environmental failures

and now, a message from the league of conservation voters:

The holiday season traditionally brings to mind a rush to take advantage of deep discounts at retailers. But depending on how Congressional negotiators hammer out a final budget bill, it could be big corporations that rush to a federal land give-away at the expense of taxpayers.

Tucked into the recently-passed House budget bill, Rep. Richard Pombo's (CA) provision would raid public lands by offering deep discounts to mining companies, who can then develop the land as they see fit -- for mining operations, housing developments, or whatever is on their wish-list. The New York Times calls Rep. Pombo's scheme "legislative robbery" and "a blatant fraud on the American people."

Big Oil's wish-list includes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- but thanks to a bipartisan effort, the House refused to gift this pristine habitat in their bill. The Senate version, however, includes reckless language to open the Arctic Refuge to oil extraction. We must keep the pressure on our elected officials to keep Arctic Refuge drilling out of a final bill.

In the coming days, LCV will be keeping a close watch on the House/Senate negotiations -- and we'll be calling on you to get involved. As their constituents, we need to keep the pressure on our elected officials to do the right thing.

For years now, we have seen how the Bush Administration and Congressional leadership have worked to attack our environmental and public health protections. With less than a year to go until the most pivotal mid-term elections in a generation, we must let our elected officials know that this holiday season, we'll be making our list and following who votes naughty and who votes nice.

politics as usual II (corruption at the highest levels)

either our president is another incompetent ceo, or a bald-faced liar!

but

at least we don't live (and die) in zimbabwe.

i could have told you this, but the republicans won't do anything about it. oh, sure, dennis hastert is talking big, but when was the last time a republican gave a fuck about you? oh, right, when he wanted to take your money. any republican who says he cares more about the american people getting a good deal than oil companies making record profits is a phony and a hypocrite. to start, he should give back all the money those oil companies gave him. then he'd be financially independent, and wouldn't take their money into account when making such decisions. he could then push them to give some of those profits back to consumers without looking like a liar. not that he cares.

at least the supreme court still seems to believe in justice. roberts will sit this one out, too. good for him. hopefully, the court will take the right stance on the separation of powers should this case get there. the right stance being to enforce the separation of powers and to put a check on conflicts of interest. not that the republicans know anything about that....

character assassination

some quotes:

"he's a vile, detestable, moralistic person with no heart and no conscience who believes he's been tapped by god to do very important things."

"perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors"

"perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes against the state"

some republicans have suggested that special prosecutor patrick fitzgerald "doesn't know the difference between a legal techincality such as perjury and a real crime".

any guesses on who said what?

well, the last is from lexington's column in this week's economist, as are the other quotes. an anonymous "white house ally" said the first one, while senator bill frist made the second comment and senator sam brownback made the third. things change when the scandal is in your own party, don't they? i find it hypocritical, or at least outrageously naive, for a republican to accuse fitzgerald of being in any way partisan or politically motivated. these the same people who championed kenneth starr's partisanship (monica lewinsky was far far far from his original mandate to investigate shady real estate dealings bill clinton and his wife may have made while still in arkansas). fitzgerald has made no attempt to turn his subject personal.

get your heads out of your asses, republicans.

and you, democrats, do the same. figure out how to lead. we, the american people, need you.

stand for something

there should be no "litmus test" to determine the eligibility of a person to sit on the supreme court. a person's religious or political views should not interfere with a proper interpretation of the constitution as it lives and breathes today. anyone nominated to the supreme court should not be done so to mollify one's political base, however conservative, or liberal, it is. no one who cannot view the constitution in a modern light, and with moderation, should be considered for the supreme court. in nominating someone based on whether his views will satisfy his party's conservative base, president bush has undermined the nomination process. a democrat filibuster in the senate based on anything but the nominee's qualifications is also a counterproductive, and i would say improper, response to the present situation. i am disappointed that bush has again catered to his radial right political base rather than try to embrace the middle and nominate a more moderate judge for the supreme court. i am disappointed that the republican-led senate refuses to exert even a modicum of oversight on the bush administration. this is not how the system of checks and balances is supposed to work.

i'm sure a brilliant thinker in the democrat ranks can flesh out these views with strong arguments and better support than i have time to give today. i think in handling the alito nomination, the democrats need to get away from the 'protecting roe v. wade' argument and focus more on alito's interpretation of the constitution. what i absolutely reject is any strict interpretation of the original document. erasing 200 years of precedent and established court decisions is ludicrous, as is literally interpreting a document intended to be flexible and thus read flexibly. if this is alito's approach, he is unfit to sit on the supreme court.

i think the american people need to wake up and realize what hypocrites the republicans are. when the shoe is on the other foot, when the democrats are in power again, the republicans will be happy their judges are 'legislating from the bench' and will be horrified by the thought of the senate eliminating the filibuster on judicial nominations. or, if they eliminate it before then, they'll be horrified that they can no longer block the radically liberal judicial candidates a democratic president nominates. they'll call for its return, and the democrats will point out who did what. what the democrats need is a charismatic candidate who stands for something, rather than against someone. instead of someone who says 'hey, at least i'm not george bush', we need someone who lays out a bold, exciting plan for america's future, one that gives americans something to believe in again. one that brushes aside all the corruption and pork barrel politics to form a government that really does work for the people again. i know this hasn't happened for a long time, if ever, but it's time for change. it's time for someone to stand up and take charge. it's time for the democrats to stand for something.

until they do, i can't vote for them. until they do, the republicans will run the country. until they do, we'll keep sinking into deeper debt and worsening social conditions. until the democrats take charge and give us a reason to support them, this country is going to rot.