Yes, I know, its copy and pasted. Get over it. Dont read it if you dont want to. [size=-1]12-28-2001 Washington Post[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush makes it possible for criminals to get federal contracts.[/size][size=-1][size=-1]Conservatives would have you believe that they are tough on criminals, insisting on harsh penalties to keep them off the streets. And if criminals are poor, that's usually the case. But when it comes to criminals who hang out in boardrooms rather than on street corners, the same justice doesn't apply. Back in March, the president delayed a rule that would make it more difficult for businesses who break environmental or worker-safety regulations to obtain federal contracts, a minor punishment that should just the beginning of criminal penalties. (See 3-30-2001 below.) Now he abandons that rule permanently. This means that companies that break the law will have no problems obtaining contracts with the federal government, thanks to Bush. So much for the rule of law.[/size][/size][size=-1]12-20-2001 Atlanta Journal-Constitution [/size] [size=-1]Bush prepares to roll back provisions of the Clean Air Act.[/size][size=-1]Bush promised during the campaign to reduce industrial pollution. He must have had his fingers crossed behind his back. Now he plans to drop provisions of the Clean Air Act that require certain coal-fired plants that upgrade or expand their operations to purchase pollution-reduction equipment. Polluting industries have lobbied hard for the change, and campaign contributions from Bush's friends in the electricity industry surely have some influence over the decision.[/size][size=-1]12-19-2001 Chicago Sun-Times[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush ends federal programs for women.[/size][size=-1][size=-1]While women have made enormous advances in the last century, the struggle for equality in American society isn't over yet. This doesn't matter to our president, who closes the regional offices of the Women's Bureau in the Department of Labor. The closings come on the heels of closing the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach, established by President Clinton in 1995 (see 3-31-2002 below), and ending the Labor Department's "Equal Pay Matters" initiative. These programs all fought for equality in the workplace, an issue that Bush clearly thinks is no priority at all.[/size][/size][size=-1]12-14-2001 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush invokes executive privilege over 30-year-old mobster case.[/size][size=-1]This one is mystifying at first. When the president instructs the Justice Department not to hand over documents subpoenaed by Congress regarding a 30-year-old mob prosecution and Clinton/Gore fundraising scandals, you have to wonder why Bush would care if information about these cases were made public. But of course it's not the specifics that matter, it's the principle. By invoking executive privilege here, Bush sets a precedent that makes it easier for him to do so again in the future when there is information he wants to protect. Bush has already used executive orders to keep records that should be public hidden away (see 11-2-2001 below), so it's no surprise that he'll pursue all avenues to keep his administration safe from exposure and Congressional oversight.[/size][size=-1]12-13-2001 CNN[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush abandons ABM treaty.[/size][size=-1][size=-1]The September 11 tragedy forced the president to put his isolationist foreign policies on the back burner. He needed--and easily obtained--international support for his war in Afghanistan to keep it from blowing up in other Islamic nations. But now that the military is mopping up what's left of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, the president returns to his unilaterist roots by officially abandoning the 1972 Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty, which has served as a cornerstone of nuclear deterrence for three decades. Bush calls the treaty a "Cold War relic," but it is his decision to spark a new arms race that belongs to a less reasonable time.[/size][/size][size=-1]12-11-2001 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush changes the rules for nuclear waste-storage facility.[/size][size=-1]There are two ways to avoid getting in trouble: you can avoid breaking the rules, or you can rewrite the rules so what you're doing isn't wrong anymore. That's just what Bush's Department of Energy does when it changes the rules for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage site in Nevada. The site, which Bush has been pushing hard, has been discovered to have some unforeseen problems, including an earthquake fault line and areas of loose rock. Rather than reconsider the site, the DOE decides to relax the requirements for geological suitability, putting the interests of their friends in the nuclear industry above public safety, environmental responsibility, and simple human decency.[/size][size=-1]11-30-2001 New York Times[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush tries to revive Cointelpro.[/size][size=-1][size=-1]It was the operation in which the FBI spied on Martin Luther King, Jr. There was a time in this country when the government considered the struggle for civil rights tantamount to communism. It's one of those historical crimes that almost seems worth the pain it caused only because it serves as a warning to future generations that they must be wary in order to preserve their liberties. But after September 11, Americans aren't so interested in protecting their freedoms anymore, so John Ashcroft's proposal to allow domestic spying on religious and political groups will probably not generate significant popular dissent. Cointelpro. It's a word that should strike fear into the heart of every freedom-loving American. And if Bush and Ashcroft have their way, it's coming back.[/size][/size][size=-1]11-29-2001 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush allows pesticide experiments involving humans.[/size][size=-1]If you want to eat pesticide for money, there's good news: Bush's EPA has decided to allow you to do so again. Under the Clinton administration, the practice of experimenting on humans to determine pesticide safety levels was banned; scientists considered them too dangerous. But this angered the pesticide industry, since the (admittedly more accurate) human trials allowed them to sell more product. (The estimated data from less accurate experiments has to be multiplied to get safe human levels, and scientists err on the side of safety.) If it makes an industry angry, it makes Bush angry (we can't imagine why), so he's decided to allow the tests once again, against the advice of the (not-connected-to-pesticide-companies) scientific community.[/size][size=-1]11-20-2001 Associated Press[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush asks Americans to "dig deep" during holiday season.[/size][size=-1][size=-1]Call it evil by irony. There's nothing inherently wrong with President Bush's request to Americans to increase charitable giving during the holiday season. We all should give more. But the budget Bush released earlier in the year made it clear that fighting poverty was not one of his priorities, while tax breaks for the rich are at the top of his list. The president has enormous power to eradicate poverty in America, and Bush has chosen not to fight that battle. (The grants for homelessness he announced today fall far short of a real solution.) By asking Americans to fight it for him, he is shirking his duties as the president. Yes, we should all give during the holiday season. But the best way to fight poverty is to get this guy out of office.