Tony Snow resigning - for financial reasons?

Mr. Snow is reportedly resigning soon, although he has not confirmed this himself. In a recent interview, he said:

"I'm not going to be able to go the distance, but that's primarily for financial reasons." Snow said. "I've told people when my money runs out, then I've got to go."

Tony Snow makes $168,000 a year. He has had health problems and I wish him the best with that, but I have to believe that he has a pretty rockin' health insurance plan.

People close to Snow said that he felt he needed to make some more money to help his family, which includes children readying for college.

If this doesn't let people know that the folks running the country are completely out of touch with the situations of average Americans, I don't know what will. The average American household brings in a little under $60,000/year. These are families with mortgages, kids who want to go to college or trade school, and in many cases, no health insurance.

How are we supposed to believe that we should just be more responsible with our spending choices, our mortgages, our career and education goals, when this guy says he can't take care of his family on $168,000 a year?

President for Life

Last night, I sent some information and a blog response for a site that promotes the idea of genocide and Bush becoming President for Life to a friend who has a much more popular blog than my little ramblings, and his post covered anything I would want to say, so I'm just going to repost it here. Read on ...

___________________________________________________________

A friend sent along this link to a Google cache of an essay that was on the website of a group called Family Security Matters. The article has now apparently been pulled. I'll post a long excerpt from the cached essay, which actually encourages President Bush to nuke Iraq and declare himself President-for-Life, below the fold:

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable - for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome - thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming "ex-president" Bush or he can become "President-for-Life" Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

Now ordinarily I would just dismiss this as the lunatic ravings of some right-wing nut and laugh it off. But this blog, run by someone named Mark Parent, discusses the contents and contains some background on this organization, which I'd never heard of. And if the information there is true, this may not just be the fringe ravings of a nut but the opinion of much of the conservative foreign policy establishment. Parent writes:

Well, it turns out that "Family Security Matters (FSM) is a front group for the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a conservative Washington think tank "committed to the time-tested philosophy of promoting international peace through American strength." (The phone number listed on the FSM website is answered by the CSP.)

Here's the Center for Security Policy webpage. Parent then goes to Sourcewatch to find out who is involved with the Center for Security Policy. The Center's leaders, particularly those on the National Security Advisory Council, are a virtual Who's Who of the conservative foreign policy establishment, including the architects of the war in Iraq and much of Bush's foreign policy team: Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, Frank Gaffney and many others. And then there's this:

Dick Cheney, Vice President of the U.S. under George W. Bush, was an early member of Center's Board of Advisors (which is now called the National Security Advisory Council).

Not only has the Atkinson article disappeared from the website, so has everything Atkinson wrote on that site (or at least, the search function on the site turns up only one of the more than 100 pages with his name on them that Google shows, and that one is an essay by someone else that contains a quote by him). That certainly suggests that they realize what a problem his writings were and they're trying to disappear them down the memory hole. That makes for plenty of smoke; is there fire as well? If anyone has any more information about this, I'd love to hear it.

"OMG like totally, what are you going to wear tomorrow?!?

I'm sure there will be some super extra awesome "patriotic" Americans who think this is amusing and completely appropriate, but the idea of Padilla jurors spending time deciding what to wear to court makes me a little nauseous.

In a color-coordinated display of their patriotism, the jurors wore red, white and blue clothing to court before breaking for a July 4th recess.

Seriously? I mean, yay July 4th and all, but is this the place to really be doing that? Are juries supposed to be chatting each other up before deliberations begin (I seriously don't know and am asking), and wouldn't everyone showing up in red, white and blue kinda communicate a message about their intentions? I mean, being patriotic doesn't necessarily mean that you can't hear the evidence and make a decision based on the facts, but it's been my personal observation that the type of people who would wear cutesie "patriotic" clothes - and would agree to wear a certain color based on what ROW they're sitting in, for goodness sakes - are much more likely to lean to the right than the left. That is in no meant to imply that lefties aren't patriotic, just that I don't see as many of them wrapping themselves in flags (which - another topic, but could be considered desecration if you really wanted to split hairs, and amusing since it's those same people who have fits if anyone even suggests thinking about the possibility of maybe lighting a match anywhere near a flag).

But anyway, this isn't the only time they've done it. They've had an "all black" day, and a "boys where blue, girls wear pink" day as well.

Tacky, tacky, tacky. I'm embarrassed for them.

The Trial

Recently I got caught up in a little debate on You Tube re: the meaning of "The Trial" in The Wall.  It's difficult to get into the meaning of that song in the You Tube comments section because you're restricted to 500 characters, and ... I can't do ANYTHING with 500 characters, but I've been thinking about it so ...

I've seen that movie about 4,302 times, give or take, and Pink Floyd is one of my favorite bands.  When life gets to me, it's not uncommon for me to revert to the scripture of Floyd ... or my other Bible, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (and subsequent books).  So, I feel a need to break down the song tonight.  I'm sure others have different interpretations, and so be it ...

