The new ABC News/Washington Post poll, here, shows 52 percent of Americans disapprove of the job President Bush is doing overall, reports ABC News' Polling director Gary Langer — the most in more than 75 ABC/Post polls since his presidency began. His approval rating is 48 percent.
Bush's Iraq approval ratings haven't fared much better: 41 percent said they approve of the job the President is doing in Iraq, while 58 percent disapprove — matching his career-high Iraq disapproval mark.
6.07.2005
6.06.2005
Class Warfare in America...
The great Bob Herbert on who's winning - an article aptly titled "the Mobility Myth":
Consider, for example, two separate eras in the lifetime of the baby-boom generation. For every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent of the population between 1950 and 1970, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162. That gap has since skyrocketed. For every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent between 1990 and 2002, Mr. Johnston wrote, each taxpayer in that top bracket brought in an extra $18,000.
"Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000. Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000."
The privileged classes, with the Bush administration's iron cloak of protection, avoid their fair share of taxes, are reluctant to pay an honest dollar for an honest day's work (the federal minimum wage is still a scandalous $5.15 an hour), refuse to fight in their nation's wars, and laugh all the way to their yachts.
Consider, for example, two separate eras in the lifetime of the baby-boom generation. For every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent of the population between 1950 and 1970, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162. That gap has since skyrocketed. For every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent between 1990 and 2002, Mr. Johnston wrote, each taxpayer in that top bracket brought in an extra $18,000.
"Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes - a minimum of $87 million in 2000, the last year for which the government will release such data - now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50,000 to $75,000. Those earning more than $10 million a year now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000."
The privileged classes, with the Bush administration's iron cloak of protection, avoid their fair share of taxes, are reluctant to pay an honest dollar for an honest day's work (the federal minimum wage is still a scandalous $5.15 an hour), refuse to fight in their nation's wars, and laugh all the way to their yachts.
6.01.2005
Wal-Mart Uses Taxpayer Funds for Healthcare
This is a huge travesty- the largest company in the world relies on our tax money to provide healthcare for its underpaid employees.
We need to change this ASAP.
Here are some recent statements.
From SEIU:
SEIU: Wal-Mart Health Care Welfare Must End
6/1/2005
Contact: Robert Kraig (414) 322-5324
Madison: Today SEIU members will join other allies at the State Capitol for a noon rally to urge lawmakers to stop Wisconsin taxpayers from having to subsidize Wal-Mart’s health care. Wisconsin's tax-supported health care programs for the working poor spend millions of dollars each year covering the health costs of the most profitable company in the world. Faced with unavailable or unaffordable health coverage at Wal-Mart, workers are turning to taxpayer-funded healthcare programs such as BadgerCare and other Medicaid programs. This cost shift to Wisconsin taxpayers comes at a time when Wisconsin’s Medicaid program is facing a serious budget crisis.
“U.S. taxpayers pay $1.5 billion subsidizing Wal-Mart Medicaid costs,” commented Dian Palmer, RN, President of SEIU Wisconsin State Council. “It is wrong for Wal-Mart to force taxpayers to pony up 15% of their $10 billion in annual profits through subsidized health care,” continued Palmer. “Wisconsin taxpayers must no longer be forced to provide health care welfare for Wal-Mart.”
Wisconsin taxpayers are subsidizing health insurance for 3,765 people who are Wal-Mart employees or the spouses and children of Wal-Mart employees. 1,252 Wal-Mart employees are participants in BadgerCare, the state’s health insurance program for low-income working families. At Wal-Mart’s recent Media Day on April 5th, CEO Leo Scot actually said, ‘In some states, the public program may actually be a better value.’ Responding to these comments Palmer stated, “Badgercare offers excellent health coverage at a very low cost and we’re happy Wal-Mart recognizes it as the bargain it is. But surely Wal-Mart doesn’t believe that just because something is a god value that you get to just walk out the door with it.”
The cost to taxpayers for the coverage provided to Wal-Mart’s Medicaid participants is estimated at $4.75 million, with the State of Wisconsin covering $1.8 million of that amount.
Unfortunately, Wal-Mart has a long history of abusing taxpayers. In June 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Wal-Mart had agreed to pay $2,866,904 to settle allegations that the company had submitted false prescription claims to federal health insurance programs such as Medicaid. The company’s pharmacies were alleged to have dispensed partial or “short” prescriptions due to insufficient stock, while it billed the government programs for the full quantities.
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=37910
From Sen. Dave Hansen:
Sen. Hansen: Calls on Wal-Mart to Pay its Fair Share for Health Care
6/1/2005
Contact: Sen. Hansen, 608-266-5670
(Madison)— Today, state Senator Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) joined fellow legislators and citizen and labor groups in calling for Wal-Mart to provide decent health insurance benefits to its employees or reimburse the state for Medical Assistance costs used to offer coverage to its employees and their families.
“Wal-Mart is taking advantage of Wisconsin taxpayers by setting up employment benefit plans that take full advantage of state health care programs like Badgercare, despite the fact that paying the $2-3 million a year to provide coverage to its employees would be about as noticeable to them as a gnat is to an elephant,” said Hansen.
A recent Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article revealed that Wal-Mart employs 809 individuals who are enrolled in the BadgerCare program. This reliance on the state health insurance program for low-income residents costs Wisconsin taxpayers approximately $2.7 million a year.
“Wal-Mart has plenty of resources to provide health care to its employees, or at the very least reimburse the state for its employees’ use of BadgerCare,” said Hansen. “There is nothing novel about requiring a contribution to health care costs. This is something that’s required of nearly all Wisconsin workers, and I don’t think that it’s too much to ask of Wal-Mart.”
A number of bills authored by legislative Democrats will soon be introduced in both houses of the state legislature to address this issue.
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=37930
We need to change this ASAP.
Here are some recent statements.
From SEIU:
SEIU: Wal-Mart Health Care Welfare Must End
6/1/2005
Contact: Robert Kraig (414) 322-5324
Madison: Today SEIU members will join other allies at the State Capitol for a noon rally to urge lawmakers to stop Wisconsin taxpayers from having to subsidize Wal-Mart’s health care. Wisconsin's tax-supported health care programs for the working poor spend millions of dollars each year covering the health costs of the most profitable company in the world. Faced with unavailable or unaffordable health coverage at Wal-Mart, workers are turning to taxpayer-funded healthcare programs such as BadgerCare and other Medicaid programs. This cost shift to Wisconsin taxpayers comes at a time when Wisconsin’s Medicaid program is facing a serious budget crisis.
“U.S. taxpayers pay $1.5 billion subsidizing Wal-Mart Medicaid costs,” commented Dian Palmer, RN, President of SEIU Wisconsin State Council. “It is wrong for Wal-Mart to force taxpayers to pony up 15% of their $10 billion in annual profits through subsidized health care,” continued Palmer. “Wisconsin taxpayers must no longer be forced to provide health care welfare for Wal-Mart.”
