ThinkingLiberal

Mark Foley: The Republican Hypocrisy Continues

You might not have heard of Congressman – sorry, ex-Congressman – Mark Foley, a Florida Republican.

But the good news is, that while you may not have heard of his sterling work, he has been quietly protecting your children from Internet predators. You see, Foley had the distinction of being chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.

Not particularly glamorous, certainly – but Foley was making the best of it, having introduced legislation to protect children from exploitation by adults over the Internet. He also sponsored other legislation designed to protect minors from abuse and neglect.

But…

Trouble is, while the left-hand was introducing all this noble legislation, the right-hand was whirring away under the desk while Mr. Foley wrote pornographic emails to 16 year-old boys.
"Do I make you a little horny?" asked Representative Foley in one IM to the young lad. And in another message, Foley wrote, "You in your boxers, too? ... Well, strip down and get relaxed."

If this was a Democrat, you can bet your ass it would be the biggest news since the invasion of Iraq. And a Democrat in charge of protecting your children??? Think Kennedy assassination.

But it’s not – it’s a Florida Republican. His seat will go to another evil-minded pervert, or corrupt, bribe-taking scumbag, or bigoted right-wing thug.

Because that’s what the Republican leadership in this country has become. Please, think before you vote.

Soaring Costs, Plummeting Enrollment: Healthcare Under Bush

The ranks of the uninsured in America ‘only’ jumped by 1.5 million last year, perpetuating a trend that began with Bush’s first term in 2000.

The reason is simple: since 2000, the cost of healthcare insurance has risen by 78%. Wages, on the other hand, have only risen by 20%. And just as importantly, the percentage of companies offering health insurance has dropped from 69% to 61%.

Under Clinton, there were 39.8 million uninsured Americans (a disgrace in itself) but under Bush, that number has swollen to 46.6 million in 2006. The cost to the country… unimaginable. (A 2001 study by HealthAffairs.org revealed that healthcare for the uninsured cost over $98 billion – although unable to locate more recent figures, I assume that number to have ballooned as the cost of healthcare and the number of uninsured have soared.)

The total cost of health insurance for individuals now averages $4,242 a year. For families, the costs average a staggering $11,480. (Bear in mind that the poverty line for a family of four is $20,000, gross, and that 37 million people in the United States live below that poverty threshold.)

Meanwhile, Bush and his gang of crooks made it harder to file for bankruptcy, under heavy pressure from the credit card companies. The fact that unexpected and exorbitant medical bills are the number one reason for filing bankruptcy didn’t manage to persuade Bush that this was just a tad unfair. Naturally, bankruptcy filings are now at an all-time high. (And remember, every time one of those victims files for bankruptcy, premiums go up for the rest of us.)

The fact that 1 in 6 Americans has no health insurance is nothing short of a national disaster. To take just one example of how unfair the system is, one study found that among Americans diagnosed with colorectal cancer, those without insurance were 70 percent more likely than those with insurance to die over the next three years. (Source – NY Review of Books.) So if you're uninsured... tough luck.

Are we, as a people, so married to the concept of the free market economy that we would have it continue to ruin our healthcare system?

Bomb Your Enemies, Threaten Your Friends: Bush Diplomacy 101

The President of Pakistan today published a memoir in which he describes in some detail the threats he claims were made against his country by the US Government following the September 11th attacks.

According to Pervez Musharraf, both Colin Powell and Richard Armitage spoke with him by phone. He claims that Powell said “You are either with us or against us,” and Armitage said that if Musharraf didn’t start cooperating, he could “Prepare to be bombed back to the Stone Age”.

The White House, of course, is already denying this, so I think it’s worth exploring what Musharraf has to gain by revealing this information (or disinformation).

First of all, Musharraf’s allegiance with the USA over the last few years has not been popular at home. A recent poll by the International Republican Institute (not affiliated with the Republican Party, but boasting several of its senior members) found that 85% of Pakistanis disapprove of the American government, and 83% disapprove of Americans generally. Describing his decision to support the American position on the ‘War on Terror’ as ‘coerced’ could be a way to make himself more popular domestically.

Secondly, it should be noted that General Musharraf rose to power through a coup d’etat in 1999, and that most international observers have declared the electoral college which legitimized his rule in 2004 as corrupt. He will seek re-election in October 2007, so he has a limited amount of time to distance himself from the unpopular American stance.

