I: “A lot of people in America think there is a trust that we take your money in payroll taxes and then we hold it for you and then when you retire, we give it back to you,” Bush said in a speech at the University of West Virginia at Parkersburg.

“But that’s not the way it works,” Bush said. “There is no trust `fund’ just IOUs that I saw firsthand,” Bush said.

“This is what exists,” Bush said, illustrating his point that the promise of future Social Security benefits are simply stashed in a file.

Is that not enough?

A $1.7 TRILLION Treasury Bond.

The W says no. “Imagine,” Bush said in his speech. “The retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet. It’s time to strengthen and modernize Social Security for future generations with growing assets that you can control that you call your own — assets that the government can’t take away.”

……………

II: Peter DeFazio, D of Oregon: “The President said, ‘There is no trust fund.’ And then he went on to suggest that our Nation might not honor its debt to Social Security. This is what the President said does not exist.” (I’m assuming he held up a visual aid at this point.)

“Let me read from this. This is a Social Security Trust Fund bond, considered the best investments in the world, U.S. Treasury Bond. This is the most privileged of Treasury bonds issued to Social Security, redeemable at any time at full face value, unlike any other bond that they issue. These are the most privileged of their bonds. The President says it is nothing but an IOU. Well, here is what it says: ‘This bond is incontestable in the hands of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund. The bond is supported by the full faith and credit of the United States. And the United States is pledged to the payment of the bond with respect to both principal and interest.’

“The President questions that?”

III: Perhaps they could invest the social security funds like so:

Since 1998, Ohio has invested millions of dollars in the unregulated world of rare coins, buying nickels, dimes, and pennies.
Controlling the money for the state? Prominent local Republican and coin dealer Tom Noe, whose firm made more than $1 million off the deal last year alone.

Since the state first ventured into rare coins, Capital Coin has split $12.9 million in profits with the state, with Capital Coin keeping 20 percent, or nearly $2.6 million.

IV: Rare coins… perhaps it’s best to invest in Rob Liefeld?

The stat page shows this search result:

saddam hussein striping to nude in front of george w bush then having sex on home made movies

A google search shows that I am #2.

Correct the misspelling (unless it is possible to “stripe” to nude) and I am not on the first 10 pages of google search results.

Anyway…

I knew of no actual blue-collar types who agreed with my take on the world, but like some present- day pundit pondering the majesty of the red states, I could deduce their existence as well. For example, there was a viaduct in a poor neighborhood of Kansas City, Kansas, on which someone had spray-painted “Russia Iran Disco Suck.” Driving underneath it on my way to and from a debate tournament one day, I gloried in the succint eloquence of this bit of proletarian wisdom. The logic was flawless. As sucked disco, so sucked communism. So sucked Iran. Even more inspiring was the unspoken corollary: as rocked Van Halen, so rocked Ronald Reagan.

— Thomas Frank, Page 148-149, What’s the Matter With Kansas?

I mention George Bush, and get this back at me: “I wish we could have a president like Martin Luther King, Jr. He had some really good ideas.”

“That’s why he had to be killed.”

“Riiight.”

This is that period of time where I become a bit loopy. Somewhere or other, she goes onto the subject of the recently passed Bankruptcy Reform Act — a bill whose passing tends to reinforce the idea of a one-party state in my mind (Republican Senators all voted for it, Democratic Senators half and half). The idea being that the Democratic Party gets to duck behind having “saved Social Security” while still having paid their dues to the Insurance and Banking Industries, and on and on.

“You know, the Senator that effectively killed and stalled that bill throughout the entire decade of the 1990s was Paul Wellstone, and…”

Before I could finish that thought (a loopy conspiranoid one to be sure), a third party derails the whole thing to a point of no return… how he would, on the first day of his presidency, declare “ALL CORRUPTION IS NOW STOPPED!”

Wouldn’t happen of course. Look what they did to Robert Kennedy.

5 years later, I have come to the conclusion that this odd movie snippet I saw was based on an Ayn Rand novel:

This is the final confrontation between the optimistic and rejuvenated architect and the worn out, depressed developer. They are having a meeting in the the developer’s office. The developer tells the architect that he has won, and that he will receive full credit for his architectural masterpiece. Apparently, much legal scuffling has gone on through the movie- the main crux being who will receive credit for the archetectural masterpiece- the architect (an artist in a true sense, apparently) or the beauracratic development company (to put it simplistically). The developer says to the architect that this building will be the final great accomplishment of mankind, and from here on out it is all downhill. The architect says something to the effect of “I’m sorry you feel that way, but I believe mankind is just getting started and will always accomplish great feats.” They then cordially depart.

I can’t say if this is a happy ending or a sad ending. I mean- a guy committed suicide and the only thing we see afterward is the architect standing next to his wife proudly atop his masterful creation, having gotten to the top of the building by a glass elevator btw. It’s all very confusing.

Atlas Shrugged. So do I at this precise moment.

I hereby remove either the photograph of Rick Santorum or the photograph of Hal Turner and replace it with a photograph of Senator from Texas, John Cornyn.

Like so:

“I wonder whether there may be the some connection in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions but are unaccountable to the public that it builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in violence.”

An interesting enough question. We all know the frustration people have over activist judges who view the Constitution as a breathing document and aren’t “Strict Constructionists”, use this judicial philosophy to levy a penalty to a deadbeat dad or side with one party over the other over another in a divorce proceeding. It’s Judicial Tyranny, I tell you!

Someone needs to write a new edition of Blowback, or perhaps On the Justice of Roosting Chickens : Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Judicial Arrogance and Criminality.

John Cornyn’s back-track goes like this:

“I regret it that my remarks have been taken out of context to create a wrong impression about my position, and possibly be construed to contribute to the problem rather than to a solution.”