Wisconsin taxpayers are subsidizing health insurance for 3,765 people who are Wal-Mart employees or the spouses and children of Wal-Mart employees. 1,252 Wal-Mart employees are participants in BadgerCare, the state’s health insurance program for low-income working families. At Wal-Mart’s recent Media Day on April 5th, CEO Leo Scot actually said, ‘In some states, the public program may actually be a better value.’ Responding to these comments Palmer stated, “Badgercare offers excellent health coverage at a very low cost and we’re happy Wal-Mart recognizes it as the bargain it is. But surely Wal-Mart doesn’t believe that just because something is a god value that you get to just walk out the door with it.”
The cost to taxpayers for the coverage provided to Wal-Mart’s Medicaid participants is estimated at $4.75 million, with the State of Wisconsin covering $1.8 million of that amount.
Unfortunately, Wal-Mart has a long history of abusing taxpayers. In June 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Wal-Mart had agreed to pay $2,866,904 to settle allegations that the company had submitted false prescription claims to federal health insurance programs such as Medicaid. The company’s pharmacies were alleged to have dispensed partial or “short” prescriptions due to insufficient stock, while it billed the government programs for the full quantities.
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=37910
From Sen. Dave Hansen:
Sen. Hansen: Calls on Wal-Mart to Pay its Fair Share for Health Care
6/1/2005
Contact: Sen. Hansen, 608-266-5670
(Madison)— Today, state Senator Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay) joined fellow legislators and citizen and labor groups in calling for Wal-Mart to provide decent health insurance benefits to its employees or reimburse the state for Medical Assistance costs used to offer coverage to its employees and their families.
“Wal-Mart is taking advantage of Wisconsin taxpayers by setting up employment benefit plans that take full advantage of state health care programs like Badgercare, despite the fact that paying the $2-3 million a year to provide coverage to its employees would be about as noticeable to them as a gnat is to an elephant,” said Hansen.
A recent Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article revealed that Wal-Mart employs 809 individuals who are enrolled in the BadgerCare program. This reliance on the state health insurance program for low-income residents costs Wisconsin taxpayers approximately $2.7 million a year.
“Wal-Mart has plenty of resources to provide health care to its employees, or at the very least reimburse the state for its employees’ use of BadgerCare,” said Hansen. “There is nothing novel about requiring a contribution to health care costs. This is something that’s required of nearly all Wisconsin workers, and I don’t think that it’s too much to ask of Wal-Mart.”
A number of bills authored by legislative Democrats will soon be introduced in both houses of the state legislature to address this issue.
http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=37930
5.31.2005
This is fake, but relevant....
A political action group is applying pressure on the Kansas State Board of Education to ban any and all references to the 20th century from school textbooks, a spokesman for the group confirmed today.
"These textbooks state unequivocally that the 20th century occurred, as if that were a proven historic fact," said Gordon Lavalier, the group's leader and spokesman. "The simple truth is, the 20th century is and has always been nothing but a theory."
If the group is successful, starting in the fall of 2005, Kansas students would be taught from newly reconstituted history books that end with the year 1899.
Among students at Kansas City's John F. Kennedy High School, which the group has demanded be renamed after William Jennings Bryan, reaction to the ban on the 20th century was mixed.
Read it all here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7966101/site/newsweek/
"These textbooks state unequivocally that the 20th century occurred, as if that were a proven historic fact," said Gordon Lavalier, the group's leader and spokesman. "The simple truth is, the 20th century is and has always been nothing but a theory."
If the group is successful, starting in the fall of 2005, Kansas students would be taught from newly reconstituted history books that end with the year 1899.
Among students at Kansas City's John F. Kennedy High School, which the group has demanded be renamed after William Jennings Bryan, reaction to the ban on the 20th century was mixed.
Read it all here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7966101/site/newsweek/
5.30.2005
It's Finally Been Said...
President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5427823.html
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5427823.html
5.23.2005
Newsweek Should Have Held It's Ground
Click on the title for Molly Ivins going through all of the previous reporting backing the Newsweek story:
March 17, 2004, when the Independent of London interviewed the first British citizen released from Guantanamo Bay. The prisoner said he had been physically beaten but did not consider that as bad as the psychological torture, which he described extensively. Jamal al-Harith, a computer programmer from Manchester, said 70 percent of the inmates had gone on a hunger strike after a guard kicked a copy of the Koran. The strike was ended by force-feeding.
Then came the report, widely covered in American media last December, by the International Red Cross concerning torture at Gitmo. I wrote at the time: "In the name of Jesus Christ Almighty, why are people representing our government, paid by us, writing filth on the Korans of helpless prisoners?
Dec. 30, 2004, "Released Moroccan Guantanamo Detainee Tells Islamist Paper of His Ordeal," reported the Financial Times. "They watched you each time you went to the toilet; the American soldiers used to tear up copies of Koran and throw them in the toilet. ..." said the released prisoner.
Jan. 9, 2005, Andrew Sullivan, writing in The Sunday Times of London, said: "We now know a great deal about what has gone on in U.S. detention facilities under the Bush administration. Several government and Red Cross reports detail the way many detainees have been treated. We know for certain that the United States has tortured five inmates to death. We know that 23 others have died in U.S. custody under suspicious circumstances. We know that torture has been practiced by almost every branch of the U.S. military in sites all over the world -- from Abu Ghraib to Tikrit, Mosul, Basra, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
"We know that no incidents of abuse have been reported in regular internment facilities and that hundreds have occurred in prisons geared to getting intelligence. We know that thousands of men, women and children were grabbed almost at random from their homes in Baghdad, taken to Saddam's former torture palace and subjected to abuse, murder, beatings, semi-crucifixions and rape.
"All of this is detailed in the official reports. What has been perpetrated in secret prisons to 'ghost detainees' hidden from Red Cross inspection, we do not know. We may never know.
"This is America? While White House lawyers were arguing about what separates torture from legitimate 'coercive interrogation techniques,' the following was taking place: Prisoners were hanged for hours or days from bars or doors in semi-crucifixions; they were repeatedly beaten unconscious, woken and then beaten again for days on end; they were sodomized; they were urinated on, kicked in the head, had their ribs broken, and were subjected to electric shocks.
"Some Muslims had pork or alcohol forced down their throats; they had tape placed over their mouths for reciting the Koran; many Muslims were forced to be naked in front of each other, members of the opposite sex and sometimes their own families. It was routine for the abuses to be photographed in order to threaten the showing of the humiliating footage to family members."
The New York Times reported on May 1 on the same investigation Newsweek was writing about and interviewed a released Kuwaiti, who spoke of three major hunger strikes, one of them touched off by "guards' handling copies of the Koran, which had been tossed into a pile and stomped on. A senior officer delivered an apology over the camp's loudspeaker system, pledging that such abuses would stop. Interpreters, standing outside each prison block, translated the officer's apology. A former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with the Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans."
Is this your America? Make the change.
