Taxpayer Funded Discrimination

Bush is on his Faith Based Charity wagon again. I will have to admit, I am not totally against tax dollars going to religious based charity groups. They can often be more efficient and more agile in their response to critical needs. It all depends on how the services are delivered (religion neutral or not).

But here is the problem. A religious group can legally discriminate against employees' not of that faith. A Catholic church can legally not hire a Muslim because of his/her religious beliefs. I have no problems with this, but using federal dollars to fund discrimination is not right. So, if federal funds go to a Presbyterian charity, all non-Presbyterians are excluded from applying for jobs in that charity group. Say you are a Methodist social worker who loses your job with the government because of budget cuts. And now the funds are now going to a Catholic charity instead. You would have to convert your religion to Catholicism in order to apply for the new position. This is state sponsored endorsement of religion. If you don't think that Congressmen will favor their own religious sects when doling out the money, think again. If there is one thing that is constant in politicians, it is favoritism.

The only way to make this plan justifiable is to do away with a charity's legal decimation based on religion. A person should not have to change faiths just to land a job. Charitable organizations should be held to the same non-discriminatory hiring standards as any other group that receives federal funds. Everyone should have equal access to jobs created with federal funds.

Bush Says Faith Should Figure in Charity Jobs

By Peter Wallsten and Tom Hamburger, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Tuesday threatened to impose controversial new policies to let federally funded religious charities make hiring decisions based on the religious beliefs of potential employees.

Calling for an expansion of his faith-based initiative, Bush said that if Congress did not vote for the changes in hiring law this year, he would consider doing it himself through "executive action." Administration officials later said it remained unclear what powers the president had to affect hiring laws through executive order.

The president's remarks came on the eve of a House vote on the hiring issue. Administration officials say that some religious charities have been dissuaded from applying for federal grants out of fear that they would lose their religious identities in having to comply with civil rights laws that prevent discrimination in hiring.

Opponents say the change would be tantamount to government-sponsored discrimination, a fear that led Senate Democrats and skeptical Republicans to block the initiative during Bush's first term.

"One of the key reasons why many faith-based groups are so effective is a commitment to serve that is grounded in the shared values and religious identity of their volunteers and employees," Bush said. "In other words, effectiveness happens because people who share a faith show up to help a particular organization based on that faith to succeed. And that's important, now, for people in Washington to understand."

Bush's faith-based initiative has been credited with boosting the GOP vote in battleground states last year among African Americans and Latinos. Under the initiative, the administration has encouraged federal agencies to funnel more money to religious organizations that Bush says often perform social services more effectively than the government.

The House is expected to approve legislation today that, among other things, would allow religious organizations that receive federal job-training grants to consider religious beliefs when hiring staff. The measure's fate is less certain in the Senate.

Bush, speaking Tuesday at a conference of groups involved in the faith-based initiative, said Congress should pass the measure to clear up a confusing web of laws regarding whether federally funded religious groups can restrict hiring to people with matching beliefs.

President Clinton signed laws that the White House was now contending permitted such hiring practices, including a landmark 1996 welfare measure that permitted preferential hiring by faith-based organizations engaged in welfare-to-work programs.

But other laws prohibit discrimination under federally funded job-training and education programs.

Opponents charged that Bush misinterpreted the laws signed by Clinton, and that the measures being sought by Bush represented a sharp shift in U.S. policy, creating an historic rollback of civil rights laws.

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Church and State, which opposes the House bill, said the legislation being considered by the House would roll back existing discrimination statutes.

"It is astonishing that the president would put his so-called moral power behind a rollback of the nation's civil rights principles," Lynn said. He said that he would defend any religious organization's right to hire whomever it pleased for jobs and programs not funded by the federal government. But, he said, "this is about tax dollars being used affirmatively to fund discrimination."

(Full Story)

Showdown at the A.N.W.A.R. Corral

Why is this such a big deal to Republicans? I really just don't get it. Opening up ANWAR won't drop the cost of a gallon of gas. It will only supply 1-1.5% of our national consumption. The only people it will benefit are the oil companies. It is not like it is going to create thousands of desirable jobs - who wants to work there? Why is this such a big freak'n deal to them? Why doesn't Congress spend their time on trying to reduce our oil dependence instead? That is the real issue.

