An Immodest Proposal

(with apologies to Dean Swift.)

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

The power to tax may well be the power to destroy, but the power to tax unfairly is the power to do worse--it's the power to enslave. With the increasing concentration of the majority of the country's wealth into fewer and fewer hands (2% of the population of this country now holds over 50% of its total wealth, and is moving to amass ever more), America is being turned into a fundamentally unfair economic oligarchy, not the government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" which the Founders envisioned.

Yet we seem paralyzed to do anything about it. Republicans want to keep cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, claiming that that's what will spur job creation and get the economy moving again, and that spending cuts will balance the budged. Democrats say that continuing to cut vital social programs will place the majority of the burden of government costs on the backs of those who can afford it the least, and that if we're going to cut spending, we must cut in areas like huge contracts to defense contractors, not areas like Head Start.

It is axiomatic that spending cuts alone will not balance the budget. The cuts the GOP wants merely nibble around the edges and are not big enough monetarily to dent the burgeoning interest obligations we have on the debt we've already incurred. Those cuts will, however, cause a great deal of misery for a great number of Americans, who are not looking for a handout, but for a hand, given that while income for the richest 2% of Americans has increased at least 20-fold in the past 15 years or so, income for the other 98% of us has remained stagnant (or even declined, in real terms, once inflation has been adjusted for) for the past 40 years.

Revenues must be considered. Revenues must be increased. But the current US tax code is a virtually impossible labyrinth of exemptions here and deductions there--in short, social engineering run amok. We seem to be at a stand-off. We've been at a stand-off for decades now, and positions are only hardening. People seem less and less willing to give a little to get a little. I include myself in that group, because, frankly, I do believe that "if you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk."

I honor the notion of compromise. I do believe it is the genius of our system and that it is what has made America work for as long as it has. But the problem with compromise is that everyone has to play with the same understanding. If you define "compromise" as "getting 100% of my own way," well, that's not compromise. And alas for us, President Obama has been "compromising" with a GOP which does define "compromise" as "my way or the highway." Yet even he has his limits, and he has shown rather more backbone of late. The GOP, of course, calls that partisanship. Face it: it is impossible to reason with anyone who thinks they should have things 100% of their own way and the rest of us can go hang.

Yet if we don't want the country to collapse into anarchy, we urgently need to move the discussion into productive channels instead of continuing to hash and rehash and re-rehash the same stale, non-productive rhetoric. Hence the following immodest proposal:

Median annual income in this country is now $35,000 per person. Under the new system I propose, that first $35,000 will be entirely exempt from taxes. Every penny above that will be subject to tax at the rate of 1% [or 1/2% even--whatever will increase net revenue without being so high as to be seen by any rational observer as objectionable. Look: we have to have some taxes, just as we have to have some government. Justice Holmes was right. Taxes ARE the price we pay for civilization--Ed.]. No exemptions. No deductions. No subsidies. No exceptions. Corporations would pay the same. They were so insistent on being treated as "people" for purposes of campaign financing, and a bare-bones majority of the US Supreme Court was so accommodating to them in its Citizens United decision, that they have no valid grounds on which to complain. Fifteen to 20 percent of all such revenues will be set aside to fund Social Security and Medicare and will be untouchable by anybody in government for any other reason.

The net result will ripple throughout the government. Without all the subsidy programs, the Dept. of Agriculture can shrink, thus greatly reducing its long-term operating costs. The Internal Revenue Service can shrink, too, as it will no longer need such an extensive enforcement arm as it now maintains. Even the Social Security Administration can reduce its size, as it will no longer need so many people to work in conjunction with the IRS to get and process its revenues in the first place. Individuals and corporations both would still have more than enough income to go about their daily "lives."

