http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:23:18 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/14/002318.php gtbecbpWith the House passage of the "Real ID" act, I'm greatly concerned about the state of the Republican Party. While I'm a registered Republican, I'm not proud of how our Congressional majority is acting. These "conservative" Congressmen are acting like liberals, taking rights away from the populace to make the country more "secure." It seems that with power for this party, came a wave of liberalism. The party that used to stand for small government now stands to increase the power of the state. I'm beginning to question how heathy the recent electoral victories have been for this party. By saying this, I'm not implying that I wanted the electoral outcomes to be different, but my party has become power-hungry, fat, and lazy. While I heartily agree with quite a bit of Bush's agenda, giving the government more power is a liberal ideal, and these ideals should be far removed from the Republican Party. The hard truth is, they're not. So, my question is, what do you think could be done to fix the Republican Party?Ben Politics25523@blogcritics.org Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:23:18 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/13/235701.php gtbecbpWell, as promised, I will do the easy job of deconstructing selected portions of "The Democratic Response" to the State of The Union speech. The participants in this telecast were Senate Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid D-NV, and his counterpart in the house, Rep. Nancy Pelosi D-CA. The fun starts now with comments by Sen. Reid: "In the coming year, I believe we can make sure America lives up to its legacy as a land of opportunity if the president is willing to join hands and build from the center." "It's important that we succeed. It's time that America's government lived up to the same values as America's families. It's time we invested in America's future and made sure our people have the skills to compete and thrive in a 21st-century economy." "That's what Democrats believe, and that's where we stand, and that's what we'll fight for." "Build from the center"? Is he serious? President Bush was re-elected as a right-wing President, and was re-elected by a large margin. I love how the Dems insist that a Republican President must "govern from the center." I can assure you, if it were a Democrat, they would be saying nothing of the sort. Now, how exactly are the Dems going to make sure were ready for the coming century when they insist that the Bush tax cuts "for the rich" are wrong? Amazing. More from Sen. Reid: "Too many of the president's economic policies have left Americans and American companies struggling. And after we worked so hard to eliminate the deficit, his policies have added trillions to the debt -- in effect, a "birth tax" of $36,000 on every child that is born." "We Democrats have a different vision: spurring research and development in new technologies to help create the jobs of the future; rolling up our sleeves and fighting for today's jobs by ending the special tax breaks that encourage big corporations to ship jobs overseas; a trade policy that enforces the rules of the road so that we play to win in the global marketplace instead of sitting by and getting played for fools." "After World War II, through the Marshall Plan, we rebuilt Europe, and they went from poverty to an economic powerhouse. Today, we need to invest in our own nation's future with a Marshall Plan for America to build the infrastructure our economy needs to go -- and to grow." While the deficit is a problem, the Democrats never use the proper context when complaining about it. Bush had proposed cutting the deficit in half in his speech beforehand, so why complain about it in the response? As far as context, it seems that Sen. Reid, and other "deficit hawks" forgot about 9-11 and the subsequent two wars. While the President has overspent domestically, the Dems seem to forget that wars cost a lot of money. So, they contradict themselves. Now they are proposing a "Marshall Plan" for America. How can such a thing be accomplished when they insist on having high taxes? How can that be accomplished when Social Security is broken? In the Dems' mind, these problems are not problems. They're campaign talking points that they simply distort. You know what I mean, look at the constant "Tax cuts for rich" line they kept using. It's a lie, but in their mind, if you repeat a good lie over and over again, people will think it's true. Sen Reid Continues: "President Eisenhower did that in the 1950s with interstate highways. National investment created the Internet in the 1970s. We need to build the next economy, and we need to start now." "The 21st-century economy holds great promise for our people. But unless we give all Americans the skills they need to succeed, countries like India and China will be taking our good-paying jobs that should be ours." You know, building the net economy would be easier if pro-growth policies (such as tax cuts) were embraced by both Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats keep espousing the quasi-socialist idea that the rich are treated well, while the "everyday man" gets the crumbs. That worked for Huey Long, but people aren't stupid anymore. And that philosophy was rejected on Nov. 2nd. Outsourcing is another issue brought up here, and the Dems have it wrong. They want to "crack down" on companies using the practice. But if they really wanted to fix the problem, they should make it easier for companies to do business domestically. Cutting red tape and reducing taxes that businesses have to pay. Instead the treating and talking about companies as evil entities, let's help them and make it easier to hire people right here at home. I will make an exception for manufacturing, seeing that the cost of labor in China is a completely different story than the cost here in the U.S. We have to get our goods from China, or else inflation will go up. "From early childhood education to better elementary and high schools to making