Jackson Free Press

New York Times editorial today:

The decision by Congressional leaders to delay action on their tax-and-spending bills was most welcome. The bills' broad outlines were drawn up pre-Katrina, and were objectionable even then: spending cuts totaling $35 billion over five years in programs for low- and moderate-income families, and $70 billion in new tax breaks, mostly for the most affluent families. Counting interest, the bills would increase the deficit by $40 billion over five years. Post-Katrina, those plans would be scandalous, highlighting the skewed priorities that have put the country into a tight financial spot as it copes both with hurricane damage and with the social and economic rifts that Katrina has exposed.

Unfortunately, it's increasingly unclear why Congress imposed the delay. (The deadlines were shifted into October and early November.) Initially, it appeared that lawmakers needed time to recast their priorities - away from budget cuts that would reduce the aid for hurricane victims and other needy Americans, and away from high-end tax cuts that would needlessly starve the Treasury at a time of mounting rebuilding costs.

Now, however, it appears that postponement may be only a tactical move to recast Katrina as the event that requires Congress to hack away at existing programs to pre-empt unacceptably large deficits from reconstruction spending. That's false.

Previous Comments

ID

134437

Comment

These sumb!tches in the Republican Party in D.C. don't want to touch a bit of the tax cuts/breaks for the very wealthy and cut even more programs and services to pay for Bush's big promises for the Gulf Coast. The road to hell is paved with the likes of Tom Delay. New York Times Conservative House Republicans recommended today more than $500 billion in savings over 10 years to compensate for the costs of Hurricane Katrina as lawmakers continued to struggle to develop a consensus on the overall fiscal approach to the disaster. One cut being considered is a delay in the start of the new Medicare prescription drug coverage for one year to save $31 billion and eliminating $25 billion in projects from the newly enacted transportation measure. The list also proposes eliminating the Moon-Mars initiative that NASA announced on Monday, for $44 billion in savings; ending support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, $4 billion; cutting taxpayer payments for the national political conventions and the presidential election campaign fund, $600 million; and charging federal employees for parking, $1.54 billion. "What House conservatives will demonstrate through Operation Offset is that there is more than enough room in the federal budget to provide for the needs of the families affected by Katrina without raising taxes," said a House Republican aide who is working with lawmakers on the proposals.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-21T15:40:48-06:00

ID

134438

Comment

Okay, so let me get this straight: A natural disaster, made worse by poor science and poor science education, and disproportionately affecting those in poverty, justifies a cut in science and science education funding, as well as cutting services to the poor. Yeah, that makes a HELL of a lot more sense than cutting back on record tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. Of course, the beauty of this is that if a Democrat comes into office and tries to undo this knot, he'll be accused of "raising taxes" and get the Mondale treatment. What kind of country do these monsters want to live in? One where a narrow ruling elite have all the money, all the education (from privately funded fundamentalist schools and conservative think-tank universities), all the access to medical treatment, and all the media outlets--and the rest of us get condemned to the lifestyle of 13th-century serfs? This is absolutely ridiculous. And sick on so many levels. Well, laugh it up, all you White Citizen's Council wannabes. As a result of policies like Bush's, and like this one, people--men, women, and children--will starve to death, will die of treatable illnesses, will live the nasty, brutish, and short lives you feel they so richly deserve for being born "subhuman." You've won this battle. The lives that are worthless to you--the people you want to hurt--you've got them where you want them. Right now, other human beings are dying in agony so you can be a little richer, and nobody gives a shit because this country is run, and will probably continue to be run, by people like you, people who have no souls, who will ignore the suffering because they know they can reliably bribe us for our votes by offering more and more tax cuts, paid for in blood. So congratulations. Go throw a fucking parade. Peace, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-09-21T16:21:42-06:00

