Fbi_Guy: “It is obvious that Terri could be rebibalitated [sic] . . . It is clear she is coherent and, I believe, capable of recovery.”  “Terri was in no way on life support. She was NOT in a coma. She WAS responsive as you can clearly see, that is unless you're blind or in denial, as the Left is.”  Link and link.

Well it turns out FBI_Guy was as blind as Mrs. Schiavo.  Fact: “MIAMI, June 15 - An exhaustive autopsy found that Terri Schiavo's brain had withered to half the normal size since her collapse in 1990 and that no treatment could have remotely improved her condition, medical examiners said on Wednesday.  The autopsy results . . . effectively quashed allegations by her parents that she had been abused by her husband. . . . The autopsy also found that the brain deterioration had left her blind. That finding, along with the determination that the brain damage was irreversible, caused some Republicans in Washington, who had pushed so hard for federal intervention in her case, to have second thoughts.”  Link.

Can I get an apology?

A Model State

            Every state should look to Connecticut when deciding how to deal with the problem of gay marriage.  On April 20, Connecticut signed a law giving civil union status to gay couples, if they wish.  There was no court pressure; this was done voluntarily by the legislature and governor (a Republican).  This law, which escaped much national attention, struck a perfect compromise between the warring factions on this issue.  This law recognizes the deep commitment two homosexuals can have to themselves while reserving marriage for two heterosexuals.  Civil unions work in much the same way a marriage does.  It can be performed by anyone who can already perform a heterosexual marriage.  Neither couple can be married or “civil unioned” in another state and civil unions are reserved for homosexual couples.  Read more about it in this New York Times editorial.

            A way NOT to deal with the problem occurred this week in The District.  On April 21, The Washington Post published this article detailing how “A leading Senate Republican warned Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) yesterday that a move to recognize gay marriages in the nation's capital would trigger a sharp backlash from Congress.”  Sam Brownback (R-KS), the chairman of the Senate committee that gives the District money, has warned that an attempt by the DC to legalize gay marriage would jeopardize future appropriations.  DC, along with Maryland and six other states do allow medical decision-making rights and other privileges to same-sex couples.  Brownback said "this issue has now been moving across the country for several years, and I guess we will deal with something in D.C. now."  Brownback’s interference in DC city politics is irresponsible.  If the city council wants to legalize gay marriage, condemn gay marriage as blasphemy, or do anything in between, it is up to them.  This is a decision for the legal representatives of the District to make.  Congress should stay out.

“Teflon” Tom DeLay

          For those of you not familiar with House Majority Leader and general asshole Tom DeLay, he is this guy:

            As things stand now, DeLay is suspected of several ethics violations ranging from laundering money to push through a redistricting effort in Texas to taking an illegal trip from lobbing interests.  Two top DeLay aides have in fact been indicted for possible illegal activities involving the redistricting effort.  In addition, top members of TRMPAC were indicted in September for illegally using corporate contributions and money laundering.  As things stand now, DeLay has been rebuked by the House Ethics Committee five times.  Three of those times came last year, when DeLay was slapped on the wrist for three, yes three, different violations of House Ethics standards.

            DeLay’s activity in the Schiavo case is also hypocritical.  As the LA Times reports:

More than 16 years ago, far from the political passions that have defined the Schiavo controversy, the DeLay family endured its own wrenching end-of-life crisis. The man in a coma, kept alive by intravenous lines and oxygen equipment, was DeLay's father, Charles Ray DeLay.  [. . .]

DeLay has denounced Schiavo's husband, as well as judges, for committing what he calls "an act of barbarism" in removing the tube.

In 1988, however, there was no such fiery rhetoric as the congressman quietly joined the sad family consensus to let his father die.

 
           DeLay, one of those conservatives who screams "Tort Reform!" at the top of his lungs, also accpeted a settlement for $250,000 for "'physical pain and suffering, mental anguish and trauma,' and the mother's grief, sorrow and loss of companionship."  It's hypocritical for him to work to take away the right of consumers to sue corporations while his own family got a quarter million for exactly that.  Corporate responsibility is a serious issue and DeLay has scammed the public.

