Desperate measures on privatization

Apparently, Bush is doing a primetime press conference tonight to sell the dismantling of social security. The rumor is that he's going to try to label Democrats as "obstructionists".

What does that make the American people?

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 21-24, 2005:
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling Social Security?"
Approve 31%
Disapprove 64%
Unsure 5%

CBS News Poll. April 13-16, 2005:
"Do you have confidence in George W. Bush's ability to make the right decisions about Social Security, or are you uneasy about his approach?"
Confident 25%
Uneasy 70%
Unsure 5%

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 1-2, 2005:
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling Social Security?" Approve 35%
Disapprove 57%
Unsure 8%

Time Poll. March 22-24, 2005:
"Do you approve or disapprove of the job President Bush is handling of Social Security issues?"
Approve 31%
Disapprove 58%
Unsure 10%

Newsweek Poll. March 17-18, 2005:
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling Social Security?"
Approve 33%
Disapprove 59%
Unsure 8%

As if the polling numbers weren't bad enough, Bush is EXTENDING his privatization tour past the original end date of May 1st. That means he's spending even MORE tax payer money on selling a plan that 64% of Americans do not support (up from 56% last month). Essentially, the more he promotes privatization, the more the public hates the idea. He must really beholden to big money investment firms to continue pursuing this.

On top of that, he made the latest stop of Bamboozlepalooza in Texas on Tuesday with TOM DeLAY! As if your plan weren't unpopular enough, now you stand side-by- side with the most hated man in the party today, the poster boy for corruption. Why not pose for a photo op with Satan or Bin Laden while you're at it.

Rewriting history

Anyone else find it funny how Republicans are backing away from using the verbage of the "nuclear option" about the Dems blocking their nominees? They're claiming that "nuclear option" is a phrase created by Democrats, even though they've admitted to inventing it in the past year.

Here's what happened. Their own internal focus groups have shown that the public hates their threat of the "nuclear option",. so now they're backtracking and saying the phrase is wholly a creation of their detractors.

This is exactly like "privatization". The GOP invented the phrase and when the American people shit all over their idea, they try not to use the term they invented.

They blew privatization, they badly misread Americans feelings about the Schiavo case and the economy is tanking bigtime. Gas prices are through the roof (between $2.70 and $3.05 here in the Bay Area). Their majority leader is taking it up the ass for his illegal shenanigans. The public has shown increasing POSITIVE response the the Democrats filibustering their radical nominees and support the Left keeping the right in check.

The Republicans have got nothing right now. they're floundering with bad press and they've got nothing good to point to.

-------------------

David Sirota's blog last week listed the info that the Bush administration has tried to erase since coming into office:

Knight-Ridder reports today that the Bush administration announced yesterday that it has "decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government's top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered."

When unemployment was peaking in Bush's first term, the White House tried to stop publishing the Labor Department's regular report on mass layoffs.

In 2003, when the nation's governors came to Washington to complain about inadequate federal funding for the states, the Bush administration decided to stop publishing the budget report that states use to see what money they are, or aren't, getting.

In 2003, the National Council for Research on Women found that information about discrimination against women has gone missing from government Web sites, including 25 reports from the U.S. Department of Labor's Women's Bureau.

In 2002, Democrats uncovered evidence that the Bush administration was removing health information from government websites. Specifically, the administration deleted data showing that abortion does not increase the risk of breast cancer from government websites. That scientific data was seen by the White House as a direct affront to the pro-life movement.

This cover gives me the Willies

From this week's Time magazine:

The officialdom of punditry, so full of phonies and dullards, would suffer without her humor and fire. Which is not to say you don't want to shut her up occasionally. Not long ago, I went to church with Coulter - Redeemer Presbyterian, an evangelical congregation in Manhattan. The actor Ron Silver had also tagged along--Coulter brings lots of people to church, including, at one time, an ex who is Muslim. Pastor Timothy Keller spoke of the importance of allowing one's heart to be "melted by the sense of God's grace because of what he did on the cross for you." After he finished, I asked Coulter whether she had managed to convert her Muslim boyfriend. "No," she answered, her heart apparently not melted: "I was just happy he wasn't killing anyone." With that, she threw her head back and laughed.

People Change

Tom DeLay, 1989:

"H.R. 3660, the Government Ethics Reform Act, will strengthen and clarify existing House rules. Issues such as the ban on congressional honoraria, limits on gifts and travel, increased financial disclosure, restrictions on outside income, and conflict of interest rules will all be tightened to reflect the growing and changing role of Government service..."

"I am especially pleased to support this comprehensive overhaul of House ethics rules and conflict of interest laws because it is an important first step in enhancing the ethical standards throughout Government and adjusting compensation for individuals whose skills are essential to the quality of service Government provides to the American people. It is my hope that honor will be restored to elected offices so that we can continue to work for the values that we have fought for in the past with quality representation in the future."


Tom DeLay, 2005:

Mr. Hurt: Have you ever crossed the line of ethical behavior in terms of dealing with lobbyists, your use of government authority or with fundraising?

Mr. DeLay: Ever is a very strong word.

Sin City and comic book movies

Went to Frank Miller's Sin City Friday night. This movie kicked serious ass. The most faithful adaptation of any comic book ever. It gave me chills.

I had read the first Sin City graphic novel years ago. To be honest, I was more of a fan of Miller's superhero work. I won't retread his legacy. Google his name and see the effect he's had on not just comics, but movies.

Most of the crowd didn't know what to expect. When the first hard boiled dialogue came out of Michael Madsen's mouth ("You've got a bum ticker Hartigan!"), the audience snickered. A few minutes later, they were immersed in Miller's world and lapping up the noir.

It was dead on except for one thing: Jessica Alba's decision to do her scenes clothed. I'll admit I'd love to get a look at Ms. Alba naked, but that wasn't the heart of my complaint. By the time her segment of the story happened, we had already seen plenty of breasts, so it was out of place for her Nancy character, a stripper, to dance with her clothes on. Made zero sense.

Robert Rodriguez used the graphic novels as storyboards and did not take a screenwriting credit. After all, he merely transcribed Miller's words into script form.

I will be seeing it again.

My buddy Larry suggested I do something on comic book movies. It's a bit hard for me to do because I enjoy seeing my old favorites up on the screen so much. I'm way more lax on comic movies. That said, critics pretty much loved Spider-man 2 as much as I did.

Sometimes it takes movies to get people to take comics seriously. Comics get zero credit as being a serious art form. People hear "comic book" and think costumed heroes. That's tru to a certain extent. Where would pop culture be without Spider-man, Batman and Captain America? Is there a bigger American icon than Superman?

American Splendor and Ghost World were both comic book adaptations. This fall, Terry Zwigoff and Dan Clowes (Ghost World) return with the screen version of Clowes "Art School Confidential".

Craig Thompson's Blankets is begging to be made into a film. It won best of awards from many main stream pubs (Newsweek, Entertainment Weekly). The autobiographical story of a fundamentalist Christian teen losing his virginity, losing his greater innocence, discovering his manhood and deciding to drop his beliefs. It's almost TOO personal to be made into a film.

There was a recent discussion on my comic art collecting group. Someone brought up the fact that we collect "comic art". Why not just say "art"? Excellent point.