Yes, maybe someday, we will have to open it up for what ever reason, but lets wait until then. It is always good to have something in reserve.

Senate GOP Ready to Push Artic Oil Measure

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The first big environmental showdown of the new Congress is expected to come within weeks as the Senate plans to use a budget measure to try to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil development, hoping to sidestep strong Democratic opposition.

Republican leaders have been stymied for years in their effort to allow oil development on a 1.5 million-acre coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because they have been unable to muster the 60 votes needed to overcome a Democratic-led filibuster.

But a maneuver to avoid the filibuster is likely to come to a head in the next three weeks. The House has repeatedly passed measures to allow drilling in ANWR, as the refuge is called, only to see the legislation stalled in the Senate.

Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. said Tuesday it was reasonable to assume ANWR would be part of the budget measure. "The president asked for it, and we're trying to do what the president asked for," Gregg said after meeting privately with Republicans on his panel.

Sen. Pete Domenici (news, bio, voting record), R-N.M., chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and a strong supporter of refuge oil development, said he was "very optimistic we're going to get the ANWR provision in this budget."

Gregg's panel was expected to begin work on the budget language next week. Senate floor action — including a vote on the ANWR provision — was likely before the congressional Easter recess March 19.

Given the wider majority of 55 Republicans against 44 Democrats and one Independent, Republicans leaders believe they have the best chance yet to gather the 51 votes needed to include ANWR in the budget language, which is not subject to filibuster.

That would be a stinging defeat for environmentalists who consider protecting the refuge as their most important challenge in Congress. Environmentalists have stepped up their lobbying, hoping to convince lawmakers that drilling in the refuge would harm the area's breeding grounds for caribou, as well as polar bears, musk oxen and millions of migratory birds that camp on the refuge's tundra.

(Full Story)

In Follow Up

In a follow up to a post from last week about the CCRKBA's complaint against CNN for pointing out the dangers of easy access to .50 calibur weapons (Link), here is a press release from the Freedom States Alliance, a group of state organizations about the issue.

'50 Caliber Terror' Website Launched to Warn of Terrorist Access to .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles in the United States
Contact: Thom Mannard of Freedom States Alliance, 312-341-0939; Mark Karlin, 312-474-1740

CHICAGO, March. 1 /U.S. Newswire/ -- On February 28th, Freedom States Alliance launched the website http://www.50caliberterror.com to inform the public that terrorists can buy .50 caliber sniper rifles in the United States easier than a person can buy a handgun.

Because .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles pose a threat to shooting down civilian airliners on landing or take-off, Freedom States Alliance, a group of state organizations, is working to limit their availability to the military and law enforcement personnel.

The only state that currently restricts the ownership and possession of .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles is California, where Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (news - web sites) signed a law last fall that does not allow civilian purchase of such weapons of terror.

New Jersey and Illinois, among other states, are considering such legislation. In Illinois the "Anti-Terrorism and Aviation Protection Act" to restrict the sale of .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles to military and law enforcement personnel has been introduced.

"Our strategy against terrorists, to quote President Bush (news - web sites), must be one of pre-emption," says Thom Mannard, Executive Director of the Illinois Council, a participant in Freedom States Alliance. "The manufacturers and sellers of .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles advertise and sell the terrorist weapons on the Internet and in catalogues, making them readily available throughout the world for terrorists to view and for terrorist agents in the United States to purchase."

"Our message to those who oppose stopping terrorists from easily buying .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles that can shoot down planes landing and taking off is this: You are either for taking pre-emptive action against terrorism or you are for enabling the terrorists," Mannard warned.

Armored piercing bullets can be used with .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles, further endangering civilian aviation, fuel tanks and military and police vehicles.

.50 Caliber Sniper Rifles can shoot accurately from over a mile away, thus being capable of being deployed outside the security perimeter of airports.

Americans wanting to can keep .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles out of the hands of terrorists can sign up for further information at http://www.50caliberterror.com.

