Yellow Dog

When I read stories like this one from the New York Times, I always wonder what the religious right must be thinking when proposals come forward that will hurt the poor. But they're probably too busy with their war against gay people or keeping people in vegetative states alive to notice. But for those who abide by truly Christian principles ("Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, that you do unto me"), these cuts to housing for the poor should put Bush and HUD "in the doghouse." Actually, the doghouse might be the only place for the poor to live if Republicans have their way.

From the NYT editorial:

"The Bush administration pays lip service to the goal of 'ending chronic homelessness' - while undermining the very programs that keep poor people from ending up in the streets. The Housing and Urban Development Department is proposing unreasonable cuts in federal subsidies, which would make it harder for underfinanced housing authorities to keep their developments livable and safe. And a proposal in Congress would make it harder for the poor to get rental subsidies from Section 8, the public-private partnership that underwrites rents for nearly two million of the country's low-income families and encourages builders to develop affordable housing.

This meat-ax approach has to stop. Congress needs to understand that poor people won't just disappear when the housing that serves them dries up."

It's a neat trick really. The Republicans create a greater percentage of poverty than we've experienced over the past decade, with larger gaps between rich and poor than we've ever seen. Then, with a greater number of poor in place, they begin cutting all of the support services in place for the poor. Evil, but clever.

The New York Times > Opinion > Editorial: Killing Off Housing for the Poor

Stories like this just burn me up, especially since clean air should be a bipartisan issue, right? Here's the deal. Back in 2000, Bush made a campaign promise to include carbon dioxide as an air pollutant that should be regulated. He lied. Under pressure from his industry-polluting buddies, he reversed the Clinton administration EPA rules regulating carbon dioxide emissions.

This battle has now gone to a federal appeals court, and all you have to do is look at who the plaintiffs are (12 states, a territory, 3 cities, and 13 environmental groups) and who is on the government's side in the case (19 industry groups, including car makers, refiners, and chemical companies) to know what side the Bush admin. is on. For this administration, it always comes down to helping businesses avoid regulation at the expense of the health of the citizens. As someone who lives in one of the 10 most polluted cities in the U.S., I just hope I survive the Toxic Texan's reign and that people finally pull their heads out and elect some yellow dogs who care about the environment.

The New York Times > Washington > 2 Sides Do Battle in Court on Whether E.P.A. Should Regulate Carbon Dioxide

Talk about the radical right. This Wash Post article notes that Republican leaders are going after a Reagan appointee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, based on his opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles in a recent Supreme Court ruling. Forget for a moment the irony of the party that's supposed to be for a "culture of life" wanting to kill off juvenile offenders (such hypocrisy is lost on Republicans). Twice in this article, conservative Edwin Vieira invokes Joseph Stalin to make his point. Scary stuff, particularly following last week's acts of two prominent Republican congressman making threats to judges from the House floor.

But I like what Josh Micah Marshall has to say about the article and about Republicans' vendetta against the judiciary:

"How high on the list of national priorities for the American people do you figure disciplining the federal judiciary is? Higher than the economy? Terrorism? Health care? Iraq? Social Security? Long-term care? Road quality?

Perhaps it is time for the Democrats simply to embrace their destiny as the party of grown-ups. No members of congress threatening judges. No gonzo federal legislation cooked up in the middle of the night to game a family struggle in Florida. Borrowing money and saving money are not the same thing. A reasonable respect for the rules under which the country has long been governed. Congressional staffers will neither steal work material from members of the opposition party nor stand on principle when caught. Bribes tendered on the floor of Congress will be frowned upon ..."

It's hard being the party of grown-ups, when the kids in charge are so out of control....

And the Verdict on Justice Kennedy Is: Guilty (washingtonpost.com)

Okay, can we finally dispense, once and for all, with the myth of the liberal media? It is a corporate media, driven by profits rather than accuracy of information, and we all know that corporate-friendly ideologies are conservative, not liberal (especially with our current CEO president).

