Finally, we’re getting an American version of “Triumph of the Will” (link from Atrios) :

Trapped on the other side of the country aboard Air Force One, the President has lost his cool: “If some tinhorn terrorist wants me, tell him to come and get me! I’ll be at home! Waiting for the bastard!”
. . .
Was this George W. Bush’s moment of resolve on Sept. 11, 2001? Well, not exactly. Actually, the scene took place this month, on a Toronto sound stage.

The histrionics, filmed for a two-hour television movie to be broadcast this September, are as close as you can get to an official White House account of its activities at the outset of the war on terrorism.

Written and produced by a White House insider with the close co-operation of Mr. Bush and his top officials, the movie The Big Dance represents an unusually close merger of Washington’s ambitions with the Hollywood entertainment machinery.

A copy of the script obtained by The Globe and Mail reveals a prime-time drama starring a nearly infallible, heroic president with little or no dissension in his ranks and a penchant for delivering articulate, stirring, off-the-cuff addresses to colleagues.
. . .
Lionel Chetwynd, the film’s creator, sees nothing untoward about his role as the semi-official White House apologist in Hollywood. For him, having a well-connected Republican create the movie was a way to get the official message around what he sees as an entertainment industry packed with liberals and Democratic party supporters.
. . .
Mr. Chetwynd’s script is based on lengthy interviews with Mr. Bush, Mr. Rove, top aide Andy Card, retiring White House press aide Ari Fleischer, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other Republican officials in the White House and the Pentagon. He says that every scene and line of dialogue was described to him by an insider or taken from credible reports.

Yet compared with other journalistic accounts of the period, the movie is clearly an effort to reconstruct Mr. Bush as a determined and principled military leader. The public image of Mr. Bush ?— who avoided military service in Vietnam and who has often been derided as a doe-eyed naif on satirical TV shows ?— is a key concern to White House communications officials, many of them friends of Mr. Chetwynd.

I guess the embedded reporters program was so successful that they’ve launched an embedded entertainer program as well. It’s amazing that conservatives effectively control all three branches of our government, but are still able to use the “liberal media” myth to portray themselves as some sort of oppressed minority that’s being treated unfairly. For a more honest account of Bush’s activities on 9/11, check out this site.

Speaking of drugs, the party that brought us the ad campaign that links marijuana sales and terrorism now have a new plan :

Texas approved one of the nation’s most sweeping abortion “counseling” laws Wednesday, requiring doctors, among other things, to warn women that abortion might lead to breast cancer — a correlation that does not exist, according to the American Cancer Society and federal researchers.
. . .
“They don’t care what science says,” said Claudia D. Stravato, chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of Amarillo and the Texas Panhandle. “It’s like talking to the Flat Earth Society.”

The bill’s author, state Rep. Frank Corte Jr., a San Antonio-area Republican, said he called the bill the “Women’s Right to Know Act.”
. . .
Finally, the law requires doctors to offer women information warning them of the possibility that abortion can increase the risk of breast cancer. Only Mississippi and Minnesota have similar laws on the books.

In February, the National Cancer Institute — the federal government’s cancer research organization — asked more than 100 of the world’s experts to review more than 30 studies that have been conducted and attempt to resolve the issue. Their conclusion: Having an abortion “does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.”
. . .
The trouble is that among the vast majority of physicians, it’s not disputed, said Dr. Bernard Rosenfeld, a Houston physician who performs abortions. “There is absolutely no medical validity to this,” Rosenfeld said Wednesday night. “Nobody seriously believes this.”

It’s disgusting to think that the anti-abortion crusaders are willing to resort to terrifying women into not having abortions. Maybe we should push for a “Voters Right to Know Act” which requires pre-election counseling to possible voters that makes them aware of the links between voting for Republicans and being a heartless asshole.

Did you guys know that drug dealers in Kansas are expected to pay taxes on the drugs they sell? This isn’t a joke :

The fact that dealing marijuana and controlled substances is illegal does not exempt it from taxation. Therefore drug dealers are required by law to purchase drug tax stamps.

