...except also upending traditional structures of government. Unsatisfied that their ultra-conservative ideology didn't fit in a functioning bureaucracy, the neocons set-out to wrench the gears of government to prove it doesn't work. We know now it doesn't when the GOP is in-office.

We also learned that Goodling had a real crying-jag when she learned on March 8th that she was going to have to testify: "All I ever wanted to do was serve this president, this administration, this department." But you have served it, and you still are, dearie. You're just another human-parachute that the president needed to avoid responsibility for his crimes. You're just another patsy. I guess crying would be appropriate (for a girl), but how could she have thought this would end any other way? How could anyone? 9/11, of course, the moment that most of America lost its mind to fear.

The most important revelations are that Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty's and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's testimony before Congress "was incomplete," according to Goodling. Needless-to-say, both are denying her claims, with McNulty citing that he delivered what he knew "truthfully" to "the best of his knowledge" when he testified under oath. That's great. He's gone on to say that Goodling didn't brief him on everything, therefore, that's why he didn't know it. Problem: she was not his boss. Yes, Alberto lied (again)--he previously stated he had been avoiding former aides, but he did talk to Goodling, one of the lynchpins in getting the stories straight.

A former Justice Department official told House investigators Wednesday that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tried to review his version of the prosecutor firings with her at a time when lawmakers were homing in on conflicting accounts. Gonzales has testified he hasn't spoken with witnesses. "It made me a little uncomfortable," Monica Goodling, Gonzales' former White House liaison, said of her conversation with the attorney general just before she took a leave of absence in March. "I just did not know if it was appropriate for us to both be discussing our recollections of what had happened." (AP, 05.23.2007)

Again-and-again, Alberto Gonzales lies, yet the president "continues to support" him. This is because the president is also a liar, as well as the majority of his administration. His word really means nothing, yet Congress is capitulating to him on other fronts. Well, not immigration, at least not his own party. Then, there's the surge-surge that won't work-work. By late-September, you're going to see a very broken-individual occupying what's left of his administration. The beauty of it all is that given that the GOP ensures the war won't end while a Republican is in the White House, it also ensures they won't keep it in 2008.

The fun doesn't stop there, however. Ignoring the landslide outcome of the 2006 midterms, they're going to lose even more seats in both houses of Congress. Add-to-the-mix even more scandals involving GOP-incumbents (for now), and you have a potential washout. What's so funny about it is that they are making it inevitable by their continued blind-support of the Bush administration and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The question is: why? What are they being told? What are they being convinced of? Perhaps another attempt at stealing an election is in-the-works? Only they hear the song of the sirens, so it's time to lash them to the mast.

It's a strange contention that Goodling never met with Harriet Miers or Karl Rove. Did she commit perjury? This is unlikely. Perhaps they covered their tracks better than we all suspected, but a smoking gun is out there, somewhere. One could assume that it's on the "missing e-mails," and all the other documentation that the Bush administration refuses to turn-over. Remember that Goodling was offered limited immunity if she testified, being granted it for nearly everything but perjury, so it's unlikely that she's lying about anything. She'll be called to testify again. Per usual, the mainstream press and the wires did their best to ignore something of extreme importance (so did Congress) in Goodling's prepared opening-remarks:

Despite my and others' best efforts, [Deputy Attorney General, Paul McNulty]'s public testimony was incomplete or inaccurate in a number of respects. As explained in more detail in my written remarks, I believe that the Deputy was not fully candid about his knowledge of White House involvement in the replacement decision, failed to disclose that he had some knowledge of the White House's interest in selecting Tim Griffin as Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas, inaccurately described the Department's internal assessment of the Parsky Commission, and failed to disclose that he had some knowledge of allegations that Tim Griffin had been involved in vote "caging" during his work on the President's 2004 campaign.

Removing any references to the caging-lists, the wires can be said to be engaging in an "excision." "Caging-lists" is of incredible importance, because along with voter apathy, it's part of how the GOP has been able to win elections since the early-1980s. By kicking Blacks and the poor off of voting-lists through the use of registered junk-mail, they have created a space for themselves. Blacks don't vote Republican. At this point, all the neocons have left is to do what they do best--smear her and attack her credibility. The problem is that they're not saying any of it under oath. They should be compelled to, particularly former Bush legal counsel Harriet Miers, and Karl Rove, a senior advisor to the president.

Granted, Monica Goodling isn't the most credible individual, but she was appointed by George W. Bush. That has to count for something, doesn't it? The story coming-out about Goodling's performance now is that she was "tirelessly dedicated to the Bush administration," and "antagonistic" "with an ideological style." That sounds like a Bush appointee to this writer. Monica Goodling deserves no sympathy whatsoever, but she should be listened to. She knows an awful lot about numerous other crimes. Welcome to the return of Jim Crow.

Reuters, 05.23.2007: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070524/pl_nm/usa_prosecutors_dc

The smear-campaign begins, 05.23.2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/22/AR2007052201601_2.html

AP on the Goodling testimony, 05.23.2007: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524/ap_on_go_co/fired_prosecutors_44;_ylt=AgrnJzDDezVhlQjkaGEfA5Ab.3QA

AFP, 05.23.2007: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/070523/usa/us_justice_politics&printer=1

Monica Goodling's under-reported opening-statements: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/1179932493MG%20Spoken%20Remarks_Page_1.jpg

ANOTHER FLY IN THE OINTMENT OF AN IMMIGRATION COMPROMISE: BORDER PATROL HELICOPTER CRASHES INTO RESIDENTIAL AREA OUTSIDE EL PASO

SAN ELIZARIO, TEXAS--The U.S. Customs and Border Protection folks aren't saying what time it happened yet, but the copter crashed into a house and smashed a truck up durned good. Still think border patrols are effective? You're alone, especially if you talk to people who live along the border. It won't work in any regard, you would have to militarize the entirety of American life, and it still wouldn't work.

The helicopter slammed into a yard and hit a pickup truck. The pilot and passenger, who was a Border Patrol observer monitoring the area for illegal activity, were taken by ambulance to a hospital, Senior Border Patrol Agent Patrick Berry said. No one on the ground was hurt. (AP, 05.22.2007)

Sorry folks, we're all going to have to accept that life in Mexico is lousy, American business is to blame, and that they're coming here anyway. They're not leaving. We have to make our policies and decisions based on that fact. I welcome Mexican immigrants, both "legal" (since we stole New Mexico, Texas, California, and everything else) and "illegal" to this country, as well as Canada.

Keep coming, we want and need you to help us rebuild labor! A demographic wave is more powerful than all the atomic weapons, chemical-bombs, and all the armies on the planet combined. It's unstoppable. Sometimes, change that helps people happens on-accident. Maybe more than we'd all like to admit! Keep coming folks, we need you, immigrants have always improved America. North American Unions: quit playing-with-yourselves and start organizing these folks.