There is no downside to this proposal. The only reason for opposition would be greed, plain and simple. But it has the proverbial snowball's chance of getting enacted. For every exemption, deduction, subsidy, or perk in the present system [except for those few still remaining for real, individual people of modest means--Ed.], there's an army of lobbyists in Congress ready and rich enough to defend it to eternity. That's sad, and more than a bit frightening. Why are people so willing to be against their own government but totally pro-big corporate power? With government, at least in our system, you have recourse if you are done wrong. But with a corporation, if it does you wrong, you are essentially SOL . . . unless you have access to a governmental entity with enough teeth to protect you. I surmise that greed rules here, too. Everyone seems to think he's going to become the owner bee and not be a worker bee. Ain't gonna happen, folks. The 2% of the people in this country who hold more than 50% of the total wealth of this country will make sure of that--but they'll dangle the hope of its happening in front of you until you are mesmerized by it and stop paying attention to what they're really up to, which is amassing ever more money and power unto themselves and taking it all away from you.

I am inspired to this day by John F. Kennedy's call to "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." THAT is what America is, and should be, about. And by my "country," I mean my fellow citizens. And if that means "Social Security," great! I'm all for helping the vast majority of us, the 98% of us who wield increasing less power and influence as real money is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. I'm not alone, either. Tom Toles had an editorial cartoon in Friday's Washington Post wherein a 6-lane interstate, under a highway sign saying "what you can do for your country" was totally devoid of cars--while a two-lane exit ramp, labelled "ask not," was jammed to a standstill with cars overfilling both lanes. I'm not the only one who "gets it," as it were. But we seem to be in an infinitesimal minority. Nonetheless, we have to keep trying. For unless we can change the terms of the debate and start offering new solutions, workable solutions--unless everyone is willing, for the sake of the country, to give a little--we are too soon going to be pledging allegiance to the Corporate States of America. And that will mean the end of the American Dream.

Is This What Obama Is Really Up To?

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I have struggled, mightily (for the past several weeks especially), to figure out why the heck President Obama is being so passive about his stated goal of passing real health care reform to fulfill a promise he made to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Even more, I've tried to figure out why the heck the president has backpedalled so much on all the other major promises we thought he made during last year's election campaign. The Justice Department is going to investigate not the people who violated our Constitution and laws by authorizing the use of torture and other crimes--it's going to investigate ONLY those who violated even the illegally-relaxed standards the Bush Administration put in place to begin with.

Even though he got the total dollar amount he said he wanted in the economic stimulus bill, Obama allowed 40% of that total to be calculated by tax cuts--cuts that are much more responsible for the truly horrific deficit numbers we're facing than would be anything engendered by passing health care reform which includes the public option.

Obama said he was going to get us out of Iraq and close the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities by the end of this year--and he's trying, but the process has been slower and less comprehensive than expected. He said he was going to undo the previous administration's excessive claims of executive power, but his administration has been, to date, just as secretive and arrogant as his predecessor's in terms of not releasing White House visitors' lists, using executive signing statements, and arguing FOR Bush administration positions in legal suits brought against the government for violations of the Constitution and laws of this land.

The president is maintaining his stand that the Afghanistan war is the necessary one, which he will prosecute to a successful conclusion . . . even though many experts are now saying that our initial reasons for that war [getting Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, for example--Ed.], while correct at the time, have been rendered moot by events, and that maybe it's time to pull out . . . instead of doing an Afghan version of the Iraq War surge, which seems to be his current intention.

None of it has made sense to me, especially given my impression that President Obama has a tremendous grasp of politics as "the art of the possible." In every instance I've cited, he's settling for much less than what's possible. He has tried to hang this on the desire to change the way things work in Washington, to promote real bipartisanship. The problem with that notion, however, is that the other side has to be willing to play--and so far, the GOP has not only been not willing to play, it's decided that naked political advantage is more important than what's really in the best interests of the country, which is paralyzing the process even more than it had been before Obama was inaugurated.

But I think I finally figured it out. Now that Ted Kennedy has been laid to rest along side his brothers Bobby and John, Obama's policy backpedalling and missteps have got all three of them rolling over in their graves--at so many RPMs that all Obama has to do is hook up 3 sets of jumper cables from Arlington National Cemetery to the nation's power grid, and: Lo! Behold! Our nation's energy crisis has been solved . . . for free!