The drug tax is due as soon as the dealer takes possession of the marijuana or controlled substance. Payment of the drug tax will purchase the drug tax stamps. Attach the stamp to the marijuana and/or controlled substance immediately after receiving the substance. The stamps are valid for 3 months. Drugs seized without stamps or having expired stamps may result in criminal or civil penalties which may include fines, seizure of property or liens against real estate.

But it gets even weirder. Check out the rates :

Drug tax assessment:
10 grams of cocaine x $200 per gram = $2,000
Penalty: $2,000 x 100% = $2,000
Total Liability: $2,000 + $2,000 = $4,000

What are the tax rates for marijuana?

Pursuant to K.S.A. 79-5202, the tax rates are:
Processed $3.50 per gram
Wet Plant $0.40 per gram
Dry Plant $0.90 per gram

What are the tax rates for controlled substances?

Pursuant to K.S.A. 79-5202, the tax rates are:
If customarily sold by weight (cocaine, methamphetamine, etc.) $200 per gram
If customarily sold by Dosage Unit (pills, etc.) $2,000 per 50 units

Does it strike anyone as a little hypocritical that the government would put itself in a position to profit off something that it’s actually campaigning against? It seems to me that if a program like this were successful, it would be in the government’s best interest to encourage illegal drug sales.

“Corporate inversion”? Is that what they call it now? The last time I checked they it was called “tax-motivated expatriation”. Of course if you or I did it, they’d call it “tax evasion” and we’d end up in jail :

Companies that reduced their U.S. tax bill by incorporating overseas did $1 billion worth of business with the federal government last year, an Associated Press computer analysis of federal contracts showed.
. . .
“It’s outrageous that we would do business with these folks,” said Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., who has introduced legislation to continue taxing companies that move their headquarters overseas. “They are shirking their citizenship.”

The process is known as corporate inversion: A company moves its headquarters sometimes nothing more than a post office box to a low-tax enclave such as Bermuda or the Cayman Islands while leaving its operations and employees in the United States.

The senate twice has passed legislation to prevent the new Homeland Security Department from doing business with companies that relocate overseas, but both times the provision was removed from the final bill by House Republican leaders.

Where’s the Republican’s faux patriotism now? Does their love of country only extend to renaming food? I guess it makes sense that the politicians who rally behind the confederate flag would come to the defense of corporations who are willing to renounce their country in order to save a few bucks.

Am I the only one who feels like Americans care more about this…

On behalf of millions very concern voters, I am appealing to Matt [Drudge] to look into the votes. All across the America, people are voicing distraught by the fact that no one could get thru on Clay’s #. I also heard that text messaging thru AT&T also was not working right. When calling Clay’s #, you got a consistent busy signal or a weird message from the operator. I have spoken to many Ruben fans and had ask how voting was for them. They are telling me that they “had no problems getting thru”.

…than this?

Kweisi Mfume, NAACP President & CEO, said the lawsuit is part of an effort to “restore justice to the thousands of black and other voters who were denied the right to have their vote counted on November 7, 2000.” Mfume said: “There was evidence of massive voter disenfranchisement of people of color during the presidential election. The election in Florida was conducted in a manner which was unfair, illegal, immoral and unsenate.”

Starting on Election Day, the NAACP national and Florida offices, as well as many other civil rights organizations, received calls from black voters and others who had been turned away from the polls or had trouble casting their ballots. Civil rights lawyers were immediately sent to Florida to interview witnesses and on November 11, 2000, the NAACP held a hearing in Miami to highlight the extent of the violations of state and federal law.

Last night I caught the last half of a PBS documentary on an influential economist whose name I didn’t catch. At the point where I joined the program, Jimmy Crater was president and the economy was in the dumps. What followed were the elections of Margaret Tatcher and Ronald Reagan, Maggie’s rapid dismantling of British socialism, massive tax cuts for the rich, rabid degregulation, and their overall indifference to those in need. The documentary ended in the early eighties with the two leaders declaring victory over their countries’ economic troubles and modern day interviews with Thatcher and Newt Gringrich discussing the greatness of the economic theories that got them there.

