Porkbusters

Posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!:

In crazy times like these I find myself thinking crazy things. One of the craziest is the possibility that George Bush may be right about a few things in Lebanon. It gives me the shivers.

To his credit, George is right on many counts:

Hezbollah is a group of ululating thugs who can't even manage to get along with other members of their own religion, much less anyone else.
Hezbollah kicked off this latest round of violence when it kidnapped the Israeli soldiers and it keeps it going by lobbing rocket after rocket into Israel.

The Israelis are perfectly within their rights to defend themselves against the constant incursions of terrorists. Regular skirmishes and suicide bombings punctuated by the occasional outright war is no way to live and they deserve to be free of it.
There is little doubt that Iran and Syria are eyeball-deep in fomenting the current troubles. Their tiresome, "who me?" posture doesn't fool anyone, including other Arab states.
And foremost, the Middle East would be a far better place if a lasting peace were attained. A step back from the constant threat of WW (fill in the blank) would be a welcome change indeed.
But being right on many counts isn't the same as being right on all accounts.

While the Israelis are entitled to defend themselves, their current elephant-gun-to-kill-an-ant approach does nothing but stir up more stink than usual. Stink that lands on them in the form of additional rockets. The lopsidedness of the fighting and the fact that it's done little to dampen Hezbollah's rockets is proof of its folly. As often happens with Israel, they are so bent on avenging legitimate wrongs, they fail to see they are cutting their nose off despite their face.

Their claim that leveling southern Lebanon is a "surgical" campaign designed to weed out Hezbollah may be true on one level, but it's so much more at another. The last time Israel decided they needed to take out the local terrorists du jour they stayed in Lebanon for six years. This "limited" campaign has all the earmarks of following suit and we can all expect a tenser world full of more terrorists as a result..

The Condo-Israeli faction is making that mistake so much worse. While they're happy to plink diplomatic rocks at Syria and Iran for being meddlesome (a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, I think), they are unwilling to take them on in a meaningful way. Instead of going to the international community to impose sanctions or work out some other suitable means to calm things down, they allow a war to rage that only increases Iranian and Syrian Arab street cred. Meanwhile, the alarmed international community - already soured on the Bush doctrine - is less trusting than ever that Mr. President can control the issue safely. The end to this debacle is not via more Israeli bombs nor Katyusha rockets.

It's also not through the fantasy that George will be able to broker a lasting peace.

First, there's his track record. In the wake of the good ship George lies at least two broken countries - Iraq and Afghanistan - and other leaky diplomatic lifeboats ready to sink - Iran, Syria, North Korea, and other Axi of Evil. While he is a legend in his own mind, no one other than he and the most addled-brained would call his handling of Iraq and other international trouble spots rousing successes. If they were, we'd all be wearing a lifetime supply of victory flower-garlands and attending the Iraq Independence Day Fireworks and Texas Bar-B-Que.

There's also that annoying reality thing to consider. Muslims, Christians, and Jews have been steeping in a toxic brew of hatred for thousands of years. At worst, the region has been embroiled in deadly wars that last for years. At best, suicide bombers and other religious maniacs keep the pot simmering with a well-timed terrorist act, a kidnapping, or the occasional artillery shell.

George claims to speaks to God and I'd sorely like to believe him, because it'll take the intervention of a supernatural power to set right that which has been broken for so long. George may believe he's the chosen one who will bring peace to the Middle East. He may believe this is a golden opportunity to turn the place around so everyone can live in harmony. He may believe that not talking to the parties involved in the conflict will resolve it somehow. He may even believe that allowing unrestricted warfare for a few weeks to stomp out the fires of Hezbollah is the way to go.

Me? Not so much.

So God, if you're talking to George, could you give me a sign that everything will be all right?

Perhaps your image in a toasted pita would be appropriate.



The Poobah also appears at Bring it On!

Tech Tags: foia politics lebanon middle+east bush israel crapweasels bring+it+on omnipotent+poobah

...read complete post at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!

Posted by from the blogosphere at 06:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted at Daily Kos: State of the Nation:

Mark Schmitt has a must-read piece for anyone following this race, as well as every journalist and blowhard pontificating on this race:

Lamont supporters actually aren't ideologues. They aren't looking for the party to be more liberal on traditional dimensions. They're looking for it to be more of a party. They want to put issues on the table that don't have an interest group behind them - like Lieberman's support for the bankruptcy bill -- because they are part of a broader vision. And I think that's what blows the mind of the traditional Dems. They can handle a challenge from the left, on predictable, narrow-constituency terms. But where do these other issues come from? These are "elitist insurgents," as Broder puts it - since when do they care about bankruptcy? What if all of a sudden you couldn't count on Democratic women just because you said that right things about choice - what if they started to vote on the whole range of issues that affect women's economic and personal opportunities?

But caring about bankruptcy, even if you're not teetering on the brink of it or a bankruptcy lawyer yourself, is part of a vision of a just society. And a vision of a just society - not just the single-issue push-buttons of a bunch of constituency groups - is what a center-left political party ought to be about. And at the end of this fight, I don't expect that we'll have a more leftist Democratic Party, but one that can at least begin to get beyond checklist liberalism.