AP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/ap_on_re_us/helicopter_crash_3;_ylt=AmVX30Zvf7oFnYfKM5C7ySeMwfIE

MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN?: DEMOCRATS DRAFTING LEGISLATION WITH NO-TIMETABLES FOR IRAQ FUNDING

Washington D.C.--We know that the real confrontation is coming in September, when the president and General Petraeus report on the progress of the 28,000-troop surge. All Monday's back-peddling--if it's even true--will do is put off the real confrontation until then, but considering the direction that Iraq's going, byt September, the president isn't going to have many allies in Congress left. What's interesting is that most Americans somehow think the White House and Congress are only now disregarding the will of the voting-public--they're wrong, that's what political incumbents do best in Washington when they're not manipulating that will (with a lot of help from cultural managers).

It's unclear what might have tipped-the-balance here, but what we do know is that Hillary Clinton has been on television today back-peddling on her support of the war, an amazing about-face that she's been known for. There has possibly been some behind-the-scenes event here that we're going to learn about shortly, but rest assured that the politicos are always getting their marching orders from the wealthy. There is a strong-possibility that there is a move here to limit the damage to the Office of the President of the United States itself, that coveted seat in the 2008 elections.

Several congressional sources reported privately that timelines, fiercely resisted by Bush, and the cause of his veto of a previous 124 billion dollar funding bill, would likely not be included. However the bill, intended to finance the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq until the end of September, would include some kinds of benchmarks to force Bush to report on the Iraqi government's progress on security and political issues, sources said. "We have moved the ball forward," said another source, a Democratic staffer, on condition of anonymity. "Whatever bill the president is going to sign is going to contain some kind of benchmarks." (AFP, 05.21.2007)

But this is also part of a GOP counter-attack. In just hours of the writing of this piece today, the House votes--or doesn't--on whether to reprimand Congressman John Murtha for confronting GOP Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mi.) on earmarks in Murtha's district:

Murtha has not disputed a Republican claim that he stormed across the House floor May 17 to confront Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. Rogers had tried unsuccessfully to strike a $23 million Murtha earmark—or narrowly targeted spending item—for a drug intelligence center in Murtha's district. In a House speech Monday, Rogers said Murtha threatened him by saying, "you will not get any earmarks now and forever." (AP, 05.22.2007)

Is it true? It seems to be incontrovertible, and the vote may or may not happen today. What it does appear to be, however, is a coordinated attack on Rep. Murtha, regardless of how one feels about his guilt or innocence in the affair. It's likely there is only one reason, and that's what he's being accused of: "bullying for partisan reasons." We've seen almost nothing-but this behavior from Republicans in Congress and the White House for six years, but the real bad guy is John Murtha. What the GOP in Congress is saying is, "only we get to do that." Hopefully, the vote will be struck-down.


Back to the backing-down: this has been stated by the press before, on May 2nd. By May 4th, the press was told otherwise, but it appears this one will be sticking. If the mainstream press loves to announce anything, it's a Democratic defeat, but this one is getting less-play than usual. The question is why. Going back, one could read the Washington Post's May 3rd piece and conclude it was written this week:

Beyond that, Democrats remain deeply divided over how far to give in to the White House.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (Md.) indicated that the next bill will include benchmarks for Iraq -- such as passing a law to share oil revenue, quelling religious violence and disarming sectarian militias -- to keep its government on course. Failure to meet benchmarks could cost Baghdad billions of dollars in nonmilitary aid, and the administration would be required to report to Congress every 30 days on the military and political situation in Iraq. (Washington Post, 05.03.2007)

It's been two-weeks, and little has changed...except it appears that the Democrats are really going to capitulate on timetables this time. Yes, they've reiterated that they're "still committed to ending this war," yet the smell of defeat is there. It's not sexy, is it? It's more of that musk of defeat and fear of losing elections, when they really have it in-the-bag if they continue to push the president to end the war in an aggressive and unrelenting fashion.

This is occurring in other quarters, particularly with the U.S. Attorney firings scandal and the future of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Last week brought us the resignation of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, a Bush appointment and architect of the war in Iraq. Tony Blair will be also be stepping-down in June. With the president running-out of allies everywhere, radical measures and desperation are going to be the hallmark of the last days of the Bush administration. Simply fighting for survival will be their top-priority, forget any agenda.

The real problem in Congress for critics of the war everywhere are the hawks in both parties who insist on their continued support of the president and the war. What they want--in many cases--is an Orwellian reality of endless war. The time is coming--next year--to flush these scumbags out of Congress forever. If anyone could illustrate more their commitment to undermining the security and the lives of the American people, they would have to be the Bush administration itself or Al-Qaida (same thing). Was the May 3rd "concession" by Democrats a dry-run for this week? Were they "testing-the-waters" at that time? If they were, they should know that the public isn't having their capitulation to the Bush administration on any front. Yet:

Though details of the bill were sketchy, Democratic sources said it included some type of political and security benchmarks the Iraqi government would be required to meet. There were also reportedly elements on enforcing troop readiness standards and an attached portion raising the minimum wage of US workers, apparently in an attempt to appease the liberal anti-war wing of the Democratic Party. Democrats will argue that despite their failure to compel a troop withdrawal, Bush is now facing strict oversight on his war policy, unlike the docile acceptance they say prevailed when Republicans controlled Congress. (AFP, 05.22.2007)

It was a wait-and-see in the beginning of this month, but it appears that the Democrats are obsessed with being wimps and the whipping-boys of the GOP. We should be asking them why. Like last time, it's a hard-call on whether any of this is even true, or simply a disinformation campaign. It's possible that Democratic proposals to halve or even scrap the guest worker program in the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill is a response, a wedge the president cannot afford if he wishes to have any discernable legacy (that isn't negative). Wilfully ignoring or misreading the November 2006 midterms can be bad for one's political health. Non-binding benchmarks do nothing to curtail the president's illegal war, nor do they contribute to ending it.

