I find John Carlson the least professional, least reliable, not to mention least readable, of all the Des Moines Register's in-house columnists. However in a column in The Sunday Des Moines Register, "Biden takes a hit by funding vehicle that saved Iowans," October 21, 2007, Carlson hits a new low in journalistic sloppiness.
At one point in his column, an homage to Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) military vehicles and Delaware Senator Joe Biden, Carlson states as fact, Iowa City antiwar activists confronted the Democratic presidential candidate with placards reading "Impeach Joe Biden." Yet in doing a cursory Google search to prove, or not, Carlson's allegation, the only Web page with the requisite criteria was Carlson's own column!
Carlson implies that only Biden, out of the Senatorial Democrats running for the White House, supports the troops in Iraq. Had Carlson merely cross-checked to Register blogger David Goodner's October 10 entry he would learn that Biden, like the other Democratic presidential candidates, did not vote on the full National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 to which the Biden MRAP amendment is attached. A further check is found at the Web site which shows that not only did Biden skip the defense funding vote but so did Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Christopher Dodds and Iraq war supporter John McCain.
In this age of Internet connectivity and Google searches Carlson has no excuse for playing fast and loose with facts.
Carlson, like all Americans, is guaranteed the right to address his opinions. However, the use of half-truths, implications and innuendoes in the guise of fact, placing editorial opinion on the border of propaganda, has no place in the arsenal of the responsible journalist.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
LTE: October 21, 2007
Friday, October 12, 2007
Oh, Christ, Ann Coulter, again
Oh, jeeze, the dumb bitch has gone off and offended America's Jews this time.Will somebody knock this dumbass up and padlock her to a stove? I mean, isn't that what right wing reactionary women are for, breeding more little right wing bastards and keeping their big mouths shut?
Sunday, October 07, 2007
LTE: October 6, 2007
The tone of Dr. Charles F. Hesse's October 6, 2007 letter to the editor, "Medicare-type insurance penalizes providers," makes the good doctor appear as if he is more concerned about his bottom-line than the health and well-being of his patients.
Yet Dr. Hesse's letter would not seem so whiny and self-serving had he mentioned the reason for his ire, the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) that, then, had the support of the American Medical Association.
Medicare payments to physicians for traditional Medicare Parts A and B have remained stagnant since 2001. This in itself is bad enough. But according to the AMA itself it is Medicare Advantage plans in which benefits and payments are administered by private healthcare insurance companies that are short changing both patients and physicians.
In May of this year the AMA reported that a survey of its members found than half that the patients with Medicare Advantage HMOs and PPOs were denied services typically covered by traditional Medicare. The same survey also reported that 51 percent of its doctors received lower payments from Medicare Advantage plans than from traditional Medicare.
But for the healthcare insurance companies which handle Medicare Advantage plans the federal government picks up the enrollee's monthly premium to the tune of $800 to $2,000 a month.
Dr. Hesse concludes by advising Des Moines Registers readers to visit the American Medical Association's Web site for "an intelligent solution to the health-care dilemma." Among the AMA's proposals are a national cap on medical malpractice law suit awards and shifting the burden of health insurance ownership from employers to individuals. It is little different than the so-called "universal" healthcare plan forwarded by Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton and keeps the private sector in the mix.
Perhaps Dr. Hesse should be asking why a private healthcare insurance company, answerable only to its major shareholders, is better than a single-payer healthcare system which, if the government is properly functioning, is accountable to the voting public?
Yet Dr. Hesse's letter would not seem so whiny and self-serving had he mentioned the reason for his ire, the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) that, then, had the support of the American Medical Association.
Medicare payments to physicians for traditional Medicare Parts A and B have remained stagnant since 2001. This in itself is bad enough. But according to the AMA itself it is Medicare Advantage plans in which benefits and payments are administered by private healthcare insurance companies that are short changing both patients and physicians.
In May of this year the AMA reported that a survey of its members found than half that the patients with Medicare Advantage HMOs and PPOs were denied services typically covered by traditional Medicare. The same survey also reported that 51 percent of its doctors received lower payments from Medicare Advantage plans than from traditional Medicare.
But for the healthcare insurance companies which handle Medicare Advantage plans the federal government picks up the enrollee's monthly premium to the tune of $800 to $2,000 a month.
Dr. Hesse concludes by advising Des Moines Registers readers to visit the American Medical Association's Web site for "an intelligent solution to the health-care dilemma." Among the AMA's proposals are a national cap on medical malpractice law suit awards and shifting the burden of health insurance ownership from employers to individuals. It is little different than the so-called "universal" healthcare plan forwarded by Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton and keeps the private sector in the mix.
Perhaps Dr. Hesse should be asking why a private healthcare insurance company, answerable only to its major shareholders, is better than a single-payer healthcare system which, if the government is properly functioning, is accountable to the voting public?
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
New Internet fun: Celebrity Look-alikes
Check this out! From My Heritage.com
It must be the hair.
Ann Coulter's breeding always comes through.
Mitt Romney and Drew Barrymore?...it must be the lip gloss.
Monday, October 01, 2007
O' No She Di'ent
The scary-looking tranny in the photo is the now infamous Debra Cagan, a U.S.
Defense Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Secretary Robert Gates, who
said on September 11 of this year, no less, to a group of visiting United Kingdom Members of Parliament, "I hate all Iranians." I will let the newspaper that broke the story, The Mail On Sunday.co.uk fill in the details:
Now to be "fair" the above photo was not taken at the time of the MPs' visit last month but in October of 2005 on the occasion of Ms. Cagan receiving Hungary's Commander's Cross Order of Merit. At the reception at the Hungarian embassy in Washington, D.C. marking "National Day" Ms. Cagan's remarks are unrecorded. But from the wistful expression on her face she must be recalling better days when a mighty contingent of 300 doughty Magyars fought with the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq before turning tail and running in March of that same year.
Ah, well, here's to you Debra Cagan! Coalition builder, Iranian hater, and promoter of Sepoy armies. Iron Crosses become you.
Defense Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Secretary Robert Gates, who
said on September 11 of this year, no less, to a group of visiting United Kingdom Members of Parliament, "I hate all Iranians." I will let the newspaper that broke the story, The Mail On Sunday.co.uk fill in the details:And she also accused Britain of "dismantling" the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of Basra too soon.Of course The Pentagon had an elaborate excuse for Ms. Cagan's behavior, "She doesn't speak that way," said an official.
"She seemed more keen on saying she didn't like Iranians than that the US had no plans to attack Iran," said one MP. "She did say there were no plans for an attack but the tone did not fit the words."
Another MP said: "I formed the impression that some in America are looking for an excuse to attack Iran. It was very alarming."
Now to be "fair" the above photo was not taken at the time of the MPs' visit last month but in October of 2005 on the occasion of Ms. Cagan receiving Hungary's Commander's Cross Order of Merit. At the reception at the Hungarian embassy in Washington, D.C. marking "National Day" Ms. Cagan's remarks are unrecorded. But from the wistful expression on her face she must be recalling better days when a mighty contingent of 300 doughty Magyars fought with the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq before turning tail and running in March of that same year.
Ah, well, here's to you Debra Cagan! Coalition builder, Iranian hater, and promoter of Sepoy armies. Iron Crosses become you.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The terrible arithmetic of the Iraq war
In March 1864 [Ulysses S.] Grant was appointed General-in-Chief commanding all armies of the U.S. Throughout the War, President Lincoln had bemoaned the fact that although the North outnumbered the South in population, resources and finances, he could find no Union general to take advantage of this disparity. Lincoln had found his general who "knew how to do the arithmetic."
Mason-Dixon Chat Forum
We don't have to go back to the Civil War to find another U.S. general who knew how to do the arithmetic of war, only to February 2003.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee then Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki coyly stated, "...something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required." The figures Shinseki would not openly state are estimated to be on the order of 300,000 to 500,000 "boots on the ground" to pacify a country of 25 million people in a territory as large a California. And since the United States military, at that time had, and continues to have, significant force commitments in Afghanistan, Bosnia, South Korea and Germany, as well as the U.S. Marine Corps la la-land of Okinawa and smaller numbers of U.S. troops scattered in the Central Asian "Stans" and Central and South American, there just was not enough volunteers in the All Volunteer Force to go around.
But as we know older but not much wiser heads in the Pentagon poo-pooed Shinseki's alarmist rhetoric and bit him a fond farewell into a well deserved retirement. Heck, "Big Daddy" Don Rumseld and Paul "Wolfie" Wolfowitz figured, America will only need 100,000 troops to secure Iraq, 150,000 tops!
Well, were did Rummy and Wolfie come up with their figures? Did they just pull them out of their asses? Could be? But I don't think so. They had to arrive at that number somewhere, somehow. According to a Global Security.org essay titled "Where are the Legions? [SPQR] Global Deployments of U.S. Forces"
As of January 2005, there are some 250,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen deployed in support of combat, peacekeeping, and deterrence operations. This figure does not include those forces normally present in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom or Japan unless bases at those locations are actively supporting a combat operation. Furthermore, tours of duty in these locations are routine and not considered hardship tours. If one were to include these forces the number of deployed troops worldwide would be around 350,000.