That's one of the big ironies of this race. As much as the traditional media and the status quo establishment want to make this about a "single issue" (that pesky little flare up in Iraq), fact is that we are looking to build a party that goes beyond the myopic single-issue groups and works to build -- as Schmitt says -- a "just society".

Who was looking out for the middle and lower class during the bankruptcy debate? No one, except the bloggers. The women groups were AWOL, as were the environmentalists, the gay groups, labor, and just about every other progressive issue or constituency group.

Our lack of single-issue focus divorces us from the politics of the progressive movement, the check-list mentality to running campaigns. We can see beyond ANWAR, choice, and affirmative action (important, but not exclusively so) to other important progressive causes that don't neatly slot into the traditional and formerly all-powerful groups. Things like bankruptcy, net neutrality, health care, and earmarks (pork) reform. What if, like Schmitt asks, women are no longer satisfied with hearing the right thing on choice, and demand progress on pay equality, mothering rights, and a rational health care system for them and their families?

It sort of complicates things, doesn't it?

Lieberman may check off the right boxes from the right groups, but on the war, on health care, on denying rape victims Plan B contraception, on bankruptcy, and so on -- Lieberman is the antithesis of the Democratic promise of a just society.

Update: Atrios has more.

...read complete post at Daily Kos: State of the Nation

Posted by from the blogosphere at 01:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted at The Influence Peddler:

Roll Call (subscription required) covers the 'victory' of moderate House Republicans in delaying House consideration of legislation by Rep. Todd Tiahrt to establish a commission to streamline the federal government:

‘Sunset’ Bill Pulled From Floor Schedule
July 31, 2006 By Jennifer Yachnin,Roll Call Staff
Objections from moderate Republicans put passage of a key budget reform sought by conservative GOP lawmakers in limbo last week, prompting House leaders to shelve debate on the measure until after the August recess.
The Government Efficiency Act, authored by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), had been slated to go to the floor late last week but was scrubbed from the schedule Thursday afternoon. The bill would establish a federal commission to evaluate government-funded agencies or specific programs and issue recommendations to Congress on whether those bodies should be consolidated, abolished, expanded or otherwise altered.
...Among his proposed changes, Boehlert targeted the commission’s composition, which under the current legislation would include seven members appointed by the White House with four of those individuals selected in consultation with the majority and minority leadership of both the House and Senate.
The amendments would require all appointments to be made by Congress and would add two House Members and two Senators to the panel.
In addition, Boehlert, who chairs the Science Committee, called for the commission to hold public hearings.
Another amendment would extend the period for Congress to review recommendations from the commission to 45 legislative days from the 30 days proposed by Tiahrt.
Boehlert has also called for language that would allow Members to offer amendments to the commission’s proposals, something that would be permitted only in committee under the current bill.
...While the Rules Committee reviewed the measures Wednesday, it has yet to vote on parameters of debate for the measure, including what amendments Members would be allowed to consider on the floor.
Without a decision on whether those amendments will be included in the bill, one Republican aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said: “Opposition has stayed quite strong from moderates and Democrats.”
...Despite the apparent setback, House conservatives expect the measure, as well as a broader proposal by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) to establish a sunset commission that would impose automatic expiration dates for federally funded programs, will return to the chamber’s calendar in the fall.
“We look forward to working with leadership to enact real budget process reform after the August district work period,” said one Republican aide to House conservatives.
The review commissions are among four budget reform measures — which also include earmark reforms, emergency spending guidelines and line-item veto legislation — that conservative Republicans demanded from House leadership during negotiations over the fiscal 2007 budget blueprint earlier this year...
I've argued for some time that it was not too late for House Republicans to focus more aggressively on controlling spending. I think that it might be too late now, because I fear voters are likely to view these as political opportunism. Had these procedural moves been paired with substantive victotries - substantive reductions in spending, or an actual line-item veto exercised by the President - voters might see them as more than politics.
Congressional leadership clearly disagrees; they probably feel it's more important that these measures be 'fresh in voters' minds' on election day. We'll see how they are received in the fall.
As for Boehlert's objections to the Tiahrt bill, I think that several of them are not worth fighting over. Public hearings, a 45-day waiting period... I don't think that either of those is likely to change significantly the way the commission would operate. Denying the administration the right to appoint members... that just strikes me as silly. Is Mr. Boehlert arguing that only the Congress has the expertise to take part in this process?

Back to the top.


...read complete post at The Influence Peddler

Posted by from the blogosphere at 01:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted at Saracen: Arabian Knight:

I woke up yesterday only to receive a breaking news message from Al Arabiya on my mobile. I was shocked at what I read: Arabiya:BRK: At least 40 people have been killed or wounded in Israeli air strikes on buildings in Qana, south Lebanon, police sources say.That alone just made me half-faint. Then I heard my mom from the living room, who asked me, "Did you see what happened this morning?"