           But wait!  There’s more!  At DeLay and Speaker Hastert’s replaced the House Ethics Committee chairman Rep. Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) with a DeLay loyalist Rep. Richard Hastings (R-Wash.).  Members of the committee were also replaced with DeLay loyalists, including two members who have donated to DeLay’s legal defense fund.

            Thinkprogress has an excellent piece called DeLay's Dirty Dozen.  It details many of the ethics complaints laid out in an easy-to-read list.  The New York Times has an article on DeLay that's another good read.

            Corrupt?  Absolutely.  It’s time to get rid of “Teflon” Tom, a man who gives the fine Republican party a bad name.  Perhaps most damning for DeLay is the recent article by the neoconservative Wall Street Journal editorial page.  You can read it here.

Some neoconservatives would like us to believe that Bush's plan is a better deal for Americans.  Not so, according to MSNBC:

President Bush frequently argues that one of the big advantages of his proposed personal retirement accounts is that unlike traditional Social Security they would allow participants to leave any accumulated wealth to their “children or grandchildren.” But that is not completely true under the proposal that has been advanced by White House officials, which would require many workers to convert some or all of their savings into annuities that would expire at death.

So when President Bush claims Social Security privatization will leave relatives with more wealth, he is misleading.  Even more disturbing, the proposed budget includes cuts for law enforcement, Medicaid, public housing, and literacy programs.  The LA Times says Bush is weaseling when it comes to money for Iraq and Afghanistan and outright misleading when it comes to his habitual claim of reducing the budget deficit in half by 2009.  “It is the 2004 deficit that Bush is promising to cut in half, but he's not starting with the actual 2004 deficit of $412 billion,” says the LA Times piece.  Taxpolicycenter.org, a joint venture of the Urban and Brookings Institutes, also dislikes the Bush Budget.  According to Slate, that’s not all he’s lying about, too.  In another LA Times piece:

 
A Bush aide, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity, was more explicit, saying that the individual accounts would do nothing to solve the system's long-term financial problems.
That candid analysis, although widely shared by economists, distressed some Republicans.

 
The Washington Post has another article headlined “Benefit Cuts Would Offset Contributions,” here Michael Kinsely debunks privatization, and here CJR Daily deals with President Bush’s Straw Man.

 
The American Progress Action Fund has a nice document about why the President’s Social Security plan is terrible.  Even better, CAP has an alternative, as does the Brookings Institute, which also promotes an op/ed by a Senior Fellow of Economics who comes out against privatization.

 
American Progress Action Fund has a nice lie searcher to use.  It’s useful and slightly ironic.

“If you have a child who is 25 years old, when that person gets near retirement, the system will be bankrupt.”— President Bush, Wednesday

President Bush said Wednesday that Social Security “will be bankrupt” by the time a worker who is 25 today reaches retirement . . . But will it run out of money? No."

That makes Bush's statement a lie.  The New York Times also writes "The president did not address the cost to the government of paying full benefits to retirees for decades while tax money was being diverted into private accounts. Nor did he say how much this would increase the annual budget deficit."   Other "anti-Bush facts" are included in the article as well.  An online chat with Washington Post editor Robert Kaiser included this exchange:

Washington, D.C.: Anything he said strike you as objectively untrue?

Robert G. Kaiser: Yes. Bush often describes a world whose features are all highly debatable, if not simply invented. He proposes “a comprehensive health care agenda” that will leave perhaps 50 million Americans without health insurance. Is that comprehensive in any meaningful sense? He promises big economic benefits from legal changes, “tort reform,” that independent economists say cannot have more than a small economic effect even if enacted, which is not likely. He promises to increase the size of Pell Grants, not noting that they have shrunk far below the level he promised when he came into the White House. He proposes to reduce American dependency on foreign supplies of energy, when independent specialists say that as long as we need oil, we will be heavily, and increasingly, dependent on foreign suppliers. Bush spoke of a free and sovereign Iraq as though all was well there, but Iraq is a country in terrible straits, with most uncertain prospects. Bush didn't invent the rosy scenario approach to politics, of course. There's a lot of tradition behind this kind of wishful rhetoric.