O.K. ask yourself, why do we need forces stationed in Germany? Japan? World War II has been over for 62 years now. Neither Germany or Japan has made any moves threatening world peace. Yet the United States still maintains troops in those two nations, as it does in the Axis Powers' little partner Italy. The rationale, I guess, is that troops in these nations serve as a first line of defense in case the Soviets get any ideas. Well, the Soviet Union went the way of the dodo fifteen years ago, so there you go. But I forget Bosnia. Again, why does the U.S. need military bases in Germany, Italy and Japan, since the U.S. military's established bases in Bosnia? I have read the absurd argument that if the United States shuts its bases in Germany and Japan, those two robust economies will greatly suffer!
So what I figure, and I am no expert, is, if the United States administration of George W. Bush, the Republican-dominated Congress and the Rumsfeld-led Pentagon were ever serious about a long-range occupation of Iraq why did they not do any pre-invasion groundwork, close some bases NATO bases in Europe, bases in Japan and cancel some of the Army's smaller worldwide "training" missions? I mean if Bush, the Republican Congress and the Rumsfeld Defense Department had not intended on a long term occupation why did it fire, first post-invasion administrator, Jay Garner? Why not follow George H.W. "Poppy" Bush's model of "regime change" ? Why did they let L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer carry out the de-Ba'athification of Iraq, thereby demobilizing both the Iraqi army and national and local police forces, the only native agencies of stability until a new civilian government could be constituted? And did Bremer act on his own or on orders from high up?
Stupidity? Hubris? There are two popular explanations for the Bush administration's post-invasion actions in Iraq. However, let us backtrack to the beginning for a second shall we.
In the run-up to invasion was it merely a speech writer's hyperbole that transformed two minor irritants to U.S. global hegemony into an axis-of-evil with Saddam's Iraq in the 2002 State of the Union Address? 
After all, Iran's leaders at that time wanted to be rid of Saddam as much as our boy king. And North Korea needed only one more famine before the skeletal masses toppled Kim Jong-Il off his elevator shoes.
Yet in that one speech Bush transformed "dear leader's" pompadour into a deadly nuclear mushroom cloud and the Iranian ayatollahs into Saddam's drinking buddies.
With threats such as these the United States could not redeploy out of Korea, Germany or Japan. The long suffering citizens of Okinawa would have to put up with 20,000 swaggering, arrogant U.S. Marines for a little longer. One never knew when the spectral, starving hoards of the diminutive North Korean dictator would stream down to engulf the well-fed, Brobdingnagian forces of our enfeebled, ally South Korea. And the Iranian ayatollahs, in support of their bosom friend Saddam, might try a flanking movement, sweep through the "Stans," gobble up Turkey and slide into Greece!
The architects of the Iraq invasion and occupation, with the exception of the president, had all been in and out of the higher echelons of federal governmental service for the better parts of thirty years, either in a White House staff, the Department of Defense and the CIA. So before the Iraq invasion they had to know the exact location, strength and readiness disposition of every American military unit on land and sea.
It was while watching the testimony of General David Betray-usPetraeus, overall commander of the MultiNational Force-Iraq (MNF-I), before the House Foreign Affairs and Armed Services joint committees, that this political general was laying the groundwork for a protracted U.S. stay in Iraq. After all, he only promised troop "re deployments" "...until we reach the pre-surge level of 15 brigade combat teams by mid-July 2008." Beyond that, "I do not believe it is reasonable to have an adequate appreciation for the pace of further reductions and mission adjustments beyond the summer of 2008 until about mid-March of next year." In other words from a "surge" high of 172,000 soldiers and marines in Iraq to around 140,000 to 150,000 combat troops. A great withdrawal indeed.
That's when I turned to my friend, with whom I was watching this televised dog-and-pony show, and said, "You know how Lincoln said Grant knew the terrible arithmetic of war? I think these guys know that they can keep this thing going without pissing off a significant portion of the American public. I think they know that the America public will put up with 100,000 to 150,000 troops in Iraq for a long time without massive protest."
"Aw, c'mon, Ernie, you don't think they'd be that cynical, do you?"
I arched an eyebrow, "Look that this administration's record."
My buddy turned reflexive, "Remember, I said at the beginning of this thing that the America people would turn against it once America deaths hit twenty a day. This last week 19 killed in Iraq, one of the worst weeks, but still not to a level that'll piss a lot of people off."
"Yeah, just enough boys coming home in boxes, " I said, "so certain segments of society can "honor" our fallen "heroes" on the local news but not enough that it really ramps up an anti-war movement."
"That makes sense, why else do we have all these bourgie funeral processions and sends offs and stuff." He added, "Ya can't go wrong playing on the American public's appetite for sentimentality!"
The terrible arithmetic the Bush administration has calculated is that anything greater than present troop levels in Iraq may tip the majority of the American people into the anti-war column. As it is combat deaths are low enough that the small segment who yet support the war are featured, at least once a month, on local television newscasts performing the rite of "welcoming the fallen hero home." These overtly sentimental funeral services always have a requisite avenue of American flags and, thanks in large part to Westboro Baptist Church leader Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps, for the fallen hero, motorcycle riding "honor guard" to drive away protesters. I'm sure this includes those who truly want an end to America's occupation of Iraq.
Yet, on the other hand, there are not enough young men and women serving in Iraq to activate those, who while opposed, have no personal investment in seeing the occupation end. All those who serve in Iraq are volunteers and they are there because they want to be there. Perhaps Richard Nixon's biggest mistake in his conduct of the Vietnam War was acquiescing to the anti-war movement's criticism of the Selective Service System, being too selective, and instituting a military draft lottery. When white, suburban college students were pulled out of class to train for combat in Vietnam that's when the shit really hit the fan.
The Bush administration knows this. As do the cowardly anti-warriors who resist any and all calls for a national service draft.
And so do the top three Democratic candidates for president. As witnessed in the recent debate of September 25, John Edwards, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton,"...refused on Wednesday night to promise that they would withdraw all American troops from Iraq by the end of their first term, saying in a televised debate here that they could not predict the future challenges in Iraq."(New York Times.com)
As long as there is an All Volunteer Force. And as long as troop levels remain constantly around a 100,000 to 150,000 the American public will put up with the continued occupation of Iraq and subjugation of its people. This is the cynical and terrible arithmetic of Iraq.
Monday, September 24, 2007
We Take the "Mysterious Yellow Book Challange"
You know, I respect Greg Palast as the best investigative reporter in America, if not the world. But I just can't shake the feeling this kid, "The" Andrew Meyer, has taken him, and a goodly portion of the progressive/left blogosphere, in. And Palast and his crew, being Americans in America, has to make a buck. And his business is selling books.
So having a bunch of idiots show up at poltical rallies clutching Palast's "mysterious yellow book" is a very old, simple and effective marketing technique.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Greg Palast is setting himself up for pieing
Jesus, Greg Palast's ego is really clouding his judgement.
Ever since the "Don't Tase me, bro" incident (see below, ets), Palast has been egotripping over the fact that "The" Andrew Meyer clutched a copy of Armed Madhouse.
Well, on Thursday The Brad Blog.com disclosed,
But Palast, being an American, can't resist making a few buck off this deal so his Web site is offering the Mysterious Yellow Book Challenge. In shilling this "challenge" Palast producer Zach Roberts writes
Ever since the "Don't Tase me, bro" incident (see below, ets), Palast has been egotripping over the fact that "The" Andrew Meyer clutched a copy of Armed Madhouse.
Well, on Thursday The Brad Blog.com disclosed,
[Greg] Palast says he is offering the journalism student a job as a paid intern. [Andrew] Meyer had described Palast, in his question to Sen. John Kerry, asking why he conceded the 2004 Presidential Election so early, as "the top investigate journalist in America."Now, were I one of the English-speaking world's finest investigative reporters the fact that "His attorneys seem to be keeping him on ice," should raise some cause for suspicion. And, interestingly enough, "An officer, however, said in the police report that Meyer's "demeanor completely changed once the cameras were not in sight" and that he was "laughing" and "lighthearted" on the way to jail[,]" in an AP story by Travis Reed.
"His attorneys seem to be keeping him on ice," Palast told us, when we asked if he'd been able to officially offer the gig to Meyer.
Indeed, our note to Meyer sent Tuesday, inviting him to Guest Blog his experience here at The BRAD BLOG, has so far similarly gone unanswered.
But Palast, being an American, can't resist making a few buck off this deal so his Web site is offering the Mysterious Yellow Book Challenge. In shilling this "challenge" Palast producer Zach Roberts writes
So here’s the challenge. EVERYONE SHOULD DO AN ANDREW MEYERS. What we mean is, WAVE YOUR MYSTERIOUS YELLOW BOOK - Armed Madhouse - at the media sheep and the party hacks - and send us a photo or video.I don't know why Roberts isn't more truthful by adding, buying the book is just the right touch to insure your video or photo is selected for posting.
You don’t have to buy the book. Just print out a copy (YELLOW!) of the book cover.
...Imagine a sea of mysterious yellow jackets waving at John Kerry everywhere he goes - and maybe a couple of signs, ‘ANSWER ANDREW’S QUESTION!’
Thursday, September 20, 2007
More on "The" Andrew Meyer and the paper tigers of the anti-war movement
Oh, jeeze, they just won't let it go. But I suppose anyone who has ever been the victim of a fraud or bought something totally worthless and paid too much for it just does not want to admit he has been played for the fool.