More Ethics Violations Alleged Against DeLay

According to the National Journal (Feb. 25th), DeLayGate goes even further. Tom "the Hammer" DeLay has allegedly allowed lobbyists to pay for his travel expenses. This is a violation of House ethics rules forbidding members from this act. An expense voucher submitted by lobbyist Jack Abramoff indicates that this is precisely what he did for Mr. DeLay.

Judge Orders Padilla's Day In Court

While I am no particular fan of Jose Padilla, I agree with the Federal court ruling that the government must charge Padilla or let him go. It is an imperative right for the accused to be able to defend themselves in court. Otherwise, any American, actually a terrorist or not, could be held forever without ever being able to defend themselves. This is a very dangerous road to travel down because the supposed security cannot outweigh the abrogation of our constitutional rights. As we have seen already, the Bush administration is willing to re-interpret the law to fit their will. Classifying an American citizen as an "enemy combatant" and holding them indefinitely can be broadened to such a scope to encompass millions of Americans. Civil rights activists could have been considered enemy combatants. Anti-abortion activists could be considered enemy combatants. Any person who disagrees with the government and is seen as a threat to the national peace could be considered an enemy combatant. The flood gates of totalitarianism would be opened and the washout would leave a Stalin like state.

If Padilla is guilty of trying to blow up apartment buildings using dirty bombs, then let a jury of his peers say so. If he is guilty, so be it. If he is innocent, so be it.

Bomb Plot Suspect Must Be Charged or Freed

By JACOB JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

COLUMBIA, S.C. - In a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration, a federal judge ruled the case of "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla is a matter for law enforcement — not the military — and ordered the government to charge him or let him go.

Padilla's more than 2 1/2 years in custody, most of it spent in a Navy brig, don't seem closer to an end, however, because Justice Department (news - web sites) spokesman John Nowacki said the government will appeal the ruling.

U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd in Spartanburg, S.C., ruled Monday that the government can not hold Padilla indefinitely as an "enemy combatant," a designation President Bush (news - web sites) gave him in 2002. The government views Padilla as a militant who planned attacks on the United States, including with a "dirty bomb" radiological device.

Floyd wrote in his 23-page opinion that to rule in favor of the government "would not only offend the rule of law and violate this country's constitutional tradition," it would be a "betrayal of this nation's commitment to the separation of powers that safeguards our democratic values and individual liberties."

Floyd, appointed by Bush in 2003, gave the administration 45 days to take action.

Padilla's attorney, Andy Patel, said his client is an American citizen who has the right to defend himself in court against charges or else be released.

"The real issue in this case is Mr. Padilla's right to have that jury," he said. "That's not just Mr. Padilla's right, that's every American citizen's right."

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, called Floyd's order a significant blow to the administration. "It's a genuine limitation on the president's belief that he can do what he wants in the war on terror," said Ratner, whose group represents scores of detainees at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The administration has said Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, sought to blow up hotels and apartment buildings in the United States in addition to planning an attack with a radiological device.

Padilla was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport in 2002 after returning from Pakistan. The federal government has said he received weapons and explosives training from members of al-Qaida.

(Full Story)

Ten Commandments on Trial

This is a snippet from a NYT article abut the upcoming Supreme Court hearing issues on the display of the Ten Commandments in governmental buildings. Anyone who regularly reads my blog knows my feelings on this issue - we should not (links to past posts here and here)

The article says:

At the same event, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, a law firm established by the Rev. Pat Robertson that litigates for evangelicals and other religious communities, offered a different perspective. The Ten Commandments have acquired secular as well as religious meaning, he said, and have come to be "uniquely symbolic of law."

Mr. Sekulow noted that the marble frieze in the courtroom of the Supreme Court Building itself depicts Moses, holding the tablets, in a procession of "great lawgivers of history." (The 17 other figures in the frieze include Hammurabi, Confucius, Justinian, Napoleon, Chief Justice John Marshall and Muhammad, who holds the Koran.) "Does the Supreme Court now issue an opinion that requires a sandblaster to come in? I think not," Mr. Sekulow said.

