When I saw this, my reaction was “WHAT THE F-…oooh….okay….that makes sense.” :

Democrat Kerry Proposes Cut in Corporate Taxes

Presidential candidate John Kerry, eager to rebut charges that he is a tax-and-spend Democrat, on Friday proposed cutting the corporate tax rate and paying for it by eliminating incentives for U.S. companies to shift jobs overseas.
. . .
He pledged to end a tax provision that lets companies defer paying U.S. taxes on income earned by foreign subsidiaries and said he would use the $12 billion in annual savings to fully fund a 5 percent cut in corporate rates.

“Today we have a tax code that does more to reward companies for moving overseas than it does to reward them for creating jobs here in America,” Kerry said in a speech at Wayne State University.

The proposal, one piece of a broader job-creation package to be unveiled over the next few weeks, amounted to “a simple tax cut” for the 99 percent of American companies that did not send jobs overseas, according to Kerry economic adviser Gene Sperling.
. . .
Under existing law, U.S. companies do not have to pay taxes on foreign income until they bring it back to the United States. If they keep it abroad, they can avoid taxes entirely.

Kerry’s plan would tax profits from foreign subsidiaries just like domestic profits. It would still allow companies to defer the income earned by production overseas if they are serving foreign markets.

The more I think about it, the more I like this proposal a lot. By closing just one of the many loopholes that corporations use to avoid paying taxes, Kerry can reward those companies that aren’t traitors. If this works as planned, this could do a lot to ease the steady flow of jobs out of the United States. At the same time, this helps Kerry break away from the liberal stereotype of being “anti-business”. Let’s just hope that this is the tip of the iceberg.

I’m sure you’ve seen this elsewhere, but here a few things that need to be pointed out about the GOP’s efforts to defend itself against Richard Clarke’s criticism :

Okay folks, do you wanna plug your site, radio show, etc? If so, here’s the thread to do it. A few plugs I wanna mention off the bat :

On the surface, I bet this story would make most people see pro-choice activists as Chicken Littles, constantly warning people about a non-existent “slippery slope” :

The senate voted Thursday to make it a separate crime to harm a fetus during commission of a violent federal crime, a victory for those seeking to expand the legal rights of the unborn.

The 61-38 vote on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act sends the legislation, after a five-year battle in Congress, to President Bush for his signature, which he promised to provide.

“Pregnant women who have been harmed by violence, and their families, know that there are two victims ? the mother and the unborn child ? and both victims should be protected by federal law,” the president said in a statement applauding congressional passage. The House passed the bill last month.

There’s something especially tragic about the murder of a pregnant woman, so in theory I would totally support a “murder and a half” bill. But…

This isn’t just about inflicting harsher penalties for someone who murders a pregnant woman. This really is about chipping away at a woman’s right to have an abortion.

But abortion rights lawmakers contended that giving a fetus, from the point of conception, the same legal rights as its mother sets a precedent that could be used in future legal challenges to abortion rights.
. . .
The bill states that an assailant who attacks a pregnant woman while committing a violent federal crime can be prosecuted for separate offenses against both the woman and her unborn child. The legislation defines an “unborn child” as a child in utero, which it says “means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

“This bill recognizes that there are two victims,” said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, a chief sponsor. Americans, he said, “intuitively know that there is a victim besides the mother.”
. . .
“This would be the first time in federal law that an embryo or fetus is recognized as a separate and distinct person under the law, separate from the woman,” said NARAL president Kate Michelman. “Much of this is preparing for the day the Supreme Court has a majority that will overrule Roe v. Wade.”

Even then, it seems like this might just be another battle of “he said, she said” between opposing groups. Surely the lawmakers were just caught in the middle while they were doing their best to protect women, right?? Well, not quite…

The key obstacle was an amendment by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would have imposed the same tougher penalties for attacks on pregnant women as outlined in the DeWine bill but made no attempt to define the beginning of life.