As the credits were rolling, I couldn’t help but think “Where’s the sequel?” They left off the part about Reagan raising taxes again, the S&L scandal, the stock market crash of ‘87, the record national debt, and the recession of the early 90’s. It felt like the equivalent of watching a documentary about WW2 that ends with Pearl Harbor.

It was odd timing to catch this documentary considering that today’s the day that Bush will be signing the second massive tax cut of his term :

Congress gave its final approval Friday to $330 billion in new tax cuts for families, investors and businesses, handing President Bush a victory despite sharply curtailing his plan for lifting the economy from its knees.

Families? I’m surprised they didn’t just say “this tax cut should deliver immediate relief to little old ladies, orphans, and puppies”.

Cute little puppies aside, it’s obvious that Bush sees himself as the inheritor of Reagan’s policies, but (as Jonathan Chait points out) it looks like George didn’t do any better in history than he did in English :

Just like George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan used his first year in office to enact a series of tax cuts tilted toward the well-off that helped plunge the nation into debt. For this, Reagan is remembered by both the right and left as an unflinching avatar of supply-side economics. But, in truth, Reagan reacted to the consequences of his 1981 tax cuts in a way that would have put him far out of step with Bush’s Republican Party. When the scope of the budget deficit became apparent, Reagan acceded to a series of tax increases in 1982 (in the midst of a severe recession, no less), 1983, and 1984. In 1986, reacting to complaints that his 1981 tax cuts opened too many loopholes for the rich, Reagan enacted a sweeping tax reform that liberals, including this magazine, hailed for making the tax code more progressive. Reagan’s record on taxes, in short, consisted of one year of unvarnished conservative ideological warfare followed by seven years of retreat and consolidation.

So where Bush’s only solution to economic problems seems to be cutting taxes, Reagan clearly realized that tax cuts weren’t the only solution. Despite the fact that tax cuts probably don’t spur growth, for the sake of argument, I’ll cede this point to the President (in his words) :

Our first challenge is to allow Americans to keep more of their money so they can spend and save and invest — the millions of individual decisions that support the market, that support business, and help create jobs.

So we need to give people their money back so they can spend it and reinvigorate the economy? Okay, fair enough. That being the case, what’s the best way to do this?

For most Republicans, this means trickle down supply-side economics in the form of massive tax cuts for the wealthy. If reinvestment was really the goal, wouldn’t a tax credit for businesses who reinvest profits in their companies and create more jobs make more sense than a tax cut? For all the talk about how much a tax cut will lead to the creation of more job, the GOP doesn’t ever seem to be willing to put our money where their mouth is.

If we want a fast economic recovery, wouldn’t it make sense to give the money to the people who are likely to get it in circulation? The poor are more likely to spend the money immediately than the rich. Even many conservative economists agree to this point :

A reduction in tax rate aimed at individuals in the lower income brackets is most likely to result in increased economic activity. These individuals are much more likely to spend the additional disposable income, especially if they believe the change is permanent, thereby meeting the stimulus package?s objectives.

Individuals in the upper income bracket are less likely to spend and more likely save any increase in income from a tax rate cut. Individuals in the upper income bracket rarely deny themselves goods and services they desire. The upper income bracket is already saving a significant portion of their income and would likely save, rather than spend, any increase in income resulting from a tax rate cut.

Personally, I think a more sensible solution would be to give the tax cuts only to the poor and middle class families who need help the most.

Of course I can already hear the complaints now. “It’s not fair. The rich pay the majority of taxes, it’s only fair for them to get majority of the money back.” While that may be true, this tax cut is not a gift, it’s an attempt to jump-start a stagnant economy. It’s not a matter of who deserves a refund more, it’s a matter of who’s more likely to spend the money. There are a variety of social programs that primarily benefit the poor that have been cut to make way for this tax cut. Asking the poor to sacrifice so the rich can have more money is what’s really unfair.

In case you hadn’t noticed, Blogger is crap. After four days of sending trouble tickets and trying to track down any contact info, they finally updated their status page :

BlogSpot has been especially sluggish recently and we are working hard to improve the situation. We sincerely apologize that the problem has taken longer to resolve than expected and for the frustration of having poor performance from the servers.

