The Truth About Liberalism: #2 Taxes and Money

When most people decide who to vote for, they vote for the person who will look out for them and represent their views. This usually means they will vote for the politician who lets them keep as much of their money as possible. People don't like taxes, so a politician who promises tax cuts seems appealing. In recent years, the Republican party has had a big thing for tax cuts. That would be fine, if we had a record surplus of money and very little debt, but the reality is that we have a record deficit and we're swimming in debt. The poor money managing skills of the ruling republicans in Washington are causing these fiscal shortcomings to balloon. Someday, that money's going to have to be paid, probably extra taxes for the next generation.

Still, most people who love money more than the future (a surprising amount), believe the myth that democrats will just tax them into poverty and waste the money on huge, meaningless programs. This is far from the truth, and we've got worse now. Republicans are spending money they don't have on huge contracts for their friends who aren't rebuilding anything in Iraq, and they're spending it on huge, meaningless programs, for instance the prescription drug plan. When congress voted on it, the cost estimate was less than half of what its predicted cost is now (a conservative estimate you could say). Now, not many people are getting financial help with their meds because the program is a joke with a mountain of paperwork that's going to drain the wallets of Americans for years to come.

This is why, whenever George W. asks congress to make his tax cuts permanent, even enough conservatives balk that it never happens. The vast amounts of money required to run a country with all the services that we enjoy needs to exist, we can't just spend it.

Republicans have shown that they don't know the first thing about financial responsibility, maybe it's time to let somebody who will fight for you, your money, and America's future try. Like a Democrat.

The Truth About Liberalism: #1 What they don't want you to know

This is the first installment in a series-The Truth About Liberalism, in which I plan on dispelling many of the myths that are so often brought up whenever a conservative is trying to incite an anti-liberal riot. Of course, everything in this series is information most conservatives would rather you didn't know because it doesn't portray the better side of the fence as doped up, communist, flip-flopping, gay, pro-terrorist hippies. You could call this part "Liberalism 101" if you wanted.

According to Oxford's Dictionary and Thesaurus, Liberal:(adj) 1)tolerant, respecting individual freedom (in politics), favoring moderate social reform 2) generous 3) (of interpretation) not strict of exact.

The synonyms listed for liberal are: Tolerant, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened, unprejudiced 2) generous, open-handed

Another word we sometimes describe ourselves with is progressive. I think the word speaks for itself, having to do with progress, moving forward, and improvement.

The definition of conservative? Conservative: 1) Opposed to change, (of an estimate) purposely low
Synonyms: conventional, traditional, orthodox, cautious, unadventurous, old-fashioned, reactionary (it should be noted that the definition of reactionary is: opposed to progress and reform)

So, as liberals, we believe that individual freedoms (the first amendment, heck, the whole constitution, anybody?) are good, we're open minded, tolerant, willing to change things that don't work so that we can improve. And what's a conservative? Somebody who's old-fashioned and opposed to change. Hmm, in the olden days we had slavery, and a bunch of people didn't want to change that.

Thank God we've got liberals.

That Mailbag Thing #2

Sorry about the prolonged absence, I've been busy. This is also going to be a short entry, because 1) I'm still busy, and 2) You people haven't sent me any material for a mailbag, except those who you see here.

What do you think about this whole Zaccahrias Moussaoui thing? I don't think he should be put to death. -Chris

Well, Chris, I don't think they should kill him either. For one, he wants to die, and for two, I don't support the death penalty or killing at all.

On to what I think. I don't have any evidence or reason to believe this guy's not a terrorist and a guy who dislikes America, but I'd be very surprised if he was in as deep as the government prosecution is portraying him. The courtroom isn't the place for politics, but sadly, this administration needs whatever good publicity it can get, including scapegoats who actually are terrorists. If they can come down hard on Moussaoui, they can make it look like they're doing a lot more to fight terrorism than they actually are. No, Iraq doesn't count as fighting terrorism, because W. attacked for political and personal reasons, and I'm pretty sure that the insurgents had nothing to do with 9/11.