"No, I didn't, but I know what it was," was my reply. I went over to see the most gruesome images on Al Jazeera. This, by far, had to be Israel's bloodiest strike since this "war" started: dead bodies all over, houses completely demolished, livelihoods lost, people made homeless, entire families wiped out... What else could go wrong? For one thing, we can be sure that the new Israeli "Defense" Minister, Amir Peretz (who's originally Moroccan, but for shame, he cares not about his fellow Arabs) can wear the label of "war criminal". For another, the I"D"F has just hit its own state with a hammer: Hizbullah promised retaliation for this massacre.

While I was watching the continued coverage of the body search, I could only think of the first Qana massacre, about ten years ago. Now, Qana can mark two massacre anniversaries: the previous one and this one, even though the previous one was much more bloodier, in which over 100 people died. This one involved at least 55 casualties, most of them children... CHILDREN! What was their fault, really? All Israel could do is claim that Qana was a "missile launch site"; they did the same thing back in 1996. In fact, according to the same source I presented regarding the first massacre, that massacre was in fact pre-meditated, much like what we are seeing in Lebanon. The same land mines Israel refused to dismantle or help to dismantle killed a few innocents, and Hizbullah did pretty much the same thing it is doing today: fire Katyushas. The retaliation to the Hizbullah retaliaion was the Qana massacre itself, under the pretext that Qana was a "terrorist haven", even though it housed a U.N. site filled with civilians who were already housed up there. Let me direct you now to this caricature:



You might be asking, "Why the heck did I put that up?" Take a look at the contorted body, the face twisted in an expression of horror and dismay. The figure resembles the casualties at Qana, who were killed by the supposed "moral and humane" Israeli tsahal (I call it "tsahal" because the Israeli "Defense" Force nametag just doesn't suit this aggressive army). Now, why do you suppose the body is not under the boots of an I"D"F soldier, but instead stuck stabbed by the points of the Star of David on the Israeli flag? This is just to answer the question of why many Arabs, myself NOT included, have turned into anti-Semites (a.k.a. "Jew haters"). Well, take a look:



It's the continued acts of killing innocents, destroying buildings and livelihoods, and so forth, that has bred anti-Semitism through much of the Arab world. It's just that...



...the destruction...



...the death...



...and the misery of it all makes one desperate for justice, a goal sought by every man on Earth. It is the perceived "Jewish state", and has identified itself as such. So, why blame the Arabs for hating them? I don't hate Jews, nor do I like them either (I feel Jews are just human beings, like everyone else). And then again, so are Arabs,, but many people fail to see that; Israel is just the newest testimony of man's inhumanity to his fellow man, just for the sake of political/religious aims, and this is nothing new: racism and dehumanization is the earmark of aggression and past imperialism. But seriously, as per this editorial (apologies to my English readers), who is going to try Israeli military and political figures for war crimes being committed in Lebanon? When will justice be served? Only time will tell, but either way, the resistance has to win, and Israel has to lose this war, just so it may know that it can't go unpunished for its many atrocities that it has committed on the Arab people.

Salaam, from
Saracen

P.S. Thanks to Palestinian Pundit for providing me with the pics, though I hope you guys don't mind spreading them around. People have to see this catastrophe, and hopefully work to stop this chaos altogether.

...read complete post at Saracen: Arabian Knight

Posted by from the blogosphere at 01:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted at Desicritics.org: Media, Culture, Politics, Sports and More with a South Asian Focus:

Kwaidan brings together a number of discrete, yet inter-related artistic traditions to produce a visually satisfying, emotionally rich, scary film. The Japanese film, which won honors at Cannes in 1965, does not seem dated in the least, despite building on tales by Lafcadio Hearn, the German-Irish immigrant writer, who moved to Japan from the United States in the 19th century, and embraced the culture of his second adopted country.

The film, directed by Masaki Kobayashi, contains four of the stories from the book, Kwaidan, which is available online, being in the public domain. The book was published in 1904, when the world was watching intently the escalating conflict between Russia and Japan. That conflict had the earmarks of the later World War, with an Eastern power, hitherto occluded by the rising powers of the West, flexing it's muscles with the help of modern Western technology.

The same ethos is expressed in the center-piece of the film, Hoichi the Earless, about a blind musician, a professional biwa-hoshi, known for his peerless recitations of the historical battles between the Genji and Heike samurai clans, which culminated in the destruction of the Heike in the twelfth century at the battle of Dan-no-ura, in the Straits of Shimonoseki.. This final battle saw a pitched fight between the two clans, with Genji archers breaking the Heike defense through the use of relatively modern archers, as well as a daring horseback ride down a steep cliff. The Heike were completely routed, unable to reach shore. The Rojo, or matron of the Royal Household leaped into the roiling seas with the infant Heike emperor. The film recreates this violent event through Kabuki - vividly depicting the horrors while highlighting the honor of the warriors. (It influenced the battle sequences in Conan the Barbarian)

The bloodshed reportedly left it's marks on the area, which features crabs named after the Heike, that have human faces on their backs. A Buddhist monastery was built there to the Amida Buddha, in whose name numerous samurai saw their doom, but that's another story. Hoichi makes his residence at this monastery, and one evening is summoned by a samurai to recite at his lord's court. His chanting is much appreciated, but little does he realize the true nature of this ghostly court.