Today's font of rightous indignation over the "The" Andrew Meyer affair is Online Journal.com editor Bev Conover, one of the oldest and better progressive/leftist commentary sites on the Web. But what has Conover's panties in a bunch is the growing number of journalists questioning "The" Andrew Meyer's motives in Gainesville Monday (see Simply Ernest below).
Writes Conover:
Conover directs part of her rant toward Air America radio host and Countdown with Keith Olbermann contributor Rachel Maddow with:
But ninteen paragraphs in Conover gets to what really chaps her ass:
And as far as the "free speech zone" thing. Yeah, the whole idea of a "free speech zone" is odious. But I donot recall any mass breaching of "free speech zone" barriers by demonstrators at any time, anywhere. I guess the media didn't cover it.
And I also remember... gosh it must have been shortly after the Iraq invasion in 2003 because it was betterly cold that Sunday afternoon. Anyway, I went to a peace rally with a couple of friends at a "free speech zone" in my hometown. The organizers of the event explained ahead of time that they did not want anybody connected with the anti-war rally wandering outside of Noland Plaza or shouting anything angry or confronting anybody. Now, mind you, there wasn't a cop in sight.
So this thing starts and it's O.K. There were some groups who did some "comedy" skits followed by some local speakers. But nothing really to get the blood up. Except for the speakers it was all rather childish really.
Well, simultaneously in another part of downtown a pro-Iraq war rally was taking place and evidently it finished earlier than our little "peace" rally. Anyway, a car, perhaps coming from the pro-war, pro-Bush rally drives by our little "peace" rally and some one yells: "You people are nuts!"
Well, my buddy sitting next to me shouts back, "Republicans!" And the next thing we know we're surrounded by stern-faced, placard-bearing women and my friend's getting lectured by a guy he knows on keeping quite and respectful. After a few minutes of this, and as it was freezing cold and we heard the speakers we wanted to hear, I said, "This rally must be run by grade school teachers. Let's get out of here and go someplace warm."
Let me sum up by saying that the more I've thought about the actions of "The" Andrew Meyer the more I think he may be doing a reverse of what my friend, who yelled "Republicans" did thirty years ago. Back in the Seventies by buddy had a radio talkshow in Minneapolis-St. Paul and he successfully passed himself off as an arch-conservative until he decided to go back to law school. Then, the last night from his show, he revealed that everything he had done the previous year or so had been a lie and he was actually an anti-Vietnam war liberal. In today's parlance he had "punked" his most loyal radio listeners.
I cannot shake the impression that Mr. "The" Andrew Meyer has done the same.
Today's font of rightous indignation over the "The" Andrew Meyer affair is Online Journal.com editor Bev Conover, one of the oldest and better progressive/leftist commentary sites on the Web. But what has Conover's panties in a bunch is the growing number of journalists questioning "The" Andrew Meyer's motives in Gainesville Monday (see Simply Ernest below).
Writes Conover:
Now it's the victim's motives and not the cops' brutality that is being questioned. Even the Times of London got in on that act. Wrote the Times, "Critics have suggested that the entire incident was a planned attempt to win attention for a student who has already posted dozens of videos of himself on his website http://www.andrewmeyer.com/Try clicking the link to http://www.andrewmeyer.com/. It goes to the Web site for a manufacturer of upscale jewelry. What's up with that?
Hey, he's a college student for crissakes! This is utter nonsense and beside the point.
Conover directs part of her rant toward Air America radio host and Countdown with Keith Olbermann contributor Rachel Maddow with:
But free speech rights don't cut it with today's corporate media, in whose class we now have to put Air America's Rachel Maddow. Instead, it's questions about Meyer's background that has become the story.Sorry, but I heard and saw Maddow's piece Tuesday night and, no, she did not express support for the University of Florida campus police. And sorry, it has not been posted at YouTube.com yet. Or anyplace else for that matter, but it will be.
Rachel Maddow, on Tuesday night's Countdown on MSNBC, also showed her hand by questioning whether Meyer's behavior was a stunt to gain attention, while expressing her support for police and brushing off First Amendment rights.
But ninteen paragraphs in Conover gets to what really chaps her ass:
Unlike the Vietnam War era, the only coverage of today's antiwar protests is negative. Rarely is anything shown of cops brutalizing protestors, who often are herded into "Free Speech Zones," and when it is covered, it's usually disruption caused by those clad in black government infiltrators the media call "anarchists." (Remember Seattle and Miami?) No peacenik in her right mind today would dream of sticking a flower in the barrel of an AK47 carried by a cop dressed as Darth Vader, without risking being shot.Well, gee, Bev but what day did the latest, greatest anti-Iraq war/peace demonstration take place? September 15, 2007, a Saturday. And what do most Americans do on Saturdays in September? Watch college football! I mean if you peaceniks aren't media savvy enough to know that the vast majority of Americans are glued to the television set watching Ohio State or Oklahoma or USC kick the crap out of Miss Muffet's Finishing School for Girls on Saturday afternoons in the fall, you deserve to be ignored.
And as far as the "free speech zone" thing. Yeah, the whole idea of a "free speech zone" is odious. But I donot recall any mass breaching of "free speech zone" barriers by demonstrators at any time, anywhere. I guess the media didn't cover it.
And I also remember... gosh it must have been shortly after the Iraq invasion in 2003 because it was betterly cold that Sunday afternoon. Anyway, I went to a peace rally with a couple of friends at a "free speech zone" in my hometown. The organizers of the event explained ahead of time that they did not want anybody connected with the anti-war rally wandering outside of Noland Plaza or shouting anything angry or confronting anybody. Now, mind you, there wasn't a cop in sight.
So this thing starts and it's O.K. There were some groups who did some "comedy" skits followed by some local speakers. But nothing really to get the blood up. Except for the speakers it was all rather childish really.
Well, simultaneously in another part of downtown a pro-Iraq war rally was taking place and evidently it finished earlier than our little "peace" rally. Anyway, a car, perhaps coming from the pro-war, pro-Bush rally drives by our little "peace" rally and some one yells: "You people are nuts!"
Well, my buddy sitting next to me shouts back, "Republicans!" And the next thing we know we're surrounded by stern-faced, placard-bearing women and my friend's getting lectured by a guy he knows on keeping quite and respectful. After a few minutes of this, and as it was freezing cold and we heard the speakers we wanted to hear, I said, "This rally must be run by grade school teachers. Let's get out of here and go someplace warm."
Let me sum up by saying that the more I've thought about the actions of "The" Andrew Meyer the more I think he may be doing a reverse of what my friend, who yelled "Republicans" did thirty years ago. Back in the Seventies by buddy had a radio talkshow in Minneapolis-St. Paul and he successfully passed himself off as an arch-conservative until he decided to go back to law school. Then, the last night from his show, he revealed that everything he had done the previous year or so had been a lie and he was actually an anti-Vietnam war liberal. In today's parlance he had "punked" his most loyal radio listeners.
I cannot shake the impression that Mr. "The" Andrew Meyer has done the same.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Fool worship
By now we've all seen ad nauseam the video of one "The" Andrew Meyer being manhandled and tasered by University of Florida police at an appearance by Senator, and erstwhile presidential candidate, John Kerry.
The celebrated vedio was shot by one Kyle Mitchell, a U of F grad student and stringer for the Gainesville-Sun.
In a comment at Google News, which I copied, pasted and e-mailed at approximately 1:57 PM CDT, and now seemingly taken down, Mitchell writes:
Mitchell, however, forgets "The" Andrew Meyer's most unforgettable line, "Don't Tase me, bro!" And to my ears Meyer's plea is as sincere as Bre'r Rabbit's wish to not be thrown in the briar patch.
Yet many commentators in the blogoshpere averred that "The" Andrew Meyer is a First Amendment loving patriot, a new Patrick Henry. Some have even likened "The" Andrew Meyer to Christ. To which I can only say, Key-Rist!
Some bloggers, including esteemed investigative reporter Greg Palast, squarely place the lion's share of the blame for "The" Andrew Meyer's restraint, tasering and arrest on Senator Kerry's shoulders. Patently absurd. Yet to my rhetorical question, "What would you have Kerry do? Leap from the stage and throttle the cops with his barehands?," there has been more than one response to the affirmative. Again, patently absurd.
But finally the truth of this incident may be slipping out. Clarissa Jessup, the complete stranger to whom "The" Andrew Meyer handed his video camera to just before the incident said in a CNN interview:
Concludes Mitchell, who was there after all:In the opinion of this eyewitness, both were just as wrong as they were right. Yet, in this instance, it is the police that are accountable to the public, and the ire they now face is the result. Meyer must only face jail, a judge, and himself in the mirror the next morning.
So, sorry, if I disappoint and conclude that this incident was never one of thwarting First Amendment rights or of stifling legitimate dissent but of overzealous, undertrained campus cops throwing their weight around.
So in my book, "The" Andrew Meyer is not a hero of the First Amendment but a fool. And he's laughing at us all.
The celebrated vedio was shot by one Kyle Mitchell, a U of F grad student and stringer for the Gainesville-Sun.
In a comment at Google News, which I copied, pasted and e-mailed at approximately 1:57 PM CDT, and now seemingly taken down, Mitchell writes:
As more and more inquiries are being made into who Andrew Meyer really is, the picture of a young man capable and willing to manipulate this weakness of modern media becomes ever more clear.
An avid prankster and politico (emphasis added, ets), Meyer is a regular at local Gainesville political events. In the past, he has stood on a major street corner with a sign proclaiming "Harry dies" in the final book of the Potter series. His personal website lists interests that include "getting wasted."