I usually agree that any bill or other governmental action that disappoints the extremists on both ends will, as a rule, succeed. By definition, it has found the middle ground, that vast, blessed area wherein most of us live. However, the preceding 8 years tilted things so far to the far right that just getting back to the center is going to keep things tilted too far over to the right. [You want proof? GOP legislators are trying to undo Reagan-era laws and regulations because even they are "too restrictive"--Ed.]

Count me among the incredibly disappointed in the behavior of the Obama administration to date. I still think it's a far sight better than anything the GOP has to offer, but that, too, will be rendered moot if the GOP manages to prove that outright lies, when shouted often and loud enough, still control the terms of the debate. It's time for this administration to start fighting fire with fire. Obama so far has been acting like most of us are educated and intelligent and will do the right thing . . . but the ones with their hands on the real money in this country, the ones who don't want to give up even one penny for the greater good, have discovered that they can exploit the fears and hatreds of just enough of us to stymie the rest of us.

Unless, of course, the president starts showing some real leadership. Bill Maher was right--as much as he hates Dubya's policies, he admires Dubya's backbone and single-minded purpose in sticking with his plans no matter what anyone else said. Obama needs to show some more of that to be the leader those of us who voted for him hoped for and expected that he would be.

Distressed Signals

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

I was saddened last year when John Edwards abandoned his bid for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. I was sickened to learn of his betrayal of his wife, Elizabeth, by having an affair while Elizabeth was battling resurgent breast cancer. I am distressed and disgusted to learn that Edwards is now being investigated for misusing campaign funds.

I still think Edwards has some marvelous ideas. He was the only candidate from either major party who had the guts to make eradicating poverty the centerpiece of his campaign. Having failed to become the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, he'd have made a fine Attorney General. He understands how the rich manipulate the legal system for their own ends; he'd have been a wonder at cleaning up the mess in the Department of Justice that Dubya's minions made.

Still, on balance, I am angry with him. His confession of his affair literally made his wife sick. [I can identify with that, even though my then-husband didn't have the guts to tell me to my face. Elizabeth Edwards said she felt as though she was going to vomit when John told her what he'd done. I couldn't walk into what had been my husband's and my bedroom for nearly a year after he left--with no advance warning to me, by the way--without puking. Good thing the bathroom was only 3 or 4 steps behind me.--Ed.] It destroyed his credibility and availability to participate in the Obama administration. It made it too easy for enemies of his ideas to trash the ideas because of who said them, not because of their own merits or demerits. It also made it impossible for Elizabeth to take a leading role in the upcoming fight for health care reform. She would have been a powerful and extremely effective voice for change.

People have commented that what Edwards did in his personal life was no one's business but his and his wife's, and that they still want him to participate in public service. I wish I could agree. The problem I keep running into is that I cannot trust him anymore. Anyone who is so callous and so careless with the number one most important thing in his life cannot be trusted with the leadership of the nation in any capacity. First, it shows incredible arrogance. Second, it shows a dangerous lack of judgment. Third, it shows a total lack of discretion. Fourth, it distracts everyone from what should be our focus: making America "America" again. Fifth, it gives tons of ammunition to the enemies of reform. Sixth, and most importantly, it is downright dangerous. If you want to know how someone will behave at crunch time on the big issues, watch how s/he handles the "small," private things that no one is supposed to notice. Once you start taking shortcuts in small things, it becomes easier and easier to take shortcuts with big things . . . and eventually, you'll have no credibility or honor left.

I've often said I have the sort of luck that keeps me from jaywalking, even at 4 a.m. on a deserted street. For as sure as I stepped off the curb in the middle of the block and against the light at the intersection, a police car would come out of nowhere and I'd be busted. Rightfully. However, as long as I do not jaywalk at 4 a.m., even on a deserted street, no one will notice. But the law won't be broken.

To put it another way, "If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for a glass of milk." The character that people reveal by their behavior in the "small" things is the same character that will drive their behavior in the big things. I don't wish John Edwards any ill. I hope he is found not guilty of misappropriating campaign funds. But I won't be surprised if my hopes are dashed. And then I'll be angry all over again--for what's really driving my anger is the way his selfishness torpedoed his chances to do good for the whole country.

Ask Not For Whom The Bell Tolls

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

It tolls for thee, GOP.