The film, like the story, succeeds by drawing us in to the terrors of the dead commingling with the living. A yearning for fulfilment and a need for recognition make Hoichi unable to distinguish the reality. The priests of the temple strive to save him from the fell creatures, but make a critical error in their efforts.

The first and second stories in the film, "Black Hair" and "The Woman In The Show" are more personal in their horror. In "Black Hair", a samurai leaves his wife for reasons of personal ambition and striving away from poverty. Through his service to the lord, whose daughter he marries, he often thinks of his hard-working wife. He compares her to his new superficial bride, who can be transported into heights of bliss by the smell of fine silk. After a few years he gives up this languid life and returns to his hometown. His wife is still there, slaving away at her loom. He discovers his true love, but things have changed.

"The Woman In The Snow" or "Yuki-Onna" tells the tale of two wood-cutters caught in a blizzard one night. They stumble into a ferryman's hut to take shelter from the storm. A strange woman drifts in from the snow. The terrified younger wood-cutter watches her drain the blood from his father with a breath. She spares him for his youth, but warns him never to speak of her to anyone. Years later, he marries a beautiful woman he meets in the same woods, and has three children. He admires her beauty, but fails to notice that she never grows old. One night, he does look closely, and his discovery changes their relationship.

Both stories perhaps depict the neglected Japanese woman, one of history's silent sufferers. While the males went off to fight their futile wars, the woman were relegated to a role of weaving, artistic pursuits and housework. The samurai and the wood-cutter discover too late what they had ignored.

The final tale, "In a Cup of Tea", tells of a writer who keeps seeing a man's face in his cup of tea. The simplicity of this tale masks its innate complexity, and its horror is less obvious than the others.

The film combines fine story-telling with visually stunning sets and tonal music that sets the atmosphere, one of a winter's night, when a traveller might pause to tell a dark tale or two, then move on, into the night.

...read complete post at Desicritics.org: Media, Culture, Politics, Sports and More with a South Asian Focus

Posted by from the blogosphere at 08:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted at treppenwitz:

I appreciate everyone's patience. I haven't been responding to comments over the past couple of days because I have been busy corresponding with the many generous people who sent in donations to check if they want to earmark the donation...

...read complete post at treppenwitz

Posted by from the blogosphere at 03:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted at Kentucky Progress:


Congressman Jeff Flake's 19 amendments in June brought earmarking out into the open.
The bright light illuminated a pretty ugly picture.
U.S. Representatives Hal Rogers, Anne Northup, and Ben Chandler joined 278 other members in voting for all 19 pieces of pork.
This is where Democrats really don't serve America well as an opposition party. It goes without saying they would only be worse on spending, so there is no way to hold GOP legislators' feet to the fire on this stuff.
The Club for Growth does good work knocking off the worst big spenders of both parties. They represent our best hope to restrain federal government waste. Help them if you can.

...read complete post at Kentucky Progress

Posted by from the blogosphere at 12:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted at one small voice:

My so-called representative.

The Club for Growth reports:

Thanks to Congressman Jeff Flake's 19 anti-pork amendments, we now have every House member on record regarding their positions on earmarks. Before now, House members have been able to avoid scrutiny because their pork was co-mingled with other projects and tucked into the dark corners of big spending bills. Or they were able to withstand the scrutiny because they were attacked as a whole chamber and not directly attacked themselves. But because of Flake's amendments, they were recently forced to cast up-or-down votes on specific projects.

Diana DeGette, my representative in Colorado's First District, voted for all 19 of the listed pork projects. Methinks that someone in Denver needs to start shadowing Ms. DeGette's every vote. Here's a list of web pages that might be of assistance:

SourceWatch
OpenSecrets
VoteSmart
Congress Votes Database
OnTheIssues



...read complete post at one small voice

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted at Rocks In My Dryer:


With prices increasing all the time, saving money can be harder and harder to do. Here are some solutions for saving a little so that you can still meet your needs and still find ways to trim off a little for the future.

1. BUDGET – Get one and stick with it! And set aside at least a small portion for savings while you’re at it; savings for your future, your retirement, your education, your vacation, whatever. Head to your local office supply store for planning workbooks or budget sheets to use. Or head to your favorite search engine and type in, “budget planning” for hundreds of sites with articles, free downloads, tips, ebooks and other resources to help with your budget setup and follow up.

2. PLAN AHEAD – Make sure to plan for emergencies and the unexpected, like an appliance break down or garage door malfunction. Even if you can only set aside $50 or so each monthly, place it in an account and earmark it for this “Miscellaneous” fund. Then when things go wrong, and they will – nothing’s perfect – you’ll be better prepared.

