From IMCT - December 30, 2004

The Bush administration has offered $35 million so far for relief efforts for the tsunami -- Bush took time from his work clearing brush at the Western White House (how much friggin' brush does he have?) to address the issue, three days after the disaster.

According to Moveon.org, we're spending around $35 million every seven hours in Iraq -- to kill people.

What we might be missing here is a chance to offer humanitarian aid while fighting the war on terror. Call me a liberal, but one of the best ways to stop trouble is to nip it in the bud.

The most prevalent religion throughout the affected countries is Islam. Might it slow some American hatred if we stepped up big with an offer to help in this situation?

The reason for the growing tide of radical Muslims is their binding American hatred. We can be cavalier about it and say 'They shouldn't hate us,' or we could work proactively. Our long-term safety isn't going to be built on believing we're right.

From IMCT - December 30, 2004

We heard a lot about compassion and moral values this year, but as 2004 ended one of the largest natural disasters in recorded history struck, and those same organizations that preached against gay marriage and the decline of values weren't addressing the horrors of the tsunami in Southeast Asia.

As pointed out by Bill Berkowitz on Working for Change, a perusal of the websites of the some of the big Christian watchdog groups turned up empty of an mention of the tsunami relief efforts. On Dec. 30, Focus on the Family led its web page with a reminder to "remember Focus on the Family in year-end giving." The Christian Coalition wished everyone a happy New Year. The site of Jerry Falwell'sThomas Road Baptist Church appeared to be generally lacking in updates, and it certainly offered no mention of the disaster; ditto for Falwell's Moral Majority site. Other defenders of faith with no mention included the Family Research Council and Trinity Broadcasting. To its credit, the Southern Baptist Convention did have a message regarding the tragedy, but everything was tilted so as to give glory to Baptists.

From IMCT - December 28, 2004

You can file this one away in your conspiracy theory evidence locker: during a Christmas Eve visit with the troops, Defense Secretary Donald Rusmfield referred to the plane in Pennsylvania that was "shot down" on Sept. 11. It could be that Rummy misspoke, but it could be that by "misspoke" we mean let the cat out of the proverbial bag.

I believe that Flight 93 likely was shot down. The story of passengers rushing the cabin and the plane crashing as a result sounds good, and does little harm. But several witnesses saw an unmarked aircraft in the area before and after the crash. And Flight 93 was known to be hijacked for almost an hour before it crashed, leaving one to wonder why the government would allow it to follow the path of the planes that hit the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

With it heading back toward Washington, what are the odds that the government made a tough decision? It's hard to blame them if they did indeed make that call. Under the circumstances, it was a doomed flight regardless; it would be preferable that it crash into a field rather than into a populated area.

Oh, and we never landed on the moon, either.

From IMCT - December 28, 2004

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!! (You won't get this on CNN)

The Ohio recount has been completed, and Kerry has gained on Bush. Drumroll, please...... Kerry has cut Bush's lead from 118,775 to 118,457. That's a pickup of 318 votes.

The recount cost $1.5 million, according to Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth "The African-American-Republican" Blackwell. That was money well spent.

Of course, there are several lawsuits still in the works, and the issue wasn't so much the count as the fear of tampering. But these lawsuits will get nowhere. It's rigged, and it's frustrating.

From IMCT - December 28, 2004

How is it that a sitting President just re-elected with 51 percent of the vote manages a 49 percent approval rating? There are a few possibilities.

First off, the vote could have been fudged -- that would make many of us feel a lot better.

Or maybe the people being polled are different than the ones who actually voted in the election. Those 51 percent who voted for Bush may well have crawled (slithered) back under their rocks by now.

It's also a possibility that people just disliked the challenger (John Kerry in this case; remember him?) so much. While several people have expressed a lack of enthusiasm with Kerry, was it so bad that they would vote for someone they knew was doing a bad job?

As an outcropping of the above possibility, it could be that values voting really did matter that much. There's been a lot of talk from the left about how overrated the values vote is, but I can speak from experience in my red state and say that there is a large connect between values and voting, and it causes a disconnect with reality. Some people will vote based on fuzzy issues while ignoring the clear issues like problems in Iraq, problems with the economy, etc.