college more affordable to training workers so they can get better jobs, Democrats believe every American should have a world-class education and the skills they need in a worldwide economy." How do you propose changing education? Yeah, that's it, let's keep them in public schools. The parents and children don't deserve an option, do they? No. Keep them in schools you won't even send your own kids to? That's the ticket.Well, that's the first portion of my analisys of the Democratic Response. In our next installment, fun with Social Security!!Ben Politics25479@blogcritics.org Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:57:01 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/02/05/215341.php gtbecbpWell, as promised, I will do the easy job of deconstructing selected portions of "The Democratic Response" to the State of The Union speech. The participants in this telecast were Senate Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid D-NV, and his counterpart in the house, Rep. Nancy Pelosi D-CA. The fun starts now with comments by Sen. Reid: "In the coming year, I believe we can make sure America lives up to its legacy as a land of opportunity if the president is willing to join hands and build from the center." "It's important that we succeed. It's time that America's government lived up to the same values as America's families. It's time we invested in America's future and made sure our people have the skills to compete and thrive in a 21st-century economy." "That's what Democrats believe, and that's where we stand, and that's what we'll fight for." "Build from the center"? Is he serious? President Bush was re-elected as a right-wing President, and was re-elected by a large margin. I love how the Dems insist that a Republican President must "govern from the center." I can assure you, if it were a Democrat, they would be saying nothing of the sort. Now, how exactly are the Dems going to make sure were ready for the coming century when they insist that the Bush tax cuts "for the rich" are wrong? Amazing. More from Sen. Reid: "Too many of the president's economic policies have left Americans and American companies struggling. And after we worked so hard to eliminate the deficit, his policies have added trillions to the debt -- in effect, a "birth tax" of $36,000 on every child that is born." "We Democrats have a different vision: spurring research and development in new technologies to help create the jobs of the future; rolling up our sleeves and fighting for today's jobs by ending the special tax breaks that encourage big corporations to ship jobs overseas; a trade policy that enforces the rules of the road so that we play to win in the global marketplace instead of sitting by and getting played for fools." "After World War II, through the Marshall Plan, we rebuilt Europe, and they went from poverty to an economic powerhouse. Today, we need to invest in our own nation's future with a Marshall Plan for America to build the infrastructure our economy needs to go -- and to grow." While the deficit is a problem, the Democrats never use the proper context when complaining about it. Bush had proposed cutting the deficit in half in his speech beforehand, so why complain about it in the response? As far as context, it seems that Sen. Reid, and other "deficit hawks" forgot about 9-11 and the subsequent two wars. While the President has overspent domestically, the Dems seem to forget that wars cost a lot of money. So, they contradict themselves. Now they are proposing a "Marshall Plan" for America. How can such a thing be accomplished when they insist on having high taxes? How can that be accomplished when Social Security is broken? In the Dems' mind, these problems are not problems. They're campaign talking points that they simply distort. You know what I mean, look at the constant "Tax cuts for rich" line they kept using. It's a lie, but in their mind, if you repeat a good lie over and over again, people will think it's true. Sen Reid Continues: "President Eisenhower did that in the 1950s with interstate highways. National investment created the Internet in the 1970s. We need to build the next economy, and we need to start now." "The 21st-century economy holds great promise for our people. But unless we give all Americans the skills they need to succeed, countries like India and China will be taking our good-paying jobs that should be ours." You know, building the net economy would be easier if pro-growth policies (such as tax cuts) were embraced by both Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats keep espousing the quasi-socialist idea that the rich are treated well, while the "everyday man" gets the crumbs. That worked for Huey Long, but people aren't stupid anymore. And that philosophy was rejected on Nov. 2nd. Outsourcing is another issue brought up here, and the Dems have it wrong. They want to "crack down" on companies using the practice. But if they really wanted to fix the problem, they should make it easier for companies to do business domestically. Cutting red tape and reducing taxes that businesses have to pay. Instead the treating and talking about companies as evil entities, let's help them and make it easier to hire people right here at home. I will make an exception for manufacturing, seeing that the cost of labor in China is a completely different story than the cost here in the U.S. We have to get our goods from China, or else inflation will go up. "From early childhood education to better elementary and high schools to making college more affordable to training workers so they can get better jobs, Democrats believe every American should have a world-class education and the skills they need in a worldwide economy." How do you propose changing education? Yeah, that's it, let's keep them in public schools. The parents and children don't deserve an option, do they? No. Keep them in schools you won't even send your own kids to? That's the ticket.Well, that's the first portion of my analisys of the Democratic Response. In our next installment, fun with Social Security!!Ben Politics25480@blogcritics.org Sat, 5 Feb 2005 21:53:41 EST