AFP on the Democratic back-peddling, 05.21.2007: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070521234624.sosbrhri&show_article=1&cat=0

and: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070522/pl_afp/usiraqcongress_070522173738;_ylt=AvcLO1zdQV4q7AiDFJ7g70OMwfIE

AP Today on congressman Murtha: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P9HAKO0&show_article=1&catnum=-1

AP on the "capitulation: today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=AtkPWUU91QQ9OSP.0l0EbzGMwfIE

RESIGNATION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES IMMINENT: GOP SENATE LEADER SPECTER HINTS AT IMPENDING NO-CONFIDENCE VOTE

“I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me.” --former deputy-Attorney General James B. Comey. (NYT, 05.15.2007)


Washington D.C.--The heat is truly being turned-up on the Bush administration and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. One of the primary reasons is that they're not turning over emails and documents that have been legally requested under proper congressional decorum. Now, the calls for resignation are coming from Republicans in the Senate, and it's not just Specter. As predicted at this site and elsewhere, they've been uncovering things that are far worse than the U.S. Attorney firings. Even Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) seems to be tilting in this direction, and Specter has been hinting there are many others in the GOP who will follow his own lead:

Specter and other senators said they were particularly troubled by testimony last week that Gonzales, when he was Bush's White House counsel, pressured then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to certify the legality of Bush's controversial eavesdropping program while Ashcroft was in intensive care. In his testimony, former deputy attorney general James Comey said he thought the no-warrant program was questionable and violated the law. Gonzales and White House chief of staff Andy Card then headed to Ashcroft's sick bed at George Washington University Hospital in an unsuccessful bid to convince Ashcroft otherwise. The program was eventually certified after it was modified. On Sunday, Schumer sent a letter to Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Cheney's chief of staff, David Addington, asking if they personally ordered Gonzales to Ashcroft's hospital room. When asked twice by reporters last week, Bush refused to answer. (AP, 05.20.2007)

There are still holdouts, like Lindsey Graham, but they're going to be in the minority soon. Maybe in a couple days. The resolution for a no-confidence vote will be non-binding, and meant as a symbolic gesture. However, it will substantially neutralize the attorney general's ability to work with Congress with any real seriousness or credibility. It's just another first step, but a momentous one considering the treatment this administration has been used to. There will be incredible acrimony, but in-the-end, Gonzales is going to be leaving.

To a degree, Specter is offering the Bush administration the chance to let Gonzales resign with some kind of dignity, and limiting the damage to the GOP. It could be a test by the GOP leadership whether the Bush administration even cares how much damage they are doing to the Republican Party. This writer wagers the neocons have never cared about this at all, at any point, because of their narrow-aims and interests. This should be unsurprising to anyone.

In the backdrop of all this, you have six (in toto) GOP Senators calling for Gonzales to step down--even urging him to do so. The charges of "political theater" by the Bush administration remind one of all the theater we were treated to in run up to the war in Iraq. It nearly outdid the pathos of classic Greek tragedy, or even the bawdiness of the Jacobites, Marlowe, or even Shakespeare. Dramatic it was, and dramatic the war has been, possibly the single-largest three-act play since Adolf Hitler invaded Poland. But back to that bedside visit with former-Attorney General, John Ashcroft.

Comey testified that he viewed the late-night hospital visit as an untoward effort to do an end-run around his opposition and approach a weakened Ashcroft while he was in intensive care."I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me," Comey testified.The encounter took place on March 10, 2004; the spy program, which was being periodically reviewed by administration lawyers, was due to expire the next day. (L.A. Times, 05.15.2007)

This was pretty explosive stuff, and the wires certainly covered it well...but tv? Not so good. CNN barely covered it, and I must have blinked and missed it on CBS. Most of the major news outlets were more concerned about the fires in California, Florida, and elsewhere. Just not the ones in Congress. But that's the jobs of editors--to edit out the things that are just too hard for all of us to handle. How kind of them. They put out fires, and try to contain the overall-picture of these events. More perception management.

None of that matters, and people are finding-out this information regardless. Just providing you these wire links is part of that job. It isn't necessarily journalism, it's having enough confidence in oneself to take the job of the editors away, all by deciding for ourselves what's going on. You don't have to buy my analysis, do your own. That's why there are links at the end of most of posts here. That said, it's pretty obvious that things are being shaken in the Capitol by the blogs, and that it doesn't take a genius to see what most of the motives at-play are in Congress.

Much of this is a result of a more efficient dissemination of information via the internet. People are not only getting better information, they are also able to more readily communicate with their representatives in Congress and their performance. This is a political earthquake of the best kind.

AP, "Specter: Vote Could Force Gonzales Out," 05.20.2007: http://news.lycos.com/dynamic/stories/G/GONZALES_PROSECUTORS?SITE=LYCOS&SECTION=home&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

L.A. times on the Ashcroft incident, 05.15.2007: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-surveil16may16,0,2533246.story?coll=la-home-nation

The New York Times on the former-deputy Attorney General's (James B. Comey) , 05.15.2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/washington/15cnd-attorneys.html?ex=1179892800&en=c41d70bfa982b4fe&ei=5018&partner=BRITANNICA

Playing the Dozens: Your momma, your poppa, and your greasy-greasy grannie.

--Yo momma is so fat, when she jumped into the air she got stuck.
--Yo mama's so ugly, when she looks in the mirror, the reflection ducks.
--Yo mama's so ugly, well.. look at you!
--Yo mama's so ugly, she looks like you.
--Yo mama's so ugly, she could only be Yo mama.
--Yo mama's so ugly, they filmed "Gorillas in the Mist" in her shower.
--Yo mama's so ugly, they push her face into dough to make gorilla cookies.
--Yo mama's so stupid, she got stabbed in a shoot-out.
--Yo mama's so stank, that her shit is glad to escape.
--Yo mama smells like hot ass on a cold day. (from pimpdaddy.com)

1982: my eighth-grade year in our blunderful educational system in America. This was when there was a lot of court mandated school busing (due to Brown vs. the Board of Education, 1954), and our school was no exception. In the case of my experience, all of the rich kids from Jefferson School got bused to our crappy little Edison Elementary, away from much better teachers and resources. The reaction of many Jefferson parents--most of whom were doctors, lawyers, business owners, etc.--was incredibly vocal and racist.

When their kids came to our school, they'd boxed-up some of those resources, while shunting the rest of us away from them. This escalated when we all went to the same high school, where you basically had two separate educational-paths that kept most all of us from having a decent learning environment (while the rich kids got an excellent one). I can remember skipping-classes to go home and read something relevant, and it was common for us to be taught the same thing year-after-year! But they couldn't do it with every required class, either at the elementary level, or high school.

That was when the fun began, and we'd pillory the lone punks and the jock-stragglers. Our school had more Black and poor kids (like myself), and Edison could be seen back in the 1970s-1980s as a dumping-ground for lousy teachers, so-called administrators, and "problem students" (meaning "not white," or from poor or "broken-homes"). The best part of all this was that many Black kids got to go to the better Jefferson!

But many of us "problem children" stayed at Edison, both Black and White. The mix of White rich kids, poor White, and poor Black kids was pretty explosive, with most of the Jefferson kids constantly complaining at how they were getting shafted at our shitty school. Well yeah, welcome to our world assholes.

