Happy Birthday to Bob

Happy Birthday to Miles

Art Blogging

The Pianist - Liubov Popova, 1914.

I Get Letters

From the R&F mailbox...

Craig,

Someone forwarded me your blog post, and while I normally don’t respond, I thought you should know that H.R. 3893, the Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005, never became law. After House passage, it was sent to the Senate, where it died at the end of the 109th Congress. (You might have noticed that our 10/07/2005 release at the time said: “H.R. 3893 has been sent to the Senate for further action.”)

You should probably correct your post, as you imply that the GAS Act became law in 2005. It didn’t. And that’s unfortunate.

Best Wishes,

Martin

Duly noted Martin, but I'm not sure where the correction is warranted. Perhaps I should have noted that the legislation never became law, that's a fair criticism. I was more interested in Souder's never ending campaigning, and inability to affect change in this important issue.

If the Democrats are having trouble passing effective energy legislation than it appears that the Republican dominated Congress of 2005 had similar difficulties. Why would a resurgent Republican majority be any more effective? That's a rhetorical question, by the way. I actually understand the complicated nature of the U.S. Congress, a reality you or the Congressman seems unwilling to acknowledge in your constant criticism of the House majority.

Which brings me to this from July 2005:

U.S. Rep. Mark Souder voted today for House passage of the House-Senate conference report to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which includes important ethanol provisions that will benefit farmers. The House passed the agreement by a bipartisan majority of 275-156.

“The comprehensive energy plan that we just passed includes important provisions relating to ethanol and biodiesel that are extremely important to our farmers,” Souder said. “The legislation extends tax credits for ethanol, biodiesel and other alternative fuels, and it provides for a renewable fuel standard that will begin at 4 billion gallons being blended into the nation’s fuel supply in 2006 and increase to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012.”

“Biodiesel fuel production is a key part of our strategy to reduce our dependence on foreign energy supplies,” Souder continued. “In addition, increased biofuel production will help lower fuel prices and have a positive environmental impact. Too often our farmers are forgotten; this time they weren’t.”

How's that working out?

Late Night Merle Blogging

Now & Then

Found this tonight at Bloomberg.com:

Crude oil rose to a record above $135 a barrel in New York on concern that supplies are inadequate after U.S. stockpiles unexpectedly dropped last week.

U.S. crude inventories fell 5.32 million barrels to 320.4 million barrels last week, the biggest drop in four months, the Energy Department said yesterday. Gasoline supplies plunged by 755,000 barrels when analysts expected an increase.

``The price was roaring before the inventory report and was going up regardless, but that gave it the extra push,'' said Rowan Menzies, head of research at Commodity Warrants Australia Ltd. in Sydney. ``I'm beginning to think that this is a serious macro event, with oil at these levels, and it's going to have some serious consequences.''

Crude oil for July delivery rose as much as $1.87, or 1.4 percent, to $135.04 a barrel in after-hours electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It was at $134.85 a barrel at 9:30 a.m. Singapore time.

Which reminded me of this:

U.S. Rep. Mark Souder voted today for House passage of H.R. 3893, the Gasoline for America's Security (GAS) Act of 2005. The bill passed the House by a bipartisan majority of 212-210.

"We continue to see gas prices rise at the pumps, and yet we haven't built a new oil refinery in the United States since the 1970s," Souder said. "The GAS Act will help lower gasoline prices within the free market system by increasing capacity, streamlining fuel supply, providing transparency in gasoline pricing, fighting price gouging, reducing bureaucracy, and revitalizing refineries."

Back to today, here's what Souder's Deputy Chief of Staff, Martin Green, had to say in an "op-ed" piece on May 5th:

While there’s been a lot of talk about reducing gas costs, Congress has taken no real action. Nationally, the cost of gas has risen $1.29 per gallon since the Democrats took control of Congress, despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s promises to reduce it. Moreover, two powerful House Democrats have actually proposed increasing gas taxes (up to an additional 50 cpg).

Energy, however, is a long-term challenge for the United States. It’s as much a national security problem as it is an economic one, and reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil requires serious action at home.

Considering Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela and Russia are among the world’s top oil producers, we have to keep in mind that we’re enriching them each time we fill up our tanks. Moreover, because the world’s biggest oil firms are state-owned, we’re enriching their regimes directly. And we’re letting them dictate what we pay.

What’s the solution?