[/size][/size][size=-1]11-18-2001 LA Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush orders the destruction of public information.[/size][size=-1]There's no doubt that the president does not consider the public's access to information about the government to be an important right. He recently signed an executive order that would keep his own papers in secret for perpetuity. (See 11-2-2001 below.) But there's other information the Bush administration wouldn't like the public to get its hands on, and the terrorist acts of September 11 provided a perfect excuse. So he orders federal agencies to remove data from their Web sites and libraries to destroy information they are storing. Terrorists didn't need this information to plan devastating attacks. But Americans need it to stay informed.[/size][size=-1]11-14-2001 Washington Post[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush proposes trying suspected terrorists with military tribunals.[/size][size=-1][size=-1]Since people in America suspected of ties to terrorism are being refused the right to counsel (see 11-9-2001 below), it should come as no surprise that Bush doesn't plan on protecting the rights of terrorists captured on international soil. But Bush's decision to use military tribunals to try captured terrorists is an unconstitutional extension of the executive branch's powers. The Secretary of Defense choosing the burden of proof? Only two-thirds consensus required for a conviction? No appellate review of the tribunal's verdicts? One can't help but suspect these tribunals will be secret and wonder whether the Bush administration is afraid of public trials. The fact that Bush has refused to share publicly the evidence against Osama bin Laden and Al Queda is equally disturbing. Our judicial system is designed to give a fair and open trial to those accused of crimes, and it's the best in the world. Why does the president feel the need to replace it?[/size][/size][size=-1]11-9-2001 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush eliminates the basic right of attorney-client privilege.[/size][size=-1]The thing about Constitutional rights is that there can be absolutely no exceptions. Once you start making exceptions, even "just this one time," it opens the door to future abuses. Today we're doing it in the name of preventing terrorism, tomorrow it's the War on Drugs, and eventually they're denying you a lawyer when they charge you with sedition. We have to protect our rights at all costs, because any attack on them, no matter how innocuous, can be the beginning of the end. The right of a suspected criminal to have an attorney is clearly stated in the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. The courts long ago recognized that a suspect must be allowed to speak freely to counsel in order for that Constitutional right to be fulfilled. Now, in its clearest violation of both the letter and the spirit of that amendment, the Bush administration announces that it will monitor calls between people suspected of links to terrorists and their lawyers. This means those suspects cannot speak freely to their lawyers and are being denied the right to counsel. What's the point in defending freedom abroad if we're denying it at home?[/size][size=-1]11-7-2001 Washington Post[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush closes office dedicated to protecting the Everglades.[/size][size=-1]In one of those campaign appearances meant to emphasize the "compassionate" part of "compassionate conservative," the Bush visited the Florida Everglades to promise that as president, he would protect America's natural resources. In what is now an all-too-familiar move, Bush's Interior Secretary, Gale Norton, closes down the federal office whose job it is to protect the Everglades.[/size][size=-1]11-7-2001 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush forces terminally ill Oregonians to die painful deaths.[/size][size=-1]If there's one thing we learned from the 2000 elections, it's that Republicans like states' rights just so long as they don't interfere with their conservative agenda. The people of Oregon in 1994 and 1997 voted to allow doctors to prescribe medications for terminally ill people that would let them end their lives as they wished: peacefully, at home, with family. Attorney General John Ashcroft informs the state that the Drug Enforcement Agency will be prosecuting doctors who prescribe drugs for euthanasia, ensuring those ill patients the long, slow, undignified, painful deaths that Ashcroft's God dictates.[/size][size=-1]11-2-2001 CNN[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush gives Microsoft a free pass.[/size][size=-1]Both the trial judge and the appeals court found Microsoft guilty of antitrust violations. But Republicans don't believe in enforcing antitrust laws, do they? That's just the government interfering with the perfection of the free market. So Bush's Department of Justice lets Microsoft off easy, agreeing to a settlement that only puts minor (and temporary) restrictions on the software giant.[/size][size=-1]11-2-2001 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush overturns the 1978 Presidential Records Act.[/size][size=-1]Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that presidents have the power to overturn laws with an executive order. But President Bush doesn't let that stop him from protecting Reagan, his father, administration cronies, and himself from the eventual release of their records. In the wake of Watergate, Congress passed the 1978 Presidential Records Act, which was designed to check the evil whims of future presidents with the promise that all their papers would be released to the public 12 years after they left office. Reagan's papers were slated to be released this year, but Bush delayed the release several times. (See 9-1-2001 and 6-9-2001 below.) Surely this was connected to the fact that many of the worst criminals in the Reagan administration now serve under Bush. Now the president signs an executive order invalidating the PRA, ensuring that his most heinous deeds can be hidden from the public eye for all time.[/size][size=-1]10-27-2001 Associated Press[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush urges Congress not to federalize airport security.[/size][size=-1]Airport screeners make an average of $6.75 per hour. They have a turnover rate of 126 percent a year, meaning that virtually none of them stays on the job for long. With those kinds of working conditions, is it any surprise that a man made it onto a plane with a gun a few days ago, in what is supposed to be a time of heightened security? Low-wage workers are not motivated to do a great job. (Have you ever noticed that fast-food employees never seem as enthusiastic in real life as they are in commercials?) So when Bush urges Congress not to make airport security a federal law-enforcement concern, he's directly endangering the lives of millions of American air travelers--just in time for the holidays![size=-1][/size][/size][size=-1]10-26-2001 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush signs the antiterrorism bill.