ID

134439

Comment

What kind of country do these monsters want to live in? One that caters to their every whim, and punishes the whims of others. That said, Tom, I have immense hope. Those people haven't won. Greed hasn't won. Ugliness hasn't won. Bigotry hasn't won. And racism hasn't won. They didn't win during the Civil Rights Movement, and they're not going to win today. There will always be these types of people around; it's not about what they do; it's about what we do. It's simple: If we do nothing, they win. If we do not respond to their hate and their bigotry, they win. If we back down because they call us nonsensical names, they win. Keep your eyes on the prize, friend. Freedom, indeed, is a constant struggle. But, it's oh so worth it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-21T16:45:23-06:00

ID

134440

Comment

This *has* to be satire. The Clarion-Ledger's star investigative reporter, Jerry Mitchell, writes today that an old Republican believes that Hillary Clinton would be "no match" against Haley Barbour for president in 2008. Oh, and apparently Jim Herring, the head of the state GOP agrees, with this grand investigative finding. WTF is parading as journalism in this state!?! OK, first of all, this is not a news story. It is a press release for the Republican Party, and is a joke to have a real reporter write this. And with all the damn stories that need to be told in this city and this state right now, Jerry Mitchell writes this kind of crap? Secondly, The Clarion-Ledger is making a public a$$ of itself trying to annoint Haley Barbour as a serious candidate for president or vice president. He is a card-carrying leader of the radical right in this country. At least Bush convinced himself he is a compassionate conservative; Barbour has no way of convincing most Republicans, much less Americans, of that. Barbour is a race-baiter, if not racist himself. He openly courts the Council of Conservative Citizens for votes. He cuts Medicaid. He wants jobs sent out of the country. He doesn't give a damn about public education. He is cutting adequate education funding designed to reverse the effects of Jim Crow in this state. There is *nothing* moderate about this man, and Americansóincluding Republicansóknow this. Most people in his state do not approve of his job. Didn't The Clarion-Ledger read the polls of Republicans that said only something like 2 percent would even consider him on the presidential ticket!?! He wrote the radical-right platform. He is an extremist, people. A wingnut. A lobbyist who will sell anything on behalf of his corporate clients. IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN FOLKS. Y'ALL ARE MAKING FOOLS OUT OF MISSISSIPPIANS HERE BY HARPING ON THIS. The home office in Virginia really ought to pay attention to this.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-22T14:18:45-06:00

ID

134441

Comment

These sumb!tches... don't want to touch a bit of the tax cuts/breaks for the very wealthy and cut even more programs and servicesÖ --ladd "Haven't we already given money to rich people? Why are we going to do it again?" óGeorge W. Bush to economic advisers discussing a second round of tax cuts, as quoted by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, Washington, D.C., Nov. 26, 2002 and Re: Hillary v. Haleyó God help us with either one.

Author

Rex

Date

2005-09-22T14:40:28-06:00

ID

134442

Comment

"Haven't we already given money to rich people? Why are we going to do it again?" Uttered just before, "Condi, can we take a bathroom break?" ... certainly, it's a childlike question, but often children are the wisest ones. Mr. Bush should get in touch with his inner-child more often, perhaps. Re: Hillary v. Haleyó God help us with either one. Agreed. No. More. Clintons. (Or. Bushes.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-22T15:09:35-06:00

ID

134443

Comment

I wish Obama would go for it.

Author

Steph

Date

2005-09-22T15:17:30-06:00

ID

134444

Comment

"The Republican Party is the party of the future because it is the party that draws people together, not drives them apart. Our party detests the technique of pitting group against group for cheap political advantage. Republicans view as a central principle of conduct...'E pluribus unum' - 'Out of many - one.'" Dwight D. Eisenhower - 1956

Author

Steph

Date

2005-09-22T15:28:58-06:00

ID

134445

Comment

Yeah, that was then. And before Barry Goldwater embraced the old Dixiecrats to form the new Republican Party. It's hard to be the party of "one" when your party grew out of the need for white southerners to maintain supremacy and segregation. Republicans have some hard decisions to make about who all they want to invite to the party. They need to do a bit of "voter ID" of their own, if you know what I mean. They've sold their soul to the devil for about 40 too many years now. Time to excise the cancer.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-22T15:35:53-06:00

ID

134446

Comment

Ladd, what do you think about Obama?