I just heard that US Senator Arlen Spector, long-time (and many-term) Republican from Pennsylvania, has decided to switch parties and become a Democrat. Knock me over with a feather!

I suspect he did it because as a Republican, he'd be facing a nasty primary fight next spring against a really far right nut job, which he could well lose. That's the problem with "vote by party" primaries--the extremists and uber-zealots wield power way out of proportion to their lack of clout in the general election.

There's almost no doubt Spector would win the general election in the fall--if he were on the ballot. So his switching party affiliations must be designed to maximize his chances of making it onto that ballot in the first place.

Still, I shouldn't sell him short. In many ways, and for many years, he's been a relatively centrist, moderate, and sensible voice within the GOP. My biggest problem with him is the way he savaged Anita Hill during Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings. Spector's behavior and tone were totally uncalled for and were, frankly, disgusting. It's obvious to me that Hill was telling the truth, because she had absolutely NOTHING to gain from doing so--while Thomas had a lot to gain by lying. But Spector did his GOP-mandated trashing and bashing, and Thomas was confirmed, despite the fact that he was totally unqualified. He's just a "me-too"er, a right-wing ditto head, taking his lead from Antonin Scalia. Creepy!

So I am not overjoyed that Spector has "seen the light." Nor do I see him making a world of difference to the Democrats in the Senate, even though with him and Al Franken (once former Minnesota Senator Coleman gives up his idiotic challenge to Franken's election), the Democrats will have a 60-vote majority. Spector will be a blue-dog Democrat, or as some like to describe the phenomenon, a DINO (Democrat-In-Name-Only).

But the psychological impact of Spector's defection cannot be overstated. The rats are leaving the sinking ship, boys. The GOP as a national party is sinking. USS Titanic redux!

Poor Marksmanship

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

The objections to and complaints about President Obama's decision to release the Bush Administration Department of Justice torture memos fall into one of two categories: (1) our enemies will know exactly what we will and will not do to gather intelligence; and (2) our own intelligence agents will not carry out their intelligence gathering to maximum extent, for fear of adverse consequences later, at home.

Both objections are the results of very poor marksmanship, indeed. For the only reasoned response to either or both of them is "So what?"

One of the things that has made America unique is our willingness to live by our principles--and not torturing is one of those principles. We've survived for well over 200 years without torturing. The shape of the threats against us may have changed, but we must not. Once we do, we give up who we are, and that will kill America once and for all faster than any terrorists ever could.

[I keep thinking of the original Star Trek episode Mirror, Mirror.In the alternative universe in that episode, the peaceful Halkon race will let the Empire (the evil incarnation of the Federation) obliterate them rather than give up their planet's resources for the purposes of waging war. "We will die as a race, to preserve who we are." Of course, the Halkons weren't exterminated. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.--Ed.]

And why do we presume that it's a BAD thing if our intelligence officers have to consider the consequences of their actions? After all, they swore to uphold, protect, and defend our Constitution. Why should they be exempt from its strictures? Personally, I much prefer intelligent intelligence officers--ones who think about what they are doing, and why--and not just mechanical automatons who brutally wreak havoc all over the world in alleged defense of something they cannot be bothered to obey.

As long as the debate is allowed to be cast in terms of either or both of those two objections/complaints, however, we're never going to come to a real solution. The issue must be rephrased to put the emphasis where it belongs--not on "anything to stay safe" but on "anything to uphold our principles." As Benjamin Franklin so cogently noted, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (1759, from the Historical Review of Pennsylvania)

Just Because You're Paranoid, It Doesn't Mean They're NOT Out To Get You

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Former Dubya administration toady and water carrier (i.e., temporary UN Ambassador) John Bolton has denigrated that administration's noticeable shift toward talking to and negotiating with countries Dubya said formed "the Axis of Evil." Bolton says this shift (1) demonstrates the "intellectual collapse" of the Dubya administration, thus (2) starts "the Obama administration six months early."

Two responses occur to me: (1) before you can have an "intellectual collapse," you must have an intellect. Had Bolton said "ideological collapse," his observation would have been much more accurate. Note, however, that he and I still disagree on whether said collapse is a good thing. He thinks not. I think it's more than about time.