March 17, 2004, when the Independent of London interviewed the first British citizen released from Guantanamo Bay. The prisoner said he had been physically beaten but did not consider that as bad as the psychological torture, which he described extensively. Jamal al-Harith, a computer programmer from Manchester, said 70 percent of the inmates had gone on a hunger strike after a guard kicked a copy of the Koran. The strike was ended by force-feeding.
Then came the report, widely covered in American media last December, by the International Red Cross concerning torture at Gitmo. I wrote at the time: "In the name of Jesus Christ Almighty, why are people representing our government, paid by us, writing filth on the Korans of helpless prisoners?
Dec. 30, 2004, "Released Moroccan Guantanamo Detainee Tells Islamist Paper of His Ordeal," reported the Financial Times. "They watched you each time you went to the toilet; the American soldiers used to tear up copies of Koran and throw them in the toilet. ..." said the released prisoner.
Jan. 9, 2005, Andrew Sullivan, writing in The Sunday Times of London, said: "We now know a great deal about what has gone on in U.S. detention facilities under the Bush administration. Several government and Red Cross reports detail the way many detainees have been treated. We know for certain that the United States has tortured five inmates to death. We know that 23 others have died in U.S. custody under suspicious circumstances. We know that torture has been practiced by almost every branch of the U.S. military in sites all over the world -- from Abu Ghraib to Tikrit, Mosul, Basra, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.
"We know that no incidents of abuse have been reported in regular internment facilities and that hundreds have occurred in prisons geared to getting intelligence. We know that thousands of men, women and children were grabbed almost at random from their homes in Baghdad, taken to Saddam's former torture palace and subjected to abuse, murder, beatings, semi-crucifixions and rape.
"All of this is detailed in the official reports. What has been perpetrated in secret prisons to 'ghost detainees' hidden from Red Cross inspection, we do not know. We may never know.
"This is America? While White House lawyers were arguing about what separates torture from legitimate 'coercive interrogation techniques,' the following was taking place: Prisoners were hanged for hours or days from bars or doors in semi-crucifixions; they were repeatedly beaten unconscious, woken and then beaten again for days on end; they were sodomized; they were urinated on, kicked in the head, had their ribs broken, and were subjected to electric shocks.
"Some Muslims had pork or alcohol forced down their throats; they had tape placed over their mouths for reciting the Koran; many Muslims were forced to be naked in front of each other, members of the opposite sex and sometimes their own families. It was routine for the abuses to be photographed in order to threaten the showing of the humiliating footage to family members."
The New York Times reported on May 1 on the same investigation Newsweek was writing about and interviewed a released Kuwaiti, who spoke of three major hunger strikes, one of them touched off by "guards' handling copies of the Koran, which had been tossed into a pile and stomped on. A senior officer delivered an apology over the camp's loudspeaker system, pledging that such abuses would stop. Interpreters, standing outside each prison block, translated the officer's apology. A former interrogator at Guantanamo, in an interview with the Times, confirmed the accounts of the hunger strikes, including the public expression of regret over the treatment of the Korans."
Is this your America? Make the change.
5.18.2005
Gannet Gets It Right!!!
Unfortunately, it isn't the Northwestern....
Doyle right to veto voter IDs
Republican lawmakers promoted the plan as a deterrent to illegal voting, using not-too-subtle scare tactics. Without the law, they said, a convicted felon's vote could cancel out your vote. An undocumented worker - illegal alien in their parlance - could have a say in state government.
It reminded one of the infamous Willie Horton ads used to attack Mike Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election - felons and minorities threatening real Americans.
http://www.wisinfo.com/newsherald/mnhopinion/283347649739319.shtml
Doyle right to veto voter IDs
Republican lawmakers promoted the plan as a deterrent to illegal voting, using not-too-subtle scare tactics. Without the law, they said, a convicted felon's vote could cancel out your vote. An undocumented worker - illegal alien in their parlance - could have a say in state government.
It reminded one of the infamous Willie Horton ads used to attack Mike Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election - felons and minorities threatening real Americans.
http://www.wisinfo.com/newsherald/mnhopinion/283347649739319.shtml
5.17.2005
Hurray for Rep. Stark
A message from Congressman Pete Stark:
STARK STATEMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATION’S MOST RECENT HYPOCRISY
WASHINGTON, DC – Today U.S. Representative Pete Stark entered into the record the following statement regarding the Administration’s recent chastising of Newsweek magazine:
Mr. Speaker, the pot is calling the kettle black. The Administration is chastising Newsweek magazine for a story containing a fact that turned out to be false. This is the same Administration that lied to the Congress, the United Nations and the American people by fabricating reasons to send us to war. The same Administration responsible for the death of over 1,500 American servicemen and women and countless Iraqi civilians; the same Administration which shields its highest officials from responsibility for prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
Under those circumstances, how can the Bush Administration, with a straight face, denounce a journalist for not checking all the facts before going public with a story?
Of course, Newsweek should have checked the facts more diligently before publishing their article. They made a big mistake. But, Mr. Speaker, we must keep this incident in perspective. Newsweek did make a mistake, but they had the dignity and honor to own up to it.
Unfortunately, I doubt the Bush Administration is capable of displaying such honesty. Instead, the Bush Administration focuses on public relations tactics to divert attention from their own incompetence and fabrications rather than focusing their energies on creating a plan to get our troops out of Iraq.
The hypocrisy of this Administration is astonishing and this most recent episode is, unfortunately, merely one example of many. Just yesterday Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said in reference to the Newsweek article, “People lost their lives. People are dead. People need to be very careful about what they say, just as they need to be very careful about what they do." I couldn’t agree more. People should be very careful about what they say and do; President Bush and his Cabinet, most of all.
Mr. Speaker, accountability and power cannot be separated. If the President accepts the duties and responsibilities of his office he must do exactly what he is asking Newsweek to do: he needs to tell Americans the truth about his own indiscretions in this tragic war.
The Vegitarian Steakhouse.....
Stacie Rosenzweig (of the Vast Dairy State Conspiracy) has a great guestblog on Fighting Bob.
You’ve had a long day at work, so why don’t you and your partner head on over to your favorite neighborhood restaurant for a casual dinner out? How’s a burger, fries, and a bottle of Milwaukee’s finest sound? Oh, but hold on – the line cook has a personal moral objection to preparing animal products, the waiter says he can’t ethically serve someone who appears to be packing a few extra pounds a fatty meal like that, and the bartender reports he has a religious objection to dispensing alcohol. You resign yourself to a salad and water.
Read it all here:
http://www.fightingbob.com/guestblog.cfm?PostID=1237
You’ve had a long day at work, so why don’t you and your partner head on over to your favorite neighborhood restaurant for a casual dinner out? How’s a burger, fries, and a bottle of Milwaukee’s finest sound? Oh, but hold on – the line cook has a personal moral objection to preparing animal products, the waiter says he can’t ethically serve someone who appears to be packing a few extra pounds a fatty meal like that, and the bartender reports he has a religious objection to dispensing alcohol. You resign yourself to a salad and water.