Every morning--it seemed--there was a major fight between Blacks and Whites when everyone was getting off of the buses, and it was repeated when they got back on at 3 PM. Almost all of the fights surrounded the waiting-time at the buses. The racial tension wasn't just palpable, there were parents coming out and yelling racial-epithets at Black students, their children doing likewise, and the Black kids sending it right back at them (and more stinging).

You had Polish-American students (an extremely racist group at this time in Michiana), Hungarian-American (a little better), Irish-American, all the WASPs, and me and my little brother (German-Czech-American). Where did we fit in? Nowhere really, but most of the Black kids knew we were getting shafted too, so we got treated better by them. To this day, I can say Black people have generally treated me and my family better than White America ever has or ever will.

Naturally, President Reagan, the GOP, and even many Democrats in Congress were opponents of both providing adequate funding for predominantly-Black schools, and mandatory busing as a cure for that lack-of-funding. We heard tales of the single-parent Black families (headed by mothers) being the cause of Black poverty, and other such ridiculous arguments. It was all just racism and racist-assumptions about Black Americans.

It was this kind of racist wrongheadedness that created the need for mandatory crosstown busing, and yet what he really wanted to give Black Americans was nothing. He just couldn't get away with it at that time. Reagan was truly a horrible human being, and he wasn't alone in his racism, it was (and is) still deeply-rooted in White mainstream thought. What was so exhilarating about all this busing though is that we got to have first-hand experience fighting those lily-white motherfuckers from Jefferson in every possible way.

There was some real unity between groups of us Black and White kids who fought these scum. The fights were verbal and physical (I'm not one to duke, so I had to use my wits). It was literally a front-line class war that had all the shades of race and class that typify the American experience. Of course, there were sell-out Blacks who were already bourgeois-types before all of this, but the worst ones were the White sell-outs who were basically working-class--the suck-ups, the sycophants, and the social-climbers. All of us Black and White kids would endlessly attack these morons and ass-lickers. The best way was by-insult: Playing the dozens (also known as cutting or snaps).

Compared to the Black kids, I wasn't shit at this, but they were ingenious in their comebacks. You couldn't top them, it was impossible. How could you? They invented the dozens, it comes from West African traditions. It's older than old. The rich kids couldn't cope with it at all, until the lure of sports hypnotized everyone, and George Lucas united a divided nation (snicker). However, the fights continued into High School anyway, and the real divisions never went away. Playing the dozens was frequently the prelude to a fight, but it was also a way to avoid all of that. As brutal and vulgar as playing the dozens is, it's more civil than kicking someone's ass.

And so, J-7 is really a part of this tradition: I'm belittling people with power because there's no choice in the matter. One of the best approaches to taking-down the abusers of power is to confront them and denigrate who and what they are, it works. There is a tradition of this in our own history, and Black Americans are a part of this, they more than compliment it.

From the Ranters' written attacks on the monarchy and the aristocracy, to the Levellers and Diggers and their communalism, from the pamphlets during the run up to the American Revolution, to the Abolitionists, the rise of the unions, to the attacks by cartoonist Thomas Nast on Boss Tweed and Tamanny Hall's corruption, reviling and mocking power works.

NEA (National Education Association) school integration timeline: http://www.nea.org/brownvboard/integrationtimeline.html

Your home for the dozens: www.pimpdaddy.com

The Ranters (brief histories): http://www.exlibris.org/nonconform/engdis/ranters.html
http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glossary/ranters.htm

The Profoundly Racist Moynihan Report (1965): http://www.blackpast.org/?q=primary/moynihan-report-1965

"FUCK YOU!", SAID SEN. MCCAIN (R-AZ) TO SEN. CORNYN (R-TX)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

ANTON CORBIJN'S JOY DIVISION FILM AT CANNES (I PAID MY MICHAEL MOORE DUES, THANK YOU)

CANNES, FRANCE--This sounds incredible. Anton Corbijn actually directed a video for Joy Division, and has done a 2 hour movie casting the late-Ian Curtis with an unknown (Sam Riley). The movie by Corbijn is titled "Control." It's based partly on the book by Curtis's widow, Deborah, titled "Touching from a Distance," which I have read. What you get from the book is that she didn't know her husband very well at all, but it's a good read. It sounds like her book is just one source of the screenplay, and that Corbijn has done his homework here. Joy Division was probably the last word in rock.

After 1980, it gets sketchy. Most people don't know that Genesis P.Orridge of Throbbing Gristle and Ian Curtis had a correspondence (telephone) for years, and that both of them attempted suicide at the same time. Gen lived. Ian Curtis is the James Dean of nihilist-rock. I love his dead ass. If you had felt the hope that punk stirred (only to self-destruct and end by 1978), and you had epilepsy, you might have hung yourself by 1980 too. He deserved better, and so do we. Now if Corbijn can do a biopic on Captain Beefheart (Don van Vliet), the world will be a much better place. Ian Curtis was 23 when he hung himself.

"I was just besotted," the Guardian, 04.11.2005: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1456541,00.html

Reuters Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070518/film_nm/cannes_joydivision_dc

"HEALING" AT THE WORLD BANK: WHO NEEDS IT?

THE WORLD BANK/IMF--Honestly, considering much of what they do is to develop regions for exploitation by multinationals, who really cares if they ever recover? I don't. Nearly everyone I know doesn't care, if they even know what the World Bank and the IMF exist for at all. Ostensibly, their stated mission is to lift people out of poverty, but if you look at their actual record, what they do is cause tiny nations to become indebted to the most economically powerful ones. Well duh. Here's an excerpt from their mission statement (mind the fine-print):

Our mission is to help developing countries and their people reach the goals by working with our partners to alleviate poverty. To do that we concentrate on building the climate for investment, jobs and sustainable growth, so that economies will grow, and by investing in and empowering poor people to participate in development. (worldbank.org)

Those are some pretty high-flown words. Most of the rhetoric of the World Bank is internationalist and has a ring of classical humanism and liberalism to it. That's usually where it ends. As with the failed war in Iraq, the reality of this rhetoric and the reality on the ground are substantially different things.

Many anti-globalization critics contend that the World Bank has hijacked the issue of poverty, purposely underestimating the real numbers of poor in the world, as well as science-fiction reports on actual-wages (and their very real drop in the developed world in the last 30 years). Without giving a rundown of the literature--which is vast--defining poverty is difficult. On the World Bank's site, there is a statement that a person making "$1 dollar a day" can be considered to be living-in-poverty, but this can be seen as culturally relative.

Take America's working-poor, who make several-times the income of people in the Third World, yet whose quality-of-life could be termed worse than someone with an average income in Russia, or a Guatemalan or Mexican peasant with a broader social-network that they can rely on (friends, extended-families, clan-ties, etc.). Also, purchasing-power doesn't necessarily equate to empowerment at all, something that should be obvious to anyone.