[/size][size=-1]Civil liberties officially take a backseat to law enforcement. The Senate and House easily pass the antiterrorism bill (with the cloying and inaccurate name, "USA Patriot Act"), which makes it easier for the government to conduct searches or electronic surveillance. The president quickly and enthusiastically signs the bill. Democratic Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, who cast the sole vote in the Senate against the bill, calls it "a wish list for the FBI, an overreach that invades civil liberties."[/size][size=-1]10-26-2001 Washington Post[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush overturns mining regulations.[/size][size=-1]The possibility that a mine will cause "substantial irreparable harm" seems like a pretty good reason for the Interior Department to deny it a permit. But that standard isn't acceptable to the mining industry, which makes it unacceptable to the Bush administration. After the generosity of the mining companies toward the Bush campaign, who can blame them? Those campaign contributions don't come cheap, after all. It's just too bad that it's the American landscape that will have to pay.[/size][size=-1]10-21-2001 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush approves the assassination of Osama bin Laden.[/size][size=-1]What's so immoral about assassinations? After all, people die in military engagements all the time, so why should, say, slipping a political leader a dose of heart-stopping poison be any worse than shooting a soldier? Well, the soldier is shooting back. War is fraught with moral ambiguities, but there are rules to military engagements. (Those rules are broken all too often, with such incidents explained euphemistically as "collateral damage.") You're not supposed to shoot someone who doesn't pose immediate danger to you or others. Assassination is a specific violation of those rules, and thus inherently immoral. Before September 11, America was quickly losing stature on the world stage after sabotaging treaties covering subjects ranging from carbon dioxide emissions to biological warfare. Bush's order to the CIA to use any means to take out Osama bin Laden is likely to chip away at the stature we've regained since we were attacked by terrorists. Besides, it's just wrong.[/size][size=-1]10-19-2001 Washington Post[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush lies to Congress about affect of oil drilling in ANWR on caribou.[/size][size=-1]Wildlife refuges like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge exist for one reason: to protect wildlife from the whims of politics and economic self-interest. Such self-interest has led the GOP to argue for drilling in ANWR ever since the president took office. They've even exploited the September 11 attacks to bolster their argument. When Interior Secretary Gale Norton argues in front of Congress in support of oil drilling in ANWR, she omits data from the Wildlife Service showing that drilling would affect the caribou that migrate through the area and lies about the calving habits of those caribou. Both deceptions serve to promote the drilling, which would be a boon to the energy industry that supported Bush so loyally during the presidential campaign.[/size][size=-1]10-13-2001 Associated Press [/size] [size=-1]Bush puts a lid on the media.[/size][size=-1]Ari Fleischer tells Americans they need to "watch what they say." The administration asks TV news networks to let it edit videos from Al Qaeda before they show them. Is silencing the media the president's idea of defending freedom? Now the administration isn't allowing interviews of public health officials, denying citizens important information. Reporters are even having trouble finding information on environmental issues, which leads one to wonder just what kinds of policies agencies like Interior and the EPA are slipping in while our attention is elsewhere. One reporter described the administration's actions as "irrational and overreaching."[/size][size=-1]10-5-2001 Associated Press[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush looks to cut taxes even further.[/size][size=-1]Fearing an economic slump in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the president proposes $60 billion in tax cuts in addition to the $1.35 trillion cut Congress foolishly passed earlier this year. A disaster like this, where there is significant physical damage and massive unemployment across several industries, requires government spending, not tax cuts, to boost the economy. Such spending will create jobs and increase consumer spending, which tax cuts (aimed toward the rich, as always) can't do.[/size][size=-1]10-1-2001 LA Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush expands powers of secret court.[/size][size=-1]A secret court located in the Justice Department decides whether or not Americans can be wiretapped. There's no accountability and no appeal. How could you appeal, after all, when you don't even know you've been tapped? In the wake of the September 11 attacks, Attorney General John Ashcroft wants to make it even easier for the court, which in 23 years has disapproved exactly one surveillance request, to approve wiretaps and warrants. Ashcroft's proposal would expand the courts bailiwick; where it now deals solely with intelligence matters, he would have it expand to criminal investigations. Given that the court was created to prevent Nixonian abuses of the Justice Department revealed by the Watergate investigation, Ashcroft's proposals seem to be a direct threat to civil rights.[/size][size=-1]9-24-2001 Washington Post[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush tries to end arms sanctions.[/size][size=-1]Back when America was fighting the Cold War, we had a knack for arming folks who would eventually turn into our enemies. We armed Manuel Noriega, and he became "Manuel Noriega." We armed Saddam Hussein, and he became "Saddam Hussein." We even armed Osama bin Laden, who has since become "Osama bin Laden." This turned out to be a short-sighted strategy. Now the president wants to revive it by eliminating arms sanctions to a host of nations. This includes Pakistan, who has been under an arms embargo because of its nuclear program. While the current government of that country has indicated that it wants to help America fight our new war on terrorism, that attitude could easily spark a coup that would put Pakistan's military in the hands of extremists. Thus sending arms to Pakistan, along with Syria and Iran, might not be the best idea. This action also lifts arms embargoes on countries like China where they were in place because of their poor human rights records.[/size][size=-1]9-17-2001 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush looks to curb civil liberties.[/size][size=-1]Everyone says if we let the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon change our lives, then the terrorists have won. Certainly any restrictions to our freedoms would be the worst victory we could hand them. Nevertheless, the president wants to assassinate foreign leaders, make it easier to tap our phones, and detain foreigners (wonder how they'll pick which ones). It sounds as though America is going to be a little less like America for a while.