Author

Steph

Date

2005-09-22T15:45:46-06:00

ID

134447

Comment

Obama is among those leading the charge for accountability of the billions that FEMA is receiving for the Katrina victims. Here is his statement: "Recently, Congress approved $62 billion for Gulf Coast relief and rebuilding efforts - most of which will go directly to FEMA," said Obama. "This is twelve times the amount of money FEMA was given last year - more than it has ever been trusted to spend before. If FEMA's track record during the rescue effort and in years before is any indication of how they will perform during the rebuilding that lies ahead, this should concern every taxpayer and every citizen interested in helping the millions of Americans who have been devastated by Hurricane Katrina." He IS awesome, I think. I hope he doesn't let up.

Author

Steph

Date

2005-09-22T15:52:48-06:00

ID

134448

Comment

I like him a lot so faróand I think his message is really solid. Loving, compassionate, but responsible and practical. I don't know that he'll be ready to run for president in 2008, however. Of course, I don't think most of the people talked about are, either, including Hillary and, God forbid, Haley Barbour. And it's not like George W. Bush is qualified to run much of anything, and he's president. I am concerned, too, about the Colin Powell factoróthat is, so many people liking him because he was a moderate Republican black manóbut not without much knowledge about his ideas and policies. Of course, that won't be the same problem with Obama being in the Senate. His ideas will be more transparent than Powell's. And re: Powell, he has lost my respect completely. There is. no. reason. on. the. planet. that he should not have used his unique position to demand more accountability from this White House. So I'd rather see Obama run than Hillary, probably, but that doesn't mean it'll happen. ;-) Oh, and his speeches make me cry.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-22T16:09:20-06:00

ID

134449

Comment

I think Obama is the most promising new Democratic senator out there, but he's said he won't run for president in 2008. I think he has a good shot at the VP spot and a presidential run in 2012 or 2016. He will be president, assuming he lives long enough; it's just a matter of when. I have told the folks on the unnamed other blog that I would love it if Haley was nominated. Think of it: A white, overweight right-wing lobbyist from Mississippi. Can you think of a better symbol of what people don't like about the Republican Party? So bring him on. Please. Hell, go whole hog and make it Barbour/Santorum. Run on a Christian Dominionist platform, while you're at it. Promise Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell high-level cabinet positions. I double dog dare you. But no more Clintons, please. I'd take her over most of the Republicans running, but then I could say pretty much the same of Ross Perot. We need a real Democrat, and there are so many who haven't had their chance. A Feingold/Obama ticket would be heavenly. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-09-22T16:15:03-06:00

ID

134450

Comment

Folks used to describe Colin Powell as subservient, broken, completely buying into his role as what Republicans want black men to be. I used to think that this was a horribly racist thing for liberals to say, but now I don't know what to think. He stuck his neck out over the Iraqi WMD thing knowing in advance that it was faulty evidence, all because he'd been told to do so. He was obedient to a fault, despite the fact that he felt that what he was doing was wrong, that it would cost human lives. He dropped his presidential ambitions in '96, when he had us at "Hello," and ostensibly because of a few death threats. None of this makes any sense to me. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-09-22T16:20:20-06:00

ID

134451

Comment

There is one candidate I want to see get the nomination LESS than Hillary Clinton: John Edwards. Can't stand the man. He's a mean-spirited slimeball (so much so that, within 5 or 10 minutes, I found myself subconsciously rooting for Cheney during their debate). I think he essentially cost Kerry the election, and I have no interest in seeing him get the nomination--and I don't care how much he looks like John Ritter. I would have voted for Ritter himself long before I'd vote for this guy. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-09-22T16:23:54-06:00