The Bush administration, which has filed briefs urging the justices to uphold the displays in both cases, takes the same approach, calling the Ten Commandments "a uniquely potent and commonly recognized symbol of the law."

The problem with that rationale, that it is only historical, is a farce. While the supreme court has Moses with the Ten Commandments in a long line of other historical laws, it does so in a historical sense, and without particular deference to Judeo-Christian faith over any other, over even to religious law over secular law. I have not yet heard of a case involving the Ten Commandments being ordered out of a courtroom, while leaving Mohammad or Hammurabi's law (which is the origin of much of the Ten Commandments).

It is quite obvious that Judge Moore, former Alabama State Court Justice, had no intention of displaying the commandments in a historical sense, or with any other form of law that has had an impact on Western Law. He publically stated it was because of religious convictions. If they were serious about this line of reasoning, why are they not also pushing for other religious as well as secular law origins? I have no problem with using the Ten Commandments as an educational tool. But, this is anything but educational.

DeLay Me Down

This is going to be interesting to see how this turns out. It is tough for me to believe that DeLay had no hand in this incident (and many more).

DeLay PAC Lawsuit Goes to Trial in Texas

By JIM VERTUNO, Associated Press Writer

AUSTIN, Texas - Testimony began Monday in a case brought by five Democrats who allege a political action committee started by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay improperly spent about $600,000 in corporate contributions to unseat them.

Plaintiffs' attorneys displayed in court e-mails and handwritten notes made by principals of Texans for a Republican Majority that they said proves corporate money was improperly spent.

A lawyer for the treasurer of Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee denied that.

Texas law bans the use of corporate money to influence the outcome of an election but allows its use for administrative costs for political committees, such as rent or utility bills.

Republicans swept to complete power in state government in 2002 when the GOP seized majority control of the Texas House for the first time since the 1870s.

DeLay has not been accused of any wrongdoing and has congressional immunity from being forced to testify. But evidence presented in the civil case could affect an ongoing criminal investigation that has resulted in indictments against three top fund-raisers for DeLay.

Last year, the House ethics committee deferred action on investigating any role played by DeLay in the corporate campaign donation controversy.

The trial before state District Judge Joe Hart is expected to last a week.

Among the witnesses subpoenaed to testify are Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick, who was swept to power by the GOP majority, and Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business, the state's largest business lobby. Neither is a defendant in the lawsuit.

Craddick is not expected to appear in court himself. Hammond, the Texas Association of Business president, once boasted that his group had spent $1.9 million to support Republican candidates in 2002 legislative campaigns.

The Problem with Bush's Clear Skies Initiative

Bush wants to weaken the Clean Air Act by allowing a cap and trade system for several toxic pollutants (nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and mercury). The plan is so weak that Republican and Democratic Governors alike are opposing the bill (Link). The biggest and most dangerous problem with a cap and trade system for toxics like mercury is that the more concentrated it is in a area, the damage it causes the human population raises exponentially (like the Richter scale for earthquakes). Mercury can be passed from mother to child while still in the whomb, causing brain damage before the babies first breath. Bush's plan means that while some regions of the country will see a decrease in mercury release, other regions (near industry or power production) will see a sharp increase in mercury levels, much higher than safe, and it would all be legal. The areas most affected, as usual, will be poorer neighborhoods and large cities.

If you have any children or plan on having any, this could have a huge impact on you and your family. If Bush has his way, this study release today would be miniscule compared to what would happen in the future. There are sections of this country who have still never complied the Clean Air Act (now 35 years old). Making it weaker is not the answer, it only adds to the problem.

New Study Shows Impact of Mercury Pollution: $8.7 Billion Lost Annually Due to Poisoning in the Womb

Contact: Sean Crowley, 202-478-6128; Matt Bormet, 202-478-6189, both for Physicians for Social Responsibility


WASHINGTON, Feb. 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- As the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) (EPA) face pending deadlines on mercury reduction plans, a new study published today calculated that the U.S. loses $8.7 billion annually due to the impact of mercury on children's brain development. The peer-reviewed study by the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine's Center for Children's Health and the Environment was published today, February 28, online by the National Institutes of Health (news - web sites) journal, Environmental Health Perspectives (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2005/7743/7743.pdf ) .