3. NON-MONTHLY ITEMS – Work out a monthly payment for items that you don’t pay monthly and set this up in your regular monthly budget. For example, for items like annual home owner or renter insurance, quarterly water bills and automobile insurance payments and annual trash bills, take the amounts and determine what they would be monthly. Then list the items on your budget log and pull these amounts aside, saving them in your account for those purposes. This way, when the bills hit, you won’t be caught off guard and have to scrounge for the payments.
What works well, instead of handling multiple savings accounts for each company owed, is to use index cards and one savings account. Create one index card for each bill. Then simply log the amount you’re setting aside on the card and deposit it into your savings account. Keep the index cards with your savings passbook to remind you what the balance covers. The total of all your index cards should equal the balance in your savings account. (Make sure to create an index card for your regular funds that you are saving each month in step one above and a card for your Miscellaneous fund in step two above).
So next time you get paid, take three giant steps forward. Grab your index cards, follow your budget and invest in yourself and your future. Get a grip on your money handling.

Controlling Debt

...read complete post at Rocks In My Dryer

Posted by from the blogosphere at 06:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted at .: Strengthening and celebrating American patriotism :. .: All American Patriots :.:

U.S. Senators Coburn, Obama, McCain, Carper Applaud Senate Committee Approval of Bill to Help Taxpayers "Google" Federal SpendingJuly 27, 2006 -- WASHINGTON - U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), Barack Obama (D-IL), John McCain (R-AZ) and Tom Carper (D-DE) today urged the full Senate to pass S. 2590, the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act," a bill that will create a Google-like search engine and database to track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs approved S. 2590 unanimously today. The House has already passed similar legislation that is limited to grant disclosure only.

"Passing this bill will help end the culture of secrecy in Washington and restore some measure of the public's confidence in government. Technology has made it possible, like never before, to fulfill our founders' vision of enabling all citizens to understand our nation's finances, investigate abuses and hold elected officials accountable," Dr. Coburn said, adding that a hearing being held today in the House Government Reform Committee on abuses in homeland security contracting highlights the urgent need to include contracts in the database.

...read complete post at .: Strengthening and celebrating American patriotism :. .: All American Patriots :.

Posted by from the blogosphere at 04:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted at MOBANGE!:

There has been a great deal of energy spent in the blogosphere regarding pork, spending that is put into legislation at the last minute without debate. This is a bad practice just on principle, and it's even worse in that it has grown substantially in recent years.

I am pleased to report that Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has done a good deed to help stop this practice. He offered 19 anti-pork amendments to bills. The reason they were anti-pork amendments in that they separated the pork from the bills themselves, and demanded that legislators go on record for or against the pork in the bills. The legislators did so.

I happen to live in the Minnesota 4th Congressional District, represented since 2000 by Betty McCollum, and represented by Democrats since the late Jurassic period. Actually 1948, when Eugene McCarthy was first elected. Since then, only 4 people have held this seat: McCarthy (10 years), Joseph Karth (18 years), Bruce Vento (24 years), and McCollum (6 years).

I am pleased that The Club for Growth has done a good deed. They have compiled the votes on the 19 anti-pork amendments so that the public can see where their legislator stands on the issue of pork.

I am displeased to announce that Betty McCollum has a perfect record: a perfectly bad record that is. I'm further displeased to announce McCollum joined the majority of the House in telling Jeff Flake to get the public's nose out of the business of Congress, by voting against each and every one of Flake's anti-pork amendments. Here are the pork items for which McCollum voted. The links are links to the actual votes. A "Yes" vote on any of these amendments is a vote against pork.

House Vote 190 - Dairy education in Iowa ($229,000)
House Vote 191 - Hydroponic tomato production in Ohio ($180,000)
House Vote 192 - National Grape and Wine Initiative ($100,000)
House Vote 204 - Virginia Science Museum ($250,000)
House Vote 205 - Juniata Locomotive Demonstration ($1,000,000)
House Vote 277 - Swimming pool in Banning, CA ($500,000)
House Vote 278 - "Facilities" in Weirton, West Virginia ($100,000)
House Vote 279 - Multipurpose facility in Yucaipa, California ($500,000)
House Vote 280 - Strand Theater Arts Center in Plattsburgh, New York ($250,000)
House Vote 298 - Mystic Aquarium in New London, Conn. ($1,000,000)
House Vote 299 - The Jason Foundation in Ashburn, VA ($1,000,000)
House Vote 302 - Northwest Manufacturing Initiative ($2,500,000)
House Vote 303 - Lewis Center for Education Research ($4,000,000)
House Vote 304 - Leonard Wood Research Institute ($20,000,000)
House Vote 334 - Arthur Avenue Retail Market ($150,000)
House Vote 335 - Bronx Council for the Arts in Bronx, N.Y. ($300,000)
House Vote 336 - Johnstown Area Regional Industries ($800,000)
House Vote 337 - Fairmont State University ($900,000)
House Vote 338 - Tourism Development Association in Kentucky ($1,000,000)

This comes out to $34,759,000 of U. S. taxpayer money that was spent without debate. I plan on writing about the recipients of your money in future posts, and I hope you will join me in mocking them to scorn. I hope the day will come, and soon, when seeking an earmark will be an occasion of shame instead of a day of rejoicing for having pulled a fast one on the taxpayers.