ID

134452

Comment

He will be president, assuming he lives long enough; it's just a matter of when. Agreed, Tom. I have told the folks on the unnamed other blog that I would love it if Haley was nominated. Think of it: A white, overweight right-wing lobbyist from Mississippi. Can you think of a better symbol of what people don't like about the Republican Party? Agreed. It would be about the *worst* thing the Repubs could doóand most of them know it. That was my point. They try to hide their extremists, and use them to do dirty work as Barbour has done over the yearsóbut they're not going to trot out a candidate who has so brazenly played the race card over and over again, and indeed came up with much of the southern strategy of playing to southern racists in order to beef up the Republican Party for the corporations. They're not going to put him on a ticket to embarrass them like that. However, if they did, I agree, it would be heavenly to see all that dirty laundry aired out nationallyóalthough it would be an immense embarassment to the state of Mississippi, although not much more of one than having him governor. As for the other blog, it figures that a bunch of extremist race-baiters would think Barbour as VP would make sense. Look at the source. But, nationally, Republicans aren't naive enough to think Barbour should go anywhere near the presidential ticket. And in the curreent post-Katrina-oh-my-God-povery-is-increasing-I-didn't-know climate, it is even less likely that a national party is going to spotlight the record of someone who has waged a war on the poor, and especially the black poor. Thanks for playin'.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-22T16:29:29-06:00

ID

134453

Comment

Yep, Tom, Powell turned out to be a coward. And that's very sad. He coulda been a hero. And a contender.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-22T16:30:39-06:00

ID

134454

Comment

Suppose the 2008 Democratic ticket is Clinton-Obama. Will that be Yo' Mama and Obama... or The Crock and Barack?

Author

Steve Rankin

Date

2005-09-22T18:51:33-06:00

ID

134455

Comment

I guess I'm missing the joke. Why "Yo Mama"?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-22T20:12:49-06:00

ID

134456

Comment

Because she's a chick. And that's the one thing that bothers me about not liking Hillary. She is, right now, the ONLY viable female Democratic presidential candidate, and really the best chance we've had to get a woman president, ever. On that basis alone, I'd vote for her over the Republican, if it came to that. But lord have mercy, I hope she doesn't get the nomination. We don't need another sellout; we need a real Democrat this time. We haven't reallly had an old-school Democrat in the White House since JFK; Johnson, Carter, and Clinton were all moderate southern governors. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-09-22T21:51:30-06:00

ID

134457

Comment

(A thought across everybody's bow: Wouldn't it be terrible if the first woman president, and the first black president, was Condi Rice? I'm just saying...)

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-09-22T21:52:53-06:00

ID

134458

Comment

Because she's a chick. Oh, I thought I was missing some clever referenceónot simply a jab because she's a woman. Well, then. Per Hillary: I don't want DLC people in the White House anymore. That doesn't mean I want nutball liberals, but it does mean that I want a true populist. And Hillary isn't. And, if I haven't mentioned it already, I'm sick of Clintons. I believe their souls are long sold. Obviously, she would be a better choice than a Haley-Wingnut-Barbour, but good Lord, we need better choices all around. The Repubs need to excise the wingnuts and reclaim the middle, which they are losing FAST in the last three weeks (not that they really had it, but they got enough of it temporarily to keep the Bush misery going). And the Dems need to figure out how to stop being afraid of being accused of being "liberal" (and wingnuts will accuse anyone of that, even an intelligent fiscal conservative) and start caring. about. people. again. Otherwise, our choices will continue to suck. Yes, the idea of a Condi "I Love Me Some Ferrgamoas when New Orleans Drowns" Rice is rather horrifying. But I can tell you this: I don't believe for a minute that the wingnuts are ready for a black woman, even if she does have an oil tanker named after her. I wouldn't lose sleep over that one, yet, at least for the top spot. You forget how sexist the slimy boys are. They may hate liberals, but they hate women with opinions worse. I mean, I assume Condi has opinions. So far, she's a shill for Bush (Rove), and it's rather embarassing for her, as it was for Colin Powell. They both will have legacies to try to rebuild after the smoke clears from the Bush years. And the damage ain't all done, yet, what with that Iraq quandary lurking out there to be dealt with (or not) as soon as hurricane season is over. These people will run this country in the ground if we left them. They're well on their way, but the tide is turning on them and people are waking up from a long slumber. So there is hope.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-22T22:46:29-06:00