Moments before publicly berating Senator Kerry - who was gracious enough to allow the question beyond the allotted time available - he gave his own video camera to a complete stranger nearby, simply to ensure that the incident would be recorded. There are also some who have said that he was warned of his impending arrest, though he repeatedly asks "Why are you arresting me?" while it was happening.
Mitchell, however, forgets "The" Andrew Meyer's most unforgettable line, "Don't Tase me, bro!" And to my ears Meyer's plea is as sincere as Bre'r Rabbit's wish to not be thrown in the briar patch.
Yet many commentators in the blogoshpere averred that "The" Andrew Meyer is a First Amendment loving patriot, a new Patrick Henry. Some have even likened "The" Andrew Meyer to Christ. To which I can only say, Key-Rist!
Some bloggers, including esteemed investigative reporter Greg Palast, squarely place the lion's share of the blame for "The" Andrew Meyer's restraint, tasering and arrest on Senator Kerry's shoulders. Patently absurd. Yet to my rhetorical question, "What would you have Kerry do? Leap from the stage and throttle the cops with his barehands?," there has been more than one response to the affirmative. Again, patently absurd.
But finally the truth of this incident may be slipping out. Clarissa Jessup, the complete stranger to whom "The" Andrew Meyer handed his video camera to just before the incident said in a CNN interview:
"John kerry did try to interfere with the police. at one point, police where holding on to meyers. kerry got to a point where he almost lost his composure and said officer guy. you, let him go. i do want to hear his question, i do want to hear to what he has to say. i do want to answer him. that was at the point the officers said will pull you aside to ask your question. but as he was attempting to ask his question. the officers themselves appeared to me to make themselves clear not allowing him to stay and hear the question and yelling into his ear."And as noted in a news story by Andrew Tran in The South-Central Florida Sun-Sentinal.com, "The cameras did not catch Meyer cutting off a student five words into a question, said Kathleen Shea, a junior who attended the forum."
Concludes Mitchell, who was there after all:In the opinion of this eyewitness, both were just as wrong as they were right. Yet, in this instance, it is the police that are accountable to the public, and the ire they now face is the result. Meyer must only face jail, a judge, and himself in the mirror the next morning.
So, sorry, if I disappoint and conclude that this incident was never one of thwarting First Amendment rights or of stifling legitimate dissent but of overzealous, undertrained campus cops throwing their weight around.
So in my book, "The" Andrew Meyer is not a hero of the First Amendment but a fool. And he's laughing at us all.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
How much stupider can Americans get?
If this news doesn't illustrate the need for more comprehensive history and civics instruction in our public schools I don't know what does.
Most Americans believe the nation's founders wrote Christianity into the Constitution, and people are less likely to say freedom to worship covers religious groups they consider extreme, a poll out today finds.That's bad enough but the study conducted by the First Amendment Center shows even more disturbing tends
The survey measuring attitudes toward freedom of religion, speech and the press found that 55% believe erroneously that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. In the survey, which is conducted annually by the First Amendment Center, a non-partisan educational group, three out of four people who identify themselves as evangelical or Republican believe that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation. About half of Democrats and independents do.
USAToday.com
So there you have it. Americans are willingly walking into a fascist state with their eyes wide shut. But then why wouldn't they? Funding for public education has been under attack by anti-tax reactionaries for decades and has produced the excepted results. And an a population ignorant of its own history, fed the right propaganda, is easily lead.74% of Republicans endorse the notion of a constitutional provision for a Christian nation; 50% of Democrats and 47% of independent voters agree. Just 56% believe that the freedom to worship as one chooses extends to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme — down 16 points from 72% in 2000. 58% of Americans would prevent protests during a funeral procession, even on public streets and sidewalks; and 74% would prevent public school students from wearing a T-shirt with a slogan that might offend others. 34% (lowest since the survey first was done in 1997) think the press “has too much freedom,” but 60% of Americans disagree with the statement that the press tries to report the news without bias, and 62% believe the making up of stories is a widespread problem in the news media — down only slightly from 2006. 25% said “the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees,” well below the 49% recorded in the 2002 survey that followed the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, but up from 18% in 2006.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Robert Perry: Bush and bin Laden as Sylvester and Tweety Bird
Robert Perry, the premire commentator on the Web today, writes: Just as Sylvester and Tweety Bird achieved lasting Hollywood fame from their comical cartoon chases, the less amusing duo of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden continue to benefit each other by reviving their long-distance rivalry, one posturing against the other in a way that helps them both.One without the other would be mere footnotes in history.
ConsortiumNews.com
And it is beyond interesting coincident that when President Clinton decided to "snatch" bin Laden out of Sudan in 1993 (see Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies pp 144-145) the Pentagon put the kibosh on the operation.
Perry also notes:
Fox News commentator Sean Hannity offered a taste of how the new bin Laden tape will be used against both Democrats and the American Left.Giggling house conservative David Brooks, as if reading from Hannity's script, said of the new bin Laden tape on the September 7, 2007 edition of PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer:
“One of the things that also struck me is the language specifically that he [bin Laden] used,” Hannity said. “He seemed to adopt the very same language that is being used by the hard Left in this country, as he describes what’s going on in Iraq as a ‘civil war’; he actually used the word ‘neocons’; he talked about global warming; he denounces capitalism and corporations.”
But you read this thing, and it's like he's been sitting around reading lefty blogs, and he's one of these childish people posting rants at the bottom the page, you know, Noam Chomsky and all this stuff.
You can't help read it and not laugh at it, occasionally, because it is just absurd. It's flying this way, and that way, weird conspiracy theories, and mortgages, global warming. He throws it all in there.
...I mean, a lot of the worst ideas from the West have permeated in, and he's picked up Noam Chomsky, and he's picked up some of the anti-globalization stuff. And that's what infuses this.
So now the scourge of the Western World has now become the darling of America's left. Jesus, how can you not begin to wonder if this whole thing hasn't been scripted from the beginning. It always seems a little more than coincidential that just when George W. Bush gets his political ass in a sling, up pops Osama to bail him out. So now it looks like Osama is helping the Bush boy, the Mainstream Media and our centerist political parties, from Hillary to Rudy, paint anyone in the United States who disagrees with the current administration's policy in Iraq, globalization and corporate agenda in general as a conspiracy nut, a leftwing moonbat or Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul!
Concludes Perry
In other words, any similarity in language between bin Laden and what many Americans say in common conversations will be used to discredit them. They will become bin Laden’s fellow travelers.
All the better to get Bush and bin Laden what they both really want: a prolonged war in Iraq – and possibly a U.S. attack on the Shiite government of Iran.
So I'm a dirty old man. Sue me!
Look, I had no interest in Disney Studio's latest starlet until word filtered through the Internet that the young lady above, one Vanessa Hudgens, let a nude photo escape into the ether of the Worldwide Web.According to reports from Hollywood, Ms. Hudgens, "apologized Friday for the photos, which show her smiling as she posed naked and in underwear in a bedroom with a red curtain behind her."
As far as I can see the 18-year-old Ms. Hudgens has no reason to apologize to anyone for anything.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Chester, Chester, Chester.........
Just about the time when I'm beginning to think our esteemed governor, Chet Culver, is doing a fine job and is an all around good fellow he goes off and does this:
Gov. Chet Culver said Tuesday that he supports a state law struck down last week by a Polk County judge, barring same-sex couples from marrying in Iowa.Now what, or who in the Hell is Chester pandering to? Closeted Republicans like I--not-da-homo Senator Larry Craig?
"I have said personally that I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, and I've been consistent on that. At the same time, I think it's important we let the judicial process work itself out here," he said.
Some Republican legislative leaders have renewed their call for protecting the ban on same-sex marriage by making it part of the Iowa Constitution. Culver, while campaigning for governor last year, said a constitutional amendment was unnecessary.
Des Moines Register.com
Government on all levels has no legitimate right in dictating who may marry whom. The only ligitimate function of government in the marriage contract is issuing the license. Here in Iowa the base cost of a marriage license is $30, give or take, in cash only. I'm also lead to believe that county treasurers have considerable leeway in the setting the price of a marriage license. So cash strapped rural counties, if the treasurer is smart, should follow Polk Co.'s lead and immediately start issuing marriage licenses to committed pairs of limp-wristed homos and cigarette pack-rolled-up-in-the-T shirt-sleeve dykes!
Imagine, county treasurers passing up money, cash! fer-krist's sake, because marriage is between a man and a women.
Meanwhile untold hundreds of little
But, you see, we are a society that "loves" children. We "love" children so much we don't teach "baby-momma" and "baby-daddy" how to have sex without producing a biological. We "love" children so much we send out manufacturing jobs to Mexico, China and India. We "love" our children sooooooooo much that if a little biological wants to get out of poverty, the best way to get into a college is by enlisting in one of the military services and going off to fight and die in senseless wars of aggression.
But if Larry and Steve or Mary and Eve want to legally get married? Holy shit, Western civilization will collapse!