Mark Souder favors increasing every type of domestic energy resource, including biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel), clean coal, oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and along our Outer Continental Shelf, as well as nuclear, hydro, solar and wind power. He also wants to increase oil refining capacity (including at Indiana’s Whiting refinery), because it’s a major system bottleneck and no new refinery has been built since the 1970s. Congressman Souder is taking a broad approach to reducing our dependence on foreign oil and stabilizing fuel costs.

The Democrat leadership in Congress, however, won’t budge. Because of the powerful environmental lobby, Speaker Pelosi rejects domestic oil drilling, clean coal, and nuclear power. And, as we see with Sen. Ted Kennedy (who opposes a wind farm near Cape Cod because he thinks it unsightly), they’re not especially fond of alternative energy, either.

Where does that leave us? With the status quo — which everyone should find unacceptable.

So it's the fault of the Democrats that America still faces problems with gas prices, problems that Mark Souder supposedly helped solve, three years ago. If Mark Souder is reelected this year, it won't be because he or anyone on his staff ever bothered to tell any of his constituents the truth.

Your Five Minute Leo

Is it possible to type without using your brain? Leo gives it a shot today. Here he is attacking Obama (big surprise) for something the Senator said about America's consumption of energy:

That’s looking the world for approval, which doesn’t seem like a good way to set national policy, let alone tell me what temperature I should keep my home at. There is also looking to the rest of the world for examples of how to live, which might or might not be a good idea, depending on the example.

Yeah, it's not like energy prices are in any way based on global economic conditions. This has been your five minute Leo.

Romney For Veep!

Please John, bring the Mittster on board. I'd love you forever.

A Big Tent

...full of white people

Baby Watch Your Back

"You are becoming conservative...verrry conservative"


There is a rather telling passage from Fred Rost's editorial ( yes, that Fred Rost) in Monday's News-Sentinel. So says Fred...

For unity to prevail among conservatives and Republicans alike, it's going to take respect, understanding, trust, integrity and discipline. It also assumes cooperation by all sides and the desire and will for unity. It can't be a one-night stand during an election year; it needs to be like a marriage, a long-term commitment based on trust, respect and fundamental principles, with the occasional ups and downs attendant to such a relationship.

The focus and motivation for coming together ought to be to avoid the alternative that results from disunity, each group sitting on the sidelines watching the game, each beating their chests about how right they are, complaining about the outcome of the contest and not able to do anything about it. Being right in principle may be its own reward, but if you want to prevail and effect change, it requires unity of purpose, and mass, to gain a position to govern.

How did we get here?

Like the U.S. dollar, the Republican currency has been de-valued because of a departure from the proven principles that were the gold standard for over 40 years. We were more interested in having the media and our enemies like us, rather than standing up for the principles that differentiate us from them. We lost the toughness and will to fight for the things we, as a community of interest, believe in because it made us appear harsh.

That's right. People who disagree with Fred Rost and his ideological counterparts are not merely fellow-citizens with different views. Those people are "enemies", and Fred Rost doesn't mind saying so. There is no room for discussion or compromise with an enemy, is there? Enemies are to be defeated and eventually eliminated.

Then again, this column is part one of a two-part series. Maybe Fred's eliminationist plans will be revealed in the next column.

That Kole Thing

Mike Kole has some provided some interesting comments to my last post, so I'm going to provide a response what I think are some worthy questions.

Mr. Kole...

Now, are you saying here that you would have been happier with a more aggressive execution of war by President Bush? Really? Truly?

I would have been happier with an aggressive plan to completely disembowel al Qaeda. That always seemed like the appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks. This is the problem when comparisons are made between WWII and the current military misadventures of Dubya and the gang. When Bush makes this comparison he is insisting that a global conflict between nation-states is somehow the same as fighting terrorists who recognize no borders as their own and therefore have very little to lose.

We do war a lot differently these days. We had no cares about civilian deaths in those days. Look at Dresden. The public wouldn't permit any American leader, Republican or Democrat, to firebomb a city like we did back then. We wouldn't have stood for a Normandy invasion. Shit- we lost more lives in a few hours there than the entire Iraq folly has caused.

First of all, the United States military still conducts air strikes in Iraq. I don't think it is accurate to say that "we had no cares about civilian deaths", but you do bring up another aspect of WWII that needs to be acknowledged if one wishes to compare epochs.