ID

134459

Comment

oops: Ferregamos (I think)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-22T22:48:49-06:00

ID

134460

Comment

Speaking of Iraq, support for the idiotic war is hemorhaging. CNN reports today: A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Thursday indicated fewer than half of Americans believe the United States will win the Iraq war, and 55 percent of those surveyed said it should speed up withdrawal plans. Only 21 percent said the United States definitely would win the war in Iraq, which began when a U.S.-led coalition invaded in 2003 to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Another 22 percent said they thought the United States probably would win. Twenty percent of respondents said the United States was capable of winning in Iraq -- but probably would not. And 34 percent said they considered the war unwinnable. The survey of 818 adults was conducted Friday through Sunday and had a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The results followed others this week that found only 32 percent of those interviewed supported President Bush's handling of the war, 63 percent supported a full or partial withdrawal and and 54 percent favored cutting spending on the conflict to pay for rebuilding the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina. (Full story) With a large anti-war demonstration planned outside the White House this weekend, Bush said Thursday the United States can lose in Iraq only "if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission." "Some Americans want us to withdraw our troops so that we can escape the violence," Bush said. "I recognize their good intentions, but their position is wrong. Withdrawing our troops would make the world more dangerous and make America less safe." Somehow, I don't the idea of Mr. Bush telling you what's "wrong" these days is terribly convincing. I keep wondering how we're going to limp through three more years of this administration.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-22T22:59:19-06:00

ID

134461

Comment

Donna, I still remember the "Tits and Fritz" jokes from the '84 campaign and I was like 6. Great Britain, the Philippines, Indonesia, Canada--all have had female heads of state. I guess a certain amount of giggling is bound to happen, but I don't understand why we haven't caught up. What sucks is that Mondale/Ferraro was really a great ticket. Either would have made a fine president. I can't get my head around the fact that they lost 49 states. The only thing I can attribute it to is the "tax-raiser" label--which is why, I'm afraid, Bush has successfully pushed the U.S. government to a point where future politicians will have to either (a) raise taxes and fall on their swords in the process, (b) screw over the poor and marginalized, or (c) increase what will already be a massive deficit. And I'm afraid it'll be mainly (b)--lord knows Hillary isn't going to take any risks. That's the reason for my rant above, which was admittedly a little hysterical (thanks for the really kind, patient response, BTW). You may be right about Condi Rice. If there's one thing the ex-Dixiecrats hate more than self-respecting black folks, it's self-respecting women. But right now, she's the highest ranking woman ever to have served in U.S. government, period. (Though Nancy Pelosi will take her place if a Democratic House majority emerges during her tenure, making her Speaker of the House.) Truth is that Bush may be harder on women's rights than any president since Reagan, but he's the first to have put a woman three heartbeats away from the presidency. That says terrible things about the Democratic Party. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-09-22T23:07:58-06:00