Jeff Flake Betty McCollum The Club For Growth earmarks

Digg This

...read complete post at MOBANGE!

Posted by from the blogosphere at 11:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted at Instapundit.com:

PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Andy Roth reports big progress on his 435 districts, 435 blogs anti-pork initiative We’re up to 78 blogs writing about 168 politicians. That's good news (you can see what still needs to be done by following the link), and you should feel free to get involved. Adopt a...

...read complete post at Instapundit.com

Posted by at 11:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted at Cleverly Blogged:

An earmark in a
Congressional appropriations bill requires that a portion of the money
being allocated to a certain agency (let's say the Department of Defense) must
be spent for a specific—often extremely local—purpose (say
building an aquarium in some congressman's home district). Because congressmen
can add an earmark to a budget bill without needing to offer up much of a
justification, appropriation bills become vehicles for massive amounts
of wasteful pork-barrel spending.

As the Club for Growth noted in their call for 435 blogs against pork:

It's time to blog against pork!

Thanks to Congressman Jeff Flake's 19 anti-pork amendments, we now have every House member on record regarding their positions on earmarks. Before now, House members have been able to avoid scrutiny because their pork was co-mingled with other projects and tucked into the dark corners of big spending bills. Or they were able to withstand the scrutiny because they were attacked as a whole chamber and not directly attacked themselves.

But because of Flake's amendments, they were recently forced to cast up-or-down votes on specific projects. They could no longer deflect attention.

One Utah blogger has already blogged about Representatives
Bishop, Matheson & Cannon's votes.

Surprisingly Rep. Jim Matheson, a Democrat, appears to be much more fiscally responsible than either of the Republicans, Rep. Rob Bishop & Rep. Chris Cannon. Kudos to Rep. Matheson!

What started out as a quick "can you believe the kind of wasteful spending Utah's congressional delegation supported?" post has grown over the past three days into a much longer one. I've discovered and dived into the online version of the Congressional Record to read the transcripts of the debate on the House floor that preceeded each vote.

I've excerpted some of what Rep. Flake said on the floor when he offered up each of his ammendments. (And he offered more than nineteen, but many failed on voice votes.) In the process of researching these votes I've gained a real admiration for Rep. Flake and a renewed interest in the civic process. If I lived in his district in Arizona I'd definitely vote for him. As it stands I've donated $19 toward his re-election campaign today.

Read on to see where $34,669,000 of our tax dollars (let alone the interest on the added debt our children will eventually pay) are going... It'll probably be an eye opening experience; it was for me.

H.R. 5384: Making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

$229,000 for dairy education in Iowa?

The only reason we limit it to dairy education in Iowa is to ensure that our amendment was made in order. Believe me, if there were dairy education for Arizona, I would strike that as well. We simply shouldn't have programs like this.

Let me just say, according to the Iowa State Dairy Association, the Iowa State dairy industry contributes more than $1.5 billion to the economy and provides more than 26,000 jobs. I would submit that spending $229,000 isn't going to do much to change that trend one way or another. It is simply something we shouldn't do.

— Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), May 23, 2006, Congressional Record, H3105

Results from the roll call vote on the ammendment to cut this earmark:

Rep. Bishop (R-UT): NO (spend it, oink! oink!) Rep. Matheson (D-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...) Rep. Cannon (R-UT): NO (spend it, oink! oink!)

The ammendment was defeated by a vote of 92 to 325. The $229,000 will be spent as earmarked.

$180,000 for hydroponic tomato production in Ohio?

This is a hydroponic tomato production earmark that we are challenging here. Again, let me make the broader point, what business is it of the Federal Government to pick winners and losers in the economy, to decide that we ought to be promoting hydroponic tomato production earmarks instead of promoting the cherry tomato or grape tomato or others out there that any Member could get an earmark for? Why is it this is important and the others are not?

We as legislators have to decide how we are going to husband the Nation's resources. I would submit that when we have 10,000 earmarks a year or more and when we are growing it at a rate of 872 percent over the last 10 years, at some point, I do not know where that point is, maybe it is with hydroponic tomatoes, some point we have got to take a stand and say enough is enough. We simply cannot continue spending money like this.

Again, we are not potted plants here. We are legislators. We are here to make these decisions. I would submit that when we are spending $180,000 on hydroponic tomatoes that something has gone awry and we have lost our focus. That is what this debate is about.

— Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), May 23, 2006, Congressional Record, H3110-H3111

Results from the roll call vote on the ammendment to cut this earmark:

Rep. Bishop (R-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...) Rep. Matheson (D-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...) Rep. Cannon (R-UT): NO (spend it, oink! oink!)

The ammendment was defeated by a vote of 90 to 328. The $180,000 will be spent as earmarked.

$100,000 for the National Grape and Wine Initiative?

Again, this is another example of the Federal Government funding a program that can and is funded by the private sector. I should note here the vision of the initiative says: "By 2020, the American grape and wine industry will triple its economic impact and become the undisputed world leader in consumer value and sustainability. The target is an economic impact of $150 billion within 16 years. This is based on a conservative estimate of current annual impact of approximately $50 billion a year."

