android photography

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and its Institute for Legal Reform, spent $53.38 million lobbying the federal government during 2004, more than any other group. Which explains why the GOP is all in a lather about "tort reform"; they're being well-paid to serve corporate interests by depriving the public of one of its only weapons against malfeasant corporations.



And the 800-pound gorilla of malfeasant corporations, Wal-Mart, has just reached a settlement over its violation of child labor laws in Connecticut, Arkansas and New Hampshire. As part of the settlement, "the Labor Department agreed to give Wal-Mart 15 days' notice before [it] investigates any other 'wage and hour' accusations, like failure to pay minimum wage or overtime."



Fifteen days' notice. Wouldn't you love to get a special tipoff when you were about to be investigated, so you could (temporarily at least) "cure" the relevant violations? Travesty, thy name is Bushco.



(Both via Daily Kos)

If you remember, a few weeks ago Lawrence Summers stirred up controversy with his ill-advised comments about "innate differences" contributing to women's underrepresentation in mathematics and science careers. Now the presidents of Stanford, MIT, and Princeton have added their voices to the debate.

The AFL-CIO has set up a handy reference page that details the various ways that Wal-Mart is helping to destroy our economy . From the extra costs handed on to taxpayers, to the small, local companies forced out of business when the Big Box comes to town, to their mistreatment of their employees and the harm they do to the environment, it's all here. The next time someone tries to tell you Wal-Mart is good for America, you'll have the facts at your fingertips.

So remember those allegations back during the debates that Bush was wearing a listening device? Well, some reporters did some actual investigating, and confirmed that Bush was, indeed, cheating (the GOP's stringent list of conditions for the debates included an explicit prohibition of the use of any electronic devices).



Why didn't we hear about it? Because the New York Times killed the story. And why did it do that? Because the editors were afraid that revealing that Bush was an incompetent cheat before the election might, well, affect the election. If that sounds like a reasonable decision, just ask yourself one question: if the allegations, and the proof, had concerned Kerry rather than Bush, would we have heard about it, and would that have been fair? Of course we would, and of course it would. But Bushco expect to be treated by a different set of rules.



As David Neiwert at Orcinus points out, the Times' behavior amounts to "a gross dereliction of its Fourth Estate role as a public watchdog." As if that were anything new from our puppet press. (See Neiwert's coverage for all the pertinent links.)

"No al-Qaeda threat was turned over to the new administration."

--Condoleezza Rice, then National Security Advisor, now Secretary of State, in a March 22, 2004 column in the Washington Post.



"We urgently need . . . a principals-level review on the al-Qaeda network."

--Richard Clarke, in a declassified memo written to Rice on January 25, 2001 (emphasis in original).

"'Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling . . . You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn't wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain't got no manhood left anyway. So it's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.'"



--Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, USMC

Great rant from an honest-to-goodness conservative.