ID

134462

Comment

Truth is that Bush may be harder on women's rights than any president since Reagan, but he's the first to have put a woman three heartbeats away from the presidency. That says terrible things about the Democratic Party. It does, and it doesn't, I think. I mean, I'm down with you that the Democrats have been spineless weasels while Rome burned. And there ain't much more terrible than kicking back and watching while radicals raid the Pottery Barn. But the Repubs have to be slammed for being so cynical as to hide their extremism behind black faces, even as they use race-baiting strategies to get bigots to vote for them. I mean, Clarence Thomas? The man is a sexist pig who did slimy crap in the league with Clinton. But it only bothers them when it's done by a Democrat??? (Of course, the Dems are guilty of similar hypocrisyóstarting with support of Clinton's cigar games while on our dime.) There seems to be no limit to how far the neo-bigs will go to imbed extremism, using black folks to do it for them. I will *never* forget (I'm older than you) Orrin Hatch sitting in those Thomas hearings declaring like he is the single-handed savior of race relations in this country that Anita Hill's accusations were simply a "high-tech lynching of an uppity black." I *still* cannot get over that he would so cynically coopt the language of LYNCHING in such a political way. Of course, I will also never forget the Democrat royalty, His Highness Ted "Too Rich to Prosecute" Kennedy sitting up there unable to ask an actual real question of Thomas because he would be such a hypocrite to even open his mouth on any issues related to sexual misdeeds. Have I mentioned that I don't like Kennedys, either? I'm sick to death of political royalty, whether inherited and of the meritocratic variety. You gotta live it; not just talk it, boys and girls. I guess what this ramble means is that it is so despicable for white Repubs to use coded Jim Crow language to help get them elected so they can pass policies to get (most) people of color in their place, even as they prop up blacks to do their dirty work, so they can say: See, I'm not racist! It's plain gross. Also, and I'm not tired to explain this point right now, but everyone should explore the origin of "tipping point" to better understand why a white candidate appointing a handful of blacks to important positions has little to do with whether their policies, or attitudes, are indeed racist. I.e: whites historically will put up with a certain number of people of color in their neighborhoods, or in power, or in their schoolsóbut don't pass the tipping point. I'll talk about that more later should anyone care.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-22T23:37:36-06:00

ID

134463

Comment

The "I still remember" bit about Mondale/Ferraro, BTW, wasn't a dig on folks who were lucky enough not to hear "tits and Fritz" and such, or who had forgotten about it. Just that it stuck, because I remember thinking at the time that it was kind of weird. I'm a fellow GenX'er (I'm guessing you have 5, maybe 10 years on me), but I don't remember much about the Clarence Thomas hearings. Maybe because the Supreme Court didn't interest me much when I was 12; presidents I knew about, but the other two branches of government mostly bored me. I discovered the power of the legislative branch when the 'pubs took over in 1994, and the Supreme Court sometime between then and the '96 elections. It's funny what childhood memories of politics look like. I was homeschooled, you know, and so was my older (by 6 years) brother and younger (by 3 years) nephew (technically half-nephew, but we had him since he was 4 and I see him as more of a little brother than anything else). For the 1992 elections, we each had to write a paper defending one of the three candidates. I enthusiastically picked Perot (which was fine because nobody else wanted him), my brother (still a Republican) picked Bush, and my nephew picked Clinton. What was amazing to me was how heroic Perot was on paper--I mean, we're talking about a brilliant businessman who had coordinated a rescue, and the man who got us caring about the deficit again. He turned himself into a joke by the end, but early on he was kind of cool. So I idolized Ross Perot when I was 12. I'm always interested in what you have to say about race. All I can say is that it must be kind of cool at first to be a black Republican. I mean, talk about being a big fish in a small pond... But then you keep rising in the ranks, and you discover that there are powerful people in the party who don't want you to get too big, and it's hard to fight them. Just ask J.C. Watts. I think what saved Condi is that Bush isn't a conscious racist, and there's no real doubt in my mind that Bush really likes the woman, or that he's loyal to his friends. If she turned out to be a moderate Republican underneath it all, I can't say I'd be crushed to see her get the nomination--it would be a beautiful thing. But I suspect you're right that the "crazy old man" wing that really controls the party would never vote for her. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-09-23T00:14:12-06:00