President Bush, wheeling out Osama bin Laden for the November elections as expected, recently went on the record to say that if bin Laden were to be found somewhere in Pakistan, American troops would be deployed on the ground to eliminate him. Musharraf later portrayed such a move as a ‘joint effort’ but seemed caught off-guard by the President’s words. Of course, deploying American troops on Pakistani soil without that country’s assent could be viewed as an extremely inflammatory act.

So Musharraf certainly has the motive to lie – both the timing and the content of his statements could well be motivated by the reasons detailed above.

However, when we look back to 2001 we see that in fact Musharraf leveled this same allegation, albeit not backed up by details, way back on September 19th 2001, just a week after the attacks on the WTC. At that time, he said in an address to the people that while he supported the Taliban, unless Pakistan reversed its support, the country risked being endangered by an alliance of India and the USA. He spoke at length about having to do the pragmatic thing to save his country. (Read that speech here.)

Now I don’t know whether Musharraf is telling the truth or not. He evidently hasn’t provided corroborating testimony or exhibits to prove his claims. However…

One of the biggest questions I’ve always had about this phoney war is – why did Tony Blair support it?

Blair is a rational, left-of-center politician who had, prior to the war, always commanded the utmost respect in Britain – even his political enemies were in awe of his ability to empathize with the public.

His decision to involve the UK in Iraq wasn’t just surprising – it was utterly stunning. And his steadfast support for Bush, a natural political enemy, has been nothing less than incomprehensible, particularly given the overwhelming opposition to the Iraq war within his own party and political base.

Unless of course Blair found himself in the same boat as Musharraf. Now, I don’t think for one minute that one of Bush’s cronies would have threatened Britain with bombing. But I have hypothesized in the past that the reason Blair supported Bush could well be economic. After all, Britain’s #1 export is – (can you guess?) – North Sea oil. And their biggest customer is – (can you guess?) – America. Total trade between the two countries was $74 billion in 2005 – the sixth most valuable trading relationship to America, and the second most valuable to the UK.

With Bush and his gang bombing our perceived enemies and threatening our potential allies, is it really so far-fetched to assume that the Bush administration threatened to bankrupt Britain by imposing economic sanctions or restrictions on trade between the two countries?

It is the only logical reason I can see that Blair would join Bush on his quest to wage illegitimate war. Just like Musharraf, he might have been putting his country’s needs above his own.

Thoughts?

The Shameful Result Of Our President's Lies

Here's something you don't see every day... even though it happens every day.

The reason? The Bush administration wants you to forget that our troops are being killed by the hundreds out in Iraq. They want you to believe that we are winning that war. They want you to believe that we're doing some good.

But the truth is, this week the number of American casualties of the war finally overtook the number of people killed in the attacks of September 11th 2001.

There is no end in sight - in fact, troop numbers are up yet again this month. There is no way we can, in Bush's words, 'complete the mission'. There is no winning solution any more, only a wide variety of losing scenarios.

We have created a nightmare of violence, torture and fear in Iraq. The U.N.'s top specialist on the subject of torture estimates that it is worse now than it ever was under Saddam Hussein.

And thanks to the Bush administration's focus on legalizing torture and ignoring the Geneva Conventions, you can be assured that any of our troops captured by the enemy will suffer long, painful deaths as retribution for our own decision to stand alone in the civilized world in allowing torture.

Each of these coffins represents a life extinguished for no good reason; a brave soldier who laid down their life for a series of lies told by their draft-dodging President.

Marilyn Musgrave - An 'F' Grade Politician And A Cancer In Congress

There are bad people, and there are bad people, and there is Marilyn Musgrave.

Congresswoman Musgrave is best known outside Colorado as the sponsor of the ‘Federal Marriage Amendment’, a particularly vitriolic and hateful piece of legislation designed to deny basic human rights to a substantial portion of the American populace.

She is one of two members of Congress to secure a 100% Conservative rating with the ultra right-wing American Conservative Union, due in large part to her support for the restriction of reproductive rights to women – she even opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest (interestingly, on her own website she claims that the government ‘intrudes too much’ in family affairs – though that doesn’t seem to stop her from wanting government control over the bodies of 50% of the population).