Read it all here:
http://www.fightingbob.com/guestblog.cfm?PostID=1237
5.16.2005
Quote of the day:
"You sort of see these recurring themes where a democracy turns itself into a dictatorship, and it always seems to happen kind of in the same way, with the same kinds of issues, and threats from the outside, needing more control. A democratic body, a senate, not being able to function properly because everybody's squabbling, there's corruption."
George Lucas - talking about the new Star Wars.....
George Lucas - talking about the new Star Wars.....
5.15.2005
Click Here for the Debate for the DPW's Future
The Rammelt/Wineke debate audio -
WindowsMedia:
http://www.democracyforwisconsin.com/images2/debate_5_11_05.wma
MP3:
http://www.democracyforwisconsin.com/images2/debate_5_11_05_med.mp3
WindowsMedia:
http://www.democracyforwisconsin.com/images2/debate_5_11_05.wma
MP3:
http://www.democracyforwisconsin.com/images2/debate_5_11_05_med.mp3
Don't Believe the Hype...
American Transmission Company has hired Wood Communications Group in Madison to put together a campaign to sell the public on the benefits of a transmission line that will permanently change the lives of northern Wisconsin residents and their environment. According to CUB, the Wood Communications Group led the failed public relations effort to build support for the Exxon mine on the headwaters of the Wolf River.
"The slick hucksters who failed to sell Wisconsin residents on a mine on the headwaters of the Wolf River have been hired by the American Transmission Company to put a happy face on the Arrowhead Transmission line," noted Hiniker.
The Wood firm put together a biased poll that claims northerners are evenly split on whether they support or oppose the line. According to CUB, the questions were slanted in a way to encourage responses in favor of the transmission line. Further, according to CUB, many of those contacted by the pollster refused to answer poll questions because they thought the questions were biased – affecting the outcome of the poll.
"The ATC poll is worthless for gauging public opinion – its only purpose was to issue a press release to promote the myth that many people in the north support the construction of the line," said Hiniker.
Why do I mention this? Because Wood Communications are the people that recently publiched the poll inticating that 80% of Wisconsinites are for the Voter ID legislation.
Once again, we are being manipulated - learn all the facts before you make a decision.
"The slick hucksters who failed to sell Wisconsin residents on a mine on the headwaters of the Wolf River have been hired by the American Transmission Company to put a happy face on the Arrowhead Transmission line," noted Hiniker.
The Wood firm put together a biased poll that claims northerners are evenly split on whether they support or oppose the line. According to CUB, the questions were slanted in a way to encourage responses in favor of the transmission line. Further, according to CUB, many of those contacted by the pollster refused to answer poll questions because they thought the questions were biased – affecting the outcome of the poll.
"The ATC poll is worthless for gauging public opinion – its only purpose was to issue a press release to promote the myth that many people in the north support the construction of the line," said Hiniker.
Why do I mention this? Because Wood Communications are the people that recently publiched the poll inticating that 80% of Wisconsinites are for the Voter ID legislation.
Once again, we are being manipulated - learn all the facts before you make a decision.
5.13.2005
And they want to cut education in Wisconsin...
...and start teaching "intelligent design" in Nebraska.
On April 7, CNET News.com reported the following: "The University of Illinois tied for 17th place in the world finals of the Association for Computing Machinery International Collegiate Programming Contest. ...
"That's the lowest ranking for the top-performing U.S. school in the 29-year history of the competition. Shanghai Jiao Tong University of China took top honors this year, followed by Moscow State University and the St. Petersburg Institute of Fine Mechanics and Optics. Those results continued a gradual ascendance of Asian and East European schools during the past decade or so. A U.S. school hasn't won the world championship since 1997, when students at Harvey Mudd College achieved the honor. 'The U.S. used to dominate these kinds of programming Olympics,' said David Patterson, president of the Association for Computing Machinery and a computer science professor at the University of California at Berkeley. 'Now we're sort of falling behind.' "
Earlier this week, a special report on the Indiana University High School Survey of Student Engagement, which covered 90,000 high school students in 26 states, was published. The study noted that 18 percent of college-track seniors did not take a math course in their last year in high school - and that "more than a fifth (22 percent) of first-year college students require remediation in math."
We MUST change our educational priorities if we want to compete.
On April 7, CNET News.com reported the following: "The University of Illinois tied for 17th place in the world finals of the Association for Computing Machinery International Collegiate Programming Contest. ...
"That's the lowest ranking for the top-performing U.S. school in the 29-year history of the competition. Shanghai Jiao Tong University of China took top honors this year, followed by Moscow State University and the St. Petersburg Institute of Fine Mechanics and Optics. Those results continued a gradual ascendance of Asian and East European schools during the past decade or so. A U.S. school hasn't won the world championship since 1997, when students at Harvey Mudd College achieved the honor. 'The U.S. used to dominate these kinds of programming Olympics,' said David Patterson, president of the Association for Computing Machinery and a computer science professor at the University of California at Berkeley. 'Now we're sort of falling behind.' "
Earlier this week, a special report on the Indiana University High School Survey of Student Engagement, which covered 90,000 high school students in 26 states, was published. The study noted that 18 percent of college-track seniors did not take a math course in their last year in high school - and that "more than a fifth (22 percent) of first-year college students require remediation in math."
We MUST change our educational priorities if we want to compete.
Who's Really in Charge?
Bush was never informed of the plane that was inside the White House's airspace even though (questions from the press pool - I am not including the answers, because they really didnt give any....):
Q: Scott, yesterday the White House was on red alert, was evacuated. The first lady and Nancy Reagan were taken to a secure location. The Vice President was evacuated from the grounds. The Capitol building was evacuated. The continuity of government plan was initiated. And yet the president wasn't told of yesterday's events until after he finished his bike ride, about 36 minutes after the all-clear had been sent. Is he satisfied with the fact that he wasn't notified about this?
Q: The fact that the president wasn't in danger is one aspect of this. But he's also the commander in chief. There was a military operation underway. Other people were in contact with the White House. Shouldn't the commander in chief have been notified of what was going on?
Q: Even on a personal level, did nobody here at the White House think that calling the president to say, by the way, your wife has been evacuated from the White House, we just want to let you know everything is OK?
Q: I think there's a disconnect here because, I mean, yesterday you had more than 30,000 people who were evacuated, you had millions of people who were watching this on television, and there was a sense at some point -- it was a short window, a 15-minute window, but there was a sense of confusion among some on the streets. There was a sense of fear. And people are wondering was this not a moment for the president to exercise some leadership, some guidance during that period of time?
Q: And those protocols are OK with the president despite the fact that his wife was in a situation where she might have been endangered?
Q: Scott, to follow on the same line of questioning, if there is a possibility that a plane may have to be shot down over Washington, doesn't the President want to be involved in that type of decision?
