Iraq vs. US

Republicans are by and large demanding spending cuts to pay for Katrina, or even suggesting tax cuts are on the table.

What I want to know is why they didn't have this attitude about spending billions rebuilding Iraq.

What is the difference? Why did Iraq just scream out, buy now, pay later... defer the taxes, give tax CUTS while spending in Iraq... but the Gulf Coast suddenly reminds them of their conservative fiscal sensibilities which had seemed long gone.

No, I don't have an ulterior idea here, I don't think it's obvious what the answer is, that it proves some insideous nature. I really don't get it.

The Grand Old Spending Party

Only allies can damn you like this: The Cato Institute on the biggest spending president...

How come when a Republican gets office, suddenly all these practical considerations turn out to make it impossible to cut spending the way they say it just absolutely must be done!?

Instead, they spend like fish (never met a metaphor I didn't like mixed) and let the next Democrat raise taxes... does that keep their hands clean? Bush has not cut taxes, he's deferred them... and since they never seem to reduce spending, could it be they are wrong in their theories about how easily it could be done? Or... duplicitous? I don't actually think it makes a huge difference which... I know the promises and ideas are pure fantasy either way.

But I am curious, what exactly is the problem?

Btw, the reports points out, even if you subtract defense and homeland security... Bush has the biggest spending increases in 30 years. Try to remember clearly the Clinton example for contrast... ok?

really. it's just about being fair minded...

The Cato Report to which I refer: here

Why We Care

"What Americans need to understand is that ... every single day of the year, our government goes into the market and borrows money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts,"

-Former President Bill Clinton


Actually, I care what the "world thinks" for a lot of other reasons. Doesn't mean I'm going to acquiesce to those thought, any more than the FACT that I care what George W. Bush thinks means I'll acquiesce to that. But I do care.

And for those that don't... think about Clinton's point... we go BEGGING to that world EVERY day, our wealthy (their tax cut), our poor (abandoned to urban chaos), and all the rest...

Is "not caring" how we treat our benefactors? Do we expect appreciation for our benefaction? I do.

ah-HA!

Yeah, you can't make my kid worship your God. I know it hurts, but seriously, I'll never give up on this and the American position has been clear for two centuries to most of us.

Forced pledge of allegiance ruled unconstitutional. Ruling only affects Sacremento Area because the judge limited the scope of the ruling and relied on the Ninth Circuit (the Circuit some love to hate...) ruling on a similar case.

Story Here.

It's nothing personal, really, I love religions, all of them except the hateful versions... but stop making me say "under God"... it's not working anyway.

Don't forget the details...

Like the little girls with the pink shoes, it's very loud for them.

It's funny

Hubris has coverage of the begining of the Roberts hearings... here

Doctors That Hate Medicine

I have nothing against Christian Scientists' rejection of modern medicine. That is their business. But, I wouldn't want one to be my doctor.

I wouldn't want to go into surgery with a doctor who says "Surgery doesn't ever work... but I'll give it a go!" I would certainly not believe a doctor claiming "I ought to be your doctor specifically because I know medicine never works!"

But that is what conservatives say, especially the neocon/Norquist wing of the Republican party. Their predictions that the government can do no good, that common social infrastructure can do no good, are self-fulfilling prophecies if they have power.

It simply makes no sense to trust such an attitude with control of government. "The problem with cars is they always end up in a ditch... sure, I'll drive!"

---

There are conservative principles which are useful, good American law really should draw from American conservativism and American liberalism... actual conservative philosophy, oddly enough, is not the main problem.

The main problem is the quasi-anarchic authoritarianism (a contradiction of terms, but an accurate description) which grows in conservativism, and which wishes to and does run the government.

They refuse to actually make the government smaller, because let's face it, it's good to be the king and is easier to propose when the other guy is in control. Yet they DO insist there shall be no compromise on their political theory that the government must screw up anything it is involved with, and dutifully screw everything up to show their sincerity.

You can trust people who don't trust medicine... but you cannot trust a Doctor who doesn't.

(also posted at myleftwing.com)

Yeah, Nagin screwed up too

But he's not the reason New Orleans flooded.

We should find out why the levees were not more robust.

He Held Their Lives in His Tiny Hands - Los Angeles Times

LaTimes - here

My god... what a story:

BATON ROUGE, La. — In the chaos that was Causeway Boulevard, this group of refugees stood out: a 6-year-old boy walking down the road, holding a 5-month-old, surrounded by five toddlers who followed him around as if he were their leader.

They were holding hands. Three of the children were about 2 years old, and one was wearing only diapers. A 3-year-old girl, who wore colorful barrettes on the ends of her braids, had her 14-month-old brother in tow. The 6-year-old spoke for all of them, and he told rescuers his name was Deamonte Love.