Yellow Dog

Senator Dick Durbin (Illinois) in the Democrats' weekly radio address discussed the concentrated power of the current GOP-controlled Congress and executive branch, which has produced "a culture of corruption that is preventing government from dealing with the real needs of our nation."

In his broadcast, Durbin made several references to civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., who was slain in 1968 and would have turned 77 on Sunday. Durbin said that in his last book, King wrote: "'There is nothing wrong with power. The problem is that, in America, the power is unequally divided.'"

That's true in Washington today, Durbin said.

"Powerful corporate special interests control the agenda and people who don't have paid lobbyists really don't have much of a voice," he said. "To these power players, the challenges facing America are not problems to solve, but opportunities to exploit."

Those challenges include the lack of affordable health insurance, dwindling pension plans and rising energy costs, Durbin said.

"As Dr. King reminded us, America has no second- or third-class citizens," he said. "We should all have an equal voice and an equal chance to succeed."
Sen. Durbin: U.S. Deserves Honest Leaders - Yahoo! News

Here's an article from the extremely conservative National Review and written by one of the most conservative columnists, Rich Lowry, who admits that the bribes and corruption on Capitol Hill are all Republican scandals:

"The GOP now craves such bipartisan cover in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Republicans trumpet every Democratic connection to Abramoff in the hope that something resonates. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.), took more than $60,000 from Abramoff clients! North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan used Abramoff's skybox! It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.

Abramoff is a Republican who worked closely with two of the country's most prominent conservative activists, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed. Top aides to the most important Republican in Congress, Tom DeLay (R., Tex.) were party to his sleazy schemes. The only people referred to directly in Abramoff's recent plea agreement are a Republican congressmen and two former Republican congressional aides. The GOP members can make a case that the scandal reflects more the way Washington works than the unique perfidy of their party, but even this is self-defeating, since Republicans run Washington.

When he took office, Bush promised to run government like a business and has certainly lived up to the CEO leadership. We now have our first ENRON government.
Rich Lowry on GOP & Jack Abramoff on National Review Online

For those who believe Bush is above the law in spying on US citizens, I refer you to the 4th amendment to the US Constitution:

"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."

That means that even the President of the US should not be able to listen in on phone conversations of US citizens without a warrant. And the bogus argument that securing a warrant would disrupt the ability to protect citizens is a load of crap. The NSA has a provision for obtaining warrants _after_ the fact or retroactively. Bush's only excuse is that he is drunk with executive power and arrogance and thinks he can rewrite or ignore laws. It's time to put King George back in his place and to remind him that this is supposed to be a democracy, not a dictatorship.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

No, Bush didn't cause the explosion that collapsed the mine in West Virginia, but just like with Hurricane Katrina, he didn't have the necessary regulations in place that would have prevented it and, in fact, was working actively to suspend safety regulations.

According to this NYT report, the Bush administration has worked hard to downgrade safety standards and put industry insiders in charge of regulations.

Safety and environmental regulations often shift with control of the White House, but the Bush administration's approach to coal mining has been a particularly potent example of the blend of politics and policy.

In addition to Mr. Lauriski, who spent 30 years in the coal industry, Mr. Bush tapped a handful of other industry executives and lobbyists to help oversee safety and environmental regulations.

In all, the mine safety agency has rescinded more than a half-dozen proposals intended to make coal miners' jobs safer, including steps to limit miners' exposure to toxic chemicals. One rule pushed by the agency would make it easier for companies to use diesel generators underground, which miners say could increase the risk of fire.

Over the last six years, coal companies have donated $9 million to federal political candidates and party organizations, and 90 percent has gone to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

MyDD :: How Bush Failed the Sago 13

This is what happens when the Bush administration's prescription drug program is designed to help big pharmaceutical companies instead of senior citizens. But if you are not helping to line the pockets of big CEOs and rich donors, you mean nothing to the Bush admin.

"Two weeks into the new Medicare prescription drug program, many of the nation's sickest and poorest elderly and disabled people are being turned away or overcharged at pharmacies, prompting more than a dozen states to declare health emergencies and pay for their life-saving medicines.