Q: And wasn't there a possibility that a plane headed for the White House, that this was the leading edge of some broader attack, isn't the president concerned that maybe he should have been alerted to the fact that this could have been the beginning of a general attack?
Q: How did they know -- how did they know this plane wasn't laden with WMD or some other type of weapons like that? Did they get reassurances from the pilot? Or how did they know that?
Q So if it was assessed that there was no hostile intent on the part of this aircraft, can you tell us why 30,000 people -- 35,000 people were told to run for their lives?
Q: Right, but there seems to be so many disconnects here. You've got a plane that was assessed as not being a threat, you've got 35,000 people evacuated, you've got a person who you claim is a hands-on commander in chief who is left to go ride his bicycle through the rural wildlands of Maryland while his wife is in some secure location somewhere, it's just not adding up.
Q: Scott, yesterday the White House was on red alert, was evacuated. The first lady and Nancy Reagan were taken to a secure location. The Vice President was evacuated from the grounds. The Capitol building was evacuated. The continuity of government plan was initiated. And yet the president wasn't told of yesterday's events until after he finished his bike ride, about 36 minutes after the all-clear had been sent. Is he satisfied with the fact that he wasn't notified about this?
Q: The fact that the president wasn't in danger is one aspect of this. But he's also the commander in chief. There was a military operation underway. Other people were in contact with the White House. Shouldn't the commander in chief have been notified of what was going on?
Q: Even on a personal level, did nobody here at the White House think that calling the president to say, by the way, your wife has been evacuated from the White House, we just want to let you know everything is OK?
Q: I think there's a disconnect here because, I mean, yesterday you had more than 30,000 people who were evacuated, you had millions of people who were watching this on television, and there was a sense at some point -- it was a short window, a 15-minute window, but there was a sense of confusion among some on the streets. There was a sense of fear. And people are wondering was this not a moment for the president to exercise some leadership, some guidance during that period of time?
Q: And those protocols are OK with the president despite the fact that his wife was in a situation where she might have been endangered?
Q: Scott, to follow on the same line of questioning, if there is a possibility that a plane may have to be shot down over Washington, doesn't the President want to be involved in that type of decision?
Q: And wasn't there a possibility that a plane headed for the White House, that this was the leading edge of some broader attack, isn't the president concerned that maybe he should have been alerted to the fact that this could have been the beginning of a general attack?
Q: How did they know -- how did they know this plane wasn't laden with WMD or some other type of weapons like that? Did they get reassurances from the pilot? Or how did they know that?
Q So if it was assessed that there was no hostile intent on the part of this aircraft, can you tell us why 30,000 people -- 35,000 people were told to run for their lives?
Q: Right, but there seems to be so many disconnects here. You've got a plane that was assessed as not being a threat, you've got 35,000 people evacuated, you've got a person who you claim is a hands-on commander in chief who is left to go ride his bicycle through the rural wildlands of Maryland while his wife is in some secure location somewhere, it's just not adding up.
An Email I Recieved from DFA
Dear Supporter,
Whatever happened to good corporate citizenship?
In America today, a business you might know pays such poor wages its workers have to turn to taxpayers to pay for their health care. The same firm has made China, a totalitarian dictatorship that holds wages down by outlawing unions, its supplier of choice -- the source of 70 percent of its inventory.
And the family that owns this company and has become wildly wealthy?
They make sure to invest their money in the Republican Party -- where they know their investment will pay off with tax cuts for the richest few.
What company is this? Wal-Mart -- the largest, richest corporation in the world.
Major organizations we work with -- groups such as the Service Employees International Union, and the United Food and Commercial Workers -- believe America's largest corporation should do better. To make that happen, they've launched a massive campaign to show Americans the massive scale of Wal-Mart's irresponsibility.
But those groups need allies. Should we join the fight? The choice is yours:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/walmartvote
Some competitors of Wal-Mart know the value of doing well by doing good. They pay living wages. They offer good benefits. And they earn steady profits -- in part because they attract, and hold onto, high-quality workers. These companies have helped make America the wealthiest nation in the world and they sustain our prosperity.
Wal-Mart takes a radically different approach. For it, every penny is profit -- it fights for every dollar, no matter how it gets it. The result? You pay to make Wal-Mart rich -- through tax benefits and infrastructure bestowed by state and local governments -- even if you never shop there.
Take Georgia, a state where Wal-Mart ranks as the largest private employer. In 2002, state officials there figured out that Wal-Mart employees had some 10,000 children on the rolls of PeachCare, the state's child health care program. No other company's employees had even
a thousand children on the rolls -- but Wal-Mart had no qualms about dumping its costs onto Georgia taxpayers.
Wal-Mart used to make a point of keeping jobs in the United States by buying American. Today, though, the company single-handedly accounts for nearly 10 percent of all Chinese goods sold in the United States.
Wal-Mart keeps prices low by stocking as much as 70 percent of its products from Chinese suppliers -- suppliers who pay wages kept low by a dictatorial government.
Those policies helped Wal-Mart's owners, the Walton family, build a fortune worth tens of billions. That money makes the company a major force in Washington. And the family uses its wealth to bankroll the radical right -- it spent millions last year to elect candidates devoted
to eliminating the estate tax, which affects only the wealthiest of the wealthy. Wal-Mart wealth is also behind Progress for America -- a Republican front group the Waltons have financed to the tune of millions of dollars.
America needs better corporate citizens, and Wal-Mart --the largest company in the world -- has the resources to stand on its own instead of exploiting people overseas and piggybacking on American taxpayers and working families. But making it live up to its responsibilities poses a huge challenge -- because taking on Wal-Mart means going up against the biggest corporation on Earth.
With an undertaking that massive, we need everyone on board. So you make the call:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/walmartvote
We know that America works best when we honor those who work hard and
play by the rules.
It's time to decide: shouldn't we teach Wal-Mart to do the same?
Sincerely,
Tom Hughes
Executive Director, Democracy for America
P.S. -- Please forward this message to anyone you know who might be
interested in the issue.
5.11.2005
They Get It in Vermont....
It is not in anybody’s interest - either the Progressives or Democrats - to have Republicans elected to the Congress, given what President Bush and Tom Delay are doing to this country.”
Splitting the vote works against us all - we need to work together.
Splitting the vote works against us all - we need to work together.
More on the meaning of Liberalism
Also from Altercation:
liberals understand that our individual happiness is considerably contingent upon the happiness of others in our society. Poor health and poverty tend to constrict happiness. Thus, the amelioration of these conditions among my neighbors, writ large, increases the chance of my own happiness
liberals understand that our individual happiness is considerably contingent upon the happiness of others in our society. Poor health and poverty tend to constrict happiness. Thus, the amelioration of these conditions among my neighbors, writ large, increases the chance of my own happiness
5.10.2005
What Do Liberals Stand For?
Here is a great discussion about what we as liberals stand for.