(2) Bolton has unwittingly provided me with some support for a rather paranoid supposition, to wit: far, far right hard-liners are paying people on Sen. John McCain's election staff to screw up McCain's chances to get elected, as they are willing to "endure" four years of an Obama administration in the hopes that by 2012, said hard-liners can regain the presidency . . . only this time, with permanent control of the government. How else to explain the myriad out-and-out stupidities and lies McCain's campaign is experiencing?

[For a stupidity, consider McCain's "press conference" yesterday wherein he was filmed standing in front of a grocery store cheese case. Too tempting, and too easy, to make any number of cheesy jokes about it. For a lie, consider McCain's assertion yesterday that the Iraqi "surge" actually started several months before Dubya announced it. McCain seems to have no idea that the things he says are "facts" are easily checked and easily disproved. No surprise, I suppose, given his admitted ineptitude regarding the Internet.--Ed.]

Not that it really matters. If the Mayan calendar is correct, the world will end about 6 weeks after the November 2012 elections, on December 12, 2012. Long enough for the far, far right to know whether its nefarious plan has succeeded, but not long enough for that plan to go into effect. For them, then, T.S. Eliot's observation will be correct: "This is the way the world will end, not with a bang but a whimper."

This Ain't Chicago!

So it's OK to vote early, but not often.

Yes, tomorrow is--at long last--Nebraska's primary election day for 2008. In typical Nebraska fashion, we have choices among an odd list of candidates. In the Democratic Party primary for the US Senate seat that Chuck Hagel is vacating, we can choose between Tony Raimondo and Scott Kleeb (pronounced "Klebb"). Raimondo is a Republican-turned-Democrat, most probably to take a clearer path to a nomination. He's also a businessman who dies his hair [which wouldn't matter but it's cheap and badly done, and it looks worse than a bad comb-over, all suggesting that Raimondo has some serious self-delusion problems--Ed.] and who keeps saying we need to elect him "to change Washington." He subtly insults his Democratic Party opponent by calling him "an academic," and the Republican candidate (running unopposed) as a "lifelong politician."

Kleeb is young, and is an academic in that he teaches history courses at one of the state colleges. But the tone of his campaign has been more positive in that he's stressing "it's not a matter of right or left" and "it's what my grandfather taught me--a politics of service, not of self." In a western Nebraska populist way, it's an appeal for the partisans to take off their boxing gloves and work together for everyone's benefit. For my money, it's a much more mature campaign approach than Raimondo's. Then again, Kleeb has a lead foot and has run up a ton of speeding tickets covering western Nebraska's expansive spaces. This will not endear him to the majority of generally law-abiding Nebraskans.

One would almost be sure that the Republican candidate, Mike Johanns, former mayor of Lincoln, former Nebraska governor, former US Secretary of Agriculture, will win automatically come November. After all, Johanns is popular, and his association with Dubya's administration hasn't seemed to hurt him. But Johanns is a Democrat-turned-Republican. There are plenty of people in the western part of this state who will hold that against him even though he switched parties years ago, mostly so that he'd have a clear path to the governorship back when he ran for and won that office. He won it, by the way, by winning the two major population centers of the state: Omaha, because business interests perceived him to be a good choice, and Lincoln, because the university and government-oriented population there knew him and liked him. He got the votes he got in the western part of the state because a lot of people there voted by party affiliation only.

I can hear the program hawkers now: "You can't tell the players without a scorecard! Get your programs here!" Not that party-switching is new around here. Those of you who remember the late Nebraska US Senator Ed Zorinsky and our own current senior US Senator, Ben Nelson, just to name two, know that.

But back to tomorrow: Johanns' ad is more like Kleeb's in tone than Raimondo's, but it's Muzak rendition of Tom Petty's Won't Back Down oddly jarring. Still, it seems like Kleeb and Johanns are on the same page, at least. It would be fun to see their campaigns against each other come fall. Raimondo has made it clear that he'll just attack Johanns as being a Washington insider. Well, I have news for Raimondo: no one is going to "change Washington" all by himself, especially as a first-term junior senator from a relatively low-in-population state. So Raimondo is already falling into a typically Republican pattern of making promises he cannot or will not keep. That won't wash with many of the voters I know, be they Democrats, Republicans, Greens, or independents.