It doesn't translate into sustainability, but dependence on manufactured-goods, as well as the overarching-goal: domestic exploitation of natural resources for transnational corporations, including cheap-labor. It's not unlike the cartel model, but that's probably because it is. This is the realm of the "oligopoly," where democracy isn't part of the equation.

The primary property of oligopoly is a small number of competing firms. Thus, to be able to best compete, firms make decisions based on planning against their rivals. That is the key property of oligopolies: all firms in oligopolies execute strategic planning. Sometimes, a market is only an oligopoly in theory. Some oligopolies act as cartels, in which many firms act as one. There are technically several firms but they all confer together to act as a monopoly. This practice is illegal in many places, though it still does happen. (library.thinkquest.org, "Competition")

Oh yes, it does still happen. Considering that the World Bank consists of individuals attached to the major financial institutions--primarily Western ones--of the world, it's easy to see the World Bank as merely representing private banking, industry, and speculative interests. At the moment, America is predominant, and so has the ability to choose who heads the World Bank and the IMF, though there are trends that are increasing China's influence. Indeed, China is doing an incredible amount of lending in the Third World, not just underwriting the war in Iraq through the purchase of American currency bonds.

Wolfowitz is just a symptom of American dominance of the World Bank, but also a sign that that hold is eroding. Japan and Europe want more representation and influence within decision-making circles, as do delegates of the Third World. It's likely that Bush will choose the successor anyway, and will force it through if they and American economic & financial elites encounter any resistance. Yes, Mr. Swinging-dick is typical of appointments by American presidents, but one has to wonder if the Europeans and Japan are tiring of the games at the World Bank. Could they withdraw?

By tradition, the World Bank president has always been appointed by the US government, while the Europeans have had the right to nominate the head of the IMF. Now this convention is under attack. In a letter to the World Bank, 200 leading development organisations have called for and open process for selecting the new leader that includes "transparency of process, and competence of prospective leadership without regard to national origin". (BBC, 05.18.2007)

With American influence diminishing throughout the world, it's possible. Another galling appointment by George W. Bush could be the final straw. The influence of a nation on the executive board is based on the size of their economy, but with EU consolidation, and China's growth, the American veto could be endangered soon. Development: China's preferred region of development right now is in Africa, particularly where there are coveted natural resources like oil.

In January 2005, China offered Angola a $2 billion loan to repair its infrastructure. And this past January, China's top offshore oil producer, Cnooc, agreed to pay $2.3 billion for a stake in a Nigerian oil and natural gas field - its largest ever overseas acquisition. China has rejected Western efforts to attach aid and loans for African countries to demands for improved human rights and government accountability, saying countries should choose their own development priorities. (IHT, 05.22.2006)

And in 2006 they were loaning Nigeria $1 billion to rebuild their railway system so that China can import their oil more-readily. The Nigerian government has to match the funds in the deal. What does fighting poverty have to do with any of this?


It should be remembered at this point that Paul Wolfowitz was the architect of the war in Iraq, which never won him any friends outside of the White House (it went bad, so he's a loser) and the oil industry (same thing). Somehow, Wolfowitz thought he could literally do whatever he wanted to, but who taught him these lessons? Surely it was his faceless masters in finance, the military-media-technocratic-industrial complex, and all the other rich-backers who created him for us to be entertained by.

How else are we going to ignore the real individuals behind globalization? A diversion has always served them well, and Wolfowitz has played this role very well. He's playing it right now, just like George W. Bush. Here's to the imminent-collapse of the World Bank!

Many analysts expect that the new fund will look for ways to lighten China's holdings of dollar-denominated assets, particularly low-yielding U.S. Treasury bonds. At the end of 2006, China held $350 billion worth of T-bills. Fitch estimates that China holds another $230 billion in bonds from government-backed agencies such as Freddie Mac, Fortune 500 and Fannie Mae.
Others predict the fund will bankroll efforts of state-owned resource giants like Sinopec or CNOOC to secure oil, gas, coal and other raw materials abroad. But Arthur Kroeber, editor of the China Economic Quarterly, argues that Beijing will find it difficult to achieve either goal. Few assets offer the depth and liquidity of T-bills. And any effort to finance acquisitions by Chinese companies risks igniting the sort of controversy that scuttled CNOOC's bid for Unocal. (CNN/Fortune, 05.03.2007)

This isn't good news for Western financial elites, and they're trying to contain the activity. What's interesting is that the Chinese want to dispense with the so-called legitimacy of the World Bank, and just go out and loan to nations whose resources they want--it's actually pretty transparent what they want. What they want to do is what the World Bank and the IMF do under the guise of humanitarian-rhetoric, and their directness is refreshing in a world of double-talk.

The West lacks such candor and openness on their methods, but that's an issue of perception management. With the rising power of China, the World Bank appears that it's going to be replaced soon anyway. They're irrelevant. With China's announcement on May 3rd of the creation of what is being termed "the world's largest investment fund," this is likely to become a reality...on the ground.

BBC today on the Wolfowitz resignation, and more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6668415.stm

Thinkquest.org on "Competition": http://library.thinkquest.org/C004323/low/micro2.html

The International Herald Times on some of China's international loans, 05.22.2006: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/22/news/nigeria.php

CNN/Fortune magazine on China's world investment fund, 05.03.2007: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/14/100024842/index.htm?section=money_topstories

THE NEWS WHITE-OUT ON MICHAEL MOORE'S "SICKO" SCREENING AT CANNES HAS BEGUN!

"Well, going quietly to Cannes, I guess, was not to be. For some strange reason, on May 2nd the Bush administration initiated an action against me over how I obtained some of the content they believe is in my film. As none of them have actually seen the film (or so I hope!), they decided, unlike with "Fahrenheit 9/11," not to wait until the film was out of the gate and too far down the road to begin their attack." --Michael Moore today.

CANNES, FRANCE--Considering the real story tomorrow at the film festival will be Michael Moore's "Sicko," we're getting a lot of truly inane stories already, starting with the news that Jerry Seinfeld has a movie with people in bee-suits in it. Then today, we're hearing that--gasp!--Pamela Anderson is getting booed by the paparazzi there! My God, the gall! Next to a captioned photo of actor Dean Hamilton looking at her fake-tits, the article...I'm sorry, it doesn't constitute an article, it's crapulence. What's next? A headline stating, "A bum farts in the direction of Jerry Lewis"? SACRE BLUE!!!!