From IMCT - December 19, 2004

Here's the explanation for those screams you'll hear across the country as people open their mailboxes this week: 

And the best part is this line from Time managing editor Jim Kelly:

"But even those who may not have voted for him will acknowledge that this is one of the more influential presidents of the last 50 years."

Influential? That's one word for him -- but by no means the first one I would come up with.

From IMCT - December 15, 2004

Despite what the White House says, there is no real reason to believe the government sees any problem with a weak dollar. But other people are noticing. Our economy -- hence, the world economy -- could be headed for a big train wreck.

From IMCT - December 13, 2004

Just for giggles, go to the CNN home page and see if the story about the investigation into the Ohio vote is on the front page (OK, I'll save you the time, it's not. The breaking news featured Monday afternoon was the all-important death penalty handed down for Scott Peterson. At least they have their priorities straight.) If you want to find the story about the suit that was filed today pointing out several voting problems, you'll have to go to the CNN Politics page -- it's the fourth headline down, an AP story, of course, because CNN has better things to cover.

As much as I'd like to see this story explode and as many explosive things as I think there are to be discovered, it won't explode because the election is over and the media is too worried about rocking the patriotic boat. But which is more dangerous -- questioning the legitimacy of an incumbent President or possibly allowing a pattern of stealing elections to gain traction?

Maybe the Democrats just need to learn how to steal elections better.

From IMCT - December 11, 2004

As is the case with most of Bush's great ideas, the individual retirement accounts he proposes would be one more handout to big business -- but the upshot is, this one could do in big business, and the rest of us with it.

As Paul Krugman points out, in its most basic, what the program would do is have the government borrow money and invest it in the stock market. As younger workers start paying money into their individual accounts, the government has to borrow to make up for that lost income to pay the benefits to current retirees. That in and of itself is an indirect way for the government to invest in the stock market.

But as these individual accounts begin to produce (assuming they would), then the government could cut benefits, since the private accounts were making more money. That's another way the government could hand money to the private sector indirectly.

Now, will these accounts work? I believe the wild card here is just what effect all this money flowing into the system would have. Krugman also pointed out that individuals investing their accounts in Treasury bonds would do the government no good, as the earnings from T-bills comes from interest paid by the government, negating any savings.

So all that money would need to go into the stock market, but how would the market react to that inflow of cash? I'm no financial expert, but it would have to have an effect. And of course, the long-term effect of all this investing and borrowing is that if the bottom fell out --- well, the bottom wouldreally fall out.

From IMCT - December 11, 2004

Another of the Republican's efforts at Orwellian laws, a la the "Healthy Forests Initiative" (by which they would allow more logging in order to "save" the forests); now they're going to "save" wild horses by selling them as meat.

From IMCT - December 9, 2004

In a red state, it's not a divisive racist image -- it's a fashion statement!

From IMCT - December 8, 2004

Come on, now - tell me he doesn't look like Hitler.

From IMCT - December 8, 2004

Although the current CNN version of the story changed, an earlier version said Donald Rumsfield paused and asked a soldier o repeat the question when he asked why their Humvees weren't properly equipped with armor.

Rumsfield is not used to being questioned (kudos to a member of the 278th RCT, which is made up of those from my home state).

His answer to the question was, "As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want " That's a sorry-ass excuse for costing our soldiers' lives.

The fact is, the insurgents' primary attack is taking advantage of the under-armored Humvees, which have cost the life of many a soldier in situations where they weren't even immediately involved in combat. This deficiency in the armor is giving the enemy a weakness to attack without actually engaging our forces; I'm not much of a military strategist, but it seems like you should try to get rid of those weaknesses your enemy can exploit.

From IMCT - December 5, 2004

Some of the best news sources for the U.S. are increasingly based overseas. Such is the sad state of American news, which apparently has bowed to the ratings pressure of making the news fit its viewer, rather than making the viewers acclimate themselves to the news.

This story from the Independent tells us how Bush is going to spend some of that political capital he "earned." It will come as no surprise to most of us that there will be a review of many major environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.