Feinstein said that by defining when life begins, the bill was “the first step in removing a woman’s right to choice, particularly in the early months of a pregnancy before viability.” She said it could also chill embryonic stem cell research.

The senate also defeated an amendment by Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., that would require employers to give unpaid leave, and states to pay unemployment benefits, to women when they or family members are victims of domestic or sexual violence.
. . .
The Christian Coalition of America said votes for either the Murray or Feinstein amendments would be regarded as negative votes on its annual congressional scorecard of lawmakers.

In short, Feinstein and Murray called them on their bullshit. You wanna protect women? You want tougher penalties? Apparently not…

In the interest of equal time, the proponents of the bill claim that it “exclude[s] prosecution of legally performed abortions”. Now I haven’t read the bill, but I can almost guarantee you it contains the same fuzzy language that exists in almost all legislation and we all know they’re still working on getting rid of that “legally performed” part, anyways.

Joe Sacco has a great comic about the guilt that many liberals are experiencing right now over their support of John Kerry. In his dismay over the news of Nader’s run, he make s a good point when he says “I gotta admit, he stands for things I believe in, too, things that make my heart flutter. But I’m too sober now to chase true love in politics. I’ve even too sober to chase a tantalizing infatuation like Howard Dean. I’m sending my flowers to Kerry.”

Along similar lines is this introduction by Al Gore from MoveOn.org’s new book 50 Ways to Love Your Country :

Woody Allen has famously said that 90 percent of success is showing up. That?s true of democracy too. I?d argue that the other 10 is making sure you?re registered beforehand.

It?s easy to be cynical about politics and to believe that one vote barely matters. But consider these facts: John F. Kennedy?s 1960 victory over Richard Nixon?a victory that ultimately led to sweeping changes in civil rights laws, the first great wave of space exploration, and the creation of Medicare?was decided by just 100,000 votes nationwide. In 1994, the year Republicans won both houses of Congress, the redistribution of about 10,000 votes nationally would have kept Congress in senate hands. One of my former House colleagues, Connecticut Democrat Sam Gejdenson, won reelection by twenty-one votes that year. (?All you need is one,? he remarked; ?the rest are for your ego.?)

The senate political process isn’t perfect. Winston Churchill once said it?s the worst system for governance ?except for every other system that has ever been tried.? Often, you may find no candidate who completely reflects your views. But as voter participation has declined?from nearly two-thirds of eligible voters in 1960 to less than half in many national elections today?strong and decidedly unsenate forces have stepped in to fill the void.

In a democracy, the future isn’t something that just happens; it?s something we shape for ourselves, together. Special-interest lobbyists get the government they pay for only when we stay home from the polls?only when we abdicate the electoral power that is mightier than any soft-money check, more decisive than any million-dollar ad blitz or corporate misinformation campaign.

So whatever we do, let’s try to get people to the polls. If you haven’t registered to vote yet (shame on you!), go to this site and fill out the form online. When you’re done, forward it to everyone you know.

It’s sad that we’ve come to the point where something as basic as “science” needs to be defended, but luckily for us, a bunch of scientists have created the blog Panda’s Thumb which is dedicated to (in their words) “defending the integrity of science against all attempts to weaken it, distort it, or destroy it”. While it looks like their initial focus is on the evolution vs. insecure followers of Jesus intelligent design debate, I hope to see them branch out into other areas of pseudoscience as well.

According to a government report from a couple weeks ago, obesity is on its way to being a bigger killer than smoking.

More Americans soon will be dying of obesity than from smoking if current trends persist, which would make being fat the nation’s No. 1 cause of preventable death, the government says.

A poor diet and physical inactivity caused 400,000 deaths in 2000, a 33 percent jump over 1990, said a study released Tuesday by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Tobacco-related deaths in the same period climbed by less than 9 percent to 435,000 as the gap between the two narrowed substantially. At this rate, obesity will claim the top spot, the report said.

“Our worst fears were confirmed,” said Dr. Julie Gerberding, the CDC’s director and an author of the study.