Friday, August 31, 2007
Clarification on Smiling Jack's Snake-Oil Show
I found a Wikipedia entry on the medical home con...cept that I mischaracterized the other day as "psycho-babble bullshit." What I really meant is, it's marketing-twaddle bullshit, which is even worse than psycho-babble. Anyway here's what the Wikipedia entry says:
So long story short, "medical home" just means the insurance industry and the health care industry works in coordination to shift the fee scale emphasis away from specialists to family docs and their staff. Like I said it's a share the wealth scheme designed to get kids, who'd otherwise enter medical school with thoughts of becoming millioniares by being dick-doctors or pussy-physicians, to think about being a kindly, old neighborhood sawbones, albeit one with a $90,000 per annum boost in income.
But won't this mean we, the sick public, will pay significantly lower healthcare insurance premiums.
Nope.
Central to the Medical Home approach is the premise that patient-centered care requires a fundamental shift in the relationship between patients and their primary care physicians. There must be a higher degree of personalized care coordination, access beyond the acute care episode, and identification of key medical and community resources to meet the patients’ needs.O.K., that sounds reasonable but scroll on down and see how the con...cept gets twisted.
Some suggest that the blended fee-for-service and partial capitation in this system mimics the “gatekeeper” models historically employed by managed care organizations. There are important distinctions between care coordination in the medical home and the “gatekeeper” model. In the Medical home, the patient has open access to see whatever physician they choose. No referral or permission is required. (Sounds reasonable, doesn't it, ES) The personal physician of choice, who has comprehensive knowledge of the patient’s medical conditions, facilitates and provides information to subspecialists involved in the care of the patient.(Here's where it gets interesting) The gatekeeper model placed more financial risk on the physicians resulting in rewards for less care. The Medical Home puts emphasis on medical management rewarding quality patient-centered care.Let me see, as I understand this the "medical home" concept shifts the emphasis for insurance payments away from medical "specialists" to primary care physicians. From the Wikipedia article,
Primary care physicians, on average, earn about $90,000 less than the average specialist.[10] ...[T]he current health care payment system values medical procedures more highly than health maintenance and disease prevention through patient collaboration. The Medical Home concept moves payment towards a greater emphasis on physicians and their mid-level associates collaborating with patients to ensure health.In other words it's a "share the wealth" program for neighborhood family docs and their more highly remunerated specialist friends. At the same time by "sharing the wealth" the unstated purpose of the "medical home" con...cept is to limit and over time reduce the number of medical specialists. Limiting the growth of medical specialists is controversial within America's medical community but as the pie for cardiologists, plastic surgeons, etc., become smaller more medical students will opt for the "general practitioner" degree. This explains former Iowa governor and current Des Moines University president and CEO Terry Branstad's inclusion on Smiling Jack's little snake-oil show.
So long story short, "medical home" just means the insurance industry and the health care industry works in coordination to shift the fee scale emphasis away from specialists to family docs and their staff. Like I said it's a share the wealth scheme designed to get kids, who'd otherwise enter medical school with thoughts of becoming millioniares by being dick-doctors or pussy-physicians, to think about being a kindly, old neighborhood sawbones, albeit one with a $90,000 per annum boost in income.
But won't this mean we, the sick public, will pay significantly lower healthcare insurance premiums.
Nope.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
How to look like doing something by doing nothing
Jesus Christ, state Senator Smiling Jack Hatch is playing the liberal bleeding-heart race card again. Here's what Iowa's favorite grinning DLC-jackass says about health care in his latest e-mail: Hispanics and African Americans are more vulnerable to poor health because they have more families without health insurance than white Americans.Now what in the fuck is this supposed to mean??? Medical home? Sound like some psycho-babble bullshit, doesn't it. Follows the best definition I can find on the Web for the critter: A medical home is not a building, but rather a team approach to providing comprehensive primary health care services in a high-quality and cost-effective manner. And it seems to be the only definition. Still reads like bullshit to me. And notice the emphasis on individuals selecting their own health care, obviously a sop to both free market fundamentalists and the insurance industry.
The Commonwealth Fund reported earlier this summer that among adults ages 18 to 64, nearly half of Hispanics (49 percent) and more than one in four African Americans (28 percent) were uninsured compared to 21 percent of whites and 18 percent Asian Americans. Children are covered under Medicaid and Hawk-I and seniors are covered under Medicare.
As a result of limited health insurance, Hispanics and African Americans also have differential access to a regular doctor or sources of care, with Hispanics particularly at risk. As many as 43 percent of Hispanics and 21 percent of African Americans report they have no regular doctor or source of care, compared with 15 percent of whites and 16 percent of Asian Americans.
This year, the Iowa Legislature created the Health Care Reform Commission to address how we can develop a system that provides coverage to the 271,000 Iowans who don’t have health insurance. Last month, the Commission, which I co-chair with State Representative Ro Foege, made a historic recommendation at its meeting in Mason City. It approved a series of guiding principles as the basis for restructuring of Iowa’s health care system.
Most significant to eliminating the health care disparity between minority and white Iowans is the principle that “everyone should have a medical home(emphasis added).” A medical home is a health care setting that provides patients with timely, well-organized care and enhanced access to providers. It emphasizes preventive care, especially in managing and eliminating chronic diseases and ethnic disparities in medical care. Individuals should be able to select their own health care (again emphasis added).
The report from the Commonwealth Fund (founded in 1918 by Anna Harkness (wife of one of the original Standard Oil investors, Stephen Harkness, ES) indicates that the concept of a “Medical Home” shows promise for promoting equity in health care and addressing racial and ethnic disparities. According to the report, “When adults have a medical home, their access to care and rates of preventive screenings improve substantially… and when minorities have a medical home, racial and ethnic differences in terms of access to medical care DISAPPEAR.”O.K., you may ask, what the Hell's wrong with that? Yeah, it's true what Smiling Jack writes about medical care and private health care insurance ownership rates for African Americans and Hispanics . I don't dispute that fact. And Wayne Ford's my state representative and Ako Abdul-Samad seems like an good guy, from the little I've personally had to deal with him. But why are they swallowing this crap? But let's read on:
This is good news for political leaders, like State Representatives Wayne Ford and Ako Abdul-Samad who have been working with me to promote greater collaborations within the health care system. We believe equity will not come without restructuring our health care system here in Iowa and nationally. And that is where we are heading with our Iowa Health Care Reform Commission.
In the months ahead, we will hold three public hearings chaired by former Governors Vilsack and Branstad. For those of you in the Des Moines area who may want to participate, there will be hearing at Simpson College in Indianola on Sept, 26 at 6 p.m. The Commission will also hold meetings in Iowa City, Sioux City, Dubuque and Des Moines in the coming months.Tom Vilsuck and Terry Brainsdead!!! Holy shit! There's a pair of jokers to draw to. Branstad's on the board of Iowa Health System-- an ostensibly "nonprofit" chain of hospitals and clinics whose CEO pulls down $1.3 million a year!--and president of Des Moines University the second oldest osteopathic college in the country. Talk about the foxes watching the chickens!
As co-chair of this commission, eliminating the disparity between minority and white Iowans is one of my top priorities. Time will tell if our political and business leaders are truly committed to the health care of ALL Iowans (weasel words, ES), but I have faith in this Commission and in my colleagues that we will not debate health care reform without addressing this issue.Smiling Jack's emphasis on minorities is a surefire method to ensure backlash. I mean this isn't going to set well with the white rednecks who are getting raped by high monthly premiums and co-pays in what passes for health insurance from their employers. I don't think Smiling Jack is this stupid. He so wants to look like he's doing something but...when those evil Republicans in the Iowa Senate shoot this initiative down...well it ain't gonna Smiling Jack's fault.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Idaho Senator Larry Craig as you've never seen him
News item:
Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was arrested in June at a Minnesota airport by a plainclothes police officer investigating lewd conduct complaints in a men’s public restroom, according to an arrest report obtained by Roll Call Monday afternoon.
Craig’s arrest occurred just after noon on June 11 at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On Aug. 8, he pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in the Hennepin County District Court. He paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation with the court that began on Aug. 8.
A spokesman for Craig described the incident as a “he said/he said misunderstanding,” and said the office would release a fuller statement later Monday afternoon.
Roll Call.com
Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003) Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002) Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000) Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
OnTheIssues.org
Monday, August 27, 2007
Gonzo out, Skeletor in at DoJ?
Holy smokes, Batman, this news is buring up the Internet!
As I noted yesterday, and as almost confirmed by CNN.com
This leads one to wonder how a nice "liberal" Jewish boy became an arch NeoCon? Suffice it to say, his Wikipedia entry makes for some interesting reading. Coincidently,Skeletor Chertoff was once Boy Wonder to Republican presidential hopeful, and former 9/11 New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani's Dark Knight.
Gentle reader, if there should be another big terrorist attack on the United States sometime between now and November 11, 2008 we'll be stuck with Rudy and Mike for a long time.
By STEVEN LEE MYERS
Published: August 27, 2007
WACO, Tex., Aug. 27 — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, has resigned. A senior administration official said he would announce the decision later this morning in Washington.
Mr. Gonzales, who had rebuffed calls for his resignation, submitted his to President Bush by telephone on Friday, the official said. His decision was not immediately announced, the official added, until after the president invited him and his wife to lunch at his ranch near here.
New York Times.com
As I noted yesterday, and as almost confirmed by CNN.com
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush will likely nominate Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, senior administration officials told CNN Monday.Here's an interesting quotation from the Wikipedia entry for Justice William J. Brennan: Known for his outspoken liberal views, including opposition to the death penalty and support for abortion rights, he is considered to be among the Court's most influential members.
Chertoff received his law degree from Harvard University and was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William H. Brennan Jr. in 1979 and 1980.