Some excerpts (I reccomend reading the entire post):
Government is uniquely qualified to provide for certain needs of a society
One of government’s roles is the protection of minorities with regard to certain basic rights
Liberals are interested in expanding liberty... Liberals wanted to expand the franchise and conservatives resisted. In the U.S. the terms were most useful during the civil rights movement in the '50s and '60s. Everyone who believed African-Americans should have the right to vote was a liberal. Everyone who didn't was a conservative.
Liberals believe you should be able to do with your property as you please, unless you impinge on others
Liberals believe labor should have the right to organize into unions, just as capital organizes into corporations.
Liberals also understand that economic development sometimes destroys markets, leading to oligopolies and monopolies, and these must be regulated or commerce becomes extortion.
Liberals have also reluctantly concluded from the evidence that modern medicine has outstripped the privately financed, fee-for-service system, which now makes no more sense than private ownership of New York City streets.
Poverty is poor soil for liberty, so they favor unemployment compensation and other temporary relief measures for those with the capacity to adjust, and a Social Security system for the disabled, dependents, and the elderly, who cannot.
Liberals believe the public sphere should be governed by empiricism, which requires an intellectual discipline best developed through education and the free expression of ideas.
I guess liberals also believe that utility is more likely to lead toward good policy than abstract ideology.
society is a cooperative venture
Helping others is not charity and taxation is not theft: rather, it is a recognition that none of our achievements would be possible without the supporting background of cooperation; the multiple criss-crossing fibers of support and opportunity that society provides.
all actions (of government) should be taken with a view towards providing the broadest public good possible
government should favor the policy which produces the more equitable distribution of wealth
The weakest groups in society should be lifted out of their weakness, rather than blamed for it
Reason, empiricism and negotiation are far more important tools of public policy than moral outrage
We see the complexity of issues and honor differing perspectives in working toward solutions
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7790823/#050510
Some excerpts (I reccomend reading the entire post):
Government is uniquely qualified to provide for certain needs of a society
One of government’s roles is the protection of minorities with regard to certain basic rights
Liberals are interested in expanding liberty... Liberals wanted to expand the franchise and conservatives resisted. In the U.S. the terms were most useful during the civil rights movement in the '50s and '60s. Everyone who believed African-Americans should have the right to vote was a liberal. Everyone who didn't was a conservative.
Liberals believe you should be able to do with your property as you please, unless you impinge on others
Liberals believe labor should have the right to organize into unions, just as capital organizes into corporations.
Liberals also understand that economic development sometimes destroys markets, leading to oligopolies and monopolies, and these must be regulated or commerce becomes extortion.
Liberals have also reluctantly concluded from the evidence that modern medicine has outstripped the privately financed, fee-for-service system, which now makes no more sense than private ownership of New York City streets.
Poverty is poor soil for liberty, so they favor unemployment compensation and other temporary relief measures for those with the capacity to adjust, and a Social Security system for the disabled, dependents, and the elderly, who cannot.
Liberals believe the public sphere should be governed by empiricism, which requires an intellectual discipline best developed through education and the free expression of ideas.
I guess liberals also believe that utility is more likely to lead toward good policy than abstract ideology.
society is a cooperative venture
Helping others is not charity and taxation is not theft: rather, it is a recognition that none of our achievements would be possible without the supporting background of cooperation; the multiple criss-crossing fibers of support and opportunity that society provides.
all actions (of government) should be taken with a view towards providing the broadest public good possible
government should favor the policy which produces the more equitable distribution of wealth
The weakest groups in society should be lifted out of their weakness, rather than blamed for it
Reason, empiricism and negotiation are far more important tools of public policy than moral outrage
We see the complexity of issues and honor differing perspectives in working toward solutions
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7790823/#050510
Feeling a Draft?
In April, the Army missed its recruiting goal for the third month in a row, short by nearly 2,800 recruits, or 42 percent off its target.
And for the first time in 10 years, the Marine Corps missed its recruiting goal for the last four months.
"Because the Army and Marines are too small and we're employing them in constant operations, our recruiting posture is now coming apart," says retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, an NBC News analyst.
"This raises questions about whether the all-volunteer force can really cope with a long war," says military analyst Loren Thompson.
And for the first time in 10 years, the Marine Corps missed its recruiting goal for the last four months.
"Because the Army and Marines are too small and we're employing them in constant operations, our recruiting posture is now coming apart," says retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, an NBC News analyst.
"This raises questions about whether the all-volunteer force can really cope with a long war," says military analyst Loren Thompson.
The Not-So-Secret History of Filibusters
Some history of the filibuster and judges (by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell via the NY Times):
Since 1789, the Senate has rejected nearly 20 percent of all nominees to the Supreme Court, many without an up-or-down vote.
In 1968 Republican senators used a filibuster to block voting on President Lyndon B. Johnson's nominee for chief justice of the Supreme Court. During the debate, a Republican senator, Robert Griffin, said: "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote."
Between 1968 and 2001, both parties used filibusters to oppose judicial nominees. In 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency, Republican senators filibustered two of his nominees to be circuit judges. They also prevented Senate votes on more than 60 of Mr. Clinton's judicial nominees by other means.
So much for the assertion that filibustering to prevent votes on judicial nominees is a new tactic invented by Senate Democrats.
They claim that their actions are justified because the filibuster is being used unfairly to stop the confirmation of President Bush's nominees. But 208 of the president's 218 judicial nominees have been approved. That's right: the Senate has confirmed 95 percent of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. That's a higher percentage of approval than any of his three predecessors achieved.
Facts can be so inconvenient.
Since 1789, the Senate has rejected nearly 20 percent of all nominees to the Supreme Court, many without an up-or-down vote.
In 1968 Republican senators used a filibuster to block voting on President Lyndon B. Johnson's nominee for chief justice of the Supreme Court. During the debate, a Republican senator, Robert Griffin, said: "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote."
Between 1968 and 2001, both parties used filibusters to oppose judicial nominees. In 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency, Republican senators filibustered two of his nominees to be circuit judges. They also prevented Senate votes on more than 60 of Mr. Clinton's judicial nominees by other means.
So much for the assertion that filibustering to prevent votes on judicial nominees is a new tactic invented by Senate Democrats.
They claim that their actions are justified because the filibuster is being used unfairly to stop the confirmation of President Bush's nominees. But 208 of the president's 218 judicial nominees have been approved. That's right: the Senate has confirmed 95 percent of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. That's a higher percentage of approval than any of his three predecessors achieved.
Facts can be so inconvenient.
Electing progressives to Local Offices
Winnebago County Democratic Party * PO Box 1112 * Oshkosh, WI 54903
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 9, 2005
CONTACT:
Jef Hall
920.203.6883
jef@jefhall.com
Winnebago County Democratic Party Hosts Public Forum on ‘Electing Progressives to Local Offices’
OSHKOSH – At this month’s General Membership Meeting, the Winnebago County Democratic Party (WCDP) will be hosting Nicholl Caruso of Progressive Majority (www.progressivemajority.com) to discuss ‘Electing Progressives to Local Offices.’