What makes this worse is the fact that cultural trends are likely to make this issue a lot worse before it gets better.

One big obstacle here is that obesity is such an emotionally charged subject that the public sees this more of an issue of vanity than a serious health epidemic. Nobody likes hearing that they’re fat, so we’re stuck with a situation in which (for example) Bush makes a big deal out of steroid use in the State of the Union but doesn’t utter a word about this crisis. Instead of actually having a serious debate about the root causes of this problem, negative stereotypes about overweight people being lazy and stupid thrive.

The natural result of this immaturity is that we’ve got an abundance of fad diets and miracle cures. Luckily, the FTC is starting to go after these snake oil salesmen :

Regulators sued the QVC home shopping channel on Wednesday, charging that it made deceptive claims about weight-loss products sold on the air.

The complaint from the Federal Trade Commission accused QVC of false advertising of “For Women Only” weight-loss products such as zero-fat and zero-carb pills. It also alleged unsubstantiated claims about Lite Bites “fat fighting bars” and other weight loss or energy-boosting products.

“We’re seeking substantial civil penalties in the millions of dollars,” said Joni Lupovitz, assistant director for enforcement at the FTC’s bureau of consumer protection.

The FTC says QVC violated a June 2000 order barring the company from making misleading claims about dietary supplements.

Well, that’s a good start, but there’s so much more that needs to be done to better educate the public about how to maintain a healthy lifestyle. For example, we can start by ending the myths that salads are always healthy or that carbs are poisonous.

Of course, like many issues, this one is a multi-headed hydra. Even if we solved one of the root causes to this problem, we still have other factors to deal with. Here’s another head of the overweight beast (via andrewsullivan.com) :

“I don’t want the government telling me what to eat either. But I do think there’s one thing the government ought to do in this area, and that is to eliminate farm subsidies. Farm subsidies lower the price of corn, raise the price of sugar, and thus encourage the overproduction of corn sweeteners and processed corn which results in the paradox that it is far cheaper to eat high calorie junk food than it is to eat fresh food. There are all sorts of other good free market reasons for the government to eliminate farm subsidies, not to mention the distributionalist concern that most of their benefits accrue to very wealthy corporations. But if processed corn were sold at its fair market value, instead of at the subsidized price, and if we didn’t have such a glut of corn, maybe the cost of “super-sizing” could go up a little bit, and some people might decide to go on a diet. Since there are plenty of reasons to eliminate farm subsidies anyway, it’s certainly worth a try.”

So, it seems to me that the rise in obesity is the natural result of many other problems we face from our country’s decline into corporatism to income disparity to lack of education to the explosion of false and misleading advertising to our society’s gradual shift away from active lifestyles.

It’s a damn shame that politicians are too chickenshit to say anything about this. If we can have a war on poverty or drugs, can’t we have a war on fat as well? Granted, those “wars” have done a lot more harm than good, but it would be nice to at least have the issue addressed on a national level (since it’s a national problem and all).

I’m listening to day two of the 9/11 Commission Hearings one thing I’ve noticed is how the commissioners will take a swipe at Condoleezza Rice any chance they get. For example, check out these quotes from yesterday’s hearing transcript :

This commission had invited current national security adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice to appear today, but the administration has declined that invitation. We’re disappointed that she’s not going to appear to answer our questions about national policy coordination, but in her place the administration has designated Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

We have had extended private meetings with Dr. Rice. We have received a lot of information from her and she’s been a very cooperative witness in that circumstance.

We reserve the right today to ask each of our witnesses, as well as Dr. Rice, to appear before this commission again and answer further questions.
. . .
You said that we have invited Dr. Rice to talk to this 9/11 commission.

Well, we have a book issued by Richard Clarke which is a blistering attack on the Bush administration. We have Dr. Rice on the airwaves saying that she strongly condemns and disagrees with Mr. Clarke’s assessments and analysis.