Between 1994 and 1996, Chertoff was counsel to the GOP Whitewater committee investigating the business dealings of President Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton, who is now New York's junior senator and a candidate for president of the United States.
This leads one to wonder how a nice "liberal" Jewish boy became an arch NeoCon? Suffice it to say, his Wikipedia entry makes for some interesting reading. Coincidently,
Gentle reader, if there should be another big terrorist attack on the United States sometime between now and November 11, 2008 we'll be stuck with Rudy and Mike for a long time.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Going from bad to worse
Latest rumor on US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' fate.
Maybe Trading Up Soon at Justice
August 24, 2007 06:02 PM ET Bedard, Paul Permanent Link
The buzz among top Bushies is that beleaguered Attorney General Alberto Gonzales finally plans to depart and will be replaced by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Why Chertoff? Officials say he's got fans on Capitol Hill, is untouched by the Justice prosecutor scandal, and has more experience than Gonzales did, having served as a federal judge and assistant attorney general.
U.S. News and World Report
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Religious zealots
I've been watching CNN's Christiane Amanpours' God's Warriors series of special reports. Tonight's episode, God's Christian Warriors, concludes the three night series.
I've already come to a conclusion about religious zealotry: it is a mental illness.
I've already come to a conclusion about religious zealotry: it is a mental illness.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
LTE: August 21, 2007
The August 21, 2007 guest column by Matthew Hittle, "Attract younger generation by limiting government," is an ill-informed, ignorant mishmash of pseudo-libertarian sloganeering, historical distortion and generational self-centeredness.
Hittle's distorted perspective reduces eighty years of America history, everything before January 20, 1981, to easy to digest cliché.
The so-called "Greatest Generation,"--Americans who lived through the Great Depression, fought World War II and Korea, while attempting to live normality under the shadow of the nuclear war-- in Hittleh's critique, are dupes of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal crypto-communism.
Hittleh caricatures the Boomer Generation as shiftless bums almost wholly dependent on government handouts. One wonders what his parents must think.
Hittle's vision for the Republican Party is nothing more than the catechism of anti-tax lobbyist and Baby Boomer Grover Norquist. Hittle also ignores that for the past twenty-some odd years both Republicans and Democrats have gone on a deregulation spree, which is leading to business consolidation, i.e. monopoly, and wage stagnation.
In the end Hittle merely sings the same, old Republican song of running against Washington, even if it means demonizing his party's own lame-duck president.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Heart's in the right place, head's up the ass
Sheese, boys and girls can the elistist left, or whatever Alexander Cockburn and his merry band of cryptoanarchists-cum-libertarians wish to call themselves these days, get any nuttier? Take a gander at professional golfer turned polemicist James Rothenberg's, solution for saving the republic posted at counterPunch.com:
And, anyway, the vast majority of non-voting morons would just go on eating, breathing, farting and bitching about their shitty kids, shitty spouses, shitty bosses and the "illegal" Mexicans threatening to take their shitty jobs.
I agree with Rothenberg that more poltical parties would spice things up and get more people into the voting booth but not voting isn't going to scare the corpocracy one bit. The only thing that really scares the corpocracy is getting its money out of the process way before one ballot is ever cast.
And as far as throwing my vote away by voting for a third party candidate, I plan on doing just that, should Hillary Clinton be the Democratic Party nominee.
Of course Rothenberg's not-voting idea could be intended to hasten the great armed revolution which will cleanse the land of our corrupt capitalist-oligarchy masquerading as a democracy. Naw! A professional golfer as revolutionary? Please!
I think it is time we update the definition of lumpenproletarian.
If only 1 million people vote each major party will have ulcers at the prospect of their vulnerability to the maverick. The fewer people who vote, the fewer needed to upset the power balance. Is this a partial explanation of why the establishment frets about low voter turnout?Tsk,tsk, tsk. Mr. Rothenberg, even though he is offering the seemingly radical solution of shaking up the American electoral process, really still believes in "the system." To think the two major political parties really cared if only one million souls out of a total population of 300,000,000 cast votes for the next president is, on the face of it, patently absurd. Yeah, yeah, there'd be the usual tut-tutting, and hand-wringing over voter apathy by the mainstream media but we'd all still have to live with the results.
So the message is if you really want to see things shaken up, stay away from the polls. This will take some discipline considering how it counters the prevailing advice. Your vote may be personal to you, but to those in control it is a commodity. It is bought and paid for in accordance with a formula (dollar/vote correspondence) well known to those in the field (applied electioneering), only you're not supposed to know this, even though you really know this.
You may feel that you vote freely, but ask yourself why you don't feel free to vote for a minor party candidate. Ask yourself why you don't want to "waste" your vote, yet instead reward with it the very parties responsible for this state of futility.
And, anyway, the vast majority of non-voting morons would just go on eating, breathing, farting and bitching about their shitty kids, shitty spouses, shitty bosses and the "illegal" Mexicans threatening to take their shitty jobs.
I agree with Rothenberg that more poltical parties would spice things up and get more people into the voting booth but not voting isn't going to scare the corpocracy one bit. The only thing that really scares the corpocracy is getting its money out of the process way before one ballot is ever cast.
And as far as throwing my vote away by voting for a third party candidate, I plan on doing just that, should Hillary Clinton be the Democratic Party nominee.
Of course Rothenberg's not-voting idea could be intended to hasten the great armed revolution which will cleanse the land of our corrupt capitalist-oligarchy masquerading as a democracy. Naw! A professional golfer as revolutionary? Please!
I think it is time we update the definition of lumpenproletarian.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
The delusions of intellecutal snobbery
If you've been a regular reader, and I doubt many of you have, you'll know that I have something of a love-hate relationship with CounterPunch.com columnist Alexander Cockburn. Well, it's a one-sided relationship as he doesn't even know I exist. Be that as it may, however, there are time I heartily agree with Mr. Cockburn and times that I don't. This is one of the "don't" times.
Perched on his journalistic version of Olympus, Cockburn spurns the suspicion shared by many in the left-learning blogoshpere that Karl Rove's departure from the White House has less to do with embarrassment, shame or contrition and more with the up-coming 2008 presidential campaign. Writes Cockburn:
Interestingly Cockburn, who formerly dropped off a column or two at the Wall Street Journal, makes no reference to the Gigot column. The voice of Rove the anti-Christ is silent.
Cockburn then turns his sights on one of my personal favorite reactionary wing nuts, the inimitable Richard Viguerie:
But the "I'm-smarter-than-you-are" Cockburn sees Rove's departure as nothing more than routine:
But what does Cockburn care. He has his home somewhere in the Northern California woods, his vintage car collection and, perhaps, yet some contacts with Wall Street via old and useful friends at the soon-to-be Murdochized Journal.
Perched on his journalistic version of Olympus, Cockburn spurns the suspicion shared by many in the left-learning blogoshpere that Karl Rove's departure from the White House has less to do with embarrassment, shame or contrition and more with the up-coming 2008 presidential campaign. Writes Cockburn:
The Left designated Rove as the arch engineer of America's supposed lunge in the Bush years into the arms of the Christian right. Indeed the left has so demonized Rove it can't even accept he's gone and advances devious explanations: he's not really resigning at all; he fears impending indictment; he's preparing to "work behind the scenes".Oh, yes, I too am one of the unlettered "Left" who think KKKarl left the White House to work unfettered, behind the scenes, for the defeat of whomever many be the Democratic Party's nominee for president. And what was my evidence, slim though it many be? Why nothing other than Wall Street Journal commentator Paul Gigot's August 13 "interview" with the devil himself.
Interestingly Cockburn, who formerly dropped off a column or two at the Wall Street Journal, makes no reference to the Gigot column. The voice of Rove the anti-Christ is silent.
Cockburn then turns his sights on one of my personal favorite reactionary wing nuts, the inimitable Richard Viguerie:
The conservative right similarly detests Rove as the man they claim pushed Bush towards socialism. Richard Viguerie, a prominent conservative, bid Rove adieu with these words: "Karl Rove's departure from the White House is good news for conservatives. As President Bush's chief political advisor, Karl Rove was a master in the care and feeding of conservative leaders, keeping them mostly silent as the Republican Party moved Left during the Bush presidency." As evidence of Bush's left agenda Viguerie cited Bush's signing of the "No Child Left Behind" education bill, his wildly expensive prescription drug benefits bill, soaring farm subsidies, steel tariffs, higher federal deficits, plus "Nation-building on a scale never attempted before". Viguerie's demonization is rather more persuasive than the left's.I guess, the erudite Mr. Cockburn is taking Viguerie at face value. That is something I've learned, from my wormlike prospective, never to do when it comes to the words or writing of reactionary apparatchiks. And everything Viguerie writes one should take with a very large grain of salt. Obviously Cockburn discounts the notion that the reactionary right of Twenty-first Century United States will react to a small set-back, like the 2006 congressional elections, roll with it, lose the White House if need be; nurse an unfounded grudge four long years, obstruct a Democratic administration at every turn; charge out spitting piss and vinegar, crying "We told you so!" with a new cadre of right wing fanatics and retake the government. Jimmay Carter was an aberration, Bill Clinton an irritant. Why should it be any different now?