If you’re seeing double posts below, it’s because I had to post that message four times before it even showed up in my “current posts” window.

So, it’s looking like I’m gonna need to move this site to Moveable Type sometime soon. Anybody know where I can get a good deal on hosting?

During my search for Blogger info, I found an older status page with this message :

Is Blogger working? Probably not.

Another example of how pathetic American schools are :

For 74 years, Phyllis Wheatley Elementary School in South Dallas has been misspelled.

The 18th-century black poet spelled her name Phillis. There is no “y,” though the errant spelling has crept into some usage through the centuries, including on school buildings elsewhere.
. . .
The Dallas school district isn’t alone in misspelling her name. An Internet search found about 4,130 references to Phyllis. Phillis netted about 10,300 results.

In a 1773 book of poems, the title page says Phillis Wheatley, yet through the years several institutions named for her have used the spelling “Phyllis.”
Some of the misspellings include a public school in Apopka, Fla., and several YWCA branches, including buildings in Atlanta and St. Louis. A school in Miami has already changed to Phillis.

You’d think if they liked her work enough to name a building after her, they’d at least know how to spell her name…

They need to raise the debt ceiling again?

The timing could not be much better for Democrats: The Republican-led senate will vote this week on whether to let federal borrowing grow by an unprecedented $984 billion, even as it considers a costly tax cut that President Bush wants.

The senate is certain to approve an increase in the debt limit to avert a first-ever government default, probably after beating back every senate amendment. Even so, with debate beginning as early as Thursday, Democrats see a chance to argue that Mr. Bush has mismanaged the economy and the budget.

Their goal is to draw attention to the huge annual federal deficits that have re-emerged ? and are expected to stretch indefinitely into the future ? after four straight surpluses under President Clinton. Democrats say the chief culprit is the big tax reductions Bush won in 2001, and the latest tax package will only make matters worse.
. . .
Underlining how rapidly the government’s books are deteriorating, Congress boosted the old debt limit by $450 billion only last year, following several years in which surpluses stabilized and actually shrank the debt slightly.

The Democrats need to bring this up constantly. Its as if the Bush Administration is allergic to fiscal responsibility. How else would you explain a chart like this?

It’s not enough to just say “Bush turned a record surplus into a record deficit”. Democrats need to show Americans what this means.

Here’s a great idea for a compromise in the fight over public domain :

About a month ago, I started sounding optimistic about getting a bill introduced into Congress to help right the wrong of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. I was optimistic because we had found a congressperson who was willing to introduce the bill. But after pressure from lobbyists, that is no longer clear. And so we need help to counter that pressure, and to find a sponsor.

The idea is a simple one: Fifty years after a work has been published, the copyright owner must pay a $1 maintanence fee. If the copyright owner pays the fee, then the copyright continues. If the owner fails to pay the fee, the work passes into the public domain. Based on historical precedent, we expect 98% of copyrighted works would pass into the public domain after just 50 years. They could keep Mickey for as long as Congress lets them. But we would get a public domain.

The need for even this tiny compromise is becoming clearer each day. Stanford?’s library, for example, has announced a digitization project to digitize books. They have technology that can scan 1,000 pages an hour. They are chafing for the opportunity to scan books that are no longer commercially available, but that under current law remain under copyright. If this proposal passed, 98% of books just 50 years old could be scanned and posted for free on the Internet.
. . .
Yet the lobbyists are fighting even this tiny compromise. The public domain is competition for them. They will fight this competition. And so long as they have the lobbyists, and the rest of the world remains silent, they will win.

We need to your help to resist this now. At this stage, all that we need is one congressperson to introduce the proposal. Whether you call it the Copyright Term Deregulation Act, or the Public Domain Enhancement Act, doesn’t matter. What matters is finding a sponsor, so we can begin to show the world just how extreme this debate has become: They have already gotten a 20 year extension of all copyrights just so 2% can benefit; and now they object to paying just $1 for that benefit, so that no one else might compete with them.

This is a great idea. If you’re interested in this, click on the links under “Complain” to your left to contact your representatives and ask them to support the public domain proposal at http://eldred.cc/.