I would hope that this discussion would not be for the airwaves and would not be a partisan type of discussion that we have, but belongs in this hearing room tomorrow in a substantive way so that the 10 commissioners can ask factually based questions and so the American people have the access to those answers to try to make this country safer.

So I would underscore your comments, Mr. Chairman, that I hope Dr. Rice will reconsider and come before our commission for the sake of the American people tomorrow.
. . .
Secretary Armitage, the administration has asked that you be allowed to testify tomorrow in place of Condoleezza Rice. No one could suggest that her role is not central to our inquiry and that her knowledge is different from yours, as she was a direct liaison between the president and the CIA and the FBI on issues directly relevant to our inquiry.

That is why the commission unanimously requested that Dr. Rice appear. The only reason the administration has advanced for refusing to make Dr. Rice available is a separation of powers argument, that presidential advisers ought not have to appear before the Congress.

I would call to your attention a report by the Congressional Research Service dated April 5th, 2002, well before the controversy arose about Dr. Rice’s appearance.

In that report, there are many precedents involving presidential advisers. Lloyd Cutler, counsel to President Carter, testified, came up to Congress to answer questions. Zbigniew Brzezinski, assistant to the president for national security affairs, appeared in 1980. Samuel Berger appeared to the president as a deputy assistant to the president for national security in May of 1994. He reappeared in his function as national security adviser in September of 1997. John Podesta, chief of staff to President Clinton, and several others in the Clinton administration, have appeared before congressional committees. And I may add that after this report was prepared, Governor Ridge appeared before two committees of the Congress.

So I would ask, Mr. Armitage, without any disparagement of your service or of your knowledge, that when you leave here today, you advise the administration of this report. I’ve got an extra copy for you to take with you.

(LAUGHTER)

We ask again in all seriousness that Dr. Rice appear.

Because of this, a lot of the testimony about the Bush administration’s efforts has been in the form of hearsay. Of course, that’s probably the point. If the Bush Administration officials can run out the clock and get away with not appearing before the commission, they can later rebut any negative charges with their standard “Well, my assistant was out of the loop”.

Besides, we already know that there isn’t a whole lot of positive spin they can put on this stuff. For those of you unfamiliar with Bush’s pre-9/11 record on terrorism, check out the chapter “Operation Ignore” from Al Franken’s “Lies and the Lying Liars…”. I’ve put it in the extended portion of this entry, but I copied it from here.
(more…)

In the grand tradition of Stryper and “Down Wit’ G.O.D.” comes this retarded movement (Link and subject of this post are from the always hilarious TBogg) :

“Punks will tell me, `Punk and capitalism don’t go together,’ ” Mr. Rizzuto said. “I don’t understand where they’re coming from. The biggest punk scenes are in capitalist countries like the U.S., Canada and Japan. I haven’t heard of any new North Korean punk bands coming out. There’s no scene in Iran.”

Mr. Rizzuto is the founder of Conservative Punk, one of a handful of Web sites and blogs that have sprung up recently as evidence of a heretofore latent political entity: Republican punks. With names like GOPunk, Anti-Anti-Flag and Punkvoter Lies, the sites are a curious blend of Karl Rove and Johnny Rotten, preaching personal responsibility and reflexive patriotism with the in-your-face zeal of a mosh pit. When he’s not banging his head to the Misfits, the Vandals or the Bouncing Souls, for example, Mr. Rizzuto spends his time writing essays denouncing Michael Moore and “left-wing propaganda,” and urging other conservative punks to join his cause.