[/size][size=-1]9-8-2001 LA Times[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush delays energy assistance to the poor.[/size][size=-1]During his made-up energy crisis, President Bush sought to deflect criticism that his plan was skewed in favor of the energy industry by proposing $150 million in funds to help the poor pay their utility bills. Congress doubled the amount to $300 million. But now Bush blocks those very funds, a move we can only describe as unfathomable.[/size][size=-1]9-7-2001 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush eases nursing home regulations.[/size][size=-1]Bad nursing homes can be a horror. Government investigations have documented unimaginable conditions for seniors over the years. This isn't terribly surprising; it's cheaper to provide bad service than good service. The best remedy is government oversight. Now the Bush administration proposes to reduce that oversight, reducing inspections from once a year to once every two or three years, easing penalties, and relying on data given by the industry. We're sure nursing homes will line up to give the government data on their less savory practices.[/size][size=-1]9-6-2001 Associated Press[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush lets Microsoft off scot-free.[/size][size=-1]The U.S. Court of Appeals sent back Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's sentence in the Microsoft case for review because it felt the judge had been too biased in his decision, not surprising considering his ill-advised anti-Microsoft remarks to the media. But it did not ask the court to review his verdict, agreeing with Jackson that Microsoft was clearly guilty of antitrust violations. Now Attorney General John Ashcroft decides not to pursue any significant punishments for the software giant, meaning Microsoft will suffer no consequences for what the trial judge and appeals court agree are serious crimes. You just have to love these get-tough-on-crime conservatives![/size][size=-1]9-1-2001 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush delays release of Reagan's presidential records--again.[/size][size=-1]A post-Watergate law required that all presidents release their records twelve years after their terms end. Ronald Reagan was the first president covered by the law, and his papers were due for release in January. But the Bush administration (many of whose members worked for Reagan and Vice President George Bush, whose papers from that era must also be released) delayed the papers' release until June. In June, they delayed the release until August. (See 6-9-2001 below.) Now that the August deadline has passed, the current administration delays the release again, this time with no deadline. How long will the Bush administration be allowed to protect its cronies?[/size][size=-1]8-28-2001 Associated Press[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush delays reparations to cancer-stricken uranium miners.[/size][size=-1]There was a time, believe it or not, when people didn't know that exposure to uranium would lead to cancer. Now we know better, of course, and dozens of miners who worked with uranium ore for the government's nuclear program have gotten sick. The sacrifice to their health given in service to their country is no less than that of a wounded soldier, and they deserve similar compensation. The president wants to push back compensation while the government conducts studies, but these people are rapidly dying. Given another chance to prove that he really is a compassionate human being, Bush fails miserably.[/size][size=-1]8-28-2001 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush skips an international conference on racism.[/size][size=-1]We've pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, the germ warfare treaty enforcement protocols, and the ABM treaty. We've been kicked off the UN Human Rights Commission. Thousands of protesters face President Bush whenever he travels to Europe. Our international standing is lower than it has been in years. Naturally, the president decides not to send Secretary of State Colin Powell to an international conference on racism in order to protest language in a conference communique that condemns Israel's treatment of Palestinians as racist. Wouldn't going to the conference to discuss the issue be a more mature response? Isn't establishing such dialogue the whole idea behind the conference?[/size][size=-1]8-23-2001 CNN[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush announces that the United States will withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.[/size][size=-1]"We will withdraw from the ABM treaty on our timetable," the president announces from his "working vacation" in Crawford, Texas. Apparently the United States has returned to the days--well remembered by Native Americans--when we honor treaties only as long as they're convenient. If Russia doesn't like the terms of our withdrawal, too bad. We'll just rip up the treaty when it ceases to suit our purposes.[/size][size=-1]8-23-2001 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush cooks budget numbers for PR purposes.[/size][size=-1]While the surplus plunges, Bush's White House tries to fool the American public into calm. His budget director, Mitch Daniels, says the country is "awash in money." Happily, the media sees through this deception and reports the truth about the budget. While the White House says there is a $158 billion surplus, this is largely the untouchable Social Security surplus. Without Social Security funds, the surplus drops to $1 billion. Maybe Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut wasn't such a good idea after all?[/size][size=-1]8-15-2001 Rocky Mountain News[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush keeps protesters at bay--again.[/size][size=-1]Back in June, the president was speaking at a tax rally where protesters where forced to leave. (See 6-8-2001 below.) They were only allowed in designated "First Amendment areas," proving that in Bush's America, the First Amendment only counts where he says it counts. Now on a trip to the Rocky Mountain National Park, Bush does it again, staying in areas no less than a mile away from designated First Amendment areas.[/size][size=-1]8-15-2001 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush delays Medicaid reforms.[/size][size=-1]Despite all the hoopla over the recent patients' bill of rights debate, neither version of the bill--the McCain-Edwards-Kennedy bill passed by the Senate or the watered-down House version--does anything to protect the poor or uninsured. For that, the government must reform Medicaid, which was the subject of several rules passed by the Clinton administration in order to enforce a compromise made during 1997 budget negotiations. But Bush is delaying and narrowing those rules in order to appease insurance companies and state governments that are worried about the cost.[/size][size=-1]8-11-2001 Washington Post[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush rejects request for review of Karl Rove's finances.