That the Bush administration could honestly do some of these things seems beyond belief. But most of the country is going to sit back and let them do it.

From IMCT - December 5, 2004

This report by the non-partisan Defense Science Board is fascinating -- why haven't we heard more about it? (That's a rhetorical question.)

From IMCT - December 2, 2004

The situation with the vote in Ukraine is in many way amusing in its resemblance to our own voting issues, but it could be much less of a laughing matter.

Although the Cold War appears to be behind us, there is bit of a standoff by proxy between Russia and the U.S. What you have are two hardliners squaring off, with the Bush administration wanting the opposition to win in the Ukraine because it is pro-Western, while Russia's Vladimir Putin would rather the pro-Russian incumbent party retain power. Bush has pushed for a new election -- because his guy didn't win -- while Putin thinks new elections aren't needed.

Here's hoping Ukraine gets this figured out without the need of any more involvement by Russia and the U.S.

Would any of us be here had Bush been in charge during the tensions of the Cold War?

Also on the international front, Bush is still demanding that Iraq hold elections in late January, although several political parties have asked that the date be moved back so that polling places can be better secured.

Why does Bush want the elections ASAP, and why doesn't he care about security of the vote? Because the U.S. wants an "official," "democratically" elected government in place. The administration doesn't care about the legitimacy of the vote, because it will make sure who it wants elected gets elected; they are still naive enough to think people will accept a sham election.

If they don't care about the legitimacy of their own American elections, why would they care about Iraq's?

From IMCT - December 1, 2004

Backwardness in Alabama -- imagine that!

Pending a recount, an amendment to take racist language out of the Alabama constitution failed on Nov. 2. The amendment would have taken out wording requiring separate schools for "white and colored" children; of course, the meddlesome federal government stopped the actual enforcement of that law a few years ago.

Now, what happened to this is that along with taking out the wording regarding segregation -- as proposed by Republican governor Bob Riley -- it also would have removed a section saying there was no guarantee of a right to public education, which had been added as a "clever" maneuver to try to undercut Brown v. Board of Education. Opponents used that part of the amendment to draw its defeat, proclaiming that if the amendment passed, then "activist judges" and "trial lawyers" would sue to demand more financing of public education.

What moved this vote was your typical legion of right-wingers, including former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, he of the refusing to remove the 10 Commandments display. Moore came out against the amendment, as did the Christian Coalition, both of them supposedly because of the fear of raising taxes to fund education.

It's clear to see why such Godly people would be against funding public education; I'm sure their Bibles say something like "Thou shalt spend no more money for education than is absolutely necessary," although I can't find it in mine.

The truth is, those forces moved against it because the cause of the right -- in this case, gov'ment meddlin' in a state's idear of edjukashun -- is increasingly becoming the cause of some religions, and in part because of the latent racism still left in the South. This vote springs from the same well that saw gay marriage bans pass in several states.

Dr. Martin Luther King's dream still has a ways to go, especially in the South.

From IMCT - December 1, 2004

You remember all those political ads on TV this campaign season (those of you in battleground states, anyway)? Well, CBS and NBC evidently don't.

Both of those networks refused to air an ad by the United Church of Christ touting its acceptance of people regardless of sexual orientation.

The ad certainly isn't over the top; it merely depicts two bouncers standing outside a church turning away certain people, a la a selective nightclub. The first two people turned away are two males who appear to be holding hands.

NBC said its problem with the ad was that it dealt with "public controversy" and its implication that other churches aren't open to all people (if the shoe fits.....). Of course, NBC will happily gain laughs off a gay character on "Will and Grace," but serious issues involving homosexuals, now that's another story.

CBS said it couldn't run it because it doesn't do advocacy advertising, but of course, that doesn't stop it from running campaign ads. Even worse, the UCC quoted CBS as telling it

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast."

Is CBS scared of the executive branch? Shoot, a flash of Janet Jackson's boob has them walking the line big-time.

To their credit, ABC Family, BET Discovery, Fox, Hallmark, TBS and TNT all accepted the ad. Wait, did I just give credit to Fox for being open-minded?