While her politics may be abhorrent, her corruption is intolerable.

Recently named as ‘one of the thirteen most corrupt members of Congress’ by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Musgrave accepted $30,000 from Tom DeLay’s ARMPAC and despite the fact that this turned out to be tainted money, she refused to hand it back or turn it over to charity. She is under investigation for using taxpayers’ money to send out campaign literature, for using her congressional office as a campaign office (highly illegal) and for taking $120,000 from donors who are either convicted or indicted felons, or under investigation for felony corruption.

Musgrave’s attack ads against her opponent this fall, Angie Paccione, have already begun to hit our screens. Interestingly, she has chosen to hit Paccione on illegal immigration – even though Musgrave herself voted with big business, and against a crackdown on illegals, when she voted against an amendment to HR 4437 that would have increased the fines on businesses for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, and later voted to protect big corporations that hire illegal immigrants. Marilyn voted for an amendment to HR 4437 that set caps on the monetary penalties imposed on businesses for hiring or employing illegal immigrants.

Marilyn Musgrave was beaten in large parts of her constituency by a weak Democratic challenger in 2004; in 2006, she faces an evangelical Christian in Paccione, who has a strong reputation and a much bigger budget.

In the event that there’s anything you can do to prevent this evil, corrupt, hateful woman from achieving re-election, I urge you to visit www.angie2006.com to volunteer.

Real American values depend on removing tumors like Musgrave from the political system.

George Bush Postures On Literacy - The Irony Is Almost Too Much

George ‘Nukular’ Bush is obviously misunderestimating things again.

At a speech today in New York for the White House Conference on Global Literacy, our semi-literate President told the world that "The simple act of teaching a child to read or an adult to read has the capacity to transform nations and yield the peace we all want. You can't realize the blessings of liberty if you can't read a ballot."

That’s rich, coming from a President who is proposing a 3.8% cut in education funding for the 2007 budget. (Source - Committee for Education Funding) It’s a sad fact that Bush’s administration continues to cut education funding, especially when compared to the continuing rise in federal spending on other priorities (read: toys for the army).

This could be why the United States lags behind in literacy rates. Behind which countries, I hear you ask, scornfully. Sweden? Denmark? All those semi-socialist welfare states where you pay 60% tax? Well, obviously!

Actually, yes. We do trail Sweden. And Denmark. In fact, all developed European countries. But we also trail Estonia, Barbados, Latvia, Slovenia, Belarus, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Tonga, Kyrgyzstan, Samoa, Mongolia, Uruguay, South Korea, Argentina and many, many other countries. (Source – Wikipedia.)

It’s a national disgrace.

As is the man posturing at the podium, whose sole contribution to literature appears to have been to publicize The Pet Goat.

Demographic Statistics Tabulated With 2004 Election Data

Regular readers will recall that I recently collected some data from the U.S Census Bureau that showed that voters in states that went for Kerry in 2004 were significantly more educated than voters in states that went for Bush. Both at High School level (Kerry: 85.903%, Bush: 83.145%) and at College level (Kerry: 30.177%, Bush: 24.932%) it was very clear that blue states were better educated than red ones. <i>Source - U.S. Census Bureau</i>

I have been researching numerous other variables recently and can now report back on my findings.

PROPERTY CRIME

23 of the top 28 states for crime are states that went for Bush in 2004. 15 of the safest 23 are blue states. The two Dakotas are the safest for property in the union, while Arizona is the place you’re most likely to ‘lose’ your camera. Interestingly, the old adage about ‘lies, damned lies, and statistics’ could be used in this category: although 23 of the worst 28 states are Republican, 4 of the top 5 are Democratic (although one of these is D.C.) Source - Crime in the United States, 2004, FBI, Uniform Crime Reports.

OBESITY

Incredibly, the top 18 states for obesity are ALL Republican. Meanwhile, 15 of the lowest 22 for obesity rates are Democratic, including the top 7 with the exception of Colorado, which has the lowest rate in the nation. Source - Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

DIVORCE

So much for moral values: 19 of the top 21 states for divorce rates are, you guessed it, Republican. 12 of the 13 states with the lowest rates are Democratic. Source - U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006

PER CAPITA INCOME

12 of the top 15 states for income per capita are Democratic. And 20 of the bottom 21 are Republican. Louisiana and Mississippi prop up the table, once again begging the question: if New York had been hit by Katrina, would its residents still be living in squalid conditions and crying for help? Source - U.S Census Bureau.