"Before they take their first breath, as many as 600,000 babies may suffer permanent brain damage from their mothers' exposure to mercury pollution," said Susan Marmagas, MPH, director of Physicians for Social Responsibility's Environment and Health Program. "The damage has personal consequences for these children, but now we see that it also has enormous implications for the national economy."

In the study, "Public Health and Economic Consequences of Methylmercury Toxicity to the Developing Brain," pediatricians at Mt. Sinai found that $1.3 billion of the economic losses from mercury pollution is directly attributable to mercury emitted by coal-fired power plants. Mercury emitted from power plants is absorbed by fish and eaten by women is passed onto their children in utero. Scientists have documented that mercury exposure impairs brain development and reduces IQ.

The EPA has identified coal-fired power plants as the largest industrial emitters of mercury, producing more than one third of all mercury pollution in the U.S. Coal-fired power plants emit thousands of pounds of toxic mercury into our nation's air every year-about 91,000 pounds in 2001-but they never have been regulated. By March 15, 2005, the EPA is required to issue mercury limits for power plants, but these rules are expected to delay significant mercury reductions for at least 13 years. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to vote Wednesday, March 2, on the Bush administration's similarly weak legislative proposal, its misnamed "Clear Skies" bill.

"This report shows that if Congress passes 'Clear Skies,' it will forever cloud our children's future," concluded Marmagas. "Children are highly susceptible to threats in the world around them, and parents and doctors can only do so much to protect them. Congress and the EPA have a duty to prevent the threat of mercury pollution, and it is deeply troubling that they are shirking this duty."

In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences (news - web sites) found strong evidence for the toxicity of methylmercury to children's developing brains, even at low levels of exposure. A recent study from the Centers for Disease Controls found that as many as 637,233 American children are born each year with mercury levels of more than 5.8 ug/L (5.8 micrograms per liter), the level associated with brain damage and loss of IQ.

Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) is a leading public policy organization with nearly 30,000 members representing the medical and public health professions and concerned citizens, working together for nuclear disarmament, a healthy environment, and an end to the epidemic of gun violence.

Republicanisms 101

Republican education by Frank Luntz - From his 160 page memo on how to continue to deceive the American people. Orwell, eat your heart out:

APPENDIX: THE FOURTEEN WORDS NEVER TO USE
Sometimes it is not what you say that matters but what you don’t say. Other times a single word or phrase can undermine or destroy the credibility of a paragraph or entire presentation. This memo was originally prepared exclusively for Congressional spouses because they are your eyes and ears, a one-person reality check and truth squad combined. However, by popular demand, I have included and expanded that document because effectively communicating the New American Lexicon requires you to STOP saying words and phrases that undermine your ability to educate the American people.
So from today forward, YOU are the language police. From today forward, these are the words never to say again.
1. NEVER SAY Government
INSTEAD SAY: Washington
The fact is, most Americans appreciate their local government that picks up their trash, cleans their streets, and provides police and transportation services. Washington is the problem. Remind voters again and again about Washington spending, Washington waste, Washington taxation, Washington bureaucracy, Washington rules and Washington regulations. Then remind voters that if Washington created this mess, it is Washington’s responsibility to fix it. “If we expect to succeed, we must look to ourselves and not to Washington to raise our kids, start our businesses and improve our day-to-day lives.” If you must talk about government, use the context defined by President Bush: “Government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives.”

2. NEVER SAY Privatization/Private Accounts
INSTEAD SAY: Personalization/Personal Accounts
Many more Americans would “personalize” Social Security than “privatize” it. In fact, two-thirds of America wants to personalize Social Security while only one-third should privatize it. Why? Personalizing Social Security suggests ownership and control over your retirement savings, while privatizing it suggests a profit motive and winners and losers. BANISH PRIVATIZATION FROM YOUR LEXICON.(Emphasis mine, caps lock theirs)

3. NEVER SAY Tax Reform
INSTEAD SAY: Tax Simplification
While a majority of Americans are generally in favor of tax reform, one-third of the population fears that they would end up paying more in taxes if the tax code was in fact reformed. However, almost all Americans believe they would personally benefit from a tax code that was simplified—in terms of money they owe, time they spend and anxiety about the IRS. When more Americans fear the IRS than root- canal surgery, something should be done to simplify the tax code.