I would submit that if an industry out there has a $50 billion-a-year impact on the economy, $50 billion, then the Congress need not spend $250,000 for strategic research and a plan to enhance the grape industry's competitiveness and contribution to the U.S. economy.

— Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), May 23, 2006, Congressional Record, H3114

Results from the roll call vote on the ammendment to cut this earmark:

Rep. Bishop (R-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...) Rep. Matheson (D-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...) Rep. Cannon (R-UT): NO (spend it, oink! oink!)

The ammendment was defeated by a vote of 87 to 328. The $100,000 will be spent as earmarked.

H.R. 5427: Making appropriations for energy and water development

$250,000 for the Virginia Science Museum?

I call attention to this earmark today because there is so little information available about its purpose. It appears inconsistent with the program that would fund it.

The committee report lists this earmark, for the Science Museum of Virginia, in the Biological and Environmental Research program.

My amendment would prevent funding for this purpose.

I know that some museums do scientific research, but the background research on this earmark turned up very little by the way of research being done by the Science Museum of Virginia.

As an aside, I would note that the museum will soon open a traveling exhibit on candy, sponsored by the Jelly Belly Candy Company. It does not sound like much research to me.

— Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), May 24, 2006, Congressional Record, H3199

Results from the roll call vote on the ammendment to cut this earmark:

Rep. Bishop (R-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...) Rep. Matheson (D-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...) Rep. Cannon (R-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...)

The ammendment was defeated by a vote of 64 to 359. The $250,000 will be spent as earmarked.

$1,000,000 for a Juniata Locomotive Demonstration?

Mr. Chairman, this is $1 million for the Juniata locomotive shop. I believe that it goes to a locomotive shop owned by Norfolk Southern. I can't know for sure, because there is no description of the earmark anywhere in the bill.

Let me read a quote from Norfolk Southern Chairman David Goode in 2005: "Thinking back to the beginning of my rail career in the late 1960s and early 1970s, rail systems were failing badly. There were strongly held beliefs that we were headed for a failed and nationalized system. In that context, you began to realize the strength of an industry that rebuilt itself, albeit with a lot of government policy help, although essentially no government money."

But now it seems that we are giving them money as well.

— Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), May 24, 2006, Congressional Record, H3206

Results from the roll call vote on the ammendment to cut this earmark:

Rep. Bishop (R-UT): NO (spend it, oink! oink!) Rep. Matheson (D-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...) Rep. Cannon (R-UT): NO (spend it, oink! oink!)

The ammendment was defeated by a vote of 46 to 372. The $1,000,000 will be spent as earmarked.

H.R. 5576: Making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies

$500,000 for the city swimming pool in Banning, CA?

This $500,000 is part of nearly $12 million provided to the State of California in HUD earmarks. Now, I live in the Southwest. I know the desert can get awful hot, and there is nothing better than taking a swim. But I do not know why we ought to give the Federal taxpayer a bath every time somebody wants a swimming pool.

That being said, again here, I wonder what criteria we use when these earmarks come forward. If we can say that swimming pools, city-owned swimming pools are eligible for Federal funding, then what is not eligible for Federal funding? Do the criteria mean anything in that regard? Is anything open?

— Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), June 14, 2006, Congressional Record, H3925

Results from the roll call vote on the ammendment to cut this earmark:

Rep. Bishop (R-UT): NO (spend it, oink! oink!) Rep. Matheson (D-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...) Rep. Cannon (R-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...)

The ammendment was defeated by a vote of 61 to 365. The $500,000 will be spent as earmarked.

$100,00 for various "facilities" in Weirton, WV?

Again, I would ask again, we do not know, is it a facility? Is it not a facility? I guess it is planning for perhaps a facility, maybe not. Are we simply subsidizing the city of Weirton, West Virginia? Are we in the practice of subsidizing all cities who are having trouble with their budget? Where do we pick and choose?

Again, we are tasked with providing oversight. How do we provide oversight if we do not even know if we are funding a facility or not?

— Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), June 14, 2006, Congressional Record, H3928

Results from the roll call vote on the ammendment to cut this earmark:

Rep. Bishop (R-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...) Rep. Matheson (D-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...) Rep. Cannon (R-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...)

The ammendment was defeated by a vote of 73 to 353. The $100,00 will be spent as earmarked.

$500,000 for a multipurpose athletic facility at Crafton Hills College in Yucaipa, CA?

Funding for a California community college project should be under the jurisdiction of the State, not for Congress.

— Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), June 14, 2006, Congressional Record, H3929

Results from the roll call vote on the ammendment to cut this earmark:

Rep. Bishop (R-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...) Rep. Matheson (D-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...) Rep. Cannon (R-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...)

The ammendment was defeated by a vote of 58 to 368. The $500,000 will be spent as earmarked.

$250,000 for the Strand Theater Arts Center in Plattsburgh, NY?

