Posted 12:20am
pst, Thursday, April
28, 2005
Desperate
measures on privatization
Apparently,
Bush is doing a primetime press conference
tonight to sell the dismantling of
Social Security. The rumor is that
he's going to try to label Democrats
as "obstructionists".
What
does that make the American people?
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April
21-24, 2005:
"Do you approve or disapprove
of the way Bush is handling Social
Security?"
Approve 31%
Disapprove 64%
Unsure 5%
CBS News Poll. April 13-16, 2005:
"Do you have confidence in George
W. Bush's ability to make the right
decisions about Social Security,
or are you uneasy about his approach?"
Confident 25%
Uneasy 70%
Unsure 5%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. April
1-2, 2005:
"Do you approve or disapprove
of the way George W. Bush is handling
Social Security?" Approve 35%
Disapprove 57%
Unsure 8%
Time Poll. March 22-24, 2005:
"Do you approve or disapprove
of the job President Bush is handling
of Social Security issues?"
Approve 31%
Disapprove 58%
Unsure 10%
Newsweek Poll. March 17-18, 2005:
"Do you approve or disapprove
of the way Bush is handling Social
Security?"
Approve 33%
Disapprove 59%
Unsure 8%
As if
the polling numbers weren't bad enough,
Bush is EXTENDING his
privatization tour past the original
end date of May 1st. That means he's
spending even MORE tax payer money
on selling a plan that 64% of Americans
do not support (up from 56% last month).
Essentially, the more he promotes privatization,
the more the public hates the idea.
He must really beholden to big money
investment firms to continue pursuing
this.
On top
of that, he made the latest stop of
Bamboozlepalooza in Texas on Tuesday
with TOM DeLAY! As if your plan weren't
unpopular enough, now you stand side-by-
side with the most hated man in the
party today, the poster boy for corruption.
Why not pose for a photo op with Satan
or Bin Laden while you're at it.
::Permalink::
Posted 10:05pm
pst, Sunday, April
24, 2005
Rewriting
history
Anyone
else find it funny how Republicans
are backing away from using the verbage
of the "nuclear option" about
the Dems blocking their nominees? They're
claiming that "nuclear option" is
a phrase created by Democrats, even
though they've admitted to inventing
it in the past year.
Here's
what happened. Their own internal focus
groups have shown that the public hates
their threat of the "nuclear option",
so now they're backtracking and saying
the phrase is wholly a creation of
their detractors.
This
is exactly like "privatization".
The GOP invented the phrase and when
the American people shit all over their
idea, they try not to use the term
they invented.
They
blew privatization, they badly misread
Americans feelings about the Schiavo
case and the economy is tanking bigtime.
Gas prices are through the roof (between
$2.70 and $3.05 here in the Bay Area).
Their majority leader is taking it
up the ass for his illegal shenanigans.
The public has shown increasing POSITIVE
response the the Democrats filibustering
their radical nominees and support
the Left keeping the right in check.
The Republicans
have got nothing right now. they're
floundering with bad press and they've
got nothing good to point to.
David
Sirota's blog last
week listed the info that the Bush
administration has tried to erase since
coming into office:
Knight-Ridder
reports today that the Bush administration
announced yesterday that it has "decided
to stop publishing an annual report
on international terrorism after
the government's top terrorism center
concluded that there were more terrorist
attacks in 2004 than in any year
since 1985, the first year the publication
covered."
When
unemployment was peaking in Bush's
first term, the White House tried
to stop publishing the Labor Department's
regular report on mass layoffs.
In
2003, when the nation's governors
came to Washington to complain about
inadequate federal funding for the
states, the Bush administration decided
to stop publishing the budget report
that states use to see what money
they are, or aren't, getting.
In
2003, the National Council for Research
on Women found that information about
discrimination against women has
gone missing from government Web
sites, including 25 reports from
the U.S. Department of Labor's Women's
Bureau.
In
2002, Democrats uncovered evidence
that the Bush administration was
removing health information from
government websites. Specifically,
the administration deleted data showing
that abortion does not increase the
risk of breast cancer from government
websites. That scientific data was
seen by the White House as a direct
affront to the pro-life movement.