I think you should weigh in on the energy fiasco and alternatives. -anonymous

By energy fiasco, I'm assuming you mean the rising gas and oil prices. In the last few decades, oil has replaced money as the root of evil. I think it's wrong that Americans should have to pay through the nose to drive their cars and heat their homes, but for slightly different reasons than one might assume. This is a shame because we should've been driving hybrid cars or using at least 85% ethanol blends 10 years ago. The technology was and is there. Instead, we can't live without the middle east and the polar ice caps are melting.

There is a somewhat bright side to this, though. Every time gas prices rise, I hope that it will wean America of it's oil addiction, to borrow a term from our dear president. I've been let down by an administration with significant oil interests every time, but there is talk now. In Iowa and Minnesota, ethanol plants are going up left and right, and I've actually seen a couple gas stations with E-85 pumps.

For alternatives, I have high hopes for cheaper, cleaner, American ethanol. Brazil is a great example, taking what they have an abundance of (sugarcane) and fueling their cars with it (sugarcane ethanol, either completely or 80-90% blends I'm not sure). This isn't just a couple models, but every car has this capability, and just about everybody takes advantage of this. Hydrogen hybrids also show great promise. I'd like to see everybody filling up their hydrogen hybrid care with E-85 (or 100, we've got the smartest people in the world after all) fuel in the next 5 years (it's definitely possible), and in the short term, really toughening fuel efficiency standards (like, this year).

If you've got anything for the mailbag, I'm happy to get stuff- redstripddonkey@yahoo.com

Contingency Plan 1025

I meant to get this off a couple of days ago when this news was fresh, but a couple things got in the way. Before you read this, it would be helpful if you read this brief story from the Daily Telegraph.

Now, everybody in Washington has already denied that this is anything more than a way of covering all the bases. It's just a plan that will probably never be implemented. But do you remember that part near the end of the article, about how George W. Bush is hell-bent on leaving a "legacy" to the world. That scares me. Mr. President, you've done enough for the world with your wars, civil rights rollbacks, and your environmental policy. Please just give up, and coast until the mid-term elections (when democrats will retake congress and be able to keep the world safe from you). You've already left quite a legacy.

The other thing I don't get is this: We're trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons (which I support), but we're the only country who has ever used them. Now if it's possible to justify the use of nukes, the situation in WWII is pretty close to justifiable, and we don't seem as hypocritical. If we were to use nuclear weapons on Iran because we don't want Iran to have that capability, what message does that send to the world?

I think Mr./Ms. Anonymous says it best:

Daniel,
I find the notion of the US using nuclear weapons against anyone to be appalling. I believe Mr. Bush is simply moving his target from Iraq to Iran, since the Iraq idea hasn't worked out the way he hoped. I believe he has it in his head to leave some kind of "legacy" to the world, and believe me, he will--that legacy will be one of death, destruction, devastation, and debt. We are already the most hated country in the world, and such a nuclear strike will make it worse. And how will other nuclear-armed nations respond to a unilateral American strike? What will Russia and China do? If our leaders are willing to make this move, then we as citizens had better prepare for retaliatory strikes. Not good, Dan, not good at all. Let's hope cooler minds prevail. God help us. The other thing is, a crisis in Iran would be just the thing to get people's minds off the complete incompetence and corruption within this administration. Who's going to be worried about midterm elections when we're scrambling for our lives? I believe our president is desperate enough to do it, and that's a scary thought. Who's going to stop him?

Have a good evening.

Gangsters Organized Politically

A couple things have happened this week that I've decided to include in the same rant: Rep. Tom Delay surrendering, and the fact that G.W. Bush authorized the Valerie Plame leak was made public. What do these things have in common, you might ask. They both fall under the broad (and quite extensive) category of Conservative Corruption.

I'll go start with Mr. Delay, since he made the news first. We're finally getting rid of a corrupt, powerful, evil, conniving legislator. Of course, I'd rather he was going straight to prison, but his day will come. Meanwhile, he's left a legacy that reflects his values (listed above). What worries me is that he actually won the primary election and decided not to run again on his own. What caused him to do that is a mystery to me, because his past behavior has shown that he doesn't care that everyone knows he's a crook. But what's it matter. VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!