Bill Frist, you’ll be happy to note, has come out full-fledged in opposition to killing judges:

“I believe we have a fair and independent judiciary today. I respect that.”

Personally, I’m struck by my complete lack of comprehension on the politics of the moment and emenating from the Republican Party. I go to sleep one night feeling relatively normal. I wake up the next morning and Tom DeLay is complaining about the Judicial Radicalism of a batch of largely Republican — appointed judges.

POINT:
COUNTERPOINT:
Well, the counterpoint would make sense if National Review Magazine offered up its covers in some form online, which shows a picture of Chavez and Castro and the infamous (and incredibly wacky) words “Axis of Evil”.

The emerging axis of subversion forming between Cuba and Venezuela must be confronted before it can undermine democracy in Colombia, Nicaragua, Bolivia, or another vulnerable neighbour.

The Nation article isn’t quite haliographical in nature… taking time to suggest that Chavez’s programs can cynically be viewed as pure political machine building, and showing a sympathetic portrait of his opposition. It’s fair to say that the National Review article doesn’t deviate any from a storyline of unmitigated evil and power-lust.

I don’t have a whole lot to say on the matter… (1- Where do you stand on Venezuela politics? 2– Why do you even have an opinion?) It’s curious to note that Chavez attempted to take control of Venezuela through a coup in the early 1990s. He then apologized and took complete responsibility for it. He was elected president a number of years later. There’s a bit of Jerry Springer in that story, ie: after his sex scandal where he purchased hookers off of tax-payers’ money, Springer simply apologized for it and was promptly re-elected mayor of Cincinnatti.

The US backed a coup against Chavez — which failed, and bolstered his popularity and has provided Chavez with a grand whipping boy. I’ve always thought attempt #2 was just around the corner.

“The Pope Is Dead! Long live the new Pope!”

So blasts my loud Boston-accented neighbor. Repeatedly. I could shout back “He died yesterday, and there isn’t a new Pope yet!”, or controversially, “Fight the Real Enemy!” (the Sinnead O’Connor reflex), but I don’t. (Later on, I have a creepy encounter with his friend, and some things are a little bit unsettled here.)

“The Pope Is Dead! Long live the new Pope!”

I asked Danny Howe whether the Pope was in Hell or not. He said that he was. (More details of that meeting found here.)

“The Pope Is Dead! Long live the new Pope!”

I’m confused. He forgave his would-be-assassin. People love him for that. Were people expecting him to throw out a clarion call for the flock to carry out Vigilante Revenge?

“The Pope Is Dead! Long live the new Pope!”

I’m guessing probably not as long as the old pope.

I have often heard that Pope John Paul II has a special charismatic quality and attachment with the youth of the world, particularly Catholic Youth. I suppose I shouldn’t doubt that… talking with devout Catholics of my age-group, they invariably would express great affection to Pope John Paul II.

It had to be seventh grade, given my time-line of CCD classes (basically from 6th grade to 9th grade, nobody wanted my particular grade — thus I have a strange motley crue of semi-reluctant teachers of Catholic Doctrine, most infamously the End-of-Times Fundamentalist that pretty much literally scared the Jesus out of me; most distressingly the dearth of 8th grade when the class dwindled to four kids) when I watched a bad propaganda-ish film, mimicking some production stunts developed by MTV, that called a gathering of Catholic Youth to see the Pope “the Pope’s Woodstock.” My general question was, “Why did they produce this dreck?” (ie: various Protestant Churches oughta be the home of such saccharine.)

After a while, everything and everyone becomes a caricature. Thus, a Jumping Pope on a Pogo-Stick moves through stages of production before being canned.

And the Pope watches someone break-dance. Why? I guess the man loves the art of break-dancing!

None of which shortchanges him from single-handedly bringing down the Soviet Union and Communism (one of four figures who can claim to have single-handedly accomplished that feat — the other three, of course, being Ronald Reagan, The Beatles, and Osama Bin Laden.) Or his ecumenical approach to politics and religion which reshaped the Catholic Church and its relationship with the world. Or anything of any real substance or import.

All I can really say is that… I don’t think the next Pope is going to be so easily transferred as jumping on a pogo-stick.

Flicking pass the National Review’s Rich Lowrey on PBS’s Jim Lehrer, I watched him explain the Republican view of the Terri Schiavo fiasco. This will be forgotten by November of 2006 so there aren’t any political repurcussions (a godspeed for the Republican Party, I… guess…), but in the meantime obviously… judges out of control, and this will strengthen and harden the position of the “Nuclear Option” (the one which will destroy the ability of Democrats to act like Jimmy Stewart?).

I couldn’t quite tell if he believed his own words, which is to say politicos of the pundit variety often say things for the sole purpose of making them the truth… its not the bias that shows, which is what you’d want from a political bias, but the motive and agenda that’s being focused on. Rich Lowrey’s body language was just a little bit… off, and he blinked a little bit too often.

In the meantime, I’m trying to figure out the veracity of this story. A quick google search through their news archives, and I end up with a story from Australia that She may have been Bulimic!… which only goes to show how a foreign press is slow on various details of a national (unfortunately) story.

You do know Tom DeLay’s latest apocalyptic words on the matter?

This loss happened because our legal system did not protect the people who need protection most, and that will change. The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today.

“Answering for the Behavior” meaning… what, exactly? Dunno. A weird Political Jihad, which probably can only take place with enough of a concerted political propaganda push? Torment in Hell after the ever-loving God decides that they don’t quite measure up? Something like this carried out by a sort of individual who’s may be attracted (not all of them, mind ye) to something like this? Dun…no.