::Permalink::
Posted 9:35pm
pst, Sunday, April
17, 2005
This
cover gives me the Willies
From
this week's Time magazine:
The
officialdom of punditry, so full
of phonies and dullards, would suffer
without her humor and fire. Which
is not to say you don't want to shut
her up occasionally. Not long ago,
I went to church with Coulter - Redeemer
Presbyterian, an evangelical congregation
in Manhattan. The actor Ron Silver
had also tagged along--Coulter brings
lots of people to church, including,
at one time, an ex who is Muslim.
Pastor Timothy Keller spoke of the
importance of allowing one's heart
to be "melted by the sense of
God's grace because of what he did
on the cross for you." After
he finished, I asked Coulter whether
she had managed to convert her Muslim
boyfriend. "No," she answered,
her heart apparently not melted: "I
was just happy he wasn't killing
anyone." With that, she threw
her head back and laughed.
::Permalink::
Posted 9:22pm
pst, Sunday, April
17, 2005
People
Change
Tom DeLay,
1989:
"H.R. 3660, the
Government Ethics Reform Act, will
strengthen and clarify existing House
rules. Issues such as the ban on
congressional honoraria, limits on
gifts and travel, increased financial
disclosure, restrictions on outside
income, and conflict of interest
rules will all be tightened to reflect
the growing and changing role of
Government service..."
"I am especially
pleased to support this comprehensive
overhaul of House ethics rules and
conflict of interest laws because
it is an important first step in
enhancing the ethical standards throughout
Government and adjusting compensation
for individuals whose skills are
essential to the quality of service
Government provides to the American
people. It is my hope that honor
will be restored to elected offices
so that we can continue to work for
the values that we have fought for
in the past with quality representation
in the future."
Tom DeLay, 2005:
Mr.
Hurt: Have you ever crossed the line
of ethical behavior in terms of dealing
with lobbyists, your use of government
authority or with fundraising?
Mr.
DeLay: Ever is a very strong word.
::Permalink::
Posted 6:50pm
pst, Sunday, April 3, 2005
Sin
City and comic book movies
Went
to Frank Miller's Sin City Friday night.
This movie kicked serious ass. The
most faithful adaptation of any comic
book ever. It gave me chills.
I had
read the first Sin
City graphic novel years ago.
To be honest, I was more of a fan of
Miller's superhero work. I won't retread
his legacy. Google his name and see
the effect he's had on not just comics,
but movies.
Most
of the crowd didn't know what to expect.
When the first hard boiled dialogue
came out of Michael Madsen's mouth
("You've got a bum ticker Hartigan!"),
the audience snickered. A few minutes
later, they were immersed in Miller's
world and lapping up the noir.
It was
dead on except for one thing: Jessica
Alba's decision to do her scenes clothed.
I'll admit I'd love to get a look at
Ms. Alba naked, but that wasn't the
heart of my complaint. By the time
her segment of the story happened,
we had already seen plenty of breasts,
so it was out of place for her Nancy
character, a stripper, to dance with
her clothes on. Made zero sense.
Robert
Rodriguez used the graphic novels as
storyboards and did not take a screenwriting
credit. After all, he merely transcribed
Miller's words into script form.
I will
be seeing it again.
My buddy
Larry suggested I do something on comic
book movies. It's a bit hard for me
to do because I enjoy seeing my old
favorites up on the screen so much.
I'm way more lax on comic movies. That
said, critics pretty much loved Spider-man
2 as much as I did.
Sometimes
it takes movies to get people to take
comics seriously. Comics get zero credit
as being a serious art form. People
hear "comic book"
and think costumed heroes. That's tru
to a certain extent. Where would pop
culture be without Spider-man, Batman
and Captain America? Is there a bigger
American icon than Superman?
American
Splendor and Ghost
World were both comic book
adaptations. This fall, Terry Zwigoff
and Dan Clowes (Ghost World) return
with the screen version of Clowes "Art
School Confidential".
Craig
Thompson's Blankets is
begging to be made into a film. It
won best of awards from many main stream
pubs (Newsweek, Entertainment Weekly).
The autobiographical story of a fundamentalist
Christian teen losing his virginity,
losing his greater innocence, discovering
his manhood and deciding to drop his
beliefs. It's almost TOO personal to
be made into a film.
There
was a recent discussion on my comic
art collecting group. Someone brought
up the fact that we collect "comic
art". Why not just say "art"?
Excellent point.
::Permalink::