In a Felliniesque-aside, the paparazzi were pissed that she was late for the shoot, then only stayed for a few-minutes. OK, granted that these folks are just doing their jobs taking the Michigan bimbo's photo, but I'll give her some credit: she was late and didn't stay long because she wanted to be with her kids first. That's admirable. What isn't admirable is AP using this non-story to downplay the explosion coming tomorrow with Moore's documentary on the broken American health care system.

You can see those tentacles of power pulling all the meaning out of the coverage. This week had an interview between Moore and Entertainment Weekly, with a stunning first question (stunning in its possible credulity):

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: So what makes you think there's a problem with our health care system?

MICHAEL MOORE: [laughs hard] I said to the crew on the first day, ''Let's not insult the audience by telling them that the health care system is broken. Let's start with the assumption that people know it. What kind of film would we make then?'' (EW, 05.15.2007)

I don't usually bother naming journalists who reported on and authored a piece, but in this case it's appropriate. If Daniel Fierman is kidding, my bad, but what universe does this perspective come from? Could anyone ask this question in any seriousness without seeming completely out-of-touch and/or daft? I contend that there will be an army of these shills telling all of us in the United States that nothing is wrong with our current health care system at all--every one of them having a connection to that system for a living in some form (shills gotta eat, unfortunately).

Mr. Fierman should really hope he was kidding, because if he's not, we're all really in much bigger trouble than we imagined. But there really are bourgeois-types who are this sheltered. They're stuck in their own bubble, just like the president. The president's father famously walked into a grocery store through the wrong door during the 1992 campaign, mainly because he had never bought groceries for himself. It's possible he had never been in one before that moment since the help usually did it. People like this should be in office? How can they know the needs of anyone?

Meanwhile--not back at the ranch in Crawford--Michael Moore has filed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request on the Treasury Department's OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control ) investigation into his trip to Cuba with ailing 9/11 first-responders earlier this year. E! online repeats most of the boring attacks in their article on this request, spending most of the piece simply bashing Moore, but whoever said they were journalists was probably drunk when they said it.

So despite the fact that Sicko premieres Saturday at the Cannes Film Festival, where Fahrenheit 911 won the Palme d'Or three years ago, the storm clouds are gathering in Washington. [Ed.--my emphasis, sort of!] ..."They started this," Moore said, "and I think that somehow by making some sort of example of me, that helps them with a certain community in terms of voters." The leftwinger also sent a duplicate copy of Sicko to a "safe house" outside of the United States to ensure that he wouldn't have a problem providing the Cannes fest with his film. (E! online, 05.17.2007)

You know, if Natalie Finn--the author of this piece--wants to be a real prostitute, she should have called up Deborah Jeane Palfrey to pay her rent. So, lady, what are these "storm clouds gathering in Washington" exactly? We know what past fines have been, and that a stiff one will be paid immediately by the Weinsteins if it's excessive. That's the worst-case scenario here, and we can safely assume the production is insured too. Another thing that makes this slanting so obvious is that Moore can appeal this. What you and our scumbag president want is to smear Moore with a brush that makes him appear to have broken-the-law. It's baseless.

There's no reason to think Michael Moore should be fined more than a couple thousand dollars personally, considering the New York Yankees just paid $70,000 in fines to the Treasury Department. They must have taken a lot of players on that one, and it's impossible to mistake their trip for anything except business. Considering Michael Moore was filming a documentary, he's still protected under existing laws governing travel to Cuba under the First Amendment. It's too-bad for the cultural managers that the Bush administration botched the whole program--the whole approach. Now, they have even more damage control to contend with.

Statements in articles like Finn's and Fierman could be nothing, or they could be a propaganda campaign that might even be funded with our taxes. This could be the reason for Moore's FOIA. We'll see. Ignore the white-out, the coverage will be on the internet regardless. I think it's high-time Mr. Moore began some libel suits, starting with former-Senator Thompson. It's a safe bet that what we're witnessing are the cheap-shots of Big Pharma, the HMOs, and the rest of our corrupt health care industry in a nation that refuses to recognize basic human rights. This is life in a plutocracy where money rules, and where even hints at the truth are forbidden. This is dehumanization, the inhuman-side of our society.

AP Today, reporting a lot of unimportant bullshit: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070518/ap_on_en_mo/people_pamela_anderson

Entertainment Weakly, asking stupid questions? http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20038926,00.html

E! online, vomiting lies & grotesque bias, 05.17.2007: http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20070517/en_celeb_eo/c8f3b3f48e5f_42b8_b68b_71eb6f0f0a90

Brilliant: Blogger saves automatically now!

BLOGGER.COM--Yep, I was thinking they needed this feature for a loooooong time. I've had to rewrite so many posts it's not true, this is impressive. Now, if they can add a few more features like captioning for images, more fonts, and more options for layout--but I'm sure those are coming eventually. Way to go blogger!

BREAKTHROUGH AGREEMENT IN IMMIGRATION BILL: AGRIBUSINESS AND CHEAP EMPLOYERS BREATH A SIGH OF RELIEF

"It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law." --Sen. Arlen Specter today, on the "compromise." (AP, 05.17.2007)

WashIntUhN d.C.--It's hard to feel good or bad about this agreement over the McCain/Kennedy proposal. Most illegales will get a fine of $5,000 (where will they earn enough to pay for this?), and it should take 8-13 years for naturalization as an American citizen. The question is: how will this affect the status of these migrant workers as far as how much they make, whether they have legal-protections so they cannot be blackmailed by employers who have hired them illegally (then, exploiting them with low-wages, undercutting them and American workers), and whether companies who employ illegales will have to finally bear-the-brunt of legal violations. As it stands, illegales bear this brunt.

One could readily expect that this legislation protects the status quo of employing illegal aliens from Mexico and Latin America, but the details coming-out are vague. A "temporary worker" program just means these unsavory employers in agribusiness and manufacturing get their free-pass, but they usually do. This is all to ensure that the pressure on American workers is maintained, keeping wages as low as possible. Really, all this amounts to is a proposal, and a symbolic agreement. No bill has been passed yet, but the hoopla could easily give one the impression that one has.

The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that prioritizes immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards. ...The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first. They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed. (AP, 05.17.2007)

For illegal immigrants, it sounds like a raw deal. It's also a raw deal for the American worker. Interestingly, Democrats seem to be siding-with those sundry employers who covet those illegales for cheap labor to exploit. It's unsurprising, as interests overlap, coupled with the fact that many political donors give to both parties. What's missing from all of this coverage is the influence of lobbying (see the business press for candor in this area). To be fair, many Democrats simply want a direct path to citizenship, allowing aliens to reside permanently within the continental United States. That's just facing the reality that they aren't going anywhere, and it's more pragmatic. The problem is reactionaries in both parties.