What's more serious is that our president thinks, once again, that the law doesn't apply to him. You may remember, more than a year ago now I think, the name of an undercover CIA agent was leaked and all the sudden, she wasn't so undercover anymore. This in itself was suspicious enough, but what's even fishier is that her husband was a former U.S. ambassador who had been appointed to look into Bush's claims that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Nigeria. Needless to say, he didn't find any evidence of such a purchase. Also needless to say, Bush didn't like this, as it painted W. as a liar. Little did this ambassador know that the administration's revenge would come in the form of compromising his wife's safety. From what we now know, it seems Bush authorized such a leak, and Dick Cheney's lackey carried it out. Of course, W denied any knowledge of it, but now that word's out, he's saying he declassified that information and had it made public for reasons not quite clear to me (something about defending pre-war intel, but it just seems like something the mob would do to shut her husband up).

Does the president have the authority to just go around declassifying the names of covert CIA agents. No. This also seems slightly hypocritical, because, last time I checked, the CIA gathered intelligence that is vital to protecting the U.S. from terrorists. And we all know that your and my safety is at the top of the White House's agenda, they use it to justify just about everything after all.

When you add this stuff to even more corrupt republicans, like Rep. Cunningham who took all those bribes in return for steering big defense contracts toward the right people (after resigning in shame, he pled guilty and was sentenced to quite a few years pretty quick), you start to see a pattern. The GOP is not in fact the party with all the morals, at least not the good ones.

Censure W

As you can probably tell from the title, I support Sen. Feingold's bill to censure Pres. Bush.

Censure. What does it mean? The dictionary says "harsh criticism, rebuke." It's basically congress saying to the president that they really don't like what he's doing, a vote of no confidence if you will. Are there any direct repercussions? No. It's just Congress as a whole speaking their opinion, and no laws are enacted or extra restrictions placed on the President. This would, however, neuter the White House politically. Then maybe executive power and misconduct would be brought back down to safer, Clinton-era levels.

Now, I know that you conservatives are going to try to rip me apart for saying Clinton didn't commit misconduct. Read the sentence again, I said "safer" level of misconduct. Really, how much does it matter what a president does with his personal time as long as it's not illegal (as opposed to ordering illegal wire taps on Americans)? Would you rather have a president who sometimes can't keep it in his pants, or a president whose intentional lies kill 2,500 some Americans and countless others? Think about it and get back to me. I already know which one I prefer.

Back to the issue at hand. What are Sen. Feingold's grounds for this Censure? He thinks (rightly so) that a president who willingly and knowingly disobeys the law should be told by Congress (who's job it is to check the executive power) that he shouldn't be doing that. Instead we're getting closer to a scenario like this:

(with strong southern accent) "Members of Congress, I've come to you today to propose a new bill. This bill, if voted into law, will make it easier to fight the terrorists who plot to kill Americans. What I'm proposing are a few minor changes to our great constitution. Now, usually I'm a big fan of the constitution. But sometimes it can impede" (go through a couple different pronunciations on impede before using the right one) "fighting those terrorists. My plan is, see this part here 'We the people of the United States of America', now that part's good, I like it, it's what America stands for. What we do is, right after that part, we make a little cut right here" (takes scissors and separates top line of constitution from the rest, discarding the rest and keeping only the top) "and now we have the weapons we need to win the war on terror and fight those who hate democracy" (applause)

Will it come to that? Hopefully not.

There's always two sides to every story. Let's hear the president's. He claims that in order to protect America from terrorists (a noble goal) he needs to be able to listen in on Americans' communications without wasting time getting warrants. This power, he says, is given to him in Article II of the constitution. Well, believe it or not, I have a copy of the document in question right here. I'm looking at article two, and I don't see anything about unwarranted searches or surveillance in times of emergency, war, or otherwise. What Art. 2 does say is this "He (the president) shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." The first half of that is what's important. Laws, I think the constitution is the basis of all of those. Let's see what are some laws that he is supposed to execute: amendment IV "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." Well,

were these laws executed faithfully? Let's see: unreasonable searches not to take place without warrant issued on probable cause. Did George W. Bush have probable cause to listen in on all these people (keep in mind, if the majority of these people were terrorists, we'd have a problem on our hands)? Nope, he didn't even have a warrant, let alone supported by an oath or affirmation. What he had was a switchboard that showed all the overseas phone calls people were making, a record button, and a pair of headphones.

The law is with Sen. Feingold on this one.