ID

134464

Comment

You know, I was thinking this morning about the ideological train wreck that is on its way. We have both a president and a governor, a Congress and a Republican state Senate that declares "no new taxes," no matter what. Meantime, they're promising the financial moon for hurricane recovery. In this situation, it is unconscionableóno, downright execreableóthat they are placing ideology ahead of the needs of Mississippians and the American people. It was bad enough that Barbour is so enslaved the extreme right that he is trying to financial dismantle public education in the state. But, in the here and now, to just summarily declare "no new taxes" to help pay for anythingóthus, we will have to cut even more vital programsójust show what kind of people we're dealing with here. They'd better be careful, Mr. Barbour especially. It's interesting to watch Barbour get a small boost in popularility after the stormófrom the low he hit months ago, just after his steamroll through the legislative session of 37 percent. After Katrina, he got out in front quickly as he should have and tried to make people feel as if the problems were being handled (even though they weren't). That move was smart, and Mayor Melton should take note for future reference. However, the fat lady is going to get her turn to singóand we are looking at impening economic disaster in this state. Mr. Barbour ought to study what happened to those temporary boosts in Mr. Bush's approval rating after 9-11. The truth is, ultimately, you've got to deliver a whole lot more than rhetoric. And when the legislative battles begin in earnest in January, Mr. Barbour better have figured out a way to get past his "no new taxes" mantra, or he's going to be in some deep poo-poo. Of course, Mr. Barbour has a way. It's called Katrina. This is a time that will separate ideologues from men with souls and hearts. A real man would stand up and simply say, "I'm a fiscal conservative, but times like this shows how important government is to Mississippians and American citizens. Thus, I am going to ask you to sacrifice a little to help your state, your country and your fellow Americans. We are going to raise taxes, and we are going to use the money wisely to help our citizens and our state." Will it happen? Probably not. Do I hope I'm wrong? Absolutely. Now is the time to find out what these people are really made of. And if these guys insist on continuing to "starve the beast," they are going to suffer politically. It's a different world now, and people now remember why we need government. Efficiency, yes. Drowning in a bathtub, no.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-23T12:01:37-06:00

ID

134465

Comment

... execrable ... how dare I mispell my word o' the year??? ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-23T12:04:55-06:00

ID

134466

Comment

... execrable ... how dare I mispell my word o' the year??? -- ladd Almost as good as talking about government's "excretiating" polcies.

Author

Rex

Date

2005-09-23T12:14:43-06:00

ID

134467

Comment

... execrable ... how dare I mispell my word o' the year??? ;-D That was downright execreble of you, Donna. :P The etymology of "execrable" is interesting. It's a form of the archaic word "execrate," from the Latin ex secrari--secrari ("to dedicate") being a form of the word sacrare, from which we derive the word "sacred." So what "execrable" means, in effect, is "that which has been declared the opposite of sacred"--declared unholy, as it were. It's a curse, a hex, the Evil Eye, ancient magical thinking. You can picture your favorite member of the North Jackson Angry Men's Club doing that little finger-horns thingie, because as fancy as it sounds, that's all the word really means. What I want to know is where the guy learned the word in the first place. I double-majored in literature and did a master's in humanities, and I'm pretty sure that's the first time I'd ever seen it in print. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-09-23T12:30:52-06:00

ID

134468

Comment

Yeah, Tom, I fully realized that Mr. Chicken-Pusher had hexed me. I was worthy of being cursed, as it were, because I dared to question candidate Frank Melton and report what he told people while on campaign stops. I'm assuming he also has a will-pricked voodoo doll of me on his nightstand right next to the Brill cream. ;-) To the rest of you, I apologize for my and Tom's bit of a tangent into an inside joke. We get great personal amusement out of The Boys Who Want to Silence Donna Ladd and how much time they spend trying to prove that no one pays any attention, no sirree bob, to the JFP. Fortunately, there are only about five of them, but between them, they share about 30 fake names.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-23T12:38:52-06:00

ID

134469

Comment

... WELL-pricked voodoo doll ... Need more coffee ... or less ... You know, Well-Pricked Voodoo Doll could be the name of girl band. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-23T12:40:19-06:00