"RECENT REVELATIONS that the Bush administration has been fabricating news stories, secretly hiring journalists to write puff pieces and credentialing fake reporters at White House news conferences has infuriated the news media.

Editorials profess to being shocked - shocked! - by the government's covert propaganda campaign in which, as The New York Times revealed March 13, at least 20 federal agencies have spent $250 million creating and sending fake news segments to local TV stations."

From embedded reporters in Iraq acting as conduits of Pentagon spin to the fake news stories on medicare to the staged audiences at Social Security events (where those who disagreed with Bush's plan were thrown out of these taxpayer funded events), this administration is doing an unbelievable job distributing government-supplied propaganda.

Here's the part of the story I agree with most and find most troubling (especially after arguing with ill-informed Bushites):

"The first casualty of this taxpayer-financed misinformation campaign is the truth.

Mr. Bush must have been delighted to learn from a March 16 Washington Post-ABC News poll that 56 percent of Americans still thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the start of the war, while six in 10 said they believed Iraq provided direct support to al-Qaida.

Americans believe these lies not because they are stupid but because they are good media consumers."

And here I thought they were just plain stupid.


baltimoresun.com - Americans deserve media that won't bow to Bush

At a House Armed Services Committee hearing, Congress questioned Richard Perle and Wesley Clark, and Clark, who warned that we should not rush to war in Iraq, got a chance to say "I told you so."

Interestingly, this Wash. Post story notes that "Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., a conservative Republican from North Carolina who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, turned his fury on Richard N. Perle, the Pentagon adviser who provided the Bush administration with brainpower for the Iraq war.

Jones, who said he has signed more than 900 condolence letters to kin of fallen soldiers, pronounced himself "incensed" with Perle. "It is just amazing to me how we as a Congress were told we had to remove this man . . . but the reason we were given was not accurate," Jones told Perle at a House Armed Services Committee hearing. Jones said the administration should "apologize for the misinformation that was given. To me there should be somebody who is large enough to say 'We've made a mistake.' I've not heard that yet."

Don't hold your breath, Rep. Jones.

Same Committee, Same Combatants, Different Tune (washingtonpost.com)

"President Bush's approval rating has plunged to the lowest level of any president since World War II at this point in his second term, the Gallup Organization reported today.

All other presidents who served a second term had approval ratings well above 50% in the March following their election, Gallup reported.

Bush's current rating is 45%."

With rising unemployment, the falling dollar, rising gas prices, trillion dollar deficits, rising poverty, dismantling of social programs, rising health care premiums, tax cuts for the wealthy and CEOs, environmental sell-outs to business and industry, an increasingly costly war (both in lives and dollars), etc., somebody should be asking that 45% just what, specifically, Bush has done that they approve of.

Gallup: Bush Approval Rating Lowest Ever for 2nd-Term Prez at this Point

Like Icarus, house majority leader Tom Delay--buoyed by his own ego trip and power rush--finally flew too close to the sun, singeing his wings and beginning his precipitous fall.

Like the majority of the Christian right, Delay peppers his speeches with talk of God and morality, but his actions show him to be ethically challenged. Here are a few highlights from _The Guardian_ regarding his financial misconduct:

"Yesterday the New York Times reported that Mr DeLay's wife and daughter had been paid more than $500,000 by his re-election campaign since 2001 for their work as organisers and fundraisers.

Meanwhile the Washington Post carried details of a 1997 trip to Moscow by Mr DeLay paid for by a Bahamian firm engaged in lobbying for Russian business interests.

Mr DeLay is barred by congressional ethics rules from accepting paid travel from lobbyists or foreigners.

It is the third of his trips to fall under scrutiny. Last month it was reported that he had a $70,000 visit to London and Scotland paid for by a native American tribe and gambling interests, and a $106,921 trip to South Korea in 2001 financed by Korean business."

Delay, nicknamed "The Hammer," is finally getting some well-deserved hammering of his own.

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Trouble dogs house leader

Woodchucks.

Oh, they're out there... watching... waiting.

Another one!