But the "I'm-smarter-than-you-are" Cockburn sees Rove's departure as nothing more than routine:
So why did Rove quit? Like many White House counselors in the third or seventh year of their White House sojourns, Rove is getting out before the last humiliating year of a lame-duck presidency, when governors of second tier states won't answer the White House's calls. He'll serve out the stipulated year selling his memoirs, rediscovering his family and learning their names. Then he'll become a lobbyist.Oh? Cockburn's essay went to press, or Web page, before Peter Wallsten's analysis of Rove's departure and subsequent actions in the Sunday Los Angeles Times saw light of day. Reports Wallsten:
Day after day last week, outgoing White House political strategist Karl Rove delivered slashing attacks on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner. Her healthcare record was "spotty and poor," he declared. Her candidacy was "fatally flawed," he said. And no one with her negative poll numbers, he stated, "has ever won the presidency."I suggest you read the entire LA Times story. Wallsten even has an interesting quote from small government guru Grover Norquist, who avers that Hillary Clinton is the easiest person to beat.
The decision to focus on the New York senator to the exclusion of other potentially formidable Democratic standard-bearers such as Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois offered a rare glimpse into a world where things are not always what they seem -- the world of modern-day electioneering, whose denizens often prefer going from A to B by way of Z.
Their thinking went like this,[Rove lieutenant Matthew ]Dowd explained: Democrats, in a knee-jerk reaction to GOP attacks, would rally around Kerry, whom Rove considered a comparatively weak opponent, and make him the party's nominee. Thus Bush would be spared from confronting Edwards, the candidate Republican strategists actually feared most.
"I haven't known Karl to do many things accidentally or spontaneously," said Dowd, who has broken ties with Bush, Rove and others and has expressed disappointment in the president's leadership and political tactics.
But what does Cockburn care. He has his home somewhere in the Northern California woods, his vintage car collection and, perhaps, yet some contacts with Wall Street via old and useful friends at the soon-to-be Murdochized Journal.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Like this is a bad thing?
The things you read in the newspaper while taking a dump.
This morning's Des Moines Register, a Gannett newspaper, reprinted a week old story by USAToday reporter Cathy Lynn Grossman on young adults dropping out of church. Oh, the horror!
Anywho here's what Grossman has to say:
Unlike reporting about atheists or even Buddhism there's no running over for opinion from "experts" with an opposing view. No one is interviewed who says, "This is a good thing!" No, the thrust of the story seems to be that Protestant Christianity, both mainline, meaning Methodists, Presbyterian etc., and Evangelical, i.e. snake handlers and so forth, in the United States is on the ropes and preachers must do something to stem the rising tide of backsliding and incipient atheism. Or, even worse yet, incipient Catholicism.
Quite frankly I think that young adults liberating themselves from organized religion is a welcome development. Hell, if they want to continue in delusional thinking in the privacy of their own homes that's just fine. If we have to put up with religion let it be disorganized. I mean, once you realize the monkey in the pulpit really doesn't know any more than you do, it's time to go.
This morning's Des Moines Register, a Gannett newspaper, reprinted a week old story by USAToday reporter Cathy Lynn Grossman on young adults dropping out of church. Oh, the horror!
Anywho here's what Grossman has to say:
Seven in 10 Protestants ages 18 to 30 — both evangelical and mainline — who went to church regularly in high school said they quit attending by age 23, according to the survey by LifeWay Research. And 34% of those said they had not returned, even sporadically, by age 30. That means about one in four Protestant young people have left the church.O.K., I don't know Cathy Lynn Grossman but I assume, and I know this is a word that gets a lot of poeple in trouble, she is a religous reporter, just from glancing at her body of work. So, O.K., she's on the church beat but there's no attempt at objectivity in this reporting, dropping out of church is bad. End of story.
Just over half (51%) of Protestant young people surveyed (both the church dropouts and those who stayed on in church after age 22) saw church members as "caring" or had other positive descriptions, such as "welcoming" (48%) or "authentic" (42%).
Among dropouts, nearly all (97%) cited life changes, such as a move. Most (58%) were unhappy with the people or pastor at church. More than half (52%) had religious, ethical or political reasons for quitting.
Dropouts were more than twice as likely than those who continued attending church to describe church members as judgmental (51% for dropouts, 24% for those who stayed), hypocritical (44% vs. 20%) or insincere (41% vs. 19%)
Unlike reporting about atheists or even Buddhism there's no running over for opinion from "experts" with an opposing view. No one is interviewed who says, "This is a good thing!" No, the thrust of the story seems to be that Protestant Christianity, both mainline, meaning Methodists, Presbyterian etc., and Evangelical, i.e. snake handlers and so forth, in the United States is on the ropes and preachers must do something to stem the rising tide of backsliding and incipient atheism. Or, even worse yet, incipient Catholicism.
Quite frankly I think that young adults liberating themselves from organized religion is a welcome development. Hell, if they want to continue in delusional thinking in the privacy of their own homes that's just fine. If we have to put up with religion let it be disorganized. I mean, once you realize the monkey in the pulpit really doesn't know any more than you do, it's time to go.
Friday, August 17, 2007
King Wing Nut's appraisal of Rove's skedaddle
Richard Viguerie on Karl Rove’s Resignation: Good News for Conservatives
(Manassas, Virginia) The following is a statement from Richard A. Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause (Bonus Books, 2006), on the resignation of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove:
“Karl Rove’s departure from the White House is good news for conservatives. We may—may—have a more conservative Bush presidency with Rove back in Texas.
“As President Bush’s chief political advisor, Karl Rove was a master in the care and feeding of conservative leaders, keeping them mostly silent as the Republican Party moved Left during the Bush presidency.
“He used the usual carrot and stick to do this. The carrot was access to the White House—and conservative leaders proved just as vulnerable as others to the lure of a photo op with the President, lunch in the West Wing, or a returned phone call from Karl Rove. The stick was fear—speak out, and not only will you lose any hope of access, you will be branded as an extremist, or someone who’s helping the Democrats by speaking out.
“Using both carrot and stick, Karl Rove was able to silence or get the support of most conservative leaders as President Bush and congressional Republicans greatly expanded the size and reach of the federal government, including (but certainly not limited to)…No Child Left Behind McCain-Feingold Prescription drug benefits Nation-building on a scale never attempted before Farm subsidies Steel tariffs Massive federal deficits
“Yes, Karl Rove was a political genius—he was, after all, the successful architect of Bush’s election in 2000 and reelection in 2004. But as the President’s chief policy advisor, Rove was the architect of George W. Bush’s betrayal of the conservative cause.
“Karl Rove’s biggest failure was to leave the White House without achieving his stated goal of establishing the Republicans as America’s permanent governing party. To even mention that today—after the 2006 elections, President Bush’s plummeting poll numbers, and the GOP’s bleak prospects for 2008—brings embarrassment or laughter, depending on your political viewpoint. No wonder Karl Rove wants to forget about those boasts.
“Rove failed in that goal primarily because he attempted to advance the Republican Party by using raw, naked political power and bribing voters. He copied the Democrats and was more successful than them—for a while. But then conservatives and independents caught on to his game. We started rebelling, first over Harriet Miers and most recently over the amnesty bill. Meanwhile, the Republican Party had lost its “brand” as the party of small government.
How do we recover from the Rove Era? We have to reject the bribing of voters and instead build on President Reagan’s legacy. We must re-establish the conservative movement (and the Republican Party, if it wishes to survive) as the movement and party of ideas, empowering people instead of government, and with a strong national defense but no more nation-building.
“Bush’s brain” will soon be gone. Let’s hope that wiser counsel prevails in the White House in the future, but let’s not depend on that. We conservatives have work to do.”--30--
Ya know, how far right do these assholes like Richard Viguerie want to go?!
Well, the truth is assholes like Vigerie really don't want the political system to go as far right as they claim. If something should happen overnight and Grover Norquist's wetdream "...to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub[,]" came true these phony fucks would all have to get real jobs.
Like vampires Viguerie, Norquist and the rest of this right wing cabel, who take their ultimate marching orders from nameless, faceless financiers, investment bankers and major stockholders who control the nation's economic fate through the manipulation of Wall Street, feed off the fear of small businessmen, one-man owners of independent printing shops, hardware store, bakeries and so on, living on the edge of bankruptcy and ruin every day they open.
Guys like Vigerie and Norquist are the cat's paw distracting the of suckers, rubes and chumps, who imagine themselves independent businessmen, macho working men and Christian protector-fathers, from the Wall Street pickpockets stealthily working the crowd. Once, and if, the dupes, the suckers and the chumps ever wake up there will be hell to pay.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Obsessively, relentlessly in your, or some one's, pocket
Des Moines-based MidAmerican Energy says it’s interested in building a natural gas pipeline on the North Slope of Alaska.Awww...ain't that nice.
David Sokol, MidAmerican chief executive, told Petroluem News that MidAmerican and unnamed partners plan to submit an application to the state this fall.
The deadline for applications is Nov. 30.
In 2004, MidAmerican proposed building a $6.3 billion, 745-mile natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to the border with Canada’s Yukon Territory. The company later withdrew that application[.]
Des moines Register
Here's some more of what the Register didn't tell us:
The only thing that could stand in the way of MidAmerican’s application, [Sokol] said, was if the FBI investigations and indictments of Alaska State and U.S. lawmakers would somehow “circle back to implicate any of the producers. If they do, our concern is the process might negatively impact a gas line project from a timing standpoint.”So just what is the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act so favored by Republican Governor Palin?