4. NEVER SAY Inheritance/Estate Tax
INSTEAD SAY: The Death Tax
While a sizable 68% of America thinks the Inheritance/Estate Tax is unfair, fully 78%think that the Death Tax is unfair. And while a narrow majority would repeal the inheritance/estate tax, an overwhelming majority would repeal the death tax. If you want to kill the estate tax, call it a death tax.

5. NEVER SAY A Global Economy/Globalization/Capitalism
INSTEAD SAY: Free Market Economy
More Americans are afraid of the principle of globalization than even privatization. The reason? Globalization represents something big, something distant and something foreign. It’s the same reason why Americans like their local government but dislike Washington—the closer you are, the more control you have. So instead of talking about the principles of globalization, instead emphasize “the value and benefits of a free market economy.” Similarly, capitalism reminds people of harsh economic competition that yields losers as well as winners. Conversely, the free market economy provides opportunity to all and allows everyone to succeed.

6. NEVER SAY Outsourcing
INSTEAD SAY: Taxation, Regulation, Litigation Innovation, Education
When you use the words of your opposition, you are basically accepting their definition and therefore their conclusion. We should NEVER use the word outsourcing because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas. Rather, we should talk about the “root cause” why any company would not want to hire “the best workers in the world.” And the answer: “over-taxation, over-regulation, too much litigation, and not enough innovation or quality education.” Because it rhymes, it will be remembered.

7. NEVER SAY Undocumented Workers
INSTEAD SAY: Illegal Aliens
The Dems have adopted the phrase “undocumented worker” but you shouldn’t. Call them exactly what they are. In fact, instead of addressing “immigration reform,” which polarizes Americans, you should be talking about “border security” issues. Securing our borders and our people has universal support.

8. NEVER SAY Foreign Trade
INSTEAD SAY: International Trade
For many reasons unrelated to this issue, the word “foreign” conjures up negative images. Americans simply don’t like “foreign oil,” or “foreign products” or “foreign nationals.” International is a more positive concept than either foreign or global.

9. NEVER SAY Drilling for oil
INSTEAD SAY: Exploring for energy
It’s the picture people paint in their minds, the difference between an old-fashioned oil rig that gushes up black goop vs. 21st century technology and innovation that provides us the ability to heat our homes and drive our cars. When you talk about energy, use words like “responsible” and “balanced” and always address your concern for the environment.

10. NEVER SAY Tort Reform
INSTEAD SAY: Lawsuit Abuse Reform
The term “tort” has very little meaning to the average American, and at best reminds one of a French pastry. “Lawsuit Abuse” is something most Americans understand and resent. If you really want to make your case, add the word “frivolous.”

11. NEVER SAY Trial Lawyer
INSTEAD SAY: Personal Injury Lawyer
It is hard to distrust a trial lawyer because we see them portrayed so favorably on L.A. Law and Law & Order. But personal injury lawyers, also known as ambulance chasers, remind people of those annoying, harassing commercials we see at 1:00 a.m. cajoling us to sue someone. If you want to get the full bang for the buck, call them “predatory personal injury lawyers.”

12. NEVER SAY Corporate Transparency
INSTEAD SAY: Corporate Accountability
I constantly hear the need for “transparency” coming from members of the financial services industry as well as members of Congress. But if you asked the American people, corporate accountability is a much higher priority. The fact is, a majority of Americans can’t even explain what transparency actually means. But everyone understands and demands accountability from all sectors of the economy … and the government.

13. NEVER SAY School Choice
INSTEAD SAY: Parental Choice/Equal Opportunity in Education
Americans are still evenly split over whether they support “school choice” in America’s schools. But they are heavily in favor of “giving parents the right to choose the schools that are right for their children,” an there is almost universal support for “equal opportunity in education.” So frame the issue right and you get the support you need.