I believe that what happened in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were war atrocities. Not to justify these actions, but consider the events of the Holocaust. We gave Germany the Dresden bombing, but what the Nazis did in Russia alone demonstrates an incomprehensible level of barbarity. Consider this passage from Raul Hilberg's book The Destruction of the European Jews:

An extreme example of an accusatory posture may be found in an anonymous eyewitness report of a shooting in the area of Mostovoye, between the Dniester and Bug rivers. An SS attachment had moved into a village and arrested all its Jewish inhabitants. The Jews were lined up along a ditch and told to undress. The SS leaders then declared in the presence of the victims that inasmuch as Jewry had unleashed the war, those assembled here had to pay for this act with their lives. Following the speech, the adults were shot and the children were assaulted with rifle butts. Gasoline was poured over their bodies and ignited. Children still breathing were thrown into the flames.

Again, I am not trying to suggest that Dresden was somehow justified by the conduct of theEinsatzgruppen, but I do think this example once again speaks to the problematic comparison between these two different periods of time. Hitler's SS was sanctioned by the Nazi government. While the actions of al Qaeda are equally as appalling, this organization is in no way affiliated with any nations which are the supposed "enemies" of America. A Normandyesque operation is not necessary in the fight against al Qaeda, as they have no fortress to infiltrate. The Allied powers needed to stop what the Nazis were doing, and the only way they could do that was to eventually march into the death camps and killing fields of Europe and put a stop to it.

Moving on...

And then, we can talk about how under the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt, the USA rounded up Japanese-Americans and put them in concentration camps.Clearer vision? Victory, FDR. But as you say- FDR had some flaws and indulgences.

Guantanamo anyone?

You bring up a good point here actually as I didn't even consider the internment policy when I wrote my post. Funny how we can sometimes ignore these things when trying to make a point, but I think this further demonstrates my intended message. By comparing the 1940s with today you encounter a host of factors that make it difficult to draw parallels. As you note, the American public was much more tolerant of persecuting aggressive actions against ethnic minorities. Maybe we have learned something from Roosevelt's faults, and maybe our leadership ignores the clear lessons of the war they claim informs our history and future.

Just a thought

Thanks for stopping by Mike, here's some Pixies...

Art Blogging

Cottage Girl with Dog and Pitcher - Thomas Gainsborough, 1785.

That Bush Thing

First of all, this is hilarious, and I hope Chris Matthews had a serious talk with the folks in charge of booking guests.

Now, let's go straight to the Bush's mouth:

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history. (Applause.)

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you.

Okay, I'm game, let's compare the 21st Century with World War Two. It makes no sense in any serious attempt at examining history, but the wingnuts love it, and I always aim to appease.

Let's talk about how the United States, under the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt, managed to defeat two of the greatest industrial and military powers of the the 20th Century. Let's talk about how Roosevelt and his advisers were able to fight a war against Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, on two fronts, on opposite sides of the globe. I think it's important to mention that the Fascists and Japanese were both defeated four years after America entered the war. Within twenty years both of these defeated nations were advanced industrial democracies and our allies.

Cowboy George couldn't figure out how to stabilize a country decimated by years of totalitarian rule and a ruinous dictatorship. The Bush administration had no idea how to promote and grow democracy, and in my view they were never interested in such a thing in the first place. There was no plan for victory beyond the made-for-TV "shock and awe" and meaningless destruction of statues. To Bush and his cronies, Iraq was never anything more than a mean to an end, photo-opportunities on aircraft carriers, and stick to whack humiliated Democrats.

For all his flaws and indulgences, Roosevelt understood what it took to advance the interests of his nation. He understood that he had to shake the hand of the Soviet despot and that by doing so he eventually helped Europe confront and alienate Stalin and his successors. It wasn't appeasement, it was strategy and vision completely beyond anything the sniveling Texan that is our current President could ever begin to understand. George W. Bush is not a stupid man, but he is a man blinded by his own self-interest. He does not care how many soldiers die, so long as he is proven right by history. When Roosevelt sat beside Josef Stalin he understood what that man was about, but he knew it would save American lives.

Americans will continue to die in Iraq because George W. Bush sees history as his beneficiary and his legacy as our burden.

By the way...

Wetzel is pissed too, but he sees things a bit differently. Check it out if you're so inclined.

Get Funky With O'Reilly

By the way...this isn't very workspace or kid friendly. Just so ya know

Edwards For Obama

HuffPo says so

Ugh

Jersalem Post:

A suicide bomber killed 22 people and wounded at least 40 at the funeral of a Sunni grammar school principle just west of Baghdad, Iraqi police said.

The bomber blew himself up inside a funeral tent in the village of Abu Minasir, just west of the capital.

Observations

Chris Matthews is a jabbering lunatic.