As I mentioned here, this is funding for the Strand Theater Arts Center, $250,000 for the conversion of the theater in Plattsburgh, New York, to a performing arts center. There are other earmarks in the bill of this type: $100,000 for the Village of Jamestown, Ohio, for building renovations to the Jamestown Opera House; $100,000 to the Metropolitan Theatre Foundation in Morgantown, West Virginia, for the construction, renovation, and buildout of facilities; $100,000 to the Houston Zoo in Houston, Texas, for the construction of the Outdoor Life Science Learning Center.

It goes on and on and on and on. Again, you have to say, where do we stop? Where do we say this is not the role of the Federal Government? Where do we say local government knows best.

We say that we know better than Federal officials and bureaucrats over in the Department of Transportation or elsewhere where to spend money, then it stands to reason that those at the local level know a lot better than we do about what to spend money on. Sometimes in these cases these are facilities that they have decided specifically not to fund, yet we are going to go ahead and fund them.

That may or may not be the case in this case. But when we are saying we know best, we are going to decide where these monies are going, whether or not it is leveraging local funds, we simply can't justify it to the Federal taxpayer.

We need to remind people again and again we have a deficit this year of somewhere between $300 billion and $500 billion, depending on how you count and what you count. We have a Federal debt approaching $8 trillion, and yet we are spending money to renovate theaters in small towns across the country.

Where do we say we have done enough? This ought to be done at the local level or it shouldn't be done at all. But how can we justify using taxpayer money at the Federal level for projects like this?

— Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), June 14, 2006, Congressional Record, H3929-H3930

Results from the roll call vote on the ammendment to cut this earmark:

Rep. Bishop (R-UT): NO (spend it, oink! oink!) Rep. Matheson (D-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...) Rep. Cannon (R-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...)

The ammendment was defeated by a vote of 61 to 366. The $250,000 will be spent as earmarked.

H.R. 5631: Making appropriations for the Department of Defense

$1,000,000 for the Mystic Aquarium in New London, CT?

Mr. Chairman, when I saw this earmark, which is $1 million for research at the environmental center at Mystic Aquarium, Connecticut, I thought I was experiencing deja vu. We had a similar amendment in the Energy and Water bill just last week, or 2 weeks ago. Now we are looking at the defense bill, and the only difference is the amount of the earmark. I believe it was $400,000 then; this defense bill earmark is for $1 million. My amendment would remove this earmark from the bill.

Now, during our debate a few weeks ago on this subject, we learned that the aquarium has been in operation for over 20 years, that it is an educational and research institution with expertise in ocean environmental studies and in deep sea exploration. We learned that it provides activities and learning for boys and girls clubs. All of these are worthy activities, certainly.

We learned that the world's foremost deep sea explorer collocates his operation at the aquarium. That is Dr. Robert Ballard, I believe.

What we didn't learn was why this aquarium gets favorable treatment over aquariums in Arizona or Massachusetts or Kansas. We didn't learn what enumerated Federal function the aquarium fills. We certainly did not learn, and we haven't learned yet today, and I hope to learn in the next 5 minutes, how the aquarium contributes to the most basic and critical function of defending our country.

We just heard a great discussion about how we need to free up more funding for helmets for our military. I would suggest this is a great place to start. It is often said you can't vote for the Flake amendments because the money will simply be spent anyway by the agency. In this case the agency is the Department of Defense, and I think it would be hard to believe that they could make a case for a program less wise than this on their own, that they have something that fitters away more dollars than spending on an aquarium.

I like the Boys and Girls Club, but they aren't fighting for us and defending our country. Maybe they have programs that benefit them at this aquarium, but I would submit that it is no way to spend our defense dollars.

By voting against this amendment, you are saying that we place more value in the defense bill for funding aquariums than we do in funding defense.

Now we were trying to find out when we were researching this amendment, and we were not told much by the Appropriations Committee, so we tried to find out what this is, if it really is Connecticut, and I was told today, no, I think it is in Ohio on Lake Erie. I don't know what the aquarium does. I am anxious to learn what it does and how it contributes to defense.

In this process without a unanimous consent agreement on this bill, I am unable to ask questions and then speak later. I hope whoever is sponsoring this legislation or supporting this will please tell us how it is more vital to fund aquariums in the defense bill than funding helmets for our troops, for example, or anything else the Defense Department can do.

I would ask, please, for the sponsor of the amendment or whoever is defending it to tell us why we should be funding aquariums in the defense bill.

— Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), June 20, 2006, Congressional Record, H4287

Results from the roll call vote on the ammendment to cut this earmark:

Rep. Bishop (R-UT): NO (spend it, oink! oink!) Rep. Matheson (D-UT): YES (cut it & save the money...) Rep. Cannon (R-UT): too busy to bother showing up to vote!

The ammendment was defeated by a vote of 77 to 347. The $1,000,000 will be spent as earmarked.

$1,000,000 for the Jason Foundation in Ashburn, VA?

With corporate sponsorship and support from the likes of Oracle, Sun Microsystems, EDS, Shell, and Texas Instruments, the JASON Foundation has very good backing. However, this earmark raises questions that apply to too many other earmarks: Why is it in the defense bill? Should it receive any e