Computer glitches, overloaded telephone lines and poorly trained pharmacists are being blamed for mix-ups that have resulted in the worst of unintended consequences: As many as 6.4 million low-income seniors, who until Dec. 31 received their medications free, suddenly find themselves navigating an insurance maze of large deductibles, co-payments and outright denial of coverage.

'This new prescription drug plan was supposed to be a voluntary program to help people who didn't have coverage,' said Jeanne Finberg, a lawyer for the National Senior Citizens Law Center. 'All this is doing is harming the people who had coverage -- America's most vulnerable citizens.'"

But guess who it's helping? Insurance companies and big pharmaceutical companies. After all, with Abramoff and his cohorts goingto jail, Bush is going to need some new fundraising "pioneers."
The States Step In As Medicare Falters

That's right--the person who _should_ have been President of the United States, AL GORE, is schedule to give a major speech on Monday in Washington in which he reflects on how the US is becoming a police state. He will focus on how the Bush administration has created a "Constitutional crisis" by acting without the authorization of the Congress and the courts to spy on Americans and otherwise abuse basic liberties.

Oh, to think where we might have been had Gore assumed the presidency that was rightfully his. Here's where we would NOT be: we would not be in Iraq; we would not be spending 2 billion of our taxpayer dollars on the war; we would not be in a major deficit; we would not be mired in corruption thanks to slimy Bush "pioneers" like Abramoff; we would not be investigating leaks into the outing of CIA agents; we would not be worrying that the government is listening in on our phone calls and monitering our emails without a warrant.

And for those skeptics who think the argument that Gore really won in 2000 is just a bunch of sour grapes, take a look at this study by a respected political scientist Lance DeHaven-Smith--a professed "independent" who has written nine books and who has studied Florida's elections and politics for 25 years and has compiled legal documents, statistical analyses and public records. Following is an excerpt from an interview:

Q: One of the most interesting points you make in the book is that the focus on undervotes (ballots containing no vote for president)—the hanging, dimpled and otherwise pregnant chads—was misplaced. Instead, you explain that a study by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, which looked at all the ballots that were initially rejected on election night 2000, revealed a surprise: most of these uncounted votes were in fact discarded because they were over-votes, instances of two votes for president on one ballot. What do you think the NORC study tells us about the election?

LdHS: It’s an embarrassing outcome for George Bush because it showed that Gore had gotten more votes. Everybody had thought that the chads were where all the bad ballots were, but it turned out that the ones that were the most decisive were write-in ballots where people would check Gore and write Gore in, and the machine kicked those out. There were 175,000 votes overall that were so-called “spoiled ballots.” About two-thirds of the spoiled ballots were over-votes; many or most of them would have been write-in over-votes, where people had punched and written in a candidate’s name. And nobody looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in the last decision it made requiring a statewide recount. Nobody had thought about it except Judge Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the statewide recount when it was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The write-in over-votes have really not gotten much attention. Those votes are not ambiguous. When you see Gore picked and then Gore written in, there’s not a question in your mind who this person was voting for. When you go through those, they’re unambiguous: Bush got some of those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Florida’s eight largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gore’s name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, while Bush’s name was marked on only 17,000.

Read the whole thing and weep. Weep for what might have been had we had an intelligent, informed president who respects diplomacy, respects the environment, respects the privacy of American citizents, and respects the Constitution.
Research In Review at Florida State University

Here's the round-up of this week's sickening statistics:

--A secret Pentagon study has found that as many as 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to the upper body could have survived if they had had extra body armor. Such armor has been available since 2003, but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.
Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Body Armor - New York Times

--Over 200 were killed in Iraq over the past two days

--11 U.S. soldiers were killed on Saturday, and an additional 5 U.S. soldiers were slain today

--A Blackhawk helicopter was shot down today, killing all 12 aboard

--The real cost to America of the Iraq war is likely to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, up to 10 times more than previously thought, according to a report written by a Nobel prize-winning economist and a Harvard budget expert