Dor-sho-gha! bIHnuch ghobe' hoghobe'r!!!

Okay so many of you may not have a working knowledge of Klingon so a transaltion of the title above,
Translation: "(Expletive deleted) Cowards without honor!"

"This president has listened to some people, the so-called Vulcans in the White House, the ideologues. But you know, unlike the Vulcans of Star Trek who made the decisions based on logic and fact, these guys make it on ideology. These aren't Vulcans. There are Klingons in the White House. But unlike the real Klingons of Star Trek, these Klingons have never fought a battle of their own. Don't let faux Klingons send real Americans to war."

(Rep David Wu-OR

DAMN!!! A geek in Congress ROCK ON!!! Fellow geeks our time has come!

Phased Withdrawal

While the term sounds like something akin to the rhythm method, the number of proposals for getting the hell out of Iraq continues to climb (see TPM Cafe article on Senator Barack Obama's recent proposal) . At this point only the furthest reaches of Wingnuttia see the fiasco as winnable. They also either refuse to define or more likely can not define what the now rhetorical term "victory" looks like.
The main hurdle to climb is of course "the decider". While the Constitution expressly names the President as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces, only Congress can authorize military action. That is on a purely Constitutional basis. Subsequent additions to the U.S. code, commonly referred to as the "War Powers Act", see Public Law 93-148
93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 54 or, Title 50 Ch 33 of the US code, but more specifically Ch 33 Sec 1541(b) (c) states:

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to
(1) a declaration of war,
(2) specific statutory authorization, or
(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Does his "Mission Accomplished" speech, May 1st, 2003, constitute an end to hostilities? :

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

Now couple the with Ch 33 Sec. 1543(c)

(c) Periodic reports; semiannual requirement

Whenever United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into any situation described in subsection (a) of this section, the President shall, so long as such armed forces continue to be engaged in such hostilities or situation, report to the Congress periodically on the status of such hostilities or situation as well as on the scope and duration of such hostilities or situation, but in no event shall he report to the Congress less often than once every six months.

HOWEVER AND THIS IS THE BIGGIE Ch 33 Sec 1544 (c) states:

(c) Concurrent resolution for removal by President of United States Armed Forces

Notwithstanding subsection (b) of this section, at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

I am not a constitutional scholar or a lawyer, however it seems clear that if Murtha's, Obama's, or whichever resolution comes up for a vote and passes jointly than the president has no choice but to withdraw our forces.

On Minimum Wage

Source US Dpt of Labor

States with minimum wage rates higher than the Federal
States with minimum wage rates the same as the Federal
States with no minimum wage law
States with minimum wage rates lower than the Federal
American Samoa has special minimum wage rates

After the rambling nonsense of the SOTU what could the Republicans do to top it, well how about filibuster the minimum wage bill! What was the hold up? What did Republicans want? How about tax cuts for wealthy Americans. Yep the segment of the population that has received the largest windfall will once again be given a handout.

The good news, the amount of corporate welfare was much smaller than demanded. To gain Republican support 8 billion of public treasure will be handed back in the form of tax cuts. With almost a half million Americans making the minimum wage I will be happy to see the (still inadequate at $7.25/hr) bill pass. This still leads us to a sad fact, estimating a 40 hour work week, which is bullshit in and of itself. Who the fig newton works 40 hours at minimum wage? You are either working around 80 at one, two, or possibly three jobs or underemployed so the mass market chain can avoid paying health insurance. Anyways

40 hr @$5.15/hr= $10,712/yr

40 hr @ $7.25/hr= $15,080/yr

The current wage places a family of three about $5,000 below the established, and once again ludicrously low poverty line, and the new wage would put people right on the line. A sad state of affairs. On the cloture vote 4 Republicans stood with a united Democratic front. If you are so inclined click on a name below to thank them.
Norm Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)

Then look at the list for the cloture vote, see if your senator is in the Nay column and let them know how ya feel. Oh look! The man of the people, the maverick, the whore St. John McCain is there.....
Summary of bill/text/ ammendments/ etc. click here

Why We Are Right

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
James Madison

However one must be able to afford that education. The rise in interest rates, tight job market, declining real wages, and the Republican Party's non-interest in education have led to this crisis.

Democrats Promise Interest Relief for Student Loans
by Brady Averill and Rob Hotakainen

Alarmed by a rapid rise in student debt, Democratic leaders in the coming Congress are promising to lower payments on new college loans by cutting the interest rate in half.

During the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, Democrats plan on reducing the interest rate from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. They contend that would help the typical undergraduate student borrower - who graduates with $17,500 in debt - pocket $5,600.

Across the nation, debt loads are rising for students, the highest being in New Hampshire, where the class of 2005 graduated with an average debt of $22,793, according to The Project on Student Debt. (Your state's average debt can be found at http://projectonstudentdebt.org/).