"Absolution without confession"

Good stuff from Charles P. Pierce

Hoosier Asshats

Michael of Jezierski of Hoosier Access is mad because Congress is trying to find a way to actually pay for things:

"Reading an AP article on Yahoo, the Democrats have proposed a .5% tax rate increase on some taxpayers. This is only the tip of the iceberg, as evidenced by the first Clinton Administration when the Democrat Congress at the time passed a hefty tax increase. The upcoming Congress will already raise taxes if the Democrats are in control by not renewing the “Bush Tax Cuts”. It’s a built in tax increase that is already forthcoming. The Democrats already claim the economy is in recession, so they being typical liberal Democrats put their misguided thinking caps on and attempt to tax the nation into prosperity. Not like that’s ever worked before but hey it makes for good sound bites on Countdown with Keith Overbite.

If you’re wondering what “CHANGE” is all about, sounds like “CHANGE” of jacking up tax rates will be the first order of business in a Democrat administration whether it’s Hillary’s third term as President or B. Hussein Obama’s."

Yeah, he's a special one, kind of a cross between Rush Limbaugh and your obnoxious cousin who thinks he's a goddam policy expert because he's been to a couple of Glenn Beck comedy shows. Anyhoo, here is the article that has Michael in such a tizzy:

House Democrats are proposing a tax surcharge on millionaires to pay for a big increase in education benefits for veterans of the war in Iraq, lawmakers said Tuesday.

The plan, if accepted by rank-and-file Democrats, would clear the way for a vote Thursday on a long-stalled war funding bill that would pay for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring.

Conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats blocked a vote last week over Democratic leaders' attempts to add an additional $51.8 billion over the next decade for veterans education to the $183.8 billion war funding tab. They insisted on finding a way to pay for the new benefit without simply adding to the deficit.

"What we're talking about is a one-half percent income tax surcharge on incomes above $1 million," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of the Blue Dog group. "So someone who earns $2 million a year would pay $5,000. ... They're not going to miss it."

The $1 million income level would apply to couples. Individuals would pay the surcharge on income exceeding $500,000.

The idea earned support from House leaders at a late afternoon meeting of top Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

The new GI Bill would essentially guarantee a full-ride scholarship to any in-state public university, along with a monthly housing stipend, for individuals who serve the military for at least three years.

Doesn't that sound just awful? Not only do congressional Dems want to provide for returning veterans, but they want to make sure the programs are paid for.

Now, I guess there is a debate to made here. Is this tax hike unfairly aimed at wealthier Americans? Possibly, but I don't think so. Nobody has done better under Bushenomics than the wealthy. But I don't see any evidence of Michael Jezierski exploring this issue. Instead he calls Keith Olbermann names and brings up Obama's Arabic-sounding middle-name. In a way, this is the perfect illustration of the current state of the conservative movement in America. Hopelessly adrift in failed economic policies and directionless wars, all they can do is point fingers and dishonestly criticize.

I'm so ready for November

Added: Heh... indeedy

The Surge Is Working!

Please ignore the urban combat.

By the way...

Go Komets!

Lying Liars

The Mitch Daniels campaign

No Bitterness Here

MSNBC:

WASHINGTON - Danielle Ross was alone in an empty room at the Obama campaign headquarters in Kokomo, Ind., a cellphone in one hand, a voter call list in the other. She was stretched out on the carpeted floor wearing laceless sky-blue Converses, stories from the trail on her mind. It was the day before Indiana's primary, and she had just been chased by dogs while canvassing in a Kokomo suburb. But that was not the worst thing to occur since she postponed her sophomore year at Middle Tennessee State University, in part to hopscotch America stumping for Barack Obama.

Here's the worst: In Muncie, a factory town in the east-central part of Indiana, Ross and her cohorts were soliciting support for Obama at malls, on street corners and in a Wal-Mart parking lot, and they ran into "a horrible response," as Ross put it, a level of anti-black sentiment that none of them had anticipated.

"The first person I encountered was like, 'I'll never vote for a black person,' " recalled Ross, who is white and just turned 20. "People just weren't receptive."

Ah, Hoosiers. We're such friendly folk.

Added: Mr. Masson has more.

Yes, it's easy to compile stories while at the same time leaving out any mention of the (presumably) thousands of white-Hoosiers who did vote and support Obama during the primary. But I think it's a fair article. The mostly white, conservative radio talk-shows around here spent weeks obsessing over the crazy things that Reverend Wright had said. I say, let's take a look at the crazy things everyone is saying.

Late Night Del Blogging

Art Blogging: Mama's Day Edition

Breakfast In Bed - Mary Cassatt, 1897.