I do love the politics in this state! At some level, there's always unpredictability. Despite Nebraska's well-deserved reputation as one of the reddest of the so-called Red states, the way Nebraskans will vote in any given election can shock you. I wouldn't put it past Kleeb to beat Raimondo in the Democratic primary, for these main reasons: (1) Nebraskans do not like negative campaigning. Despite the relatively mild way Raimondo does it, his tone is more negative than is Kleeb's. (2) Not many of the Democrats in this state are fooled by Raimondo, even though--or maybe even because--he has the Omaha World-Herald's endorsement. Raimondo is the classic DINO ("Democrat In Name Only"). Nebraska runs closed primaries. Only registered Democrats can vote in the Nebraska Democratic Party primary. There may not be many Democrats in Nebraska overall, but we tend to vote in our primaries against those running for Democratic nominations who get the World-Herald's endorsement, just to be ornery.

Besides, Raimondo's call is "to change Washington." If he dislikes it so much, why does he want to become part of it? I, for one, do not trust people who say the system is crummy and the system needs fixing, but who still want to run the system. They tend to be out for their own gain more than anything else. I don't think there's that much seriously wrong with the system--only with the poor choices we've made of people to occupy positions in it. I'm not alone in my belief that someone like Kleeb, who makes it plain that he wants to work together with others to get the system to work better, sends a much more positive message than does someone like Raimondo, who despite his stated desire to change things, is running the same old negative campaign.

So go forth and vote tomorrow, Nebraskans. Just remember: only once! Till November, that is.

The Abominable Snowman Cometh

Let's face it: Dubya is abominable, and he's coming to give us a snow job in his State of the Union address this-coming Tuesday. I apologize to the ghost of Eugene O'Neill for any hint of any reference to his play The Iceman Cometh.

Please tell me I'm not the only one who has noticed that Dubya still behaves like a college frat boy. He says and does whatever the heck he wants, and he gets away with it all--so long as no grown ups are watching. Even when grown ups are watching, he still tries to bluff or bully his way through to getting what he wants as opposed to doing the right thing. [Not that Congress consists of grown ups. It's just that now the Democrats have the majority, Dubya cannot proceed with total impunity.--Ed.]

I saw Sen. George McGovern on one of the late-night news shows earlier this week (I want to say it was Nightline, but I don't think that's correct). His plan for what to do about Iraq strikes me as being eminently sensible. First, don't put even more of our youth in harm's way. Too many have died or been maimed already. Second, implement a timeline for a phased withdrawal. Third, carry it out. The only way the Iraqis are going to take charge of and responsibility for what's happening in their country is if they no longer have us around to be the "one-size-fits-all" scapegoat.

But Dubya still thinks the Iraqis owe us a debt of gratitude. Of course, he also thinks he's going down in history as being a much better president than contemporary opinion polls would suggest. I'll bet he's actually glad he's never been a student of history, for his lack of knowledge allows him to wallow in his delusions. I don't care what he thinks: Dubya is NO Harry Truman.

Which leads me to suggest why Harry Truman's grave in Independence, Missouri is not covered with snow and ice right now, despite the winter weather. Harry is so ticked off at Dubya's misappropriation of Harry's image that he's steaming mad!

I don't blame him.

I Certainly Hope So!

Former US Senator John Edwards visited Council Bluffs, Iowa, last week, and admitted he's considering running for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 2008. Oh, God. please let it bo so!

As much as I agree with Hilary Clinton's stand on many issues, I do not think she can win election to the presidency. She's too polarizing a figure. I can introduce you to any number of people who would vote for someone else saying the same things she says, but who would rather die than vote for HER.

