Next Show: ...loading...

Sunday Weekly Review

January 23, 2005

(broadcast stream ) (.wma download)
Freedom with an Asterisk
In the President’s Inaugural address, he mentioned “freedom*” 27 times, “liberty*” 15 times, and “free*” 7 times. Yet he apparently did not read the fine print following the asterisk:
*This offer not good in Sudan, Liberia, Haiti, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, North Korea, Algeria, Burma, most of Africa, ….

How do Neo-Cons handle the disconnect? Do they realize the President’s policies are inconsistent? Or do they rationalize them away?
Why didn’t the President just tell Americans the truth? “We care about democracy in any country that will not sell oil at good prices to American companies. And we will fight and die for your oil!”
That, at least, is consistent. And has the added advantage of being honest.
(Anti)Social (In)Security
The President’s “social security” reform plan has two fundamental points:
Make it less “social,” so that everyone takes care of himself or herself.
Make it less “secure” so there is a lesser guarantee of retirement funds.
Maybe we should change the name as well?
One more interesting statistic:
if you crunch the numbers according to the Social Security administration, benefits run out in 2042
if you crunch the numbers and include projected economic growth according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, they run out in 2052
if you crunch the numbers and include projected economic growth according to the Bush Office of Management and Budget using the same projections used to justify the Bush tax cuts, the benefits NEVER run out.
Hiding Intelligence from Congress
Rumsfeld has set up a new intelligence agency, “the army of Northern Virginia,” to collect intelligence in order to avoid the Congressional oversight of the CIA. Is it legal? No. But that doesn’t matter. He’s Donald Rumsfeld! He is above the law.
The Nomination of Alberto Gonzales and the Arrogance of the One-Party State
Inaugural Tidbits
News from Israel and Gaza
For once, it’s good! Mark praises Palestinian President Abbas.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

  • Skip January 29, 2005 9:58 pm

    Here are a few opposing views on freedom:
    “There ought to be a limit to freedom.”
    G. W. Bush (a.k.a. “war president”)
    May 21, 1999
    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    Benjamin Franklin

  • Fred Dawes January 28, 2005 1:52 am

    Ok, Freedom he means the freedom to take from the poor and hand it out to his friends, Liberty to yell under Torture! for protesting. Asking the judge not to put little kids who are insane in prison for life. Yes we live in a free land with 20 million homeless people and open borders to help some of the rich in other country, and to keep the good old ideals of mass slavery alive and well.
    job making $3.50 per hr you could buy this!
    fact in 1970 you could buy a new car for $2,000.00
    a 3 br room home for $15,000.00
    today that home is over $350,000.00 the car is over $25,000.00
    in 1970 85 percent of the working people could buy a new car or a new home making $3.50 per hr.
    that is called freedom.
    today you still can buy a home with mass government help if you are poor meaning making under $50,000.00 a yr, with a wife also working.
    but only 12 to 25 percent of the people inside our great free land can buy a home, and within 20 years only 3 to 10 percent, so can’t you see this great lie of freedom?
    Yes my Boy bush, and he is all for you, like A.H. Was for the jews in 1933-45, yes my son and my Great Leader of Mexico\U.S.A.,And anything he can get his hands on, just like the other Rats in other parts of this murderous little world.
    Look people we all know this dance, lets stop it now and start to see the world for what it is and is not.

  • Gordon from Bora Bora January 25, 2005 4:20 pm

    Ben-sanctions and multi-national talks?–does that include the U.S.–please tell George Bush that

  • ben January 25, 2005 3:46 pm

    My idea is to not bomb them. Sanctions and multinational talks…the more nations breathing down n. Korea’s neck the more pressure they have to disarm. They can’t take on the world. But I do not think the US needs to disarm in order to persuade the N. Koreans to disarm. We are a stable country not threatening the world. The only type of defense the US currently has is deterence. There is a missile defense program (which mark and democrats would like to cancel) that could allow us to disarm and still be safe but the program is still in the works.
    Here is Marks plan in a nutshell…use sanctions…if the sanctions fail bomb a country which he says has nukes that can reach LA. At the same time cancel the missile defense program which would be our only line of defense sinse he would have disarmed our nukes. How is provoking a nation a good idea I just can’t understand it. I do not think it is to much to ask for Mark to explain how he could actually consider bombing N. Korea. He is obviously not thinking through the matter.