“Punk has been hijacked by an extreme left-wing element,” Mr. Rizzuto said. “It’s blame America first. Everything is America’s fault, and everything is Bush’s fault.” Mr. Rizzuto said his goal “is rallying conservative punks and getting people to vote.”
. . .
While Conservative Punk does not have a roster of bands exactly, it has inspired the interest and involvement of a consortium of conservatives with proper punk credentials, like Michale Graves, a former singer for the Misfits, who writes a column for Mr. Rizzuto’s site. Mr. Graves regularly performs wearing a skull mask and is known for belting out lyrics like: “A fever rots/The brain goes numb inside/I feel a blackout coming/The boiled blister pops inside.” He allows that he doesn’t fit the profile of your average red-state Republican.
. . .
Traditionally a subculture of anti-establishment and anti-authoritarian leanings, the punk world has never been monolithic in its politics. The Sex Pistols preached nihilism and anarchy, while bands like the Clash, which headlined Rock Against Racism events in London and New York in the late 1970′s, espoused leftist views.

At the same time, punk came out of a frustration with what many urban youths saw as the ineffectualness of hippie-style liberalism, and embraced an inflammatory iconography ? like swastikas and military leathers ? as a statement against the peace movement, and everything else mainstream for that matter. Joe Levy, a deputy managing editor of Rolling Stone magazine, said punk politics have always been a bit confused. “The whole idea of punk rock and politics was a mess from the beginning,” he said.
. . .
Andrew Heidgerken, the founder of GOPunk and the proud owner of metal-spiked leather jacket with “G.O.P.,” “N.R.A.” and “U.S.A.” on the sleeves and a portrait of Ronald Reagan on the back, said he took special pleasure in the unpopularity of his views among other punks. “I can tell you the part of punk we like,” he said. “The willingness to speak out even if it annoys people, shouting at anyone who’ll listen.” Mr. Heidgerken is not beyond using traditional means to annoy people; he’s currently running for committeeman from his Chicago neighborhood.

Gimme another minute to laugh at the line “There’s no scene in Iran.”……Okay, I’m good now.

Now I agree with the guy from Rolling Stone that punk and politics don’t generally mix. With the exception of bands like the Clash, punk was mostly a fashion movement that was a lot more concerned with attitude and iconography than actually articulating political positions. But isn’t being anti-establishment part of that? I’m hardly one to be lecturing on the purity of punk, but it seems pretty ridiculous to think that you can “be punk” and support “the man” at the same time.

Not content with just ruining Van Halen, Sammy Hagar is now going to try to ruin the world. Maybe somebody should buy him a one-way ticket back to Cabo Wabo or Margaritaville or wherever the hell he’s from.

Oh my god. I had to read this one twice just to make sure I wasn’t reading The Onion or something :

Virgin Atlantic Airways on Friday scrapped plans to install bright-red urinals shaped like women’s open lips at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport, saying it had received complaints they were offensive.

“Virgin Atlantic was very sorry to hear of people’s concerns about the design of the ‘Kisses’ urinals to be fitted into our clubhouse at JFK Airport. We can assure everyone who complained to us that no offense was ever intended,” Virgin spokesman John Riordan said in a statement.

Riordan said the British company received several dozen complaints from people and groups including the National Organization for Women after its plans for the urinals had been made public. NOW had posted a message on its Web site urging members to complain to Virgin chief Richard Branson.

“I don’t know many men who think it’s cool to pee in a woman’s mouth, even a porcelain one,” said NOW President Kim Gandy on the group’s Web site.

If I wasn’t so busy laughing, I’d try to come up with something more interesting to say than : EWWWWWW!!!!

One of the things that infuriated me the most about the 2000 election is how much crap Al Gore took for being a nerd. Well, we’re not electing a drinking buddy, we’re electing somebody to rule the most powerful country on Earth, so being really smart shouldn’t be seen as a liability. This is what happens when you elect a dumbass to be president :

CLARKE: What I said was, you know, invading Iraq or bombing Iraq after we’re attacked by somebody else, it’s akin to, what if Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor instead of going to war with Japan said, “Let’s invade Mexico.” It’s very analagous.

STAHL: But didn’t they think there was a connection?

CLARKE: I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying, We’ve looked at this issue for years, for years we’ve looked for a connection and there’s just no connection.

STAHL: And you told them that?

CLARKE: Absolutely.

STAHL: You personally …

CLARK: I told them that, George Tenet told them that …

STAHL: Who did you tell?

