March 11th, 2007

Apollo 4 on column of fire

The Democratic Party on the offensive (encore presentation)

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/3/11/1151/62769

How Not To Win The Battle To End the Iraq Debacle
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:15:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

I am now convinced that the House Dem Leadership has no clue how to end the Iraq Debacle. What convinced me is this:

[In] [a] meeting in Pelosi's office Thursday . . . Pelosi's political consigliere, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.). . . 's pitch was blunt: If the liberals team up with Republicans to bring down the Iraq bill, Democratic leaders would have no choice but to come back with a spending bill that simply funds the war, without any policy restrictions. It would pass easily, with Republican votes and the support of many Democrats.

Now why in the hell is that true? Why must the Dem leadership introduce such a no restrictions bill? Why would they "have no choice?" Sez who?

Oh BTW, what happens NOW that the Republicans KNOW they can stop this bill and get the no restrictions bill? Did George Miller just show ALL his cards to the GOP leadership?

Just how stupid is the Dem leadership in the House? Does George Miller ALWAYS show his hands to the Republicans? This is an act of incompetence that seems unprecedented to me.

I've never seen anything like it. At least since last week when Steny Hoyer announced Dems would never defund the war. Ever. Blithering idiots.


Show media Loading...
The Dem Party on the offensive by *chemoelectric on deviantART
Exclamation point

Zell Miller with spirals in his eyes

They haven’t yet committed Zell Miller to a hospital? Amazing—

Zell Miller, the former Democratic Senator from Georgia who backed President George W. Bush in 2004 and spoke at the Republican National Convention, recently told an anti-abortion gathering that the "killing" of unborn babies was the cause of many of America's woes, including its military, social security, and immigration problems.

"How could this great land of plenty produce too few people in the last 30 years?" Miller asked. "Here is the brutal truth that no one dares to mention: We’re too few because too many of our babies have been killed."

Miller claimed that 45 million babies have been "killed" since the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade in 1973.

"If those 45 million children had lived, today they would be defending our country, they would be filling our jobs, they would be paying into Social Security," he asserted.…
Apollo 4 on column of fire

Regarding the Chemo Party position on copyright

The Chemo for Everyone Party would like to explain briefly its call for the reduction of copyright terms to only a few years.

First, we note that the existence of copyright law acknowledges implicitly that the public domain is the proper default condition for works of the ‘intellect’. Once published, it is not ‘owned’ by the copyright holder, but rather the copyright holder is given a special privilege, in exchange for his or her gift.

It is a complete corruption to have made copyrights outlast the lifetimes of people of the era in which a work was published.

In fact, our ‘intellectual’ world speeds up exponentially—probably literally exponentially—which is a natural and unique characteristic of humans, and what makes us special. It is good for us. It was entirely a natural and inevitable development, that we would gain technology for copying, storing, editing, etc., ‘intellectual’ works, to make possible and sustain our ever increasing rate of progress. Under such conditions, if copyright duration were to be changed at all, the only reasonable change would be to shorten it—though of course it should never have gotten anywhere near as long as it has, which it did due to run-of-the-mill ‘legal’ political corruption, on behalf mostly of undeservedly wealthy people.

Copyright law has become mostly an attempt to hinder natural human cultural and technological progress, including as a minor corollary an attempt to prevent the production and distribution of wealth in a way that would remove the advantage over others that some people now hold.

The Party would like to finish by remarking that making ‘intellectual’ works freely available after a few months or years is the trend in scientific journals, despite the financial burdens this might impose, for in the sciences the needs of human development are most acutely felt. Where science goes, so should the rest of our culture, and so it actually must, if we are to thrive or, with the way things are going, just to survive.