[/size][size=-1]Karl Rove, the president's top political consultant and a federal employee, met with the executives of six companies in which he holds more than $100,000 in stock to discuss White House policy. There can be no question that this creates at least the appearance of impropriety, something that Bush promised to avoid during his term. Given his oft-repeated campaign promises of an ethical administration, one would think Bush would be extremely cooperative with any investigation of possible ethical lapses. But no. A request from House Government Reform committee ranking member Henry Waxman of California to Bush for records relating to Rove's finances and meetings goes unheeded, making it clear that Bush's promises to restore honor to the White House are little more than empty words.[/size][size=-1]8-11-2001 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush eases ethical restrictions on stem cells.[/size][size=-1]It's ironic, really. Bush's decision on stem cells limits federal funds to researchers working on stem cell lines already created. But in doing so, Bush also wipes out Clinton administration ethical rules on obtaining stem cells from embryos. Those rules included not allowing researchers to ask women for access to extra embryos during implantation, as it is a time of extreme vulnerability for most women. They also laid out exactly what was required for researches to gain "informed consent" from women before using their embryos. The Bush rules don't include these requirements, in effect opening up women to potential exploitation. While Bush speaks of protecting the groups of cells from which stem cells are derived, it's obvious he never thought about protecting the fully formed humans from which they originate.[/size][size=-1]8-10-2001 Washington Post[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush refuses to fund research on stem cells derived from new embryos.[/size][size=-1]Trying to appear wise as Solomon, the president falls on his face and looks more like--well, himself. In a decision clearly crafted for maximum political benefit, Bush decides that no federal funds will go to scientists creating new stem cells from existing embryos slated to be destroyed. Instead the federal government will only fund 60 self-sustaining lines of embryos already in existence. The decision pleases no one apart from the president's yes-men. Catholics call it unacceptable because it still, from their perspective, treats human life as something cheap. Scientists are worried that the limitations will hurt scientific research. As with his position on abortion, Bush tries to avoid a real stance in order to appear blameless.[/size][size=-1]8-9-2001 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush eases rules on wetlands development.[/size][size=-1]In direct contradiction to an earlier promise to protect wetlands from destruction, the Bush administration has decided to ease rules set in place a year ago that make it more difficult to develop real estate on wetlands. Bush's own EPA and Fish and Wildlife Agency support the old rules, but real estate developers don't. Guess who wins?[/size][size=-1]8-8-2001 Washington Post[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush eases Clinton rules on industrial pollution.[/size][size=-1]The story has become almost routine. The EPA under Clinton sued several power plants for adding capacity without following Clean Air Act regulations requiring them to reduce emissions. Now the EPA under Bush decides, with plenty of input from the energy industry, that these suits were unjustified. The agency will narrow the rules under which it would bring those suits, which will have a direct impact on the air we breathe.[/size][size=-1]8-2-2001 Salon.com [/size] [size=-1]Bush undermines House efforts to develop a bipartisan patients' bill of rights.[/size][size=-1]By negotiating solely with Republican congressman Charlie Norwood of Georgia over the patients' bill of rights, the president fractures a coalition of Republicans and Democrats that had dedicated themselves to putting the interest of patients above those of HMOs. Bush and Norwood announce their deal without consulting other sponsors of the bill, making the "compromise" nothing but a political game by the White House.[/size][size=-1]7-27-2001 USA Today[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush jails a journalist for not revealing her sources.[/size][size=-1]During the Clinton administration, the Justice Department never--not once--jailed a journalist trying to protect an anonymous source. Attorney General John Ashcroft reverses that policy by jailing Vanessa Leggett when she refuses to turn over notes for a book she's writing about a 1997 murder. What's worse, the proceeding that led to Leggett's incarceration is held in secret, with even the judge's name not released.[/size][size=-1]7-27-2001 New York Times [/size] [size=-1]Bush commission releases biased Social Security report.[/size][size=-1]The president had an agenda when he appointed the members of his commission on Social Security, and it had nothing to do with protecting the nation's elderly poor. He appointed members who were Democrats and Republicans to give it a veneer of bipartisanship, but the commission was ideologically homogenous with regards to the very issue it was supposed to study. The result, its report, is a biased prediction of the early death of the program meant to scare the public into supporting Bush's privatization scheme. The individualized accounts Bush proposes would shrink the Social Security surplus at a time--baby boomers reaching retirement en masse--when it needs to be expanded.[/size][size=-1]7-26-2001 Washington Post[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush officially rejects germ warfare treaty protocol.[/size][size=-1]Two months ago, the Bush administration was considering rejecting a protocol for enforcing a decades-old treaty banning biological weapons. (See 5-20-2001 below.) Now Bush officially rejects the protocol, saying that it endangers the industrial secrets of U.S. biotech firms. Once again the president has a choice between what's good for corporate profits and what's good for the public, and once again he makes the wrong decision.[/size][size=-1]7-24-2001 Washington Post [/size] [size=-1]Bush isolates United States in denying support for Kyoto treaty.[/size][size=-1]In what can only be described as an embarrassment for the world's largest economy, the United States is now the only industrialized nation that doesn't support the Kyoto treaty to reduce greenhouse gases. America has 4 percent of the world's population but is responsible for 25 percent of the greenhouse gases, which are the primary cause of global warming. Bush's lack of world leadership on this issue is so reprehensible that the city of Seattle has decided to implement the pollution reductions in the treaty anyway. Perhaps enough U.S. cities will follow suit that our president's backwards policy will become irrelevant.[/size][size=-1]7-23-2001 Associated Press[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush ends gun buy-back program.[/size][size=-1]The National Rifle Association believes that if guns were illegal, only criminals would own guns. Government programs that buy back guns from the community (at prices well under their market value) work on similar logic; after all, what law-abiding gun owner would want to give up his $400 gun for $50? They get thousands of guns off the street--20,000 in their first year alone. Now President Bush cuts funding to these programs at the behest of the NRA, payback for all those campaign contributions.