CLARKE: I told that to the group, to the SState, the SDef, the AG. They all knew it.

STAHL: You talk about a conversation you personally had with the president.

CLARKE: Yes. The president — we were in the situation room complex — the president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, ‘I want you to find whether Iraq did this.’ Now he never said, ‘Make it up.’ But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said ‘Iraq did this.’

STAHL: Didn’t you tell him that you’d looked and there’d been no connection?

CLARKE: I said, ‘Mr. President. We’ve done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There’s no connection.’ He came back at me and said, “Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there’s a connection.’ And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report.

STAHL: In other words, you did go back and look.

CLARKE: We went back again and we looked.

STAHL: You did. And was it a serious look? Did you really … ?

CLARKE: It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and down to FBI and said, ‘Will you sign this report?’ They all cleared the report and we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, ‘Wrong answer.’

And this kind of crap is the biggest reason that Bush can’t be reelected.

To use a phrase that’s so cliche that it was used in a Taco Bell commerical, George W. Bush and the people he surrounds himself with can’t think outside the box. They entered office with only two priorities : attacking Iraq and lowering taxes. Despite the fact that we were attacked by someone else and our economy went from a boom to a bust, their priorities haven’t changed a bit. And it’s all because they’re not creative enough and too simple-minded to come up with different solutions.

Go check out this video of Eric Alterman making Dennis Miller squirm like a little boy whose mommy dragged him to the mall (link via Tom Tomorrow). The thing I find most remarkable about this is that Alterman’s remarks wouldn’t have gotten nearly as far on any other talk show. A more competent conservative pundit (like say, Tucker Carlson) would at least be able to change the subject and not get blindsided by Alterman bringing up stuff that he’d never heard before. Instead we get Miller whining and acting bored on his own show.

Y’see, Dennis Miller isn’t the genius he pretends to be, he’s that asshole you see at parties who’s always making obscure references in the hopes that nobody every calls him on it. He’s the guy who quotes poetry to girls and then feigns embarrassment for showing his “sensitive side”. He’s the guy who reads the Cliff’s Notes and pretends he read the whole book. Miller knows that 98% of the time, he can confuse people with “witty” remarks that mean nothing like “Howard Dean reminds me of what happens when Steve from Blue’s Clues pulls an all-night Red Bull and absinthe binge with the Marquis de Sade and Snoop Doggy Dog.” Miller’s shtick worked well when we was giving softball interviews to celebrities pluggin their movies, but now that he’s got five hours of airtime per week to fill on a news channel, he’s clearly out of his league.

I don’t really follow the Israel/Palestine thing very closely, but this is one of those times that even I can tell it’s a big deal :

Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was killed in an Israeli helicopter strike in Gaza City, prompting the radical Islamist movement he founded to declare all-out war on the Jewish state.

The 67-year-old wheelchair-bound cleric was killed along with seven other Palestinians when a helicopter fired three missiles as he left a mosque in the Sabra quarter of the city, witnesses and security sources said.

First of all, lemme just say that the world is probably a lot better off without religious leaders who use the faith of their followers to make them murderers. From what I’ve heard, he was a lot more than just the “spiritual” leader anyways, so in that case, it seems that he’s a legitimate target.

But, the details of this point to why I don’t think this is gonna end any time soon. Is it really “assassination” if you’re firing three missiles at somebody and killing seven other people in the process? It seems like a case of trying to swat a fly with a shotgun to me. With Israel’s seeming indifference to the lives of innocent bystanders, it’s no wonder that the Palestinian attacks have had a disregard for the lives of civilians as well. Then again, there’s a big difference between “accidentally” killing civilians and targeting them.

In the end, it’s just a big damn religious war with both sides crazy enough to believe that god wants them to kill the other side. It’s times like these when I’m glad we live in a (mostly) secular republic, where we can discuss our differences like rational human beings (at least until our religiously-motivated leaders ignore all opposing views and blow up a bunch of people).