Applications for a project to take North Slope gas to Lower 48 markets have to be filed under the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act by Nov. 30. Strongly supported by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, AGIA passed at the end of the 2007 legislative session despite intense criticism from the North Slope’s three oil producers and gas owners, BP, ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil. The three mega-majors, which own controlling interest in the 800-mile trans-Alaska oil pipeline, have indicated it’s imperative they also own controlling interest in a gas line in order to keep project costs down. They say AGIA, as written, won’t work.
Petroleum News.com
Supposedly it is designed to start "competative" bidding for the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska's North Slope oil fields. But there is a sweetener and this is what undoubtedly drew MidAmerican.
Sec. 43.90.110. Natural gas pipeline project construction inducement. (a)And here's another tidbit the Register didn't have room to report, once again from Petroleum News story cited above:
15 Subject to the limitations of this chapter, a license issued under this chapter entitles the
16 licensee or its designated affiliate to receive
17 (1) subject to appropriation, state matching contributions in the form of
18 reimbursements in a total amount not to exceed $500,000,000, paid to the licensee
19 during the seven-year period immediately following the date the license is awarded;
20 the payment period may be extended by the commissioners under an amendment or
21 modification of the project plan under AS 43.90.210; a payment under this paragraph
Governor's office Alaska, pdf
So, what about costs? Gas prices are high now, but what if they drop? Opponents of an independent gas line say the producers will be more concerned about keeping construction costs low because they’ll be shipping gas in the line, whereas a pipeline company such as MidAmerican isn’t going be as worried about cost overruns because it can simply charge a tariff based on whatever the pipeline costs them to build.
So MidAmerican, the utility company obsessively, relentlessly at your service, if this deal goes through recoups part of its contruction costs by a handout from the Alaska state government, then can turn around a jack up our natural gas bill some time in the future.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Karl Rove to resign at end of month...big whoop...
By now the liberal blogosphere is in ecstasy*.
The AP story says this weasel will be "obliged" to stay on the White House staff until January '09, the end of Dubya's term, if he doesn't get out of town by Labor Day. Now why do you suppose one of the most Machiavellian political operatives, of this or any century, is leaving? Being the suspicious kind that I am, I'm not taking the lame "to spend more time with my family" excuse. The 2006 Democratic gains in the U.S. House were just a bump in the road in the Rovian/Norquistian plan for permanent Republican domination. In fact the turd blossom is looking to the immediate future as illustrated in this exchange reported by Wall Street Journal columnist Paul J. Gigot:
Really, Rove's departure from the White House shouldn't be taken lightly. It is as if a detoxified, fit and trim Herman Goering escaped his Nuremburg cell with the intention of reconstituing the Third Reich. Congressional Democrats need to throw a net over this rabid dog but quick! Lock him up and throw away the keys.
But they won't. So I'm afraid we will not being hearing the last of Karl Rove until he is dead and buried in the South Texas Plains and a stake driven through what counts for his heart.
*I've just finished a random check of liberal blogs. No one is cheering. Most bloggers are as wary of Rove's motives as I.
So the little turd blossom is vamoosing before the posse gets 'em. Well, I don't buy none of it.Karl Rove to Resign at End of August
By TERENCE HUNT AP White House Correspondent
6:55 AM CDT, August 13, 2007
WASHINGTON - Karl Rove, President Bush's close friend and chief political strategist, plans to leave the White House at the end of August, joining a lengthening line of senior officials heading for the exits in the final 1 1/2 years of the administration.
A criminal investigation put Rove under scrutiny for months during the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's name but he was never charged with any crime. In a more recent controversy, Rove, citing executive privilege, has refused to testify before Congress about the firing of U.S. attorneys.
Rove became one of Washington's most influential figures during Bush's presidency. He is known as a ruthless political warrior who has an encyclopedic command of political minutiae and a wonkish love of policy. Rove met Bush in the early 1970s, when both men were in their 20s.
"I just think it's time," Rove said in an interview at this home on Saturday. He first floated the idea of leaving to Bush a year ago, the [Wall Street Journal] said, and friends confirmed he'd been talking about it even earlier. However, he said he didn't want to depart right after the Democrats regained control of Congress and then got drawn into policy battles over the Iraq war and immigration.
Chicago Tribune.com
The AP story says this weasel will be "obliged" to stay on the White House staff until January '09, the end of Dubya's term, if he doesn't get out of town by Labor Day. Now why do you suppose one of the most Machiavellian political operatives, of this or any century, is leaving? Being the suspicious kind that I am, I'm not taking the lame "to spend more time with my family" excuse. The 2006 Democratic gains in the U.S. House were just a bump in the road in the Rovian/Norquistian plan for permanent Republican domination. In fact the turd blossom is looking to the immediate future as illustrated in this exchange reported by Wall Street Journal columnist Paul J. Gigot:
"[Bush] will move back up in the polls," says Mr. Rove, who interrupts my reference to Mr. Bush's 30% approval rating by saying it's heading close to "40%," and "higher than Congress."This prick is not finished running presidential campaigns by a long shot. By leaving now he's free to maneuver. Free to leech himself onto another vapid, vacuous Republican candidate. That candidate, I believe, is none other than Willard Mitt Romney, erstwhile one-term governor of Massachussetts (see my comment at BuzzFlash.com).
Looking ahead, he adds, "Iraq will be in a better place" as the surge continues. Come the autumn, too, "we'll see in the battle over FISA" -- the wiretapping of foreign terrorists -- "a fissure in the Democratic Party." Also in the fall, "the budget fight will have been fought to our advantage," helping the GOP restore, through a series of presidential vetoes, its brand name on spending restraint and taxes.
As for the Democrats, "They are likely to nominate a tough, tenacious, fatally flawed candidate" by the name of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Holding the White House for a third term is always difficult given the pent-up desire for change, he says, but "I think we've got a very good chance to do so."
Really, Rove's departure from the White House shouldn't be taken lightly. It is as if a detoxified, fit and trim Herman Goering escaped his Nuremburg cell with the intention of reconstituing the Third Reich. Congressional Democrats need to throw a net over this rabid dog but quick! Lock him up and throw away the keys.
But they won't. So I'm afraid we will not being hearing the last of Karl Rove until he is dead and buried in the South Texas Plains and a stake driven through what counts for his heart.
*I've just finished a random check of liberal blogs. No one is cheering. Most bloggers are as wary of Rove's motives as I.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Who said of Iraq, "It's a quagmire..." in 1994?
From Editor and Publisher.com
NEW YORK It's not the first time that citizen "investigative journalists" have uncovered some embarrassing, or telling, nugget from the past that apparently remained buried for years. But it has happened again with the posting of a now wildly popular video on YouTube that shows Dick Cheney explaining in 1994 that trying to take over Iraq would be a "bad idea" and lead to a "quagmire."
The people who put it up come from a site called Grand Theft Country, the on-screen source appears to be the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and the date on the screen is April 15, 2004. That looks right, by the look of Cheney.
Posted on Friday, it had received over 100,000 hits by this morning, after being widely-linked around the Web. The transcript of this segment is below.
Cheney had helped direct the Gulf War for President George H.W. Bush. That effort was later criticized for not taking Baghdad and officials like Cheney had to explain why not for years. Some have charged that this led to an overpowering desire to finish the job after Cheney became vice president in 2001.
Monday, August 06, 2007
LTE: August 6, 2007
Let me see, Smiling Jack Hatch, state senator and real estate developer, buys two derelict buildings for remodeling in the now fashionable Western Gateway Park. And according to the story by reporter Sean Miller, the Iowa Department of Cultural Affairs hands out tax credits to said real estate developers for the rehabilitation of old, rundown dumps if it's discovered they have some sort of historical significance, .
One of Smiling Jack's purchases, the Chamberlain building , qualifies.
Now as I understand it, tax credits are intended to lighten the income tax burden of working poor families. And I guess they've been a huge success.
Well, what's sauce for the poor goose is better sauce for the rich gander. Now state and local governments are tripping all over themselves awarding tax credits to those what don't need'em.
It still sticks in my craw that a couple of year back Smiling Jack sheparded a $17 million tax credit through the Iowa Senate so MidAmerican Energy, a struggling little energy company, could comply with the Renewable Energy mandate of 1997. I'm sure MidAmerican's major stockholder, humanitarian Warren Buffett, approved the measure.
Meanwhile, Smiling Jack's other purchase, the Kruidenier building, has no historical value, fit only for the wreckingball and therefore no tax credits. So Smiling Jack's doing the right business thing and attempting to unload the dump on some unsuspecting moke. More than likely, though, Smiling Jack will peddle the Kruidenier to some other, wealthier local developer, for the proverbiable song, with the promise of future, fat re-election campaign contributions in mind.
What a guy.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
FBI gets it: Everybody smokes pot
If the FBI can figure it out why can't the rest of law enforcement and the rehab industry get it:
FBI drug standard lowered for hiringJust legalize it, already.
By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Aspiring FBI agents who once dabbled in marijuana use won't be barred from getting a job with the elite crime-fighting agency, which has loosened its drug policy amid a campaign to hire hundreds of agents.
The bureau's pot-smoking standard, in place for at least 13 years, was revised after internal debate about whether the policy was eliminating prospects because of drug experimentation, said Jeff Berkin, deputy director of the FBI's Security Division. The policy disqualified candidates if they had used marijuana more than 15 times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