The following document can be sorted by any data variable: simply go to 'Data' at the top, and 'Sort By' to see a full visual representation of these statistics. If you use this data anywhere else, I would appreciate a link back to this page - thanks!

Download 2004_election_demographics.xls

Five Years Of Declining Middle-Class Incomes... Thanks Mr. Bush

For five straight years, productivity in the USA has increased. (In fact, it’s up 33.5% in the last ten years.)

For five straight years, the economy has grown, after a short but dramatic recession, from $9.8 trillion in 2000 to $13.2 trillion in 2006.

And for five straight years, your income, and mine, has decreased in real terms. (I’m presuming that you’re not a billionaire.)

You see, as the Boston Globe reports – “Real median income for households under age 65 is down by 5.4 percent since 2000, even though the economy has grown every year.”

Health care is up 40% in the same period of time. Gas is up 100%. Housing is up 30%.

And your income is down 5.4%. (Poverty is up from 11.7% in 2001 to 12.6% now, despite all this growth.)

So where has all the money gone? All the money from this huge increase in economic activity, productivity and booming industry?

I’ll tell you. To the rich, and to corporations. According to the Center for Budget Policy and Priorities, in the first half of 2006, the share of national income going to wages and salaries was the lowest on record, while the share going to corporate profits was the highest since 1950.

Meanwhile, the wealthiest amongst us have gained vast tax breaks from the current government. Their wealth has expanded at a phenomenal rate – in 2006, according to Forbes, America’s billionaires piled an average of an extra 18% onto their existing nest-eggs. (You and I funded this.)

And of course, corporations such as ExxonMobil and Conoco are making tens of billions in profit, while regular people are tightening their belts to pay for inflated gas.

The following information is derived from the Tax Policy Center and describes in detail where Bush’s tax cuts have gone. It is accurate only to 2004 – so you can imagine how much more skewed these figures are today:

• The one-fifth of households in the middle of the income spectrum will receive an average tax cut of $647.

• The top one percent of households will receive tax cuts averaging almost $35,000 — or 54 times as much as that received on average by those in the middle of the income spectrum.

• Households with incomes above $1 million will receive tax cuts averaging about $123,600. The tax cuts for millionaires will cause their after-tax income to jump by 6.4 percent, nearly three times the percentage increase received by the middle fifth.

The overall shares of the tax cuts that are going to different households also are illuminating. The Tax Policy Center data show that:

• In 2004, the middle 20 percent of households will receive 8.9 percent of the tax cuts.

• By contrast, millionaires — totaling just 0.2 percent of U.S. households — will receive 15.3 percent of the tax cuts. In other words, the small handful of millionaires will receive total tax cuts far larger than those received by the entire middle 20 percent of households.

This pisses me off royally. But for some reason, the rest of America doesn’t seem to care.

AMERICA – YOUR WAGES ARE DOWN 5.4% UNDER GEORGE BUSH! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! (That you can’t afford!)

To My Great Surprise, Gas Prices Will Plummet Just Before November Elections

According to this article on CNN Money the cost of gas is likely to drop to between $2 and $2.50 sometime after September 15th.

Interestingly, "The levels that were in place were never justified to begin with," said Mark Gilman, an analyst with The Benchmark Co. "This is a bit of a return to reality."

So... let's get this straight. Gas prices were artificially high, topping out at over $3.06 for regular. Now - all of a sudden - they're going to plummet, just in time for the November elections. The Free Radical smells a rat.

Of course, that's not the best of it. The best thing is, I bet you're thinking to yourself - oh wow, $2 a gallon, that would be great!

Well, like the Pavlovian-conditioned rodent of which I spoke, that's what you're meant to think. Gas prices have been so inflated so that when they come down again, we think we're getting a bargain. Even though $2 a gallon still represents a 30% increase in price over what gas cost before the President with all the buddies in Big Oil got started.

Oh, and by the way - the Big 6 Oil Companies will make around $140 billion in profit this year. That's $466 for every single man, woman and child in the country. Nearly $2000 for my family.

Still think $2 is a bargain?