[/size][size=-1]7-19-2001 CNN [/size] [size=-1]Bush refuses to turn over energy task force records.[/size][size=-1]The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, asks Vice President Cheney to turn over records showing just who he consulted when developing the nation's energy policy. Cheney boldly stands up to the GAO's unreasonable assertion that public policy development should be a public process. Surely the vice president has nothing to hide, such as the fact campaign-contributing executives from the energy industry had a disproportionate influence on the process.[/size][size=-1]7-17-2001 Reuters[/size] </FONT>[size=-1]Bush delays water cleanup rules.[/size][size=-1]The Environmental Protection agency goes to court to block Clinton-administration rules requiring cleanup of national rivers. EPA head Christine Todd Whitman says she needs "additional time to listen carefully to all parties with a stake in restoring America's waters"--Bush administration code for paying back polluting industries for their huge campaign contributions.[/size][size=-1]6-25-2001 CNN [/size] [size=-1]Bush threatens to derail flight attendant strike.[/size][size=-1]The right to strike is just about the only thing that keeps employers from abusing their employees with low wages, few benefits, and unsafe workplaces. President Bush, who as a conservative doesn't believe the government should interfere in the affairs of business, has decide to step in and stop a strike of American Airlines flight attendants. Naturally, the White House denies any relationship between big campaign contributions from the airlines and Bush's decision.[/size][size=-1]6-24-2001 New York Times[/size] [size=-1]Bush to reverse snowmobile ban in Yellowstone Park.[/size][size=-1]They call it a "tunnel of fumes" and say it's "like being in a bar--you're dizzy, nauseous, your throat is burning and your eyes are burning." White House correspondents describing a press conference with Ari Fleischer? No, it's Yellowstone rangers giving their reasons for supporting the Clinton-administration ban on snowmobiles in the national park. Such parks should give people the opportunity to escape the noise and pollution of the city, but snowmobiles give Yellowstone that interstate feel. They also interfere with the winter food search of bison. Three years of public meetings and comment resulted in the snowmobile ban, but Bush will reverse that process with no input from the public.[/size][size=-1]6-22-2001 Salon.com [/size] [size=-1]Bush uses the IRS and federal funds to send out a campaign letter.[/size][size=-1]Just about everyone knows that the IRS will be sending out rebate checks later this year from Bush's ill-advised tax cut. But the president, who campaigned against wasteful government spending, is having the IRS spend more than $30 million to send a letter to taxpayers to let them know they'll be getting a refund. Perhaps the dozen or so people who haven't yet heard the news are worth the full $30 million. The letter, perhaps unsurprisingly, glowingly mentions Bush's role in the cut because, after all, it's never to early to start campaigning.[/size][size=-1]6-20-2001 CNN [/size] [size=-1]Bush seeks settlement for tobacco lawsuit.[/size][size=-1]Despite the government's strong case against tobacco companies, Attorney General John Ashcroft indicates that the Justice Department will seek to settle the lawsuit. This has two effects. It weakens Justice's case by presenting a much less confident front, and it helps yet another industry that--you guessed it!--gave a lot more money to Bush than to Al Gore.[/size][size=-1]6-15-2001 Washington Post[/size] [size=-1]Bush denies Africans AIDS drugs through international aid agency.[/size][size=-1]The president's choice to run the US Agency for International Development, Andrew Natsios, argues against giving antiviral drugs to the 25 million Africans that suffer from AIDS. His reason? Africans can't tell time. Taking AIDS drugs often involves a strict regimen, and Natsios seems to think that all Africans are primitive villagers who won't be able to understand complex Western ideas like "four o'clock." Instead, he suggests, we must stress "abstinence, faithfulness and the use of condoms" for preventing future outbreaks. So while Natsios thinks that Africans won't understand our Western concept of time; he doesn't mind trying to impose his Western morality.[/size][size=-1]6-10-2001 Associated Press[/size] [size=-1]Bush refuses to give California an exemption for gasoline additives.[/size][size=-1]Federal regulations require the addition of an "oxygenate" to gasoline to make it burn more cleanly. California recently phased out a common oxygenate, MTBE, because it was polluting the water supply. Another option is ethanol, but California Governor Gray Davis asks for an exemption to the oxygenate rule because refiners have developed other ways to make the gasoline cleaner. Adding oxygenates to the gas increases the cost of gasoline, and Davis is obviously sensitive to energy prices. Bush refuses Davis's request, showing that the 2004 campaign is already in full swing. Support for ethanol is crucial for presidential candidates in Iowa, where the corn-based fuel additive is important to the local economy.[/size][size=-1]6-10-2001 CNN[/size] [size=-1]Bush threatens to veto the Kennedy-Edwards-McCain patients' bill of rights.[/size][size=-1]When Republicans were in control of Congress, the president could state unequivocally that he supported a patients' bill of rights. After all, he's a Reformer with Results. But now that the Democrats run the Senate, a bill with real reform might end up on his desk. Such a bill might allow, for example, someone whose spouse died because an HMO refused medical treatment to collect a judgement of more than $500,000. Calling such real reform "a trial lawyers' bill," White House chief of staff Andy Card indicates that Bush will veto the bill if it reaches his desk. Hey, that couldn't have anything to do with all those campaign contributions from the insurance industry, could it?[/size][size=-1]6-9-2001 New York Times[/size] [size=-1]Bush delays release of Reagan's presidential records.[/size][size=-1]Most of the members of the Bush administration have a long history in Republican politics. Donald Rumsfeld is enjoying his second term as secretary of defense. Vice President Cheney was President Ford's chief of staff. Is it so surprising, then, that Bush would delay the release--mandated by a post-Watergate reform law--of President Reagan's records? Who knows what current administration player will be embarrassed by the documents, which contain advice given to the former president by close advisers? When it's a choice between bringing the truth to light or protecting his cronies (not to mention his father), you can be sure on which side you'll find our president standing.[/size][size=-1]6-8-2001 St. Petersburg Times[/size] [size=-1]Bush keeps protesters at bay.[/size][size=-1]At a public appearance to celebrate the president's tax cut in Tampa, Florida, protesters are forbidden to carry signs or express opinions that differ from administration policy. Instead, they are directed to a roped-off area one-third of a mile from the stadium designated--get this--a First Amendment zone. That might just be the greatest example of modern Orwellian double-speak ever. Last time we checked the Constitution, it didn't include limitations as to where one could enjoy the freedom of speech. Read a first-person account of oppression at the rally[/size] [size=-1]6-8-2001 Washington Post[/size] [size=-1]Bush accelerates missile defense plans.