Progressive Majority is a non-partisan organization dedicated to “recruiting the next generation of progressive champions,” and “building a formidable farm team of progressive candidates.” And “motivate them to become true champions in the fight for social change.”
The WDCP would like to extend an invitation to community members interested in electing progressive candidates to attend. While this is our normal monthly meeting, it is open to the public, for members or non-members. We encourage everyone to come and join the discussion.
The meeting begins at 7:00PM, Wednesday May 11th, at the Delta Restaurant: 515 N Sawyer; Oshkosh, WI 54901.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 9, 2005
CONTACT:
Jef Hall
920.203.6883
jef@jefhall.com
Winnebago County Democratic Party Hosts Public Forum on ‘Electing Progressives to Local Offices’
OSHKOSH – At this month’s General Membership Meeting, the Winnebago County Democratic Party (WCDP) will be hosting Nicholl Caruso of Progressive Majority (www.progressivemajority.com) to discuss ‘Electing Progressives to Local Offices.’
Progressive Majority is a non-partisan organization dedicated to “recruiting the next generation of progressive champions,” and “building a formidable farm team of progressive candidates.” And “motivate them to become true champions in the fight for social change.”
The WDCP would like to extend an invitation to community members interested in electing progressive candidates to attend. While this is our normal monthly meeting, it is open to the public, for members or non-members. We encourage everyone to come and join the discussion.
The meeting begins at 7:00PM, Wednesday May 11th, at the Delta Restaurant: 515 N Sawyer; Oshkosh, WI 54901.
5.09.2005
Quote of the Day:
Krugman on Social Security: "to avert the danger of future cuts in benefits, Mr. Bush wants us to commit now to, um, future cuts in benefits."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html?th&emc=th
More from a great article:
Now, about the image of Mr. Bush as friend to the poor: keep your eye on the changing definitions of "middle income" and "wealthy."
In last fall's debates, Mr. Bush asserted that "most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income Americans." Since most of the cuts went to the top 10 percent of the population and more than a third went to people making more than $200,000 a year, Mr. Bush's definition of middle income apparently reaches pretty high.
But defenders of Mr. Bush's Social Security plan now portray benefit cuts for anyone making more than $20,000 a year, cuts that will have their biggest percentage impact on the retirement income of people making about $60,000 a year, as cuts for the wealthy.
These are people who denounced you as a class warrior if you wanted to tax Paris Hilton's inheritance. Now they say that they're brave populists, because they want to cut the income of retired office managers.
Let's consider the Bush tax cuts and the Bush benefit cuts as a package. Who gains? Who loses?
Suppose you're a full-time Wal-Mart employee, earning $17,000 a year. You probably didn't get any tax cut. But Mr. Bush says, generously, that he won't cut your Social Security benefits.
Suppose you're earning $60,000 a year. On average, Mr. Bush cut taxes for workers like you by about $1,000 per year. But by 2045 the Bush Social Security plan would cut benefits for workers like you by about $6,500 per year. Not a very good deal.
Suppose, finally, that you're making $1 million a year. You received a tax cut worth about $50,000 per year. By 2045 the Bush plan would reduce benefits for people like you by about $9,400 per year. We have a winner!
I'm not being unfair. In fact, I've weighted the scales heavily in Mr. Bush's favor, because the tax cuts will cost much more than the benefit cuts would save. Repealing Mr. Bush's tax cuts would yield enough revenue to call off his proposed benefit cuts, and still leave $8 trillion in change.
The point is that the privatizers consider four years of policies that relentlessly favored the wealthy a fait accompli, not subject to reconsideration. Now that tax cuts have busted the budget, they want us to accept large cuts in Social Security benefits as inevitable. But they demand that we praise Mr. Bush's sense of social justice, because he proposes bigger benefit cuts for the middle class than for the poor.
An Interesting Solution to a Problem Many Havent Thought of:
(Including me) What do we do with those people we are harming is a good indicator of the country we want to become.
"One of the paradoxes of global warming is that developing countries, which were not responsible for most of the greenhouse gas emissions that are changing the climate and did not reap the benefits of industrialization, will bear the brunt of the consequences. One of these consequences will be rising seas, which in turn will generate a surge of "climate exiles" who have been flooded out of their homes in poor countries. How should those of us in rich countries deal with this wave of immigrants? The fairest solution: allowing the phased immigration of people living in vulnerable regions according to a formula that is tied to the host country's cumulative contributions to global warming."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/opinion/09byravan.html?th&emc=th
"One of the paradoxes of global warming is that developing countries, which were not responsible for most of the greenhouse gas emissions that are changing the climate and did not reap the benefits of industrialization, will bear the brunt of the consequences. One of these consequences will be rising seas, which in turn will generate a surge of "climate exiles" who have been flooded out of their homes in poor countries. How should those of us in rich countries deal with this wave of immigrants? The fairest solution: allowing the phased immigration of people living in vulnerable regions according to a formula that is tied to the host country's cumulative contributions to global warming."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/opinion/09byravan.html?th&emc=th
5.06.2005
A Look at Education Priorities...
Being really good at "learning how to learn," as President Bill Brody of Johns Hopkins put it, will be an enormous asset in an era of rapid change and innovation, when new jobs will be phased in and old ones phased out faster than ever.
Thomas Friedman in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/opinion/06friedman.html?th&emc=th
Thomas Friedman in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/opinion/06friedman.html?th&emc=th
5.04.2005
CNN _ Most Americans Think the Iraq War Not Worthwhile (It's about time)
Poll: Most in U.S. say Iraq war not worthwhile
Wednesday, May 4, 2005 Posted: 0322 GMT WASHINGTON (CNN)
-- A majority of Americans do not believe it was worth going to war in Iraq, according to a national poll released Tuesday.
Fifty-seven percent of those polled said they did not believe it was worth going to war, versus 41 percent who said it was, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,006 adults.
That was a drop in support from February, when 48 percent said it was worth going to war and half said it was not.
It's also the highest percentage of respondents who have expressed those feelings and triple the percentage of Americans who said that it was not worth the cost shortly after the war began about two years ago.
The new poll question, asked by telephone on April 29-May 1, had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Asked how things are going for the United States in Iraq, 56 percent said "badly" or "very badly," up from 45 percent in March.
Forty-two percent said "well" or "very well," down from 52 percent in March.
The margin of error for that question was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Americans appeared evenly divided over whether the decision to send U.S. troops to Iraq was a mistake, with 49 percent saying yes and 48 percent saying no. The sampling error was plus or minus 5 points.
On Tuesday, House and Senate conferees agreed to an $82 billion supplemental spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That pushes the total cost of the Bush administration's war on terror to more than $300 billion, according to The Associated Press. (Full story)
In March 2003, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a House panel that Iraq, with its oil resources, "can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
Such forecasts proved to be off the mark. Oil revenues have been lower than predicted partly because the industry's infrastructure was in bad shape. Overall reconstruction costs also have been higher than expected.