Good morning, The Worm, Your Honour,
The Crown will plainly show,
The prisoner who now stands before you,
Was caught red-handed showing feelings.
Showing feelings of an almost human nature.

Pink is coming down and having a rock bottom moment, hallucinating and generally freaking out.  He's spent his life bottling up his emotions after the death of his father, living with his overprotective mother, and going through the mind-numbing process of rote "education."  The Wall that he has built has served to fuel his creative side in a manner, but has resulted in a disastrous life in terms of personal relationships and growth.  He's been turned into a commodity by the music machine, and his fans don't even really understand what he's singing about anymore.  They're just hedonistic little sheep.  Google any interview with Roger Waters in relation to this album and you'll see where this all comes from, there isn't a lot of interpetation necessary.

This will not do.
Call the schoolmaster!
I always said he'd come to no good,
In the end, Your Honour.
If they'd let me have my way,
I could have flayed him into shape.
But my hands were tied.The bleeding hearts and artists,
Let him get away with murder.
Let me hammer him today.

The schoolmaster is an object of scorn, as is the mother, because he had no other goal but to whip Pink into conformity ... and no will or strength to do otherwise, since the schoolmaster was a cuckholded little man who probably had an overbearing woman (assumed, never actually shown to Pink) ruling his every move.  He took it out on the children, had no vision of them ever being any more than what he was doomed to be.

You little shit, you're in it now.
I hope they throw away the key.
You should've talked to me more often than you did.
But no! You had to go your own way.
Have you broken any homes up lately?
Just five minutes, Worm, Your Honour,
Him and me alone.Baaaaaabe!

There is no indication in the movie or the album that the wife was anything like the hateful caricature portrayed, but can you blame him for thinking of her this way?  She left him ... just one more person who left him.  And worse, she was the one he chose (unlike his family, his teachers, or his fans), the one he at one point thought could be different ... his dad left, his mother was emotionally distant after his dad died, his agents didn't give a rat's ass.  Part of The Trial is him seeing that his belief about her "betrayal" is flawed.  She didn't leave him, he left her - if he was ever there to begin with.

Come to Mother, baby.
Let me hold you in my arms.
M'Lord, I never meant for him to get in any trouble.
Why'd he ever have to leave me?
Worm, Your Honour, let me take him home.

Mother could take him home, but it would be to the same empty shell.  She didn't want him for him, she wanted him for the surrogate he provided after her husband died.  He was an afterthought, completely ignored except in the context of her own need to protect someone after she was unable to protect his father.

Bars in the window.
There must have been a door there in the wall.
For when I came in.

He realizes at this point that if he got himself into this state, he can get himself out.  Huge breakthrough.

The evidence before the court is incontrovertible.
There's no need for the jury to retire.
In all my years of judging I have never heard before,
Of someone more deserving of the full penalty of the law.
The way you made them suffer,
Your exquisite wife and mother,
Fills me with the urge to defecate!
No, Judge, the jury!
Since, my friend, you have revealed your deepest fear,
I sentence you to be exposed before your peers.
Tear down the wall!

He realizes, finally, that he has allowed a lifetime of other people's issues to mold who he is and how he reacts to the world, and that it has destroyed him.  It was a valid reaction, really, given his circumstances, but it was killing him.  People were able to use that barrier to their advantage - he was just a drug addled genius who could be manipulated into making them money, after all. His fans loved him for his entertainment value, but didn't care about his own personal trials ... without his troubles, he would be of no use to them because he never would have been able to produce the music that they chanted to in their own little angst.  For him to heal would be his undoing, in a sense, but the only way to escape that is to strip away the wall he has built to protect him from everyone and to take the financial and "superstar" repercussions.

And then the movie ends. 

All alone, or in twos
The ones who really love you
Walk up and down outside the wall
Some hand in hand
Some gathering together in bands
The bleeding hearts and the artists
Make their stand
And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall after all it's not easy
banging your heart against some mad buggers.

There were always people out there to help him, but they couldn't get through and some of them gave up ... but some are still there to help him recover, and those are the true. 

I don't think this is uncommon in the superstar world.  Cobain clearly felt it, and although she isn't quite the genius of either Cobain or Pink/Waters, I feel a certain amount of sympathy for Lindsey Lohan in the same vein.  The public feeds off of her (their) weaknesses in a heartless and predatory way. 

And that's all I have to say about that.

Why are we paying these guys?

I'll admit, I don't spend a lot of time looking at US House of Representative roll calls for voting records, but last night - a particularly exciting Saturday evening, as you might guess - I found myself looking up a House vote last week.

Why was I looking? Well, there was a news article that mentioned something about prescription drugs being allowed to be imported, and the vote was 237-18 in favor. A friend of mine wanted to know how to find out who voted against it and since I have this strange compulsion about researching silly things like this, I went looking.