[/size][size=-1]Congress hasn't authorized it. The international community repudiates it. That doesn't stop our president from pursuing a missile defense system, which by its nature trashes important international treaties. The new goal is to get at least part of the system operational by 2004, since there's a good chance Bush won't be the president after then.[/size][size=-1]6-7-2001 CNN[/size] [size=-1]Bush signs his enormous tax cut.[/size][size=-1]"Tax relief is an achievement for families struggling to enter the middle class," says the president as he signs the bill containing a $1.35 trillion tax cut into law. Of course the president's bill doesn't help anyone trying to enter the middle class. The most a family not already in the middle class can receive under the cut is $600 plus $500 per child a year, and most will get a fraction of that amount. That's far from enough money to move anyone from one class to another. The wealthy, on the other hand, will net thousands, and in some cases millions of dollars from Bush cuts. "The surplus is the people's money, and we ought to trust them with that money," Bush says, ignoring the rather obvious principle that surpluses obtained during boom times should be applied to deficits incurred during slower economies. The federal debt, after all, is the people's debt, and someone has to pay for it.[/size][size=-1]6-7-2001 Washington Post[/size] [size=-1]Bush caves to steel industry's threat against retired workers.[/size][size=-1]Presidents aren't supposed to negotiate with terrorists, right? When an industry threatens to eliminate health insurance benefits for its retired workers if the government doesn't impose trade protections, it fits the very definition of a terrorist: threatening innocent bystanders to accomplish ideological goals. Bush himself often talks about the "bully pulpit" of the presidency, and this is the perfect opportunity to use it. Instead of caving into the steel industry's demands, he could make a public statement repudiating the industry's position and demanding that it not use its workers' health as a negotiating tool. Instead he gives the companies what they want, ensuring that other business groups will be comfortable using these tactics for years to come.[/size][size=-1]6-1-2001 Associated Press[/size] [size=-1]Bush refuses to issue proclamation for Gay Pride Month.[/size][size=-1]You can't have it both ways. You can't promise to be everybody's president--a uniter, not a divider--and then turn around and choose to discriminate against a select group of Americans. But Bush decides to do just that by not signing a proclamation declaring June Gay Pride month as Clinton did before him. "The executive office of the president will not sponsor an observance for Gay and Lesbian Pride Month," reads an internal White House memo. What a wonderful example for tolerance the president is setting.[/size][size=-1]5-29-2001 Newsweek[/size] [size=-1]Bush undermines Justice Department suits against polluting companies.[/size][size=-1]We're not sure where people got the idea that conservatives think criminals should be punished for their crimes. In his new energy policy, Bush calls for the Justice Department to "review" (read: dump) lawsuits against energy and other companies that break environmental laws. These companies--filled with Bush campaign contributors--regularly flout the law, but don't look for this supposedly conservative administration to enforce it. (Is this where the compassion part comes in?) Protecting campaign contributors from federal prosecution seems like an obvious abuse of power, the kind that presidents should be impeached for. As one attorney at Justice put it, "ongoing law-enforcement activity was supposed to be out of bounds from politics."[/size][size=-1]5-29-2001 CNN[/size] [size=-1]Bush refuses to consider alleviating California's power woes with price caps.[/size][size=-1]Bush continues to claim that the market will solve California's energy woes. He doesn't seem to realize that the "market" was what allowed energy producers to raise their prices so high. (No, let's not underestimate the president. He may very well know, but he sure as hell doesn't care.) Wholesale prices are 10 times what they were last year despite no proportionate drop in supply, and the energy companies are raking in unprecedented profits. Despite please from California governor Gray Davis, Bush refuses to consider price caps, as that would lower good buddy and Enron CEO Kenneth Lay's Christmas bonus. Davis says California will sue, since it's clear the energy suppliers are breaking the law to gouge consumers.[/size][size=-1]5-22-2001 Associated Press[/size] [size=-1]Bush attends fundraiser that includes visit to Cheney's residence.[/size][size=-1]It's not the fundraising; it's the hypocrisy. Republicans, including Bush, continually and vocally criticized Clinton and Gore for hosting coffees with Democratic donors at the White House. Now Dick Cheney invites hundreds of the GOP's biggest donors to the official vice presidential residence. What's the difference? Republicans aren't just hypocritical for defending the fundraiser. ("I'm sure it's being done in an appropriate way," says Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, "or Dick Cheney wouldn't be doing it." Uh huh.) They're stupid. How difficult was it to predict the bad press the Bush administration would get for inviting donors to the Naval Observatory residence?[/size][size=-1]5-20-2001 New York Times[/size] [size=-1]Bush rejects a protocol to enforce germ warfare treaty.[/size][size=-1]Diplomats have worked for six years to develop a compromise protocol that would make it possible to enforce a 1972 treaty that bans chemical and biological warfare. But a Bush administration review rejects the protocol as being too weak, as it has too many loopholes that will allow countries to cheat on the treaty. The problem with this? The United States (this administration and the last) has consistently argued against stronger provisions that would give teeth to the protocol, at the request of pharmaceutical interests who want to protect their trade secrets. Just as with the Kyoto accords (see March 29 entry below), Bush creates a cozy little Catch-22 that angers our allies and prevents us from facing responsibility in the international arena.[/size][size=-1]5-17-2001 The NEPDG's report[/size] [size=-1]Bush releases his energy plan.[/size][size=-1]Filled with half-truths and environmental disasters, the National Energy Policy Development Group's report reads as though it were written by the oil and other energy interests that hold such influence over this administration. Given the fact that the NEPDG won't divulge the people it consulted in researching its conclusions, chances are that the energy lobby did write most of the report. Read the Wage Slave Journal report on Bush's energy policy[/size] [size=-1]5-11-2001 CNN[/size] [size=-1]Bush uses high gas prices to sell his tax cut.