White House claims that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq also failed to materialize.
Early Tuesday, the U.S. military found the body of a pilot from one of two missing Marine Corps F/A-18 jets that Navy officials believe collided while flying in operations in Iraq. (Full story)
The number of U.S. troops who have died in the Iraq war stood at 1,585 as of Tuesday, according to the Pentagon.
A poll conducted in February showed that the Iraqi elections January 30 produced a bump in President Bush's approval rating. In that poll, 55 percent of Americans said the Iraq war was not a mistake. (Full story)
Political negotiations since then have delayed the formation of a new government in Iraq.
But on Tuesday, Iraqi politicians were putting the finishing touches on a new Cabinet, with Shiite Arab leader Ibrahim al-Jaafari sworn in as prime minister.
More than 100 Iraqis, most of them security forces and civilians, have died in insurgent attacks since last Thursday, when Iraq's transitional National Assembly approved a partial Cabinet list.
In a prime time news conference last week, Bush said the United States is "making really good progress in Iraq, because the Iraqi people are beginning to see the benefits of a free society."
"A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is an important part of spreading peace," he said. (Full story)
Wednesday, May 4, 2005 Posted: 0322 GMT WASHINGTON (CNN)
-- A majority of Americans do not believe it was worth going to war in Iraq, according to a national poll released Tuesday.
Fifty-seven percent of those polled said they did not believe it was worth going to war, versus 41 percent who said it was, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,006 adults.
That was a drop in support from February, when 48 percent said it was worth going to war and half said it was not.
It's also the highest percentage of respondents who have expressed those feelings and triple the percentage of Americans who said that it was not worth the cost shortly after the war began about two years ago.
The new poll question, asked by telephone on April 29-May 1, had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Asked how things are going for the United States in Iraq, 56 percent said "badly" or "very badly," up from 45 percent in March.
Forty-two percent said "well" or "very well," down from 52 percent in March.
The margin of error for that question was plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Americans appeared evenly divided over whether the decision to send U.S. troops to Iraq was a mistake, with 49 percent saying yes and 48 percent saying no. The sampling error was plus or minus 5 points.
On Tuesday, House and Senate conferees agreed to an $82 billion supplemental spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That pushes the total cost of the Bush administration's war on terror to more than $300 billion, according to The Associated Press. (Full story)
In March 2003, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a House panel that Iraq, with its oil resources, "can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."
Such forecasts proved to be off the mark. Oil revenues have been lower than predicted partly because the industry's infrastructure was in bad shape. Overall reconstruction costs also have been higher than expected.
White House claims that weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq also failed to materialize.
Early Tuesday, the U.S. military found the body of a pilot from one of two missing Marine Corps F/A-18 jets that Navy officials believe collided while flying in operations in Iraq. (Full story)
The number of U.S. troops who have died in the Iraq war stood at 1,585 as of Tuesday, according to the Pentagon.
A poll conducted in February showed that the Iraqi elections January 30 produced a bump in President Bush's approval rating. In that poll, 55 percent of Americans said the Iraq war was not a mistake. (Full story)
Political negotiations since then have delayed the formation of a new government in Iraq.
But on Tuesday, Iraqi politicians were putting the finishing touches on a new Cabinet, with Shiite Arab leader Ibrahim al-Jaafari sworn in as prime minister.
More than 100 Iraqis, most of them security forces and civilians, have died in insurgent attacks since last Thursday, when Iraq's transitional National Assembly approved a partial Cabinet list.
In a prime time news conference last week, Bush said the United States is "making really good progress in Iraq, because the Iraqi people are beginning to see the benefits of a free society."
"A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is an important part of spreading peace," he said. (Full story)
5.01.2005
Tony Palmeri Ends Chance for Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV)
During a discussion at the Winnebago Labor Council’s Workers Memorial Day Dinner Saturday night, Rep. Mark Pocan stated that an Assembly Republican-sponsored IRV bill was pulled due to the results of the 54th Assembly race.
The pull was blamed on the results of 2004’s 54th Assembly contest. In this, the Republican, Gregg Underheim was re-elected by less that 50%.
Many, myself included, said that the fact that the liberal/progressive vote was split is the main reason for Underheim’s re-election. In fact, I made the comment that because Palmeri ran as a third party in a two-party system, he helped pass the Republican agenda (for the record, while I did believe that, my comments to the A-T should have been less pointed – and I apologize for that).
After the election, Palmeri asserted that implementing IRV would be the only way to make voting fair. I personally disagree, but I am for any candidate needing over 50% of the vote to win – I prefer a run-off between the top 2 candidates, as is done in Louisiana.
Here is the irony – in a rant on his website, Palmeri invited “those Oshkosh citizens taking nasty, cheap shots at Dan Carpenter and myself” to “become an activist to reform Wisconsin’s elections,” because, “The bill is stalled in committee and will not pass unless citizens demand it.”
Yet, now it is Palmeri’s race that is causing the bill to stall.
Also, this is a way to point out what the Republicans already know: Unless the Progressives work together, we will never get out from under their rule. We can talk about everyone’s right to run (for the record, no Dem I know has said that someone does not have the right to run as a third party, if you do, you should know that there will be consequences), but unless we work together to field the best candidates, we will continue to lose ground.
According to Rep. Pocan, this is why the Republicans have pulled this bill. They realize that they can keep the 54th seat, if we continue to split the vote.
The pull was blamed on the results of 2004’s 54th Assembly contest. In this, the Republican, Gregg Underheim was re-elected by less that 50%.
Many, myself included, said that the fact that the liberal/progressive vote was split is the main reason for Underheim’s re-election. In fact, I made the comment that because Palmeri ran as a third party in a two-party system, he helped pass the Republican agenda (for the record, while I did believe that, my comments to the A-T should have been less pointed – and I apologize for that).
After the election, Palmeri asserted that implementing IRV would be the only way to make voting fair. I personally disagree, but I am for any candidate needing over 50% of the vote to win – I prefer a run-off between the top 2 candidates, as is done in Louisiana.
Here is the irony – in a rant on his website, Palmeri invited “those Oshkosh citizens taking nasty, cheap shots at Dan Carpenter and myself” to “become an activist to reform Wisconsin’s elections,” because, “The bill is stalled in committee and will not pass unless citizens demand it.”
Yet, now it is Palmeri’s race that is causing the bill to stall.
Also, this is a way to point out what the Republicans already know: Unless the Progressives work together, we will never get out from under their rule. We can talk about everyone’s right to run (for the record, no Dem I know has said that someone does not have the right to run as a third party, if you do, you should know that there will be consequences), but unless we work together to field the best candidates, we will continue to lose ground.
According to Rep. Pocan, this is why the Republicans have pulled this bill. They realize that they can keep the 54th seat, if we continue to split the vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)