14. NEVER SAY Health care “Choice”
INSTEAD SAY: “The Right to Choose”
This is an important nuance so often lost on political officials. Almost all Americans want “the right to choose the health care plan, hospital, doctor and prescription drug plan that is best for them,” but far fewer Americans actually want to make that choice. In fact, the older you get, the less eager you are to have a wide range of choices. One reason why the prescription drug card earned only qualified public support was that it offered too many choices and therefore created too much confusion for too many senior citizens.

H/T Watching the Watchers

Sometimes, You Just Gotta Laugh - To Stay Sane

These are some excerpts from Bush's latest meeting with Putin:

"I live in a transparent country," Bush said at one point. "I live in a country where decisions made by government are wide open." 1

Umm... since when has the Bush administration been open? This is the most secretive administration I have ever seen.

"For most of the rest of the world it must have seemed like the theater of the absurd to have Putin and Bush up there (debating) democracy," said Clifford Gaddy, a Russia expert at the Brookings Institution. 1

Absurd is an understatement.

"I'm perfectly comfortable in telling you, our country is one that safeguards human rights and human dignity, and we resolve our disputes in a peaceful way," Bush said with obvious irritation. 1

Seriously... Am I living on another planet, or perhaps an alternate universe? What has he resolved yet in a peaceful way?

But my favorite for the week is still:

"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous," Bush said at the press conference jointly held with EU leaders.
"And having said that," he quickly added, "all options are on the table." 2

1 - Analysis: Bush, Putin Debate Free Societies

2 - Bush calls notion of Iran attack `ridiculous'

Another State Moves Towards Civil Unions

A Connecticut legislative committee has ok'd a recognition of civil unions to move out of the Judiciary committee and onto the main floor for further discussion. This would be the second state to move forward without judicial intervention.

Conn. lawmaker panel OKs civil union bill

Christopher Curtis, PlanetOut Network
Thursday, February 24, 2005 / 06:10 PM

A measure creating civil unions for same-sex couples in Connecticut passed a significant legislative hurdle on Wednesday with the state's judiciary committee approving the bill, 25-13.

"We have an opportunity to provide a huge step forward for equal rights," said state Sen. Andrew McDonald, a gay Democrat from Stamford, in a quote published by the Hartford Courant. McDonald noted that, unlike Vermont, Connecticut lawmakers are acting without a court order.

The measure now requires approval from the state's legislature and governor. If that happens, Connecticut will become the second U.S. state after Vermont to offer civil unions and the third state after California to offer nearly all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples.

The bill faces opposition from those who believe it goes too far and those who believe it does not go far enough.

(Full Story)

Haste Makes Waste

President Bush knows that the longer people really study his plan for Social Security reform, the less they are going to like it, so he is urging congress to move quickly to complete his SSI coup de gras. This is how the PATRIOT act was passed. So quickly that most congressmen and women never even read the bill before voting for it. SSI reform is nothing to be rushed into. Six months or a year will not make a difference in the overall health of the plan. This is something I want Congress to think long and hard about before acting.

Bush Urges Haste on Social Security Reform

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Back from stroking U.S. allies in Europe, President Bush now is lobbying a home-front target: wary lawmakers returning from a long congressional break, where they heard their constituents' concerns about Social Security overhaul. The lawmakers got an earful from voters back home. Now, Bush wants them to listen to him.

"We need to act now to fix Social Security permanently," he said Saturday in a radio address aimed at Congress.

The president is making a fresh push for his plan to let younger workers put part of their Social Security payroll taxes in private investment accounts. He has taken that campaign to eight states and is continuing it next Friday in New Jersey and Indiana.

Bush is making the trips in hopes of persuading voters to pressure Congress to tackle the future solvency problems of the politically sensitive Social Security system. His message is twofold: reassure those born before 1950 that their Social Security benefits will not change in any way and tell younger workers that "Social Security is heading toward bankruptcy."

"Massive numbers of baby boomers, like me, will soon begin to retire," Bush said in his radio remarks. "People are living longer and benefits are scheduled to increase dramatically, and fewer workers will be paying into the system to support each retiree."

(Full Story)