[/size][size=-1]When the economy was great, Bush's tax cut was about returning the surplus to the people. When the economy went into the toilet, the long-term cut, defying all logic and economics, was a necessary short-term boost to the economy. Now that gas prices are on the rise, Bush says the tax cut will help the American people to pay for gas. The money will make a brief stop in our bank accounts on its way to the oil companies, which are enjoying record profits as pump prices soar. Apparently the president can't imagine why we'd find this objectionable.[/size][size=-1]5-8-2001 Salon.com[/size] [size=-1]Bush cuts funding to anti-nuclear proliferation programs.[/size][size=-1]After promising during the campaign that he would work to reduce the number of nuclear warheads in the world, President Bush cuts funding for antiproliferation programs in his budget. Experts say the programs will be "severely wounded."[/size][size=-1]5-8-2001 CNN[/size] [size=-1]Bush tries to build more nuclear power plants.[/size][size=-1]Everyone knows the dangers of nuclear power. The radioactive waste poisons the environment wherever it's stored, and accidents can render huge swaths of land uninhabitable for years. Since the 1979 disaster at Three Mile Island, no new nuclear power plants have been ordered in the United States. Now the Bush administration wants to include nuclear plants among the 1,300 to 1,900 power plants it wants to build over the next 20 years, ushering in a new era of unfettered pollution and profits for the energy industry.[/size][size=-1]5-7-2001 White House briefing transcript[/size] [size=-1]Bush refuses to ask Americans to conserve.[/size][size=-1]After a laughable nod to conservation--asking federal buildings in California to cut power consumption by 10 percent, which would save 0.1 percent of power used in the state--Bush makes it clear that conservation is not a serious part his energy policy. Asked whether the president will encourage Americans to conserve, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer replies, "that's a big no. The President believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life."[/size][size=-1]5-4-2001 Associated Press[/size] [size=-1]Bush opens national forests to road building.[/size][size=-1]National forests exist to protect natural beauty, which becomes more rare every day. Sometimes forests need protection against local whims, since the resources within them can provide a boost to the local economy. But now President Bush has decided to remove federal protections and leave the decisions for road building in national forests to the very people who endanger the forests in the first place. Timber interests, who--oh look!--gave a bunch of money to Bush's campaign, support the roads.[/size][size=-1]5-3-2001 Washington Post[/size] [size=-1]Bush's budget numbers don't add up.[/size][size=-1]Here's a surprise: a huge tax cut, a national missile defense system, a prescription drug plan, and privatizing Social Security might cost more than the president claims. White House officials are hoping the tax cut actually increases revenue, despite the fact that collecting less money usually has the opposite effect. The inevitable return to deficit spending will, of course, be equivalent to a huge tax increase on the American people, as interest rates and inflation rise and federal spending is diverted to paying the interest on the growing debt.[/size][size=-1]5-1-2001 CNN[/size] [size=-1]Bush returns the world to a Cold War-level arms race.[/size][size=-1]Are the profits of defense contractors more important than world peace? It would appear our president thinks so, since he's going ahead with plans for a national missile defense system despite the objections of perhaps every single other country in the world. Bush is trampling over the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty with Russia, a cornerstone of peace in the world for almost three decades. But at least the president's friends and campaign contributors in the defense industry are sure to be happy.[/size][size=-1]4-26-2001 Salon.com[/size] [size=-1]Bush makes a gaffe over Taiwan/China policy.[/size][size=-1]Apparently unaware that our nation's policy toward China and Taiwan is a delicate and complex affair, Bush tells Good Morning America that we would do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself." Beijing, already testy after American arms sales to Taiwan and the incident with the downed American spy plane, reacted with horror at Bush's statement, which would constitute a major shift in our foreign policy. Of course the spin machine went into high gear, saying that there was no shift in policy, claiming that the president meant what he said, and ignoring the contradiction between those positions.[/size][size=-1]4-25-2001 Washington Post[/size] [size=-1]Bush kills the federal tobacco lawsuit.[/size][size=-1]Bush's budget offers $1.8 million to the Justice Department to continue its lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Lawyers working on the suit say they'll need more than $57 million. What better way to kill a lawsuit without appearing as though you wanted to do so? Such lawsuits have been unquestionably good for the states, forcing tobacco companies to stop predatory marketing and funding important health programs. The feds were pushing for damages approaching $100 billion, but now they'll never see it.[/size][size=-1]4-24-2001 Associated Press[/size] [size=-1]Bush defunds Reading is Fundamental.[/size][size=-1]Teaching America's youngest children to read was a constant Bush theme during the campaign. That's why it's such a surprise to see Bush's budget cut all federal funding to Reading Is Fundamental, a program that dispenses free books to poor kids. We just hope that Bush's mother, who is on RIF's National Advisory Council, gives her son a piece of her mind.[/size] [size=-1]Evil[/size] [size=-1]Very evil[/size] [size=-1]Very, very evil[/size] [size=-1]Very, very, very evil[/size] [size=-1]Very, very, very, very evil[/size]
The Marjority of those have nothing to do with "War and Peace". Your ignorance shines bright. I can understand you not wanting to read it.
Hey SmaxMonkey, the "War and Peace" bit referred to the length of your little cut-and-paste diatribe...not the content. Sheesh, talk about ignorant.
Okay Yogi, let me explain to you my point since obviously "books" are not your strong suit. Have you ever read (I know that's a stupid statement for this fool) or have you ever seen the book "War and Peace"? I mean, the physical book, itself? If you had, you'd know that it is rather large and had you read it... Oh, who am I kidding, you get confused with Doonesbury cartoon strips. This isn't worth it.
Elvis...... You will love this link! http://www.icebox.com/icebox/shows/show_54/viewer_frameset_ep1.html
Look everybody! I'm a cut & paste PUPPET!!!!!! Dude, your effort in trying to prove a point REALLY makes you look like a yo-yo. :dis: I'll bet you used an AWFUL LOT of Elmer's glue with your round tipped scissors in elementary school...last year... :lol: ...wait until ya get in high school... ...MAYBE they'll teach ya - the idea is to have ORIGINAL THOUGHTS... ...that you can back up with LOGIC... Now I KNOW that this sounds tough, but actually PRACTICE it a few times... ...who knows, maybe someday you might even turn out to BE somebody... ...because at this point, it's pretty evident that YOU AREN'T. :dis: PS it does help to have references more in-depth than modern pop culture...