His problem was that although the news article was about allowing prescription drug imports from Canada, Europe and Australia (which I support), it was actually part of a big Agriculture bill that has gotten lots of press over the last few weeks because of things like subsidies and such. He wasn't looking for agriculture, he was looking for prescriptions ... but they're all lumped together because the Ag bill includes spending for the FDA. Didn't take long to find it, except for the incredibly slow speed of the government site, and there was the 237-18 vote.

What didn't occur to me when I first started looking at this incredibly lopsided vote was how obviously low it was. 237-18? That's only 255 votes! Anyone remember how many members are in the House of Representatives? It sure isn't 255 ...

So after I got him his 18 names, I went back to the roll call and looked again.

In summary:

226 Democrats & 11 Republicans voted Yay.

3 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted Nay.

13 Republicans noted that they were present but did not vote.

2 Democrats and 163 Republicans DID NOT VOTE.

Excuse me? I'm sure there are votes where Democrats have pulled something similar, so I'm not picking on the Republicans here - this just happened to be the roll call that I saw. Obviously this is a political statement, but it's a wimpy one. If they're against the bill, they should have voted against the bill. Instead, they don't want to make their constituents mad ("you voted against helping farmers and less expensive medications?") so they chose to just not vote.

That's simply not acceptable. There are valid reasons to vote against subsidies and prescription drug imports, and if they're going to vote that way, they should be expected to explain their reasoning. The media will excoriate them, no doubt about it, and their constituents will write letters and make calls, but that's OK - that's the process.

We PAY these people to REPRESENT US. Part of representing us is to actually VOTE. If the vote is scary for them, don't take the job. Period. If there are too many bills coming through, too many details, too much to possibly understand and vote with a comfortable level of understanding, then hire more staff or stop introducing so many bills or find a generally more efficient way to operate.

The simple fact of the matter is that if I hired an attorney to represent me in court, I would expect him to show up and do his job. If he decided that my case was just a little too controversial for him and didn't show up for the trial, I'd expect my money back and certainly would not continue to pay him. That is, in effect, what we're doing here - isn't it?

Things I'm NOT mad at ...

1. Baby Ben for sneezing all over me right when he finishes eating or drinking something.

2. Jake for delaying our trip to the Farmer's Market this morning because he was incredibly distraught and a big sobbing mess over letting his "pet" cricket, Cricketoon, go free at my request.

3. The fact that we're about to take a 15% pay decrease because my husband has an opportunity to get off of his overnight shift after three years.

4. My partner at work who is not going to be able to go to a few appointments this week (that I can't go to) to set up classes, because he got in a bicycle accident last week and cracked his collarbone and several of his vertebrae.

5. Al Gore for not announcing his candidacy (can ya blame him?).

6. WalMart for jumping on the compact fluorescent bandwagon and really bringing this alternative to the masses - although I'll still be mad at them for other stuff.

7. Mutual funds that hold stocks for companies that produce weapons or tobacco or other "vice" type things.

8. Lakewood Church in Texas, even though it's a megachurch - I love the 30 minute Osteen shows on Sunday morning.

9. Reality TV, even though it's rotting my brain.

10. My friend at my old company who said she was going to come to this new company with me and who would have been incredibly helpful ... but it just wasn't the right thing for her to do at the time, and I'm sure it was for the best for me too. Somehow. :)

Things I'm mad at ...

A friend posted a blog, inspired by another blogger, of things she's mad at. So I'm going to do same. Google if you'd like, I'll add links tomorrow. Maybe. And more explanation. Maybe.

1. The federal government offering carbon offsets in what amounts to a subsidy to the forestry industry. And carbon offsets in general as an alternative to just cutting consumption.

2. Blaming China for substandard imports.

3. People who blame immigrants for their joblessness while they shop at Walmart.

4. Americans for allowing "Dancing With Celebrities" to survive but "Firefly" to fail.

5. Bottled water and diamonds.

6. Pharmaceutical ads being allowed on television and print, but bans on tobacco ads, alcohol ads, and marijuana in general (and I don't smoke pot).

7. Ethanol.

8. Zero tolerance in schools, which infantalizes our children.

9. NCLB, which still allows for the exclusion of undesirables but lowers everyone's education to the lowest common denominator as well.

10. Iraq being associated with 9/11.

11. Bush's ubiquitous smirk.

12. Our inability to think beyond energy alternatives instead of energy reduction.

13. "Hate crimes."

14. Religion as a basis for violence more often than a basis for love.

15. Anyone who would hurt a child.

17. The mindset that we deserve without merit or are entitled to anything without action.

18. Democrats.

19. My friend who continues to believe that the solution to her debt problem is to take on more debt.

That's about it for the moment, more tomorrow probably.