Edwards is a superb alternative. I don't think Al Gore would run again, or that he could win even if he did choose to run, though he's been vindicated about many things, including global warming. Once someone has lost a presidential election, even if it had been stolen from him, when he does run again, he loses again. Consider William Jennings Bryan, Harold Stassen, and Adlai Stevenson, just to name three. Richard Nixon was an abberation in that regard (as in so many other things). Nor would Nixon have won in 1968 had either George Wallace not been running or had Bobby Kennedy not been killed. Edwards has immunity from this observation becuase last time he was the vice presidential candidate. The curse does not extend to potential veeps, at least as far as my research has indicated. If I'll need to stand corrected, I'll stand corrected. Just show me what you've got.

At this point, my personal dream ticket would be John Edwards and Barak Obama. But we have to get through the 2006 congressional elections first. So I'll apologize for jumping the gun on 2008 (and increase the frequency and urgency of my prayers to whatever Power(s) That Be which have any influence over politics).

The Trains May Now Run On Time

No more Delay! Huzzah! US House of Representatives member Tom Delay (R-Tex) has announced his resignation, effective "sometime in June" according to a videotaped statement he sent earlier today to the media. [We can all guess why he wouldn't face the media directly.--Ed.]

The Hammer is no more. All I can say is that it's about time. Hubris ever goes before a fall, and Delay certainly had plenty of pride to go around. What finally prompted him to do a 180° from his public face of total confidence despite ever-increasing pressure from the ethics violation accusations against him? One of his top aides pleaded guilty to criminal corruption charges at the end of last week. The aide apparently told the judge that he knew more about a lot of things than he delineated in his written guilty plea. Delay must finally have seen (and with apologies to Mel Brooks) that the jig was up.

Of course, Delay wouldn't admit to this. He claims he was facing a very, very expensive reelection campaign and stood a real chance of losing, so he wanted to get out of the way to make sure a Republican would hold his soon-to-be-ex-seat in November. Right. Want to buy a bridge? He got his district redrawn to hold a solid 55% Republican majority, and he won a bruising and heavily-contested 4-way Republican primary earlier this year. What he really wants to do is use the money in his campaign war chest to pay his legal bills.

Despite my saying that, my hope now is that a higher road will be taken in response. The only way we are going to end our own American version of the eternal tit-for-tat [as brought to you daily by events in the Middle East.--Ed.] is to avoid swinging as violently to the left as Delay pounded to the right. Besides, it will give the Democrats the mantle of moral superiority to be civilized in response to Delay's fall.

But blood is in the water, and I fear a feeding frenzy will commence.

The "Lady" Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks

Do you remember Katherine Harris? She's the erstwhile Florida Secretary of State (who threw the 2000 FL election results to her boss's brother, Dubya) and currently a Congresswoman who is now running for a US Senate seat from the Sunshine State.

Maybe a visual will help: she's the one who was all over the TV news in November, 2000, wearing positively garish makeup much too heavily applied. She looked like a cartoon. Or a strumpet. My mother thought she was a "forty-plus" something trying--unsuccessfully--to look like a college-age sylph. I can agree with that.

Well, she doesn't like that image of herself, poor thing. Judging from the black and white news photo accompanying the AP article in yesterday's paper, however, nothing has changed. Her lipstick is way, way too dark in color value, and even in black and white, her blush is visible.

But she claims that the newspapers "colorized her photograph[s]" and that she does not actually wear her makeup in the gaudy way "the Democrats" have lampooned. [How does one "colorize" a black and white photograph that way, I wonder?--Ed.]

She apparently never saw any rebroadcasts of her live TV appearances in 2000. If she had, she'd realize she couldn't use the "they colorized my photograph[s]" excuse. Her makeup was way too obvious, and way too heavy . . . while in contrast, absolutely everyone else on screen looked entirely normal. So my TV color wasn't out of adjustment, either.

Who is she trying to fool? Is she that clueless? Or is she angling for the "poor me, I'm so put upon" sympathy vote? I find it impossible to believe that anyone with even 1/2 a brain will take her seriously, but then again, P.T. Barnum was right: no one ever went broke underestimating the taste [read that "sense"--Ed.] of the American public.

Robert Burns must be laughing his ghostly head off over this! ("Oh would the power some giftie gie us, to see ourseles as ithers see us.")