Today was a first-step--a baby-step--but a step forward nonetheless. In that sense it can lauded as a good move, and the only area of the Bush legacy that has shown any enlightenment or pragmatism--but the votes of all these future citizens are coveted. Thankfully, the GOP is obsessed with blowing its own foot off. It's unlikely they will ever recover from last year's call for making all illegal aliens felons under H.R. 4437 of the do-nothing 109th Congress, and that the Democratic Party has those votes in the bag. H.R. 4437 passed the House (239-182), but never made it to the Senate. Again, the future voters are coveted.

This was wise, considering the national protests it stimulated, as well as casting the GOP in the adversarial-role with the Hispanic community in the United States. But that was late-2005, and much has changed since then. But what hasn't changed is the bizarre commitment to constructing the 700 mile Hadrian's wall between Mexico and the US, as well as increased funds from Homeland Security to patrol and surveil the border. These sections of H.R. 4437 are likely to remain intact with the new compromises, and are a saddening waste of tax-dollars that could be used to meet human needs.

The temporary worker program is pretty awful: it's going to break-up Mexican families, which is a big-deal in their culture. There will be very serious repercussions in the future over it, and they'll be political ones. George W. Bush wasn't the first American politician calling for amnesty and citizenship for illegales, there were many activists within the Hispanic community who have for decades (even before Caesar Chavez). This has happened before with the Bracero Treaty during WWII when the labor was badly-needed:

The Great Depression saw a heightening of discrimination as people viewed Mexicans as a drain to the economy. In response, the U.S. and Mexican governments co-sponsored a repatriation program that returned thousands of immigrants to Mexico. Approximately one-sixth of all people of Mexican descent living in the U.S. in 1930, were repatriated by 1939. The tide turned when the U.S. entered World War II in 1942 and labor was siphoned from all sectors of U.S. industry. The U.S. signed a formal Bracero Treaty, allowing approximately 5 million Mexicans into the U.S. with temporary contracts to work for American growers and ranchers. (ailf.org, updated 05.14.2006)

Then the war ended, but the immigration kept coming, and many people just atayed in the US. By the 1980s, there was more clamoring from the public for controls, and Reagan and Congress agreed on The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which was just another quick-fix (keeping employers satisfied). One has to be curious whether any new legislation will be anything more than another short-term solution. Question: where the hell are the unions?

This is a golden opportunity to change the dynamic in this country for the average worker--including Mexicans--giving us all the upper-hand over employers. Perhaps they were blinded by all their honey-deals with the boss, because a ten-year-old could tell you unionizing Mexican workers will change everything. It would raise the wages of Hispanics, Blacks, Whites, and everyone else who works for a living. Not to court them is incredibly stupid, but that's a labor boss for you. Bloomberg actually noted some of the pressures coming from lobbying, being more honest than Reuters and AP:

Farm owners and restaurants have backed legislation to let immigrants at least temporarily take jobs in the U.S. that might otherwise go unfilled. The Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business federation, supports "an earned pathway to legalization'' and a "carefully monitored guest or essential worker program,'' according to a statement on its Web site. ...Outlines of a possible deal hinge on the willingness of Republicans to compromise over a guest-worker program and on concessions from Democrats on reunification of immigrant families, lawmakers said. (Bloomberg, 05.16.2007)

Maybe they all prefer wildcat and general strikes that nobody can control through official-channels, and demonstrations over families that have been split-up. 8-13 years is too-long for naturalization, as well the "points system," it solves nothing about the overall demographic picture. It all seems a little too-early to announce this, but the "breakthrough" must be pretty real in the Senate. We can only wait-and-see what it finally entails. A bourgeois-hoot.

AP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070517/ap_on_go_co/immigration_congress

"Mexican Voices, American Dreams:A Celebration of Mexican Immigration": http://www.ailf.org/exhibit/ex_mexican_files/mexicans04exhibit.asp

December 2005, text of H.R. 4437 (of the 109th Congress): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4437

Bloomberg, 05.13.2007: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aDV9WZg_GLlA&refer=us

Justice for Immigrants: http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org/

SPINNING WHEEL: DEMOCRATS MAKE FIRST-MOVES AT SHUTTERING BUSH ADMINIATRATION'S TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHIEST IN 2008 BUDGET

Washington D.C.--This is the Democratic majority putting things bluntly to the Bush administration (over-and-over): it's over, and we're going to reverse everything you did, even in your first term. While it's non-binding, the approved $2.9 trillion budget for 2008 will effectively shutter Bush's tax cuts for the rich, cutting those for the middle and working-classes. Also slated for a new round of taxation, are dividends from stock shares. But, there's a hitch in the bill:

The Democratic budget promises a $41 billion surplus in 2012, but does so by assuming taxes on income, dividends and stock sales go up in 2011 instead of being extended as called for by Republicans and Bush. Republicans credit the tax cuts, passed in 2001 and 2003, with reviving the economy, but most Democrats say they are tilted in favor of wealthier taxpayers.Tax cuts aimed at the middle class could be renewed under the compromise, including provisions establishing a 10 percent rate on the first $12,000 of a couple's income, as well as relief for married couples, people with children and those inheriting large estates. (AP, 05.16.2007)

This is generally a good move, but why the "relief for...those inheriting large estates"? That needs to be changed, but since it's non-binding, that can be done later. Estate taxes should remain high for the wealthy, period. To exclude that element isn't a step in the right direction. Inheritance is income, and it's part of one's social responsibility to pay their taxes--their fair share. This compromise has to be removed from the legislation for it to be very meaningful.

But is it surprising? It shouldn't be in Washington, where private power is God. There's no need to study primates in Africa, the Capital is the best example of simian politics there is. AP points-out something very amusing about the legislation (no name for it given--S.Con.Res.21--the usual standard of the wires): there are no outlays for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan "after 2009" figured into how they can balance the budget by 2012. The plan even contends a $41 billion surplus by that year.

The writing is truly on the wall, and it appears that they're only going to do two-month appropriations for operations in the Middle East in Congress. None of this would have been possible under the former-GOP majority, and can be seen as very tangible progress. It's going to be interesting to see if the Bush administration fights over the tax-cuts for the rich and the Democrats' increases in domestic spending, like the bill's increases at the Department of Education.