ID

134470

Comment

Oh, and re the ideological trainwreck: I hope you're right. I so, so, so hope you're right. I googled Ronnie Shows to see if there was any widespread speculation that he'd run for lieutenant governor. I'm no fan of him; wish Hillman Frazier would give it a go. I remember chatting with Frazier back in '97, and there was some heavy speculation in that direction. He hadn't made up his mind yet at that point, and I think he eventually decided not to do it--but if we're desperate enough for Ronnie Shows, I think it's time. Anyway, the only news.google.com result was this op-ed from Wyatt, which takes the view that Mississippi has become pro-corporate, pro-establishment, and pro-country club. But I'd argue that Mississippians are still populist; it's just that most of our Democratic candidates have by and large failed to capture the populist impulse. The fact that he relies on Shows-Pickering as a case study kind of shows the weakness of his argument, because (a) the districts had been merged to the Republicans' benefit (both were incumbents), and (b) Shows was a profoundly lousy politician and Pickering a very astute one. I mean, Pickering is the, ahem, great white hope of the Republican Party--the heir apparent to Lott, Cochran, Barbour, whoever retires first. Shows won two terms only because he ran against Delbert Hosemann and Dunn Lampton in an integrated district. He probably wouldn't have been a match for Chip Pickering in his own district, much less the expanded, newly Republican district he ran in. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-09-23T12:46:26-06:00

ID

134471

Comment

Well-Pricked Voodoo Doll! I like. For that matter, the North Jackson Angry Men's Club would be a great name for a girl band. Brill Cream would be more of a punk band name, I think, or maybe a really hard-edged gangsta rapper. You wrote: To the rest of you, I apologize for my and Tom's bit of a tangent into an inside joke. We get great personal amusement out of The Boys Who Want to Silence Donna Ladd and how much time they spend trying to prove that no one pays any attention, no sirree bob, to the JFP. Fortunately, there are only about five of them, but between them, they share about 30 fake names. ...and I'm jealous as heck. I want my own right-wing groupies! Maybe if I offered them some KFC... Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-09-23T12:51:52-06:00

ID

134472

Comment

I don't like Shows. And I take very little Wyatt says seriously. His frame of reference seems incredibly small. Maybe it doesn't need to be any bigger for his chosen, cherrypicked audience. I'll take this neighborhood, but not that one. Gross. You're so right: N-JAM would be an incredible name for a grrl band. I like Brill Cream, too. Or, The Chicken-Pushers for that matter. I believe you would need to offer Church's, and then rescind it, for that plan to come together, Tom. Or, don't endorse them for offices they're not qualified for. Or, call them out publicly when they misquote crime studies or don't question blatant racist remarks from their buddies. All that seems to help one collect a small collective of angry radical groupies. Oh, and it helps to be a woman. They hate uppity women who don't take everything a neo-con/big says at face value. (Oh, Rhe-eeettt, I am just so shawked and aahhwwed at how many big words you know.) I believe such feminine gall is defined as "brow-beating" in the N-JAM dictionary. The N-JAM Dictionary ... hmmm, the wheels are turning now. ;-D It is so Friday afternoon on the JFP blog. Drink.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-23T14:10:13-06:00

ID

134473

Comment

The Chicken-Pushers! Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner. And "Oh, Rhe-eeettt..." is quite possibly the funniest thing I've read on this blog. Ever. Thinking of Lounging next time you folks have one. Are there many people who go but don't drink? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-09-23T15:27:00-06:00

ID

134474

Comment

Thanks, Tom. I have to admit that I cracked myself up as I was writing it. However, those guys are so easy to caricature that it's really not that great an accomplishment. Re the Lounge, you don't have to drink. And the Oyster Bar is non-smoking. Come on out! We've had so many benefits and such going on that I haven't scheduled another one. But definitely by mid-October.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-09-23T15:47:54-06:00