The House last week passed legislation funding the war on two separate, 60-day installments. The Senate must take the next step by passing its own measure. Given the political forces at work, that legislation will be a placeholder, its only purpose to trigger three-way negotiations involving the House, Senate and Bush administration on a final compromise. As a result, officials said during the day that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell had discussed jointly advancing a bill so barebones that it contained no funds, and did little more than express congressional support for the troops. Negotiations on the final compromise are expected to take days. Bush has already signaled he will not accept the type of troop withdrawal timetables that Democrats want. For their part, Republicans hope to craft a measure that signals to the public that their patience for the war is running out. (AP, 05.15.2007)

He wouldn't short change the kids, would he? Well, yes, he would. This saga began on February 4th, remember? That's when the president submitted his budget to Congress. If you want proof of how much things have changed, it's that Bush no longer gets his rubber-stamp on legislation. The standoff could continue several more months, and the Democrats have everything to gain by continuing this, but I think the Bush administration will eventually have to capitulate...on nearly everything.

The Republicans are sending a lot of mixed-signals these days, aren't they? For those who wish to stand by the president and continue their support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: expect to be removed from office in upcoming-elections. It could be much sooner than you think. When you have such arch-conservatives like Hillary Clinton finally caving-in and supporting a bill by Dennis Kucinich, you know which way the wind is blowing (she's our national weather vane).

The reports of dozens of Iraqis dead daily are becoming the norm, and the occupation of the country is crumbling. In a very short time, you're going to be seeing GOP incumbents losing their cool and jumping-ship on the president and his war. Nominating a "War Czar" (finding the biggest sucker in the military, it seems) isn't going to change anything either. Bush has threatened a veto on any legislation that "exceeds" his targets for his own budget-balancing plan (just like the plan for postwar-Iraq). The current budget proposed by Democrats usurps his plan.

Responsibility for the war and its execution reside with the Executive, the branch that wanted the war and pushed very hard to have it--even doctoring intelligence to get it, and bullying traditional American allies and domestic critics. Polls in late-2002 showed clearly that 2/3rd's of the American public were against a prolonged-conflict, and so a short one was promised, and one that wouldn't cost the taxpayer. As we know--and most of us knew at that time--these were lies. Just this last-week, we've learned that billions in Iraqi oil have gone missing, while anywhere from $5-15 million in funds for the war and reconstruction go missing daily. It's time to end this circus.

AP Today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070516/ap_on_go_co/congress_budget

"Clinton, Obama back Iraq fund cutoff": http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070516/ap_on_el_pr/us_iraq;_ylt=AtdJnbnb4M8SuwWwkxJ9KeiMwfIE

CQ on Bush's promise of a veto, 05.11.2007: http://public.cq.com/docs/cqm/cqmidday110-000002510357.html

S.Con.Res.21: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sc21/show

MICHAEL MOORE'S LETTER TO BLOWHARD SEN. FRED THOMPSON

Tues May 15 2007 6:00:01 ET
LETTER:
May 15, 2007

Senator Fred Thompson
American Enterprise Institute
110 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Senator Thompson,

Given that it has been publicly reported in The Weekly Standard, a leading neo-conservative publication, that you support Fidel Castro and the Cuban regime by being a purveyor of fine Cuban exports despite the trade embargo, I was surprised to see your recent op ed in a more traditional conservative outlet, The National Review, regarding my trip to Cuba (I suspect you choose The National Review in an effort to pander to an outlet that had criticized you for your opposition to medical malpractice legislation).

In your May 2, 2007 National Review article, “Paradise Island,” you specifically raised concerns about whether my trip to Cuba with 9/11 heroes, who have suffered serious health problems as a result of their exposure to toxic substances at Ground Zero that have gone untreated was somehow going to support Castro ad the Cuban government:

“It always leaves me shaking my head when I read about some big-time actor or director going to Cuba and gushing all over Castro.” [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWNhNzA2YmY3NTNjZjZhNjE1NmZjMDFkOTdjN2Q4ZmE=]

Putting aside the fact that you, like the Bush Administration, seem far more concerned about the trip to Cuba than the health care of these 9/11 heroes, I was struck by the fact that your concerns (including comments about CastroÕs reported financial worth) apparently do not extend to your own conduct, as reported in The Weekly Standard’s April 23, 2007 story, “From the Courthouse to the White House Fred Thompson auditions for the leading role” (emphasis added):

“Thompson’s work space looks just like what the home office of a successful politician or CEO should look like — though a little messier: a large desk, dark wood, leather furniture, lots of books and magazines and newspapers, a flat-screen TV, and box upon box of cigars — Montecristos from Havana.” [http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=13528&R=1136E33842]

In light of your comments regarding Cuba and Castro, do you think the “box upon box of cigars — Montecristos from Havana” that you have in your office have contributed to Castro's reported wealth?

While I will leave it up to the conservatives to debate your hypocrisy and the Treasury Department to determine whether the “box upon box of cigars” violates the trade embargo, I hereby challenge you to a health care debate.

Survey after survey has indicated that health care is one of the top issues to the American voters. Today, more than 46 million people lack health are coverage, including 9 million children. We pay significantly more than any other country in the world — and get less back. Americans life expectancy is lower than other Ground Zero 9/11 workers live in a society where the Bush Administration has shown more concern about their travel than about their health.

Our debate would provide you an opportunity to appeal to the right wing of the Republican Party by continuing to attack me; it would give me a chance to discuss health care and tell you exactly what happened in Cuba, given your apparent inters; and it would provide the American people an opportunity to see just how serious Hollywood can be, with a purported conservative and an avowed progressive Hollywood personality on stage. Over the course of the debate, we could specifically address the following issues:

(1) Your work as a lobbyist in light of the fact that the health care and insurance industries have maintained the current health care system through their effective control of the political establishment.

(2) The fact that you raised hundred of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the health care and insurance industries.

(3) Discuss the fact, highlighted in yet another conservative outlet The New York Sun, that you inexplicably wanted to cut funding for AIDS research. [http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/thompsons-1994-issue-positions.html]

(4) Your relationship with the Frist family and by extension HCA, one of the nation’s largest for-profit hospital chains. It has been reported that former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (who was renowned for his over-the-television-screen Schiavo diagnosis) is serving as one of your confidantes on your potential presidential campaign. The Frist family has historically controlled HCA, which paid a record $1.7 billion in civil and criminal fines, including a $631 million penalty for Medicaid fraud — in other words, ripping off the taxpayers.

(5) Discussing whether Arthur Branch, as the District Attorney of Manhattan, supports a woman’s right to choose, gun safety reforms, gay marriage, the trans fat ban and anti-smoking laws (which would impact Cuban cigars, including your Montecristos).

Like American Idol, we could even have the country vote to determine which one of us wins the debate. Though in the spirit of full disclosure, I feel obligated to forewarn you that I was the winner of the 1971-72 Detroit Free Press Debate Award for the state of Michigan.
The winner of our health care debate could even light a Victory cigar with one of your Montecristos (though we may want to consider shopping them to the safe house where I have put a master copy of SiCKO in the event that the Bush Administration tries to seize the film).

Sincerely,
Michael Moore